The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 23 Sep 2009 10:20 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090923100948.0348fd8f.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > Let's back up first and look at a more general question. We are all >> > agreed that there is no preferred inertial frame, right? You can't >> > tell which frame is absolute rest, one frame is as good as another, >> > the rules are the same for all of them. >> > >> > But nobody should say that for rotating frames. We can tell which >> > frame is at rest with respect to rotation, within the limits of >> > accuracy of our particular sagnac apparatus. There is a preferred >> > rotational frame. You know whether you are rotating or not. >> >> I'm glad you lied that. >> >> Einstein's principle of equivalence says gravity is equivalent to >> constant acceleration. If you are in a space elevator that undergoes >> constant acceleration it feels just like gravity to you, a constant >> force is applied to the soles of your feet, the ball you release from >> your hand will accelerate toward the floor of the elevator and bounce. >> You are not supposed to look out the window to know whether you >> are accelerating or not, and even if you did it would be the universe >> that is accelerating the other way, you are merely experiencing >> gravity. >> >> Now we imagine the space elevator is whirling on the end of a rope >> like a boleadoras and you are in it. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolas >> >> Without cheating by looking out of the window as a scientist would, >> and being a good little relativist as the Holey Lord Einstein would >> wish, and being better off by not discovering his flaws which causes >> you to "win", how the fuckin' hell can you know whether you are >> rotating or not? > > You can look at your sagnac interferometer and see that you are > rotating. You don't have to look out the window. No, no, gravity is providing a torque to the interferometer. We won't discuss that, though, you are better off not knowing. You're not ready to argue about relativity. If there's something wrong with it then you're better off not learning it enough to find the flaw. If there's nothing wrong with it then you don't win a cuddly toy by arguing about whether there's something wrong with it or not. You want to see whether there's a Newtonian theory that can be a workable alternative, and if that won't work then you'll learn relativity unless you find something else to do first. news:20090922133336.45b82783.jethomas5(a)gmail.com > They now have something almost like a sagnac machine that can detect > magnetic fields. They use light that is circularly polarised going in > the two different directions, and the magnetic field affects them > differently to create an interference pattern. Apparently that has > almost no effect on a regular sagnac interferometer but does if you > polarise the light just right. You're not ready to argue about polarised light. If there's something wrong with it then you're better off not learning it enough to find the flaw. If there's nothing wrong with it then you don't win a lollipop by arguing about whether there's something wrong with it or not. > > There is talk about making something like that to detect gravity waves > but I haven't heard of any successes. You're not ready to argue about gravity. If there's something wrong with it then you're better off not learning it enough to find the flaw. If there's nothing wrong with it then you don't win a candy bar by arguing about whether there's something wrong with it or not. >> You are not supposed to look out the window to know whether you >> are rotating or not, and even if you did it would be the universe >> that is rotating the other way, you are merely experiencing gravity. >> Everybody knows G. Galilei was WRONG! The Earth is flat and the >> Sun moves around it! >> How do I know this? I know it because Jonah Thomas says >> "There is a preferred rotational frame. You know whether you are >> rotating or not." >> http://textodigital.com/P/GG/_gett.php?f=i/ssv0.jpg&r=1 >> Even film makers like Stanley Kubrick know more physics than you >> and Einstein. Do carry on "winning". Whatever it is you think you've >> won you are welcome to. Cuddly toy made in China, perhaps. >> I say you've lost before you began.
From: Inertial on 23 Sep 2009 23:51 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090923231726.5a67eca5.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... [snip all for brevity as it all boils down to...] It is up to you to explain how you get a phase shift in Sagnac with your theory. A ballistically moving oscillator does not give one A ballistically moving wave doesn't give one. Just saying "the path lengths are different" doesn't cut it, as a correct emission theory analysis of Sagnac does NOT GIVE a phase shiftm as already explained many many many many times. You must be doing something different in your model to get one, and that is what you need to show. Otherwise you're just being a Henry says "my anlaysis gives the answer I want and so therefore it must be correct"
From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 03:26 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:o27mb5tfbpqrm187mf3u57gieorlpi0vqq(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:51:37 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:20090923231726.5a67eca5.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >>[snip all for brevity as it all boils down to...] >> >>It is up to you to explain how you get a phase shift in Sagnac with your >>theory. >> >>A ballistically moving oscillator does not give one >> >>A ballistically moving wave doesn't give one. >> >>Just saying "the path lengths are different" doesn't cut it, as a correct >>emission theory analysis of Sagnac does NOT GIVE a phase shiftm as already >>explained many many many many times. > > It does. phase difference is due to a different arrival time of corresonding points in a cycle Neither you nor jonah have shown how a difference in distance travelled in the same tiem, as observed by some observer (not co-moving with the detector) can results in this. It doesn't do it for moving oscillators, it doesn't do it for waves. > You are incapable of using the rotating frame properly, that's your > problem. I can use it just fine, though you seem to balk at the idea, and I get (as does everyone else who can do the analysis) no Sagnac effect for emission / ballistic theories, just as you get no Sagnac effect if you to the analysis in the in the non-rotating frame. Doesn't matter which you use, you get NO Sagnac effect for emission/ballistic theories
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 07:27 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > [snip all for brevity as it all boils down to...] > > It is up to you to explain how you get a phase shift in Sagnac with > your theory. > > A ballistically moving oscillator does not give one > > A ballistically moving wave doesn't give one. > > Just saying "the path lengths are different" doesn't cut it, as a > correct emission theory analysis of Sagnac does NOT GIVE a phase > shiftm as already explained many many many many times. There are lots of different emission theories. Mine says that just as the wvelengths are the same in all directions from a moving emitter even though the velocities of the light are different, the wavelengths are the same in inertial frames in sagnac too, rather than in the rotational frame. This is the simple emission theory that gets the correct result for Sagnac, so it's the obvious emission theory to use. You want some other justification to use it? > You must be doing something different in your model to get one, and > that is what you need to show. > > Otherwise you're just being a Henry says "my anlaysis gives the answer > I want and so therefore it must be correct" I don't understand your objection. Are you saying that I have to give you a rationale you consider plausible for why it should be that way? I really do not get what it is you are demanding.
From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 04:42
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:34bmb51k7cpb57p7qlm334rrdo1c8rs5kb(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:26:05 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:o27mb5tfbpqrm187mf3u57gieorlpi0vqq(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:51:37 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:20090923231726.5a67eca5.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >>>>[snip all for brevity as it all boils down to...] >>>> >>>>It is up to you to explain how you get a phase shift in Sagnac with your >>>>theory. >>>> >>>>A ballistically moving oscillator does not give one >>>> >>>>A ballistically moving wave doesn't give one. >>>> >>>>Just saying "the path lengths are different" doesn't cut it, as a >>>>correct >>>>emission theory analysis of Sagnac does NOT GIVE a phase shiftm as >>>>already >>>>explained many many many many times. >>> >>> It does. >> >>phase difference is due to a different arrival time of corresonding points >>in a cycle > > What is this 'cycle' you are talking about? Whatever sort of cycle this photon has .. a wave for a wave, a cycle of oscillator for an intrinsic oscillator > If it moving in the inertial frame, its'frequency' will be doppler shifted Doesn't matter > and > if the two rays arrive at the same time, one will have been through more > cycles > than the other. Nope .. same number of cycles > If you knew anything about basic physics I wouldn't have to explain these > simple things to you.. I do .. but I don't know about what is going on in your mind about these non-standard ballistic models So .. how do you get a phase difference? >>Neither you nor jonah have shown how a difference in distance travelled in >>the same tiem, as observed by some observer (not co-moving with the >>detector) can results in this. It doesn't do it for moving oscillators, >>it >>doesn't do it for waves. > > I have. You are too stupid to understand what I said. You don't say anything sensible .. at least not yet .. maybe you'll surprise us all >>> You are incapable of using the rotating frame properly, that's your >>> problem. >> >>I can use it just fine, though you seem to balk at the idea, and I get (as >>does everyone else who can do the analysis) no Sagnac effect for emission >>/ >>ballistic theories, just as you get no Sagnac effect if you to the >>analysis >>in the in the non-rotating frame. Doesn't matter which you use, you get NO >>Sagnac effect for emission/ballistic theories > > Transpose this diagram: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > to the rotating frame, smartarse. Just turn the paper :) |