| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Timo Nieminen" |
| Date: |
14 Aug 2005 08:16:12 PM |
| Object: |
On theories of light: emission theories |
Abstract
This is the first section of a discussion in three posts on
theories of light. This part is about emission theories of
light; the following parts concern ether theories and
light in the framework of the special theory of relativity.
Bibliography
Fizeau, H. (1851), Sur les hypoth=E8ses relatives =E0 l =E9ther lumineux,
et sur une exp=E9rience qui para=EEt d=E9montrer que le mouvement
des corps change la vitesse avec laquelle la lumi=E8re se propage
dans leur int=E9rieur, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s=E9ances de
l'Acad=E9mie des Sciences 33, 349-355.
Fizeau, H. (1859), Sur les hypoth=E8ses relatives =E0 l =E9ther lumineux
et sur une exp=E9rience qui para=EEt d=E9montrer que le mouvement des corps
change la vitesse avec laquelle la lumi=E8re se propage dans leur
int=E9rieur, Annales de Chimie et de Physique 57, 385-404.
Fox, J. G. (1965), Evidence against emission theories, American
Journal of Physics 33(1), 1-17.
Frankel, E. (1976), Corpuscular optics and the wave theory of
light: The science and politics of a revolution in physics,
Social Studies of Science 6(2), 141-184.
Frercks, J. (2005), Fizeau's research program on ether drag:
A long quest for a publishable experiment, Physics in Perspective
7, 35-65.
O'Rahilly, A. (1938), Electromagnetics, Longmans & Cork University
Press (reprinted in 2 vols in 1965 as Electromagnetic theory: a
critical examination of fundamentals, New York: Dover).
Panosky, W. K. H., and M. Phillips (1962), Classical electricity and
magnetism, 2nd ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Post, E. J. (1967), Sagnac effect, Reviews of Modern Physics 39(2),
475-493.
Ritz, W. (1908), Recherches critiques sur l'=E9lectrodynamique
g=E9n=E9rale, Ann. de Chim. et de Phys. 13, 145-275.
Ritz, W. (1911), Gesammelte Werke/OEuvres, Paris:
Gauthier-Villars.
Tolman, R. C. (1910), The second postulate of relativity,
Physical Review 31(1), 26-40.
Tolman, R. C. (1912), Some emission theories of light, Physical
Review 35(2), 136-143.
Waldron, R. A. (1977). The wave and ballistic theories of
light - a critical review, London: Frederick Muller.
Introduction
It is by no means far-fetched to claim that the most natural and
obvious theory of light is an emission theory. After all, emission
theories, in the form of corpuscular theory, were the dominant
theories until the downfall of corpuscular theory due to the work
of Young and Fresnel (Frankel, 1976).
However, following the general acceptance of the wave theory of
light, and the subsequent development of the electromagnetic theory
of light, corpuscular and emission theories of light languished.
However, there are at two exceptions to this generality:
(a) the light-quantum hypothesis of Einstein, and (b) the
electromagnetic theory of Ritz. The first of these properly belongs
in the third post in this series, relativistic electrodynamics, so
we will mainly consider the latter, and allied theories. However,
some comments will be made concerning emission theories based on
the modern photon.
Elements of Ritz's theory
An emission theory in at least approximate agreement with observations
can be constructed based on retarded potentials by replacing the usual
retarded times (t-r/c) with (t-r/|c+v|), where v was the velocity of the
source at the time of "emission" of the potential - ie the effect of
"emission" from the source produces a sphere of radius c(t-t0), centred
on the position where the source would be if it had continued moving
in a straight line at constant speed after emission. This is, of course,
rather oversimplified, and the interested reader can find more detail
in Ritz's own writings. A briefer description, in English, is given by
O'Rahilly. The "c" in the |c+v| term should be understood to be a vector
quantity, directed so that the source point and observation point are
connected by the vector (c+v)t. Thus, |c+v| is the direction-dependent
speed of light, as measured in the coordinate system where the source
velocity v is measured.
Experimental support or disproof of emission theories
Since the validity of a theory of light is something that hopefully
is subject to experimental test, it is useful to review the experimental
evidence for and against Ritz's theory, and other emission theories.
An important distinction that can be made between different emission
theories is the behaviour of electromagnetic waves on relfection. In
Ritz's theory, and emission theories in general, the velocity of an
electromagnetic wave is direction dependent, and, for emission in the
forward direction, equal to c+v. Assuming a source moving towards a
mirror, and reflection back towards the source, there are three
sensible assumptions one can make: (a) ballistic reflection, with the
waves reflected back with the same incident speed, c+v; (b) the reflected
wave travels at c relative to the mirror (the mirror acts as a new
source); and (c) the reflected wave retains the same source velocity
vector v as the original wave (the Ritz theory). Tolman noted that the
evidence available at the time was sufficient to falsify both (a) and
(b), but not the Ritzian (c). Tolman suggested a Michelson-Morley
type experiment, using sunlight as a source, as a suitable test to
distinguish between (c) and Lorentz-Einstein electrodynamics. This
was done, and failed to support (c). A concise review of the experimental
evidence is given by Panosky and Phillips, who also note that all
three of (a)-(c) are falsified by binary star observations.
However, all of these "disproofs" are susceptible to criticism on the
grounds of "extinction", the rapid tendency of light to approach
a fixed speed relative to the medium in which it moves. This was
pointed out by Fox (1965) in a review of evidence against emission
theories. (Although Fox considered most of the evidence to be invalid,
evidence from lifetimes of fast mesons, and gamma-ray emission by
moving sources in experiments specifically designed to avoid extinction
effects were still considered conclusive.)
There was, however, an old experiment which appears quite conclusive -
the Fizeau ether-drag experiment. Essentially, the speed of light in a
moving medium is not c/n relative to the medium as measured in a coordinate
system in which the medium is moving. According to the "extinction
explanation", the light should very rapidly reach a speed of c/n relative
to the medium. Now, a ballistic explanation of the Fizeau-Fresnel drag
can be constructed by considering photons being absorbed by atoms in the
medium, and re-emitted after a delay, with their original speed in the
original direction of travel. However, this gives speeds in the medium
which depend on the original source velocity, meaning that the "extinction
explanation" dismissal of various anti-emission-theory evidence is
no longer valid. While the Fizeau experiment, by itself, is insufficient
evidence against emission theories, in combination with the other
evidence, rules out Galilei-symmetric emission theories.
Fox briefly considers the Fizeau experiment, and notes that an
explanation in terms of ballistic theories might be possible, without
any discussion of extinction versus the Fizeau experiment.
Finally, the Sagnac effect, which can be explained using relativistic
electrodynamics, or in the slow rotation limit, a Galilei-symmetric
Fresnel-dragged ether (Post, 1967), is further conclusive evidence.
The photon hypothesis and strictly Newtonian ballistic theories
Given what we know of the semi-classical photon - a particle of
zero or so far unmeasurably small rest mass - we have some severe
difficulties in trying to formulate a Newtonian ballistic emission
theory. Firstly, the energy-momentum relationship p =3D E/c for photons
is well-established experimentally. This is in conflict with the Newtonian
prediction. Furthermore, the apparent absence of dispersion in free
space is also in conflict with the Newtonian speed-energy relationship.
Conclusion
Despite the logical attractiveness of emission theories, Galilei-symmetric
emission theories are in conflict with experimental evidence. No single
experiment need be conclusive, since the Fizeau ether-dragging
experiment negates the "extinction explanation" invalidation of other
experimental tests.
--=20
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: On theories of light: emission theories |
15 Aug 2005 03:35:25 AM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
This is the first section of a discussion in three posts on
theories of light. This part is about emission theories of
light; the following parts concern ether theories and
light in the framework of the special theory of relativity.
....[BIG TRIM]...
Conclusion
Despite the logical attractiveness of emission theories, Galilei-symmetric
emission theories are in conflict with experimental evidence. No single
experiment need be conclusive, since the Fizeau ether-dragging
experiment negates the "extinction explanation" invalidation of other
experimental tests.
Appreciate that the first section necessarily must
be historical development of the issues related to
the subject matter.
Looking forward to sections 2 and 3.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On theories of light: emission theories |
15 Aug 2005 01:13:34 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Abstract
This is the first section of a discussion in three posts on
theories of light. This part is about emission theories of
light; the following parts concern ether theories and
light in the framework of the special theory of relativity.
Bibliography
[snip as appropriate]
Fizeau, H. (1851)
Fizeau, H. (1859)
O'Rahilly, A. (1938)
Ritz, W. (1908)
Ritz, W. (1911)
Tolman, R. C. (1910)
Tolman, R. C. (1912)
[snip]
You are out of your depth.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: On theories of light: emission theories |
15 Aug 2005 02:35:28 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4300DB4E.88F95188@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
Phuckwit, you are out of your depth.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
14 Aug 2005 11:13:08 PM |
|
|
You are so far out of date, Nieminen, you are like a medical doctor
letting
the bad blood out.
Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
states:
[quote]
A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
[end quote]
The author has accepted the "Lorentz" (actually Einstein) transforms
at face value instead of deriving them from first principles, a common
error of many.
Sagnac closely resembles Einstein's own thought experiment, in that
it is evaluating the speed and time of flight of the light over a fixed
distance.
Einstein uses reflection to obtain the return (or counterclockwise) ray,
but that is not as important as the values c+v and c-v for the distance
travelled and the resulting times obtained.
In the case of Sagnac, these values apply not to the rotating apparatus
but to the stationary observer, who now simulates Einstein's "moving"
frame, the light's speed being c in the apparatus.
It is as if the apparatus did not rotate and the observer moved around
the circumference.
To see why, we imagine the following:
Ref: http://carouselmagic.com/graphics/lj400.jpg
On the carousel, normally the rider moves with the same angular
velocity as the ride, his relative velocity is zero with respect to the
ride. To model our situation, we need children to walk or run around
the carousel in opposite directions and meet again where they started,
relative to the carousel. Grandpa puts the children on the slowly
turning carousel and off they go in opposite directions, and he waits
to see what happens. The child that moved in the same direction as
the carousel meets grandpa before he meets his sibling, there is a
non-zero angle alpha in the diagram shown at
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
The frequency of the clockwise child, in radians per second or steps
he takes, is different to the frequency of the counterclockwise child,
as seen from where grandpa is standing.
Whether or not we turn the carousel, grandpa could walk around it
to his starting point and obtain the same result.
From the carousel's point of view the speed of the children is c.
From grandpa's point of view the speeds of the children are
c+v and c-v.
The carousel is Einstein's "stationary" frame and grandpa is the
"moving" frame. Einstein uses quotation marks around "stationary"
and "moving" to emphasize the frames are interchangable, he states
[quote]
" In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish
this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be
introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system.''
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The stationary system is the one in which the speed of light is c.
It is grandpa's watch that must record a lesser time according to
special relativity, not "the clock at the perimeter of the ring" as the
author states, for it is grandpa that perceives c+v and c-v, not the
carousel.
The reason he must do so is Einstein's whimsical definition of time.
[quote]
we establish by _definition_ that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
This definition bears no resemblance to reality or the Sagnac effect,
but it is the heart of special relativity, so I'll proceed.
The transforms Einstein created and unfairly ascribed to Lorentz
were derived from his equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
where x' is the distance the light travels, here the circumference of
the ring. There is double usage of the term x', it is the distance the
light travels and a coordinate in the "moving" frame.
The remaining parameters for the function tau are y and z, coordinates,
and the time taken by the light to complete a circuit of the ring or
travel
from 0 to x' or the other way or both.
For clarity I shall replace the times x'/(c-v) with the symbol a and
and x'/(c+v) with the symbol b.
The y term can be considered to play a role, since the angle alpha
will produce y = R.cos(alpha), x' = R.sin(alpha), R being the radius
of the ring, R = x'/2\pi.
However, we can ignore y because Einstein later differentiates his
equation by making x' infinitessimally small, and in any event the
coordinate x' is zero even though the distance x' is non-zero, the
light returns to it's starting point in the carousel or ring frame.
It does not quite do so in grandpa's frame, though.
Thus we have Einstein's equation with x' = 0 when used as a
coordinate, and x' =x-vt = the circumference of the ring which is
greater than zero when used as a length. This now gives is
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+a+b)] = tau(0,0,0,t+a)***
Now the x', y, and z coordinates are redundant, being zero, leaving
½[tau(t)+tau(t+a+b)] = tau(t+a).
Since tau(t) must equal t, the clock on the carousel being initially
synchronized with grandpa's watch, that too can be disregarded.
The t is redundant, it refers to the time at which the experiment
takes place, leaving
½tau(a+b) = tau(a).
Hence we have divorced length from time by the elimination of
coordinates, taken out the Lorentx contraction and left only
time as the sole parameter to the function tau.
But something is wrong.
In Sagnac, the times a=x'/(c-v) and b=x'/(c+v are not consecutive,
they are concurrent. To make them consecutive, we must ask
grandpa to reverse his direction and walk the opposite way
around the carousel immediately after his first circumnavigation,
or alternatively let grandpa remain and the children to reverse
(or reflect at x') as the carousel slowly turns.
That produces -alpha, and grandpa meets the children at his
original starting location, hence
tau(a+b) = tau(a)+tau(b)
Had grandpa reversed the order of his two excursions we would
have found
½tau(a+b) = tau(b)
We then have two equations for tau,
½tau(a+b) = tau(a) ... 1
½tau(a+b) = tau(b) ... 2
from which is is immediately clear that tau is not a function,
having two different values, unless those values are the same.
Einstein clearly states
[quote]
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.
[end quote]
It follows that tau is not a linear function as claimed and Einstein's
definition of time is not satisfied.
Androcles.
footnote:
*** To be pedantic,
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(R.sin(alpha), R.cos(alpha),0,t+a+b)] =
tau(R.sin(alpha), R.cos(alpha),0,t+a)
where R = x'/2\pi, but the coordinates play no significant role in
Sagnac.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
14 Aug 2005 11:57:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
states:
[quote]
A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
[end quote]
The author also states:
"This rules out the ballistic theory of light propagation (as advocated
by Ritz in 1909), according to which the speed of light is the vector
sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c.
Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with
the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naive ether theory,
whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naive ether theory but
inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are
consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein,
since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed
independent of the state of motion of the source."
It would be better for your case if the sources you cite didn't reach
conclusions contrary to your case.
You might also be interested in reading:
Post, E. J. (1967), Sagnac effect, Reviews of Modern Physics 39(2),
475-493.
J. Van Bladel, Relativity and Engineering, Springer (1984)
W. A. Rodriques, Jr. and M. Sharif, Rotating frames in SRT: The Sagnac
effect and related issues, Foundations of Physics 31(12) 1767-1783 (2001)
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 09:19:13 AM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508151443020.1461-100000@localhost...
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| > Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
| >
| > On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
| > is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
| > states:
| > [quote]
| > A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
| > special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
| > gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
| > a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
| > [end quote]
|
| The author also states:
|
| "This rules out the ballistic theory of light propagation (as
advocated
| by Ritz in 1909), according to which the speed of light is the vector
| sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c.
| Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent
with
| the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naive ether theory,
| whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naive ether theory
but
| inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are
| consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein,
| since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed
| independent of the state of motion of the source."
|
| It would be better for your case if the sources you cite didn't reach
| conclusions contrary to your case.
It might better for your case if you could read all that I wrote
instead of knee-jerk reacting, but I realise you are blind to anything
that disturbs your religion. Your doctorate is in theology, I presume.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 02:56:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| > Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
| >
| > On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
| > is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
| > states:
| > [quote]
| > A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
| > special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
| > gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
| > a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
| > [end quote]
|
| The author also states:
|
| "This rules out the ballistic theory of light propagation (as
advocated
| by Ritz in 1909), according to which the speed of light is the vector
| sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c.
| Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent
with
| the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naive ether theory,
| whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naive ether theory
but
| inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are
| consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein,
| since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed
| independent of the state of motion of the source."
|
| It would be better for your case if the sources you cite didn't reach
| conclusions contrary to your case.
It might better for your case if you could read all that I wrote
instead of knee-jerk reacting, but I realise you are blind to anything
that disturbs your religion. Your doctorate is in theology, I presume.
Ah, your usual resort to personal attack when you have no recourse to
physics! What next? Will you unleash your potty-mouth?
It doesn't change the fact that the source that you cited disagrees with
your own conclusion, as do the other sources I cited. The problem is
thoroughly dealt with in the literature. so if you refuse to read, that's
your problem.
Look, if you want to discuss physics, go ahead. If you just want to be a
foul-mouthed boor, it's not worth my effort. The last 3 times I tried to
discuss physics with you, you (1) insisted that the Lorentz transforms be
assumed in a derivation of the Lorentz transforms, (2) refused to discuss
whether or not an emission theory of light needs to be formulatable as a
field theory, and (3) claimed that 5 hours earlier than five hours later
than now is not now, but refused to say when it might be. I'm not at all
sure that it's worth the effort of starting a serious discussion with you
when you are almost certain to run away while it's unfinished. So I ask
again: do you want to discuss physics? Will you discuss physics?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 04:03:42 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:20050816054651.S43241@emu.uq.edu.au...
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| > | On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
| > |
| > | > Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
| > | >
| > | > On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
| > | > is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that
page
| > | > states:
| > | > [quote]
| > | > A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according
to
| > | > special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
| > | > gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to
such
| > | > a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
| > | > [end quote]
| > |
| > | The author also states:
| > |
| > | "This rules out the ballistic theory of light propagation (as
| > advocated
| > | by Ritz in 1909), according to which the speed of light is the
vector
| > | sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c.
| > | Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was
consistent
| > with
| > | the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naive ether
theory,
| > | whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naive ether
theory
| > but
| > | inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results
are
| > | consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and
Einstein,
| > | since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed
| > | independent of the state of motion of the source."
| > |
| > | It would be better for your case if the sources you cite didn't
reach
| > | conclusions contrary to your case.
| >
| > It might better for your case if you could read all that I wrote
| > instead of knee-jerk reacting, but I realise you are blind to
anything
| > that disturbs your religion. Your doctorate is in theology, I
presume.
|
| Ah, your usual resort to personal attack when you have no recourse to
| physics!
I did resort to physics, but you snipped it because you knee jerked.
Next step is personal abuse.
| What next? Will you unleash your potty-mouth?
Could be.
|
| It doesn't change the fact that the source that you cited disagrees
with
| your own conclusion, as do the other sources I cited.
Do you find something objectionable to me citing something I
disagree with? I'm fully aware that the source that I cited disagrees
with my own conclusion, and that you knee-jerked without reading
why I disagreed. That certainly does not make you a conscientiously
thoughtful physicist.
| The problem is
| thoroughly dealt with in the literature. so if you refuse to read,
that's
| your problem.
I can read, have read, and disagree.
That you refuse to look is your problem.
| Look, if you want to discuss physics, go ahead.
I did, you snipped without reading.
| If you just want to be a
| foul-mouthed boor, it's not worth my effort.
Try reading what I write then, instead of being a snipping knee-jerk
boor.
| The last 3 times I tried to
| discuss physics with you, you (1) insisted that the Lorentz transforms
be
| assumed in a derivation of the Lorentz transforms,
Yes, McCullough always wants to start with the cuckoo transforms,
doesn't know how they were derived and then claims the speed of light
is the same in all frames of reference is a postulate. As I recall, you
were
no different. Yet if I cite Einstein that would be wrong because he
disagrees with me. Your idea of logic is different to mine.
(2) refused to discuss
| whether or not an emission theory of light needs to be formulatable as
a
| field theory,
That's too advanced for you.
and (3) claimed that 5 hours earlier than five hours later
| than now is not now, but refused to say when it might be.
That is your form of personal abuse, potty mouth
| I'm not at all
| sure that it's worth the effort of starting a serious discussion with
you
| when you are almost certain to run away while it's unfinished.
Yet you ran away before it started to begin a personl attack instead
of discussing the physics.
So I ask
| again: do you want to discuss physics?
Yes.
| Will you discuss physics?
Will you, or will you snip and repeat web pages like the bigot
Alan Schwartz?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 04:59:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[cut non-physics]
| The last 3 times I tried to
| discuss physics with you, you (1) insisted that the Lorentz transforms
be
| assumed in a derivation of the Lorentz transforms,
Yes, McCullough always wants to start with the cuckoo transforms,
doesn't know how they were derived and then claims the speed of light
is the same in all frames of reference is a postulate. As I recall, you
were
no different.
No, *you* demanded that either the Lorentz transform or Galilei transform
be assumed a priori in what was supposed to be a derivation of the Lorentz
transform.
Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
(2) refused to discuss
| whether or not an emission theory of light needs to be formulatable as
a
| field theory,
That's too advanced for you.
Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
and (3) claimed that 5 hours earlier than five hours later
| than now is not now, but refused to say when it might be.
That is your form of personal abuse, potty mouth
You're the one who claimed it in the first place. Are you now saying that
five hours earlier than five hours later than now is now?
Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
So I ask
| again: do you want to discuss physics?
Yes.
So, we have three topics we started discussing earlier, that you quit on.
Since you're so fond of derivations of the Lorentz transforms, why don't
we start with that? Are you prepared to stay around to the end?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 08:41:24 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508160754080.8742-100000@localhost...
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
| > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
|
| [cut non-physics]
|
| > | The last 3 times I tried to
| > | discuss physics with you, you (1) insisted that the Lorentz
transforms
| > be
| > | assumed in a derivation of the Lorentz transforms,
| >
| > Yes, McCullough always wants to start with the cuckoo transforms,
| > doesn't know how they were derived and then claims the speed of
light
| > is the same in all frames of reference is a postulate. As I recall,
you
| > were
| > no different.
|
| No, *you* demanded that either the Lorentz transform or Galilei
transform
| be assumed a priori in what was supposed to be a derivation of the
Lorentz
| transform.
|
| Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
Oh, shut the ***** up with your whining one-up-manship and discuss
physics, will you?
That's why I dumped you before.
Have a little discipline, you jerk.
[snip crap]
| Since you're so fond of derivations of the Lorentz transforms, why
don't
| we start with that? Are you prepared to stay around to the end?
If you like, I covered it in the Sagnac discussion you so studiously
snipped, so *I* have started with that.
Get back when you read it and quit your whining.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 08:55:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
Oh, shut the ***** up with your whining one-up-manship and discuss
physics, will you?
That's why I dumped you before.
Have a little discipline, you jerk.
As I said, I won't waste time on a potty-mouthed boor.
--
Timo Nieminen
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
16 Aug 2005 11:48:07 AM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508161152001.14796-100000@localhost...
| On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| > Oh, shut the ***** up with your whining one-up-manship and discuss
| > physics, will you?
| > That's why I dumped you before.
| > Have a little discipline, you jerk.
|
| As I said, I won't waste time on a potty-mouthed boor.
|
| --
| Timo Nieminen
Thank you, Timo. We are much more interested in your upcoming part II
and part III posts than a useless exchange with a well known troll.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 10:17:23 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508161152001.14796-100000@localhost...
Refusal to discuss physics noted.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 10:22:57 PM |
|
|
Refusal to discuss physics and instead waste time and drive off true
physics lovers noted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 05:00:34 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508160754080.8742-100000@localhost...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[cut non-physics]
| The last 3 times I tried to
| discuss physics with you, you (1) insisted that the Lorentz transforms
be
| assumed in a derivation of the Lorentz transforms,
Yes, McCullough always wants to start with the cuckoo transforms,
doesn't know how they were derived and then claims the speed of light
is the same in all frames of reference is a postulate. As I recall, you
were
no different.
No, *you* demanded that either the Lorentz transform or Galilei transform
be assumed a priori in what was supposed to be a derivation of the Lorentz
transform.
Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
(2) refused to discuss
| whether or not an emission theory of light needs to be formulatable as
a
| field theory,
That's too advanced for you.
Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
and (3) claimed that 5 hours earlier than five hours later
| than now is not now, but refused to say when it might be.
That is your form of personal abuse, potty mouth
You're the one who claimed it in the first place. Are you now saying that
five hours earlier than five hours later than now is now?
Avoidance of discussion of physics noted.
So I ask
| again: do you want to discuss physics?
Yes.
So, we have three topics we started discussing earlier, that you quit on.
Since you're so fond of derivations of the Lorentz transforms, why don't
we start with that? Are you prepared to stay around to the end?
Don't. You'll lose it. He has experience.
He won't even let you start with a line like "let's suppose..."
You will waste your time ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 05:19:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| So I ask
| again: do you want to discuss physics?
Yes.
So, we have three topics we started discussing earlier, that you quit on.
Since you're so fond of derivations of the Lorentz transforms, why don't
we start with that? Are you prepared to stay around to the end?
Don't. You'll lose it. He has experience.
He won't even let you start with a line like "let's suppose..."
You will waste your time ;-)
Well, if he wants to admit defeat by stalling and refusing to proceed,
that's his business.
If he wants to admit defeat by resorting to personal abuse or attack
rather than physics, that's his business.
From past experience, I fully expect it to be a waste of my time, but WTH?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 08:45:56 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508160813560.13545-100000@localhost...
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
|
| > "Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
| > > > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| > >
| > > > | So I ask
| > > > | again: do you want to discuss physics?
| > > > Yes.
| > >
| > > So, we have three topics we started discussing earlier, that you
quit on.
| > >
| > > Since you're so fond of derivations of the Lorentz transforms, why
don't
| > > we start with that? Are you prepared to stay around to the end?
| >
| > Don't. You'll lose it. He has experience.
| > He won't even let you start with a line like "let's suppose..."
| > You will waste your time ;-)
|
| Well, if he wants to admit defeat by stalling and refusing to proceed,
| that's his business.
|
You cocky *****, you stalled by snipping.
| If he wants to admit defeat by resorting to personal abuse or attack
| rather than physics, that's his business.
If you want to admit defeat by snipping and ignoring, that's your
business.
|
| From past experience, I fully expect it to be a waste of my time, but
WTH?
As do I, from past experience.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 04:02:15 PM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:20050816054651.S43241@emu.uq.edu.au...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
| On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| > Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
| >
| > On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
| > is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
| > states:
| > [quote]
| > A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
| > special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
| > gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
| > a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
| > [end quote]
|
| The author also states:
|
| "This rules out the ballistic theory of light propagation (as
advocated
| by Ritz in 1909), according to which the speed of light is the vector
| sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c.
| Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent
with
| the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naive ether theory,
| whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naive ether theory
but
| inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are
| consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein,
| since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed
| independent of the state of motion of the source."
|
| It would be better for your case if the sources you cite didn't reach
| conclusions contrary to your case.
It might better for your case if you could read all that I wrote
instead of knee-jerk reacting, but I realise you are blind to anything
that disturbs your religion. Your doctorate is in theology, I presume.
Ah, your usual resort to personal attack when you have no recourse to
physics! What next? Will you unleash your potty-mouth?
It doesn't change the fact that the source that you cited disagrees with
your own conclusion, as do the other sources I cited. The problem is
thoroughly dealt with in the literature. so if you refuse to read, that's
your problem.
Look, if you want to discuss physics, go ahead. If you just want to be a
foul-mouthed boor, it's not worth my effort. The last 3 times I tried to
discuss physics with you, you (1) insisted that the Lorentz transforms be
assumed in a derivation of the Lorentz transforms, (2) refused to discuss
whether or not an emission theory of light needs to be formulatable as a
field theory, and (3) claimed that 5 hours earlier than five hours later
than now is not now, but refused to say when it might be. I'm not at all
sure that it's worth the effort of starting a serious discussion with you
when you are almost certain to run away while it's unfinished. So I ask
again: do you want to discuss physics? Will you discuss physics?
No, he won't.
He is an "electronic engineer, professionally".
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory |
15 Aug 2005 04:06:51 AM |
|
|
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0508151443020.1461-100000@localhost...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Androcles wrote:
Sagnac: experimental proof of emission theory.
On page http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
is a description of the Sagnac effect, and the author of that page
states:
[quote]
A clock attached to the perimeter of the ring would, according to
special relativity, record a lesser time, by the factor
gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2), so the Sagnac delay with respect to such
a clock would be [4A\omega/c^2]/(1-(v/c)^2)^(1/2). "
[end quote]
The author also states:
"This rules out the ballistic theory of light propagation (as advocated
by Ritz in 1909), according to which the speed of light is the vector
sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c.
Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with
the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the naive ether theory,
whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the naive ether theory but
inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are
consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein,
since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed
independent of the state of motion of the source."
It would be better for your case if the sources you cite didn't reach
conclusions contrary to your case.
You haven't met Androcles then?
You might also be interested in reading:
Post, E. J. (1967), Sagnac effect, Reviews of Modern Physics 39(2),
475-493.
J. Van Bladel, Relativity and Engineering, Springer (1984)
Relativity and engineering?
Careful there, you are dealing with an "electronic engineer,
professionally":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
