The Emission Theory of Androcles [Relativity]

Prev: Tidal forces misconceptions...
Next: divinism.net consultation

From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 08:22

"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090924080956.6d9855f8.jethomas5(a)gmail.com...
> "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.

More correctly, it is difference position in 'cycle'.

For waves/oscilators/rays that start in phase (at same position in cycle),
if they travel for the same number of cycles (not necessarily a whole number
of them), they will still be in phase

>> 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.

Unless you move the water. One can imagine the 'water' as being something
that moves with the inertial frame of the source.

> And we can't use the sound model because sound waves travel at the same
> speed in air.

And sound is not a transverse wave.

> 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.

SR doesn't really care what light does or how it does it, as long as it does
it at c.

> 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?

That would help.

> I suspect it would not -- after all, you are objecting to the
> concept

NO .. I'm objecting to the fact that you have not shown a model that has a
phase difference.

> and if you see math that describes the concept you are objecting
> to, that doesn't make it more convincing, right?

I am objecting you you NOT HAVING A MODEL THAT HAS PHASE DIFFERENCE IN
SAGNAC

> Would it help if I drew you a picture showing it happen?

That would help.

> Probably not,
> because you aren't objecting to the claim that the theory would work
> that way,

NO .. I'm objecting to the fact that you have not shown a model that 'works
that way'

> you are objecting to the idea of making a theory that does
> that.

NO .. please show one.

> I'm really not at all clear how to satisfy your objection.

By showing A MODEL THAT HAS A PHASE DIFFERENCE IN SAGNAC

>> > 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,

I don't "use" any. but I've analyzed the two alternative of light being
wave-like and moving-oscillator-like. Both give a zero Sagnac phase
difference, unless one has mirrors work in the bizarre way that gives the
same light speeds as aether 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

And when the wavelength stay the same and frequency varies

> 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.

You also get the same no-sagnac result with moving oscillators that have the
same wavelength but difference frequencies at different speeds. I've been
saying this and showing this from the start.

Now. HOW DOES YOUR MODEL GIVE A PHASE DIFFERENCE IN SAGNAC ??????

From: Androcles on 24 Sep 2009 08:13

From: Inertial on 24 Sep 2009 08:45

"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090924082554.630c0356.jethomas5(a)gmail.com...
> "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.

Fine

> One side travels at speed c+v.

Yeup

> One side travels at speed c-v.

Yeup

Gees .. how many weeks have we been saying that for now

> 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.

Fine

> In that time one of them has traveled distance c+v meters.
> The other has traveled distance c-v meters.

Yeup

> Constant wavelength lambda.

Yeup .. measured as one always does from where the source is NOW .. no where
it was THEN

> 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

Wrong

> Where did I go wrong?

Oh dear .. do I have to draw it for you again?

D1...........S...........D2
..............s............

..D1......../'\S/'\........D2
..............s.............

...D1..../'\./'\S/'\./'\....D2
..............s..............

....D1/'\./'\./'\S/'\./'\./'\D2
..............s...............

See the same length wavelengths?
See the two different distances s..D1, s..D2?

D1/'\./'\./
.........s

/'\S/'\./'\./'\D2
s...............

But the rays arrive in sync at D1 and D2
And are out of sync at s

Why?

Because when you count wavelengths, you go back from the current position of
leading edge to where the source is NOW (not where it was in the past)

That is because the source is where each new part of the cycle is emitted ..
it is not emitted from where the source was originally (s)

The trail of same-length-wavelength follows behind the leading edge of the
ray.

From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 09:31

"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> Unless you move the water. One can imagine the 'water' as being
> something that moves with the inertial frame of the source.

You're right!

OK, imagine that. You have an annulus full of water. You make a wave at
one side of it and watch the waves reach the exact opposite side. They
are in phase.

At the other side (because water is bulky and we don't want our emitter
and our detector interfering with each other) you have a little gap in
the annulus leading to a rectangular container where you observe the
waves. Each time a wave arrives at the gap it pushes a little wave
through the gap which spreads out in a semicircle in the other
container.

Then you spin the annulus and get the water moving at some speed v that
is much less than the speed of water waves.

If you make waves, they will have the same wavelength and the same
frequency relative to the moving water, and they will reach the opposite
side at the same time. They will still be in phase.

Agreed so far?

Since water waves do not work the way my emission theory says that light
works, we need two emitters for this next part. Put a wall between them
so they don't both make waves in both directions. I'll call the speed of
water waves in the annulus w. The speed of the waves relative to me is
then w+v and w-v. Reduce the frequency of the one that makes forward
waves to w/(w+v). Increase the frequency of the one that makes backward
waves to w/(w-v).

When they arrive at the other side they will be out of phase. But what
happens to the speed of the waves when they arrive at the gap ? The
fast ones have to slow down and the slow ones speed up. So they will be
at different frequency inside the detector, because the frequency will
stay the same when the speed changes. The model starts to break down.

And when I imagine the water wave traveling around the annulus I start
to boggle. It seems like it's doing a lot of internal reflections and
such. Real unclear. The two sides aren't symmetric because the rotation
is faster for one side than the other and that would affect the
reflections.

It's harder to see than I'd hoped, but still it isn't completely offbase
as a model of the model. It might point to flaws. I see that I wasn't
really imagining the innards of the detector rotating with the rest of
it. That could make my thinking go wrong.

> > And we can't use the sound model because sound waves travel at the
> > same speed in air.
>
> And sound is not a transverse wave.

I doubt that matters. Light could just as easily be a compression wave,
it's just that polarization matters. You can have electric fields that
are only in the x direction and not in the y direction, but we don't
know how to get air pressure only in the x direction and not the y
direction. Since our analysis isn't deep enough to consider those
directional effects then it won't make any difference, unless of course
they actually do matter and part of the problem is that we're ignoring
them.

> > 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.
>
> SR doesn't really care what light does or how it does it, as long as
> it does it at c.

Yes, that's what I mean. Oh, I see. I was thinking of emission
theories as being theories that add the source's velocity to the light.
That's the obvious thing to do for particles, and less obvious but quite
possible for waves that don't have a medium to control their velocity.
But you're thinking of the important part of emission theories as the
idea that it's particles and not waves. I don't care about that, waves
that don't need a medium can travel at different speeds just like
particles can. Should we use a different name for the idea that light
travels at c relative to its source, which is nothte same as the idea
that light is made of particles that travel at c relative to their
source?

> > 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?
>
> That would help.

I'll look at that.

> > I suspect it would not -- after all, you are objecting to the
> > concept
>
> NO .. I'm objecting to the fact that you have not shown a model that
> has a phase difference.

I have described a model that does that, but it might be
self-contradictory in ways I haven't noticed.

From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 09:52

"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote
> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> Fine
>
> > One side travels at speed c+v.
>
> Yeup
>
> > One side travels at speed c-v.
>
> Yeup
>
> Gees .. how many weeks have we been saying that for now
>
> > 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.
>
> Fine
>
> > In that time one of them has traveled distance c+v meters.
> > The other has traveled distance c-v meters.
>
> Yeup
>
> > Constant wavelength lambda.
>
> Yeup .. measured as one always does from where the source is NOW .. no
> where it was THEN
>
> > 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
>
> Wrong
>
> > Where did I go wrong?
>
> Oh dear .. do I have to draw it for you again?
>
> D1...........S...........D2
> .............s............
>
> .D1......../'\S/'\........D2
> .............s.............
>
> ..D1..../'\./'\S/'\./'\....D2
> .............s..............
>
> ...D1/'\./'\./'\S/'\./'\./'\D2
> .............s...............
>
> See the same length wavelengths?
> See the two different distances s..D1, s..D2?
>
> D1/'\./'\./
> .........s
>
> /'\S/'\./'\./'\D2
> s...............
>
> But the rays arrive in sync at D1 and D2
> And are out of sync at s
>
> Why?
>
> Because when you count wavelengths, you go back from the current
> position of leading edge to where the source is NOW (not where it was
> in the past)
>
> That is because the source is where each new part of the cycle is
> emitted .. it is not emitted from where the source was originally (s)
>
> The trail of same-length-wavelength follows behind the leading edge of
> the ray.

?? Imagine that it's a particle which rotates. The particle is emitted
at one spot, and it travels c+v or c-v distance, rotating proportional
to distance. Then it will be out of phase. What is it you object to
about this?

Yes, we've been over the same material over and over. Repeating -- if
it's a wave and the leading edge is at zero and heading up, and the
leading edge stays at zero heading up while it travels, then wherever
the leading edges meet they will be in phase. If they take the same time
they will have to be in phase at that point. That is not the kind of
light I'm talking about.

You keep going back to the model which does not work and you keep saying
that's the only way to do it.

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
Prev: Tidal forces misconceptions...
Next: divinism.net consultation