The Emission Theory of Androcles
J Thomas
understanding about it here. Androcles might correct me and say where
I've misunderstood.
Emission theory (ET) is an alternative to relativity theory. To even
understand it you must throw away SR completely. I have found that
after 102 years of people believing in relativity the assumptions just
come so naturally to me that I keep slipping back into them. So be
careful. You can't even truly understand the ideas while you're stuck
in relativity. Is it worth the trouble to switch things around in your
head so completely? It's fun for me even if it turns out to be
completely wrong. I like to try out very strange ideas and see where
they lead. I like to do that with relativity and I like it with
emission theory too. YMMV.
THE THEORY
Here's the fundamental idea: Light waves and other EM travel in all
directions at a constant speed c relative to their sources. If an EM
source is traveling at velocity V with speed v then the speed of the
light in direction V is c+v and the speed in direction -V is c-v. The
speed in any direction orthogonal to V is sqrt(c^2-v^2).
LIghtspeed c is still a fundamental concept but it doesn't mean what
it means in SR. It is nothing like an absolute limit to speed. It's
just the speed that EM fields and radiation propagate, relative to
their sources.
No length contraction. No time dilation. No twin paradox. Nothing like
that. Gravitation might still turn out to distort space something like
GR says, we haven't gotten to that part yet.
Androcles also says that light is particles and not waves. If you
believe that light is particles and not waves that makes it easier to
imagine emission theory -- it's easy to imagine particles streaming
out in all directions at the same speed, and of course they retain
their source's velocity with their own velocities added in. Besides
that prop to imagination I have seen nothing yet that's different if
light is a particle versus a wave or something else, so I won't pay
much attention to that part. But keep it in mind, it might come up
again.
OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY
There are various approaches available to attack the theory.
1. Show that it is incompatible with Maxwell's Equations (ME).
Maxwell's equations fit the behavior of electromagnetic influence on
charges, at least on average. If it gives a different result then it
is wrong. But ME as originally presented doesn't deal well with
velocities. Could ME be rewritten to give velocity of fields relative
to the source? I don't right off see why not. There was a time when
emission theory was taken seriously, and this criticism was not
considered damning. Most likely, ME can be made compatible.
2. Show that it is incompatible with experimental evidence.
This might be possible, I haven't heard of any examples.
3. Show that it is incompatible with astronomical evidence.
This has been claimed in various ways.
A. The first claim, as I understand it, is as follows:
Imagine a star that is traveling precisely orthogonal to you, at some
big distance. The star will occupy some small fraction of a second of
arc in your sky. Light that reaches you from its leading edge will
travel very slightly slower than c. Light from the trailing edge will
be very slightly faster than c. And over the lightyears that
difference in velocity will add up, until when it gets to you, one of
them will arrive visibly sooner. This should result in a blueshift for
one and a redshift for the other.
And that would be in effect to some extent for any star that is moving
in any direction other than straight toward you or straight away. A
difference in speed will keep adding up the longer the journey, and
very small differences would eventually become detectable.
I haven't yet calculated how fast a star would have to move before
this effect shows up while it is still close enough to detect a
redshift across its disk. If that is actually detectable we would need
to look at the corrections astronomers make to their optics. They
might interpret such things as a defect in their telescopes and look
for ways to correct it.
I note that Androcles says ET doesn't make this prediction anyway.
B. You might measure that effect easier while a star is being
eclipsed. Easier to measure redshift in the light from one side while
the light from the other side is blocked. best would be to find a
distant star that is about to be eclipsed by two different entities
from two different directions. Anyway, this is more negative evidence
-- it did not get observed by the equipment available in those days,
and perhaps if it was attempted the stars involved did not have much
orthogonal velocity in the desired direction. (If Androcles thinks you
wouldn't get this rainbow effect then he would predict that this
method would fail.)
C. Double stars edge-on. Sometimes one of them is traveling in your
direction, other times it travels away. c+v, c-v.
Let's take a completely unrealistic example to demonstrate the
problem. Instead of an ellipse, we'll have the star travel in a
square. For one year it travels orthogonal to you x-ward at 0.1c. Then
for one year it travels away from you at 0.1c. Then another year
orthogonal at -xward, and the fourth year toward you. It is 10 light-
years away. Don't sweat the details, that if it spends a year
traveling orthogonal to you it has to be on a curve, and the outer
curve is longer than the inner curve, and all that. This is just a
rough sketch. What we get is roughly:
1 year sideways, light reaches you roughly in 10 years.
1 year away, light travels at 0.9c, reaches you in about 11 years.
1 years sidewys, light reaches you roughly in 10 years.
1 year forward, light reaches you in about 9 years.
Sometimes you see two stars, sometimes you see none. Because light
that travels faster will eventually overtake light that travels
slower.
DeSitter looked for something like that and didn't see it. More
negative evidence, but this was taken as definitive. There are obvious
problems with his methodology. First he looked at a collection of
things he recognised as double stars, that had some defined
properties. Then he noted that none of them did this weird stuff. it's
possible that things which did what he was looking for would not have
been classified as double stars for him to look at in the first place.
To deal with this we would need to look carefully at what ET actually
predicts, and then notice whether something like that has been
observed anywhere.
POSSIBLE NEW OBJECTIONS
Negative astronomical evidence is not really good, anyway. Better
would be to come up with something that ET claims could never happen,
and then find examples where it does happen. I don't have any examples
to try for yet.
Also, we could look at the implications of ET on ME. The implications
of SR on ME are that you apply ME on 4-potentials over a minkowski
space. There are potential problems doing differential equations on
something that isn't a division ring but physicists seem to avoid
those problems or fudge them or something. If ET were to give special
testable results, we'd have something to test.
POSSIBLE VINDICATION
If ET were to be real, how could we tell? The same way it might be
disproved. Find things it predicts that are different from SR+GR, and
then see who's right. If you find differences that actually matter in
the short run then maybe the Navy would finance testing, they're
sometimes willing to bet on long shots based on how much they'd win if
it paid off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
I read that these guys got USN researchers to test their claims, and
also got Navy research grants though I don't see the claim for the
latter now. If they can do it, you can do it.
Androcles
"J Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d92e4e0-f792-434b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>I may have misunderstood what Androcles is saying, so I will post my
> understanding about it here. Androcles might correct me and say where
> I've misunderstood.
>
> Emission theory (ET) is an alternative to relativity theory. To even
> understand it you must throw away SR completely. I have found that
> after 102 years of people believing in relativity the assumptions just
> come so naturally to me that I keep slipping back into them. So be
> careful. You can't even truly understand the ideas while you're stuck
> in relativity. Is it worth the trouble to switch things around in your
> head so completely? It's fun for me even if it turns out to be
> completely wrong. I like to try out very strange ideas and see where
> they lead. I like to do that with relativity and I like it with
> emission theory too. YMMV.
>
> THE THEORY
>
> directions at a constant speed c relative to their sources (*2). If an EM
> source is traveling at velocity V with speed v then the speed of the
> light in direction V is c+v and the speed in direction -V is c-v. The
> speed in any direction orthogonal to V is sqrt(c^2-v^2).
>
> LIghtspeed c is still a fundamental concept but it doesn't mean what
> it means in SR. It is nothing like an absolute limit to speed. It's
> just the speed that EM fields and radiation propagate, relative to
> their sources.
>
> No length contraction. No time dilation. No twin paradox. Nothing like
> that. Gravitation might still turn out to distort space something like
> GR says, we haven't gotten to that part yet.
>
> believe that light is particles and not waves that makes it easier to
> imagine emission theory -- it's easy to imagine particles streaming
> out in all directions at the same speed, and of course they retain
> their source's velocity with their own velocities added in. Besides
> that prop to imagination I have seen nothing yet that's different if
> light is a particle versus a wave or something else, so I won't pay
> much attention to that part. But keep it in mind, it might come up
>
> OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY
>
> There are various approaches available to attack the theory.
>
> 1. Show that it is incompatible with Maxwell's Equations (ME).
>
> Maxwell's equations fit the behavior of electromagnetic influence on
> charges, at least on average. If it gives a different result then it
> is wrong. But ME as originally presented doesn't deal well with
> velocities. Could ME be rewritten to give velocity of fields relative
> to the source? I don't right off see why not. There was a time when
> emission theory was taken seriously, and this criticism was not
> considered damning. Most likely, ME can be made compatible. (*5)
>
> 2. Show that it is incompatible with experimental evidence.
>
> This might be possible, I haven't heard of any examples.
>
> 3. Show that it is incompatible with astronomical evidence.
>
> This has been claimed in various ways.
>
> A. The first claim, as I understand it, is as follows:
>
> Imagine a star that is traveling precisely orthogonal to you, at some
> big distance. The star will occupy some small fraction of a second of
> arc in your sky. Light that reaches you from its leading edge will
> travel very slightly slower than c. Light from the trailing edge will
> be very slightly faster than c. And over the lightyears that
> difference in velocity will add up, until when it gets to you, one of
> them will arrive visibly sooner. This should result in a blueshift for
> one and a redshift for the other (*6).
>
> And that would be in effect to some extent for any star that is moving
> in any direction other than straight toward you or straight away. A
> difference in speed will keep adding up the longer the journey, and
> very small differences would eventually become detectable (*7).
>
> I haven't yet calculated how fast a star would have to move before
> this effect shows up while it is still close enough to detect a
> redshift across its disk. If that is actually detectable we would need
> to look at the corrections astronomers make to their optics. They
> might interpret such things as a defect in their telescopes and look
> for ways to correct it.
>
> I note that Androcles says ET doesn't make this prediction anyway. (*8)
>
> B. You might measure that effect easier while a star is being
> eclipsed. Easier to measure redshift in the light from one side while
> the light from the other side is blocked. best would be to find a
> distant star that is about to be eclipsed by two different entities
> from two different directions. Anyway, this is more negative evidence
> -- it did not get observed by the equipment available in those days,
> and perhaps if it was attempted the stars involved did not have much
> orthogonal velocity in the desired direction. (If Androcles thinks you
> wouldn't get this rainbow effect then he would predict that this
> method would fail.)
>
> C. Double stars edge-on. Sometimes one of them is traveling in your
> direction, other times it travels away. c+v, c-v.
>
> Let's take a completely unrealistic example to demonstrate the
> problem (*9).
> Instead of an ellipse, we'll have the star travel in a
> square. For one year it travels orthogonal to you x-ward at 0.1c. Then
> for one year it travels away from you at 0.1c. Then another year
> orthogonal at -xward, and the fourth year toward you. It is 10 light-
> years away. Don't sweat the details, that if it spends a year
> traveling orthogonal to you it has to be on a curve, and the outer
> curve is longer than the inner curve, and all that. This is just a
> rough sketch. What we get is roughly:
>
> 1 year sideways, light reaches you roughly in 10 years.
> 1 year away, light travels at 0.9c, reaches you in about 11 years.
> 1 years sidewys, light reaches you roughly in 10 years.
> 1 year forward, light reaches you in about 9 years.
>
> Sometimes you see two stars, sometimes you see none. Because light
> that travels faster will eventually overtake light that travels
> slower.
>
> DeSitter looked for something like that and didn't see it. More
> negative evidence, but this was taken as definitive. There are obvious
> problems with his methodology. First he looked at a collection of
> things he recognised as double stars, that had some defined
> properties. Then he noted that none of them did this weird stuff. it's
> possible that things which did what he was looking for would not have
> been classified as double stars for him to look at in the first place.
> To deal with this we would need to look carefully at what ET actually
> predicts, and then notice whether something like that has been
> observed anywhere. (*10)
>
> POSSIBLE NEW OBJECTIONS
>
> Negative astronomical evidence is not really good, anyway. Better
> would be to come up with something that ET claims could never happen,
> and then find examples where it does happen. I don't have any examples
> to try for yet.
>
> Also, we could look at the implications of ET on ME. The implications
> of SR on ME are that you apply ME on 4-potentials over a minkowski
> space. There are potential problems doing differential equations on
> something that isn't a division ring but physicists seem to avoid
> those problems or fudge them or something. If ET were to give special
> testable results, we'd have something to test.
>
> POSSIBLE VINDICATION
>
> If ET were to be real, how could we tell? (*11)
> The same way it might be
> disproved. Find things it predicts that are different from SR+GR, and
> then see who's right (*12).
> If you find differences that actually matter in
> the short run then maybe the Navy would finance testing, they're
> sometimes willing to bet on long shots based on how much they'd win if
> it paid off.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
> I read that these guys got USN researchers to test their claims, and
> also got Navy research grants though I don't see the claim for the
> latter now. If they can do it, you can do it. *13)
==================================================
*1) No light waves. Emission theory is about photons. A photon is one
cycle of what you call a wave. All those ions, atoms and molecules
in the Sun eject two pulses of energy in equal and opposite directions,
only one of which is coming your way. For every photon there is an
equal and opposite rephoton. (Newton's law.) Photons are the result
of wave superposition.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
No single charge will produce a photon pair, it takes a proton AND
an electron, or multiples thereof.
Think of photons as raindrops and radio waves as tsunamis.
To get a directional train of photons from radio waves, look at
phased array radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array
Optical light is a stream of photons, like spinning raindrops. Radio
is a wave, like a tsunami. Just as tsunamis and raindrops are both
water, so radio waves and photons are both electromagnetic radiation.
Optical light is soft photons, x-rays and gamma rays are hard photons.
Optical light bounces off surfaces like a rubber ball, x-rays penetrate
like bullets.
==================================================
*2) False. X-rays travel at a speed greater than c. Infrared travels at
a speed less than c. Both are APPROXIMATELY c.
Evidence to support this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
Three images of the same object, and the object is rotated in each light.
Crudely estimate the galaxy is 21 million light years away, as stated.
Crudely estimate it takes 100,000 years to completely rotate once.
Crudely estimate the three images are displaced by 36 degrees.
Then the images are displaced in TIME by 10,000 years.
Id est the infrared light left 10,000 years before the optical light
and the ultraviolet light left 10,000 years after the optical light.
All three arrived here simultaneously after travelling for 20,090,000
years, 21,000,000 years and 21,010,000 years respectively.
The speed of IR light is 2009/2100 * 100 = 95% of the speed
of optical light, as a very ROUGH calculation. UV is 105% of c.
Or you can talk about "shockwaves" in space.
==================================================
*3) My lion, Newton, said that light is particles (corpuscles) and
not waves. I get no credit for following in his footsteps.
Einstein said light is particles (photons) and not waves, he got a
Nobel Prize for the photo-electric effect.
I get no credit for following in his footsteps either, but I'm not crawling
beneath the ankles of an insane pygmy when I can stand on the shoulders
of a giant who stood on the shoulders of giants. I see further than any
man before me, as Newton did.
==================================================
*4) The "waves" that you see in your mind are inert, stationary.
They are mathematical constructions of what once was, not what is now.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it -- Omar Khayyam
==================================================
*5) Doubtless Jimmy Maxwell would be pleased not to have his equations
tampered with by Einstein. Certainly Faraday, Gauss and Ampere would.
Maxwell believed in an undulatory model of light waving in an aether,
and died before Michelson showed there was no aether. This would
have delighted Faraday, who understood the nature of the electric
and magnetic fields. The aether doesn't wave, but the electric and
magnetic fields do. They play leapfrog, each jumping over the other
as they travel together through empty space; each causing the other
to exist as it dies. Energy is conserved, always. Sometimes as the
magnetic field, sometimes as the electric field, sometimes as a combination.
sin^2 + cos^2 = 1.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
No compressible luminiferous aether needed.
Emission fact is compatible with Gauss's and Faraday's equations.
It is not compatible with Ampere or aether.
Ref: http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
"So the only information about electromagnetism contained in the apparently
sophisticated equations (9) and (10) is about the two constants in
electromagnetism: the fixed velocity c, and that E, H at every point are in
fixed proportion Z0. The remaining content of Maxwell's Equations is
hogwash."
==================================================
*6) http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Doolin's star was created for Jonathan Doolin. It has a perfectly circular
orbit. Note that the time of arrival varies whereas the time of emission
does not. Further note that Hulse and Taylor were awarded a Nobel
prize for blaming this phenomenon on GR using a binary pulsar.
If the speed of light is constant as claimed the rays must be parallel
in the velocity/time graph. Therefore the "time" at the emitter must be
varying. Jonathan Doolin has since run away in perplexity, and now
the unfortunate Jonah Thomas must reason with me in his place.
==================================================
*7) The brilliance (luminosity) will vary detectably. However, Jonah
Thomas refuses to see the mathematics of this, he will not accept a .xls
file.
We are left with cepheids, recurrent nova, so-called "eclipsing" binaries
and flare stars which all have different mechanisms and no application
of William of Ockham's lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of
economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond
necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."
(I don't really know Latin that well, I cribbed it from wackypedia.)
==================================================
*8) Emission "predicts" some stars will vary in brightness. Those that
do are well-known and have alternative but collectively different
explanations.
delta-Cepheus
Algol
V 1493 Aql
==================================================
*9) Absolutely not. Let's take a very real example, Algol, the first double
star ever discovered. Produce the velocity curve! You should find
many examples of it by many amateur astronomers, you have the entire
internet at your disposal.
==================================================
*10) Algol has a period of 70 hours (3 days). 10 of those are in eclipse.
Or maybe, just maybe, Algol has a planet instead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
The planet is called "Androcles", I discovered it in 1993 and named it
after me.
The planet which orbits delta-Cepheus is called "Cassandra", who spoke
truth but was not believed. I discovered that too. Then I stopped
discovering planets until my daughter died.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wendy/Wendy.htm
You can have all the rest, apart from those Wilson has claimed. Wilson
recognises my discoveries and I acknowledge his. After all, I did teach
him, even if he won't admit it.
==================================================
*11) MMX. Sagnac. Algol. delta-Cepheus. V 1493 Aql. Ockham's Razor.
==================================================
*12) SR+GR doesn't predict items in *11) above. No contest.
==================================================
*13) Build a communicator for interplanetary signals. With the Mars mission
planned, talking will be at least desirable. Begin by spinning a mirror.
I'll
be dead by then, so it's up to you.
Inertial
news:3kYmm.19809$cO2....@newsfe03.ams2...
That is experimwentally not the case. A photon is not related at all to
wave cycles, other than the energy of a photon is directly proprotional to
the frequency. The number of photons 9and so their arrival rate) depends on
intensity of light, not frequency or wavelength
> ==================================================
> *2) False. X-rays travel at a speed greater than c. Infrared travels at
> a speed less than c. Both are APPROXIMATELY c.
> Evidence to support this:
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
Nice pic .. fascinating .. but not *necessarily* evidence of different light
speeds, though if light DID travel at different speeds, that would support
it.
Surely the scientists can look at a broader spectrum of EM and see if those
'phantom' arms rotate further at different frequencies.
Though it appears that the images are explained without that ( eg
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106514 )
> Three images of the same object, and the object is rotated in each light.
> Crudely estimate the galaxy is 21 million light years away, as stated.
> Crudely estimate it takes 100,000 years to completely rotate once.
> Crudely estimate the three images are displaced by 36 degrees.
> Then the images are displaced in TIME by 10,000 years.
> Id est the infrared light left 10,000 years before the optical light
> and the ultraviolet light left 10,000 years after the optical light.
> All three arrived here simultaneously after travelling for 20,090,000
> years, 21,000,000 years and 21,010,000 years respectively.
> The speed of IR light is 2009/2100 * 100 = 95% of the speed
> of optical light, as a very ROUGH calculation. UV is 105% of c.
> Or you can talk about "shockwaves" in space.
We'd be able to detect such difference, yet never have experimentally.
> ==================================================
> *3) My lion, Newton, said that light is particles (corpuscles) and
> not waves.
> I get no credit for following in his footsteps.
> Einstein said light is particles (photons) and not waves, he got a
> Nobel Prize for the photo-electric effect.
> I get no credit for following in his footsteps either, but I'm not
> crawling
> beneath the ankles of an insane pygmy when I can stand on the shoulders
> of a giant who stood on the shoulders of giants. I see further than any
> man before me, as Newton did.
And current physics agrees also that photons are particles. But light is a
weird dual-nature beast. This is what QM has found.
Whether of not light is particles or waves or something else has no effect
on SR
> ==================================================
> *4) The "waves" that you see in your mind are inert, stationary.
> They are mathematical constructions of what once was, not what is now.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
> The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
> Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
> Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
> Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it -- Omar Khayyam
> ==================================================
> *5) Doubtless Jimmy Maxwell would be pleased not to have his equations
> tampered with by Einstein. Certainly Faraday, Gauss and Ampere would.
> Maxwell believed in an undulatory model of light waving in an aether,
> and died before Michelson showed there was no aether. This would
> have delighted Faraday, who understood the nature of the electric
> and magnetic fields. The aether doesn't wave, but the electric and
> magnetic fields do.
Yeup
> They play leapfrog, each jumping over the other
> as they travel together through empty space; each causing the other
> to exist as it dies. Energy is conserved, always. Sometimes as the
> magnetic field, sometimes as the electric field, sometimes as a
> combination.
> sin^2 + cos^2 = 1.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
> No compressible luminiferous aether needed.
Yeup .. Sr doesn't require one
[snip stuff I don't know enough about to comment on yet]
> *12) SR+GR doesn't predict items in *11) above. No contest.
No .. SR and GR do predict MMX and Sagnac. I'm not familiar with the others
you cite
Sue...
[...]
>
> OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY
>
> There are various approaches available to attack the theory.
>
> 1. Show that it is incompatible with Maxwell's Equations (ME).
>
> Maxwell's equations fit the behavior of electromagnetic influence on
> charges, at least on average. If it gives a different result then it
> is wrong. But ME as originally presented doesn't deal well with
> velocities. Could ME be rewritten to give velocity of fields relative
> to the source? I don't right off see why not. There was a time when
> emission theory was taken seriously, and this criticism was not
> considered damning. Most likely, ME can be made compatible.
>
> 2. Show that it is incompatible with experimental evidence.
>
> This might be possible, I haven't heard of any examples.
Caption: ESO PR Photo 07e/05 The "First Fringes"
obtained with the first two VLTI Auxiliary Telescopes,
as seen on the computer screen during the observation.
The fringe pattern arises when the light beams from
the two 1.8-m telescopes are brought together inside
the VINCI instrument. The pattern itself contains
information about the angular extension of the observed
object, here the 6th-magnitude star HD62082. The fringes
are acquired by moving a mirror back and forth around
the position of equal path length for the two telescopes.
One such scan can be seen in the third row window. This
pattern results from the raw interferometric signals
(the last two rows) after calibration and filtering
using the photometric signals (the 4th and 5th row).
The first two rows show the spectrum of the fringe pattern
signal. More details about the interpretation of this
pattern is given in Appendix A of PR 06/01. >>
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-06-05.html
Unfortunately, Newton did not credit those who walk
in footsteps but those who stand on shoulders.
Sue...
Jonah Thomas
> "J Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Androcles also says that light is particles and not waves (*3). If
> > you believe that light is particles and not waves that makes it
> > easier to imagine emission theory -- it's easy to imagine particles
> > streaming out in all directions at the same speed, and of course
> > they retain their source's velocity with their own velocities added
> > in. Besides that prop to imagination I have seen nothing yet that's
> > different if light is a particle versus a wave or something else, so
> > I won't pay much attention to that part. But keep it in mind, it
> > might come up again. *4)
> *1) No light waves. Emission theory is about photons. A photon is one
> cycle of what you call a wave. All those ions, atoms and molecules
> in the Sun eject two pulses of energy in equal and opposite
> directions, only one of which is coming your way. For every photon
> there is an equal and opposite rephoton. (Newton's law.) Photons are
> the result of wave superposition.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
> No single charge will produce a photon pair, it takes a proton AND
> an electron, or multiples thereof.
> Think of photons as raindrops and radio waves as tsunamis.
> To get a directional train of photons from radio waves, look at
> phased array radar.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array
> Optical light is a stream of photons, like spinning raindrops. Radio
> is a wave, like a tsunami. Just as tsunamis and raindrops are both
> water, so radio waves and photons are both electromagnetic radiation.
> Optical light is soft photons, x-rays and gamma rays are hard photons.
> Optical light bounces off surfaces like a rubber ball, x-rays
> penetrate like bullets.
> ==================================================
> *3) My lion, Newton, said that light is particles (corpuscles) and
> not waves. I get no credit for following in his footsteps.
> Einstein said light is particles (photons) and not waves, he got a
> Nobel Prize for the photo-electric effect.
> I get no credit for following in his footsteps either, but I'm not
> crawling beneath the ankles of an insane pygmy when I can stand on the
> shoulders of a giant who stood on the shoulders of giants. I see
> further than any man before me, as Newton did.
> ==================================================
> *4) The "waves" that you see in your mind are inert, stationary.
> They are mathematical constructions of what once was, not what is now.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
> The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
> Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
> Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
> Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it -- Omar Khayyam
> ==================================================
I don't see that it matters. You can get a working ET either way, and
the results are pretty much interchangeable. It's easier to grok
interference patterns with waves, and it's easier to grok ET with
particles, but the results will pretty certainly be the same regardless.
If they aren't the same I want to know about it, but it doesn't have to
be the first thing on the agenda.
> *5) Doubtless Jimmy Maxwell would be pleased not to have his
> equations
> tampered with by Einstein. Certainly Faraday, Gauss and Ampere would.
> Maxwell believed in an undulatory model of light waving in an aether,
> and died before Michelson showed there was no aether. This would
> have delighted Faraday, who understood the nature of the electric
> and magnetic fields. The aether doesn't wave, but the electric and
> magnetic fields do. They play leapfrog, each jumping over the other
> as they travel together through empty space; each causing the other
> to exist as it dies. Energy is conserved, always. Sometimes as the
> magnetic field, sometimes as the electric field, sometimes as a
> combination. sin^2 + cos^2 = 1.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
> No compressible luminiferous aether needed.
>
> Emission fact is compatible with Gauss's and Faraday's equations.
> It is not compatible with Ampere or aether.
> Ref: http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
> "So the only information about electromagnetism contained in the
> apparently sophisticated equations (9) and (10) is about the two
> constants in electromagnetism: the fixed velocity c, and that E, H at
> every point are in fixed proportion Z0. The remaining content of
> Maxwell's Equations is hogwash."
> ==================================================
There's more to it that probably isn't hogwash. But you have to look at
it carefully. The "fields" describe what force Maxwell would expect to
have on a charge at each point if there happened to be a charge at that
point. Since for most points the charge isn't actually there.... It
isn't a "probability field", more like a "possibility field".
The effect of different charges is claimed to be independent -- they all
add up with vectors, with no interaction beyond the force the charges
put on each other to move the sources of the "fields".
The "fields" spread out evenly and smoothly both in time and space.
Try this. Pick a point (t,x,y,z). Imagine a charge that has had known
locations for the last some time. That charge would affect a
hypothetical charge at (t,x,y,z) in known ways depending on time and
distance. We get f(t,x,y,z) which gives us the force in each dimension.
(I'm not going to think about applying force in the time dimension just
now, put it aside.) We have four partial derivatives for that effect,
I'll write them (dt,dx,dy,dz) because d looks better than 6 or 9.
Applying 4 derivatives to 4 dimensions we get 16 terms. six of them, the
three xdt terms and the three tdx terms, add up to the electric field.
Six of them, the ydx cross terms, add up to the magnetic field. The
other four tdt xdx terms are discarded.
So the only magnetic fields Maxwell describes are those created by
moving charges, or at least charges that move relative to the charges
that are affected. For all I know there could be such a thing as a
magnetic monopole but Maxwell doesn't describe it. Maxwell's magnetic
fields are a rotation around the axis formed by the velocity vector, and
nothing else. So it has to follow that the sum of the x y z partials for
the magnetic field is zero.
Etc. It says a collection of things very precisely.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
It's true that most of what it says is pretty much what you'd expect of
things that travel homogeniously through space. It's true that most of
this does not show something "special" about charges, and it's
predictable that other completely-separate independent forces (gravity?)
are likely to behave quite analogously. But to say that everything
except the couple of key points you bring up is hogwash, is to take the
rest of it for granted just because it fits your preconceptions.
Agreed that ME doesn't explain causation. It's a set of constraints. Any
situation that fits ME can happen provided you find a way to set it up.
Situations that do not fit ME will not happen. You will not find a
section of empty space where there is a strong electric field (meaning
it puts a strong force on electric charges if they happen to be there)
where that force just suddenly drops to zero at a discontinuity. That
isn't supposed to happen, and if you depend on it to happen you will
probably be disappointed.
On the other hand, if all this precision doesn't actually help then
maybe it's good to toss it aside until you find out you need it.
Androcles
"Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090901010948.2...@gmail.com...
Ok, we'll talk about Mexican waves next.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9j4Gi0lbR4
You don't see that it matters, but a Mexican wave is psychological,
pure herd instinct and nothing to do with physics. Or is it?
The first thing I noticed is that people don't leave their seats.
I was a participant to a Mexican wave once, at a Mickey Mouse
show in a theme park. My grandchildren expected me to join in
and of course I did for their benefit. Such is the power of the herd.
Are these "light waves" you refer to behave like Mexican waves?
I DO see that it matters. What would happen if the individuals
of the audience behaved in the same way, raising their arms and
shouting, but randomly? Would you call that a wave? If not,
why do you refer to light waves when the atoms in a flame
radiate randomly? How would it be if instead of saying "cars"
I said "traffic waves" should stop at a road junction?
How do I switch off your old way of thinking and open your
mind to an old idea that has been forgotten, and is therefore a
new idea to you that you are reluctant to accept? If Newton's
emission theory were taught before SR, by teachers that understood
it, we would not be discussing Maxwell's aether model of "light
waves". You'd be laughing at SR with its paradoxes and constant
speed of waves in empty space as I do.
So you knee-jerk react first, then put the investigation on the back burner
for later and tell me to look at it carefully. Never mind that Ivor Catt has
done the investigation, Maxwell did his first so Maxwell must be right.
Never mind that I have studied emission fact since 1987when I created
my first program that modelled it, I should look at it carefully.
I call that the inertia of wrong ideas.
The "fields" describe what force Maxwell would expect to
> have on a charge at each point if there happened to be a charge at that
> point. Since for most points the charge isn't actually there.... It
> isn't a "probability field", more like a "possibility field".
Like most theoreticians, Maxwell was probably wrong but possibly right.
>
> The effect of different charges is claimed to be independent -- they all
> add up with vectors, with no interaction beyond the force the charges
> put on each other to move the sources of the "fields".
>
> The "fields" spread out evenly and smoothly both in time and space.
Magnetic fields concentrate at poles. Electric fields concentrate at
charges (also called poles). No difference, you don't have an electric
field without two charges. Explain what you mean by "spreading in
time", it appears to be just so much babble to me. My fridge magnets
were there yesterday and there today. They have not spread.
> Try this. Pick a point (t,x,y,z).
Ok. My desk, (7:23 am, 0, 0, 0).
Imagine a charge that has had known
> locations for the last some time.
Ok.
http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/228/22849.jpg
Location is (7:23, 5", 20", 18") from my desk corner.
> That charge would affect a
> hypothetical charge at (t,x,y,z) in known ways depending on time and
> distance. We get f(t,x,y,z) which gives us the force in each dimension.
> (I'm not going to think about applying force in the time dimension just
> now, put it aside.) We have four partial derivatives for that effect,
> I'll write them (dt,dx,dy,dz) because d looks better than 6 or 9.
> Applying 4 derivatives to 4 dimensions we get 16 terms. six of them, the
> three xdt terms and the three tdx terms, add up to the electric field.
> Six of them, the ydx cross terms, add up to the magnetic field. The
> other four tdt xdx terms are discarded.
Hmm...Let's have a hypothetical charge at (apple, plum, t, x, pear,
y,orange,z)
and then discard the apple, orange, pear, plum and t terms. That should
be just as daft.
> So the only magnetic fields Maxwell describes are those created by
> moving charges, or at least charges that move relative to the charges
> that are affected. For all I know there could be such a thing as a
> magnetic monopole but Maxwell doesn't describe it. Maxwell's magnetic
> fields are a rotation around the axis formed by the velocity vector, and
> nothing else. So it has to follow that the sum of the x y z partials for
> the magnetic field is zero.
>
> Etc. It says a collection of things very precisely.
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
> It's true that most of what it says is pretty much what you'd expect of
> things that travel homogeniously through space. It's true that most of
> this does not show something "special" about charges, and it's
> predictable that other completely-separate independent forces (gravity?)
> are likely to behave quite analogously. But to say that everything
> except the couple of key points you bring up is hogwash, is to take the
> rest of it for granted just because it fits your preconceptions.
>
> Agreed that ME doesn't explain causation. It's a set of constraints. Any
> situation that fits ME can happen provided you find a way to set it up.
> Situations that do not fit ME will not happen. You will not find a
> section of empty space where there is a strong electric field (meaning
> it puts a strong force on electric charges if they happen to be there)
> where that force just suddenly drops to zero at a discontinuity. That
> isn't supposed to happen, and if you depend on it to happen you will
> probably be disappointed.
You mean I can't throw an electronic switch, cutting off the current
to a coil and getting a spark in my traffic wave's engine? Well yes,
I probably will be disappointed if my traffic wave doesn't work, I'll
have to walk.
>
> On the other hand, if all this precision doesn't actually help then
> maybe it's good to toss it aside until you find out you need it.
I've a better idea. You go and find out what makes sparks work
in traffic wave engines when that force just suddenly drops to zero
at a discontinuity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_coil
Juan R.
> I may have misunderstood what Androcles is saying, so I will post my
> understanding about it here. Androcles might correct me and say where
> I've misunderstood.
>
> Emission theory (ET) is an alternative to relativity theory.
No, it is not.
Sue...
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> J Thomas wrote on Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:10:02 -0700:
>
> > I may have misunderstood what Androcles is saying, so I will post my
> > understanding about it here. Androcles might correct me and say where
> > I've misunderstood.
>
==============
> > Emission theory (ET) is an alternative to relativity theory.
>
> No, it is not.
Orbital mechanics, optics, even the "most successful
theory ever" gets by nicely with many assumptions of
emission theory. It is a fine alternative but it
is even better if you know where it breaks down
to avoid abusing it.
The problem is that some will refuse to acknowledge
that it DOES break down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
Sue...
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
To my way of thinking, interference is the main thing that wave
explanations are good for. That and the way quantum particle guys tie
themselves up in knots with double-slit doubletalk etc. I expect you can
explain that stuff with particles.
But here's something I notice. I'm trying to understand your ideas, and
you keep interrupting yourself to talk about why other people's ideas
are no good. To me, that just gets in the way. You don't have to
convince me to pay attention to you by convincing me that no other
approach is worth understanding. I'm already paying attention. So the
time you spend knocking down Einstein and ether theory etc is wasted for
me.
And with ME it's worse than wasted. I spent hours figuring out what ME
meant. I found there was less there than meets the eye, and yet there's
room for subtle complications too. I found some value there. Now when
you tell me there's nothing there after I've already spent the effort to
understand it and I did find value, it's only natural for me to try to
show you what it's good for. And that's a waste for both of us. You
don't want to listen to that. For all I know you already have something
better, but you aren't telling me about it, instead you're telling me
that what I already understand -- which I find valuable -- is worthless.
If you instead show me the better way and I see that it's better, I'll
drop ME with few regrets.
I don't have my identity wrapped up in believing that ME is better than
whatever you've replaced it with. I'd like to see it. But you're
inviting me to argue with you instead, by overdoing your criticism of
stuff I know something about. Again, when you do that you tempt me into
explaining why it isn't as worthless as you say, which is something you
don't want to hear. Meanwhile I *would* like to hear about your
alternative and we aren't doing that as fast as we might because instead
we're arguing about the stuff that we don't really need to discuss.
> > There's more to it that probably isn't hogwash. But you have to look
> > at it carefully.
>
> So you knee-jerk react first, then put the investigation on the back
> burner for later and tell me to look at it carefully. Never mind that
> Ivor Catt has done the investigation, Maxwell did his first so Maxwell
> must be right. Never mind that I have studied emission fact since
> 1987when I created my first program that modelled it, I should look at
> it carefully. I call that the inertia of wrong ideas.
If you *want* to consider fresh whether there's any value to ME, then
I'm willing to discuss it with you. But I'd be happy to drop that and
look at your alternative that you think is better. And here's something
-- for me, if you have something that's not quite as good as ME but it's
much easier to understand, that would be a big improvement. Maxwell's
equations are so hard for most people to understand that few people
bother to really try. Get something that does most of that easier, and
I'll look for ways to improve it.
But if you have something that's easier to understand and also explains
things as well or better, that's wonderful and I want to know about it.
> > That charge would affect a
> > hypothetical charge at (t,x,y,z) in known ways depending on time and
> > distance. We get f(t,x,y,z) which gives us the force in each
> > dimension.(I'm not going to think about applying force in the time
> > dimension just now, put it aside.) We have four partial derivatives
> > for that effect, I'll write them (dt,dx,dy,dz) because d looks
> > better than 6 or 9. Applying 4 derivatives to 4 dimensions we get 16
> > terms. six of them, the three xdt terms and the three tdx terms, add
> > up to the electric field. Six of them, the ydx cross terms, add up
> > to the magnetic field. The other four tdt xdx terms are discarded.
>
> Hmm...Let's have a hypothetical charge at (apple, plum, t, x, pear,
> y,orange,z)
> and then discard the apple, orange, pear, plum and t terms. That
> should be just as daft.
Well, yes. I tend to think that those last 4 items are probably good for
something. To some extent people use them as "gauges". They pick random
expressions for them and look at what they get. So you get the coulomb
gauge and the lorenz gauge and the temporal gauge and so on, and they're
all compatible with ME because ME leaves them unspecified.
There's probably room to do something interesting about that provided
that it turns out to be useful to continue with ME. But maybe it will be
better to junk the whole thing. I won't know until I find out. If you'd
like to point me to a better alternative I'll look at it. And the time
you spend dissing the competition slows me down even more if I forget
and respond to it.
Sue...
[...]
==========
> Maxwell's> equations are so hard for most people to understand that few people
> bother to really try. Get something that does most of that easier, and
> I'll look for ways to improve it.
Two sprinklers overlap to irrigate a prize orchid plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
The ensemble is on the wind swept deck of a ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential
Really hard! :8) <eyes rolling>
Sue...
Jonah Thomas
> "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > > Emission theory (ET) is an alternative to relativity theory.
> >
> > No, it is not.
>
> Orbital mechanics, optics, even the "most successful
> theory ever" gets by nicely with many assumptions of
> emission theory. It is a fine alternative but it
> is even better if you know where it breaks down
> to avoid abusing it.
>
> The problem is that some will refuse to acknowledge
> that it DOES break down.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
Is the only evidence you have, these astronomical observations?
I can't consider such things definitive. I can't take Androcles's
astronomical claims completely seriously either.
"A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks is
never sure."
Once I accept the possibility of a second explanation for such things, I
find I can't rule out a third. For each spot of light in the sky that's
hard to explain with one theory or another, there could be some
explanation that nobody's thought of yet that does far better than
either current choice.
Astronomy gives food for thought, but if you want something definitive
it has to be from experiments. Astronomical explanations all are based
on hypothesis piled on hypothesis on earlier hypotheses. I don't want to
say they're wrong when I don't have a better alternative handy, but
there's every reason to think that our whole ideas about how the
universe is made will change around several times in the next 500 years.
Look how much we've changed them in the last 500 years....
We need experiment where you can control the confounding variables. Have
you heard about any of those where ET breaks down?
Jonah Thomas
Let's suppose that light is made of particles that spin. The time it
takes for a particle to complete one complete rotation is its frequency,
and the distance it travels while it completes that rotation is its
wavelength. For convenience we will have all particles rotate at the
same frequency.
Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle is
emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and speed s is
the vector sum of vV + cP.
Pick a point T some distance from the line of travel, whose closest
distance to that line is, say, 1 lightyear. Which particle will have the
shortest travel time to T? Well, speed in direction V will never
increase the speed orthogonal to V. The particle which gets there
fastest will be emitted at speed c orthogonal to V and will arrive at T
in 1 year. Its total speed then is c+v, and it travels at the angle that
has c/(c+v) as its sine. To reach T from anywhere else along the line of
travel a particle must leave at a different angle, and then the vector
sum will give a speed whose component that's orthogonal to V will be
smaller.
What about redshifts? Obviously direction and speed have no effect on
frequency since all particles rotate at the same frequency. So the
faster the velocity, the longer the wavelength. A stationary observer
will see particles redshifted in the direction of travel and blueshifted
behind.
Could it go some other way? What if light is made of waves. The time it
takes for a wavecrest to pass one point and be replaced by the next
wavecrest is the frequency, and the distance between wavecrests at any
particular time is the wavelength. Waves travel as spheres around the
source and travel with the source so that it is always at the center of
all the spheres. In that case, the wavelength is constant no matter how
fast the source moves relative to an observer. Each spherical wavecrest
is the same distance ahead of the next. But the frequency changes
directly with speed. We get a doppler effect, frequency is high with
high speed and low with low speed.
So, when we measure light and observe a redshift, do we measure
wavelength or frequency? When the speed of light is constant then it
doesn't matter which is which because they balance out. But when the
speed varies then it matters.
The usual way to measure wavelength is with interference patterns. The
theory is that when two beams from the same light are delayed different
amounts, they will arrive at the observer at different times and so they
will be at different parts of their cycle. So they cancel out or combine
their force. The amount of delay measures -- Frequency? Wavelength?
Here's how I would measure wavelength for very low frequency sound. I
would stretch some membranes loosely across some hoops. And I get a
friend to play low notes on a sousaphone at them. Sound is a compression
wave and when it puts pressure in one direction the membranes should
move that way. Then when the pressure is the other direction they will
move back. Find the smallest distance where they flap in phase, and
that's the wavelength. But if they flap too fast for me to tell, then it
doesn't work. Maybe something analogous could work for low-frequency
light? And if you got it sensitive enough you could use it on
red-shifted light and see whether you still get the same results as the
interference approach?
Jonah Thomas
Are you being sarcastic? These links are to links you've given often
before, which are useful in themselves but I do not see their
application to what you are saying. Is this an inside joke?
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > ==========
>
> > > Maxwell's> equations are so hard for most people to understand that
> > > few people bother to really try. Get something that does most of
> > > that easier, and I'll look for ways to improve it.
>
===========
>
Two sprinklers overlap to irrigate a prize orchid plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
>
The ensemble is on the wind swept deck of a ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential
>
> > Really hard! :8) <eyes rolling>
>
> Are you being sarcastic?
That depends on how difficult you find the orchid
example. It seems simple to me.
> These links are to links you've given often
> before, which are useful in themselves but I do not see their
> application to what you are saying.
===========
> Is this an inside joke?
It wasn't but it is now. :-))
<< In the time-dependent theory, charges act rather
like water sprinklers: i.e., they spray out the
Coulomb field in all directions at the speed
of light.>> "Retarded potetentials"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
I'll write Prof. Fitzpatrick and ask him to change half
the charges to orchids for benefit of my too-fast~reading
correspondents. ;-)
Sue...
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > > J Thomas wrote:
> > > > Emission theory (ET) is an alternative to relativity theory.
>
> > > No, it is not.
>
> > Orbital mechanics, optics, even the "most successful
> > theory ever" gets by nicely with many assumptions of
> > emission theory. It is a fine alternative but it
> > is even better if you know where it breaks down
> > to avoid abusing it.
>
> > The problem is that some will refuse to acknowledge
> > that it DOES break down.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
>
> Is the only evidence you have, these astronomical observations?
In your previous thread I provided experimental evidence
for every item that you did not already have.
If you missed the VLTI Paranal link, you should go back
and find it just for WOW factor. It is an impressive
facility.
>
> I can't consider such things definitive. I can't take Androcles's
> astronomical claims completely seriously either.
>
> "A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks is
> never sure."
>
> Once I accept the possibility of a second explanation for such things, I
> find I can't rule out a third. For each spot of light in the sky that's
> hard to explain with one theory or another, there could be some
> explanation that nobody's thought of yet that does far better than
> either current choice.
All your objections were answered so you need to think up some more.
>
> Astronomy gives food for thought, but if you want something definitive
> it has to be from experiments. Astronomical explanations all are based
> on hypothesis piled on hypothesis on earlier hypotheses. I don't want to
> say they're wrong when I don't have a better alternative handy, but
> there's every reason to think that our whole ideas about how the
> universe is made will change around several times in the next 500 years.
> Look how much we've changed them in the last 500 years....
If that is the application, a extrapolated error will waste
plenty of your time.
"Occam's razor is a fine tool, but it should be applied
to principles, not equations." --S.Weinberg
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
>
> We need experiment where you can control the confounding variables. Have
> you heard about any of those where ET breaks down?
The VLTI Paranal lets you wiggle everything.
-A World Premiere
tp://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-06-05.html
Sue...
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > Orbital mechanics, optics, even the "most successful
> > > theory ever" gets by nicely with many assumptions of
> > > emission theory. It is a fine alternative but it
> > > is even better if you know where it breaks down
> > > to avoid abusing it.
> >
> > > The problem is that some will refuse to acknowledge
> > > that it DOES break down.
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
> >
> > Is the only evidence you have, these astronomical observations?
>
> In your previous thread I provided experimental evidence
> for every item that you did not already have.
> If you missed the VLTI Paranal link, you should go back
> and find it just for WOW factor. It is an impressive
> facility.
I read that carefully. It looked like an impressive facility, but I did
not actually see any particular data at your link.
> > I can't consider such things definitive. I can't take Androcles's
> > astronomical claims completely seriously either.
> >
> > "A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks
> > is never sure."
> >
> > Once I accept the possibility of a second explanation for such
> > things, I find I can't rule out a third. For each spot of light in
> > the sky that's hard to explain with one theory or another, there
> > could be some explanation that nobody's thought of yet that does far
> > better than either current choice.
>
> All your objections were answered so you need to think up some more.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm going to take astronomical
observations as suggestive but not definitive, because I don't trust
them. If you completely trust them then you should take conclusions
drawn from them as definitive, of course.
> > We need experiment where you can control the confounding variables.
> > Have you heard about any of those where ET breaks down?
>
> The VLTI Paranal lets you wiggle everything.
> -A World Premiere
> tp://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-06-05.html
It looks to me like that gives you the chance to observe the same
astronomical artifact with multiple telescopes and see interference
patterns among them. It looks like a fine thing to do. Have they
provided evidence that refutes ET in your opinion?
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Orbital mechanics, optics, even the "most successful
> > > > theory ever" gets by nicely with many assumptions of
> > > > emission theory. It is a fine alternative but it
> > > > is even better if you know where it breaks down
> > > > to avoid abusing it.
>
> > > > The problem is that some will refuse to acknowledge
> > > > that it DOES break down.
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
>
> > > Is the only evidence you have, these astronomical observations?
>
> > In your previous thread I provided experimental evidence
> > for every item that you did not already have.
> > If you missed the VLTI Paranal link, you should go back
> > and find it just for WOW factor. It is an impressive
> > facility.
>
> I read that carefully. It looked like an impressive facility, but I did
> not actually see any particular data at your link.
<< when two waves with the same frequency combine,
the resulting pattern is determined by the phase difference
between the two waves -- waves that are in phase will
undergo constructive interference while waves that are
out of phase will undergo destructive interference.
Most interferometers use light or some other form of
electromagnetic wave.[2] >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometry
Did it occur to you that indivisible light particles
would have to conspire between the delay line tubes
(telepathy, cell-phones, jungle drums?) and they
would have to have share the astronomers interest
in interferometry for the device to operate?
>
> > > I can't consider such things definitive. I can't take Androcles's
> > > astronomical claims completely seriously either.
>
> > > "A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks
> > > is never sure."
>
> > > Once I accept the possibility of a second explanation for such
> > > things, I find I can't rule out a third. For each spot of light in
> > > the sky that's hard to explain with one theory or another, there
> > > could be some explanation that nobody's thought of yet that does far
> > > better than either current choice.
>
> > All your objections were answered so you need to think up some more.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm going to take astronomical
> observations as suggestive but not definitive, because I don't trust
> them. If you completely trust them then you should take conclusions
> drawn from them as definitive, of course.
For the VLTI, any distant light source would have the
same result except, of course:
"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars" :-)
>
> > > We need experiment where you can control the confounding variables.
> > > Have you heard about any of those where ET breaks down?
>
> > The VLTI Paranal lets you wiggle everything.
> > -A World Premiere
> >
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-06-05.html
>
> It looks to me like that gives you the chance to observe the same
> astronomical artifact with multiple telescopes and see interference
> patterns among them. It looks like a fine thing to do. Have they
> provided evidence that refutes ET in your opinion?
Opinions are what judges write.
<< An attorney passed on and found himself in
Heaven (obviously not a family law lawyer), but
was not at all happy with his accommodations. He
complained to Saint Peter, who told him his only
course of action was to appeal. The lawyer immediately
appealed and was told it would take 3 years to hear
his appeal. The attorney protested that this was
unconscionable, but to no avail.
The lawyer was then approached by the
devil who told him that he could have the appeal
heard within a few days if the lawyer would change
the venue to Hell. When the lawyer asked why appeals
were heard so much sooner in Hell, he was told
"We have all the judges." >>
http://www.fact.on.ca/judiciary/judgjoke.htm
But you might survey how many astronomers tolerate
surface irregularities that particle light should
permit.
<< It is generally accepted that if an image reaches
the eye having no deviation greater than 1/4 wave
at the nominal D line (sodium or helium light),
the image is not seriously degraded (The Rayleigh limit).
This superficially suggests that the entire telescope,
not just the mirror (or objective element) should produce
a wavefront accuracy of not less than 1/4 wave. >>
http://www.rfroyce.com/accuracy.htm
Sue...
Jonah Thomas
> Two sprinklers overlap to irrigate a prize orchid plant.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
> >
> The ensemble is on the wind swept deck of a ship.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential
> >
> > > Really hard! :8) <eyes rolling>
> >
> > Are you being sarcastic?
>
> That depends on how difficult you find the orchid
> example. It seems simple to me.
>
> > These links are to links you've given often
> > before, which are useful in themselves but I do not see their
> > application to what you are saying.
>
> ===========
>
> > Is this an inside joke?
>
> It wasn't but it is now. :-))
>
> << In the time-dependent theory, charges act rather
> like water sprinklers: i.e., they spray out the
> Coulomb field in all directions at the speed
> of light.>> "Retarded potetentials"
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
>
> I'll write Prof. Fitzpatrick and ask him to change half
> the charges to orchids for benefit of my too-fast~reading
> correspondents. ;-)
OK. I'd seen that metaphor before though they used bullets, I missed the
sentence in
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html that
mentioned it.
So, if your sprinkler is on a truck that's moving, the water takes the
velocity of the truck in addition to the velocity of the sprinkler. As
long as the truck keeps the same velocity the water acts like
Androcles's ET. It seems like it might be easy to adapt ME to ET.
Inertial
What is 'ME' and 'ET'. Is 'ET' Emission Theory or Ether Theory?
BTW, Emmision theories are refuted very clearly by Sagnac and the fact that
ring-gyro's work :) An emission theory says these case that the time for
the light to travel from source back to detector is the same in both
directions. It also says that the light travels the same speed relative to
the source in the two paths, and obviosuly has the same freuquency at the
source. They will also have the same speed relative to the detector (that
moves with the source), and the same frequency and take the same time to
travel around. Hence there is no phase shift. NOTE: This is for relatively
very small rotational speeds compared to the speed of light. SR predicts
the observed phase shifting as in SR analysis the two wave fronts do not
arrive at the detector at the same time, and so are out of phase.
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Two sprinklers overlap to irrigate a prize orchid plant.
============
> It seems like it might be easy to adapt ME to ET.
--> YES <--
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Are you the Johah Thomas that complains about my posting
the same thing over and over or are you the J. Thomas that
complains about my posting the same thing over and over?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
<< According to Eqs. (509) and (510), if we want to work
out the potentials at position ${\bf r}$ and time $t$
then we have to perform integrals of the charge density
and current density over all space (just like in the
steady-state situation). However, when we calculate
the contribution of charges and currents at position
${\bf r}'$ to these integrals we do not use the values
at time $t$, instead we use the values at some earlier
time... >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
--> YES <--
Sue...
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > Orbital mechanics, optics, even the "most successful
> > > > > theory ever" gets by nicely with many assumptions of
> > > > > emission theory. It is a fine alternative but it
> > > > > is even better if you know where it breaks down
> > > > > to avoid abusing it.
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
> >
> > > > Is the only evidence you have, these astronomical observations?
> >
> > > In your previous thread I provided experimental evidence
> > > for every item that you did not already have.
> > > If you missed the VLTI Paranal link, you should go back
> > > and find it just for WOW factor. It is an impressive
> > > facility.
> >
> > I read that carefully. It looked like an impressive facility, but I
> > did not actually see any particular data at your link.
>
> << when two waves with the same frequency combine,
> the resulting pattern is determined by the phase difference
> between the two waves -- waves that are in phase will
> undergo constructive interference while waves that are
> out of phase will undergo destructive interference.
> Most interferometers use light or some other form of
> electromagnetic wave.[2] >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometry
>
> Did it occur to you that indivisible light particles
> would have to conspire between the delay line tubes
> (telepathy, cell-phones, jungle drums?) and they
> would have to have share the astronomers interest
> in interferometry for the device to operate?
Androcles has not yet gotten to any explanation how light as particles
can do interference. His explanations for other things have not been
what I would have predicted, so I don't want to suppose that these will
be either. I consider interference the central problem for particle
theories in general, but I won't be surprised if Androcles has a
solution. Can't you get electrons to do interference in some conditions?
People usually think electrons are particles, but sometimes they do wavy
things. I don't know enough yet to say what's going on with that, but if
it turns out that electrons can do interference then maybe light can
too.
> But you might survey how many astronomers tolerate
> surface irregularities that particle light should
> permit.
I see that this is a strong argument against your particle theory of
light. I don't know yet what his particle theory of light says. I don't
know yet what he wants his particles to do that waves couldn't do.
People talk like they have light doing some things that particles can't
do and some things that waves can't do. If Androcles has a theory that
lets particles do it all I'll be pleased. If it turns out that waves can
do it all too I'll be even more pleased. Then we don't have to choose,
we can just use whichever theory is more convenient at the moment and
either should be adequate for anything.
Jonah Thomas
> What is 'ME' and 'ET'. Is 'ET' Emission Theory or Ether Theory?
ME Maxwells Equations.
ET Emission Theory, I wasn't paying any attention to Ether Theory.
> BTW, Emmision theories are refuted very clearly by Sagnac and the fact
> that ring-gyro's work :) An emission theory says these case that the
> time for the light to travel from source back to detector is the same
> in both directions. It also says that the light travels the same
> speed relative to the source in the two paths, and obviosuly has the
> same freuquency at the source. They will also have the same speed
> relative to the detector (that moves with the source), and the same
> frequency and take the same time to travel around. Hence there is no
> phase shift. NOTE: This is for relatively very small rotational
> speeds compared to the speed of light. SR predicts the observed phase
> shifting as in SR analysis the two wave fronts do not arrive at the
> detector at the same time, and so are out of phase.
Androcles claims that Sagnac works for his EmT. Would you like to look
at his theory and see if you can find the flaw that makes them stay in
the same phase?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
I read it enough to get the general idea what he's saying, but not
enough to decide whether he's right.
Jonah Thomas
> > It seems like it might be easy to adapt ME to ET.
>
> --> YES <--
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
>
> Are you the Jonah Thomas that complains about my posting
> the same thing over and over or are you the J. Thomas that
> complains about my posting the same thing over and over?
That's me. Sometimes I don't get the reference. Sometimes maybe it's too
subtle for me.
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
>
> << According to Eqs. (509) and (510), if we want to work
> out the potentials at position ${\bf r}$ and time $t$
> then we have to perform integrals of the charge density
> and current density over all space (just like in the
> steady-state situation). However, when we calculate
> the contribution of charges and currents at position
> ${\bf r}'$ to these integrals we do not use the values
> at time $t$, instead we use the values at some earlier
> time... >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
>
> --> YES <--
I got that part. I independently invented that when I found an old ME
book that didn't do it and saw that it should be needed.
What I didn't quickly get that you were saying, was that this link shows
precisely where a correction for ET would be made.
And where the simple-minded ME simply integrated over all the charges in
the universe, and the retarded-time ME integrated over a sphere heading
outward in space and backward in time, picking up each charge when the
distance and time match up, ET ME would have to go backward in time
checking against distance and velocity both. Not really so much more
complicated, depending on the details of how ET charges interact.
Sue...
They interfere with themselves when one particle has
to take two paths.
(Tonomura)
http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html
> People usually think electrons are particles, but sometimes they do wavy
> things. I don't know enough yet to say what's going on with that, but if
> it turns out that electrons can do interference then maybe light can
> too.
<--------->
If it turns out that light can do interference (Young)
then maybe electrons can too. (Tonomura)
>
> > But you might survey how many astronomers tolerate
> > surface irregularities that particle light should
> > permit.
>
> I see that this is a strong argument against your particle theory of
> light. I don't know yet what his particle theory of light says. I don't
> know yet what he wants his particles to do that waves couldn't do.
He has told you.
He envisions faster than light communication to Mars.
>
> People talk like they have light doing some things that particles can't
> do and some things that waves can't do. If Androcles has a theory that
> lets particles do it all I'll be pleased. If it turns out that waves can
> do it all too I'll be even more pleased. Then we don't have to choose,
> we can just use whichever theory is more convenient at the moment and
> either should be adequate for anything.
Waves can do the whole magilla. But most problems
don't require you to consider the whole magilla.
Maths are easy to modularise so there is no need to haul terms
around that are going to be the same every time you
evaluate them. Tho someone working in a different field
might need to consider terms that you can ignore.
They have to carry a bigger toolbox.
If you want to hang drywall so it is not wavy do
you buy a box of LORAN receivers and compute
all the path corrections to the beacons?
Of course not. You buy a laser pointer and pretend
that it shoots particles. It doesn't really but your
wall will be straight enough.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
Sue...
Androcles
> Geometry in emission theory
>
> Let's suppose that light is made of particles that spin.
Let's suppose the Moon is made of green cheese.
>The time it
> takes for a particle to complete one complete rotation is its frequency,
> and the distance it travels while it completes that rotation is its
> wavelength.
The time it takes for a cheese to mature is its frequency,
and the distance it travels while it completes that maturation
from new to full to eaten is its wavelength.
> For convenience we will have all particles rotate at the
> same frequency.
For convenience we will have all cheeses mature at the
same frequency.
> Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v.
Say it's cow is traveling in direction East at speed v.
>The particle is
> emitted in direction P at speed c.
The cheese is emitted in direction P at speed c.
> The actual direction S and speed s is
> the vector sum of vV + cP.
The cheese is smeared along a moonbeam.
> Pick a point T some distance from the line of travel, whose closest
> distance to that line is, say, 1 lightyear.
I'm lost. What does that have to do with what moonbeams are made of?
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Let's suppose that light is made of particles that spin.
>
> Let's suppose the Moon is made of green cheese.
Hey, I presented two ways it could work. Tell me how it works when you
do it?
First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle is
emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and speed s is
the vector sum of vV + cP.
Did I get the quickest path right?
Pick a point T some distance from the line of travel, whose closest
distance to that line is, say, 1 lightyear. Which particle will have the
shortest travel time to T? Well, speed in direction V will never
increase the speed orthogonal to V. The particle which gets there
fastest will be emitted at speed c orthogonal to V and will arrive at T
in 1 year. Its total speed then is c+v, and it travels at the angle that
has c/(c+v) as its sine. To reach T from anywhere else along the line of
travel a particle must leave at a different angle, and then the vector
sum will give a speed whose component that's orthogonal to V will be
smaller.
I presented two different and opposite ways that redshifts could go.
When light is traveling along at velocity v on top of its own velocity
c, then the source of the light is not making a bow wave. You don't get
bow-wave blueshifts. Instead, a stationary observer that the source is
heading toward will get each wave crest (or whatever it is your
particles do) passing faster. Not closer together, faster.
That could appear to stationary observers as a higher frequency or as a
longer wavelength. I don't know which. Do you know which the observer
will observe? What is it we really observe when we see interference
patterns? Are we really measuring wavelength or frequency or some
combination or something else? If something else, what?
Androcles
Ok. Here's something I notice. Get a sports personality interviewed
on TV and listen to the string of inarticulate utterances: 'You know',
'I mean', 'It's like', 'Know what I mean?'
He (or she) does this because he is robbed of feedback. He has
a microphone and a camera shoved in his face and cannot read a
response.
I mean, if this, like, discussion, like, were face-to-face, like, you know,
I'd be, like, reading your body language, you know, a nod or shake of the
head, a smile, a frown. Know what I mean, like?
You bring up a topic (SR, ME), I discuss it, I ask you questions to
see if you've understood, you snip and ignore the fuckin' questions and
then with perfect 20-20 hindsight you decide that it's my fault for not
knowing if you pay attention without one iota of feedback. You know
what you've understood but expect me to be clairvoyant. Fuck you too.
Got the message? Like? You know?
> And with ME it's worse than wasted. I spent hours figuring out what ME
> meant. I found there was less there than meets the eye, and yet there's
> room for subtle complications too. I found some value there. Now when
> you tell me there's nothing there after I've already spent the effort to
> understand it and I did find value, it's only natural for me to try to
> show you what it's good for. And that's a waste for both of us. You
> don't want to listen to that. For all I know you already have something
> better, but you aren't telling me about it, instead you're telling me
> that what I already understand -- which I find valuable -- is worthless.
> If you instead show me the better way and I see that it's better, I'll
> drop ME with few regrets.
What the fuck did you bring him up for then? < shrug>
> I don't have my identity wrapped up in believing that ME is better than
> whatever you've replaced it with. I'd like to see it. But you're
> inviting me to argue with you instead, by overdoing your criticism of
> stuff I know something about. Again, when you do that you tempt me into
> explaining why it isn't as worthless as you say, which is something you
> don't want to hear. Meanwhile I *would* like to hear about your
> alternative and we aren't doing that as fast as we might because instead
> we're arguing about the stuff that we don't really need to discuss.
>
It might speed things up if you responded to simple questions, but I'm
in no hurry anyway. You've totally ignored what I've written in response
to your misunderstandings and you repeatedly whine about "light waves"
without saying what they are. I *would* like to hear about your light waves
and we aren't doing that as fast as we might because instead we're arguing
about the stuff that we do really need to discuss.
>> > There's more to it that probably isn't hogwash. But you have to look
>> > at it carefully.
>>
>> So you knee-jerk react first, then put the investigation on the back
>> burner for later and tell me to look at it carefully. Never mind that
>> Ivor Catt has done the investigation, Maxwell did his first so Maxwell
>> must be right. Never mind that I have studied emission fact since
>> 1987when I created my first program that modelled it, I should look at
>> it carefully. I call that the inertia of wrong ideas.
>
> If you *want* to consider fresh whether there's any value to ME, then
> I'm willing to discuss it with you. But I'd be happy to drop that and
> look at your alternative that you think is better. And here's something
> -- for me, if you have something that's not quite as good as ME but it's
> much easier to understand, that would be a big improvement. Maxwell's
> equations are so hard for most people to understand that few people
> bother to really try. Get something that does most of that easier, and
> I'll look for ways to improve it.
Hey! YOU brought up Maxwell. YOU used the abbreviation "ME".
I don't give a flying fuck if Maxwell's equations are so hard for most
people to understand that few people bother to really try.
I don't have my identity wrapped up in your believing that theoretical
physics is better than physics.
J: "The Emission Theory of Androcles".
A: The Emission Theory of Sir Isaac Newton, extended and explained by
Androcles.
J: Light waves, yada yada yada...
A: My lion, Newton, said that light is particles (corpuscles) and not waves.
J: I don't see that it matters.
Fine, you don't see. Go to an optician.
> But if you have something that's easier to understand and also explains
> things as well or better, that's wonderful and I want to know about it.
I do, and you don't want to know about it. You want to whine about your
investment of time in SR and ME, as you are doing now. It does NOT
matter to me.
>
>
>> > That charge would affect a
>> > hypothetical charge at (t,x,y,z) in known ways depending on time and
>> > distance. We get f(t,x,y,z) which gives us the force in each
>> > dimension.(I'm not going to think about applying force in the time
>> > dimension just now, put it aside.) We have four partial derivatives
>> > for that effect, I'll write them (dt,dx,dy,dz) because d looks
>> > better than 6 or 9. Applying 4 derivatives to 4 dimensions we get 16
>> > terms. six of them, the three xdt terms and the three tdx terms, add
>> > up to the electric field. Six of them, the ydx cross terms, add up
>> > to the magnetic field. The other four tdt xdx terms are discarded.
>>
>> Hmm...Let's have a hypothetical charge at (apple, plum, t, x, pear,
>> y,orange,z)
>> and then discard the apple, orange, pear, plum and t terms. That
>> should be just as daft.
>
> Well, yes. I tend to think that those last 4 items are probably good for
> something. To some extent people use them as "gauges". They pick random
> expressions for them and look at what they get. So you get the coulomb
> gauge and the lorenz gauge and the temporal gauge and so on, and they're
> all compatible with ME because ME leaves them unspecified.
Gages are a variety of plum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greengage
> There's probably room to do something interesting about that provided
> that it turns out to be useful to continue with ME. But maybe it will be
> better to junk the whole thing. I won't know until I find out. If you'd
> like to point me to a better alternative I'll look at it. And the time
> you spend dissing the competition slows me down even more if I forget
> and respond to it.
But here's something I notice. I'm trying to explain my ideas, and you
keep interrupting me to talk about why other people's ideas are better
than mine. To me, that just gets in the way. You don't have to convince
me to pay attention to you by convincing me that no other approach
is worth understanding. I'm already paying attention. So the time you
spend explaining ME and Minkowski theory etc is wasted for me.
Inertial
> "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> What is 'ME' and 'ET'. Is 'ET' Emission Theory or Ether Theory?
>
> ME Maxwells Equations.
> ET Emission Theory, I wasn't paying any attention to Ether Theory.
>
>> BTW, Emmision theories are refuted very clearly by Sagnac and the fact
>> that ring-gyro's work :) An emission theory says these case that the
>> time for the light to travel from source back to detector is the same
>> in both directions. It also says that the light travels the same
>> speed relative to the source in the two paths, and obviosuly has the
>> same freuquency at the source. They will also have the same speed
>> relative to the detector (that moves with the source), and the same
>> frequency and take the same time to travel around. Hence there is no
>> phase shift. NOTE: This is for relatively very small rotational
>> speeds compared to the speed of light. SR predicts the observed phase
>> shifting as in SR analysis the two wave fronts do not arrive at the
>> detector at the same time, and so are out of phase.
>
> Androcles claims that Sagnac works for his EmT. Would you like to look
> at his theory and see if you can find the flaw that makes them stay in
> the same phase?
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Lots of things wrong there.
One thing to note is Andrcoles has a moving oscillator there, rather than a
wave (that is not a problem, just noting as it is different to what some
others say). Moving oscillators have the same frequency in all frames of
reference, but the wavelength varies. A moving wave has the same wavelength
in all frames of reference, but the frequency varies.
First Sagnac detects a phase difference. Phase difference only occurs if
frequency is the same, but the rays arrive at different times and so at
different phase within their cycle. A frequency difference would mean a
continually changing interference pattern. Wavelength doesn't matter for
the phase difference as long as frequency is the same (and there is a
difference in arrival times giving you a difference in phase).
As he shows in the animation, both rays take the same time to travel from
source initial position to the detector position. As far as the source is
concerned, they have the same speed and frequency and wavelength. As far as
the detector is concerned, they have the same speed and frequency and
wavelength. So there is no phase shift.
However, what his animation shows is that at a fixed point in the
non-rotating frame, when you doppler shift the wavelength to account for the
different in speed of the rays, you get a difference in wavelength. That is
no the Sagnac effect.
Note that at the very very low speed of rotation compared to light speed,
the coriolis effect is a minimal second order effect and does not account
for the observed phase shift. You'll note the Androcles doesn't show any
math for how it.
Note that Sagnac is explained just fine in SR, nothing Androcles shows
refutes that. Yet he draws the conclusion that SR is disproven by reality.
That, of course, is a lie.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
Lets look at that page, which is the beginning of a valid analysis of Sagnac
(please refer to the original page)
The page clearly states 'As a result, the counter-rotating pulse arrives at
the "end" point slightly earlier than the co-rotating pulse' .. which is why
there is a phase shift and is what SR claims.
He then adds in his own 'at exactly the same time' and shows a ballistic
animation which shows that. Of course, that then means there is NO phase
shift and no Sagnac effect. So he's just nicely shown that ballistic /
emision theories are wrong.
He then asks a question about the part of the page he snipped where it
continues on to say
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop, then the
circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and the sum of the
speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end" point is c-v in the
co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-rotating direction. Both pulses
begin with an initial separation of 2pR from the end point, so the
difference between the travel times is Dt = 2.pi.R( 1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v) ) =
4.pi.R.v / (c^2-v^2) = 4Aw / (c^2-v^2)"
Androcles then asks:
==
Q. Why do the idiots replace
t = (2p+a)R / (c+v)
and
t = (2p-a)R / (c-v)
with
t1 = 2pR / (c+v)
t2 = 2pR / (c-v)
==
Androcles is notoriously bad at the basics of math and physics, and so can't
work this out. Its very simple.
The times taken in the inertial (non-rotating) frame are
t1 = (2pi - a1)R/c
for the counter-clockwise ray, where a1 is the amount of rotation of the
loop during time t1
t2 = (2pi + a2)/c
for the clockwise ray, where a2 is the amount of rotation of the loop during
time t2
we know w = v/R is the angular speed so the amount of rotation. So over
time t, then angle subtended is given by
a = wt = vt/R
so we have
a1 = wt1 = vt1/R
a2 = wt2 = vt2/R
so
t1 = (2pi - a1)R/c
t1 = (2pi - vt1/R)R/c
t1 = 2piR/c - vt1/c
t1 + vt1/c = 2piR/c
t1(1 + v/c) = 2piR/c
t1(c + v) = 2piR
t1 = 2piR/(c + v)
and similarly
t2 = (2pi + a2)/c
t2 = 2piR/(c - v)
That's why the 'idiots' did it .. because its plain simple algebra that
Androcles cannot understand
Inertial
news:02adf342$0$8244$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Further .. look at the same thing from a ballistic / emmision theory point
of view
The times taken in the inertial (non-rotating) frame are
t1 = (2pi - a1)R/(c - v)
for the counter-clockwise ray, where a1 is the amount of rotation of the
loop during time t1
t2 = (2pi + a2)/(c + v)
for the clockwise ray, where a2 is the amount of rotation of the loop during
time t2
we know w = v/R is the angular speed so the amount of rotation. So over
time t, then angle subtended is given by
a = wt = vt/R
so we have
a1 = wt1 = vt1/R
a2 = wt2 = vt2/R
so
t1 = (2pi - a1)R/(c-v)
t1 = (2pi - vt1/R)R/(c-v)
t1 = 2piR/(c-v) - vt1/(c-v)
t1 + vt1/(c-v) = 2piR/(c-v)
t1(1 + v/(c-v)) = 2piR/(c-v)
t1(c-v + v) = 2piR
t1(c) = 2piR
t1 = 2piR/c
and similarly
t2 = (2pi + a2)/(c+v)
t2 = 2piR/c
So you can see that the time difference is zero (as the two times are the
same) and so no Sagnac phase shift.
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Let's suppose that light is made of particles that spin.
>>
>> Let's suppose the Moon is made of green cheese.
>
> Hey, I presented two ways it could work. Tell me how it works when you
> do it?
>
> First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
>
> Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle is
> emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and speed s is
> the vector sum of vV + cP.
>
> Did I get the quickest path right?
First determine your frame of reference.
Is it the source, the light or the receiver?
Is it London, the plane or New York?
Is the plane going to Boston, Atlanta or Orlando?
Are there four planes?
This is really simple.
Either the plane flies from London to New York or it crosses a T.
Boston/Atlanta/Orlando
|
|
|----------New York
|
|
|
London
If it crosses a T then Doppler says
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
(without the division by the silly sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) term in the divisor),
so Einstein agrees with Doppler and then blue-shifts the result.
Einstein thought it would be ok to divide anything in sight by
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
If the plane goes direct to NY then cos(phi) = 1 or -1, depending on return
flights continuing on a great circle or going East.
Either
f' = f * (1-v/c)
= f * (c/c-v/c)
= f * (c-v)/c
or
f' = f * (c+v)/c
NOTE!!
This is NOT
f' = f * c/(c-v), a sonic boom.
And so we have the Pioneer "anomaly", which is the receiving
of a Doppler shifted signal that doesn't agree with crazy Einstein's
ideas and may be explained by dork matter.
> Pick a point T some distance from the line of travel, whose closest
> distance to that line is, say, 1 lightyear. Which particle will have the
> shortest travel time to T? Well, speed in direction V will never
> increase the speed orthogonal to V. The particle which gets there
> fastest will be emitted at speed c orthogonal to V and will arrive at T
> in 1 year. Its total speed then is c+v, and it travels at the angle that
> has c/(c+v) as its sine. To reach T from anywhere else along the line of
> travel a particle must leave at a different angle, and then the vector
> sum will give a speed whose component that's orthogonal to V will be
> smaller.
>
> I presented two different and opposite ways that redshifts could go.
> When light is traveling along at velocity v on top of its own velocity
> c, then the source of the light is not making a bow wave. You don't get
> bow-wave blueshifts. Instead, a stationary observer that the source is
> heading toward will get each wave crest (or whatever it is your
> particles do) passing faster. Not closer together, faster.
>
> That could appear to stationary observers as a higher frequency or as a
> longer wavelength. I don't know which. Do you know which the observer
> will observe?
Yes, I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imoxDcn2Sgo
The wind was blowing that day. It does most days.
> What is it we really observe when we see interference
> patterns?
Photons that enter our eyes from different locations.
> Are we really measuring wavelength or frequency or some
> combination or something else?
It's impossible to observe a wavelength or a frequency.
A wavelength is a distance from where something was to where it is
now. The red pointer is attempting to measure a wavelength, and
gets it wrong.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
> If something else, what?
Your own imagination. Here's another view of a photon:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
It's frequency is obvious, just time it with a stopwatch.
It's wavelength depends on how fast you move it.
Red represents +ve, Blue is -ve, yellow and purple are
N and S poles of a magnet.
E = -dB/dt
As with all differential equations, the solution is a function.
In this case,
E.sin(t) = B.cos(t) = B.sin(t +pi/2)
That's what Faraday said and Maxwell cribbed.
Faraday was an engineer, Maxwell was a schoolmarm in a
little red schoolhouse. You strike me as a schoolmarm too.
All theory and no practical application. Am I right?
In my honest opinion, Nobel prizes should be awarded to
those that dynamite theories.
Androcles
SagnacIdiocy is based on Einstein's thought experiment, wrapped
into a circle. Because the apparatus rotates, we have a c+v and c-v
for the rays.
Einstein:
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Let the light go back to the start by travelling around the circumference,
a distance x', and we have
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(change the x' coordinate on the RHS to 0).
Now remove the 0,0,0, plum, pear, apple, dog's breakfast, anything
else that is redundant and put there to confuse the idiot audience -
magicians call that 'misdirection' when performing sleight-of-hand.
1/2[tau(t)+tau(t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(t+x'/(c-v))
Now set t = 0
Since tau(0) = 0, lose that too.
1/2[tau(x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x'/(c-v))
Now let x' = 1 by choosing a suitable radius.
1/2[tau(1/(c+v)+1/(c-v))]=tau(1/(c-v))
Now use some simple numbers for speed, such as c = 5, v = 3
1/2[tau(1/(5+3)+1/(5-3))]=tau(1/(5-3))
1/2[tau(1/8 +1/2]=tau(1/2)
1/2.tau(5/8)=tau(1/2)
tau(5/8) = 2.tau(1/2)
2.tau(1/2) = tau(1), by the associative law.
tau(5/8) = tau(1)
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." --
Einstein.
In the second place, what is the linear function tau ?
BTW, SR theories are refuted very clearly by mathematical logic
and the fact that Inertial's brain is inert.
Inertial
news:hJpnm.29169$bU2....@newsfe29.ams2...
Although there is no mention of any of this in that page. What he DOSE have
in that page is a clear bewilderment at how elementary algebra works
But lets look at what he says here (as supposed justification for the above)
> Einstein:
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
That is saying that if we transform the times as recorded in one inertial
frame to another inertial frame, and in that other frame the start and end
points are fixed locations (call them A and B), then if get the time halfway
between when light leaves A to when it arrives back at A, then that should
be the same time that light arrives at B.
So in the above
tau(0,0,0,t) is the transformed time when light leaves A
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) is the transformed time when light gets to B, where
x'/(c-v) is the untransformed time it takes to get there.
tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v)) is the transformed time when light arrives
back at A, where x'/(c+v) is the untransformed time it takes to get back.
And the formulas says that the time light gets to B is half way between the
time it leave A and gets back to A
But there's no transforms in the SR analysis of Sagnac, its all done in the
one frame. So what possible relevance is that equation?
Let's see what Androcles says about it.
> Let the light go back to the start by travelling around the circumference,
> a distance x', and we have
So I guess A is the source+detector .. so B must be the halfway point.
But what are the two inertial frames of reference here?
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> (change the x' coordinate on the RHS to 0).
Hang on .. he changed x' to 0 in one side of the equation, and not the
other. That's an error to start with.
And why would the half-way point, B, be at the same location as A (the
source+detector)? So jhe's saying we've gone from point A (0,0,0) to point
B (0,0,0) which is no distance, and then and back to A again.
So basically he's change the equation and also made it meaningless
> Now remove the 0,0,0, plum, pear, apple, dog's breakfast, anything
> else that is redundant and put there to confuse the idiot audience -
> magicians call that 'misdirection' when performing sleight-of-hand.
Indeed .. and that is what Androcles is doing.
Might as well snip the rest as its already lost all meaning
J Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> BTW, Emmision theories are refuted very clearly by Sagnac and the fact
> >> that ring-gyro's work :) An emission theory says these case that the
> >> time for the light to travel from source back to detector is the same
> >> in both directions. It also says that the light travels the same
> >> speed relative to the source in the two paths, and obviosuly has the
> >> same freuquency at the source. They will also have the same speed
> >> relative to the detector (that moves with the source), and the same
> >> frequency and take the same time to travel around. Hence there is no
> >> phase shift. NOTE: This is for relatively very small rotational
> >> speeds compared to the speed of light. SR predicts the observed phase
> >> shifting as in SR analysis the two wave fronts do not arrive at the
> >> detector at the same time, and so are out of phase.
>
> > Androcles claims that Sagnac works for his EmT. Would you like to look
> > at his theory and see if you can find the flaw that makes them stay in
> > the same phase?
>
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
>
> Lots of things wrong there.
>
> One thing to note is Andrcoles has a moving oscillator there, rather than a
> wave (that is not a problem, just noting as it is different to what some
> others say). Moving oscillators have the same frequency in all frames of
> reference, but the wavelength varies. A moving wave has the same wavelength
> in all frames of reference, but the frequency varies.
That's what I figured, but Androcles appears to say that his photons
aren't like that. I'll continue to find out what his do.
> First Sagnac detects a phase difference. Phase difference only occurs if
> frequency is the same, but the rays arrive at different times and so at
> different phase within their cycle. A frequency difference would mean a
> continually changing interference pattern. Wavelength doesn't matter for
> the phase difference as long as frequency is the same (and there is a
> difference in arrival times giving you a difference in phase).
That makes sense at first sight. I have to keep rechecking my logic
when I think about EmT because I'm used to figuring the velocity is
the same, but with this theory the velocity is what changes. So things
that seem perfectly reasonable at first might get all switched around
by that.
> As he shows in the animation, both rays take the same time to travel from
> source initial position to the detector position.
Yes.
> As far as the source is
> concerned, they have the same speed and frequency and wavelength. As far as
> the detector is concerned, they have the same speed and frequency and
> wavelength. So there is no phase shift.
I'm not sure. Does that work for rotations? I think it would work for
straight lines.
Yes. A follows B one unit apart, both at speed v. light from A to B
goes at c+v and reaches B at the same time as light that goes from B
to A at c-v. At least for things which are in line, you get the same
result in all frames very simply.
But in Sagnac he has them start at two different velocities, and he
implies that the distances work out precisely to what's needed to get
them to reach the detector at the same time. So the detector gets two
waves that are the same frequency (as you require) but different
velocities and different wavelengths.
So yes, it sure seems plausible that they'd arrive in phase but at
different speeds and wavelengths, and I don't see yet how to get an
interference pattern from that. I'll sleep on it. Maybe I've missed
something.
> However, what his animation shows is that at a fixed point in the
> non-rotating frame, when you doppler shift the wavelength to account for the
> different in speed of the rays, you get a difference in wavelength. That is
> no the Sagnac effect.
I don't care what you call it if you get the right interference
pattern. Right now I don't see that you would.
> Note that at the very very low speed of rotation compared to light speed,
> the coriolis effect is a minimal second order effect and does not account
> for the observed phase shift. You'll note the Androcles doesn't show any
> math for how it.
I don't care whether he calls it coriolis. Maybe at some point I'll
see why he gives it that name.
> Note that Sagnac is explained just fine in SR, nothing Androcles shows
> refutes that. Yet he draws the conclusion that SR is disproven by reality.
> That, of course, is a lie.
I'm not very concerned with arguments to disprove SR. If it turns out
that Androcles doesn't completely understand SR that would say nothing
about whether his own theory works. Getting too comfortable with the
assumptions of emission theory would predispose him to make relativity
mistakes. And vice versa for others trying to follow EmT arguments.
J Thomas
> J Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY
>
> > There are various approaches available to attack the theory.
>
> > 2. Show that it is incompatible with experimental evidence.
>
> > This might be possible, I haven't heard of any examples.
>
> Caption: ESO PR Photo 07e/05 The "First Fringes"
> obtained with the first two VLTI Auxiliary Telescopes,
> as seen on the computer screen during the observation.
> The fringe pattern arises when the light beams from
> the two 1.8-m telescopes are brought together inside
> the VINCI instrument. The pattern itself contains
> information about the angular extension of the observed
> object, here the 6th-magnitude star HD62082. The fringes
> are acquired by moving a mirror back and forth around
> the position of equal path length for the two telescopes.
> One such scan can be seen in the third row window. This
> pattern results from the raw interferometric signals
> (the last two rows) after calibration and filtering
> using the photometric signals (the 4th and 5th row).
> The first two rows show the spectrum of the fringe pattern
> signal. More details about the interpretation of this
> pattern is given in Appendix A of PR 06/01. >>http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-06-05.html
Are you saying that EmT prodicts something that this photo denies?
I'm sorry to be so slow, I just don't see it yet.
J Thomas
[sigh] I keep getting the impression that it isn't supposed to make
sense. This is something that wave theory has no trouble with, but
particle theory requires doubletalk for.
I'd be interested if Androcles has a particle explanation for this
which doesn't take doubleslit doubletalk. But if not, he's in no worse
shape than the rest of particle theory.
> > > But you might survey how many astronomers tolerate
> > > surface irregularities that particle light should
> > > permit.
>
> > I see that this is a strong argument against your particle theory of
> > light. I don't know yet what his particle theory of light says. I don't
> > know yet what he wants his particles to do that waves couldn't do.
>
> He has told you.
> He envisions faster than light communication to Mars.
He proposes light traveling at c+v in the V direction. That would work
as well if it was a wave traveling at c+v when it's in the V
direction. What I understand so far of his explanation for why it has
to be particles is "Newton did it that way". I'll watch for something
else.
> > People talk like they have light doing some things that particles can't
> > do and some things that waves can't do. If Androcles has a theory that
> > lets particles do it all I'll be pleased. If it turns out that waves can
> > do it all too I'll be even more pleased. Then we don't have to choose,
> > we can just use whichever theory is more convenient at the moment and
> > either should be adequate for anything.
>
> Waves can do the whole magilla. But most problems
> don't require you to consider the whole magilla.
I see no reason to disagree with you about this, but I note that there
are people who disagree and say that QM gives results that waves
cannot get.
Sue...
An architect can't give floor plans to the brick factory
and order 50,000 pieces.
Why should you expect to define fundamental particles
in the terms we associate with complex matter?
Atoms, molecules.
>
> I'd be interested if Androcles has a particle explanation for this
> which doesn't take doubleslit doubletalk. But if not, he's in no worse
> shape than the rest of particle theory.
>
> > > > But you might survey how many astronomers tolerate
> > > > surface irregularities that particle light should
> > > > permit.
>
> > > I see that this is a strong argument against your particle theory of
> > > light. I don't know yet what his particle theory of light says. I don't
> > > know yet what he wants his particles to do that waves couldn't do.
>
> > He has told you.
> > He envisions faster than light communication to Mars.
>
> He proposes light traveling at c+v in the V direction. That would work
> as well if it was a wave traveling at c+v when it's in the V
> direction. What I understand so far of his explanation for why it has
> to be particles is "Newton did it that way". I'll watch for something
> else.
His model for the E and B relation for light particle is
more what we'd expect for an electron.
FTL is no problem there if you have the energy and shielding.
<< The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC
are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles
typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light
in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass
energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV
(or 100 GeV per nucleus); >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider
If Androcles is using his own funds to condition the space
between here and Mars so we can accelerate
little accelerators with big accelerators, and
those big accelerators with even bigger accelerators
I will bring the champagne when the first ion
outruns news of its departure to Mars to shout
"binary one" to the little green people.
But when the whole apparatus piles up on the
surface of Mars and you measure the temperature
rise, (calorimetry) the speed of light was not violated.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
Relativistic particle dynamics
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
>
> > > People talk like they have light doing some things that particles can't
> > > do and some things that waves can't do. If Androcles has a theory that
> > > lets particles do it all I'll be pleased. If it turns out that waves can
> > > do it all too I'll be even more pleased. Then we don't have to choose,
> > > we can just use whichever theory is more convenient at the moment and
> > > either should be adequate for anything.
>
> > Waves can do the whole magilla. But most problems
> > don't require you to consider the whole magilla.
>
> I see no reason to disagree with you about this, but I note that there
> are people who disagree and say that QM gives results that waves
> cannot get.
QM is not evidence for particle light.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/
Sue...
J Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Hey, I presented two ways it could work. Tell me how it works when you
> > do it?
>
> > First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
>
> > Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle is
> > emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and speed s is
> > the vector sum of vV + cP.
Is that right?
> > Did I get the quickest path right?
> This is really simple.
> Either the plane flies from London to New York or it crosses a T.
>
> Boston/Atlanta/Orlando
> |
> |
> |----------New York
> |
> |
> |
> London
>
> If it crosses a T then Doppler says
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
> (without the division by the silly sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) term in the divisor),
> so Einstein agrees with Doppler and then blue-shifts the result.
v' = v*(1 - cos(theta)*v/c)
The speed then is v'+c? No, at 90 degrees v'=v.
I don't follow you. Is that the formula you intended?
> If the plane goes direct to NY then cos(phi) = 1 or -1, depending on return
> flights continuing on a great circle or going East.
So you get v' = v(1+ v/c) or v' = v(1-v/c).
Could you perhaps mean v' = c(1+v/c) = c + v ? Then I can make sense
of it.
And then for a 90 degree angle you get v' = c . That doesn't look
right to me but I can see it would be convenient if it turned out tha
way.
Oh! How about this. If theta is the angle that the ray would be
emitted at rest, what angle does the ray actually move when v is taken
into account?
What I get is
theta' = arcsin( c/(c+v) )
If you're traveling with the source at v then of course it looks to
you like your ray at 90 degrees is traveling straight to the side at
speed c. But to somebody who doesn't share your velocity v it will
look like the light is traveling at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) speed and at angle
theta'.
So in the general case, the source moves at v and it sends a ray which
in its own frame is traveling at speed c and angle theta. To see how
it looks to someone who is traveling at 0, we get
sin(theta) / (v/c + cos(theta)) = tan(theta')
theta' = arctan [ sin(theta) / (v/c + cos(theta)) ]
c' = sqrt( (c*sin(theta'))^2 + ((c+v)*cos(theta'))^2 ) or
c' = sqrt( (c*sin(theta'))^2 + ((c-v)*cos(theta'))^2 )
> Either
> f' = f * (1-v/c)
> = f * (c/c-v/c)
> = f * (c-v)/c
> or
> f' = f * (c+v)/c
That comes from your formula. If your velocity is right then this
ought to be right, provided the wavelength is unchanged.
> NOTE!!
> This is NOT
> f' = f * c/(c-v), a sonic boom.
Sure. No light booms in your system. Just does not happen.
yes....
> > Are we really measuring wavelength or frequency or some
> > combination or something else?
>
> It's impossible to observe a wavelength or a frequency.
> A wavelength is a distance from where something was to where it is
> now. The red pointer is attempting to measure a wavelength, and
> gets it wrong.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
It's possible to observe a wavelength and a frequency for low-
frequency sound. It's possible to observe those on a vibrating string.
I can easily accept it may not be possible to observe them for
electromagnetic radiation. But -- if you could produce a standing
wave, could you observe wavelength for that? You'd have nodes where
nothing changed and places inbetween that had some amplitude. Could
you measure that?
If you can measure the standing wave then you could infer the
different waves that create it.
> > If something else, what?
>
> Your own imagination. Here's another view of a photon:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
> It's frequency is obvious, just time it with a stopwatch.
> It's wavelength depends on how fast you move it.
> Red represents +ve, Blue is -ve, yellow and purple are
> N and S poles of a magnet.
> E = -dB/dt
> As with all differential equations, the solution is a function.
> In this case,
> E.sin(t) = B.cos(t) = B.sin(t +pi/2)
You're looking at what happens at one place, and the reason it works
is that it's slow enough for your eye to see the changes. For visible
light people mostly look at interference patterns at different places
and infer frequency and wavelength on the assumption that c is
constant.
Do you know another way it could be measured?
J Thomas
> J Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [sigh] I keep getting the impression that it isn't supposed to make
> > sense. This is something that wave theory has no trouble with, but
> > particle theory requires doubletalk for.
>
> An architect can't give floor plans to the brick factory
> and order 50,000 pieces.
>
> Why should you expect to define fundamental particles
> in the terms we associate with complex matter?
> Atoms, molecules.
That sounds like a fine explanation to me. Everything that light as
particles explains, involves light interacting with atoms, doesn't it?
> > > He envisions faster than light communication to Mars.
>
> > He proposes light traveling at c+v in the V direction. That would work
> > as well if it was a wave traveling at c+v when it's in the V
> > direction. What I understand so far of his explanation for why it has
> > to be particles is "Newton did it that way". I'll watch for something
> > else.
> His model for the E and B relation for light particle is
> more what we'd expect for an electron.
> FTL is no problem there if you have the energy and shielding.
> << The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC
> are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles
> typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light
> in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass
> energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV
> (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider
Say, there are various sources available for very high speed charged
particles. Particularly electrons. If there was a way to get very fast
charged particles to produce EM radiation, then we could look at its
speed in different directions, unless our methods to measure
lightspeed have some fundamental flaw that results in light which
travels at c+v actually getting measured at c instead. We could do
whatever experiments look useful, without having to depend on
starlight of unknown provenance.
> If Androcles is using his own funds to condition the space
> between here and Mars so we can accelerate
> little accelerators with big accelerators, and
> those big accelerators with even bigger accelerators
> I will bring the champagne when the first ion
> outruns news of its departure to Mars to shout
> "binary one" to the little green people.
>
> But when the whole apparatus piles up on the
> surface of Mars and you measure the temperature
> rise, (calorimetry) the speed of light was not violated.
He wants to do it with fast light.
Androcles
"J Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6f15da5-160b-443b...@k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> He proposes light traveling at c+v in the V direction. That would work
> as well if it was a wave traveling at c+v when it's in the V
> direction. What I understand so far of his explanation for why it has
> to be particles is "Newton did it that way". I'll watch for something
> else.
Archimedes made a water lifter.
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Screw/ScrewMineMed.gif
. . . and what is the most surprising thing of all, they [Roman slaves]
draw out the water of the streams they encounter [in Spanish mines] by means
of what is called by men the Egyptian screw, which was invented by
Archimedes of Syracuse at the time of his visit to Egypt; and by the use of
such screws they carry the water in successive lifts as far as the entrance,
drying up in this way the spot where they are digging and making it well
suited to the furtherance of their operations. Since this machine is an
exceptionally ingenious device, an enormous amount of water is thrown out,
to one's astonishment, by means of a trifling amount of labour, and all the
water from such rivers is brought up easily and from the depths and poured
out on the surface. And a man may well marvel at the inventiveness of the
craftsman [Archimedes], in connection not only with this invention but with
many other greater ones as well, the fame of which has encompassed the
entire inhabited world . . .
(Translation by C. H. Oldfather in Diodorus Siculus, Library of History,
Volume III, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1939.
Diagram from R. E. Palmer, "Notes on Some Ancient Mine Equipments and
Systems," Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Volume
36, Pages 299-336, 1926.)
He noticed the ripples on the water (waves) were kept in by the barrel of
the screw and didn't spread out in circles.
As everybody knows, if you put a fishing float at the focus of a parabolic
blackboard you can make the water wave beam travel absolutely straight
across a pond or lake instead of spreading out in circles -- NOT.
Newton realised this so when he invented his reflecting telescope he gave it
a barrel to stop the light waves escaping out of the sides in spheres --
NOT.
Large projectiles fired from a gun are called "shells".
They contain explosive material which spreads out in spheres.
Shells work well as spherical waves, but they cause too much collateral
damage at the gun.
So Newton invented full metal jackets to go around Maxwell's aether waves
and called them "corpuscles of light" so that he could remove the barrel
from his larger telescopes-- NOT.
Androcles
"J Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a92fda5-a5db-442a...@c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> I don't care whether he calls it coriolis. Maybe at some point I'll
> see why he gives it that name.
>
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
See the animation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Does this answer the question?: http://tinyurl.com/kqkavg
There are none so stupid as those that refuse to understand.
Sue...
I could briefly entertain the notion that nuclear
emissions in the the gamma band might be transparent to
the electron shells of the free space dielectric and
propagate at other than 300Mm/sec. Spin/orbit coupling
is tight, so it seems unlikely.
Astronomers are certainly LQQKing for a fast gamma wave
to announce that some electromagnetism is behind it.
But AFAIK nothing is seen so far that is not traceable
to a skew in the emission process. I won't be in
disbelief if something turns up, but I am not holding
my breath.
Sue...
Androcles
"J Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9e69db3-27e2-4ecc...@k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Hey, I presented two ways it could work. Tell me how it works when you
>> > do it?
>>
>> > First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
>>
>> > Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle is
>> > emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and speed s
>> > is
>> > the vector sum of vV + cP.
>
> Is that right?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
>
>> > Did I get the quickest path right?
>
>> This is really simple.
>> Either the plane flies from London to New York or it crosses a T.
>>
>> Boston/Atlanta/Orlando
>> |
>> |
>> |----------New York
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> London
>>
>> If it crosses a T then Doppler says
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
>> (without the division by the silly sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) term in the divisor),
>> so Einstein agrees with Doppler and then blue-shifts the result.
>
> v' = v*(1 - cos(theta)*v/c)
>
> The speed then is v'+c? No, at 90 degrees v'=v.
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
>
> I don't follow you. Is that the formula you intended?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
>> If the plane goes direct to NY then cos(phi) = 1 or -1, depending on
>> return
>> flights continuing on a great circle or going East.
>
> So you get v' = v(1+ v/c) or v' = v(1-v/c).
>
> Could you perhaps mean v' = c(1+v/c) = c + v ? Then I can make sense
> of it.
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
> And then for a 90 degree angle you get v' = c . That doesn't look
> right to me but I can see it would be convenient if it turned out tha
> way.
>
> Oh! How about this. If theta is the angle that the ray would be
> emitted at rest, what angle does the ray actually move when v is taken
> into account?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
> What I get is
>
> theta' = arcsin( c/(c+v) )
>
> If you're traveling with the source at v then of course it looks to
> you like your ray at 90 degrees is traveling straight to the side at
> speed c. But to somebody who doesn't share your velocity v it will
> look like the light is traveling at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) speed and at angle
> theta'.
>
> So in the general case, the source moves at v and it sends a ray which
> in its own frame is traveling at speed c and angle theta. To see how
> it looks to someone who is traveling at 0, we get
>
> sin(theta) / (v/c + cos(theta)) = tan(theta')
>
> theta' = arctan [ sin(theta) / (v/c + cos(theta)) ]
>
> c' = sqrt( (c*sin(theta'))^2 + ((c+v)*cos(theta'))^2 ) or
> c' = sqrt( (c*sin(theta'))^2 + ((c-v)*cos(theta'))^2 )
>
>> Either
>> f' = f * (1-v/c)
>> = f * (c/c-v/c)
>> = f * (c-v)/c
>> or
>> f' = f * (c+v)/c
>
> That comes from your formula. If your velocity is right then this
> ought to be right, provided the wavelength is unchanged.
>
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
>
>> NOTE!!
>> This is NOT
>> f' = f * c/(c-v), a sonic boom.
>
> Sure. No light booms in your system. Just does not happen.
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
> If you can measure the standing wave then you could infer the
> different waves that create it.
>
>> > If something else, what?
>>
>> Your own imagination. Here's another view of a photon:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
>> It's frequency is obvious, just time it with a stopwatch.
>> It's wavelength depends on how fast you move it.
>> Red represents +ve, Blue is -ve, yellow and purple are
>> N and S poles of a magnet.
>> E = -dB/dt
>> As with all differential equations, the solution is a function.
>> In this case,
>> E.sin(t) = B.cos(t) = B.sin(t +pi/2)
>
> You're looking at what happens at one place,
I'm very good at looking at what happens in two places simultaneously,
and ever better at being sarcastic. Why the fuck would I be looking at
what happens in the other place?
and the reason it works
> is that it's slow enough for your eye to see the changes. For visible
> light people mostly look at interference patterns at different places
> and infer frequency and wavelength on the assumption that c is
> constant.
>
> Do you know another way it could be measured?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
Androcles
"J Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9e69db3-27e2-4ecc...@k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Hey, I presented two ways it could work. Tell me how it works when you
>> > do it?
>>
>> > First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
>>
>> > Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle is
>> > emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and speed s
>> > is
>> > the vector sum of vV + cP.
>
> Is that right?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of all URLs I've given you until I have to repeat them and refuse
to answer questions I've posed for you.
>
>> > Did I get the quickest path right?
>
>> This is really simple.
>> Either the plane flies from London to New York or it crosses a T.
>>
>> Boston/Atlanta/Orlando
>> |
>> |
>> |----------New York
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> London
>>
>> If it crosses a T then Doppler says
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
>> (without the division by the silly sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) term in the divisor),
>> so Einstein agrees with Doppler and then blue-shifts the result.
>
> v' = v*(1 - cos(theta)*v/c)
>
> The speed then is v'+c? No, at 90 degrees v'=v.
Amazing...
It's
\nu' = \nu *(1 - cos(\phi)*v/c),
where \nu is the frequency and \phi is the angle.
Theta is an 'o' with a horizontal bar, phi has vertical bar.
Until you learn to read you will be hopelessly confused.
> I don't follow you. Is that the formula you intended?
You did follow me. What you did was confuse a Roman v
with a Greek \nu, and a \theta with a \phi.
"The speed then is v'+c? No, at 90 degrees f'=f."
I use 'f' for frequency (in usenet), Einstein uses \nu.
>> If the plane goes direct to NY then cos(phi) = 1 or -1, depending on
>> return
>> flights continuing on a great circle or going East.
>
> So you get v' = v(1+ v/c) or v' = v(1-v/c).
No, I get f' = f(1+v/c) or f' = f(1-v/c)
> Could you perhaps mean v' = c(1+v/c) = c + v ? Then I can make sense
> of it.
No I couldn't, I mean exactly what I wrote. Learn to read Greek letters.
ONLY THEN you can make sense out of it.
> And then for a 90 degree angle you get v' = c . That doesn't look
> right to me but I can see it would be convenient if it turned out tha
> way.
>
> Oh! How about this. If theta is the angle that the ray would be
> emitted at rest, what angle does the ray actually move when v is taken
> into account?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of all URLs I've given you until I have to repeat them and refuse
to answer questions I've posed for you.
> What I get is
>
> theta' = arcsin( c/(c+v) )
>
> If you're traveling with the source at v then of course it looks to
> you like your ray at 90 degrees is traveling straight to the side at
> speed c. But to somebody who doesn't share your velocity v it will
> look like the light is traveling at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) speed and at angle
> theta'.
>
> So in the general case, the source moves at v and it sends a ray which
> in its own frame is traveling at speed c and angle theta. To see how
> it looks to someone who is traveling at 0, we get
>
> sin(theta) / (v/c + cos(theta)) = tan(theta')
>
> theta' = arctan [ sin(theta) / (v/c + cos(theta)) ]
>
> c' = sqrt( (c*sin(theta'))^2 + ((c+v)*cos(theta'))^2 ) or
> c' = sqrt( (c*sin(theta'))^2 + ((c-v)*cos(theta'))^2 )
>
Einstein didn't use theta in his screwball equation. He used phi.
>> Either
>> f' = f * (1-v/c)
>> = f * (c/c-v/c)
>> = f * (c-v)/c
>> or
>> f' = f * (c+v)/c
>
> That comes from your formula. If your velocity is right then this
> ought to be right, provided the wavelength is unchanged.
>
It's Doppler's, not mine.
Crank Einstein says
f' = f * (c+v)/c * \beta
where
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img37.gif
because Crank Einstein multiplies everything in sight by \beta and
illiterate
cranks who can't read Greek call \beta "gamma".
>
>> NOTE!!
>> This is NOT
>> f' = f * c/(c-v), a sonic boom.
>
> Sure. No light booms in your system. Just does not happen.
There is in crank Einstein's system.
"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite
intensity." -- Crank Einstein
Match the caption to the gif:
D) http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
4) applies to neither light nor sound
See, the speed of the star is zero, the speed of the ship is -c, the
speed of the light is c. So the ship makes the light slow down to zero
with respect to the star if you are a crank like Einstein. This pisses
you off because you don't like it that I call Einstein the fucking crank
and conning bastard he was.
I don't believe you. The red pointer is travelling at twice the speed
of sound and still can't measure the wavelength correctly, its twice
what it should be.
> It's possible to observe those on a vibrating string.
You are bullshitting me. How can anyone be in two places simultaneously?
> I can easily accept it may not be possible to observe them for
> electromagnetic radiation. But -- if you could produce a standing
> wave, could you observe wavelength for that? You'd have nodes where
> nothing changed and places inbetween that had some amplitude. Could
> you measure that?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions I've posed
for you.
> If you can measure the standing wave then you could infer the
> different waves that create it.
Infer? What's this infer? I want MEASUREMENT, not inference.
If I went around inferring things I'd believe Einstein and not be an
engineer.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when MEASURED
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v." - Einstein.
Of course the lying bastard didn't measure it at all, he INFERRED it.
And you inferred he knew what he was babbling about.
>> > If something else, what?
>>
>> Your own imagination. Here's another view of a photon:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
>> It's frequency is obvious, just time it with a stopwatch.
>> It's wavelength depends on how fast you move it.
>> Red represents +ve, Blue is -ve, yellow and purple are
>> N and S poles of a magnet.
>> E = -dB/dt
>> As with all differential equations, the solution is a function.
>> In this case,
>> E.sin(t) = B.cos(t) = B.sin(t +pi/2)
>
> You're looking at what happens at one place,
I'm very good at looking at what happens in two places simultaneously,
and ever better at being sarcastic. Why the fuck would I be looking at
what happens in the other place?
> and the reason it works
> is that it's slow enough for your eye to see the changes. For visible
> light people mostly look at interference patterns at different places
> and infer frequency and wavelength on the assumption that c is
> constant.
>
> Do you know another way it could be measured?
I'm tired of answering questions and getting no answers to the questions I
ask.
If you want an answer you can first explain why you refuse to read the
contents of all the URLs I've given you and refuse to answer questions
J Thomas
> "J Thomas" <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm sorry to annoy you. I think maybe the quesions you asked me that I
didn't answer were usually things I thought were rhetorical questions
that you didn't expect me to answer.
Oh well. You've given me a lot of exciting things to think about, and
I hope you won't mind if I post about them. I'll try to remember to
give you credit. Feel free to comment if you feel like it.
I'll respond to you sometimes, but if you get too annoyed I might
stop.
Androcles
Some, certainly. I'm a sarcastic bastard and I know I upset people.
But others were clearly germain to your understanding of physics,
mathematics and astrophysics, as well as your understanding of
psychology. If you don't understand, ask.
> Oh well. You've given me a lot of exciting things to think about, and
> I hope you won't mind if I post about them. I'll try to remember to
> give you credit. Feel free to comment if you feel like it.
>
> I'll respond to you sometimes, but if you get too annoyed I might
> stop.
Your choice. I will only "mind" if you misrepresent what I've said
through your own ignorance, disseminating false rumours.
I'm far from annoyed, I'm amused. If I don't answer you (and I
have responded to *all* your questions) it'll be because you haven't
understood what you are saying and I expect you to think.
I deal in proof, real data and mathematics. I also have a sense
of humour. You want to deal in theory and seem unable to laugh.
This is NOT a rhetorical question:
What does the first line of Michelson's 1887 paper say?
Here it is, read it.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
I wasn't around in 1887, I'm old but not 122 years old.
Helmut Wabnig
On page 344 of that paper Michelson proposes a one-way
measurement of light velocity similar to the Marinov experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO1PDF/V14N1BEL.pdf
Finally we meet with Cahill (oops)
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO1PDF/V14N1BEL.pdf
w.
Jonah Thomas
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> > First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
> >
> > Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle
> > is emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and
> > speed s is the vector sum of vV + cP.
> >
> > Did I get the quickest path right?
Yes, I got the quickest path right, and that has no effect on doppler.
> If it crosses a T then Doppler says
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
> (without the division by the silly sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) term in the
> divisor), so Einstein agrees with Doppler and then blue-shifts the
> result.
If it was sound, you'd apply the doppler formula that's appropriate for
sound when you are moving relative to the air and the source is not. If
thinking in terms of waves is appropriate at all, then that is the right
model.
The situation when you move past a stationary source of sound at 50 mph
is just like the one where you stand still and a source of sound moves
past you at 50 mph with a 50 mph tailwind.
Either way, the distortion is minimised when the direction of the source
is orthogonal to the direction of the motion. The actual sideways
velocity then does not matter -- it will have its minimal effect when
you are traveling along the compression wave, and all the wave crests
are traveling sideways at the same speed. If you could take a snapshot
of the waves at that time you couldn't tell them from a stationary
source and a stationary observer.
You can detect the sideways velocity by the doppler effect -- by the
speed that the pitch changes -- but still the time the difference passes
from positive to negative comes right then.
My intuition still isn't tuned to the whole wave moving. I think that
when the already-emitted waves don't move with the source -- when they
expand at c and you get that off-center picture of them that would turn
into a shock wave if the speed ever got up to c -- that then the doppler
effect would cancel out at a different place, at a noticeable angle away
from right angles. When the SR guys say that relativity predicts a
doppler effect at 90 degrees but nothing else does I think they are
mistaken. But EmT *does* predict the doppler effect will cancel at
precisely 90 degrees.
So this is a place where SR and EmT give different results, that might
be somehow testable.
> > What is it we really observe when we see interference
> > patterns?
>
> Photons that enter our eyes from different locations.
Sure. One spot is lit up and another spot is not. We can measure the
distance between them.
When the light comes through a diffraction grating, only light in
equally-spaced bands gets through, and the accepted theory is that this
light spreads out in all directions, To reach any particular point,
light from different bands will travel different distances, and the
light that is in phase will reinforce itself.
The formula for where to expect reinforcement is
d sin(theta) = ml where
d -- the distance between lines in the grating
l = wavelength
m = some integer
theta = some angle that makes the rest true.
But we could easily replace l by c/f, lightspeed/frequency and get the
same result.
> > Are we really measuring wavelength or frequency or some
> > combination or something else?
>
> It's impossible to observe a wavelength or a frequency.
> A wavelength is a distance from where something was to where it is
> now. The red pointer is attempting to measure a wavelength, and
> gets it wrong.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
Sure. Ideally you would measure a wavelength by measuring a distance,
all at once. If you can't actually measure the distance then you have to
infer the distance from the known speed and the known frequency.
Or with the diffraction pattern you can measure a length, and since you
know that c is constant that gets you both the wavelength and the
frequency.
But if you don't know that c is a constant after all, then it doesn't
work. It's all assumed based on that.
Androcles
> Androcles, I worked out my problem about doppler.
>
Good for you, that's what I like to hear. Far better if you work it
out for yourself than anyone telling you.
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> > First, did I get the directions and speeds right?
>> >
>> > Say it's source is traveling in direction V at speed v. The particle
>> > is emitted in direction P at speed c. The actual direction S and
>> > speed s is the vector sum of vV + cP.
>> >
>> > Did I get the quickest path right?
>
> Yes, I got the quickest path right, and that has no effect on doppler.
>
>> If it crosses a T then Doppler says
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
>> (without the division by the silly sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) term in the
>> divisor), so Einstein agrees with Doppler and then blue-shifts the
>> result.
>
> If it was sound, you'd apply the doppler formula that's appropriate for
> sound when you are moving relative to the air and the source is not. If
> thinking in terms of waves is appropriate at all, then that is the right
> model.
>
> The situation when you move past a stationary source of sound at 50 mph
> is just like the one where you stand still and a source of sound moves
> past you at 50 mph with a 50 mph tailwind.
Yes. Well done. And remember that MMX was was designed to find the
speed of light while moving through Maxwell's luminiferous ectoplasm.
If there was any tailwind it would a headwind 12 hours later. So not all
of Maxwell's equations can be right, but some can.
>
> Either way, the distortion is minimised when the direction of the source
> is orthogonal to the direction of the motion. The actual sideways
> velocity then does not matter -- it will have its minimal effect when
> you are traveling along the compression wave, and all the wave crests
> are traveling sideways at the same speed. If you could take a snapshot
> of the waves at that time you couldn't tell them from a stationary
> source and a stationary observer.
>
> You can detect the sideways velocity by the doppler effect -- by the
> speed that the pitch changes -- but still the time the difference passes
> from positive to negative comes right then.
Of course.
> My intuition still isn't tuned to the whole wave moving. I think that
> when the already-emitted waves don't move with the source -- when they
> expand at c and you get that off-center picture of them that would turn
> into a shock wave if the speed ever got up to c -- that then the doppler
> effect would cancel out at a different place, at a noticeable angle away
> from right angles. When the SR guys say that relativity predicts a
> doppler effect at 90 degrees but nothing else does I think they are
> mistaken. But EmT *does* predict the doppler effect will cancel at
> precisely 90 degrees.
Doppler shift is exactly none, i.e. f' = f, at precisely 90 degrees, both
by experiment and by Doppler's theory. The SR guy is Einstein, all
the rest are sheep bleating his "baa". So don't tell me what the SR guys
are saying, talk only about what Einstein said. Einstein was WRONG.
Nobody else, the sheep don't matter. EINSTEIN was wrong, and
Maxwell was half wrong. You've yet to show Newton was wrong.
> So this is a place where SR and EmT give different results, that might
> be somehow testable.
Of course it is testable. Just change your intuition. Your intuition
is to believe what you see with your eyes. My intuition, after years
of experience, is not to believe what I see with my eyes but to trust
what I see with my mind, logically.
If I believe what I see with my eyes then this turntable is stationary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs&NR=1
If I believe what I see with my eyes then the pencil in water is bent.
If I believe what I see with my eyes then Mira has a tail.
If I believe what I see with my eyes then V 1493 Aql is exploding.
http://tinyurl.com/l5cczn
>
>> > What is it we really observe when we see interference
>> > patterns?
>>
>> Photons that enter our eyes from different locations.
>
> Sure. One spot is lit up and another spot is not. We can measure the
> distance between them.
>
> When the light comes through a diffraction grating, only light in
> equally-spaced bands gets through, and the accepted theory is that this
> light spreads out in all directions, To reach any particular point,
> light from different bands will travel different distances, and the
> light that is in phase will reinforce itself.
>
> The formula for where to expect reinforcement is
>
> d sin(theta) = ml where
>
> d -- the distance between lines in the grating
> l = wavelength
> m = some integer
> theta = some angle that makes the rest true.
>
> But we could easily replace l by c/f, lightspeed/frequency and get the
> same result.
Look again at the strobe light on the old turntable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs&NR=1
The upper bands are going backwards.
1) the strobe frequency doesn't change.
2) the "wavelength", i.e. distance between dots, is selected to correspond
with the speed.
3) You cannot tell 66 RPM from 33 RPM or 45 RPM from 90 RPM
with this device.
4) I have a broken spoke in this wheel to show that.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm#*Deception:_
YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE SPEED OF LIGHT OR WAVELENGTH
WITH A DIFFRACTION GRATING.
You ASSUME the speed of light is c because Einstein told you that, but any
change in angle is a change in the SPEED. You can only rely on the
EMITTED frequency. Blue or red shift is a change in the RELATIVE
speed of light, c' = EMITTED frequency * OBSERVED wavelength.
The frequencies of light are a set of universal constants. The speed of
light is not.
>> > Are we really measuring wavelength or frequency or some
>> > combination or something else?
>>
>> It's impossible to observe a wavelength or a frequency.
>> A wavelength is a distance from where something was to where it is
>> now. The red pointer is attempting to measure a wavelength, and
>> gets it wrong.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
>
> Sure. Ideally you would measure a wavelength by measuring a distance,
> all at once. If you can't actually measure the distance then you have to
> infer the distance from the known speed and the known frequency.
Stand that on it's head, the other way around.
If you can't actually measure the speed then you have to infer the
speed from the known frequency and the measured wavelength.
You can still use your diffraction grating's d.sin(theta) to find the
speed of the incident light from the angle, but you CANNOT
assume the speed to get the frequency.
"THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light
is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he
knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c
= 300,000 km./sec."
Children in school have been indoctrinated by such persuasive rhetoric,
there is no such "law".
Einstein was either an incompetent fool or a lying bastard. Based on the
circumstantial
evidence, he was lying bastard.
> Or with the diffraction pattern you can measure a length, and since you
> know that c is constant that gets you both the wavelength and the
> frequency.
>
> But if you don't know that c is a constant after all, then it doesn't
> work. It's all assumed based on that.
Your scored 9 out of 10.
"Beths Grammar School in Bexley Village was the top boys' school in the
country with all 159 Year 11 students successfully gaining at least five
GCSE A* to C grades including English and maths, which no other boys school
in the country could match. "
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/l7x5su
To get an A* in my classroom you'll have to be bold enough to condemn
Einstein, not "SR guys". And then promote Newton. I'm a Newton guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants
Don't crawl beneath the feet of a pygmy, climb up here with me
and admire the view. Newton has broad shoulders, I can see further
than any man before me. Well... perhaps as far as Vladimir Sekerin, anyway.
Who's that, you ask?
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
Sekerin was working on binary stars at the same time I was, but we were
separated by an iron curtain and did not know of each other.
I had the advantage, though. I modelled it with a computer.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
Compare Sekerin's hand-drawn sketches with my computer generated
sketches.
Jonah Thomas
> And remember that MMX was was designed to find the
> speed of light while moving through Maxwell's luminiferous ectoplasm.
> If there was any tailwind it would a headwind 12 hours later. So not
> all of Maxwell's equations can be right, but some can.
I think it's better that I do not discuss ME with you unless there's
some particular need.
> > My intuition still isn't tuned to the whole wave moving. I think
> > that when the already-emitted waves don't move with the source --
> > when they expand at c and you get that off-center picture of them
> > that would turn into a shock wave if the speed ever got up to c --
> > that then the doppler effect would cancel out at a different place,
> > at a noticeable angle away from right angles. When the SR guys say
> > that relativity predicts a doppler effect at 90 degrees but nothing
> > else does I think they are mistaken. But EmT *does* predict the
> > doppler effect will cancel at precisely 90 degrees.
>
> Doppler shift is exactly none, i.e. f' = f, at precisely 90 degrees,
> both by experiment and by Doppler's theory.
http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
When you look at a picture kind of like this, the sonic boom picture.
And you make a little slower so it isn't quite a sonic boom. Look at a
part of the wave that's exactly perpendicular to the source. If you were
looking at the spreading circle, what direction would it look like it
was going? And how fast?
It looks to me like in this case -- not the EmT case where the waves
travel with the source, but one where the waves lag the source -- that
the sound will seem to come from behind where the source actually is.
Does that fit your experience with sound? Have you ever heard a subsonic
but fast military aircraft go by overhead and the sound seemed to be
coming from way behind where you could see the plane? And it seems to me
that the doppler effect is still there at that point. I'd expect the
doppler effect to go away at about the time the sound *sounds like* it's
even with you. I don't have math worked out to decide about this, but
it's the way it looks to me now. When I figure out how the math ought to
apply, I'll say so. My intuition might be wrong yet again.
> > So this is a place where SR and EmT give different results, that
> > might be somehow testable.
>
> Of course it is testable. Just change your intuition. Your intuition
> is to believe what you see with your eyes. My intuition, after years
> of experience, is not to believe what I see with my eyes but to trust
> what I see with my mind, logically.
> If I believe what I see with my eyes then this turntable is
> stationary.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs&NR=1
> If I believe what I see with my eyes then the pencil in water is bent.
> If I believe what I see with my eyes then Mira has a tail.
> If I believe what I see with my eyes then V 1493 Aql is exploding.
> http://tinyurl.com/l5cczn
My experience has taught me not to trust my intuition but not to
discount it. When something bothers my intuition there's something going
on I don't understand. When I do understand something it might turn out
that there was no problem with the thing that bothered me but only with
my understanding, or sometimes the idea I couldn't understand was just
wrong.
Careful logic connects up all the noticed assumptions with the
conclusions. At that point you know one set of assumptions that will get
those conclusions. It does not say what circumstances those assumptions
are true for. And there could still be some assumptions you simply did
not notice you were making, which can bite you in the ass later.
I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in sound.
I can work the formula but I won't trust it until I completely
understand it. However, at the moment I'm interested in EmT, your theory
and similar theories, and this is a side issue for that. If light has no
blueshift when the source is moving sideways, then relativity is wrong
and you are right on that topic. I'm not completely clear how to test
that. I don't want to pick stars that aren't known to be moving
sideways. I don't want to pick stars and assume they are moving sideways
and decide on that basis.
> >> > What is it we really observe when we see interference
> >> > patterns?
> >>
> >> Photons that enter our eyes from different locations.
> >
> > Sure. One spot is lit up and another spot is not. We can measure the
> > distance between them.
> >
> > When the light comes through a diffraction grating, only light in
> > equally-spaced bands gets through, and the accepted theory is that
> > this light spreads out in all directions, To reach any particular
> > point, light from different bands will travel different distances,
> > and the light that is in phase will reinforce itself.
> >
> > The formula for where to expect reinforcement is
> >
> > d sin(theta) = ml where
> >
> > d -- the distance between lines in the grating
> > l = wavelength
> > m = some integer
> > theta = some angle that makes the rest true.
> >
> > But we could easily replace l by c/f, lightspeed/frequency and get
> > the same result.
>
> Look again at the strobe light on the old turntable.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs&NR=1
> The upper bands are going backwards.
>
2> 1) the strobe frequency doesn't change.
If you know any two you can get the third, at least among multiples. In
your example you can't tell 33 from 66 (though I think you can, you can
tell angle is the first one). But definitely you can tell 33 from 40.
> > Or with the diffraction pattern you can measure a length, and since
> > you know that c is constant that gets you both the wavelength and
> > the frequency.
> >
> > But if you don't know that c is a constant after all, then it
> > doesn't work. It's all assumed based on that.
> To get an A* in my classroom you'll have to be bold enough to condemn
> Einstein, not "SR guys".
I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular at
the moment. I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and whether I
could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But your theory
looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable results it
predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of them.
Here's an early attempt.
saturn's rotation is 10 hours 14 min
Saturn's diameter at its equator is about 74900 miles (120540
kilometers)
Saturn is 1,321,416,800 kilometers from Earth
So the two sides of saturn's equator should have a velocity difference
of around 3 km/s.
And the difference between 300,000 km/s and 300,003 km/s over the
distance to earth will give a difference in arrival time of around .007
seconds according to EmT. And they arrive at slightly different speeds.
If there was a way to detect that....
Henry Wilson, DSc
>"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>
>I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in sound.
>I can work the formula but I won't trust it until I completely
>understand it. However, at the moment I'm interested in EmT, your theory
>and similar theories, and this is a side issue for that. If light has no
>blueshift when the source is moving sideways, then relativity is wrong
>and you are right on that topic. I'm not completely clear how to test
>that. I don't want to pick stars that aren't known to be moving
>sideways. I don't want to pick stars and assume they are moving sideways
>and decide on that basis.
In EmT, a star that is moving sideways will be emitting light in all
directions. When you see it APPARENTLY moving sideways perpendicular to your
LOS, it will in fact be well ahead of that position. The photons that enter
your telescope barrel and move down its central axis will have in fact been
emitted at an angle arctan(v/c) leaning back from the star's velocity vector.
--------------------S->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
|| telescope v=0
Light moves at c wrt its source and the whole line of photons is moving
sideways at v in your frame. It's speed down your telescope is sqrt(c^2 - v^2).
Therefore EmT would expect a red shift.
Note, aberration is often given as an argument against EmT but I think the
above argument sets that straight..
>> To get an A* in my classroom you'll have to be boldenough to condemn
>> Einstein, not "SR guys".
>
>I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular at
>the moment.
Well you should be. Einstein's theory is just a corruption of Lorentz's aether
theory. His second postulate claims source independency of light speed,
something that clearly requires an absolute medium to have any credibility.
Einstein believed light was a wave in a medium. None of his claims have ever
been verified in spite of the many attempts and false claims to the contrary.
Similarly, the EmT has never been falsified. De Sitter's 'refutation' ignored
the extinction of light as it travels.
In reality, many variable star brightness curves match perfectly the
predictions of EmT.
Both Androcles and I have investigated these with computer programs and have no
doubt that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at speeds of the form
c+vcos(at). Here are some curves I have matched. There are plenty more.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
>assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and whether I
>could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But your theory
>looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable results it
>predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of them.
Androcles didn't invent EmT. It was around since Newton. Walter Ritz was its
main proponent until he died prematurely in 1909...very convenient for
Einstein.
I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times, particularly
when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as the group's eccentric even
though he does occasionally fluke a stroke of genius. It's better to converse
with him before about 10am.
>Here's an early attempt.
>
>saturn's rotation is 10 hours 14 min
>Saturn's diameter at its equator is about 74900 miles (120540
>kilometers)
>Saturn is 1,321,416,800 kilometers from Earth
>
>So the two sides of saturn's equator should have a velocity difference
>of around 3 km/s.
>And the difference between 300,000 km/s and 300,003 km/s over the
>distance to earth will give a difference in arrival time of around .007
>seconds according to EmT. And they arrive at slightly different speeds.
>If there was a way to detect that....
You see how difficult it is to measure OWLS from a moving source....That's the
only reason Einstein has lasted this long.
Here's my suggestion: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> And remember that MMX was was designed to find the
>> speed of light while moving through Maxwell's luminiferous ectoplasm.
>> If there was any tailwind it would a headwind 12 hours later. So not
>> all of Maxwell's equations can be right, but some can.
>
> I think it's better that I do not discuss ME with you unless there's
> some particular need.
Running away from the issue won't resolve it; but anyway, I've pointed
you to Ivor Catt. What you do with that is up to you <shrug>.
>
>> > My intuition still isn't tuned to the whole wave moving. I think
>> > that when the already-emitted waves don't move with the source --
>> > when they expand at c and you get that off-center picture of them
>> > that would turn into a shock wave if the speed ever got up to c --
>> > that then the doppler effect would cancel out at a different place,
>> > at a noticeable angle away from right angles. When the SR guys say
>> > that relativity predicts a doppler effect at 90 degrees but nothing
>> > else does I think they are mistaken. But EmT *does* predict the
>> > doppler effect will cancel at precisely 90 degrees.
>>
>> Doppler shift is exactly none, i.e. f' = f, at precisely 90 degrees,
>> both by experiment and by Doppler's theory.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
> When you look at a picture kind of like this, the sonic boom picture.
> And you make a little slower so it isn't quite a sonic boom. Look at a
> part of the wave that's exactly perpendicular to the source. If you were
> looking at the spreading circle, what direction would it look like it
> was going? And how fast?
Draw one expanding circle. REMOVE ALL the OTHER expanding circles.
Look at a part of the circle that's exactly perpendicular to the source.
If you were looking at a part of the spreading circle, what direction
would it look like it was going? And how fast?
>
> It looks to me like in this case -- not the EmT case where the waves
> travel with the source, but one where the waves lag the source -- that
> the sound will seem to come from behind where the source actually is.
> Does that fit your experience with sound?
No.
Have you ever heard a subsonic
> but fast military aircraft go by overhead and the sound seemed to be
> coming from way behind where you could see the plane?
No. I hear the sound after the plane has past because the speed of sound
is finite and less than the speed of light, but I have no trouble
determining
which direction the sound came from.
> And it seems to me
> that the doppler effect is still there at that point.
You talk quite a lot of "seems to be", don't you?
Learn to see with your mind, not just your senses.
Most animals are afraid of fire. Man is unique, he overcomes his fear and
controls fire. To do that he has to understand what is, not what seems.
It may seem to him that a rainbow is the sign of a god in his heaven,
but it is the refraction of sunlight in raindrops. I'm not remotely
interested
in what things "seem to be" to you, tell me what they ARE.
I think it's better that I do not discuss "seems to be" (STB) with you
unless
there's some particular need.
> I'd expect the
> doppler effect to go away at about the time the sound *sounds like* it's
> even with you. I don't have math worked out to decide about this, but
> it's the way it looks to me now. When I figure out how the math ought to
> apply, I'll say so. My intuition might be wrong yet again.
>
"looks to me" is STB <yawn> <shrug>
>> > So this is a place where SR and EmT give different results, that
>> > might be somehow testable.
>>
>> Of course it is testable. Just change your intuition. Your intuition
>> is to believe what you see with your eyes. My intuition, after years
>> of experience, is not to believe what I see with my eyes but to trust
>> what I see with my mind, logically.
>> If I believe what I see with my eyes then this turntable is
>> stationary.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs&NR=1
>> If I believe what I see with my eyes then the pencil in water is bent.
>> If I believe what I see with my eyes then Mira has a tail.
>> If I believe what I see with my eyes then V 1493 Aql is exploding.
>> http://tinyurl.com/l5cczn
>
> My experience has taught me not to trust my intuition but not to
> discount it. When something bothers my intuition there's something going
> on I don't understand. When I do understand something it might turn out
> that there was no problem with the thing that bothered me but only with
> my understanding, or sometimes the idea I couldn't understand was just
> wrong.
I have more experience than you. Hence what you say amuses me.<chuckle>
STB that you read my amusement as though I were angry. STB that you
are wrong.
> Careful logic connects up all the noticed assumptions with the
> conclusions. At that point you know one set of assumptions that will get
> those conclusions. It does not say what circumstances those assumptions
> are true for. And there could still be some assumptions you simply did
> not notice you were making, which can bite you in the ass later.
>
I'd get angry if you bit my cat, but I don't get angry if he bites you. He's
an attack cat with industrial grade 4 lasers for claws. He only annoys me
when he sits on my keyboard when I want to type.
You are correct, though. There WILL still be some assumptions you
simply did not notice you were making.
The perfect example is Euclid's fifth postulate. Lobachevsky and Riemann
built consistent geometries by denying it, simply because it is not an axiom
but a definition.
Einstein's second postulate is incompatible with his first. He knew it in
1905,
he wrote a chapter on it in 1920.
Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of
light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the
greatest intellectual difficulties?
-Chap. VII.
The assumption was his STB simple law. THERE is an assumption
he simply did not notice he was making, which bit him in the arse later.
> I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in sound.
> I can work the formula but I won't trust it until I completely
> understand it.
It's time you did. You want to run before you can walk. You've
complained to others about me taking you through this slowly, but
actually it'll take a year for you to really grasp it. The first thing to
overcome is your assumptions.
> However, at the moment I'm interested in EmT, your theory
> and similar theories, and this is a side issue for that. If light has no
> blueshift when the source is moving sideways, then relativity is wrong
> and you are right on that topic. I'm not completely clear how to test
> that. I don't want to pick stars that aren't known to be moving
> sideways. I don't want to pick stars and assume they are moving sideways
> and decide on that basis.
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it
with reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
You need a source of light a long way off with nothing in between to affect
it,
and that source must be moving sideways. Stars orbit each other, so STB Mira
is what you need.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
STB Mira has a tail or STB we see a blur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfL00UCANA
STB cars are invisible.
STB car headlights and plane landing lights are streaks, not points of
light.
"Seems To Be" the picture of Mira is a time-lapse photograph!
Ok...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm#*Deception:_
STB you can tell me the speed of 85 from a speed of -5.
>> > Or with the diffraction pattern you can measure a length, and since
>> > you know that c is constant that gets you both the wavelength and
>> > the frequency.
>> >
>> > But if you don't know that c is a constant after all, then it
>> > doesn't work. It's all assumed based on that.
>
>> To get an A* in my classroom you'll have to be bold enough to condemn
>> Einstein, not "SR guys".
>
> I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular at
> the moment. I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
> assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and whether I
> could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But your theory
> looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable results it
> predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of them.
There are.
This curve is reproduced here with the permission of the British
Astronomical Association.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/image021.jpg
Explain how stars blow up twice in three months, then settle back to normal.
(And remember, magnitude is logarithmic, so the peaks are actually
ENORMOUS).
I'll give you a clue. Do not trust what you see.
I'll give you another clue.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
> Here's an early attempt.
>
> saturn's rotation is 10 hours 14 min
> Saturn's diameter at its equator is about 74900 miles (120540
> kilometers)
> Saturn is 1,321,416,800 kilometers from Earth
Whoa! The Earth is MOVING. (So is Saturn, but not as fast.)
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/solsys/orrery/
That distance is changing at 30.cos(phi) km/sec.
In one hour Saturn is 30 * 60 *60 = 108,000 km closer or
further from Earth, it takes light over an hour to get here.
> So the two sides of saturn's equator should have a velocity difference
> of around 3 km/s.
> And the difference between 300,000 km/s and 300,003 km/s over the
> distance to earth will give a difference in arrival time of around .007
> seconds according to EmT. And they arrive at slightly different speeds.
> If there was a way to detect that....
Don't look for a flea on an elephant's arse when there's a feather up his
nose and a mouse on his head. http://tinyurl.com/n4g568
You are making life difficult. Just ask Cassini the time and use
the Earth's motion, then it's easy.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm
Androcles
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:6ok1a5hqp8tmig1g0...@4ax.com...
>>I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in sound.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Never mind, H. Just see my post to Jonah,
he said the same thing as you.
I will give you some advice, though. If you snip and attribute what
Jonah said as if I said it, I'll snip and attribute what Jonah said
as if you said it.
Jonah Thomas
> In EmT, a star that is moving sideways will be emitting light in all
> directions. When you see it APPARENTLY moving sideways perpendicular
> to your LOS, it will in fact be well ahead of that position.
I don't think so, now that I've thought about it. When it appears to you
that the star is moving sideways perpendicular to your LOS, it will in
fact be perpendicular to your LOS. See picture.
The photons that enter
> your telescope barrel and move down its central axis will have in fact
> been emitted at an angle arctan(v/c) leaning back from the star's
> velocity vector.
>
> --------------------S->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> || telescope v=0
You're having the velocity go to the right here, aren't you? in that
case your picture is backward.
----------S->v....S
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
.->v
|| telescope v=0
This is light that moves at c toward you, and at v to the side. In the
time that the light reaches you at an angle, the source moves just
enough that it is lined up too.
If you could look at all the waves at the same time, they would look
like the source is directly to your side and it has as lot of concentric
circles around it, and one of them is touching you -- it would look
exactly like the picture when nothing is moving -- at that instant.
Even though the wave as a whole is traveling to the side at v, the wave
front at that moment is traveling in precisely your direction at c.
> Light moves at c wrt its source and the whole line of photons is
> moving
> sideways at v in your frame. It's speed down your telescope is
> sqrt(c^2 - v^2). Therefore EmT would expect a red shift.
Its speed would be sqrt(c^2-v^2) if the light reached you from the
source after the source had passed you. Instead the light is traveling
at (c^2+v^2) and c^2 in your direction.
> Note, aberration is often given as an argument against EmT but I think
> the above argument sets that straight..
What is the aberration argument?
> >I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular at
> >the moment.
>
> Well you should be. Einstein's theory is just a corruption of
> Lorentz's aether theory. His second postulate claims source
> independency of light speed, something that clearly requires an
> absolute medium to have any credibility. Einstein believed light was a
> wave in a medium. None of his claims have ever been verified in spite
> of the many attempts and false claims to the contrary.
If Einstein has something that gives wrong predictions, and it's
obvious that EmT does better, then the relativity guys will figure out
how to patch up relativity to fit. Right now I'm more interested in EmT.
> Similarly, the EmT has never been falsified. De Sitter's 'refutation'
> ignored the extinction of light as it travels.
Extinction of light as it travels?
> In reality, many variable star brightness curves match perfectly the
> predictions of EmT.
> Both Androcles and I have investigated these with computer programs
> and have no doubt that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
> speeds of the form c+vcos(at). Here are some curves I have matched.
> There are plenty more. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>
> >I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
> >assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and
> >whether I could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But
> >your theory looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable
> >results it predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of
> >them.
>
> Androcles didn't invent EmT. It was around since Newton. Walter Ritz
> was its main proponent until he died prematurely in 1909...very
> convenient for Einstein.
Androcles was the one I heard it from, and his version is the one I've
mostly heard about so far. Do you have a different EmT from his?
> I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times,
> particularly when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as the
> group's eccentric even though he does occasionally fluke a stroke of
> genius. It's better to converse with him before about 10am.
I don't decide when he checks the newsgroup. I'll just take the good
with the bad.
> You see how difficult it is to measure OWLS from a moving
> source....That's the only reason Einstein has lasted this long.
> Here's my suggestion: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
Clearly you guys have put a lot of thought into this. And it looks like
it takes a lot of thought to design an experiment that tells the
difference. I find it surprising that systems which at first sight look
so radically different would be so hard to distinguish.
Androcles
> hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>
>> In EmT, a star that is moving sideways will be emitting light in all
>> directions. When you see it APPARENTLY moving sideways perpendicular
>> to your LOS, it will in fact be well ahead of that position.
>
> I don't think
Give it a try. Thinking is very good for you at this time of year.
Light travels at c^2?
Interesting... but definitely not thinking.
>> Note, aberration is often given as an argument against EmT but I think
>> the above argument sets that straight..
>
> What is the aberration argument?
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
See line one.
>
>> >I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular at
>> >the moment.
>>
>> Well you should be. Einstein's theory is just a corruption of
>> Lorentz's aether theory. His second postulate claims source
>> independency of light speed, something that clearly requires an
>> absolute medium to have any credibility. Einstein believed light was a
>> wave in a medium. None of his claims have ever been verified in spite
>> of the many attempts and false claims to the contrary.
>
> If Einstein has something that gives wrong predictions, and it's
> obvious that EmT does better, then the relativity guys will figure out
> how to patch up relativity to fit. Right now I'm more interested in EmT.
>
>> Similarly, the EmT has never been falsified. De Sitter's 'refutation'
>> ignored the extinction of light as it travels.
>
> Extinction of light as it travels?
Wobbly Wilson's BaThwater. See below.
>
>> In reality, many variable star brightness curves match perfectly the
>> predictions of EmT.
>> Both Androcles and I have investigated these with computer programs
>> and have no doubt that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
>> speeds of the form c+vcos(at). Here are some curves I have matched.
>> There are plenty more. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>>
>> >I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
>> >assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and
>> >whether I could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But
>> >your theory looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable
>> >results it predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of
>> >them.
>>
>> Androcles didn't invent EmT. It was around since Newton. Walter Ritz
>> was its main proponent until he died prematurely in 1909...very
>> convenient for Einstein.
>
> Androcles was the one I heard it from, and his version is the one I've
> mostly heard about so far. Do you have a different EmT from his?
Yes, the old crank calls it BaThwater. It's all his. Nobody else wants
anything to do with it.
>> I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times,
>> particularly when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as the
>> group's eccentric even though he does occasionally fluke a stroke of
>> genius. It's better to converse with him before about 10am.
>
> I don't decide when he checks the newsgroup. I'll just take the good
> with the bad.
>
>> You see how difficult it is to measure OWLS from a moving
>> source....That's the only reason Einstein has lasted this long.
>> Here's my suggestion: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
>
> Clearly you guys have put a lot of thought into this. And it looks like
> it takes a lot of thought to design an experiment that tells the
> difference. I find it surprising that systems which at first sight look
> so radically different would be so hard to distinguish.
Wilson's willusional wellipses look like the ace of spades. He's a likeable
old crank but his physics is worse than his mathematics. He invented
h-aether and unifuckation to explain distance. All Wombat Wilson's
Wobbly Worbits are seen Wedge-on by the Wobserver so although the
starts out at c relative to the star and c+v relative to the Wobserver
in Wobbly Wilson's theory, it has to unifuckate to c relative to the
Wobserver halfway here. Wobbly Wilson pays lip service to Einstein's
quip "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
Of course the speed is easily accounted for by tilting the orbit to
face-on so that we get c + v.cos(theta).cos(phi). Wobbly Wilson
thinks theta and phi are the same angle. As I say, a likeable old fart but
he's quite senile. He's got gout and still drinks ozzie plonk, hoping he
invented Wobbly Wilson's BaTh before Archimedes shouted "Eureka"
upon discovering the reason for floating gold alloy crowns.
"Archimedes' insight led to the solution of a problem posed by Hiero of
Syracuse, on how to assess the purity of an irregular golden crown.
Equipment for weighing objects already existed, and now that Archimedes
could also measure volume, their ratio would give the object's density, an
important indicator of purity." -- Wackypedia.
Wilson's insight led to the discovery that all stars are 3 light years from
Earth.
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > When you look at a picture kind of like this, the sonic boom
> > picture. And you make a little slower so it isn't quite a sonic
> > boom. Look at a part of the wave that's exactly perpendicular to the
> > source. If you were looking at the spreading circle, what direction
> > would it look like it was going? And how fast?
>
> Draw one expanding circle. REMOVE ALL the OTHER expanding circles.
> Look at a part of the circle that's exactly perpendicular to the
> source.
> If you were looking at a part of the spreading circle, what direction
> would it look like it was going? And how fast?
http://img261.yfrog.com/i/simplem.gif/
It looks like it's coming from behind, and it's dopplered. That's with
sound that doesn't have a tailwind, and with light that isn't EmT light.
> > It looks to me like in this case -- not the EmT case where the waves
> > travel with the source, but one where the waves lag the source --
> > that the sound will seem to come from behind where the source
> > actually is. Does that fit your experience with sound?
> No.
interesting.
> Have you ever heard a subsonic
> > but fast military aircraft go by overhead and the sound seemed to be
> > coming from way behind where you could see the plane?
>
> No. I hear the sound after the plane has past because the speed of
> sound is finite and less than the speed of light, but I have no
> trouble determining
> which direction the sound came from.
You hear the sound after the plane has passed. You haven't experienced
seeing the plane over there and hearing the sound from back along its
path?
> > And it seems to me
> > that the doppler effect is still there at that point.
>
> You talk quite a lot of "seems to be", don't you?
> Learn to see with your mind, not just your senses.
> Most animals are afraid of fire. Man is unique, he overcomes his fear
> and controls fire. To do that he has to understand what is, not what
> seems. It may seem to him that a rainbow is the sign of a god in his
> heaven, but it is the refraction of sunlight in raindrops. I'm not
> remotely interested in what things "seem to be" to you, tell me what
> they ARE.
Would you prefer I not say stuff until I'm certain? When I say I'm
confused, that's also my polite way to say "I'm not convinced yet".
> > I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in
> > sound. I can work the formula but I won't trust it until I
> > completely understand it.
>
> It's time you did. You want to run before you can walk. You've
> complained to others about me taking you through this slowly, but
> actually it'll take a year for you to really grasp it. The first thing
> to overcome is your assumptions.
I'm clear about doppler with EmT now. I'll write about that separately.
> >> >> > Are we really measuring wavelength or frequency or some
> >> >> > combination or something else?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's impossible to observe a wavelength or a frequency.
> >> >> A wavelength is a distance from where something was to where it
> >is> >> now. The red pointer is attempting to measure a wavelength,
> >and> >> gets it wrong.
> >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
> >> >
> >> > Sure. Ideally you would measure a wavelength by measuring a
> >> > distance, all at once. If you can't actually measure the distance
> >> > then you have to infer the distance from the known speed and the
> >> > known frequency.
> >>
> >> Stand that on it's head, the other way around.
> >> If you can't actually measure the speed then you have to infer the
> >> speed from the known frequency and the measured wavelength.
> >> You can still use your diffraction grating's d.sin(theta) to find
> >the> speed of the incident light from the angle, but you CANNOT
> >> assume the speed to get the frequency.
> >
> > If you know any two you can get the third, at least among multiples.
> > In your example you can't tell 33 from 66 (though I think you can,
> > you can tell angle is the first one). But definitely you can tell 33
> > from 40.
> Ok...
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm#*Deception:_
>
> STB you can tell me the speed of 85 from a speed of -5.
The way I understand it, a diffraction grating gives you a primary
image, and then a secondary diffracted image (one on both sides), and
then a tertiary diffracted image which I remember being not as bright,
and off in the distance a fourth diffracted image that's fainter still.
If the secondary image was really a tertiary one so the angle was wrong,
then there would be another secondary image that was closer and you
could look at that instead.
So it's different from your example.
> >> > Or with the diffraction pattern you can measure a length, and
> >since> > you know that c is constant that gets you both the
> >wavelength and> > the frequency.
> >> >
> >> > But if you don't know that c is a constant after all, then it
> >> > doesn't work. It's all assumed based on that.
> >
> >> To get an A* in my classroom you'll have to be bold enough to
> >condemn> Einstein, not "SR guys".
> >
> > I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular
> > at the moment. I was interested in looking carefully enough at
> > Einstein's assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions
> > were and whether I could accept them, and also seeing the
> > consequences. But your theory looks far more exciting. So I want to
> > look for testable results it predicts different from SR. There ought
> > to be a bunch of them.
>
> There are.
> This curve is reproduced here with the permission of the British
> Astronomical Association.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/image021.jpg
> Explain how stars blow up twice in three months, then settle back to
> normal.(And remember, magnitude is logarithmic, so the peaks are
> actually ENORMOUS).
At this point I take astronomical observations as suggestive. I don't
know enough about how stars work to say how they can't work. When
somebody says "my theory must be right because no other theory can
explain this star" I have no idea what it would take for other theories
to explain that star. But maybe I can follow the argument how this
theory explains it.
So I want to look for something closer to home.
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Androcles, I worked out my problem about doppler.
Here is my detailed reasoning why the formula works. It will be obvious
to anybody who's done it before so just skip over it unless you think
there might be a flaw you can point out. I just wanted to record it
while it's fresh in my mind.
I'll give an example with numbers on it because that makes it more
concrete.
Say EmT is true, and you are approaching an observer at 0.5c, and at the
moment you are 10 light-seconds away. It will take you 20 seconds to get
there. You have been sending a 1 hertz signal all along. This could be a
laser that you pulse once a second or any other periodic thing that the
observer can observe from your signal.
So over the last ten seconds before now, you sent out 10 pulses. And
none of them have reached the observer yet, they're still in transit.
Ten seconds ago you were 15 light seconds away, and since the light
travels at 1.5c toward the observer, the first one is reaching him right
now. That's ten pulses that are in transit.
Over the next 20 seconds traveling at 0.5c, you will reach the observer.
And during that time you will put out 20 more pulses. All of them will
reach the observer within the next 20 seconds, and no others will except
the 10 pulses you have already sent. Within those 20 seconds the
observer will receive 30 pulses.
The total number of pulses the observer receives is
f0*d/v the number of pulses generated while you travel
plus
f0*d/c The number of pulses already on their way
#cycles = f0*d(1/v + 1/c)
#cycles/second = f0*d(v+c)/cv * v/d
f' = f*(v+c)/c
Similarly, after you pass then it becomes
f' = f(c-v)/c
At 0.5c away, in a unit time half the pulses don't arrive yet, they go
into the lengthening pipeline to arrive later.
And once it works for the forward and backward case, the sideways cases
are just trig. Given something that's x units forward and y units
sideways, the total lightspeed in that direction is c*sqrt (x^2 +
y^2)/[(xc/(c+v))^2 + y^2].
In english, the time it takes to get from (0,0) to (x,y) is reduced to
the time it would take to get to (xc/(c+v),y)
It's much easier to see that it's the appropriate formula after I see
how it works.
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hey, Androcles, did I draw the picture right or did Wilson? Or did I
misunderstand him and we're both right? Or both wrong?
> >> Light moves at c wrt its source and the whole line of photons is
> >> moving
> >> sideways at v in your frame. It's speed down your telescope is
> >> sqrt(c^2 - v^2). Therefore EmT would expect a red shift.
> >
> > Its speed would be sqrt(c^2-v^2) if the light reached you from the
> > source after the source had passed you. Instead the light is
> > traveling at (c^2+v^2) and c^2 in your direction.
>
> Light travels at c^2?
No, in the heat of the moment, typing, I left off the square roots.
Anybody could tell how it's supposed to go, right?
> >> I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times,
> >> particularly when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as
> >the> group's eccentric even though he does occasionally fluke a
> >stroke of> genius. It's better to converse with him before about
> >10am.
> Wilson's willusional wellipses look like the ace of spades. He's a
> likeable old crank but his physics is worse than his mathematics. He
> invented h-aether and unifuckation to explain distance.
It seems like whenever I pay attention to somebody in this newsgroup,
some others will pop up to tell me to ignore them. It seems like to the
extent there's a consensus here it's that each individual member of the
group should be ignored....
I like it better when you guys explain your theories than when you
ridicule each other's theories.
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
>> > When you look at a picture kind of like this, the sonic boom
>> > picture. And you make a little slower so it isn't quite a sonic
>> > boom. Look at a part of the wave that's exactly perpendicular to the
>> > source. If you were looking at the spreading circle, what direction
>> > would it look like it was going? And how fast?
>>
>> Draw one expanding circle. REMOVE ALL the OTHER expanding circles.
>> Look at a part of the circle that's exactly perpendicular to the
>> source.
>> If you were looking at a part of the spreading circle, what direction
>> would it look like it was going? And how fast?
>
> http://img261.yfrog.com/i/simplem.gif/
>
> It looks like it's coming from behind, and it's dopplered. That's with
> sound that doesn't have a tailwind, and with light that isn't EmT light.
Whatever that is suppose to be I can only guess.
If the yellow dot represents the sound source and the red rectangle
represents the listener, you won't hear the sound until the sound gets
to the listener, no matter where the yellow dot is.
>> > It looks to me like in this case -- not the EmT case where the waves
>> > travel with the source, but one where the waves lag the source --
>> > that the sound will seem to come from behind where the source
>> > actually is. Does that fit your experience with sound?
>> No.
>
> interesting.
>
>> Have you ever heard a subsonic
>> > but fast military aircraft go by overhead and the sound seemed to be
>> > coming from way behind where you could see the plane?
>>
>> No. I hear the sound after the plane has past because the speed of
>> sound is finite and less than the speed of light, but I have no
>> trouble determining
>> which direction the sound came from.
>
> You hear the sound after the plane has passed.
Correct. There is always a time delay, the speed of sound
is finite. That time delay is t = distance/mach 1.
If a silent plane crosses my T a mile away and drops a bomb
on the crossing point, the time delay to when I hear the bang
is 5 seconds wherever the plane now is.
If a silent plane crosses my T 52 feet away and drops a firecracker
on the crossing point, the time delay is 0.005 seconds and the firecracker
is as loud as the bomb.
> You haven't experienced
> seeing the plane over there and hearing the sound from back along its
> path?
Doesn't matter where the plane is, the sound comes from where
it dropped the bomb, delayed 5 seconds. What if the plane loops
and goes back the other way?
I hear thunder long after I see lightning, too.
>> > And it seems to me
>> > that the doppler effect is still there at that point.
>>
>> You talk quite a lot of "seems to be", don't you?
>> Learn to see with your mind, not just your senses.
>> Most animals are afraid of fire. Man is unique, he overcomes his fear
>> and controls fire. To do that he has to understand what is, not what
>> seems. It may seem to him that a rainbow is the sign of a god in his
>> heaven, but it is the refraction of sunlight in raindrops. I'm not
>> remotely interested in what things "seem to be" to you, tell me what
>> they ARE.
>
> Would you prefer I not say stuff until I'm certain? When I say I'm
> confused, that's also my polite way to say "I'm not convinced yet".
I would prefer you to learn to think things through for yourself, and I
will try to help you do that. So by all means continue to say stuff you
are not certain of, but expect me to point out your errors and direct you
to examples, web pages, gifs, writings etc. that I hope will show you
those errors. Would you prefer me to say you are right even if you
are not?
>> > I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in
>> > sound. I can work the formula but I won't trust it until I
>> > completely understand it.
>>
>> It's time you did. You want to run before you can walk. You've
>> complained to others about me taking you through this slowly, but
>> actually it'll take a year for you to really grasp it. The first thing
>> to overcome is your assumptions.
>
> I'm clear about doppler with EmT now. I'll write about that separately.
Ok. Don't let Wilson confuse you. He has some crazy ideas about
wavelength.
Reflected DVD image of my desklamp, taken with my webcam.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DesklampDVDWebCam.JPG
A DVD showing diffraction
http://www.shokabo.co.jp/sp_e/optical/labo/refref/030695.jpg
A bridge diffracting a waving fork lift.
http://www.port-kelsey.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/bridgelarge.jpg
A long diffraction grating:
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Bay_Bridge.jpg
>> >> > Or with the diffraction pattern you can measure a length, and
>> >since> > you know that c is constant that gets you both the
>> >wavelength and> > the frequency.
>> >> >
>> >> > But if you don't know that c is a constant after all, then it
>> >> > doesn't work. It's all assumed based on that.
>> >
>> >> To get an A* in my classroom you'll have to be bold enough to
>> >condemn> Einstein, not "SR guys".
>> >
>> > I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular
>> > at the moment. I was interested in looking carefully enough at
>> > Einstein's assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions
>> > were and whether I could accept them, and also seeing the
>> > consequences. But your theory looks far more exciting. So I want to
>> > look for testable results it predicts different from SR. There ought
>> > to be a bunch of them.
>>
>> There are.
>> This curve is reproduced here with the permission of the British
>> Astronomical Association.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/image021.jpg
>> Explain how stars blow up twice in three months, then settle back to
>> normal.(And remember, magnitude is logarithmic, so the peaks are
>> actually ENORMOUS).
>
> At this point
Oh dear, you snipped the hint.
I can't help you if you do that.
Listen to cranks instead.
My turn to have a snipfest.
Have a nice day, I snipped whatever you wrote without bothering to read it.
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Androcles, I worked out my problem about doppler.
>
> Here is my detailed reasoning why the formula works.
Good for you. I'm having a snipfest, so I won't bother to read it.
Androcles
Dunno, today is snipfest day. Seems to me that Henri is right, but
I haven't checked. Give up, anything you write today will be snipped
and ignored.
Henry Wilson, DSc
wrote:
I didn't do it. I replied to his post only. i didn't quote you at all nor did I
refer to anything you said. I'm your 'friend' remember.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:58:46 +0100, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>news:6ok1a5hqp8tmig1g0...@4ax.com...
>>>>I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in sound.
>>
>>Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Never mind, H. Just see my post to Jonah,
>>he said the same thing as you.
>>I will give you some advice, though. If you snip and attribute what
>>Jonah said as if I said it, I'll snip and attribute what Jonah said
>>as if you said it.
>
> face.
> I replied to his post only. i didn't quote you at all nor did I
> refer to anything you said. I'm your 'friend' remember.
Peculiar how my name was at the top where it said
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:09:50 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
>
>I'm not completely clear about all the assumptions for doppler in sound.
--which I did NOT write.
Anyway, you are more of a drinking buddy than a friend, ya daft old
sheep shagger. You certainly don't know how to measure a wavelength
-- only you can be in two places at once.
Henry Wilson, DSc
>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>
>> In EmT, a star that is moving sideways will be emitting light in all
>> directions. When you see it APPARENTLY moving sideways perpendicular
>> to your LOS, it will in fact be well ahead of that position.
>
>I don't think so, now that I've thought about it. When it appears to you
>that the star is moving sideways perpendicular to your LOS, it will in
>fact be perpendicular to your LOS. See picture.
A point cannot be 'perpendicular'. You should think before you write.
Did you mean that 'its velocity vector IS perpendicular when it APPEARS to be
perpendicular'?
I don't think so.
>The photons that enter
>> your telescope barrel and move down its central axis will have in fact
>> been emitted at an angle arctan(v/c) leaning back from the star's
>> velocity vector.
>>
>> --------------------S->v
>> .->v
>> .->v
>> .->v
>> .->v
>> .->v
>> || telescope v=0
>
>You're having the velocity go to the right here, aren't you? in that
>case your picture is backward.
It isn't.
>
> ----------S->v....S
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> .->v
> || telescope v=0
>
>This is light that moves at c toward you, and at v to the side. In the
>time that the light reaches you at an angle, the source moves just
>enough that it is lined up too.
You see the light that goes down the centre of your telescope. If your diagram
was correct none would get to the bottom. You should think before you write.
>If you could look at all the waves at the same time, they would look
>like the source is directly to your side and it has as lot of concentric
>circles around it, and one of them is touching you -- it would look
>exactly like the picture when nothing is moving -- at that instant.
>
>Even though the wave as a whole is traveling to the side at v, the wave
>front at that moment is traveling in precisely your direction at c.
Your telescope detectes light rays that move down its barrel parallel to its
axis. My diagram shows the direction of the ray that is emitted by the star
which does that. The angle is arcsin(v/c) (or arctan since it is so small).
>> Light moves at c wrt its source and the whole line of photons is
>> moving
>> sideways at v in your frame. It's speed down your telescope is
>> sqrt(c^2 - v^2). Therefore EmT would expect a red shift.
>
>Its speed would be sqrt(c^2-v^2) if the light reached you from the
>source after the source had passed you. Instead the light is traveling
>at (c^2+v^2) and c^2 in your direction.
The ray travels at c in the star's frame leaning backwards as I've shown. It
has a component velocity v perpendicular to your LOS. The resultant velocity is
sqrt(c^2-v^2) in your frame along your LOS...ie., straight down the centre of
your telescope.
>> Note, aberration is often given as an argument against EmT but I think
>> the above argument sets that straight..
>
>What is the aberration argument?
You should try to read some back articles on this NG. This has all been
thoroughly discussed for years.
>> >I'm not interested in condemning Einstein or anybody in particular at
>> >the moment.
>>
>> Well you should be. Einstein's theory is just a corruption of
>> Lorentz's aether theory. His second postulate claims source
>> independency of light speed, something that clearly requires an
>> absolute medium to have any credibility. Einstein believed light was a
>> wave in a medium. None of his claims have ever been verified in spite
>> of the many attempts and false claims to the contrary.
>
>If Einstein has something that gives wrong predictions, and it's
>obvious that EmT does better, then the relativity guys will figure out
>how to patch up relativity to fit.
Don't be silly. Einsteiniana is a religion. Its followers would die for their
cause. It cannot be patched up. It is bullshit from start to finish...just
disguised LET.
>Right now I'm more interested in EmT.
So am I.... but I call it BaTh. We have been discussing it here for many years.
>> Similarly, the EmT has never been falsified. De Sitter's 'refutation'
>> ignored the extinction of light as it travels.
>
>Extinction of light as it travels?
Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's called
extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star data suggests
that all light traveling in a particular direction tends toward a common speed.
(Andro strongly disagrees)
If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary due to the
bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some time running mty very
comprehensive program that does all the calculations for you.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
It is not a virus.
>> In reality, many variable star brightness curves match perfectly the
>> predictions of EmT.
>> Both Androcles and I have investigated these with computer programs
>> and have no doubt that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
>> speeds of the form c+vcos(at). Here are some curves I have matched.
>> There are plenty more. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
>>
>> >I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
>> >assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and
>> >whether I could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But
>> >your theory looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable
>> >results it predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of
>> >them.
>>
>> Androcles didn't invent EmT. It was around since Newton. Walter Ritz
>> was its main proponent until he died prematurely in 1909...very
>> convenient for Einstein.
>
>Androcles was the one I heard it from, and his version is the one I've
>mostly heard about so far. Do you have a different EmT from his?
It is all the same theory. I call it BaTh (ballistic theory).
Walter Ritz, some Russians headed by Sekerin and a current fellow Bob Fritzius
were/are others who are interested in it. Many others are too.
Einstein's theory has never been even remotely shown to be correct although
many of its adherents are desperate to keep it going because quoting its
surealistic jargon to laypeople makes them feel superior. Besides, if students
didn't blindly accept the rubbish, they couldn't pass their exams.
It is only now that we have the uncensored internet that free discussion can
take place.
>> I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times,
>> particularly when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as the
>> group's eccentric even though he does occasionally fluke a stroke of
>> genius. It's better to converse with him before about 10am.
>
>I don't decide when he checks the newsgroup. I'll just take the good
>with the bad.
You'll soon find out what I mean...and by the way, never mention the
concorde...He becomes depressed and even violent...
>> You see how difficult it is to measure OWLS from a moving
>> source....That's the only reason Einstein has lasted this long.
>> Here's my suggestion: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
>
>Clearly you guys have put a lot of thought into this. And it looks like
>it takes a lot of thought to design an experiment that tells the
>difference. I find it surprising that systems which at first sight look
>so radically different would be so hard to distinguish.
It boils down to the difficulty in measuring OWLS from a moving source. Only
very recently have the means become available...but of course no one will get
the funding because the physics establishment is dominated by diehard
Einsteinians.
BaTh is clearly the correct theory although there are many loose ends to be
tied. All speeds are frame dependent by definition.
Einstein's cunning salesmanship brought physics to a virtual standstill for 100
years.
Henry Wilson, DSc
No point in asking him now. It's after 10am.
>> >> Light moves at c wrt its source and the whole line of photons is
>> >> moving
>> >> sideways at v in your frame. It's speed down your telescope is
>> >> sqrt(c^2 - v^2). Therefore EmT would expect a red shift.
>> >
>> > Its speed would be sqrt(c^2-v^2) if the light reached you from the
>> > source after the source had passed you. Instead the light is
>> > traveling at (c^2+v^2) and c^2 in your direction.
>>
>> Light travels at c^2?
>
>No, in the heat of the moment, typing, I left off the square roots.
>Anybody could tell how it's supposed to go, right?
>
>> >> I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times,
>> >> particularly when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as
>> >the> group's eccentric even though he does occasionally fluke a
>> >stroke of> genius. It's better to converse with him before about
>> >10am.
>
>> Wilson's willusional wellipses look like the ace of spades. He's a
>> likeable old crank but his physics is worse than his mathematics. He
>> invented h-aether and unifuckation to explain distance.
>
>It seems like whenever I pay attention to somebody in this newsgroup,
>some others will pop up to tell me to ignore them. It seems like to the
>extent there's a consensus here it's that each individual member of the
>group should be ignored....
Actually Andro and I agree in principle but when a theory is under development,
it is natural that there will be speculation and temporary disagreement on many
issues. The point is, BaTh (EmT) has been ignored for a century because of
Einstein. There is little data to go on.
Little by little I have crushed its opponents, for instance those who claim the
Sagnac effect refutes it. See the currect dscussion in another thread.
>I like it better when you guys explain your theories than when you
>ridicule each other's theories.
Androcles is jealous because my variable star program is much better than his.
Jonah Thomas
Now I think you're right and I'm wrong. I hate it when that happens.
> You see the light that goes down the centre of your telescope. If your
> diagram was correct none would get to the bottom. You should think
> before you write.
That makes sense. I had it rationalised out with calculus, too. But now
I see it your way. Clearly I don't really have this worked out yet.
> >> Light moves at c wrt its source and the whole line of photons is
> >> moving
> >> sideways at v in your frame. It's speed down your telescope is
> >> sqrt(c^2 - v^2). Therefore EmT would expect a red shift.
> >
> >Its speed would be sqrt(c^2-v^2) if the light reached you from the
> >source after the source had passed you. Instead the light is
> >traveling at (c^2+v^2) and c^2 in your direction.
>
> The ray travels at c in the star's frame leaning backwards as I've
> shown. It has a component velocity v perpendicular to your LOS. The
> resultant velocity is sqrt(c^2-v^2) in your frame along your
> LOS...ie., straight down the centre of your telescope.
Yes, I see that now. So the velocity has to be slow, at sqrt(c^2-v^2)
and you do get a shift in the light.
How much redshift do you expect?
Since
wavelength * frequency = speed
if the speed is slow -- sqrt(c^2-v^2) -- and the frequency is the same,
then the wavelength must be shorter, right? That would be a blueshift.
But maybe the wavelength is the same and then the frequency must be
slowed. Or somewhere inbetween. Does it matter? When the speed slows do
you get a shift in interference pattern regardless what combination of
frequency and wavelength change it causes?
> Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's
> called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star
> data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends
> toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees)
I can certainly imagine that. I was imagining what happens when light at
c+v enters the earth's atmosphere, where particles do cerenkov radiation
because lightspeed has turned so slow. You can't have superfast light in
atmosphere, and interstellar space isn't completely empty either.
> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary
> due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some
> time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the
> calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
> It is not a virus.
I do better with source code, but there's no hurry. I have more than
enough to occupy my limited spare time for awhile.
> >Clearly you guys have put a lot of thought into this. And it looks
> >like it takes a lot of thought to design an experiment that tells the
> >difference. I find it surprising that systems which at first sight
> >look so radically different would be so hard to distinguish.
>
> It boils down to the difficulty in measuring OWLS from a moving
> source. Only very recently have the means become available...but of
> course no one will get the funding because the physics establishment
> is dominated by diehard Einsteinians.
Any chance that the data might become available as a side result from
something else? Worth watching for....
Androcles
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
He's not a bad one, H. He just needs to unlearn Einstein and get back to
basics.
Of course. Wilsoniana is a religion. It's one follower (Wilson) would die
for
it's cause. It cannot be patched up. It is bullshit from start to
finish...just
half-arsed LET.
> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary due to
> the
> bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some time running mty
> very
> comprehensive program that does all the calculations for you.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
> It is not a virus.
>
>>> In reality, many variable star brightness curves match perfectly the
>>> predictions of EmT.
>>> Both Androcles and I have investigated these with computer programs
>>> and have no doubt that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
>>> speeds of the form c+vcos(at).
Which should be c+v.cos(omega t) * cos(theta) where theta is angle of
inclination, or pitch. All Wombat Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are Wedge-on.
That why he has to invent this half-arsed LET, he has no face-on orbits.
> Here are some curves I have matched.
>>> There are plenty more. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
and at a distance of 3 light years, which they are not.
>>>
>>> >I was interested in looking carefully enough at Einstein's
>>> >assumptions that I could be sure what the assumptions were and
>>> >whether I could accept them, and also seeing the consequences. But
>>> >your theory looks far more exciting. So I want to look for testable
>>> >results it predicts different from SR. There ought to be a bunch of
>>> >them.
>>>
>>> Androcles didn't invent EmT. It was around since Newton. Walter Ritz
>>> was its main proponent until he died prematurely in 1909...very
>>> convenient for Einstein.
>>
>>Androcles was the one I heard it from, and his version is the one I've
>>mostly heard about so far. Do you have a different EmT from his?
>
> It is all the same theory. I call it BaTh (ballistic theory).
> Walter Ritz, some Russians headed by Sekerin and a current fellow Bob
> Fritzius
> were/are others who are interested in it. Many others are too.
> Einstein's theory has never been even remotely shown to be correct
> although
> many of its adherents are desperate to keep it going because quoting its
> surealistic jargon to laypeople makes them feel superior. Besides, if
> students
> didn't blindly accept the rubbish, they couldn't pass their exams.
> It is only now that we have the uncensored internet that free discussion
> can
> take place.
I fully agree on that, H.
>>> I should warn you that Andro can be a cranky old bastard at times,
>>> particularly when you prove him wrong. He is rightly regarded as the
>>> group's eccentric even though he does occasionally fluke a stroke of
>>> genius. It's better to converse with him before about 10am.
>>
>>I don't decide when he checks the newsgroup. I'll just take the good
>>with the bad.
>
> You'll soon find out what I mean...and by the way, never mention the
> concorde...He becomes depressed and even violent...
Hey, I helped build it. You leave my plane alone or I'll break all your
wine bottles.
>>> You see how difficult it is to measure OWLS from a moving
>>> source....That's the only reason Einstein has lasted this long.
>>> Here's my suggestion: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
>>
>>Clearly you guys have put a lot of thought into this. And it looks like
>>it takes a lot of thought to design an experiment that tells the
>>difference. I find it surprising that systems which at first sight look
>>so radically different would be so hard to distinguish.
>
> It boils down to the difficulty in measuring OWLS from a moving source.
> Only
> very recently have the means become available...but of course no one will
> get
> the funding because the physics establishment is dominated by diehard
> Einsteinians.
>
> BaTh is clearly the correct theory although there are many loose ends to
> be
> tied.
Yeah, like including the angle of inclination.
> All speeds are frame dependent by definition.
> Einstein's cunning salesmanship brought physics to a virtual standstill
> for 100
> years.
>
True enough.
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
wavelength * frequency = zero.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
The wavelength relative to the pointer is not the wavelength relative
to the ground.
> if the speed is slow -- sqrt(c^2-v^2) -- and the frequency is the same,
> then the wavelength must be shorter, right? That would be a blueshift.
> But maybe the wavelength is the same and then the frequency must be
> slowed. Or somewhere inbetween. Does it matter? When the speed slows do
> you get a shift in interference pattern regardless what combination of
> frequency and wavelength change it causes?
>
>> Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's
>> called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star
>> data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends
>> toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees)
>
> I can certainly imagine that. I was imagining what happens when light at
> c+v enters the earth's atmosphere, where particles do cerenkov radiation
> because lightspeed has turned so slow. You can't have superfast light in
> atmosphere, and interstellar space isn't completely empty either.
Bullshit. If light hits anything it looks like this:
http://anordinarymom.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/fog.jpg
Interstellar space is empty, Wilson is talking out of his arse as usual.
Jonah Thomas
I am still very confused, but at least I'm getting it clearer what it is
I'm confused about.
http://yfrog.com/5ystartg
http://yfrog.com/02starmg
Here are two different cases. The yellow source is traveling at about
0.5c compared to the stationary observer, who is 1 distance unit away at
the closest approach. It takes 1 time unit for light to get from a
stationary source at that closest spot to the observer.
In one case the light leaves at a 60 degree angle when the source is
still 0.5 distance unit from closest approach. Since the light travels
at c+v, in one time unit it goes 1 distance unit sideways and 0.5
distance unit forward, and reaches the observe after 1 time unit, when
the source is at the closest approach. The point on the wavefront marked
in red has traveled at this 60 degree angle the whole distance and
presumably will keep traveling at that angle. The wavefront at this
moment is at 90 degrees, precisely facing the observer.
In the other case the light leaves at a 90 degree angle when the source
is at closest approach. It is leaving at a -60 degree angle relative to
the source, but because of the source's forward motion which carries
over to the light, it actually travels at a 90 degree angle and will be
traveling in that direction when it reaches the observer. The wavefront,
though, is moving at a 60 degree angle at that time relative to the
observer. The light traveles at sqrt(3)/2 or about 0.87 c.
So, what direction do you think the light is coming from, when the
individual elements are coming at one angle but the wavefront comes from
another angle? I know the answer for sound -- it sounds like the sound
is coming perpendicular to the wavefront. Sound is a compression wave,
and you get the direction by the delay in compression for one ear
compared to the other. If there's a high wind and the whole compression
wave is going sideways compared to the direction of the wavefront you
mostly don't notice -- the new air is as compressed as the old air.
Does that work for light too? I'm confused. At first thought it seems
like it ought to, but as you point out that would require light that's
been going in one direction to make a sudden 30 degree turn when it
enters your telescope.
The other picture shows the on-the-other-hand. These photons have been
traveling straight at .87c, and the ones a little bit to either side
have been traveling faster and slower. The wavefront is at 60 degrees,
not 90 degrees.
Interference and redshifts are related problems. In the first case if
you point your telescope at a 60 degree angle (or whatever works) you
should get light that is traveling toward you at sqrt(c^2+v^2). Its
wavelength in the direction of the waves' apparent source is the
original wavelength -- if you look at the picture at any one time you
can't tell it from a stationary source. The frequency at this time is
the original frequency, though it has been higher and is falling. Do you
get a blueshift?
The second picture gives you waves traveling at c at -60 degrees, but
individual particles in those waves are traveling at 90 degrees at 0.87
c. Very confusing.
My intuition says to pay attention to the waves and not the particles.
But that could easily be wrong.
Androcles
> http://yfrog.com/02starmg
The star is seen behind where it actually is.
The star is seen behind where it actually is in both images, and
in the direction where it was. What other hand?
> Interference and redshifts are related problems. In the first case if
> you point your telescope at a 60 degree angle (or whatever works) you
> should get light that is traveling toward you at sqrt(c^2+v^2). Its
> wavelength in the direction of the waves' apparent source is the
> original wavelength -- if you look at the picture at any one time you
> can't tell it from a stationary source. The frequency at this time is
> the original frequency, though it has been higher and is falling. Do you
> get a blueshift?
>
> The second picture gives you waves traveling at c at -60 degrees, but
> individual particles in those waves are traveling at 90 degrees at 0.87
> c. Very confusing.
>
> My intuition says to pay attention to the waves and not the particles.
> But that could easily be wrong.
You don't have any waves, you have expanding circles.
Aberration of light:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what's seen,
then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star appears
to be exactly in the direction that it actually is. (Because it hasn't
deviated from that path. It could go somewhere else and you wouldn't
find out until the later light arrives to tell you. But the old light
moves with the old velocity, and it points to where the star is now --
if it's the waves that matter.)
> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg
> The star is seen behind where it actually is.
If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what you see,
then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star appears
to be in exactly the direction that it actually is.
Either way.
With the source traveling at 0.5c, in the one case you get light
particles traveling toward you at .877c while the wave is traveling at
c. In the other case you get light particles traveling toward you at c
while the wave is traveling at .877c.
At least one of those cases you will get a frequency shift or a
wavelength shift or both. Is there one where that won't happen? I say it
ought to be the one I labeled "start" and not "starm" because it is
exactly like the sound model where the source is at rest wrt the air. I
don't know anybody who's actually listened much while the air was
rushing past him at half the speed of sound, but the equation says to
expect no doppler shift then. Yesterday I was convinced it was correct.
Now I wonder whether that applies to light. And Wilson says you have to
point your telescope off at an angle, and the waves will be refracting
something weird that way if it works.
> > Interference and redshifts are related problems. In the first case
> > if you point your telescope at a 60 degree angle (or whatever works)
> > you should get light that is traveling toward you at sqrt(c^2+v^2).
> > Its wavelength in the direction of the waves' apparent source is the
> > original wavelength -- if you look at the picture at any one time
> > you can't tell it from a stationary source. The frequency at this
> > time is the original frequency, though it has been higher and is
> > falling. Do you get a blueshift?
> >
> > The second picture gives you waves traveling at c at -60 degrees,
> > but individual particles in those waves are traveling at 90 degrees
> > at 0.87 c. Very confusing.
> >
> > My intuition says to pay attention to the waves and not the
> > particles. But that could easily be wrong.
>
> You don't have any waves, you have expanding circles.
> Aberration of light:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
I see how that would apply if you were traveling at 0.5c along with the
source. The problems that Einstein had to invent SR for just vanish with
EmT. Your picture would fit perfectly. But right now we're looking at
the case where the observer is not traveling parallel to the source, and
if light travels in straight lines like particles who have additive
velocities, and it isn't aimed straight down the telescope, then that
light is not going to reach the bottom unreflected.
Androcles
Nope. You see the star at 1:01 o'clock where it was at 12:00 o'clock,
it took an hour and a minute for the light to reach you.
Construct a table.
Time of emission. theta. Time of arrival:
12:00 89 12:00 + 1-cos (89)
1:00 90 1:00 + 1- cos(90)
2:00 91 2:00 + 1- cos (91)
3:00 92 3:00 + 1- cos (92)
If the next
"wave" or circle is seen at a moment later it is seen in a different
position.
> (Because it hasn't
> deviated from that path. It could go somewhere else and you wouldn't
> find out until the later light arrives to tell you. But the old light
> moves with the old velocity, and it points to where the star is now --
> if it's the waves that matter.)
It's simple vector addition.
>> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg
>> The star is seen behind where it actually is.
>
> If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what you see,
> then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
>
> But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star appears
> to be in exactly the direction that it actually is.
>
> Either way.
The red observer can only see each circle when it arrives, the time of
arrival is constantly changing and so is the duration of arrival between
circles. You are looking at the diagram and see the circles equidistant
because you are a god looking down, but the red observer does NOT
see them arrive at equal time intervals, only sees one circle at a time,
only sees a point on the circle.
Wrong. You see 1.25c, it is blue shifted on approach. You are
still making the hidden assumption that c cannot be exceeded, that's what
confuses you and why you should condemn Einstein for the charlatan he
was. Wilson will tell you the same and he's a used car salesman who'll
sell you a used VW camper van he wants to get rid of.
f' = f. c+v.cos(60)/c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.5 / 1 = f* 1.25
As the star leaves and passes through 60 degrees,
f' = f *0.75, red shifted.
When the star is crossing the T,
f' = f * 0.5 * cos(90) /c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.0 / 1 = f * 1
> In the other case you get light particles traveling toward you at c
> while the wave is traveling at .877c.
>
> At least one of those cases you will get a frequency shift or a
> wavelength shift or both. Is there one where that won't happen? I say it
> ought to be the one I labeled "start" and not "starm" because it is
> exactly like the sound model where the source is at rest wrt the air. I
> don't know anybody who's actually listened much while the air was
> rushing past him at half the speed of sound, but the equation says to
> expect no doppler shift then. Yesterday I was convinced it was correct.
> Now I wonder whether that applies to light. And Wilson says you have to
> point your telescope off at an angle, and the waves will be refracting
> something weird that way if it works.
You do have to point it at an angle, that's aberration.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
The Earth moves at 0.0001c in its orbit around the Sun so the angle
is 0.0001 radians from the vertical, 20.6 arc minutes. In astronomy
that's a lot. The only thing that is weird is your mathematics that
Einstein tripped you up with.
>
>> > Interference and redshifts are related problems. In the first case
>> > if you point your telescope at a 60 degree angle (or whatever works)
>> > you should get light that is traveling toward you at sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>> > Its wavelength in the direction of the waves' apparent source is the
>> > original wavelength -- if you look at the picture at any one time
>> > you can't tell it from a stationary source. The frequency at this
>> > time is the original frequency, though it has been higher and is
>> > falling. Do you get a blueshift?
>> >
>> > The second picture gives you waves traveling at c at -60 degrees,
>> > but individual particles in those waves are traveling at 90 degrees
>> > at 0.87 c. Very confusing.
>> >
>> > My intuition says to pay attention to the waves and not the
>> > particles. But that could easily be wrong.
>>
>> You don't have any waves, you have expanding circles.
>> Aberration of light:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>
> I see how that would apply if you were traveling at 0.5c along with the
> source. The problems that Einstein had to invent SR for just vanish with
> EmT. Your picture would fit perfectly. But right now we're looking at
> the case where the observer is not traveling parallel to the source, and
> if light travels in straight lines like particles who have additive
> velocities, and it isn't aimed straight down the telescope, then that
> light is not going to reach the bottom unreflected.
He's only got two choices, as do you. Either stand in the road and
let the oncoming traffic wave hit you or stand to the side and let
the traffic wave pass. If it passes you'll hear doppler shift, if it hits
you, you won't hear anything except an ambulance wave and then
only if you are lucky. It doesn't matter which way you are facing,
either.
Androcles
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote in message
news:44Dom.115400$sw.1...@newsfe25.ams2...
> You do have to point it at an angle, that's aberration.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>
> The Earth moves at 0.0001c in its orbit around the Sun so the angle
> is 0.0001 radians from the vertical, 20.6 arc minutes. In astronomy
> that's a lot. The only thing that is weird is your mathematics that
> Einstein tripped you up with.
I should have said 20.6 arc seconds, of course. It's still a lot.
Inertial
The correct diagrams are as follows (hoping ASCII art works ok)
From telescope point of view:
Light emitted when star at S0
-S0------S->v
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
|.| telescope v=0
From star point of view:
Light emitted from S when telescope at |0|
S star v=0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
|.|-----|0| <-v
Jonah Thomas
Sure, but it's passing through the right spot. At any moment the waves
are pointing at the source, unless the source accelerates. Wherever you
are, whatever your own velocity, the source's waves always face you. A
result that's different from other theories except maybe SR.
> > (Because it hasn't
> > deviated from that path. It could go somewhere else and you wouldn't
> > find out until the later light arrives to tell you. But the old
> > light moves with the old velocity, and it points to where the star
> > is now -- if it's the waves that matter.)
>
> It's simple vector addition.
Yes, exactly.
> >> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg
> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is.
> >
> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what you
> > see, then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
> >
> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star
> > appears to be in exactly the direction that it actually is.
> >
> > Either way.
>
> The red observer can only see each circle when it arrives, the time of
> arrival is constantly changing and so is the duration of arrival
> between circles. You are looking at the diagram and see the circles
> equidistant because you are a god looking down, but the red observer
> does NOT see them arrive at equal time intervals, only sees one circle
> at a time, only sees a point on the circle.
The observer looks blue to my browser. Yes, he only sees one at a time.
But he *could* post pickets who would see them at other times and
places. They could compare notes afterward. What I see from above is
that the waves are equidistant and they look equidistant no matter what
inertial frame you're in. The actual wavelength never changes, but if
you measure wavelength by seeing how fast waves roll over you at one
point then your measurements can change.
I think you must be looking at the other case. I'm talking about starm,
where the wave appears to be traveling at c while the particle I marked
travels at sqrt(3)/2.
In the "start" case, the particle of light is going at c to the side and
at .5c forward, so the particle of light travels at sqrt(5)/2 and the
wave front is traveling at c when the particle arrives.
The particle is traveling faster than c, but the wave is only traveling
straight toward the observer at c. And it's waves that get red-shifted
or dopplered, which I haven't yet become certain are the same thing.
> f' = f. c+v.cos(60)/c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.5 / 1 = f* 1.25
Is that when the waves appear to be coming in at 60 degrees? The light
that left the source much earlier?
> As the star leaves and passes through 60 degrees,
> f' = f *0.75, red shifted.
And this is the light that left the source at the T?
> When the star is crossing the T,
> f' = f * 0.5 * cos(90) /c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.0 / 1 = f * 1
This is the light that arrives at the observer when the star is crossing
the T, that left the star when it was at -60 degrees?
** So anyway, is there any value in thinking about light particles that
travel in straight lines, or is it better to just look at how the waves
travel? **
> > In the other case you get light particles traveling toward you at c
> > while the wave is traveling at .877c.
I got that wrong. It should have been light at c*sqrt(5)/2 and the wave
at c.
> > At least one of those cases you will get a frequency shift or a
> > wavelength shift or both. Is there one where that won't happen? I
> > say it ought to be the one I labeled "start" and not "starm" because
> > it is exactly like the sound model where the source is at rest wrt
> > the air. I don't know anybody who's actually listened much while the
> > air was rushing past him at half the speed of sound, but the
> > equation says to expect no doppler shift then. Yesterday I was
> > convinced it was correct. Now I wonder whether that applies to
> > light. And Wilson says you have to point your telescope off at an
> > angle, and the waves will be refracting something weird that way if
> > it works.
>
> You do have to point it at an angle, that's aberration.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
But that isn't what's happening in this case, right?
> The Earth moves at 0.0001c in its orbit around the Sun so the angle
> is 0.0001 radians from the vertical, 20.6 arc minutes. In astronomy
> that's a lot. The only thing that is weird is your mathematics that
> Einstein tripped you up with.
My current problems are probably pre-Einstein.
I don't see how that relates.
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I don't understand. If EmT is correct, then everybody would agree that
when the source travels at v then the light it emits will inherit that
velocity. The light would not just go straight from S0 when the source
has a velocity. I think your picture only represents what might happen
if EmT is not correct.
Androcles
You have to "face" where the source was when the signal was emitted,
then it's the shortest distance. Sound and light signals have different
speeds, a deaf man sees the source where it was, a blind man hears
the source where it was, you see and hear both but they are not
simultaneous.
This prompts you to say you hear the sound "behind" the source and
me to say I hear the source from where it came from.
>> > (Because it hasn't
>> > deviated from that path. It could go somewhere else and you wouldn't
>> > find out until the later light arrives to tell you. But the old
>> > light moves with the old velocity, and it points to where the star
>> > is now -- if it's the waves that matter.)
>>
>> It's simple vector addition.
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
>> >> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg
>> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is.
>> >
>> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what you
>> > see, then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
>> >
>> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star
>> > appears to be in exactly the direction that it actually is.
>> >
>> > Either way.
>>
>> The red observer can only see each circle when it arrives, the time of
>> arrival is constantly changing and so is the duration of arrival
>> between circles. You are looking at the diagram and see the circles
>> equidistant because you are a god looking down, but the red observer
>> does NOT see them arrive at equal time intervals, only sees one circle
>> at a time, only sees a point on the circle.
>
> The observer looks blue to my browser.
Ok, I was writing from my faulty memory of colours.
> Yes, he only sees one at a time.
In http://yfrog.com/02starmg he only sees the first one at one time.
The trail of red squares doesn't exist, they are all history.
I drew a history trail like yours in
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each frame.
So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really hits the centre
and travels down the axis. This is because the one cube cannot be in
two places at once.
> But he *could* post pickets who would see them at other times and
> places.
The pickets would need to be on Mars, Venus, a Jovian Moon.
Perhaps you'd better work out how to get a picket to Mars before
you say "could" so glibly.
> They could compare notes afterward. What I see from above is
> that the waves are equidistant and they look equidistant no matter what
> inertial frame you're in. The actual wavelength never changes, but if
> you measure wavelength by seeing how fast waves roll over you at one
> point then your measurements can change.
>
The historical wavelength never changes wrt the source, the measured
wavelength is impossible because the photon can't be in two places at
once. Your trail of red squares is a wiggle in timespace.
No. I'm not interested in comparing where the star is now with where
it was last seen. Prophecies are for palmists, fortune tellers, tea leaf
readers, horoscope writers and relativists. I can't see where it is now,
I'll have to wait for the light to reach me.
>> When the star is crossing the T,
>> f' = f * 0.5 * cos(90) /c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.0 / 1 = f * 1
>
> This is the light that arrives at the observer when the star is crossing
> the T, that left the star when it was at -60 degrees?
No. I'm not interested in comparing where the star is now with where
it was last seen. Prophecies are for palmists, fortune tellers, tea leaf
readers, horoscope writers and relativists. I can't see where it is now,
I'll have to wait for the light to reach me.
> ** So anyway, is there any value in thinking about light particles that
> travel in straight lines, or is it better to just look at how the waves
> travel? **
They don't travel in straight lines. This ball doesn't travel in a straight
line.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
(Well, it does in the playground, but not for the observer on the carousel).
Since you are on the moving Earth, nor does light.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
Being god, my frame of reference is different to you mere mortals
riding on the blue ball.
>
>> > In the other case you get light particles traveling toward you at c
>> > while the wave is traveling at .877c.
>
> I got that wrong. It should have been light at c*sqrt(5)/2 and the wave
> at c.
You mean the history wave?
>> > At least one of those cases you will get a frequency shift or a
>> > wavelength shift or both. Is there one where that won't happen? I
>> > say it ought to be the one I labeled "start" and not "starm" because
>> > it is exactly like the sound model where the source is at rest wrt
>> > the air. I don't know anybody who's actually listened much while the
>> > air was rushing past him at half the speed of sound, but the
>> > equation says to expect no doppler shift then. Yesterday I was
>> > convinced it was correct. Now I wonder whether that applies to
>> > light. And Wilson says you have to point your telescope off at an
>> > angle, and the waves will be refracting something weird that way if
>> > it works.
>>
>> You do have to point it at an angle, that's aberration.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>
> But that isn't what's happening in this case, right?
Yes it is.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
You are expected to know what relative motion is, Einstein can't tell you.
>
>> The Earth moves at 0.0001c in its orbit around the Sun so the angle
>> is 0.0001 radians from the vertical, 20.6 arc minutes. In astronomy
>> that's a lot. The only thing that is weird is your mathematics that
>> Einstein tripped you up with.
>
> My current problems are probably pre-Einstein.
It won't help that the idiot gave you a bum steer.
Inertial
It inherits direction, not the speed
> The light would not just go straight from S0 when the source
> has a velocity.
See the following diagram to see how that same light appears from the
source. It has to have a component going backwards with speed v so that it
does not move relative to the telescope.
> I think your picture only represents what might happen
> if EmT is not correct.
No .. it is correct regardless. That is how light MUST be travelling if it
goes down the telescope. It MUST be parallel to the telescope tube.
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/5ystartg
That's what I'm running into. If you face where the source was when the
signal was emitted, that's the direction I'd expect particles emitted
from the source to be coming from.
But the wave front is coming from a different direction, because it
travels at c+v' and v' varies with direction of travel.
So any individual particle of light is traveling in a straight line from
the source, and it doesn't matter to the particle that there are other
particles that travel at other speeds nearby. But the wave -- a Mexican
wave, maybe -- has an existence that's different from that of the
particles, just like a mexican wave is different from the people who
make it, and doesn't travel at the same speed they do. And if you
measure interference or redshift you aren't measuring that on individual
particles, you're measuring it on the wave. It's the speed of the wave
that matters then. Unless the motion of the particles somehow gets in
the way.
> Sound and light signals have different
> speeds, a deaf man sees the source where it was, a blind man hears
> the source where it was, you see and hear both but they are not
> simultaneous.
> This prompts you to say you hear the sound "behind" the source and
> me to say I hear the source from where it came from.
Yes. But that's when the air you'r listening through isn't moving
relative to you. When you're listening for that sound in a wind that's
going 170 meters per second -- when you listen to somebody who's
screaming while they're blown away -- it will sound different. It's like
the case when you're traveling at half the speed of sound and the source
is stationary. You get a doppler effect because you run into the waves
at a different speed, but you run into each of them at the same angle
you would if you were sitting still at that spot. (Or is there a
calculus trick I should be applying?)
> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg
> >> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is.
> >> >
> >> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what you
> >> > see, then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
> >> >
> >> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star
> >> > appears to be in exactly the direction that it actually is.
> >> >
> >> > Either way.
> >>
> >> The blue observer can only see each circle when it arrives, the
> >time of> arrival is constantly changing and so is the duration of
> >arrival> between circles. You are looking at the diagram and see the
> >circles> equidistant because you are a god looking down, but the blue
> >observer> does NOT see them arrive at equal time intervals, only sees
> >one circle> at a time, only sees a point on the circle.
> >
> > Yes, he only sees one at a time.
>
> In http://yfrog.com/02starmg he only sees the first one at one time.
> The trail of red squares doesn't exist, they are all history.
Yes. they are the history of the movement of one particle of light. Is
that irrelevant? I feel like we're actually looking at the wave and not
the movement of the particle through time. The movement of the particle
seems completely irrelevant to me until you need it to go down a
telescope.
> I drew a history trail like yours in
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
> but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each
> frame. So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really hits
> the centre and travels down the axis. This is because the one cube
> cannot be in two places at once.
I may have missed your point. I saw the cylinder moving while the dot
traveled, so that the dot could go down the center because of that
movement. It doesn't matter that the wall of the cylinder hits places
where the dot used to be, if the dot isn't there any more.
I drew the history trails because I thought it mattered where the
particles came from. But if I ignore the particles and just look at the
circles then everything seems to work out. It's only when I pay
attention to the particles that I start having objections that need more
theory to deal with them.
> > But he *could* post pickets who would see them at other times and
> > places.
>
> The pickets would need to be on Mars, Venus, a Jovian Moon.
> Perhaps you'd better work out how to get a picket to Mars before
> you say "could" so glibly.
Ah, the argument from practicality. I want to look at what the theory
says will happen. In a second line of advance I want to look at what we
can observe if the theory is true. You are quibbling about what is
practical for us to observe today, when we are mostly stuck on one
planet immersed in air. The distances are so short that it's mostly
practical to measure speed with interferometry....
> > They could compare notes afterward. What I see from above is
> > that the waves are equidistant and they look equidistant no matter
> > what inertial frame you're in. The actual wavelength never changes,
> > but if you measure wavelength by seeing how fast waves roll over you
> > at one point then your measurements can change.
> The historical wavelength never changes wrt the source, the measured
> wavelength is impossible because the photon can't be in two places at
> once. Your trail of red squares is a wiggle in timespace.
If you can't actually see a wave crest then you're stuck with indirect
methods.
For example -- make a standing wave. Say, with masers. Put something in
the way that absorbs light of that frequency and look for the bands
where it does absorb some.
Or is it just impossible?
When the light reaches you, the particles are presumably moving in
straight lines from the source. But the waves are moving in a different
direction, because every individual piece of them is moving at v in
direction x in addition to their other movement. What we can measure is
the wave.
Do you point the telescope in the direction the particles came from, or
in the direction of the wavefront?
> >> When the star is crossing the T,
> >> f' = f * 0.5 * cos(90) /c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.0 / 1 = f * 1
> >
> > This is the light that arrives at the observer when the star is
> > crossing the T, that left the star when it was at -60 degrees?
>
> No. I'm not interested in comparing where the star is now with where
> it was last seen. Prophecies are for palmists, fortune tellers, tea
> leaf readers, horoscope writers and relativists. I can't see where it
> is now, I'll have to wait for the light to reach me.
I'm interested in which direction do you point the telescope.
> > ** So anyway, is there any value in thinking about light particles
> > that travel in straight lines, or is it better to just look at how
> > the waves travel? **
>
>
> They don't travel in straight lines. This ball doesn't travel in a
> straight line.
> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>
> (Well, it does in the playground, but not for the observer on the
> carousel).
>
> Since you are on the moving Earth, nor does light.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
> Being god, my frame of reference is different to you mere mortals
> riding on the blue ball.
I don't see where coriolis applies to a source moving in a straight line
in direction x at velocity v, and a stationary observer.
> >> > In the other case you get light particles traveling toward you at
> >c> > while the wave is traveling at .877c.
> >
> > I got that wrong. It should have been light at c*sqrt(5)/2 and the
> > wave at c.
>
> You mean the history wave?
No, I mean the wave crest that the observer gets right now. The last
wave crest came at a slightly different direction and speed, and the
next one will be different too, but right now the wave is at 90 degrees
and traveling at c.
> >> > At least one of those cases you will get a frequency shift or a
> >> > wavelength shift or both. Is there one where that won't happen? I
> >> > say it ought to be the one I labeled "start" and not "starm"
> >because> > it is exactly like the sound model where the source is at
> >rest wrt> > the air. I don't know anybody who's actually listened
> >much while the> > air was rushing past him at half the speed of
> >sound, but the> > equation says to expect no doppler shift then.
> >Yesterday I was> > convinced it was correct. Now I wonder whether
> >that applies to> > light. And Wilson says you have to point your
> >telescope off at an> > angle, and the waves will be refracting
> >something weird that way if> > it works.
> >>
> >> You do have to point it at an angle, that's aberration.
> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
> >
> > But that isn't what's happening in this case, right?
>
> Yes it is.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
> You are expected to know what relative motion is, Einstein can't tell
> you.
This is important. With other theories, the direction of the waves is
always the direction of the light. That's what the direction of the
light *means* to them. With EmT you can have light that's actually
traveling in a different direction and speed from its waves. This
complication is bound to have a whole lot of implications. For one, you
will get kinds of interference etc that are forbidden to other theories,
unless it turns out somehow that they cancel out.
This is exciting!
Androcles
You continue talking about waves. Waves are history. You standing
on a beach and a 6' high roller comes in, you get very wet. Game over.
It doesn't matter what the next roller does or whether you are facing the
shore or facing out to sea.
Put the shoe on the other foot. You are approaching a point just to the side
of me whilst following a straight line. You brush past me and continue
on in your straight line. It doesn't matter which way I'm facing, you
come past me.
No. All you need is f' = f. (c-v.cos(phi))/c
>> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg
>> >> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is.
>> >> >
>> >> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what you
>> >> > see, then the star is seen behind where it actually is.
>> >> >
>> >> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the star
>> >> > appears to be in exactly the direction that it actually is.
>> >> >
>> >> > Either way.
>> >>
>> >> The blue observer can only see each circle when it arrives, the
>> >time of> arrival is constantly changing and so is the duration of
>> >arrival> between circles. You are looking at the diagram and see the
>> >circles> equidistant because you are a god looking down, but the blue
>> >observer> does NOT see them arrive at equal time intervals, only sees
>> >one circle> at a time, only sees a point on the circle.
>> >
>> > Yes, he only sees one at a time.
>>
>> In http://yfrog.com/02starmg he only sees the first one at one time.
>> The trail of red squares doesn't exist, they are all history.
>
> Yes. they are the history of the movement of one particle of light. Is
> that irrelevant?
Yes, that's your wave. You only get wet once. Another wave comes
from a different direction, so it's irrelevant. Stand on a bridge over a
flowing river, and drop pebbles in. You'll see circular ripples, but you'll
also see the circles moving downstream with the flow of the river.
> I feel like we're actually looking at the wave and not
> the movement of the particle through time. The movement of the particle
> seems completely irrelevant to me until you need it to go down a
> telescope.
>
>> I drew a history trail like yours in
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>> but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each
>> frame. So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really hits
>> the centre and travels down the axis. This is because the one cube
>> cannot be in two places at once.
>
> I may have missed your point. I saw the cylinder moving while the dot
> traveled, so that the dot could go down the center because of that
> movement. It doesn't matter that the wall of the cylinder hits places
> where the dot used to be, if the dot isn't there any more.
>
> I drew the history trails because I thought it mattered where the
> particles came from. But if I ignore the particles and just look at the
> circles then everything seems to work out. It's only when I pay
> attention to the particles that I start having objections that need more
> theory to deal with them.
>
Make your theory fit the known facts.
>> > But he *could* post pickets who would see them at other times and
>> > places.
>>
>> The pickets would need to be on Mars, Venus, a Jovian Moon.
>> Perhaps you'd better work out how to get a picket to Mars before
>> you say "could" so glibly.
>
> Ah, the argument from practicality. I want to look at what the theory
> says will happen. In a second line of advance I want to look at what we
> can observe if the theory is true. You are quibbling about what is
> practical for us to observe today, when we are mostly stuck on one
> planet immersed in air. The distances are so short that it's mostly
> practical to measure speed with interferometry....
Engineers do that. We find theories seldom work.
>> > They could compare notes afterward. What I see from above is
>> > that the waves are equidistant and they look equidistant no matter
>> > what inertial frame you're in. The actual wavelength never changes,
>> > but if you measure wavelength by seeing how fast waves roll over you
>> > at one point then your measurements can change.
>
>> The historical wavelength never changes wrt the source, the measured
>> wavelength is impossible because the photon can't be in two places at
>> once. Your trail of red squares is a wiggle in timespace.
>
> If you can't actually see a wave crest then you're stuck with indirect
> methods.
>
> For example -- make a standing wave. Say, with masers. Put something in
> the way that absorbs light of that frequency and look for the bands
> where it does absorb some.
>
> Or is it just impossible?
Waves are history.
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
The mass is only travelling vertically, the wave is a historical
document, recording where the mass was in the past.
If you move the mass and spring sideways then you have a
waveLENGTH, but it is INDEPENDENT of waveTIME.
The mass could be a car and the car has springs and dampers
that are misnamed "shock absorbers". The real shock absorbers
are the springs and the tyres.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JT.GIF
Your red squares are the history of ONE photon.
My green squares are the actual positions of a stream of photons,
one after the other, all of which collide with the observer.
>
>> >> When the star is crossing the T,
>> >> f' = f * 0.5 * cos(90) /c = 1 + 0.5 * 0.0 / 1 = f * 1
>> >
>> > This is the light that arrives at the observer when the star is
>> > crossing the T, that left the star when it was at -60 degrees?
>>
>> No. I'm not interested in comparing where the star is now with where
>> it was last seen. Prophecies are for palmists, fortune tellers, tea
>> leaf readers, horoscope writers and relativists. I can't see where it
>> is now, I'll have to wait for the light to reach me.
>
> I'm interested in which direction do you point the telescope.
>
>> > ** So anyway, is there any value in thinking about light particles
>> > that travel in straight lines, or is it better to just look at how
>> > the waves travel? **
>>
>>
>> They don't travel in straight lines. This ball doesn't travel in a
>> straight line.
>> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>>
>> (Well, it does in the playground, but not for the observer on the
>> carousel).
>>
>> Since you are on the moving Earth, nor does light.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
>> Being god, my frame of reference is different to you mere mortals
>> riding on the blue ball.
>
> I don't see where coriolis applies to a source moving in a straight line
> in direction x at velocity v, and a stationary observer.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JT.GIF
I see a curved path.
Waves are history, a trace of where a photon has been. Light is
stream of photons, like bullets from a minigun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyF0G7g4KfY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C5FYsjluJc
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm real unclear about all this. People talk about waves to explain
interference. They figure that if you have a wave, and you split it into
two parts and then let them rejoin, and one of them is one half cycle
slower, or 1.5 cycles slower, or 2.5 cycles slower etc, then they will
cancel and that's interference. To do this they assume that the wave is
many cycles long because otherwise how could you get the part that
arrives 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 cycles later to cancel out stuff that has
already come and gone?
Wave theory works for a variety of things. The doppler equations assume
waves, don't they? It's a frequency shift you find with them. You don't
just get hit by the first wave, game over. You get a series of sound
waves and you get a frequency for them. I'm going to use waves until I
see how to get those results without them.
Let's consider the different effects. You can estimate where sounds come
from because you don't just have one ear at one place, you have two. If
one of them gets the signal a little later than the other, tha gives you
an estimate of left to right, though it does not tell you whether it's
ahead or behind or above. (Subtle differences in sound caused by the
shape of your ears help some with that.) Similarly, you have more than
one sensor for light, your eye has a whole array of them. You focus the
light with lenses and notice which spots on your retina get the light,
and there's your direction.
If you aim a telescope somewhere other than the wave front then you
won't see that star.
Now we have a picture of it where the light starts out traveling in all
directions from a particular spot. But because the source was moving,
had a velocity dx/dt, the wave front isn't coming from that direction
when it reaches you. It's coming from a completely different direction.
So we have to either give up the wave models that worked and replace
them with something new, because you can't point a telescope where the
wave model says to point it and have the wave actually go into the
telescope. Or we keep the wave model working and something else changes.
I'm ready to try it both ways.
Good thought. The ripples are in some ways not real. A cork would go up
and down and sideways a little bit and end up in about the same place.
There's something happening, it is real, but not in the same way as the
current that moves all the water downstream along with the corks and the
ripples. The current is like, like, like -- movement of an aether! Only
in your model it's like every moving source has its own aether that
travels with it....
> > I feel like we're actually looking at the wave and not
> > the movement of the particle through time. The movement of the
> > particle seems completely irrelevant to me until you need it to go
> > down a telescope.
> >
> >> I drew a history trail like yours in
> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
> >> but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each
> >> frame. So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really
> >hits> the centre and travels down the axis. This is because the one
> >cube> cannot be in two places at once.
> >
> > I may have missed your point. I saw the cylinder moving while the
> > dot traveled, so that the dot could go down the center because of
> > that movement. It doesn't matter that the wall of the cylinder hits
> > places where the dot used to be, if the dot isn't there any more.
> >
> > I drew the history trails because I thought it mattered where the
> > particles came from. But if I ignore the particles and just look at
> > the circles then everything seems to work out. It's only when I pay
> > attention to the particles that I start having objections that need
> > more theory to deal with them.
> >
> Make your theory fit the known facts.
Exactly. If I do that, I get circular waves that spread out in all
directions while they move sideways. And now I see one possible way your
aberration picture could fit in. Since you know the source is moving,
and the image of it is moving across the sky, you set up the telescope
to move with it. So at any given moment the telescope is aimed at the
direction that makes the light actually reach the bottom of it, at that
moment. So, which direction is that? Is it where the source was when it
actually emitted the light, or is it some other direction? I don't see a
better choice than the direction the wavefront is pointing, but I'm
still real unclear about it all.
> >> > But he *could* post pickets who would see them at other times and
> >> > places.
> >>
> >> The pickets would need to be on Mars, Venus, a Jovian Moon.
> >> Perhaps you'd better work out how to get a picket to Mars before
> >> you say "could" so glibly.
> >
> > Ah, the argument from practicality. I want to look at what the
> > theory says will happen. In a second line of advance I want to look
> > at what we can observe if the theory is true. You are quibbling
> > about what is practical for us to observe today, when we are mostly
> > stuck on one planet immersed in air. The distances are so short that
> > it's mostly practical to measure speed with interferometry....
>
> Engineers do that. We find theories seldom work.
All false theories will have areas that don't work. Theories seldom work
because people don't bother to get true theories....
> >> > They could compare notes afterward. What I see from above is
> >> > that the waves are equidistant and they look equidistant no
> >matter> > what inertial frame you're in. The actual wavelength never
> >changes,> > but if you measure wavelength by seeing how fast waves
> >roll over you> > at one point then your measurements can change.
> >
> >> The historical wavelength never changes wrt the source, the
> >measured> wavelength is impossible because the photon can't be in two
> >places at> once. Your trail of red squares is a wiggle in timespace.
> >
> > If you can't actually see a wave crest then you're stuck with
> > indirect methods.
> >
> > For example -- make a standing wave. Say, with masers. Put something
> > in the way that absorbs light of that frequency and look for the
> > bands where it does absorb some.
> >
> > Or is it just impossible?
>
> Waves are history.
> http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
> The mass is only travelling vertically, the wave is a historical
> document, recording where the mass was in the past.
> If you move the mass and spring sideways then you have a
> waveLENGTH, but it is INDEPENDENT of waveTIME.
Wouldn't that be more like an amplitude?
> The mass could be a car and the car has springs and dampers
> that are misnamed "shock absorbers". The real shock absorbers
> are the springs and the tyres.
Yes.
Yes. Yes? And their speed keeps slowing, more than the distance
decreases, right? By the time you get to the end, your vector sum is
cancelling out the entire v side. So at the earliest time on our diagram
it takes 1 time unit to get to the observer. But by the end, when the
source is at the T, it takes 2/sqrt(3) time units to get there.
I don't see why you're interested in that particular convolution.
They do constructive and destructive interference. That could happen if
waves were more than history. Maybe it could happen some other way if
waves are history.
Androcles
Yes.
> They figure that if you have a wave, and you split it into
> two parts and then let them rejoin, and one of them is one half cycle
> slower, or 1.5 cycles slower, or 2.5 cycles slower etc, then they will
> cancel and that's interference.
What does "slower" mean? You are using everyday words that I question.
If you want to be a mathematician or scientist your language must be
precise.
I suspect you mean "out of phase".
> To do this they assume that the wave is
> many cycles long because otherwise how could you get the part that
> arrives 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 cycles later to cancel out stuff that has
> already come and gone?
There's that word "assume" again.
This is wave superposition:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
What do you assume is going on here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif
>
> Wave theory works for a variety of things. The doppler equations assume
> waves, don't they?
No. Doppler is a ratio of velocities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs
Where's the wave?
Are the dots waves?
> It's a frequency shift you find with them.
What does that have to do with waves?
> You don't
> just get hit by the first wave, game over.
Yes I do, I get out of the water fast. Actually I'd never get in it, but I
did
when I was a kid. Bexhill-on-sea, the waves came over my head.
> You get a series of sound
> waves and you get a frequency for them. I'm going to use waves until I
> see how to get those results without them.
That's ok, you won't mind if I use traffic waves instead of cars then.
If you get hit by one traffic wave it's game over.
If you aim a telescope somewhere other than the incoming photon then you
won't see that star. If you aim two telescopes somewhere other than the
incoming photon then you won't see that star.
If you aim two telescopes at the two incoming photons then you'll see
that star.
If you aim two telescopes at the one big incoming photon then you'll see
that star in radio.
http://www.vla.nrao.edu/images/tightcenter.small.jpg
> Now we have a picture of it where the light starts out traveling in all
> directions from a particular spot. But because the source was moving,
> had a velocity dx/dt, the wave front isn't coming from that direction
> when it reaches you. It's coming from a completely different direction.
Oh really... <yawn>
> So we have to either give up the wave models that worked and replace
> them with something new, because you can't point a telescope where the
> wave model says to point it and have the wave actually go into the
> telescope. Or we keep the wave model working and something else changes.
> I'm ready to try it both ways.
How big is this photon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9xL3mw8tI
Can a fishing float detect a tsunami?
It's not a thought. I actually do things like that when I'm fishing. I've
often
watched ripples moving down the Ohio river.
> The ripples are in some ways not real. A cork would go up
> and down and sideways a little bit and end up in about the same place.
> There's something happening, it is real, but not in the same way as the
> current that moves all the water downstream along with the corks and the
> ripples. The current is like, like, like -- movement of an aether! Only
> in your model it's like every moving source has its own aether that
> travels with it....
Einstein's model has the aether attached to the observer, everybody has
their own personal aether.
"Everything should be as complicated as possible, but not simpler."
Newton's model has no waves, so the aether isn't needed.
>> > I feel like we're actually looking at the wave and not
>> > the movement of the particle through time. The movement of the
>> > particle seems completely irrelevant to me until you need it to go
>> > down a telescope.
>> >
>> >> I drew a history trail like yours in
>> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>> >> but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each
>> >> frame. So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really
>> >hits> the centre and travels down the axis. This is because the one
>> >cube> cannot be in two places at once.
>> >
>> > I may have missed your point. I saw the cylinder moving while the
>> > dot traveled, so that the dot could go down the center because of
>> > that movement. It doesn't matter that the wall of the cylinder hits
>> > places where the dot used to be, if the dot isn't there any more.
>> >
>> > I drew the history trails because I thought it mattered where the
>> > particles came from. But if I ignore the particles and just look at
>> > the circles then everything seems to work out. It's only when I pay
>> > attention to the particles that I start having objections that need
>> > more theory to deal with them.
>> >
>> Make your theory fit the known facts.
>
> Exactly. If I do that, I get circular waves that spread out in all
> directions while they move sideways. And now I see one possible way your
> aberration picture could fit in. Since you know the source is moving,
How? What's it moving with respect to?
I know nothing of the kind, you are making assumptions again.
<Snip remainder, PoR not understood by you>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
Come back when you understand the PoR.
Jonah Thomas
It may be a mistake to make your language too precise when the concept
is fuzzy.
People believe that there's something periodic about light, in distance
and in time. Since they believe the light travels at a speed, something
that's periodic in time will be periodic in space also. To get light out
of phase they arrange to make some of it follow a longer path, or go
through a medium with a higher refractive index that slows it, etc. Two
different paths with the middle path removed. Then they see the light do
interference.
Why would two particles interfere when one arrives later than the other,
but not interfere when they arrive at the same time? Maybe they do
arrive at the same time? Maybe the refractive index doesn't actually
slow the light but just changes its phase? Maybe the light travels the
different-length paths in the same time but its phase changes?
> > To do this they assume that the wave is
> > many cycles long because otherwise how could you get the part that
> > arrives 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 cycles later to cancel out stuff that has
> > already come and gone?
>
> There's that word "assume" again.
Yes, I use that word when I want to make it clear that I'm not repeating
a doctrine I believe in, but I am repeating an interpretation for
observed events. I'd be interested in other interpretations too.
> This is wave superposition:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
Yes. You put together two frequencies, and they heterodyne, and the
result is you get their sum and their difference.
> What do you assume is going on here:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif
I've never been sure what your intentions were with this picture. It
looks like you've drawn a 2D image in 3D perspective of 3 toothed disks
that are rotating at different speeds.
> > Wave theory works for a variety of things. The doppler equations
> > assume waves, don't they?
>
> No. Doppler is a ratio of velocities.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs
> Where's the wave?
What it predicts is frequency -- the frequency of the periodic change
over time and space. If you don't want to call the periodic change over
time and space a wave, then pick another name for it and I'll try to
remember to use that name. I wouldn't mind calling it a "floo" or a
"smerp" if you'd prefer.
> Are the dots waves?
What dots?
> > It's a frequency shift you find with them.
>
> What does that have to do with waves?
It has to do with a periodic change over time and space.
> > You get a series of sound
> > waves and you get a frequency for them. I'm going to use waves until
> > I see how to get those results without them.
>
> That's ok, you won't mind if I use traffic waves instead of cars then.
> If you get hit by one traffic wave it's game over.
If you put down one of those portable sensors that records the bump when
cars drive over it, then you can look for periodic changes there. Almost
always when you get one bump you'll get another one right behind it
because cars and motorcycles have front and back wheels. And when there
are enough cars on the road that they fall into line, then you see
periodic motion. The closer the different drivers come to keeping the
same constant distance behind the cars they're following, the more
periodic it gets.
Well, every other theory I've heard of predicts the wave front and the
photon direction will be the same. Yours has them in different
directions.
The frequency that the doppler effect gets is the frequency of whatever
it is that's periodic, and if you restrict it to one up-time and one
down-time you still get an expanding circle whose radius moves at v.
So there might be some way to test that. If what you detect is the wave
motion, you will detect it in the direction the wave is moving.
But if what you detect is particles, the particles which are the medium
the wave is moving in, then you will detect it in the direction that the
source was when it created the particles. If you detect it in the
direction of the waves, then you will get the same results as SR without
SR's time dilations etc. It would say that EmT and SR get correct
results (or transformed correct results). If you detect it in the
direction of the original source then you will get a radically different
result from SR and either SR or EmT must get quite incorrect results.
I wonder whether there is a way to actually get data about that.
> > The ripples are in some ways not real. A cork would go up
> > and down and sideways a little bit and end up in about the same
> > place. There's something happening, it is real, but not in the same
> > way as the current that moves all the water downstream along with
> > the corks and the ripples. The current is like, like, like --
> > movement of an aether! Only in your model it's like every moving
> > source has its own aether that travels with it....
>
The source is moving wrt the observer, of course. Otherwise we'd just
have circles of particles extending from the source, everything lines
up, and there's nothing much to discuss.
Androcles
Excuse me, I asked you a simple question. Allow me to repeat it in the
forlorn hope that you may understand plain English, because it IS a
mistake to make your language too fuzzy when the concept is precise.
What the fuck does "one half cycle slower" mean, fuzzy Jonah?
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote:
> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> > I'm real unclear about all this. People talk about waves to
> >explain> > interference.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> > They figure that if you have a wave, and you split it into
> >> > two parts and then let them rejoin, and one of them is one half
> >> > cycle slower, or 1.5 cycles slower, or 2.5 cycles slower etc,
> >then> > they will cancel and that's interference.
> >>
> >> What does "slower" mean? You are using everyday words that I
> >question.> If you want to be a mathematician or scientist your
> >language must be> precise. I suspect you mean "out of phase".
> >
> > It may be a mistake to make your language too precise when the
> > concept is fuzzy.
>
> Excuse me, I asked you a simple question. Allow me to repeat it in
> the forlorn hope that you may understand plain English, because it IS
> a mistake to make your language too fuzzy when the concept is precise.
> What the fuck does "one half cycle slower" mean, fuzzy Jonah?
People believe that light has something that's periodic in time and in
space. Since light takes time to travel through space, the two periods
go together. They use this concept to explain interference, where light
that would ordinarily display itself smoothly across an area instead
shows up as bands or circles etc of light and dark.
By this concept, light that travels different paths is arranged to wind
up at the same place, and the places that you get dark areas are places
that the light from one path has the opposite part of its period from
light that took another path. One of these paths results in the light
being one half cycle later (or 1.5 cycles or 2.5 cycles or 3.5 cycles
etc). That may happen when the path it takes is one half wavelength
longer, or 1.5 wavelengths, or 2.5 wavelengths etc.
The clear implication (from this theory) is that the light arrives
later. (0.5 cycles or 1.5 cycles or 2.5 cycles etc later. You can
translate that into seconds when you know the frequency.)
If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get cancellation
from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles later? Maybe the chemical
reaction etc that the light catalyses for us to notice it, can be undone
by a new photon coming at precisely the right time? Maybe when the light
hits a piece of white cardboard and gets scattered in a random direction
that will be undone when another photon arrives? It doesn't make sense.
So the traditional picture does not fit your idea as well as it fits
traditional ideas. Not really surprising that it wouldn't. What picture
of interference should we replace it with?
Androcles
So you a telling me that interference is the result of waves arriving
one after the other. Or is it two wave fronts arriving one after the other?
I say interference is the addition of two amplitudes arriving
simultaneously.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
I say the wave envelope is the history of the beat frequency.
> If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get cancellation
> from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles later?
Hahahahahahaha!
How do you get two traffic waves to collide at an intersection when one
traffic wave arrives 5.5 car lengths after the other?
> Maybe the chemical
> reaction etc that the light catalyses for us to notice it, can be undone
> by a new photon coming at precisely the right time? Maybe when the light
> hits a piece of white cardboard and gets scattered in a random direction
> that will be undone when another photon arrives? It doesn't make sense.
You sure don't. Not a lick of sense.
> So the traditional picture does not fit your idea as well as it fits
> traditional ideas. Not really surprising that it wouldn't. What picture
> of interference should we replace it with?
Cars crashing into each other when the first one has gone through the
intersection and the second car hasn't arrive yet, separation between
cars being 5.5 car lengths. Great interference, that.
I'd say the cars interfere when they arrive at the same place at the same
time.
What, acceding to your psychobabble theory, is happening here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif
a) The three gears rotate independently at different speeds.
b) Each gear has a different number of teeth to the others, all rotate at
the
same speed
c) Other (explain).
Hint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs
Jerry
> Actually Andro and I agree in principle but when a theory is under development,
> it is natural that there will be speculation and temporary disagreement on many
> issues. The point is, BaTh (EmT) has been ignored for a century because of
> Einstein. There is little data to go on.
> Little by little I have crushed its opponents, for instance those who claim the
> Sagnac effect refutes it.
Sure, Henri :-)
I wrote a rather entertaining new Java animation for you. I doubt
you will understand my critique of your fanciful explanation of the
ring gyro. But there's always hope, however distant and forlorn...
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm
Jerry
Jonah Thomas
> "Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I can see that for two waves that aren't the same frequency. It would
fit your picture. So, with your picture, what would it mean for the
waves to be in phase?
It looks to me like a different concept. These other guys are talking
about waves that they assume continue for many cycles, and they arrive
at one place some fraction of a cycle off so they're out of phase the
whole time at that place.
But you are talking about two waves you assume continue for many cycles,
that are not the same frequency so you get light of two new frequencies
at that place. Not an interference pattern but two new frequencies. Do
you see a way to turn that into a red shift?
> > If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get
> > cancellation from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles later?
>
> Hahahahahahaha!
> How do you get two traffic waves to collide at an intersection when
> one traffic wave arrives 5.5 car lengths after the other?
Exactly, it doesn't fit the model.
Trying to force a fit, imagine a convoy of cars on a freeway, and each
of them is precisely four carlengths ahead of the next one. And another
convoy of cars comes up the on-ramp, and each of them is also precisely
four carlengths ahead of the next one. If they ignore each other (as ME
claims without good evidence that light does) then they might fit in
together and you get a convoy of cars, each of them precisely one
carlength ahead of the next one. But if they are out of phase then each
pair of them crash and the freeway is empty beyond the crash site.
> > Maybe the chemical
> > reaction etc that the light catalyses for us to notice it, can be
> > undone by a new photon coming at precisely the right time? Maybe
> > when the light hits a piece of white cardboard and gets scattered in
> > a random direction that will be undone when another photon arrives?
> > It doesn't make sense.
>
> You sure don't. Not a lick of sense.
Agreed. It doesn't work. If those chemical reactions etc are done by a
photon that takes a long series of cycles, then you can have the sort of
interference that I described. If they're each just one cycle then it
mostly doesn't work and you need some other way to do it.
> > So the traditional picture does not fit your idea as well as it fits
> > traditional ideas. Not really surprising that it wouldn't. What
> > picture of interference should we replace it with?
>
> Cars crashing into each other when the first one has gone through the
> intersection and the second car hasn't arrive yet, separation between
> cars being 5.5 car lengths. Great interference, that.
> I'd say the cars interfere when they arrive at the same place at the
> same time.
So, in a diffraction grating the light takes the same time to go the
different distances. I can imagine it but I have trouble seeing how it
works out just right.
> What, acceding to your psychobabble theory, is happening here:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif
>
> a) The three gears rotate independently at different speeds.
> b) Each gear has a different number of teeth to the others, all rotate
> at the
> same speed
> c) Other (explain).
> Hint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs
I responded to the rest when I first read your reply, I'll have to look
at this.
Androcles
All you have to do is the math.
amplitude = A.sin(omega.t+phi) + B.sin(omega.t +theta).
If in phase, phi = theta.
I used a spreadsheet to draw that.
> It looks to me like a different concept.
Nope:
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/powerac.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090426010212AA5UQ7l
> These other guys are talking
> about waves that they assume continue for many cycles, and they arrive
> at one place some fraction of a cycle off so they're out of phase the
> whole time at that place.
What other guys?
> But you are talking about two waves you assume continue for many cycles,
No I don't. Waves are history.
> that are not the same frequency so you get light of two new frequencies
> at that place. Not an interference pattern but two new frequencies. Do
> you see a way to turn that into a red shift?
Shift is a ratio of speed with respect to the observer : speed w.r.t.
source.
(c+v)/c.
>> > If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get
>> > cancellation from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles later?
>>
>> Hahahahahahaha!
>> How do you get two traffic waves to collide at an intersection when
>> one traffic wave arrives 5.5 car lengths after the other?
>
> Exactly, it doesn't fit the model.
Doesn't fit YOUR model.
You are claiming amplitude = A.sin(omega.t1) + B.sin(omega.t2) where
t1 <> t2, which doesn't make any sense.
I am saying amplitude = A.sin(omega.t) + B.sin(omega.t + theta)
>
> Trying to force a fit, imagine a convoy of cars on a freeway, and each
> of them is precisely four carlengths ahead of the next one. And another
> convoy of cars comes up the on-ramp, and each of them is also precisely
> four carlengths ahead of the next one. If they ignore each other (as ME
> claims without good evidence that light does) then they might fit in
> together and you get a convoy of cars, each of them precisely one
> carlength ahead of the next one. But if they are out of phase then each
> pair of them crash and the freeway is empty beyond the crash site.
Yeah, well, what you actually do is piggy-back one traffic wave on top of
another, like this:
http://en.wikivisual.com/images/1/1b/Truck.car.transporter.arp.750pix.jpg
The amplitude is then A+B, the height. Now you have a convoy of double
height traffic waves still four traffic wavelengths apart.
>> > Maybe the chemical
>> > reaction etc that the light catalyses for us to notice it, can be
>> > undone by a new photon coming at precisely the right time? Maybe
>> > when the light hits a piece of white cardboard and gets scattered in
>> > a random direction that will be undone when another photon arrives?
>> > It doesn't make sense.
>>
>> You sure don't. Not a lick of sense.
>
> Agreed. It doesn't work. If those chemical reactions etc are done by a
> photon that takes a long series of cycles, then you can have the sort of
> interference that I described. If they're each just one cycle then it
> mostly doesn't work and you need some other way to do it.
I don't have any trouble with sin(omega t) + sin (omega.t + pi) = 0.
That works for me. What doesn't work is sin(omega t1) + sin(omega t2).
Why would you expect a photon to interfere with another that arrives
an hour later?
>> > So the traditional picture does not fit your idea as well as it fits
>> > traditional ideas. Not really surprising that it wouldn't. What
>> > picture of interference should we replace it with?
>>
>> Cars crashing into each other when the first one has gone through the
>> intersection and the second car hasn't arrive yet, separation between
>> cars being 5.5 car lengths. Great interference, that.
>> I'd say the cars interfere when they arrive at the same place at the
>> same time.
>
> So, in a diffraction grating the light takes the same time to go the
> different distances. I can imagine it but I have trouble seeing how it
> works out just right.
A boiled egg goes through this diffraction grating and comes out
sliced.
http://www.foodutensils.com.au/images/251T03121_Egg_Slicer.jpg
A liquid egg gets scrambled, but it is still a whole egg.
Photons are like water drops going through coffee filter papers.
They go in as drips and come out as drips.
Magnetic fields go through matter, as do gravitational fields.
Henry Wilson, DSc
wrote:
I have already commented on it. Didn't you read my reply.
Basically you have published something quite silly in an attempt to make me
look silly.
>Jerry
Jonah Thomas
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
You have two different frequencies.
amplitude = A*sin(omega*t) + B*sin(phi*t)
And these cannot be in phase unless omega = phi.
http://www.answers.com/topic/in-phase
Do you have some other meaning for "in phase"?
> > It looks to me like a different concept.
> Nope:
> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/powerac.html
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090426010212AA5UQ7l
These are both talking about cases where the frequency is the same. Your
example has different frequencies.
> > These other guys are talking
> > about waves that they assume continue for many cycles, and they
> > arrive at one place some fraction of a cycle off so they're out of
> > phase the whole time at that place.
>
> What other guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
These guys. Hey, do you understand this wave stuff or are you just so
sure it's wrong that you haven't bothered to learn it?
> > But you are talking about two waves you assume continue for many
> > cycles,
>
> No I don't. Waves are history.
Interesting. How do you get interference between light from two
different sources?
> > that are not the same frequency so you get light of two new
> > frequencies at that place. Not an interference pattern but two new
> > frequencies. Do you see a way to turn that into a red shift?
>
> Shift is a ratio of speed with respect to the observer : speed w.r.t.
> source.
> (c+v)/c.
So for you that isn't related.
> >> > If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get
> >> > cancellation from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles later?
> >>
> >> Hahahahahahaha!
> >> How do you get two traffic waves to collide at an intersection when
> >> one traffic wave arrives 5.5 car lengths after the other?
> >
> > Exactly, it doesn't fit the model.
>
> Doesn't fit YOUR model.
> You are claiming amplitude = A.sin(omega.t1) + B.sin(omega.t2) where
> t1 <> t2, which doesn't make any sense.
> I am saying amplitude = A.sin(omega.t) + B.sin(omega.t + theta)
?? B*sin(omega*t2)
= B*sin(omega(t1+(t2-t1))
when t2-t1 = D where D is constant,
= B*sin(omega*t1 + omega*D)
and we have a constant just like theta.
What's your problem with this?
> >> > Maybe the chemical
> >> > reaction etc that the light catalyses for us to notice it, can be
> >> > undone by a new photon coming at precisely the right time? Maybe
> >> > when the light hits a piece of white cardboard and gets scattered
> >in> > a random direction that will be undone when another photon
> >arrives?> > It doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> You sure don't. Not a lick of sense.
> >
> > Agreed. It doesn't work. If those chemical reactions etc are done by
> > a photon that takes a long series of cycles, then you can have the
> > sort of interference that I described. If they're each just one
> > cycle then it mostly doesn't work and you need some other way to do
> > it.
>
> I don't have any trouble with sin(omega t) + sin (omega.t + pi) = 0.
> That works for me. What doesn't work is sin(omega t1) + sin(omega t2).
> Why would you expect a photon to interfere with another that arrives
> an hour later?
If you have a sine wave that goes on for a long time, then it will
interfere with another starting whenever the other arrives and ending
whenever one of them ends. If both of them go to infinity in both
directions, they cancel out even with a 1 hour phase shift.
This is the model that was traditionally used in intro physics classes,
wasn't it? I can't say for sure since I never took a physics class
except for one quarter of thermodynamics and one quarter of biophysics.
Did you take an intro physics class? Did they do it this way?
> >> > So the traditional picture does not fit your idea as well as it
> >fits> > traditional ideas. Not really surprising that it wouldn't.
> >What> > picture of interference should we replace it with?
> >>
> >> Cars crashing into each other when the first one has gone through
> >the> intersection and the second car hasn't arrive yet, separation
> >between> cars being 5.5 car lengths. Great interference, that.
> >> I'd say the cars interfere when they arrive at the same place at
> >the> same time.
> >
> > So, in a diffraction grating the light takes the same time to go the
> > different distances. I can imagine it but I have trouble seeing how
> > it works out just right.
>
> A boiled egg goes through this diffraction grating and comes out
> sliced.
> http://www.foodutensils.com.au/images/251T03121_Egg_Slicer.jpg
> A liquid egg gets scrambled, but it is still a whole egg.
> Photons are like water drops going through coffee filter papers.
> They go in as drips and come out as drips.
> Magnetic fields go through matter, as do gravitational fields.
So, how do they do interference?
http://gratings.newport.com/information/handbook/chapter9.asp#9.7
This is like an egg slicer that throws away every other slice.
> >> What, acceding to your psychobabble theory, is happening here:
> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif
> >>
> >> a) The three gears rotate independently at different speeds.
> >> b) Each gear has a different number of teeth to the others, all
> >rotate> at the
> >> same speed
> >> c) Other (explain).
> >> Hint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs
My computer doesn't do youtube, I'll have to wait until somebody isn't
using one of the others to look at your hint.
Jonah Thomas
> Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's
> called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star
> data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends
> toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees)
I can easily imagine this. Even though intergalactic space is mostly
empty, still light goes for extremely long distances through it so
there's lots of opportunity to get effects that are more than
subliminal. Light would tend to change to the speed that this extremely
low-pressure gas would produce, and probably the average velocity of
that gas would make a difference.
But that gives us at least two extra fudge factors, parameters we don't
know but can only estimate. So to me that makes astronomical data even
more suspect.
> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary
> due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some
> time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the
> calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
> It is not a virus.
What I would really like is a program that does ray-tracing and
interference effects based on your theory. I'm having a lot of trouble
getting it straight what Androcles is saying when he uses hardly any
math. I could probably write it if I had the equations.
Incidentally, this is likely to seem like a stupid question -- I am
ignorant about such things and I don't know any better. If the electrons
in a radio tower are moving at close to lightspeed to generate their
signal, could your theory predict anything from that which might be
different from other theories?
You're at rest relative to the antenna, and the electrons are moving
very fast, not necessarily orthogonal to you. Any chance of something
observable from that?
Henry Wilson, DSc
>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>
>> Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's
>> called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star
>> data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends
>> toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees)
>
>I can easily imagine this. Even though intergalactic space is mostly
>empty, still light goes for extremely long distances through it so
>there's lots of opportunity to get effects that are more than
>subliminal. Light would tend to change to the speed that this extremely
>low-pressure gas would produce, and probably the average velocity of
>that gas would make a difference.
>
>But that gives us at least two extra fudge factors, parameters we don't
>know but can only estimate. So to me that makes astronomical data even
>more suspect.
When I simulate brightness curves with my program, (based on orbiting stars) I
find that the distances I have to plug in is invariably shorter than the
Hipparcos ones. The difference also seems to be inversely dependent on the
star's period. I put this down to a unification effect as light travels. On
other words, fast photons emitted when the star is approaching virtually stop
moving up on the slower ones after a certain distance.
I also suspect that around every large mass, there is an 'EM sphere of
influence', which may extend for lightminutes from a star and acts like a 'weak
aether' in that it modifies all light leaving any star. This is more or less in
line with conventional extinction except that matter is not involved so much as
'fields' and the 'stuff they are made of'.
>> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary
>> due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some
>> time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the
>> calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>> It is not a virus.
>
>What I would really like is a program that does ray-tracing and
>interference effects based on your theory. I'm having a lot of trouble
>getting it straight what Androcles is saying when he uses hardly any
>math. I could probably write it if I had the equations.
Everybody has trouble understanding Andro because he doesn't add any notes to
his illustrations. He is also regarded as being pretty eccentric....but
occasionally he comes down to earth and says sometghing intelligent.
>
>Incidentally, this is likely to seem like a stupid question -- I am
>ignorant about such things and I don't know any better. If the electrons
>in a radio tower are moving at close to lightspeed to generate their
>signal, could your theory predict anything from that which might be
>different from other theories?
>
>You're at rest relative to the antenna, and the electrons are moving
>very fast, not necessarily orthogonal to you. Any chance of something
>observable from that?
My theory about radio waves is that they consist of a great many photons, the
density of which is modulated by the motion of the electrons. The electrons are
accelerating continuously and in doing so, radiate heaps of photons with more
or less random energies....the radio wave structure is made up by the photon
density wave.
A radio wave is not a single photon like a quanta of light emitted by an atom.
The frequency of a generated radio wave bears no relation to the 'frequency' of
an individual photon, whatever that may signify.
Androcles
> hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>
>> Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's
>> called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star
>> data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends
>> toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees)
>
> I can easily imagine this. Even though intergalactic space is mostly
> empty, still light goes for extremely long distances through it so
> there's lots of opportunity to get effects that are more than
> subliminal. Light would tend to change to the speed that this extremely
> low-pressure gas would produce, and probably the average velocity of
> that gas would make a difference.
>
> But that gives us at least two extra fudge factors, parameters we don't
> know but can only estimate. So to me that makes astronomical data even
> more suspect.
>
>> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary
>> due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some
>> time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the
>> calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>> It is not a virus.
>
> What I would really like is a program that does ray-tracing and
> interference effects based on your theory. I'm having a lot of trouble
> getting it straight what Androcles is saying when he uses hardly any
> math. I could probably write it if I had the equations.
>
This is incredibly simple. Write the transformation equations for the PoR.
Let me explain what I mean.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
The entire axle is following a curved path over the brick pavement.
The camera or eye (your point of view) is following along behind.
That mean the ENTIRE WORLD (of which you can see only a plane
of bricks) is rotating and translating from your point of view.
Stop the camera so that the world stands still and the axle rotates
and translates.
Here's the equations for rotation:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html
Ok, that may be a little too advanced for you and Wilson gets confused by
the difference between pitch, roll and yaw so he can't help you, but see if
you
can write the equations for translation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3aAQ5gg00
The world is moving when the camera is inside the car.
If you can do that you won't need me to tell you what they are.
If you can't then you don't understand the PoR.
> Incidentally, this is likely to seem like a stupid question -- I am
> ignorant about such things and I don't know any better. If the electrons
> in a radio tower are moving at close to lightspeed to generate their
> signal, could your theory predict anything from that which might be
> different from other theories?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif
The electrons are moving vertically, at the centre. The wave is moving
horizontally. What is the speed of the electrons and why do you think
it is anywhere near the speed of magnetic fields?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI
> You're at rest relative to the antenna, and the electrons are moving
> very fast, not necessarily orthogonal to you. Any chance of something
> observable from that?
Yes. Your silly assumptions are readily observable.
Androcles
Yes, ok, but by normal convention omega is radians per second,
phi is a fixed angle.
Better to write
amplitude = A*sin(omega_1*t) + B*sin(omega_2*t) to avoid confusion.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/in-phase
>
> Do you have some other meaning for "in phase"?
relative phase angle = 0.
amplitude = A*sin(omega_1*t + phi_1) + B*sin(omega_2*t +phi_2),
In phase if phi_1 = phi_2 AND omega_1*t = omega_2*t modulo 2pi
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
The signals are in phase where the envelope is maximised, out of phase
where it is minimised.
>> > It looks to me like a different concept.
>> Nope:
>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/powerac.html
>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090426010212AA5UQ7l
>
> These are both talking about cases where the frequency is the same. Your
> example has different frequencies.
>
>> > These other guys are talking
>> > about waves that they assume continue for many cycles, and they
>> > arrive at one place some fraction of a cycle off so they're out of
>> > phase the whole time at that place.
>>
>> What other guys?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
>
> These guys. Hey, do you understand this wave stuff or are you just so
> sure it's wrong that you haven't bothered to learn it?
Then state who.
"The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant
displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the displacements of
different waves at that point. "
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
Do you see where it says AT THAT POINT?
"The clear implication (from this theory) is that the light arrives later.
(0.5 cycles or 1.5 cycles or 2.5 cycles etc later." --- Utter fuckin'
nonsense, Jonah. Only you could make that implication.
Hey, do you understand this wave stuff or are you just so stupid that you
haven't bothered to learn to read?
>> > But you are talking about two waves you assume continue for many
>> > cycles,
>>
>> No I don't. Waves are history.
>
> Interesting. How do you get interference between light from two
> different sources?
Like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
In radio we call that "modulation".
You may have heard of FM and AM. FM stands for frequency modulation,
AM stands for amplitude modulation.
>> > that are not the same frequency so you get light of two new
>> > frequencies at that place. Not an interference pattern but two new
>> > frequencies. Do you see a way to turn that into a red shift?
>>
>> Shift is a ratio of speed with respect to the observer : speed w.r.t.
>> source.
>> (c+v)/c.
>
> So for you that isn't related.
I can draw this with a spreadsheet:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
I'd say that was related and I understand the equations. Do you?
>
>> >> > If the photon is actually just one cycle, how do you get
>> >> > cancellation from a different photon arriving 5.5 cycles later?
>> >>
>> >> Hahahahahahaha!
>> >> How do you get two traffic waves to collide at an intersection when
>> >> one traffic wave arrives 5.5 car lengths after the other?
>> >
>> > Exactly, it doesn't fit the model.
>>
>> Doesn't fit YOUR model.
>> You are claiming amplitude = A.sin(omega.t1) + B.sin(omega.t2) where
>> t1 <> t2, which doesn't make any sense.
>> I am saying amplitude = A.sin(omega.t) + B.sin(omega.t + theta)
>
> ?? B*sin(omega*t2)
> = B*sin(omega(t1+(t2-t1))
>
> when t2-t1 = D where D is constant,
>
> = B*sin(omega*t1 + omega*D)
>
> and we have a constant just like theta.
> What's your problem with this?
t1 = Jan 1, 2009,
t2 = Sept 8, 2009.
t2 - t1 = 334 days.
That's my problem with it.
"The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant
displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the displacements of
different waves at that point. "
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
Do you see where it says AT THAT POINT?
>
>> >> > Maybe the chemical
>> >> > reaction etc that the light catalyses for us to notice it, can be
>> >> > undone by a new photon coming at precisely the right time? Maybe
>> >> > when the light hits a piece of white cardboard and gets scattered
>> >in> > a random direction that will be undone when another photon
>> >arrives?> > It doesn't make sense.
>> >>
>> >> You sure don't. Not a lick of sense.
>> >
>> > Agreed. It doesn't work. If those chemical reactions etc are done by
>> > a photon that takes a long series of cycles, then you can have the
>> > sort of interference that I described. If they're each just one
>> > cycle then it mostly doesn't work and you need some other way to do
>> > it.
>>
>> I don't have any trouble with sin(omega t) + sin (omega.t + pi) = 0.
>> That works for me. What doesn't work is sin(omega t1) + sin(omega t2).
>> Why would you expect a photon to interfere with another that arrives
>> an hour later?
>
> If you have a sine wave that goes on for a long time, then it will
> interfere with another starting whenever the other arrives and ending
> whenever one of them ends. If both of them go to infinity in both
> directions, they cancel out even with a 1 hour phase shift.
Prove it.
> This is the model that was traditionally used in intro physics classes,
> wasn't it? I can't say for sure since I never took a physics class
> except for one quarter of thermodynamics and one quarter of biophysics.
> Did you take an intro physics class? Did they do it this way?
>
I have three degrees, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D. Yes, I've taken an intro physics
class and an intro chemistry class and an intro biology class and an intro
math class. I've never taken a psychobabble class.
>> >> > So the traditional picture does not fit your idea as well as it
>> >fits> > traditional ideas. Not really surprising that it wouldn't.
>> >What> > picture of interference should we replace it with?
>> >>
>> >> Cars crashing into each other when the first one has gone through
>> >the> intersection and the second car hasn't arrive yet, separation
>> >between> cars being 5.5 car lengths. Great interference, that.
>> >> I'd say the cars interfere when they arrive at the same place at
>> >the> same time.
>> >
>> > So, in a diffraction grating the light takes the same time to go the
>> > different distances. I can imagine it but I have trouble seeing how
>> > it works out just right.
>>
>> A boiled egg goes through this diffraction grating and comes out
>> sliced.
>> http://www.foodutensils.com.au/images/251T03121_Egg_Slicer.jpg
>> A liquid egg gets scrambled, but it is still a whole egg.
>> Photons are like water drops going through coffee filter papers.
>> They go in as drips and come out as drips.
>> Magnetic fields go through matter, as do gravitational fields.
>
> So, how do they do interference?
>
> http://gratings.newport.com/information/handbook/chapter9.asp#9.7
>
> This is like an egg slicer that throws away every other slice.
See figure 9:2.
Imagine a bar magnet on the axis marked "S". Imagine the magnetic field
around the bar magnet. Imagine a battery on the axis marked "P".
Imagine the electric field around the battery. Spin the bar magnet around
the P axis, like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif
Now take away the battery and the magnet, but leave the fields, hanging
in space. As the magnetic field collapses it creates the imaginary battery.
When it reaches zero the electric field is at a maximum. Now the electric
field collapses, having no changing magnetic field to sustain it. The
collapsing electric field creates the "bar magnet". And so it continues.
What do think happens when the travelling and oscillating magnetic field
meets the atoms of the diffraction grating?
>> >> What, acceding to your psychobabble theory, is happening here:
>> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif
>> >>
>> >> a) The three gears rotate independently at different speeds.
>> >> b) Each gear has a different number of teeth to the others, all
>> >rotate> at the
>> >> same speed
>> >> c) Other (explain).
>> >> Hint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs
>
> My computer doesn't do youtube, I'll have to wait until somebody isn't
> using one of the others to look at your hint.
You should have said you were handicapped. Every normal person
can view youtube, buy a computer -- even an old used one.
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
> >> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary
> >> due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some
> >> time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the
> >> calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
> >> It is not a virus.
> >
> >What I would really like is a program that does ray-tracing and
> >interference effects based on your theory. I'm having a lot of
> >trouble getting it straight what Androcles is saying when he uses
> >hardly any math. I could probably write it if I had the equations.
>
> Everybody has trouble understanding Andro because he doesn't add any
> notes to his illustrations. He is also regarded as being pretty
> eccentric....but occasionally he comes down to earth and says
> sometghing intelligent.
I've seen that repeatedly already. He thinks independently, or at least
if he's following somebody's doctrine it's somebody I've never heard of
before. I'm not sure he understands everything he implies that he does,
but several times now his ideas made sense after they didn't for awhile.
> >Incidentally, this is likely to seem like a stupid question -- I am
> >ignorant about such things and I don't know any better. If the
> >electrons in a radio tower are moving at close to lightspeed to
> >generate their signal, could your theory predict anything from that
> >which might be different from other theories?
> >
> >You're at rest relative to the antenna, and the electrons are moving
> >very fast, not necessarily orthogonal to you. Any chance of something
> >observable from that?
>
> My theory about radio waves is that they consist of a great many
> photons, the density of which is modulated by the motion of the
> electrons. The electrons are accelerating continuously and in doing
> so, radiate heaps of photons with more or less random energies....the
> radio wave structure is made up by the photon density wave.
> A radio wave is not a single photon like a quanta of light emitted by
> an atom. The frequency of a generated radio wave bears no relation to
> the 'frequency' of an individual photon, whatever that may signify.
I'm not clear what the frequency of an individual photon implies, but I
could imagine that the frequency of visible light and the frequency of
radio waves has only a quantitative difference. I don't mind if
generated radio waves are somehow qualitatively different from EM made
by atoms, if the theory can make testable predictions about them.
What about synchrotron radiation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
It appears that SR predicts an extra doppler effect and an effect on
direction that fit the reality. If emission theory also predicts those
known results that would be a plus.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:k89ba556j94137ed9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:07:42 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's
>>> called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star
>>> data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends
>>> toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees)
>>
>>I can easily imagine this. Even though intergalactic space is mostly
>>empty, still light goes for extremely long distances through it so
>>there's lots of opportunity to get effects that are more than
>>subliminal. Light would tend to change to the speed that this extremely
>>low-pressure gas would produce, and probably the average velocity of
>>that gas would make a difference.
>>
>>But that gives us at least two extra fudge factors, parameters we don't
>>know but can only estimate. So to me that makes astronomical data even
>>more suspect.
>
> When I simulate brightness curves with my program, (based on orbiting
> stars) I
> find that the distances I have to plug in is invariably shorter than the
> Hipparcos ones. The difference also seems to be inversely dependent on the
> star's period. I put this down to a unification effect as light travels.
Any normal person would put it down to the angle of inclination of the orbit
instead of insisting Wanker Wilson's Wobbly Worbits are Wedge-on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclination
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/Orbit1.svg/300px-Orbit1.svg.png
Crank!
Androcles
> hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>> Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
>
>> >> If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary
>> >> due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some
>> >> time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the
>> >> calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>> >> It is not a virus.
>> >
>> >What I would really like is a program that does ray-tracing and
>> >interference effects based on your theory. I'm having a lot of
>> >trouble getting it straight what Androcles is saying when he uses
>> >hardly any math. I could probably write it if I had the equations.
>>
>> Everybody has trouble understanding Andro because he doesn't add any
>> notes to his illustrations. He is also regarded as being pretty
>> eccentric....but occasionally he comes down to earth and says
>> sometghing intelligent.
>
> I've seen that repeatedly already. He thinks independently, or at least
> if he's following somebody's doctrine it's somebody I've never heard of
> before. I'm not sure he understands everything he implies that he does,
> but several times now his ideas made sense after they didn't for awhile.
You are in the wrong newsgroup. I write about science and mathematics;
if you wish to write about me then try any of alt.social.interaction,
sci.diplomacy, junk.religion, alt.flame, alt.local.village.idiot, a
finishing school for debutantes who are coming out, "People" magazine
or other group that doesn't subscribe to math or science, although
why you would want to is a mystery only you can answer.
If you wish to say that I am wrong on some point of math or science
then point it out and we'll discuss it, but if you merely wish to say
I am wrong according to your pathetic philosophy of everybody has to
agree with you and be polite, regardless of logic, then again you are
in the wrong group.
I'm not discussing Wilson, but I will discuss his hopeless program.
He leaves out angle of inclination entirely, doesn't know the difference
between pitch, roll and yaw. His ellipse is constructed in two halves,
one a mirror image of the other, and looks like the ace of spades.
If he ever shows you the source code it is riddled with constants and
fudges.
Henry Wilson, DSc
wrote:
That wouldn't explain why the discrepancy appears to be correlated with both
star distance and orbit period.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclination
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/Orbit1.svg/300px-Orbit1.svg.png
>Crank!
For the purpose of measuring brightness, only two angles are required.
Turn yer bloody 'ead instead of the orbit.
I have already explained to you that for any orientation of any ellipse, it is
possible to rotate one's head around the LOS until one finds the ONE position
where there is a line in the orbit plane that also lies perpendicular to the
LOS.
The elliipse can then be rotated about that line until it lies edge on, at
which orientation the angle of the major axis defines MY yaw angle. Rotation
about the line multiplies all component velocity towards Earth by the same cos
factor and does not affect the shape of the brightness curve...only its
magnitude.
Since the observed velocity curves...interpreted via conventional
VDoppler...automatically include this cos factor, I don't have to include it
again. By including it again YOU are fudging your results.
Using this method makes programming considerably simpler than it is with your
totally unnecessarily complication. I can do it easily because of my superior
Newtonian method of producing ellipses rather than using your Keplerian one.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
Yes, pitch and yaw, you don't need roll. You've only got one angle, yaw, you
daft old bastard. Turn yer bloody 'ead to get roll and program in pitch.
> I have already explained to you
You can fucking explain until the cows come home; you still need two angles
and not one, you senile old fart.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vector/RP.gif
Henry Wilson, DSc
wrote:
I have two angles.
Cos(Pitch) is included in the velocity setting. Varying velocity, pitch or
distance have the same effect and don't affect the basic curve shape.
I set my distance and velocity to the observed ones. YOU don't even plug in
either value. You do't even try to match the observed magnitude change. All YOU
produce is a shape.
I can produce the same shapes but with a lot of additional information.