The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 8 Sep 2009 06:23 On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:05:06 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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? What sort of a question is that? I could answer, "pigeons". >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. EM initially moves at c wrt its source. Moving air woujldn't affect it much at all. >What about synchrotron radiation? >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation When charges accelerate they radiate. THe maths for that has been known for a long time. But I have often wondered how they can know how and when to radiate if what they radiate is quantized. >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. SR is nonsense from start to finish...Forget it. Einstein was a hoaxer and an expert salesman. >I thought I wrote something like this last night, but it doesn't show up >here and I'm repeating it. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 10:02 hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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? > > What sort of a question is that? I could answer, "pigeons". I'm still pretty new to most of this. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/radio11.htm These guys claim that electrons inside the antenna of a radio transmitter are traveling at close to lightspeed, and so the antenna needs to be long enough for them to get from one end to the other during the cycle. I am looking for things that move very fast and emit EMR that emission theory gives testable results for. Double stars give suggestive evidence but you kind of have to believe in it already or you'll just shrug it off. We already know that there's a lot we don't know about astronomy. What can we get to move very fast under controlled conditions? Subatomic particles. And they can radiate. If emission theory can tell us what kind of radiation to expect from them, it might give us something that can actually be tested. If your theory says that light coming off of particles in a linear accelerator (or a synchrotron) will be dopplered some particular way, or will come from a particular angle, or will travel at a testable velocity, then we have something to work with. If you can make testable predictions about radio towers that's even better -- make friends with an engineer who works with a radio tower, and maybe with a small plane pilot, and you might be able to collect the data using cheap homemade equipment. > >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. > > EM initially moves at c wrt its source. Moving air woujldn't affect it > much at all. Cerenkov radiation happens because lightspeed is slow in water. Lightspeed is somewhat slow in air, isn't it? So your EM that starts out at c+v would slow down to something less than c in some distance, maybe quickly enough to interfere with experiments. Far better if you can predict the results than if you have to apply fudge factors to account for extra variables. > >What about synchrotron radiation? > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation > > When charges accelerate they radiate. THe maths for that has been > known for a long time. > But I have often wondered how they can know how and when to radiate if > what they radiate is quantized. Why would it be quantised? It isn't electrons jumping from one level to another in an intact atom. It's only atoms emitting and absorbing light that are quantised, right? Charges that circle continuously in a synchrotron surely emit light continuously. > >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. > > SR is nonsense from start to finish...Forget it. Einstein was a hoaxer > and an expert salesman. If emission theory is correct, then SR has had whatever successes it has by predicting the same results that emission theory gets -- using more complicated methods. SR says that after you take time dilation and length compression etc into account, a light source that looks like it emits circular light waves from its own frame will also look like it's emitting circular light waves from all other frames. So does emission theory, without the time dilation and length compression! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation "When high-energy relativistic electrons are forced to travel in a curved path by a magnetic field, synchrotron radiation is produced, similar to a radio antenna, but with the difference that the relativistic speed changes the observed frequency due to the Doppler effect by a factor ?. Relativistic Lorentz contraction bumps the frequency by another factor of ?, thus multiplying the GeV frequency of the resonant cavity that accelerates the electrons into the X-ray range. Another dramatic effect of relativity is that the radiation pattern is distorted from the isotropic dipole pattern expected from non-relativistic theory into an extremely forward-pointing cone of radiation." I haven't followed up the details, but somebody on wikipedia claims that SR accounts for a frequency change of a couple of gammas, and explains the changed angle of emission. If traditional methods got the frequency wrong and the radiation pattern wrong, and if SR got those right, and if emission theory is correct, then SR got it right by predicting some things to work the way emission theory says they would. So emission theory would predict the same things, without the lorentz contraction etc. So it seems to me the obvious plan is to gradually go through all of optics etc and see what emission theory predicts, looking for things involving a moving source that classical physics gets wrong and emission theory gets right, and look hard for things that emission theory gets wrong. In the ideal case we would find that emission theory never gets a wrong conclusion and that it gets right everything that SR does and more. And I find it plausible that SR could get some things right because it was carefully designed to get some of the same results that emission theory gets, with the added assumption of constant lightspeed. All the extra hoops they have to jump through came from that extra assumption. But Androcles claims that emission theory gives you a constant measured lightspeed, although the lightspeed is not actually constant. If that's true, then you've got a theory which is in all ways better than SR except for the detail that it is almost universally ignored. And -- I repeat -- SR could get some correct results because of the way it partially mimics emission theory.
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 10:20 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090908100230.6735c4ac.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > But Androcles claims that emission theory gives you a > constant measured lightspeed, although the lightspeed is not actually > constant. How does he claim that? And where did he claim it? Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. Or unless you put the emission theory into the minkowski space of SR .. in which case you've just got SR with light being particles. Of course, we've 'known' for a long time that light is a weird combination of the two, sometimes behaving like a wave, sometimes like a particle, which is still all good as far as SR is concerned, as it make no claims about the means of transmission / propagation of light .. only that it travels at the the definite (maximum possible) speed c.
From: Jonah Thomas on 8 Sep 2009 12:02 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > But Androcles claims that emission theory gives you a > > constant measured lightspeed, although the lightspeed is not > > actually constant. > > How does he claim that? And where did he claim it? When I look at his website I don't see it. Maybe I dreamed it. Try this reasoning -- Androcles must believe that emission theory gives you a constant measured lightspeed because otherwise emission theory would be wrong, and he does not agree that it is wrong. This sort of reasoning about people is unreliable, but it gets more reliable the more logical the person you're predicting about and I think it's a very good bet for him. > Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, > unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an emission theory where the speed of light varies, but it doesn't vary with an aether, it varies with the light. light is given a velocity of up to c+v when it is emitted from its source. So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected off a mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of occidence? Of course, that's always true for light. Does it change velocity? No, I assert that it does not. In that case what happens to the MM experiment when you reflect it at 90 degrees and measure the difference in velocity? You will get no difference in velocity between light that travels at c+v in one direction and light that travels at c+v in a different direction. You might get some difference in interference pattern between light that travels at c+v in the spring versus light that travels at c-v in the autumn. But if you supply the light source you won't see that difference. You only get a chance to see that difference if you're doing the MM experiment with starlight, and even then what you see is due entirely to the difference between doing the negative-result MM experiment with light of slightly different speeds, equivalent to changing the length of the arms of the apparatus by a small but precisely proportional amount. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Emission_theory Some guy on wikipedia agrees with me that emission theory predicts a negative MM experiment. But he claims that the Sagnac experiment disproves emission theory, which Androcles argues against strongly. > Or unless you put the emission theory into the minkowski space of SR > .. in which case you've just got SR with light being particles. > > Of course, we've 'known' for a long time that light is a weird > combination of the two, sometimes behaving like a wave, sometimes like > a particle, which is still all good as far as SR is concerned, as it > make no claims about the means of transmission / propagation of light > .. only that it travels at the the definite (maximum possible) speed > c. From what I've seen so far, light behaves like a wave when it travels through space and it behaves like a particle when it interacts with atoms. But I haven't seen everything yet.
From: Inertial on 8 Sep 2009 12:10
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090908120222.6f3947f6.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > But Androcles claims that emission theory gives you a >> > constant measured lightspeed, although the lightspeed is not >> > actually constant. >> >> How does he claim that? And where did he claim it? > > When I look at his website I don't see it. Maybe I dreamed it. Hehehe .. could be :) > Try this reasoning -- Androcles must believe that emission theory gives > you a constant measured lightspeed Androcles is not consistent or logical, so do not try logical aruments about his beliefs (if he even has any) > because otherwise emission theory > would be wrong, As we already know that it is. Sagnac proves it for a start .. and it doesn't give you the time dilation effects that we observe etc. > and he does not agree that it is wrong. Of course he won't agree > This sort of > reasoning about people is unreliable, but it gets more reliable the more > logical the person you're predicting about and I think it's a very good > bet for him. Except that he is not logical. He's just playing you >> Emission theories don't give you constant speed of light at all, >> unless you are talking about light from sources that are co-moving. > > Of course. But try this approach -- imagine that you have an emission > theory where the speed of light varies, Which it does > but it doesn't vary with an > aether, it varies with the light. That makes no logical sense .. the speed of light varies with the light? > light is given a velocity of up to c+v > when it is emitted from its source. Relative to what? > So what happens when light that has a velocity of c+v is reflected off a > mirror? Does the angle of incidence equal the angle of occidence? Of > course, that's always true for light. Yes > Does it change velocity? No, I > assert that it does not. No reason why it should .. unless it loses some energy/momentum, but that would be minimal > In that case what happens to the MM experiment > when you reflect it at 90 degrees and measure the difference in > velocity? You will get no difference in velocity between light that > travels at c+v in one direction and light that travels at c+v in a > different direction. No. MMX is perfectly explained by emission theory, unlike the naive fixed aether theories at the time. It is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. Sagnac is perfectly explained by the naive fixed aether theories. It is also perfectly explained by SR and LET. But it is not explained by emission theories. Those two experiments alone are neough to cull emission theory and naive fixed aether theories. > You might get some difference in interference > pattern between light that travels at c+v in the spring versus light > that travels at c-v in the autumn. But if you supply the light source > you won't see that difference. You only get a chance to see that > difference if you're doing the MM experiment with starlight, and even > then what you see is due entirely to the difference between doing the > negative-result MM experiment with light of slightly different speeds, > equivalent to changing the length of the arms of the apparatus by a > small but precisely proportional amount. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Emission_theory > > Some guy on wikipedia agrees with me that emission theory predicts a > negative MM experiment. Everyone does (that knows physics) > But he claims that the Sagnac experiment > disproves emission theory, It does > which Androcles argues against strongly. He argues loudly , but with no phsyics to support him. He claim a coriolis effect, but that is second order and doesn't account for the observed Sagnac effect. >> Or unless you put the emission theory into the minkowski space of SR >> .. in which case you've just got SR with light being particles. >> >> Of course, we've 'known' for a long time that light is a weird >> combination of the two, sometimes behaving like a wave, sometimes like >> a particle, which is still all good as far as SR is concerned, as it >> make no claims about the means of transmission / propagation of light >> .. only that it travels at the the definite (maximum possible) speed >> c. > > From what I've seen so far, light behaves like a wave when it travels > through space and it behaves like a particle when it interacts with > atoms. That's pretty close. Basically it behaves like a particle when we do things with it that require it to :) > But I haven't seen everything yet. Indeed .. and very wise to realise that. If you get into the world of QM, things become very confusing and even more non-intuitive. |