The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 19:54 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:gaqeb550hmhsdp34t05lh3gtega7m77nkg(a)4ax.com... > More lies. Nothing worthy of ay further response to.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 20:16 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:hftfb55mvauif6612legovrm0acrtut1um(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:15:48 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > I wouldn't call it an assumption. I was basically relating it to SR's > claims > about contractions. There are no contradictions. > It is quite trivial to show that contractions cannot be 'physical' in SR. They can be. > as > implied by the gamma factor. > I'll show you. This should be good for a laugh. > O1.................._______R______->v.......................O2->v > > A rod is moving at v away from Observer1. Observer 2 is also moving away > from > O1 at v. So O2 and R are co-moving > According to SR, the rod appears shortened in O1's frame by the factor > sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] but retains its proper length in O2's. If by 'appears shortened' you mean the physical distance between its endpoints at any given time in O1's frame is shorter than the physical distance between its endpoints at any given time in O2's frame. > Now, the rod decellerates to zero in O1's frame so its speed is now v wrt > O2. > > O1.................._______R______.......................O2->v > > According to SR the rod has now lengthened in O1's frame but shortened on > O2's. If by 'lengthened' you mean that the physical distance between its endpoints at any given time in O1's frame is longer. And if by 'shortened' you mean that the physical distance between its endpoints at any given time in O2's frame is shorter. > That is because of the way v changes in the gamma term of the two frames. > > Clearly, the rod cannot become PHYSICALLY both shorter and longer > simultaneously.... There is no physical or material change in the frame of the rod itself (assuming it is rigid) There is a difference in the distance between its endpoints, as measured at any given time by two observers in their respective frames. The reason that it can be different is that measurements made at the same time in one frame are NOT at the same time in another. > so the obvious explanation is that it doesn't physically > change at all. Assuming a rigid rod .. that is correct .. it doesn't change (in its own frame). SR doesn't claim that it does. > IN OTHER WORDS, NOTHING HAPPENS TO RODS (OR CLOCKS) WHEN THEY > CHANGE SPEED. (Although accelerating an object can have physical effects on it .. but ignoring that and talking about an idealized situation) It is correct that different observers, moving at different speeds and measuring the rod, does not change the rod itself. SR doesn't claim it does. SR claims that the measurements of the length of the rod can be different for those observers because simultaneous events in one frame may not be simultaneous in another. So you are misrepresenting what SR says and arguing against a strawman here. Typical crackpot behaviour. > Get it? Clearly you don't. Its a good thing you were lying about teaching people physics.
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Sep 2009 08:33 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > A bouncing ball is not a wave. The distance it moves in one hop is > obviously frame dependent but it is not a 'wavelength'. You have > graphed its height to look like a wave with different 'wavelengths' in > the three frames but it still just a bouncing ball. > The distance between crests of water waves is the same in all frames. > Do you want to argue about that? The same applies to a longitudinal > wave like sound. the distance between points of equal phase is > absolute and the same in all frames. I don't want to prejudge what light is. I'm pretty clear that something about light must oscillate, and I don't want to say what. Sometimes I try thinking of it as a rotating particle, other times as a wave, or whatever. I found it easiest to draw the sine wave from a rotating particle to show the rotation. Easier than 3D graphics or drawing it as a little moon that turns crescent etc. That doesn't have to mean much, there's some kind of oscillation. If we assume that light moves, which seems like a reasonable thing to suppose, and that something about light somehow rotates regularly, which seems pretty definite, then the "wavelength" is the distance that it takes to make a complete rotation, and the "frequency" is the number of rotations per unit time. Now let's assume that relativity does not apply and everybody involved can synchronise their watches and their tape measures. Let's further pretend that we can actually see the light, it's a little ball that rotates and everybody can see the rotation. Then everybody will agree at any particular time how much the ball has rotated, once they correct for their own rotation which they can do. Everybody will agree that if you have two balls moving around a circle in opposite directions which are rotating the same amount per degree, and if the detector which shows how much they are rotating is shifted x degrees to one side, then it will measure a 2x degree difference in their rotation. So any theory of light which predicts that the "rotation" of the light happens a constant amount per degree around the Sagnac circle will get the same result, whatever you do with speeds and wavelengths and frequencies and all the rest of it. People who argue that other people's theories do not get this result, are people who are trying to argue that the theories they oppose are wrong.
From: Androcles on 22 Sep 2009 09:07 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090922083318.73a2140c.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> A bouncing ball is not a wave. The distance it moves in one hop is >> obviously frame dependent but it is not a 'wavelength'. You have >> graphed its height to look like a wave with different 'wavelengths' in >> the three frames but it still just a bouncing ball. >> The distance between crests of water waves is the same in all frames. >> Do you want to argue about that? The same applies to a longitudinal >> wave like sound. the distance between points of equal phase is >> absolute and the same in all frames. > > I don't want to prejudge what light is. I'm pretty clear that something > about light must oscillate, and I don't want to say what. Why not? It's pretty clear radio reaches our space probes which send us close up images of Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and building radios is old hat to many amateurs. That's not prejudging, that's known. The electric field that excites a recieving antenna is oscillating, and some of us know how to amplify that. Doesn't your TV have a remote control? Infra red radiation. Does your vacuum cleaner have an electric motor? Is the electric field causing the magnetic field oscillating and does that make the fan turn? All the clues are there, why try to make a mystery of it? > Sometimes I > try thinking of it as a rotating particle, other times as a wave, or > whatever. > > I found it easiest to draw the sine wave from a rotating particle to > show the rotation. Easier than 3D graphics or drawing it as a little > moon that turns crescent etc. That doesn't have to mean much, there's > some kind of oscillation. So you drew a map of the territory... nothing wrong with that. > If we assume that light moves, which seems like a reasonable thing to > suppose, and that something about light somehow rotates regularly, which > seems pretty definite, then the "wavelength" is the distance that it > takes to make a complete rotation, and the "frequency" is the number of > rotations per unit time. Not according to Wilson. "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. news:1193906355.448067.162590(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com He'd rather argue nonsense for the sake of argument. > Now let's assume that relativity does not apply and everybody involved > can synchronise their watches and their tape measures. Let's further > pretend that we can actually see the light, it's a little ball that > rotates and everybody can see the rotation. Then everybody will agree at > any particular time how much the ball has rotated, once they correct for > their own rotation which they can do. > > Everybody will agree that if you have two balls moving around a circle > in opposite directions which are rotating the same amount per degree, > and if the detector which shows how much they are rotating is shifted x > degrees to one side, then it will measure a 2x degree difference in > their rotation. > > So any theory of light which predicts that the "rotation" of the light > happens a constant amount per degree around the Sagnac circle will get > the same result, whatever you do with speeds and wavelengths and > frequencies and all the rest of it. > > People who argue that other people's theories do not get this result, > are people who are trying to argue that the theories they oppose are > wrong.
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Sep 2009 11:17
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > I don't want to prejudge what light is. I'm pretty clear that > > something about light must oscillate, and I don't want to say what. > > Why not? > It's pretty clear radio reaches our space probes which send us close > up images of Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and building radios is old hat to > many amateurs. That's not prejudging, that's known. The electric > field that excites a recieving antenna is oscillating, and some of us > know how to amplify that. Doesn't your TV have a remote control? Infra > red radiation. Does your vacuum cleaner have an electric motor? Is the > electric field causing the magnetic field oscillating and does that > make the fan turn? > All the clues are there, why try to make a mystery of it? All the clues are there to say that light is related to electricity which is related to magnetism. But I don't want to mistake my map of an electric field for the territory either. People have made a lot of assumptions about all that which work well in important ways but which might not be exactly so all the time. > > Sometimes I > > try thinking of it as a rotating particle, other times as a wave, or > > whatever. > > > > I found it easiest to draw the sine wave from a rotating particle to > > show the rotation. Easier than 3D graphics or drawing it as a little > > moon that turns crescent etc. That doesn't have to mean much, > > there's some kind of oscillation. > > So you drew a map of the territory... nothing wrong with that. > > > > If we assume that light moves, which seems like a reasonable thing > > to suppose, and that something about light somehow rotates > > regularly, which seems pretty definite, then the "wavelength" is the > > distance that it takes to make a complete rotation, and the > > "frequency" is the number of rotations per unit time. > > Not according to Wilson. > > "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. > news:1193906355.448067.162590(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com > > He'd rather argue nonsense for the sake of argument. And so do you or you'd quit arguing nonsense with him. Speaking for myself, if somebody wants to harp forever on one mistake I've made, I'll plonk them. I make lots of mistakes and I don't mind provided I find out how to correct them. (I like it if I don't keep making the same mistake after I've learned better.) I like to try out any idea I can understand and see if I can make it work. If I have a hundred wrong ideas and one correct idea that's an improvement on the consensus, I win. Similarly, if Wilson has a hundred wrong ideas and no correct idea, but by thinking about his ideas I question one hidden assumption that I hadn't noticed I was making, I win again. There might be a more cost-effective way to notice my mistakes than to study a hundred wrong ideas from somebody else, but it's still a win. Here you are, quoting him out of context to make him look stupid. But the map is not the territory, and what you thought he said was probably not the briliant idea he intended to come up with. > > Now let's assume that relativity does not apply and everybody > > involved can synchronise their watches and their tape measures. > > Let's further pretend that we can actually see the light, it's a > > little ball that rotates and everybody can see the rotation. Then > > everybody will agree at any particular time how much the ball has > > rotated, once they correct for their own rotation which they can do. > > > > Everybody will agree that if you have two balls moving around a > > circle in opposite directions which are rotating the same amount per > > degree, and if the detector which shows how much they are rotating > > is shifted x degrees to one side, then it will measure a 2x degree > > difference in their rotation. > > > > So any theory of light which predicts that the "rotation" of the > > light happens a constant amount per degree around the Sagnac circle > > will get the same result, whatever you do with speeds and > > wavelengths and frequencies and all the rest of it. Nobody yet has even mentioned why this idea is oversimplified. > > People who argue that other people's theories do not get this > > result, are people who are trying to argue that the theories they > > oppose are wrong. |