The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 7 Sep 2009 20:43 On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:07:42 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)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. 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. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Androcles on 7 Sep 2009 21:18 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090907180742.042f9a88.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > 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.
From: Jonah Thomas on 7 Sep 2009 22:41 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)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.
From: Androcles on 7 Sep 2009 22:59 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090907224144.138ee1d0.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)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.
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 06:05
hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. Can your theory predict what will come out of a 400 foot radio tower? If so, does it predict anything interesting? There's the complication that these signals are passing through air. But if the theory predicts anything interesting it might be possible to get data about communication among satellites where that complication is much reduced. The relative velocity of the satellites may be small, but the velocity of the actual source inside the antenna would be large, if it's relevant. What about synchrotron radiation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation Apparently SR gives some interesting predictions which are claimed to fit the actual data. If emission theory were to duplicate those predictions that would be a plus. I thought I wrote something like this last night, but it doesn't show up here and I'm repeating it. |