The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 03:54 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > So, do I understand what you're saying? Does it look like this? > > > > > >http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif > > > > > That looks like a correct representation of Wilson's theory. > > > Now look at some of the the terrifyingly horrible consequences: > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel > > >.htm > > > > > Scroll down 1/3 way to the first Java applet. > > > Check out the Standard Wave Equation, then > > > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 1 > > > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2 > > > > So far I have Wilson's agreement that the model I presented fits > > what he says. It looks to me like you've extrapolated considerably > > to get those two models for the whole wave. > > Hardly. Wilson LIKES version 2. So what? Wilson could have made a mistake. You are being a hostile interrogator. > > I was interested in your diagram of the Sagnac experiment, though. > > It looks like you have one light source and a beam-splitter that > > sends the light in two different directions. > > > > With a setup like that, wouldn't the usual emission theories give > > you no difference in speed at all between the two waves? Emission > > theory then would give you precisely the same result that classical > > theories do, the same as SR for nonrelativistic speeds. > > Please focus on the meaning of the Miller (1924) results. > > What do they imply about the Ritz variant of emission theory? They would tend to argue against it. But the Sagnac experiment you describe would not invalidate the naive emission theory, contrary to popular opinion. Wilson's peculiar idea would be completely unnecessary, you would get the observed interference regardless.
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 05:06 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090920035453.3bd7edda.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > So, do I understand what you're saying? Does it look like this? >> > >> > > >http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab31/jehomas/speedwave9.gif >> > >> > > That looks like a correct representation of Wilson's theory. >> > > Now look at some of the the terrifyingly horrible consequences: >> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel >> > >.htm >> > >> > > Scroll down 1/3 way to the first Java applet. >> > > Check out the Standard Wave Equation, then >> > > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 1 >> > > Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2 >> > >> > So far I have Wilson's agreement that the model I presented fits >> > what he says. It looks to me like you've extrapolated considerably >> > to get those two models for the whole wave. >> >> Hardly. Wilson LIKES version 2. > > So what? Wilson could have made a mistake. You are being a hostile > interrogator. Not only could, but did. But Wilson will never admit to it. If Wilson recognised his own error there would be be no need of hostile interrogation. Same with Einstein, same with Tom&Jeery. Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? No point in talking about "nonrelativistic speeds", the whole thing is a load of old bollocks to begin with. >> > I was interested in your diagram of the Sagnac experiment, though. >> > It looks like you have one light source and a beam-splitter that >> > sends the light in two different directions. >> > >> > With a setup like that, wouldn't the usual emission theories give >> > you no difference in speed at all between the two waves? Emission >> > theory then would give you precisely the same result that classical >> > theories do, the same as SR for nonrelativistic speeds. >> >> Please focus on the meaning of the Miller (1924) results. >> >> What do they imply about the Ritz variant of emission theory? > > They would tend to argue against it. > > But the Sagnac experiment you describe would not invalidate the naive > emission theory, contrary to popular opinion. Wilson's peculiar idea > would be completely unnecessary, you would get the observed interference > regardless. But the Sagnac experiment DOES invalidate the naive special relativity crackpot wave-in-aether-with-no-aether theory, contrary to popular opinion. Einstein's peculiar idea is completely unnecessary, you would get the observed interference regardless.
From: Jerry on 20 Sep 2009 05:11 On Sep 20, 2:54 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So far I have Wilson's agreement that the model I presented fits > > > what he says. It looks to me like you've extrapolated considerably > > > to get those two models for the whole wave. > > > Hardly. Wilson LIKES version 2. > > So what? Wilson could have made a mistake. You are being a hostile > interrogator. There is no greater expert in Wilson's theory than Wilson. You don't trust Wilson to understand his own theory? > > > I was interested in your diagram of the Sagnac experiment, though. > > > It looks like you have one light source and a beam-splitter that > > > sends the light in two different directions. > > > > With a setup like that, wouldn't the usual emission theories give > > > you no difference in speed at all between the two waves? Emission > > > theory then would give you precisely the same result that classical > > > theories do, the same as SR for nonrelativistic speeds. > > > Please focus on the meaning of the Miller (1924) results. > > > What do they imply about the Ritz variant of emission theory? > > They would tend to argue against it. Not "tend to argue against it", but "disproves it". What we have so far: 1) Thomson & Stewart variation of emission theory - DISROVEN 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN 3) Ritz variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN 4) Wilson variation of emission theory - INCOHERENT > But the Sagnac experiment you describe would not invalidate the naive > emission theory, contrary to popular opinion. Wilson's peculiar idea > would be completely unnecessary, you would get the observed interference > regardless. Jerry
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 05:26 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > So far I have Wilson's agreement that the model I presented fits > > > > what he says. It looks to me like you've extrapolated > > > > considerably to get those two models for the whole wave. > > > > > Hardly. Wilson LIKES version 2. > > > > So what? Wilson could have made a mistake. You are being a hostile > > interrogator. > > There is no greater expert in Wilson's theory than Wilson. > > You don't trust Wilson to understand his own theory? I don't care whether Wilson understands it, if I understand it. Let's pretend that Wilson is a noisy channel and part of the time we get static and interference and part of the time we get somebody else who tells us wrong answers and nonsense. Can we still extract a signal there? I don't particularly care whether it turns out like I Ching readings if I can actually create something workable from it. But when you listen to a noisy channel and you look for noise and discard the signal, what good is that? > > > > I was interested in your diagram of the Sagnac experiment, > > > > though. It looks like you have one light source and a > > > > beam-splitter that sends the light in two different directions. > > > > > > With a setup like that, wouldn't the usual emission theories > > > > give you no difference in speed at all between the two waves? > > > > Emission theory then would give you precisely the same result > > > > that classical theories do, the same as SR for nonrelativistic > > > > speeds. > > > > > Please focus on the meaning of the Miller (1924) results. > > > > > What do they imply about the Ritz variant of emission theory? > > > > They would tend to argue against it. > > Not "tend to argue against it", but "disproves it". > > What we have so far: > 1) Thomson & Stewart variation of emission theory - DISROVEN Not by Sagnac. > 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN Not by Sagnac. > 3) Ritz variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN Maybe needs revision. > 4) Wilson variation of emission theory - INCOHERENT Needs focus. > > But the Sagnac experiment you describe would not invalidate the > > naive emission theory, contrary to popular opinion. Wilson's > > peculiar idea would be completely unnecessary, you would get the > > observed interference regardless. Why would people say that Sagnac invalidates these models when the experiment as described plainly does not do any such thing? How could people go for 50+ years without noticing that they were running their experiment with a single light source? This is ridiculous. I thought people only made that kind of mistake in the soft sciences and biology.
From: Jerry on 20 Sep 2009 06:07
On Sep 20, 4:26 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > There is no greater expert in Wilson's theory than Wilson. > > > You don't trust Wilson to understand his own theory? > > I don't care whether Wilson understands it, if I understand it. Let's > pretend that Wilson is a noisy channel and part of the time we get > static and interference and part of the time we get somebody else who > tells us wrong answers and nonsense. Can we still extract a signal > there? I don't particularly care whether it turns out like I Ching > readings if I can actually create something workable from it. > > But when you listen to a noisy channel and you look for noise and > discard the signal, what good is that? > > > What we have so far: > > 1) Thomson & Stewart variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN > > Not by Sagnac. Yes by Sagnac, all versions, mirrored and mirror-less. See also Pauli, disproven by other observations. > > 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN > > Not by Sagnac. Yes by Sagnac, all versions, mirrored and mirror-less. See also Pauli, disproven by other observations. > > 3) Ritz variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN > Maybe needs revision. Then it wouldn't be the Ritz variation of emission theory. The Miller (1924) results are quite definitive. Also incompatible with mirror-less Sagnac, although it does work with conventional mirrored Sagnac. > > 4) Wilson variation of emission theory - INCOHERENT > > Needs focus. > > > > But the Sagnac experiment you describe would not invalidate the > > > naive emission theory, contrary to popular opinion. Wilson's > > > peculiar idea would be completely unnecessary, you would get the > > > observed interference regardless. > > Why would people say that Sagnac invalidates these models when the > experiment as described plainly does not do any such thing? How could > people go for 50+ years without noticing that they were running their > experiment with a single light source? This is ridiculous. I thought > people only made that kind of mistake in the soft sciences and biology. In a modern fibre-optic gyro, the diode laser source is directly glued to the ends of the fibres. There is no beam splitter, hence there are no reflections to distinguish between the Thomson & Stewart, Tolman, and Ritz variants of emission theory. All three would behave identically, giving zero phase shift. There IS a way to modify the Ritz variant of emission theory to work despite the evidence of fibre-optic ring gyros, provided you blind yourself to results of the Miller (1924) experiment. Earlier, I wrote The Ritzian rules of reflection amount to the statement that, regardless of the number of reflections, light always travels at c with respect to its original emitter. Elevate the Ritzian rules of reflection from being a mere phenomenological statement about the properties of mirrors, to a fundamental postulate about the nature of light: Light consists of particles that retain a memory of their original state of motion. No matter how a light particle is reflected, refracted, or otherwise diverted in direction, the particles always travel at c with respect to its original emitter. I refuse to call these light particles "photons" since "photons" are a quantum mechanical concept, and the idea of "photons-with- memory" is complete anathema. Jerry |