Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles

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

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.

Sure, but it gives a model that does result in the waves moving in
concentric circles independent of frame, and so far it's largely
compatible with experimental evidence. What more would you want?
Well, it would be nice if it made sense. But apart from that....

Wake up. There is NO experimental evidence.

Oops. I didn't intend to argue about relativity.

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 apart from relativity, there's no particular reason you can't
have light waves and still have atoms that demonstrate the PE effect,
right?

There is. That's been known for a century

Some people have known that for a century, but were they right? Why
can't you have waves and still have atoms that do PE? What's the problem
with that? Though I hope that's a side issue for Sagnac and BaTH.

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.

Sure, but your model isn't better than their model until you have
something that works.

It does work. It produces the experimentally verified equation for
sagnac. Why do you think 'inertial' and Jerry are so desperate to find
a flaw in my theory? I am a threat to their whole belief system. Poor
old Jerry has backed a loser all his life. Do you think he wants to
know about it?

Anybody who can program can write a computer program that delivers some
particular result. In the worst case I could write a program that takes
the known data and known results and provide the known results when
given the known data. That "works" but it has no predictive power.
Incidentally, is your source code available? I don't know how to derive
it from a Windows .exe file.

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..

I got a lot from this statement, it seemed to say something specific
that did not match what I was already thinking. If this was what you
meant then it would explain why I had so consistently misunderstood what
you were saying.

So turns go with distance independent of time. Light can have
different"wavelengths", it can have a different number of turns per
unit distance, but it's distance that matters independent of the time
or the speed. We can stop talking about frequency. Turns, distance,
and time give everything so far. There's polarization, which people
interpret as linear in any direction perpendicular to the direction
of travel, or as circular, or as elliptical. At this point my
interpretation of their interpretation is that the axis of turning
can be any direction in 3D. When it's the direction of travel it's
circular polarization. When it's perpendicular to the direction of
travel you get linear polarization in the third direction. You'll
probably want something analogous for your turns because what they do
fits the reality on some level.

Any theory about the nature of photons has to explain polarization.
Maxwell's wave theory does that but it requires a medium. I believe a
photon carries it own little bit of 'aether' ...and that's where the
intrinsic oscillation occurs. Fields cannot simply happen in
'nothing'. As I've pointed out many times, space carrying a field must
be different from space devoid of fields. What might that difference
be?

Maxwell's description of light works fine without a medium. He made some
criteria that he says electricity and magnetism must match. They can do
lots of things but all those things will fit his general description. In
general, electromagnetism is conservative -- energy does not just pop
out of nowhere. The effects change smoothly over time and space, and
apart from special circumstances spread out with an inverse square law.
Magnetism can be created by a moving charge, and whether you think it's
electricity or magnetism depends on your relative speed. Etc.

You can "explain" polarization if you assume that a photon can turn in
any direction. Then a turn at right angles to the motion gives you
linear polarization, a turn with the axis in the direction of motion
gives you circular polarization, and anything else is elliptical. It
takes more assumptions to explain how things cancel and reinforce, but
this simple model is enough to give you the different kinds of
polarization.

I don't think it's very interesting to speculate about space devoid of
fields because you can't actually measure anything about it. Once you
try to measure something you're putting mass or energy into it and then
it has fields (or whatever it is that fields are supposed to describe).

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.

OK!

I really thought we were making progress at this point.

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.

The distance from the emitter to the detector never changes. What
changes is the distance from the emitter at time t0 to the detector
at time t1. OK.

Yes, these are the emission and detection points (in the inertial
frame) for a particular (infinitesimal) element of a ray.
You would find this is pretty simple stuff if you would bother to
calculate what the distance 'vt' is for different rotational speeds.

This is where I went wrong. It was so simple to say the number of turns
depends only on distance. But you're saying something else.

Something like, the number of turns depends only on distance in the
light's frame. But then it depends on time too.

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

Yes. t is the same either way.

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.

[sigh] I almost took you seriously saying you didn't know. Your
answer is that the number of turns is different although it takes the
same time to arrive both ways.

So, let's pretend for the moment that the light is a series of
rotating particles, and the particles themselves are in phase. One of
them leaves the emitter, then the next one, and then the one after
that. Each of them is at a different part of its rotation cycle when
it leaves, so they will each be at a different part of the cycle when
they arrive anywhere. It is like waves that roll onto the beach, the
wave crests do not stay frozen. If one particle moves at c+v and the
other at c-v, and the first goes a distance d(c+v) and the second at
a distance d(c-v), they will not be in phase at the end because one
of them has rotated 2dv times farther than the other. Even though
they start out at the same place in their rotation they don't end up
that way because they are rotating at different speeds, proportional
to their speed and proportional to the distance they cover.

OK, I can see it that way.

The detector doesn't care much about the element itself. It is
receiving'waves' while the element is in transit from E to D.
The number of waves counted is:pathlength/wavelength.

Oh. If all the individual elements cancel at one spot then the whole
wave cancels at that spot and the interference works. For elements to
cancel they need to cancel at the same time, otherwise everything
cancels everywhere. Since the light that arrives at one time is the
light that left at one time, you get your interference if that light is
out of phase at that time.

I don't think you need to count waves.

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.

If the frequency is constant then it goes one way. If the wavelength
is constant it goes differently.

As I said, it it not the frequency of the particular element that
matters. It is the number of waves counted while the element is in
transit.

Is it the number of waves you count, or is it the turns the element
makes? I thought I was getting to an understanding of what you were
saying, but now it looks like I was mistaken.

How do we choose between those? Well, I have assumed that the
particles are in phase when they leave the emitter. The two that
leave in two opposite directions and at different speeds are at the
same angle in their rotation. If one of them rotates slower than the
other and travels slower, then when the time comes to send the second
particles the slow ones will be closer together. So if you look at
the distance between the waves, it will be closer for the slow side!
Even though we said"wavelength" was the same! On the slow side the
particles are moving slower and rotating slower so they each rotate
once in the same distance, but the apparent wavelength will be
shorter!

No it wont. It is an absolute distance. You are using the wrong model.

I hate it when that happens. Now I'm back to not understanding what you
mean at all.

So number of turns is something distinct from traditional wavelength.
You have to give it a new name or people will confuse it with
wavelength and they will misunderstand.

There has never been a proper definition of eitIher 'wavelength' OR
'frequency' in the case of light. Wave theories appeared to explain
diffraction and quit a few other properties of light but quantum
mechanics put an end to all that. In reality nobody knows a bloody
thing about the nature of a photon or about light in transit. Physics
is very much in its infancy.... and Einstein hasn't helped one iota.

Make something that looks like it might work and run with it. You talk
like you've done that, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding out how
your model works.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... But you could use that eccentricity to tell who was moving. ... waves, isn't it? ... photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its intrinsic ... what the distance 'vt' is for different rotational 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: Wavelength and Doppler (was Re: Basic Acoustic Derivation/Proof Needed)
    ... >>that I posted refer to the velocities rather than to the scalar speeds. ... > wavelength" if you'll bear with me to the end before responding. ... It's not unique to waves. ... then the physical distance between two ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Wavelength and Doppler (was Re: Basic Acoustic Derivation/Proof Needed)
    ... > that I posted refer to the velocities rather than to the scalar speeds. ... wavelength" if you'll bear with me to the end before responding. ... It's not unique to waves. ... then the physical distance between two ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Questions (Space)
    ... and visualize something moving exactly that speed. ... With other things, I look at either more time, or more distance (or more ... driving speeds. ... Zero point sounds like a cool term for in a sci-fi ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
Quantcast