The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 07:36 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090924072715.4fd6ff43.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "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. And none .. other than that one with weird reflections that ends up getting the same speeds as aether theory) give a phase shift in Sagnac > 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, So its like a wave, where frequency varies with speed and wavelength does not. No phase shift for that one. > 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. No .. it does not > You want some other justification to use it? We've just gone all the way back to the start her .. Moving oscillators and moveing waves with ballistic theory give no Sagnac effect. Period So its not justification of the model that is needed .. its a model that salvages your obsession for finding a balistic theory that actually works. Then make sure the model is physical and works as we find light to work >> 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. The objection is that nothing you have said results in a phase shift in Sagnac > Are you saying that I have to give you a rationale you consider > plausible for why it should be that way? No .. you need a model that gives you a phase shift in Sagnac > I really do not get what it is you are demanding. You need a model that gives you a phase shift in Sagnac
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 07:47 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>>>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>>>>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.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. > >>> > >>>>Yeup > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>But nobody should say that for rotating frames. > >>>> > >>>>Yeup > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>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.>> > >>>>Yeup > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>So let's look at the situation wrt the nonrotating frame. > >>>> > >>>>Yeup > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In the nonrotating frame, when you spin your sagnac apparatus you > >>>>>change the angle of the detector relative to the source. > >>>> > >>>>And its position, by the time light gets there > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Remember that the formula for the phase shift is Dt = > >>> > >>>4Aw/(c^2-v^2)> > >>> > >>>>That's the difference in time between arrival of the rays in an SR > >>> > >>>or> simple Aether analysis where light travels at speed c in the > >>> > >>>>non-rotating frame. > >>> > >>>Is the phase shift directly proportional to that time difference? > >> > >>It IS the time difference. > > > > No. The phase shift you measure with an interferometer is a phase > > shift. The difference in time of light arrival is something else, > > something you assume is responsible for the phase shift. If you want > > to measure the time the light arrives, measure that instead. They > > aren't the same thing, although if your theories are correct they > > are closely linked. > > That is pretty bizarre. Phase shift and time are related by a fixed > formula. To claim otherwise is to show a complete lack of knowledge > of physics and math. That's true once you make the assumption that the lightspeed is invariant. If you can get different lightspeeds in the same frame then it is no longer true. If you assume that emission theories are false by definition then you will probably find that they cannot get the correct Sagnac result. > >>>I naively believe that the phase shift is directly proportional to > >>>the time difference in the classical and SR cases. > >> > >>It is the phase difference :):) . the time between the arrival of > >the>same point in a cycle. > > > > > > I don't think you should say that these two things are the same > > thing. You can measure a phase difference and assume that you're > > measuring a difference in arrival time, according to your theories. > > But if you actually want to measure arrival time you should use > > something else, something more like a stopwatch. The difference in > > arrival times and the phase difference aren't the same thing. > > Well, yes they are, your ignorance of math and science > notwithstanding. They are the same thing according to the theory you believe. They might be directly related in real life too, that's an experimental question that people have tended to answer in the positive. The assumption can be made compatible with the experimental evidence. Still, I want to point out that when you measure phase shift and you think you are measuring time-of-arrival, you are making an assumption. > > Of course. This is how my model works. I have absolutely no proof > > that light works the way my model says, and it's plausible that it > > does not-- if I had to bet I'd bet on SR or something that's been > > fit to a lot of data and not this which has not. But it does fit > > Sagnac because I designed it to fit Sagnac. > > So reality is not a concern to you? Of course it is. The usual emission theories do not fit the Sagnac data, the way people usually interpret those theories. I have a version that does fit the Sagnac data, unless there's a hidden self-contradiction in it. So that's the remaining one to falsify against other data. I might sometime later find another emission theory that fits the Sagnac data too, but I'm not particularly hopeful at the moment.
From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 07:46 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090924074759.6bfe8c8b.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>>>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>>>>"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.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. >> >>> >> >>>>Yeup >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>But nobody should say that for rotating frames. >> >>>> >> >>>>Yeup >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>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.>> >> >>>>Yeup >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>So let's look at the situation wrt the nonrotating frame. >> >>>> >> >>>>Yeup >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>In the nonrotating frame, when you spin your sagnac apparatus you >> >>>>>change the angle of the detector relative to the source. >> >>>> >> >>>>And its position, by the time light gets there >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>Remember that the formula for the phase shift is Dt = >> >>> >> >>>4Aw/(c^2-v^2)> >> >>> >> >>>>That's the difference in time between arrival of the rays in an SR >> >>> >> >>>or> simple Aether analysis where light travels at speed c in the >> >>> >> >>>>non-rotating frame. >> >>> >> >>>Is the phase shift directly proportional to that time difference? >> >> >> >>It IS the time difference. >> > >> > No. The phase shift you measure with an interferometer is a phase >> > shift. The difference in time of light arrival is something else, >> > something you assume is responsible for the phase shift. If you want >> > to measure the time the light arrives, measure that instead. They >> > aren't the same thing, although if your theories are correct they >> > are closely linked. >> >> That is pretty bizarre. Phase shift and time are related by a fixed >> formula. To claim otherwise is to show a complete lack of knowledge >> of physics and math. > > That's true once you make the assumption that the lightspeed is > invariant. Nope > If you can get different lightspeeds in the same frame then > it is no longer true. If you assume that emission theories are false by > definition then you will probably find that they cannot get the correct > Sagnac result. They are wrong BECAUSE they don't get the correct result. You HAVE NOT SHOWN any phase shift with emission theories AT ALL > Of course it is. The usual emission theories do not fit the Sagnac data, > the way people usually interpret those theories. Yes > I have a version that > does fit the Sagnac data, Show it .. you've not shown anything yet that does. > unless there's a hidden self-contradiction in > it. So that's the remaining one to falsify against other data. I might > sometime later find another emission theory that fits the Sagnac data > too, but I'm not particularly hopeful at the moment. You haven't got one yet .. so its rather presumptuous to look for another.
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 08:09 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>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 That's certainly one way to do it. > 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. Well, we can't use the water wave model because the waves travel at the same speed in water. And we can't use the sound model because sound waves travel at the same speed in air. SR says that light always travels at the same speed in vacuum, and if that's right then emission theories all have to be wrong. Once you do get waves that travel for different distances in the same time, then you can get them to interfere just like waves that travel the same speed but arrive at different times. Would it help to describe the math? I suspect it would not -- after all, you are objecting to the concept and if you see math that describes the concept you are objecting to, that doesn't make it more convincing, right? Would it help if I drew you a picture showing it happen? Probably not, because you aren't objecting to the claim that the theory would work that way, you are objecting to the idea of making a theory that does that. I'm really not at all clear how to satisfy your objection. > > 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 This is because you use a particular emission theory, one that says for different lightspeeds going around the Sagnac loop, analysed from the nonrotating rame the frequency stays the same but the wavelength changes precisely enough that when they arrive at the same time they are in phase. Once you choose that emission theory instead of any of the others, you get no Sagnac effect.
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 08:25
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > "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. > > And none .. other than that one with weird reflections that ends up > getting the same speeds as aether theory) give a phase shift in Sagnac > > > 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, > > So its like a wave, where frequency varies with speed and wavelength > does not. No phase shift for that one. ?? Oh. I thought it did. That's disappointing. Let me try that in the nonrotating frame. One side travels at speed c+v. One side travels at speed c-v. They meet at the detector, and (to make the numbers easy I have a sagnac ring that is one light-second long) they meet after 1 second. In that time one of them has traveled distance c+v meters. The other has traveled distance c-v meters. Constant wavelength lambda. So get the phase by dividing distance by lambda. One of them has phase c+v/lambda One of them has phase c-v/lambda Where did I go wrong? |