The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 21 Sep 2009 07:18 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:47:53 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. He doesn't know what wavelength is. Wavelengthh doesn't apply to pure oscillators. Only traveling waves possess a wavelength. >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. Androcles' main problem is that he has never been able to completely rid himself of the concept of an aether. >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. It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the bloody thing then measure it. The fact is, ALL lengths are absolute and invariant. A rod can be used to define an absolute spatial interval...and that rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and will remain unchanged. I can take a metre stick to Alpha Centauri with full knowlegde that it is exactly the same as it was when it was on Earth. Water waves are traveling transverse waves. The distance between crests is the same no matter how fast your boat moves. Androcles cannot see that....and nor can the relativists. The wavelength of light is no different. It defines an absolute spatial interval that is not frame dependent. that is why light wavelengths are now used length standards. >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. I never call him a liar even though he has misquoted me on many occasions. Inertial calls me a liar because she is compleetely out of ideas. >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. Well that's a good idea...and I have pointed out many times that classical wave theory should not be used to describe any phenomenon associated with light even though it DOES seem to wok on occasions. The PE effect rules it out...so treat it with suspicion and use it at your peril. >For the moment I suggest you call what you're talking about "turn" and >it is measured in turns/meter. Maybe. I believe light's 'wavelength' is defined probably by a spatial 'periodicity' along a photon's length....or maybe by some kind of particle rotation. >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? I can handle him. The more he rants and raves the more you realise he is on the defensive. >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. Precisely...so why get into that situation. >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. I've never heard of anybody who has measured the lengths of a moving rod or used a moving clock to tell the time. I have several possible models of a photon. One is that illustrated at www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe The other is that is has a spatial regularity like a saw blade or a serrated bullet. For sagnac, consider a photon has considerable length and is like one of those flexible outer coils around a bicycle brake cable. In all these models, wavelength is nothing like the classical concept and it invariant. If you mark two points on a cylinder then rotate a closed coil around it, as we discussed before, the number of turns between the two marks is the same no matter how fast it spins. Einstein's unproven postulate says that light speed is c in all inertial frames. I say he was totally wrong and that light's 'wavelength' is constant in all inertial frames. (Androcles will disagree because he is a pommie engineer who was never taught basic physics.) Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 07:38 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:f5meb5lb06nvi8e3uc1j84alkep4s6ulc3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:47:53 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>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. > > He doesn't know what wavelength is. Wavelengthh doesn't apply to pure > oscillators. Only traveling waves possess a wavelength. So light is a pure wave then, as it clearly has a wavelength Of course, the distance an oscillator travels in a given frame during one cycle is very much like a wavelgnth >>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. > > It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't know > of any > instances where it is done. BAHAHA > Any sane person would stop the bloody thing then > measure it. Unless they want to know its length when moving. Or if they can't stop it. > The fact is, ALL lengths are absolute and invariant. That's an opinion. Not a fact. > A rod can be used to > define an absolute spatial interval...and that rod can be taken anywhere > anyhow > and will remain unchanged. I can take a metre stick to Alpha Centauri with > full > knowlegde that it is exactly the same as it was when it was on Earth. When measured in a frame where it is at rest it will be. > Water waves are traveling transverse waves. The distance between crests is > the > same no matter how fast your boat moves. Androcles cannot see that....and > nor > can the relativists. The wavelength of light is no different. So now light is a wave in a medium. And your'e the one accusing Androcles of not letting go of an aether. > It defines an > absolute spatial interval that is not frame dependent. that is why light > wavelengths are now used length standards. Except that they vary with the speed of the source. Your'e lying again >>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. > > I never call him a liar even though he has misquoted me on many occasions. > Inertial calls me a liar because she is compleetely out of ideas. I call you a liar because you continually lie. >>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. > > Well that's a good idea...and I have pointed out many times that classical > wave > theory should not be used to describe any phenomenon associated with light > even > though it DOES seem to wok on occasions. The PE effect rules it out...so > treat > it with suspicion and use it at your peril. > >>For the moment I suggest you call what you're talking about "turn" and >>it is measured in turns/meter. > > Maybe. I believe light's 'wavelength' is defined probably by a spatial > 'periodicity' along a photon's length....or maybe by some kind of particle > rotation. In which case its 'wavelength' is frame dependant. Again .. you keep chopping and changing your story. >>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? > > I can handle him. The more he rants and raves the more you realise he is > on the > defensive. > >>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. > > Precisely...so why get into that situation. > >>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. > > I've never heard of anybody who has measured the lengths of a moving rod > or > used a moving clock to tell the time. BAHAHA > I have several possible models of a photon. One is that illustrated at > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe > The other is that is has a spatial regularity like a saw blade or a > serrated > bullet. For sagnac, consider a photon has considerable length and is like > one > of those flexible outer coils around a bicycle brake cable. > In all these models, wavelength is nothing like the classical concept and > it > invariant. > If you mark two points on a cylinder then rotate a closed coil around it, > as we > discussed before, the number of turns between the two marks is the same no > matter how fast it spins. > > Einstein's unproven postulate That is supported by experimental evidence > says that light speed is c in all inertial > frames. I say he was totally wrong and that light's 'wavelength' is > constant in > all inertial frames. And that claim is refuted by experimental evidence > (Androcles will disagree because he is a pommie engineer who was never > taught > basic physics.) OMG .. have you taught physics? That would be a crime.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 21 Sep 2009 08:03 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:38:16 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:f5meb5lb06nvi8e3uc1j84alkep4s6ulc3(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:47:53 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >>>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. >> >> He doesn't know what wavelength is. Wavelengthh doesn't apply to pure >> oscillators. Only traveling waves possess a wavelength. > >So light is a pure wave then, as it clearly has a wavelength > >Of course, the distance an oscillator travels in a given frame during one >cycle is very much like a wavelgnth It's nothing like a wavelength. It's what you said, "the distance an oscillator travels in a given frame during one cycle". It has no useful meaning or application. >>>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. >> >> It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't know >> of any >> instances where it is done. > >BAHAHA > >> Any sane person would stop the bloody thing then >> measure it. > >Unless they want to know its length when moving. Or if they can't stop it. > >> The fact is, ALL lengths are absolute and invariant. > >That's an opinion. Not a fact. So was the diameter of the moon as measured from Earth the same as it was when measured up there? > >> A rod can be used to >> define an absolute spatial interval...and that rod can be taken anywhere >> anyhow >> and will remain unchanged. I can take a metre stick to Alpha Centauri with >> full >> knowlegde that it is exactly the same as it was when it was on Earth. > >When measured in a frame where it is at rest it will be. It doesn't change no matter what happens to it....and nobody uses a moving rod as a standard. >> Water waves are traveling transverse waves. The distance between crests is >> the >> same no matter how fast your boat moves. Androcles cannot see that....and >> nor >> can the relativists. The wavelength of light is no different. > >So now light is a wave in a medium. And your'e the one accusing Androcles >of not letting go of an aether. Don't try to act stupid...no acting needed... >> It defines an >> absolute spatial interval that is not frame dependent. that is why light >> wavelengths are now used length standards. > >Except that they vary with the speed of the source. Your'e lying again Who said they vary? >>>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. >> >> I never call him a liar even though he has misquoted me on many occasions. >> Inertial calls me a liar because she is compleetely out of ideas. > >I call you a liar because you continually lie. I don't care what YOU say. Nobody does...except demented dougie ... >> >> Well that's a good idea...and I have pointed out many times that classical >> wave >> theory should not be used to describe any phenomenon associated with light >> even >> though it DOES seem to wok on occasions. The PE effect rules it out...so >> treat >> it with suspicion and use it at your peril. >> >>>For the moment I suggest you call what you're talking about "turn" and >>>it is measured in turns/meter. >> >> Maybe. I believe light's 'wavelength' is defined probably by a spatial >> 'periodicity' along a photon's length....or maybe by some kind of particle >> rotation. > >In which case its 'wavelength' is frame dependant. > >Again .. you keep chopping and changing your story. I did not. You are simply too dumb to understand. >>>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? >> >> I can handle him. The more he rants and raves the more you realise he is >> on the >> defensive. >> >>>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. >> >> Precisely...so why get into that situation. >> >>>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. >> >> I've never heard of anybody who has measured the lengths of a moving rod >> or >> used a moving clock to tell the time. > >BAHAHA have you? Well I supposed I could read my wristwatch while waving my hand around but that's not really what I meant. >> If you mark two points on a cylinder then rotate a closed coil around it, >> as we >> discussed before, the number of turns between the two marks is the same no >> matter how fast it spins. >> >> Einstein's unproven postulate > >That is supported by experimental evidence Where? When? >> says that light speed is c in all inertial >> frames. I say he was totally wrong and that light's 'wavelength' is >> constant in >> all inertial frames. > >And that claim is refuted by experimental evidence Where? When? > >> (Androcles will disagree because he is a pommie engineer who was never >> taught >> basic physics.) > >OMG .. have you taught physics? That would be a crime. I have taught physics. if you pay me enough I'll even consider teaching YOU. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 09:15 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > He doesn't know what wavelength is. Wavelengthh doesn't apply to pure > oscillators. Only traveling waves possess a wavelength. There you go. If you don't want to talk about traveling waves, don't talk about wavelength to him. > >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. > > It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't > know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the > bloody thing then measure it. > The fact is, ALL lengths are absolute and invariant. A rod can be used > to define an absolute spatial interval...and that rod can be taken > anywhere anyhow and will remain unchanged. I can take a metre stick to > Alpha Centauri with full knowlegde that it is exactly the same as it > was when it was on Earth. That's a reasonable assumption. Philosophers might disagree. How do you even know it's the same meter stick the second time you pick it up? Because it has your name written on it? Alpha centauri is an assumption built on our guesses about light. We see a little dot of light in the sky and we decide it's a star and how far away it is etc. The assumptions have a whole lot of consistency which is a virtue ... but assuming you could go there with your meter stick and be exactly the same takes even more assumption. Not to rag on you, I'm just pointing out that all this stuff is assumption piled on assumption, and while your own assumptions fit common sense very well.... > Water waves are traveling transverse waves. The distance between > crests is the same no matter how fast your boat moves. Androcles > cannot see that....and nor can the relativists. The wavelength of > light is no different. It defines an absolute spatial interval that is > not frame dependent. that is why light wavelengths are now used > length standards. Water waves move. You can look at them -- using light which is so much faster -- and see the whole thing, and you can measure the distance of this slow-moving thing without much trouble. It's a lot more trouble to measure a moving light wave, with the result that we use indirect methods, and those methods may be flawed. So, should we keep the ideas which make sense even though they cannot be directly tested? Or is it better to throw them away and make up a theory based only on things we can observe? I have never taken a psychology course, but I remember reading about BF Skinner who tried the latter approach in psychology. He said that instead of trying to imagine what goes on in somebody else's mind, it's better to just look at what they do, and look at what you can do to influence them, and make all psychological theories entirely on that basis. They called it "behaviorism". His approach got a lot of recognition as scientific, but the results turned out kind of ad hoc. I think it's good to come up with ideas about how things fit together that make sense of things, and it's also good to remember that they are only ideas. It might help to keep at least two different ideas theories in mind all the time and switch back and forth among them. > >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. > > I never call him a liar even though he has misquoted me on many > occasions. Inertial calls me a liar because she is compleetely out of > ideas. They get frustrated when they tell you the same thinges over and over and you respond the same way. They keep thinking if they do the same thing over again maybe this time you'll do what they want. > >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. > > Well that's a good idea...and I have pointed out many times that > classical wave theory should not be used to describe any phenomenon > associated with light even though it DOES seem to wok on occasions. > The PE effect rules it out...so treat it with suspicion and use it at > your peril. Well, if you use the names from classical wave theory people are likely to apply classical meanings to them. Use new names. > >For the moment I suggest you call what you're talking about "turn" > >and it is measured in turns/meter. > > Maybe. I believe light's 'wavelength' is defined probably by a spatial > 'periodicity' along a photon's length....or maybe by some kind of > particle rotation. Don't call it wavelength. Call it something else. Don't call it dollars, people would get confused by that too. I think "turns" is a good choice, but it might be more important to pick one than to pick exactly the right one. On the other hand, getting precisely the right name can help you in subtle ways right down the line. > >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? > > I can handle him. The more he rants and raves the more you realise he > is on the defensive. If you really have something, why keep talking the same way he fails to respond to? What good does the ranting do anybody, beyond confirm everybody in their identities and social roles? > I have several possible models of a photon. One is that illustrated at > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe > The other is that is has a spatial regularity like a saw blade or a > serrated bullet. For sagnac, consider a photon has considerable length > and is like one of those flexible outer coils around a bicycle brake > cable. In all these models, wavelength is nothing like the classical > concept and it invariant. > If you mark two points on a cylinder then rotate a closed coil around > it, as we discussed before, the number of turns between the two marks > is the same no matter how fast it spins. True. But if somebody can't see it and can't touch it all at one time, if all they can do is look through a tiny window and watch the coils go by one at a time, then they can't observe that invariant length. All they can do is count the coils and count how fast they go by. The number of coils that go by is invariant provided it has a beginning and end. But the observers never see the invariant length, all they can measure is frequency = speed/length. Is it really useful to say that the length is invariant if people can't measure the invariant length? Maybe. It's part of your mental model. Some details are not testable but the model can help you organise your thinking and make testable predictions you might not have thought of otherwise. > Einstein's unproven postulate says that light speed is c in all > inertial frames. I say he was totally wrong and that light's > 'wavelength' is constant in all inertial frames. Interference can be explained entirely by geometry, using only wavelength, with no thought of time. (So long as all the interfering waves move at the same speed.) Waves that move at different speeds can also interfere, but exactly as if they had the same speed but different frequencies. If you assume there can be different speeds then you are veering off from all the work that has ever been done with waves, unless somebody has done some your way. There might be various assumptions that people naturally make which will not fit your scenario, and they will make those assumptions regardless. So -- at a minimum -- give different names to it. Don't give people the impression you're talking about something they know about.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 10:18
hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> It defines an > >> absolute spatial interval that is not frame dependent. that is why > >light> wavelengths are now used length standards. > > > >Except that they vary with the speed of the source. Your'e lying > >again > > Who said they vary? Practically everybody. The doppler effect is observed in waves depending on the speed of the source. Doppler effect is frequency, though. Sources that bunch up the waves ahead of them have a wavelength difference too. As i understand it, SR says you don't get that bunching effect, it's like the sink is moving instead of the source. You still get a doppler effect then, and also you get a direction effect. When you are moving at an angle to the source of a sound, you hear the sound as if it is off at an angle to you compared to its real position. This is called aberration. You will still get that effect when the source is exactly parallel to your direction of motion, and when the source seems to be parallel to you the sound will be dopplered. Relativity will get a change in wavelength as well as a change in frequency because it gives a doppler change in frequency and the speed is unchanged. Emission theories should give a change in frequency but no change in wavelength, but combined light moving at different speeds should interfere as if there was a wavelength change. This is all hard to describe in english. It would be more precise to describe it with math. But it's just as easy to apply the math wrong, the difference is that a careful reading can show precisely how it is applied, though not how it was intended to be done. |