Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:29:36 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't understand.

Well, maybe I do. You set it up that way so that it would give the
answer you wanted. A strategy worthy of Einstein!

You are emulating inertial in trying to explain the behavior of
light> by using classical wave thepory....when it has been shown
conclusively> that light is not like that.

What should be used instead?

That's the big question. One that says 'wavelength' is absolute and
invariant. All you need to do is define what determies this thing we
are calling wavelength.

I was excited about this at first. Traditionally people thought of
frequency and wavelength and wavespeed in terms of concentric circles
from a stationary source. Just like sound.

A moving source would give you a compression, you'd get eccentric
circles instead.

But you could use that eccentricity to tell who was moving. If there
aren't preferred frames then everybody ought to calculate those things
as concentric circles. And that's one of the things SR gives you.

It doesn't. It simply says it does by postulate.

I found it exciting that emission theories give you that same result
without having to fudge the lengths or times, or, well, anything.

But you and Androcles both steadfastly maintain that the concentric
circles are just some sort of useless illusion, and the reality is
something unrelated. At precisely the time that you'd think the light
was coming from straight overhead from a star that's moving sideways,
you have to instead point your telescope off at an angle. So now I'm not
sure what to think.

That's called aberration. First Stellar aberration and now mental aberration.
(that's a joke)

I'm willing to throw away all the classical
wave stuff if you have something else that works.

It was thrown away when the PE effect was discovered....... ironically
by Einstein himself.

I don't see that. The PE effect is perfectly compatible with light as
waves, isn't it?

NONONONONONONONONO!

That's the problem.

Relativity is incompatible with quantium theory yet idiots like inetial and
demented dougie still try to defend the nonsense.

But what is it? It
looks to me like you're using stationary waves.

Go back to the rope model. No matter how fast the rope is moved around
the cylinder and the same number of twists exists between any two
points on the cylinder. The two directions of the rope represent the
numbers of wavelengths in each path.
A photon emitted at one point and moving inside the hollow torus moves
much much faster than the rope and experiences virtually the same
number of cycles as there are twists.
The distance between the two points varies with rope (ring gyro)
rotational speed.

This is now a pretty clear model.

It isn't at all clear to me, but I'm working on it.

Let's forget about oscillations and frequencies. They are totally
undefined and you two certainly haven't a clue as to what they
might> imply. Let's just accept the BaTh 'wavelength' explanation. It
works.> The path lengths are different therefore each path contains a
different number of wavelengths and the rays are out of phase when
they reunite. End of story.

If we throw out classical interpretations of wave, frequency, and
wavelength, what do you replace them with? I'm still real unclear on
the details here. It might work for you to throw out all the old
concepts and replace them with new concepts where things work out
right, but I need the concepts.

Well work on it....I am.

It seems to me that you don't have an alternative model, you have a
proposal for an alternative model.

Well I have the basis of a model. I don't spend all day thinking about it. I
don't care how many more UNI students are brainwashed by the physics
establishment. The truth will eventually come out.

That's OK, but when you use the words people use for the traditional
model people get confused and apply the concepts they have attached to
those words and they wind up saying you're crazy, confused, lying, etc.
It might be good to come up with entirely new words.

I don't take any notice of what those morons say. it only makes me feel more
superior.

Gregory Bateson claimed that he did well to start out with short
anglo-saxon words when he was starting out and a bit vague about his
concepts, and then he'd replace them with long latin-greek words after
it was all firmed up.

So I want to suggest that you talk about maybe "turns". A given kind of
light does x turns per meter, and by stating it that way we tend to
imply that color depends on terms/meter and not turns/second. Lightspeed
can vary with the source, and turns/second varies then but turns/meter
does not. Am I right so far about what you're saying?

You're getting close.
My definition of wavelength is something like "In the source frame, a photon
moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its intrinsic oscillation (whatever
that may be)". That distance is an absolute and invariant spatial
interval....just like the distance between the ends of a rigid rod..


that's the other demo. THe stationary wave is put there purely so
you> can see the phase difference.

No, this one too. You drew waves that get extended around a circle.
At any one spot the wave never changes after it gets drawn. Those
waves are frozen once they are drawn.

OK. You have to find a model that requires the emitted light to
experience the same number of cycles per path as there are absolute
wavelengths.

So, you measure the pathlength and that gives you the number of turns.
OK.

Yep.

My theory works. It says that 'wavelength' (whatever that is) remains
constant and 'frequency' (whatever THAT is) is doppler shifted in the
nonrotating frame.

Form that, we have to speculate on models that might fit.

At constant rotation speed, the fringes do not move. During any
speed> change, they move to a new displacement.

That's true. But then your task is to explain why they get a phase
change at the very beginning.

During any CHANGE in rotational speed, a change also occurs in the
number of wavelengths in each path. They flow out of one and into the
other.

Mmmm. You change the rotational speed. The number of turns from the
emitter to the detector is unchanged.

No it isn't. The distance 'vt' changes. That's the distance between the start
and detection points in the inertial frame....according to both SR and BaTh.

You still haven't understood that mathpages diagram.

What about the time it takes to
get from the emitter to the receiver? The time is the distance divided
by the speed. So when it isn't moving the time is d/c. When it's moving
at v then the time is

t=(d+vt)/(c+v)

In the inertial frame
2piR + vt = (c+v)t .........(one ray)

Or 2piR - vt = (c-v)t......(other ray)

So t = 2piR /c

The distance goes up by the amount the detector turns, and speed goes up
by the amount the detector turns.

t-vt/(c+v) = d/(c+v)
t(c+v) -vt = d
ct = d
t = d/c

The time it takes to get to the detector is independent of v. It takes
the same time no matter how fast it spins.

That's correct. THat is easily derived if you use the rotating frame.
However it isn't as simple as it appears.

Why would the number of turns it takes to get to the detector be
different when the number of turns in that distance is constant and the
time it takes to arrive is constant?

That's the big question...and when you answer it, you'll be awarded a Nobel
prize. Don't forget to mention my name will you.

It looks to me like when we assume that the speed of the light in the
two directions is c+v and c-v and that speed stays constant at c+v and
at c-v the whole distance, we should get no interference. But when the
speed of light is the vector sum of cD+vV where V is a unit vector in
the direction of the source and v is the speed of the source, and D is
the direction that will give us a vector sum in the direction we're
interested in, then we get precisely the amount of interference we'd
expect by classical or by SR methods, the amount that is experimentally
observed.

Yes, the classical explanation is indeed very attractive...except that an
aether does not exist and there is no obvious explanation as to why the rays
should move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.


direction at the reflection. For example, have you ever played
squash?> If you put topspin on a ball, it comes back to you with
backspin on> it, after bouncing off the front wall. I have often
wondered if this> is another complication in sagnac..

Yes, that's interesting, though a side topic for Sagnac.

Well no it isn't. The point is, if the wave phase velocity changes
direction at each mirror, whilst its wave velocity continues on, the
phase shift at the end could explain the whole effect.

I'm not sure I understood that. Was it what I said? vV+cD? That change
in velocity would do it.

The wave goes backwards at a reflection but the front still moves forwards.
That can happen.


I say that the light is "in phase" in a sense when it leaves the
emitters -- they both have wave crests at the same times and wave
troughs at the same times etc. But they're in two different places
and a relativist might say that they can't be in phase if they aren't
at the same place and time.

I say that the light is "in phase" at the moment it reaches the
detectors. But it will not stay in phase for much time or distance.
After all they have different wavelengths.

Do you agree, in the case where nothing moves but the light which
starts out in phase but which travels at different speeds with no
reflection?

No it depends on the model.

?? What is it that you think would vary by model in this simple example?


I'll think about it.

Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... My definition of wavelength is something like "In the source ... distance>>between the ends> of a rigid rod.. ... just an observer effect. ... so the speeds are different. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... Stop guessing and get off the wave fetish. ... both speeds measured relative to the black background. ... wavelength, and that I can verify that by measurement and simple ... In the black frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... What has the distance have to do with it ... wavelength and speed> and frequency wrt the destination .. ... can't>> tell which frame is absolute rest, one frame is as good as ... light in different directions at different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... a> photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its ... The front of the wave is always the front ... as emitted from the moving source. ... its not the case that after emissions one wave speeds up and the other slows down. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... Stop guessing and get off the wave fetish. ... both speeds measured relative to the black background. ... wavelength, and that I can verify that by measurement and simple ... In the black frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)