The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 07:15 Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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. Not if you use a single light source. > > > 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN > > > > Not by Sagnac. Not if you use a single light source. > > > 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. Is it a single source? What direction does it point? To test emission theory (apart from Ritz) you need it to emit light in two opposite directions. Which the original experiment did not do, right? People claimed the original refuted emission theory for a couple of generations before the modern equipment became available. Not good. > 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. Yes, of course. I thought that was the point. Given light emitted in direction D by a source traveling at velocity v in direction V, the light would actually travel at the vector sum cD+vV.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 20 Sep 2009 16:53 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:49:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 19, 5:24�pm, 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 The WAVELENGTH of any particular light is the same in ALL inertial frames. The speed is frame dependent. >Jerry Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 20 Sep 2009 17:02 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:15:04 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > > 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. > >Not if you use a single light source. > >> > > 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN >> > >> > Not by Sagnac. > >Not if you use a single light source. > >> > > 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. > >Is it a single source? What direction does it point? To test emission >theory (apart from Ritz) you need it to emit light in two opposite >directions. Which the original experiment did not do, right? People >claimed the original refuted emission theory for a couple of generations >before the modern equipment became available. Not good. > >> 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. > >Yes, of course. I thought that was the point. Given light emitted in >direction D by a source traveling at velocity v in direction V, the >light would actually travel at the vector sum cD+vV. Poor old Jerry is stuck in the past. My latest statement sums up Einstein's error and clarifies the BaTh explanation of sagnac. The WAVELENGTH of light..... and not its SPEED.... is absolute and the same in ALL inertial frames. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 17:15 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:qs5db5l7cqtbnvsm8vn24oicka2ab2kkac(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:15:04 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> > > 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. >> >>Not if you use a single light source. >> >>> > > 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN >>> > >>> > Not by Sagnac. >> >>Not if you use a single light source. >> >>> > > 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. >> >>Is it a single source? What direction does it point? To test emission >>theory (apart from Ritz) you need it to emit light in two opposite >>directions. Which the original experiment did not do, right? People >>claimed the original refuted emission theory for a couple of generations >>before the modern equipment became available. Not good. >> >>> 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. >> >>Yes, of course. I thought that was the point. Given light emitted in >>direction D by a source traveling at velocity v in direction V, the >>light would actually travel at the vector sum cD+vV. > > Poor old Jerry is stuck in the past. > > My latest statement sums up Einstein's error and clarifies the BaTh > explanation > of sagnac. > > The WAVELENGTH of light..... and not its SPEED.... is absolute and the > same in > ALL inertial frames. SoAp - Stupid ozzie Arsehole's phuckwittery. Wilson is a thief.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 20 Sep 2009 17:35
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:15:33 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:qs5db5l7cqtbnvsm8vn24oicka2ab2kkac(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:15:04 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> > > 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. >>> >>>Not if you use a single light source. >>> >>>> > > 2) Tolman variation of emission theory - DISPROVEN >>>> > >>>> > Not by Sagnac. >>> >>>Not if you use a single light source. >>> >>>> > > 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. >>> >>>Is it a single source? What direction does it point? To test emission >>>theory (apart from Ritz) you need it to emit light in two opposite >>>directions. Which the original experiment did not do, right? People >>>claimed the original refuted emission theory for a couple of generations >>>before the modern equipment became available. Not good. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Yes, of course. I thought that was the point. Given light emitted in >>>direction D by a source traveling at velocity v in direction V, the >>>light would actually travel at the vector sum cD+vV. >> >> Poor old Jerry is stuck in the past. >> >> My latest statement sums up Einstein's error and clarifies the BaTh >> explanation >> of sagnac. >> >> The WAVELENGTH of light..... and not its SPEED.... is absolute and the >> same in >> ALL inertial frames. > >SoAp - Stupid ozzie Arsehole's phuckwittery. >Wilson is a thief. I wouldn't want to steal anything from you. After all YOU claim that wavelength is frame dependent. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |