Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles

"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:20090915224823.1aaa5828.jethomas5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

> OK, this might not apply to your model, but I have pictures that
> show what the problem is if it does apply.
>
> http://yfrog.com/0xwavecg
> http://yfrog.com/10wavedg
>
>> >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..
>
> So, with the model that Inertial and I were using, the photon moves
> forward but doesn't turn. The front of the wave is always the front
> of the wave, and it is in phase with any other front-of-waves it
> happens to meet up with. For it to get out of phase it has to match
> up with something that is not the front of a wave.

Yeup

> But with your model, the front of the wave changes phase as it
> travels. it isn't enough for it to meet another front-of-wave, they
> have to have both traveled the same distance.

That's what I've been saying .. something must be happening in Henry's
model to make the phase of the two waves change different over the
course of transit, even though they travel for the same time, and are
emitted from the source with the same speed and and frequency .. its
the same ray been split in two.

Well, in his model they don't have the same speed.

Yes they do, as emitted from the moving source. its only according to a some differently moving observer that the speeds are different


They are in phase
when they are emitted,

Yes

but their frequency after they are emitted
doesn't have to be the same

Nothing changes it

and isn't when the speed is different.

It's all an artefact of who is measuring it .. there is no change in the wave itself. its not the case that after emissions one wave speeds up and the other slows down. It's just a different measurement due to the movement of the observer relative to the source (and the rays). There is no change to the rays making their frequency or wavelength different (depending on whether the ray is a wave or a moving oscillator), its just how they are measured by a relatively moving observer.

He
has the "wavelength", the distance it takes for the leading edge to do a
complete turn, be constant independent of speed.

Which is not physically possible. The speed is different depending on the relative speed of whoever observes it. But the number of turns taken isn't ... all inertial observers see the same number of turns happening in the same time (we are talking about a non-relativistic framework here), but a different speed, so a different wavelength.

Henry's notion is just totally unphysical.

So if frequency has
meaning for him it would absorb all the speed change.

I think of wavelength as the distance between wave crests, and that
needn't have anything to do with the distance it takes for the leading
edge to turn.

What wave crests are there? Its a turning object. If you mean the distance it travels to make one turn, then that depends on the speed.

Wilson has said that in his model the photon has a
definite length, and he appears to picture it like a coil of wire that
turns a definite number of times, it is incompressible and the length is
completely stable.

So what is its wavelength and what is its frequency and what is its phase. These all need to be defined or we can't talk about what happens in Sagnac at the detector.

But if there was value in a model where the photon
can be stretched or compressed independent of the fixed distance it
takes for the leading edge to turn, that model is available.

Of course, when phase changes at the leading edge like that, what you
have is a moving intrinsic oscillator, and so wavelength varies and
frequency is fixed, and you still end up with them in phase.

He's doing something that does not fit your model. I don't know whether
it works, but it isn't what you say.

Then what is it? Is it a wave, is it a moving oscillator (eg a spinning object) ?

> I found that concept alien enough that I simply did not understand
> what you were saying.
> It just did not register. Now the question is whether
> that approach can fit together with the other things we think we
> know, and what has to be changed to fit your model.
>
> I would like it better if we had a model for travel that did not fit
> either of my two pictures. In the one case the leading edge does not
> turn and the Sagnac experiment does not get out of phase. In the
> other case the leading edge turns but another particle following in
> the footsteps of the first, or later wraps of the same photon, would
> give a stationary charge at each spot they traversed until they were
> gone.
>
> There ought to be a third way.

Or Henry is simply wrong. That's been the concensus for the last few
years.

He might easily be wrong. But physics has not advanced by depending on
the consensus of people who don't understand what they're deciding
about.

Indeed it doesn't .. but Henry has never presented a consistent non-contradictory model. And his ballistic analysis of Sagnac is just plain wrong. Those are facts, not opinions.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... source charge or its field. ... depending on whether the charge is at rest and the sensor moving, ... An oscillation can occur in a void, whereas a wave requires ... But those two speeds cannot be equal ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: That Minkowski time intervals cannot be current in both frames.
    ... When you look at something I call a wave, what rule do you use to ... Yes, but your wave is moving in space and time both, and you ... With a cleaner theory that works, you could get a new physics ... where v and u are speeds relative to the AIR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... are calling wavelength. ... wave stuff if you have something else that works. ... The distance between the two points varies with rope ... starts out in phase but which travels at different speeds with no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... for the target moving away or towards the source. ... the distance between source and target will ... source through the beam splitter of the interferometer to the ... actually I can also use a sound wave or water wave ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... wave stuff if you have something else that works. ... The distance between the two points varies with rope ... The distance goes up by the amount the detector turns, ... starts out in phase but which travels at different speeds with no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading