The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 23:13 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > >> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, > >> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are > >co-moving.> > > >> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an > >> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, > >> > >> Which it does > >> > >> > but it doesn't vary with an > >> > aether, it varies with the light. > >> > >> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the > >> light? > > > > Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it > > keeps that velocity. > > So the speed varies with the SOURCE Yes. > >> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v > >> > when it is emitted from its source. > >> > >> Relative to what? > > > > Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has > > relative to that observer. > > So the speed is c+v .. why did you say "up to"? There is no evidence > of any light travelling at less than c relative to the source (in > vacuo) .. or are you talking about the reduced net speed when it > travels through a medium like glass or water ? They say the light is always traveling at c relative to the source. But if you see the source traveling at v away from you, the light that reaches you from that source will be at c-v. If you believe that it's always c and nothing but c then c-v is as shocking as c+v, but somehow it really isn't as shocking. > >> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment > >> > disproves emission theory, > >> > >> It does > >> > >> > which Androcles argues against strongly. > >> > >> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a > >> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for > >the> observed Sagnac effect. > > > > I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't > > understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible > > with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time > > too. I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of > > poetry, > > No .. it is a well known effect that you get when things accelerate > around (say) a circular path. A straight line in a non-rotating frame > appears curved in the rotating frame. The faster you spin the larger > the effect. > > However, with the relatively VERY low rate of spin compared to the > speed of light, this doesn't account for the Sagnac effect. How big an effect is it? It doesn't take a big action to produce a small result. > Note that the SR explanation doesn't involve relativistic effect like > time dilation and length contraction .. only that light travels at c > in the inertial frame and as the two rays travel different length > paths at the same speed, the rays arrive different times at the > detector giving a phase difference. Whereas the rays travels at two > different speeds in the ballistic analysis and arrives at the same > time, and so there is no difference. > > that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but > > that isn't applied the way people usually do. The sort of thing that > > doesn't help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look > > back later and say "That's what he was talking about". > > > > I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia > > article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. > > Then look up Sagnac :):) > > > They made it > > seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the > > double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler > > effects from some stars. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory > > Thats another bit of evidence against ballistic theories > > Also that if one could have things moving at up to 2c relative to each > other (if not faster) as ballistic theory claims .. then you would see > that happening in particle accelerators .. however, relativistic > effects limit the speed to always being under c, no matter how much > energy we put into accelerating them, we can't get them oing any > faster. if ballistic theories were correct, there would be no problem > in just making a particles go faster and faster. The trouble with knocking down strawmen is that there is an unlimited supply of them. I could already make a handwaving argument about accelerators. When I take my kids to the park and they want to ride the little merry-go-round, sometimes they run around the thing pulling on it. But they can't get any faster that way than they can run. I can stand in one place and grab the bar as it goes by and pull on it, and that's faster because I can pull somewhat faster than I can run. But when it's going as fast as I can pull it, the bar goes by so fast I can't grab it and pull on it again until it slows down. It might be very hard to pull on particles to make them go faster than c when you're pulling with magnetic fields that are going at c. I don't claim you ought to believe this sketch of an argument, but I can imagine that something like this might be true. I don't find your argument against to be convincing (although it also might be true). And there's the possibility that we might find a trick to make things go faster than c, something that we would never look for when we know that it can't work.
From: Inertial on 9 Sep 2009 00:01 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090908231302.4a62f3c3.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > >> >> >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >> >> >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are >> >co-moving.> > >> >> > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an >> >> > emission theory where the speed of light varies, >> >> >> >> Which it does >> >> >> >> > but it doesn't vary with an >> >> > aether, it varies with the light. >> >> >> >> That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the >> >> light? >> > >> > Like, the light gets a velocity when it is first emitted, and it >> > keeps that velocity. >> >> So the speed varies with the SOURCE > > Yes. > >> >> > light is given a velocity of up to c+v >> >> > when it is emitted from its source. >> >> >> >> Relative to what? >> > >> > Relative to a particular observer, whatever v its emitter has >> > relative to that observer. >> >> So the speed is c+v .. why did you say "up to"? There is no evidence >> of any light travelling at less than c relative to the source (in >> vacuo) .. or are you talking about the reduced net speed when it >> travels through a medium like glass or water ? > > They say the light is always traveling at c relative to the source. But > if you see the source traveling at v away from you, the light that > reaches you from that source will be at c-v. Actually, if one is looking at ballistic theories if the source is travelling away from you in the +x direction, its velocity is v (positive), and then the light travels back toward you, so has velocity at v-c if the source is travelling away from you in the -x direction, its velocity is v (negative), and then the light travels back toward you, so has velocity at v+c if the source is travelling toward you from the +x direction, its velocity is v (negative), and then the light travels toward you, so has velocity at v-c if the source is travelling toward you from the -x direction, its velocity is v (positive), and then the light travels toward you, so has velocity at v+c > If you believe that it's > always c and nothing but c then c-v is as shocking as c+v, but somehow > it really isn't as shocking. Not shocking in either case .. just equally wrong :) >> >> > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment >> >> > disproves emission theory, >> >> >> >> It does >> >> >> >> > which Androcles argues against strongly. >> >> >> >> He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a >> >> coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for >> >the> observed Sagnac effect. >> > >> > I don't understand his argument yet. Sometimes before when I didn't >> > understand I was later able to make up something that was compatible >> > with his claims, that made sense to me. That might happen this time >> > too. I'm guessing that when he says "coriolis effect" it's a sort of >> > poetry, >> >> No .. it is a well known effect that you get when things accelerate >> around (say) a circular path. A straight line in a non-rotating frame >> appears curved in the rotating frame. The faster you spin the larger >> the effect. >> >> However, with the relatively VERY low rate of spin compared to the >> speed of light, this doesn't account for the Sagnac effect. > > How big an effect is it? It doesn't take a big action to produce a small > result. It depends on the mechanism and the physics how big an action and how small an effect >> Note that the SR explanation doesn't involve relativistic effect like >> time dilation and length contraction .. only that light travels at c >> in the inertial frame and as the two rays travel different length >> paths at the same speed, the rays arrive different times at the >> detector giving a phase difference. Whereas the rays travels at two >> different speeds in the ballistic analysis and arrives at the same >> time, and so there is no difference. > >> > that it will be something that is analogous to coriolis effect but >> > that isn't applied the way people usually do. The sort of thing that >> > doesn't help you understand ahead of time, but that you can look >> > back later and say "That's what he was talking about". >> > >> > I guess Sagnac is the next thing for me to look at. The Wikipedia >> > article on "emission theory" did not mention Sagnac at all. >> >> Then look up Sagnac :):) >> >> > They made it >> > seem like the only arguments against emission theory were the >> > double-star observations and theoretical predictions about doppler >> > effects from some stars. >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory >> >> Thats another bit of evidence against ballistic theories >> >> Also that if one could have things moving at up to 2c relative to each >> other (if not faster) as ballistic theory claims .. then you would see >> that happening in particle accelerators .. however, relativistic >> effects limit the speed to always being under c, no matter how much >> energy we put into accelerating them, we can't get them oing any >> faster. if ballistic theories were correct, there would be no problem >> in just making a particles go faster and faster. > > The trouble with knocking down strawmen is that there is an unlimited > supply of them. Indeed > I could already make a handwaving argument about accelerators. When I > take my kids to the park and they want to ride the little > merry-go-round, sometimes they run around the thing pulling on it. But > they can't get any faster that way than they can run. I can stand in one > place and grab the bar as it goes by and pull on it, and that's faster > because I can pull somewhat faster than I can run. But when it's going > as fast as I can pull it, the bar goes by so fast I can't grab it and > pull on it again until it slows down. > > It might be very hard to pull on particles to make them go faster than c > when you're pulling with magnetic fields that are going at c. Do magnetic fields travel? Changes in them do, of course, although ballistic theory doesn't give any reason why the change in a field cannot travel faster than c (where as SR does). But if you're far enough away form a field that is accelerating you, and that acceleration increases as your distance from the source of the field decreases .. what stops you from accelerating past the speed c? Especially if your velocity is already close to c to start with? > I don't claim you ought to believe this sketch of an argument, It does have some merit. It depends on whether the fields accelerating a particle add to its velocty (ie accelerate it), or simply try to bring it to the same veloity o > but I can > imagine that something like this might be true. I don't find your > argument against to be convincing (although it also might be true). And > there's the possibility that we might find a trick to make things go > faster than c, something that we would never look for when we know that > it can't work. People certainly would like to find it :)
From: Jerry on 9 Sep 2009 04:26 On Sep 8, 10:13 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: How can you take Androcles and Wilson at all seriously? Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 9 Sep 2009 06:38 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > How can you take Androcles and Wilson at all seriously? They have an interesting idea, one that is mostly rejected. They have been arguing about it for so long that they have gotten into a rut and they give a lot of rote responses. So it's slow finding out what they're saying. Also they are fixated on double stars and the problems with measuring their orbits. So my interests don't exactly match theirs and my questions tend to seem irrelevant to them as a result. Androcles presents himself as somebody who is mostly incapable of explaining his ideas. And he has that all rationalised out, that people figure things out better that way. At first I didn't see how he could have a coherent point of view, he seemed to be spouting random ideas. But then some of them made sense together. There was the possibility that he actually meant something. But he's tried to say it for so long and been mostly ignored that he doesn't put much effort into it. He made all those beautiful GIF files hoping that would do it, and it didn't, and so he keeps pointing at them. "See! That's what I mean!" I can sympathise. Imagine a vending machine. You put in your money and the candy bar you chose comes out. You grab it and go. Now imagine one where one time you get your candy bar, The next time you get a different candy bar, not what you asked for but something good you wouldn't have known to choose. The next time you get a pile of rat droppings. Then a candy bar *and* rat droppings. Then a fine candy bar. Then half a candy bar and a lot of rat droppings. Then a collection of ingredients you could make a candy bar from. You wouldn't keep putting money in that long, but it would definitely get your attention a lot more than the one that works, right? And if it's almost free, and the rat droppings don't actually contaminate anything.... I've been finding things I didn't expect. I did a google image search on "Maxwell equations", and I looked at sites that had Maxwell's picture of an EM wave. You know, the one that has electric field intensity as one axis and magnetic field intensity as a second and direction of travel as the third, the one you first saw in grade school and imagined that light waves can't fit through holes that are too tiny because the waves won't go through. I found a collection of sites that had it for decoration, that were presenting Maxwell's equations without explaining anything about what they meant except to repeat the same old words. And I found a collection of sites that had it for decoration, that each in their own words tried to explain where Maxwell went wrong. A fraction of them claimed to have a unified approach that united gravity into the mix. I found their criticisms tended to be appropriate but their alternative explanations were hard to follow. And no two alike. A whole lot of people are dissatisfied with physics. I think the central problem is that everybody knows that the physics they teach undergrads is a wrong but useful approximation. And the physics that grad students learn in common is also a wrong but useful approximation. And then they specialise, and by the time they get to the cutting edge where they're wrestling with the important issues and creating their own wrong but useful approximations, they're in their late twenties and getting too old to do their best work. I looked at emission theory some. The central idea is so clear and simple and it gets you some of the SR results incredibly simply. Then they start arguing about how fast light bounces off a mirror. If the light is traveling at c+v relative to the mirror, does the reflected light travel at c? No. Does it travel at c+v? Does it travel at the speed it would have traveled from the source if it had been going that direction in the first place? There are lots of choices and it should be possible to disprove all but one of them.... Sorry to be so incoherent myself.
From: Androcles on 9 Sep 2009 14:26
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090909063802.336f43f2.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How can you take Androcles and Wilson at all seriously? > > They have an interesting idea, one that is mostly rejected. > > They have been arguing about it for so long that they have gotten into a > rut and they give a lot of rote responses. So it's slow finding out what > they're saying. > > Also they are fixated on double stars and the problems with measuring > their orbits. So my interests don't exactly match theirs and my > questions tend to seem irrelevant to them as a result. > > Androcles presents himself as somebody who is mostly incapable of > explaining his ideas. And he has that all rationalised out, that people > figure things out better that way. At first I didn't see how he could > have a coherent point of view, he seemed to be spouting random ideas. > But then some of them made sense together. There was the possibility > that he actually meant something. But he's tried to say it for so long > and been mostly ignored that he doesn't put much effort into it. He made > all those beautiful GIF files hoping that would do it, and it didn't, > and so he keeps pointing at them. "See! That's what I mean!" > > I can sympathise. > > Imagine a vending machine. You put in your money and the candy bar you > chose comes out. You grab it and go. Now imagine one where one time you > get your candy bar, The next time you get a different candy bar, not > what you asked for but something good you wouldn't have known to choose. > The next time you get a pile of rat droppings. Then a candy bar *and* > rat droppings. Then a fine candy bar. Then half a candy bar and a lot of > rat droppings. Then a collection of ingredients you could make a candy > bar from. You wouldn't keep putting money in that long, but it would > definitely get your attention a lot more than the one that works, right? > And if it's almost free, and the rat droppings don't actually > contaminate anything.... > > I've been finding things I didn't expect. I did a google image search on > "Maxwell equations", and I looked at sites that had Maxwell's picture of > an EM wave. You know, the one that has electric field intensity as one > axis and magnetic field intensity as a second and direction of travel as > the third, the one you first saw in grade school and imagined that light > waves can't fit through holes that are too tiny because the waves won't > go through. I found a collection of sites that had it for decoration, > that were presenting Maxwell's equations without explaining anything > about what they meant except to repeat the same old words. And I found a > collection of sites that had it for decoration, that each in their own > words tried to explain where Maxwell went wrong. A fraction of them > claimed to have a unified approach that united gravity into the mix. I > found their criticisms tended to be appropriate but their alternative > explanations were hard to follow. And no two alike. > > A whole lot of people are dissatisfied with physics. I think the central > problem is that everybody knows that the physics they teach undergrads > is a wrong but useful approximation. And the physics that grad students > learn in common is also a wrong but useful approximation. And then they > specialise, and by the time they get to the cutting edge where they're > wrestling with the important issues and creating their own wrong but > useful approximations, they're in their late twenties and getting too > old to do their best work. > > I looked at emission theory some. The central idea is so clear and > simple and it gets you some of the SR results incredibly simply. Then > they start arguing about how fast light bounces off a mirror. If the > light is traveling at c+v relative to the mirror, does the reflected > light travel at c? No. Does it travel at c+v? Does it travel at the > speed it would have traveled from the source if it had been going that > direction in the first place? There are lots of choices and it should be > possible to disprove all but one of them.... > > Sorry to be so incoherent myself. How can you take known trolls such as Tom&Jeery seriously? |