The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 17:46 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:du7db55lmk2mn96pgshc8a9dstji8ti84p(a)4ax.com... > 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. Yes you did, you tried to steal my acronym. Thief!
From: Jonah Thomas on 20 Sep 2009 17:47 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> would not accidentally go into phase at an inconvenient moment. > > > >They should be in phase. You've built in your own prejudice, modelled > >what you want to happen and not what does. You've cheated. You sound > >like Wilson, he does that. > > The wavelength of light, NOT ITS SPEED, is the same in all inertial > frames. I am convinced that you and Androcles do not mean the same thing by "wavelength". You talk about different things and use the same names, and then you accuse each other of lying. I have the impression that what Androcles means by "wavelength" is something that is measured a particular way, and what you measure is what he means by it. Like, if something happens to distort your measurement, he doesn't say the measurement is distorted. What you measure is what you get. He does not believe there is such a thing as a yardstick. You cannot ever measure the length of anything except by first tagging one end of it and then timing how long it takes to get to the other end. If the thing is itself moving and you don't know how fast it's moving, tough luck. Its length is what you measure the length to be. You, on the other hand, believe that you can tag one end of something that's moving and instantaneously tag the other end too, and measure the length that way. And to measure the distance that something travels while it completes an action, you can tag the object at the start and tag it at the end and that's the distance. We know what it means even if we can't always measure it. I think you should call it something else to reduce this confusion. Why should you change the name and not him? First, he isn't going to. If you leave it to Androcles to change you'll both be calling each other liars until one of you dies. Second, what you mean is likely to be something new that deserves its own name. The classical meaning of wavelength may be hopelessly confused or maybe not, but whatever it means is probably not what you mean. If you give it a new name there's at least a chance that people won't automatically assume they know what you're talking about when they don't. For the moment I suggest you call what you're talking about "turn" and it is measured in turns/meter. I don't think you want to say it's constant in all inertial frames. Here is my reasoning: You have described light as if it's a helix of wire with multiple loops. Then the "turn" would be the distance from one loop to the next, even while the whole thing might travel while spinning. That's a pretty picture but what you've done with it so far does not require it. Leave all the details vague that you don't need yet, and fill them in when the time comes. If light does not actually have multiple loops for you to instantaneously measure distance between, if you have to measure distance by comparing where it was then with where it is now, then Androcles is going to pounce on that. And isn't he right to? If distance has no meaning except stretched over time, if you can't ever find out where two different things are at the same time, then you are heading straight to Special Relativity hell. On second thought, maybe it is best if your light is like a titanium coil, with utterly fixed turn distance. Then at least you can say it doesn't change with speed and people will understand that they can't just measure locations at two different times to get the distance in different inertial frames.
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 18:26 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090920174753.131e395f.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >> >"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> would not accidentally go into phase at an inconvenient moment. >> > >> >They should be in phase. You've built in your own prejudice, modelled >> >what you want to happen and not what does. You've cheated. You sound >> >like Wilson, he does that. >> >> The wavelength of light, NOT ITS SPEED, is the same in all inertial >> frames. > > I am convinced that you and Androcles do not mean the same thing by > "wavelength". You talk about different things and use the same names, > and then you accuse each other of lying. > > I have the impression that what Androcles means by "wavelength" is > something that is measured a particular way, and what you measure is > what he means by it. Like, if something happens to distort your > measurement, he doesn't say the measurement is distorted. What you > measure is what you get. He does not believe there is such a thing as a > yardstick. You cannot ever measure the length of anything except by > first tagging one end of it and then timing how long it takes to get to > the other end. If the thing is itself moving and you don't know how fast > it's moving, tough luck. Its length is what you measure the length to > be. > > You, on the other hand, believe that you can tag one end of something > that's moving and instantaneously tag the other end too, and measure the > length that way. And to measure the distance that something travels > while it completes an action, you can tag the object at the start and > tag it at the end and that's the distance. We know what it means even if > we can't always measure it. > > I think you should call it something else to reduce this confusion. Why > should you change the name and not him? First, he isn't going to. If you > leave it to Androcles to change you'll both be calling each other liars > until one of you dies. > > Second, what you mean is likely to be something new that deserves its > own name. The classical meaning of wavelength may be hopelessly confused > or maybe not, but whatever it means is probably not what you mean. If > you give it a new name there's at least a chance that people won't > automatically assume they know what you're talking about when they > don't. > > For the moment I suggest you call what you're talking about "turn" and > it is measured in turns/meter. > > I don't think you want to say it's constant in all inertial frames. Here > is my reasoning: You have described light as if it's a helix of wire > with multiple loops. Then the "turn" would be the distance from one loop > to the next, even while the whole thing might travel while spinning. > That's a pretty picture but what you've done with it so far does not > require it. Leave all the details vague that you don't need yet, and > fill them in when the time comes. If light does not actually have > multiple loops for you to instantaneously measure distance between, if > you have to measure distance by comparing where it was then with where > it is now, then Androcles is going to pounce on that. And isn't he right > to? > > If distance has no meaning except stretched over time, if you can't ever > find out where two different things are at the same time, then you are > heading straight to Special Relativity hell. > > On second thought, maybe it is best if your light is like a titanium > coil, with utterly fixed turn distance. Then at least you can say it > doesn't change with speed and people will understand that they can't > just measure locations at two different times to get the distance in > different inertial frames. Thanks for trying to talk some sense into the old codger's dumb head. Alas, I fear he'll argue the point. You should see his photon model, it's a headless alligator with two frequencies. Why two only Wilson knows.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 20 Sep 2009 21:04 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:46:09 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:du7db55lmk2mn96pgshc8a9dstji8ti84p(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:15:33 +0100, "Androcles" >>>> >>>> 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. > >Yes you did, you tried to steal my acronym. Thief! Where did the phrase "whinging pom"originate? "Mummy, a nasty Autralian man stole my SOAP!!!" But the Aussies made a killing in the last one-day match. I heard the Ponting retirement fund laid $1000000 on England at 4:1 just before the match. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 20 Sep 2009 22:07
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:51kdb55bss7htuhtf60npdbv0ia3cn11v7(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:46:09 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:du7db55lmk2mn96pgshc8a9dstji8ti84p(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:15:33 +0100, "Androcles" > >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >>Yes you did, you tried to steal my acronym. Thief! > > Where did the phrase "whinging pom"originate? > > "Mummy, a nasty Autralian man stole my SOAP!!!" > > But the Aussies made a killing in the last one-day match. I heard the > Ponting > retirement fund laid $1000000 on England at 4:1 just before the match. > The nasty Autralian man must be autistic. |