Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles

"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:20090917041529.35594937.jethomas5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
> "Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> > "Inertial" <relatively@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> BTW: If henry's model (whatever it is) predicts phase shift in
>> >Sagnac,> then it should predict phase shift here:
>> >>
>> >> Source (X) and two detectors (D1, D2), equidistant form the
>source,> >> with two rays, with wavelength indicated by the < >. So
>over time> >we> have:
>> >>
>> >> D1-----------X-----------D2
>> >>
>> >> D1-------<---X--->-------D2
>> >>
>> >> D1---<---<---X--->--->---D2
>> >>
>> >> D<---<---<---X--->--->--->2
>> >>
>> >> The rays will surely arrive at D1 and D2 at the same time and
>same> >> speed and same frequency and in phase
>> >
>> >> Now look at it in terms of a relatively moving observer 'o' (eg
>an> >> observer moving past the device, or the observer is fixed and
>we> >put> move the device .. same thing)
>> >>
>> >> D1-----------------------D2
>> >> .............o.............
>> >>
>> >> D1-------<---X--->-------D2
>> >> ............o..............
>> >>
>> >> D1---<---<---X--->--->---D2
>> >> ...........o...............
>> >>
>> >> D<---<---<---X--->--->--->2
>> >> ..........o................
>> >>
>> >> Look at this from the observer 'o' point of view
>> >>
>> >> D1-----------------------D2
>> >> .............o.............
>> >>
>> >> .D1-------<---X--->-------D2
>> >> .............o..............
>> >>
>> >> ..D1---<---<---X--->--->---D2
>> >> .............o...............
>> >>
>> >> ...D1<---<---<---X--->--->--->D2
>> >> ..............o.................
>> >>
>> >> In the observers frame, the two rays are travelling different
>> >speeds> for different path length but over the same time. The
>> >frequency of> the rays is different according to the observer.
>The> >number of> wavelengths in each path from 'o' to the detectors
>is> >different.

He sees the speed as different. He sees the frequency as different.

Yeup

Because of the different speeds he sees the wavelength the same.

Wavelengths are the same for everyone for a wave (we're treating this non-relativisticly, of course).

He sees
the number of waves from X to D1 and X to D2 the same as always.

Just like in Sagnac .. it you take the path from where the source is at the time the rays meet the detector (ie at the same place). Same number of wavelength from current source location to current detector location. Henry yells 'frame jumping' when you point that out, of course, even though you're looking at everything from the one frame (a rotating one)

That's what he ought to see. Everybody sees the distance from o to the
detectors as different.

That's right

>> > But the number of turns from the source X to the detectors is the
>> > same.
>>
>> Just like in Sagnac.
>>
>> But the number of turns fomr o (like the fixed point in the
>> non-rotating frame in sagnac) is not the same

Yes.

Do you see here now how that doesn't really matter in a ballistic analysis?

>> >> So according to Henry's model, there should be a phase
>difference> >at> the detectors.
>> >
>> > I think he would say that the light heading toward D1 slows down
>and> > the light heading toward D2 speeds up, just exactly the amount
>> > needed so they reach D1 and D2 at the same time.
>> >
>> > Same time, same number of turns. No phase difference.
>>
>> Just like in Sagnac
>>
>> >> But this is exactly the same set up as at the start, where there
>is> >no> phase difference, just seen from someone moving past it.
>Either> >there> is a phase difference at the detectors, or there is
>not.> >
>> > There is not.
>>
>> Just like in Sagnac
>>
>> > But this is just like the Sagnac experiment, except it's cut open
>at> > the detector and unwrapped.
>>
>> EXACTLY !!!
>>
>> > How can we get a phase shift one time and not the other?
>>
>> EXACTLY !!!
>>
>> > Wilson claims
>> > that in the Sagnac case we have an unambiguous velocity
>>
>> No .. we don't .. its observer dependant like every velocity
>
> No, if you switch to the rotating apparatus frame that isn't an
> inertial frame.

I didn't just limit it to those two observer frames.

All velocities are relative.

> You can tell whether you're rotating or not.

That's because rotation is an acceleration. Acceleration isn't
relative.

yes, exactly.

> The Sagnac apparatus
> can tell that.

Yes.

> If you can tell whether or not you're rotating, then you
> can do everything in the nonrotating frame.

Yes you can. Bt different inertial observer will see different
velocities.

The different velocities will tend to cancel out as they go around the
circle, from the different inertial observers' points of view.

Except, no, they won't. This model calls for the light in different
directions to have a constant velocity of c+v or c-v. As it goes around
the circle it won't change velocity. An observer who is also traveling
at v would see the c+v light go at c, later it would speed up to c+2v
and go back to c.
-000000000000000000000000000000000000000l;;;;;;;;;;;;47

Yeup .. its all relative.

[snip a bit for brevity]

To repeat, whatever reasons Henry comes up with for the interference
.. you need to check that they DO result in interference in the
circular case , but do NOT in the linear case I have above.

That above is your check condition, to make sure Henry's
explanation(s) are sensible. That's why I've posted it. It gives you
a simple 'hang on , lets see if that makes sense' test. If what he
says results in a phase difference in both the circular AND linear
case, it is wrong (because we know there would be no phase difference
in the linear case).

Yes, that's definitely one of the things that needs to be tested. Thank
you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... I was thinking that after an observer changes velocity relative to ... When you change your assumption about the frame in which lightpseed ... velocity "u" from this third frame. ... time labels and nominal distance labels to distant events ... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anyone ever read this Einstein physics book?
    ... >>> term that is valid only if ONE absolute aether frame exists. ... >>> space at that same speed until interaction with another observer frame ... >>How can you get slow AND fast photons to tend toward a single speed? ... >>They will roll at a constant velocity (what ever velocity you start them ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins lopsided caricature of space and time
    ... >> no different for Special Relativity or for Galilean Relativity. ... >> If all measurements take place in a single frame, ... Observer A sees observer B having velocity u w.r.t. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... In the observers frame, the two rays are travelling different ... frequency of> the rays is different according to the observer. ... Just like in Sagnac. ... that in the Sagnac case we have an unambiguous velocity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Light speed in emission theory
    ... moves in a stationary frame with speed v<c. ... A motorcyclist careens along a road with velocity v which is also speed v ... Check with Doppler radar for verification. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)