The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 22 Sep 2009 20:06 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > >> 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. > > Look, at least you are trying to learn but you still don't seem to get > it. If I fire a spinning ball from a gun, the distance it travels in > each turn is obviously frame dependent. Even though that distance is > absolute, it has no particularly useful application that I can think > of. However, if you consider the distance moved in the source frame, > per turn, you can at least measure it easily because you would > normally be at rest with the source. > > BUT NEITHER MEASUREMENT IS A 'WAVELENGTH'. The ball is not a wave. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You figure first that light from a single source might appear to have different speeds in different directions, if in your frame the source is moving. But the light in each direction has the same wavelength in the source's frame. That certainly makes sense to me. If you don't apply SR, then in the source's frame the light would of course all leave at the same speed in all directions, and of course it would have the same wavelength. How would that look to a moving observer, without SR? The moving observer would of course get results compatible with what would happen if the source was at rest. How could it get anything else? So to an observer who moves at -vV relative to the source (speed v in direction -V) it will appear that the source emits light that travels at cD+vV for any direction D he can check. Nothing at all mysterious about that. It has to be that way if you don't have SR to distort it into something else. And if you're moving relative to the source, after you correct for doppler etc you will find the wavelength, the same wavelength you would find if you were not moving relative to the source. Because that's how it has to work. If we had an aether you could get compressed bow waves ahead of you, like moving through air. But without an aether the light has to move as if the source was stationary, and when the source is stationary that's what it does. All that assumes there is a wavelength. OK, I'll define wavelength. Wavelength is what you measure when you use the techniques that are said to measure wavelength. That doesn't tell you how the measurements fit into anything else, it provides no theoretical explanations, but as a definition it is both accurate and precise. If a method to measure wavelength measures it, then it's wavelength. That's what we mean by wavelength, whatever it is that we measure with those methods.
From: Androcles on 22 Sep 2009 21:35 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:qrmib55bt3c3p7bltpjtsjkfk4irutjgp8(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:07:56 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > Look, at least you are trying to learn but you still don't seem to get it. > If I fire a spinning ball from a gun, the distance it travels in each turn > is > obviously frame dependent. Even though that distance is absolute, it has > no > particularly useful application that I can think of. However, if you > consider > the distance moved in the source frame, per turn, you can at least measure > it > easily because you would normally be at rest with the source. > > BUT NEITHER MEASUREMENT IS A 'WAVELENGTH'. The ball is not a wave. > "Photon wavelength is absolute and invariant." -- Wilson. news:7ac0a5tobas36gq00ltlrj86hb0ujofcof(a)4ax.com...
From: Inertial on 23 Sep 2009 00:27 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:3f7jb5l6ji2jlm0opel8fu2higtjfht6s6(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:35:35 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:qrmib55bt3c3p7bltpjtsjkfk4irutjgp8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:07:56 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"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. >>> >>> Look, at least you are trying to learn but you still don't seem to get >>> it. >>> If I fire a spinning ball from a gun, the distance it travels in each >>> turn >>> is >>> obviously frame dependent. Even though that distance is absolute, it has >>> no >>> particularly useful application that I can think of. However, if you >>> consider >>> the distance moved in the source frame, per turn, you can at least >>> measure >>> it >>> easily because you would normally be at rest with the source. >>> >>> BUT NEITHER MEASUREMENT IS A 'WAVELENGTH'. The ball is not a wave. >>> >>"Photon wavelength is absolute and invariant." -- Wilson. >> news:7ac0a5tobas36gq00ltlrj86hb0ujofcof(a)4ax.com... > > According to my 'serated bullet' or 'sawblade' models, that is correct. > The > 'wavelength' L is the absolute distance between the bumps or teeth. > The frequency used by the physics establishment is hc/L, which is nothing > more > than the bump arrival rate, as any fool with a higher IQ than inertial > should > be able to see. I know what frequency means , thanks .. I've been explaining it to YOU !! So that faster the light travels, the faster the arrival rate. Does you photon stretch from the source to the detector as one long photon? Does a photon have multiple bumps? > According to my 'standing wave' model, the 'projections' are the nodes of > a > standing wave that runs along the length of the photon body. There may be > many > billions along a single photon....or very few . I should imagine the > energy in > this wave has a lot to do with defining the type of photon. So .. if a pair of your photons that leaves a source with the same speed, frequency, and wavelength travels for the same length of time and arrive with the same speed, frequency, and wavelength at a destination, they would have to arrive in phase. If not .. why not? > A radio wave is nothing like this. BAHAHAHA > It consists of a modulated beam of white > photons that move at c wrt the broadcasting antenna. Radio waves have a color? Why do you think radio frequency waves have to be modulated? In what way are they modulated? > In the source frame, its > frequency is defined by the AC input to the antenna and its absolute > wavelength > is c/f. Oh dear .. you're an idiot alright.
From: Inertial on 23 Sep 2009 00:32 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:3f7jb5l6ji2jlm0opel8fu2higtjfht6s6(a)4ax.com... > A radio wave is nothing like this. It consists of a modulated beam of > white photons What other colors and flavors do photons come in? Can I get a purple one with pink spots? Perhaps one can get them in colors to match ones favorite sporting team?
From: Androcles on 23 Sep 2009 01:27
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:3f7jb5l6ji2jlm0opel8fu2higtjfht6s6(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:35:35 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:qrmib55bt3c3p7bltpjtsjkfk4irutjgp8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:07:56 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"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. >>> >>> Look, at least you are trying to learn but you still don't seem to get >>> it. >>> If I fire a spinning ball from a gun, the distance it travels in each >>> turn >>> is >>> obviously frame dependent. Even though that distance is absolute, it has >>> no >>> particularly useful application that I can think of. However, if you >>> consider >>> the distance moved in the source frame, per turn, you can at least >>> measure >>> it >>> easily because you would normally be at rest with the source. >>> >>> BUT NEITHER MEASUREMENT IS A 'WAVELENGTH'. The ball is not a wave. >>> >>"Photon wavelength is absolute and invariant." -- Wilson. >> news:7ac0a5tobas36gq00ltlrj86hb0ujofcof(a)4ax.com... > > According to my 'serated bullet' or 'sawblade' models, that is correct. You mean your headless crocodile models with two frequencies? > The > 'wavelength' L is the absolute distance between the bumps or teeth. Is that the length from the tail to the neck or the length from bump to bump? I reckon you should have given them crocodiles some jaws then they could have three wavelengths; bumps, teeth and nose to tail. > The frequency used by the physics establishment is hc/L, which is nothing > more > than the bump arrival rate, as any fool with a higher IQ than inertial > should > be able to see. Let's not bring her into it, she's even more stupid than you. > According to my 'standing wave' model, the 'projections' are the nodes of > a > standing wave that runs along the length of the photon body. There may be > many > billions along a single photon....or very few . I should imagine the > energy in > this wave has a lot to do with defining the type of photon. Yeah, but this model of a photon is better than yours. http://www.skocia.hu/news_images/nessie.jpg > A radio wave is nothing like this. It consists of a modulated beam of > white > photons that move at c wrt the broadcasting antenna. That is not politically correct, you'll upset the yanks. They are Caucasian photons, quite distinct from African-American photons or abo photons. > In the source frame, its > frequency is defined by the AC input to the antenna and its absolute > wavelength > is c/f. Oh, its FREQUENCY dependent! You could have said that in the beginning instead of babbling "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. news:1193906355.448067.162590(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com "Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense. Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the source" -- Wilson. news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs1sulouge37ve0n17i(a)4ax.com |