Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362896 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-03 03:55 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-20 10:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 03:55 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-03 12:32 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:15 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-03 19:38 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:06 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 04:18 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:30 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-03 07:08 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:16 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-03 14:29 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 13:24 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-05 07:04 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 15:52 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-05 19:02 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 10:43 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 18:23 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 19:11 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 21:38 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-06 18:48 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-06 13:05 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-06 10:54 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:10 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-07 13:28 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 09:19 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:13 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 15:49 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:14 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 15:59 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-08 06:34 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 10:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:54 +0300
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-06 22:48 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-06 22:52 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:19 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light antonius@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) - 2015-09-07 00:59 +0000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 19:42 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light antonius@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) - 2015-09-11 22:03 +0000
Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 23:14 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:39 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 20:42 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:48 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 16:29 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 16:41 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 23:54 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 08:15 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:07 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:16 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:07 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:16 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:43 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 12:01 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-18 07:18 +0200
Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-20 12:37 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 14:09 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-20 17:34 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-22 06:40 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-22 19:14 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 09:39 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 17:38 +0200
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-24 10:54 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:36 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-24 11:54 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 15:45 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-22 09:15 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 16:19 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 16:25 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 16:28 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-22 10:27 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 03:39 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 11:17 -0400
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:25 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 08:01 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-19 13:21 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 23:44 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-20 04:34 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-20 15:25 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-21 12:02 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-21 17:37 +0000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-21 22:17 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-22 08:18 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-22 09:07 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-26 09:06 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:14 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-29 11:41 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 10:27 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 21:11 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 13:35 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-29 23:23 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-26 21:31 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-09-27 08:37 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:14 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 01:41 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-09-29 08:11 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 18:53 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-29 10:24 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:13 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-03 08:13 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 17:07 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-29 13:41 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 14:43 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-30 11:28 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-30 08:34 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-03 07:51 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 04:32 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-05 10:00 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 19:58 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-05 19:35 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 04:39 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-06 10:38 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 02:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 08:01 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 14:16 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 08:16 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 20:50 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-11 08:11 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 14:44 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 07:51 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-11 17:12 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-12 11:47 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-13 08:01 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-13 19:39 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <HG@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 21:36 +0000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-14 10:26 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 02:10 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-15 09:18 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 15:59 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 22:59 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-15 20:15 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 07:36 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 18:37 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-07 08:56 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 07:47 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 04:50 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 14:17 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-06 14:55 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 21:02 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:51 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 08:15 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 06:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:53 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 11:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 13:58 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:56 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 13:57 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-07 00:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 11:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 12:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:55 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 17:36 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 21:55 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-13 08:39 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 10:49 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 22:54 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 02:25 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 02:43 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-14 09:16 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 10:37 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-14 12:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 12:56 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-15 11:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 12:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-17 15:53 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 20:38 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 18:02 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 19:01 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-13 02:37 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 10:48 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-13 21:43 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 13:51 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 16:00 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 16:11 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 00:45 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 16:24 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-13 08:41 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:08 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-13 01:52 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 23:14 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 12:22 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:44 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 21:53 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-13 08:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 10:39 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 03:55 -0500 |
| Subject | A Particle Model of Light |
| Message-ID | <slrnmug2or.v41.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
See the original at
http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
behaviours and attributes; in particular:
¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
linearly while revolving once about its axis.
The model works as follows:
Constancy
As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with
unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force
acts upon it.
Mass
Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the
photon's mass will be calculable if:
1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
of photons from a source are measured, allowing
numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's
constant to adjust for the difference in speed from
the value assumed in Planck's Law;
3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi
density of the photon, allowing the correct formula
to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged
to solve for m.
Speed
The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
It follows from that and the principle of determinism that
the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
set of energy levels[2].
The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and
spin and is apparent to human observers as colour.
¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows
that because the set of energies of any particular
type of emission is always the same, so too are its
sets of speed and spin.
¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
light, is relative to the source.
Colour Shift
Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
undergoes a blue shift.
Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other,
the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v,
the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon
is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength
as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to
delta v. The light undergoes a red shift.
Gravitational Effects
Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe,
including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so
strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission
speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration
slows the light, producing a red shift.
Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration:
an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light.
Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated,
changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect.
Absorption, reflection, refraction
When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
attraction to particles making up the substance; some or
all of them collide with particles making up the substance.
Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed
and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results
in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the
arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the
movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming
photons whether the reflection is differential or
undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential
reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection
produces a mirror effect.
Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
within the substance, and changes of direction at the
interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on
exit.
Dispersion
Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry
and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on
exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam
appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit.
When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are
in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of
colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on
entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the
amount of change in its direction being proportional to the
energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the
least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction
of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most.
The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to
its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect
and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic
aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength
in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a
regular but non-linear relationship.
The Photoelectric Effect
The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With
some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high
enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a
usable electric charge in the metal.
Polarization
Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection
and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons
whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those
photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass
through it refractively, and the emergent light, having
uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized.
Diffraction
Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond
it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend
towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness
at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending
beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to
the barrier had travelled in a straight line.
With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment),
the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer
barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the
centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing
in brightness towards the edges at each side.
Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions
with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which
in turn implies some scattering of light from it.
Interference
With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the
screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from
dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the
experiment with larger particles produces the same result.
And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any
usable type of particle, shows the individual particles
hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into
the interference-like pattern.
The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a
particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation
of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course
changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks
wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be
an effect of their spin.
It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a
significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses,
refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal
its significance in diffraction and interference too.
--------
1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the
circumstances is temperature.
2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron
energy level.
--------
Ned
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 12:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms97kl$kd4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #362896 |
On 03.09.2015 10:55, Ned Latham wrote: > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham > See the original at > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light, is relative to the source." "If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by δv," What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified by a number of previously performed experiments? https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 08:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmugi0a.5k1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362902 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham > > See the original at > > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html > > > "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light, > > is relative to the source." > > > "If source and observer are approaching each other, > > the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by ??v," > > What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified > by a number of previously performed experiments? What's the point of asking a question based on a false premise? > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf None of those is relevant: in every case, wave motion is assumed and wave functions and Einstein's formulae are the tools of interpretation. FYI, slow boy, that's circular reasoning. As I said in the cover article "Particles and Theory": > > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, > > if any, turned on. Tch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 19:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msa0jd$51i$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #362913 |
On 03.09.2015 15:15, Ned Latham wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham >>> See the original at >>> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html >> >>> "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light, >>> is relative to the source." >> >>> "If source and observer are approaching each other, >>> the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by \delta v," So your theory is a ballistic theory where the speed of light depend on the state of motion of the source. >> >> What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified >> by a number of previously performed experiments? > > What's the point of asking a question based on a false premise? > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > > None of those is relevant: in every case, wave motion is assumed and > wave functions and Einstein's formulae are the tools of interpretation. > FYI, slow boy, that's circular reasoning. In every case they show that the speed of light is invariant. Your theory is falsified. > As I said in the cover article "Particles and Theory": > >>> Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your intelligence, >>> if any, turned on. > > Tch. > I get the message loud and clear. A crank who are ignoring experimental evidence. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmuha1m.c3s.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362946 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > "The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the light, > > > > is relative to the source." > > > > > > > > "If source and observer are approaching each other, > > > > the speed as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v," > > So your theory is a ballistic theory where the speed of light > depend on the state of motion of the source. Oh, look. The slow boy knows "ballistic". Pity he hasn't quite got the meaning worked out. > > > What's the point in introducing a theory which is falsified > > > by a number of previously performed experiments? > > > > What's the point of asking a question based on a false premise? > > > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > > > > None of those is relevant: in every case, wave motion is > > assumed and wave functions and Einstein's formulae are the > > tools of interpretation. > > > > FYI, slow boy, that's circular reasoning. > > In every case they show that the speed of light is invariant. Nope. They show circular reasoning. > Your theory is falsified. Sad that the slow boy doesn't understand how circular reasoning defeats itself. > > As I said in the cover article "Particles and Theory": > > > > > > Do feel free to read them with your eyes open and your > > > > intelligence, if any, turned on. > > > > Tch. > > I get the message loud and clear. No, you don't. Its emission was soft and your thinking is muddy. > A crank Oh look. The dogmatist's favourite term of abuse. > who are ignoring experimental evidence. If I did that, I'd favour current theory. > plonk And there's the dogmatist's favourite reaction to actual thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | underante <underante@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 04:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4f269e8-c51e-4c26-80d3-31c978f547bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362896 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 9:55:59 AM UTC+1, Ned Latham wrote: > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham > See the original at > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like > behaviours and attributes; in particular: > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the > number of revolutions it makes per unit time. > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi > linearly while revolving once about its axis. > > The model works as follows: > > Constancy > As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with > unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force > acts upon it. > > Mass > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the > photon's mass will be calculable if: > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength > of photons from a source are measured, allowing > numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w; > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's > constant to adjust for the difference in speed from > the value assumed in Planck's Law; > 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi > density of the photon, allowing the correct formula > to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged > to solve for m. > > Speed > The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on > the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection. > It follows from that and the principle of determinism that > the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular > fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the > same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any > particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always > the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg, > electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same > cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same > set of energy levels[2]. > > The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and > spin and is apparent to human observers as colour. > ¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows > that because the set of energies of any particular > type of emission is always the same, so too are its > sets of speed and spin. > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > light, is relative to the source. > > Colour Shift > Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed > as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion > between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the > photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour. > > If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed > as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy > transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased > in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to > the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light > undergoes a blue shift. > > Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other, > the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v, > the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon > is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength > as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to > delta v. The light undergoes a red shift. > > Gravitational Effects > Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe, > including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so > strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission > speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration > slows the light, producing a red shift. > > Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration: > an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light. > > Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated, > changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect. > > Absorption, reflection, refraction > When light encounters a material substance, the photons are > affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational > attraction to particles making up the substance; some or > all of them collide with particles making up the substance. > > Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed > and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results > in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the > arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the > movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming > photons whether the reflection is differential or > undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential > reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection > produces a mirror effect. > > Those photons that do not collide with particles making up > the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational > attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed > within the substance, and changes of direction at the > interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on > exit. > > Dispersion > Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry > and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on > exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam > appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit. > When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are > in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of > colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on > entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the > amount of change in its direction being proportional to the > energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the > least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction > of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most. > > The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to > its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect > and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic > aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength > in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a > regular but non-linear relationship. > > The Photoelectric Effect > The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With > some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high > enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a > usable electric charge in the metal. > > Polarization > Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection > and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons > whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those > photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass > through it refractively, and the emergent light, having > uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized. > > Diffraction > Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond > it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend > towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness > at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending > beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to > the barrier had travelled in a straight line. > but if gravitational attraction were involved in diffraction, would not one expect that a barrier made from some lightweight material, such as say, card, and a barrier made from a high density material, such as say steel, would produce different diffraction patterns? > With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment), > the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer > barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the > centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing > in brightness towards the edges at each side. > > Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions > with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which > in turn implies some scattering of light from it. > > Interference > With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the > screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from > dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the > experiment with larger particles produces the same result. > And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any > usable type of particle, shows the individual particles > hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into > the interference-like pattern. > > The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a > particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation > of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course > changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks > wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be > an effect of their spin. > > It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a > significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses, > refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal > its significance in diffraction and interference too. > > -------- > > 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the > circumstances is temperature. > 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron > energy level. > > -------- > > Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 08:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmugisb.5k1.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362907 |
underante wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > Diffraction > > Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond > > it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend > > towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness > > at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending > > beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to > > the barrier had travelled in a straight line. > > but if gravitational attraction were involved in diffraction, would > not one expect that a barrier made from some lightweight material, > such as say, card, and a barrier made from a high density material, > such as say steel, would produce different diffraction patterns? Why? The effect is *predicted* to be an effect of particulate spin; as yet, there's no information on just what it is, and thus no way to make quantitative statements other than to point out the relationship between energy abd course deviation. See "Interference", below. > > With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment), > > the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer > > barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the > > centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing > > in brightness towards the edges at each side. > > > > Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions > > with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which > > in turn implies some scattering of light from it. > > > > Interference > > With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the > > screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from > > dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the > > experiment with larger particles produces the same result. > > And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any > > usable type of particle, shows the individual particles > > hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into > > the interference-like pattern. > > > > The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a > > particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation > > of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course > > changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks > > wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be > > an effect of their spin. See also the article "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research", which points out the sameness of the barriers used in experiments so far and suggests some variation. > > It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a > > significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses, > > refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal > > its significance in diffraction and interference too. THIS is what's needed: diligent investigation. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39ace35a-52d0-476b-b837-525acdcf5e5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362896 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:55:59 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham > See the original at > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like > behaviours and attributes; in particular: > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the > number of revolutions it makes per unit time. > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi > linearly while revolving once about its axis. In my model of light: A photon is a wave-packet being transmitted at a constant speed in a stationary, structured and elastic ether called the E-Matix. A photon is generated by the absolute motion of the source in the E-Matrix. A schematic diagram of a source generating three consecutive photons is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > The model works as follows: > > Constancy > As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with > unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force > acts upon it. > > Mass > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the > photon's mass will be calculable if: > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength > of photons from a source are measured, allowing > numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w; > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's > constant to adjust for the difference in speed from > the value assumed in Planck's Law; > 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi > density of the photon, allowing the correct formula > to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged > to solve for m. > > Speed > The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on > the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection. > It follows from that and the principle of determinism that > the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular > fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the > same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any > particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always > the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg, > electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same > cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same > set of energy levels[2]. > > The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and > spin and is apparent to human observers as colour. > ¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows > that because the set of energies of any particular > type of emission is always the same, so too are its > sets of speed and spin. > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > light, is relative to the source. > > Colour Shift > Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed > as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion > between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the > photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour. > > If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed > as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy > transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased > in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to > the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light > undergoes a blue shift. > > Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other, > the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v, > the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon > is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength > as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to > delta v. The light undergoes a red shift. > > Gravitational Effects > Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe, > including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so > strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission > speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration > slows the light, producing a red shift. > > Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration: > an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light. > > Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated, > changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect. > > Absorption, reflection, refraction > When light encounters a material substance, the photons are > affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational > attraction to particles making up the substance; some or > all of them collide with particles making up the substance. > > Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed > and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results > in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the > arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the > movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming > photons whether the reflection is differential or > undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential > reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection > produces a mirror effect. > > Those photons that do not collide with particles making up > the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational > attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed > within the substance, and changes of direction at the > interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on > exit. > > Dispersion > Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry > and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on > exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam > appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit. > When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are > in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of > colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on > entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the > amount of change in its direction being proportional to the > energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the > least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction > of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most. > > The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to > its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect > and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic > aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength > in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a > regular but non-linear relationship. > > The Photoelectric Effect > The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With > some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high > enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a > usable electric charge in the metal. > > Polarization > Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection > and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons > whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those > photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass > through it refractively, and the emergent light, having > uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized. > > Diffraction > Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond > it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend > towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness > at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending > beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to > the barrier had travelled in a straight line. > > With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment), > the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer > barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the > centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing > in brightness towards the edges at each side. > > Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions > with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which > in turn implies some scattering of light from it. > > Interference > With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the > screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from > dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the > experiment with larger particles produces the same result. > And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any > usable type of particle, shows the individual particles > hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into > the interference-like pattern. > > The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a > particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation > of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course > changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks > wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be > an effect of their spin. > > It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a > significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses, > refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal > its significance in diffraction and interference too. > > -------- > > 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the > circumstances is temperature. > 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron > energy level. > > -------- > > Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 15:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmuhakl.c3s.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #362918 |
kenseto wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which > > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to > > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like > > behaviours and attributes; in particular: > > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the > > number of revolutions it makes per unit time. > > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi > > linearly while revolving once about its axis. > > In my model of light: > A photon is a wave-packet You do understand that wave "theory" is utterly broken abd all that stems from it is invalid, right? And that "wave packet" is a nonsense term unless you construe it as a synonym of "particle"? ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecadd9c4-b1d9-4123-a4c3-b93e1ee5f5a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362980 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:16:23 PM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which > > > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to > > > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like > > > behaviours and attributes; in particular: > > > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the > > > number of revolutions it makes per unit time. > > > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi > > > linearly while revolving once about its axis. > > > > In my model of light: > > A photon is a wave-packet > > You do understand that wave "theory" is utterly broken abd all that > stems from it is invalid, right? You do understand that wave packets for light is completeely agree with all observations, Right? > > And that "wave packet" is a nonsense term unless you construe it > as a synonym of "particle"? > Shooting your mouth off without reading my description of a wave-packet....eh? > > Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <506bb19d-3b46-4cbc-a4a2-4b1f359744cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362896 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 września 2015 10:55:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał: > Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham > See the original at > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html > > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which > have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to > gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like > behaviours and attributes; in particular: > ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the > number of revolutions it makes per unit time. > ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi > linearly while revolving once about its axis. > > The model works as follows: > > Constancy > As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with > unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force > acts upon it. > > Mass > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the > photon's mass will be calculable if: > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength > of photons from a source are measured, allowing > numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w; > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's > constant to adjust for the difference in speed from > the value assumed in Planck's Law; > 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi > density of the photon, allowing the correct formula > to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged > to solve for m. > > Speed > The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on > the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection. > It follows from that and the principle of determinism that > the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular > fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the > same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any > particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always > the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg, > electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same > cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same > set of energy levels[2]. > > The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and > spin and is apparent to human observers as colour. > ¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows > that because the set of energies of any particular > type of emission is always the same, so too are its > sets of speed and spin. > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > light, is relative to the source. > > Colour Shift > Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed > as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion > between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the > photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour. > > If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed > as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy > transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased > in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to > the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light > undergoes a blue shift. > > Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other, > the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v, > the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon > is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength > as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to > delta v. The light undergoes a red shift. > > Gravitational Effects > Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe, > including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so > strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission > speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration > slows the light, producing a red shift. > > Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration: > an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light. > > Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated, > changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect. > > Absorption, reflection, refraction > When light encounters a material substance, the photons are > affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational > attraction to particles making up the substance; some or > all of them collide with particles making up the substance. > > Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed > and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results > in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the > arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the > movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming > photons whether the reflection is differential or > undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential > reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection > produces a mirror effect. > > Those photons that do not collide with particles making up > the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational > attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed > within the substance, and changes of direction at the > interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on > exit. > > Dispersion > Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry > and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on > exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam > appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit. > When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are > in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of > colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on > entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the > amount of change in its direction being proportional to the > energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the > least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction > of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most. > > The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to > its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect > and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic > aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength > in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a > regular but non-linear relationship. > > The Photoelectric Effect > The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With > some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high > enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a > usable electric charge in the metal. > > Polarization > Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection > and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons > whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those > photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass > through it refractively, and the emergent light, having > uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized. > > Diffraction > Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond > it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend > towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness > at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending > beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to > the barrier had travelled in a straight line. > > With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment), > the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer > barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the > centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing > in brightness towards the edges at each side. > > Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions > with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which > in turn implies some scattering of light from it. > > Interference > With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the > screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from > dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the > experiment with larger particles produces the same result. > And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any > usable type of particle, shows the individual particles > hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into > the interference-like pattern. > > The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a > particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation > of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course > changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks > wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be > an effect of their spin. > > It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a > significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses, > refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal > its significance in diffraction and interference too. > > -------- > > 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the > circumstances is temperature. > 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron > energy level. > > -------- > > Ned Maybe in 1905 it can inpact a great impression, especially for students and housewives, of course... but today? write such nonsense... publically! That's a slight exaggeration... or maybe you're the Beny Hill? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 07:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <npvjua1cq601gfmmejf1e679573feq4b76@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362896 |
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:55:55 -0500, Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> wrote: >Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham >See the original at >http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html I'm glad to see that there is one person here besides myself that wants to have a serious discussion about light. >Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which >have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to >gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like >behaviours and attributes; in particular: >¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the > number of revolutions it makes per unit time. >¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi > linearly while revolving once about its axis. Stop right there! That definition of wavelenghth is refuted by the Sagnac effect. A photon cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator. In a ring gyro for instance, the travel times of both beams are identical irrespective of rotation speed according to the partical theory and therefore could never produce a phase shift. My model of a photon is that it initial appearance is something like a section of a jet of fluid (I call it 'aether') along which a standing wave exists. It is oscillating vigorously and is moving at c relative to its source 'aether', in conformity with Maxwell's equations. It has been ejected by the field in which it originated. The wavelength is that of the standing wave, and is absolute, ie., the same in all frames. I am using the word aether for convenience. It is not the same as the universal classical aether imagined by many. >The model works as follows: > >Constancy > As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with > unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force > acts upon it. Speeds are always frame dependent by definition. >Mass > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the > photon's mass will be calculable if: > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength > of photons from a source are measured, allowing > numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w; > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's > constant to adjust for the difference in speed from > the value assumed in Planck's Law; > 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi > density of the photon, allowing the correct formula > to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged > to solve for m. I don't believe an individual photon can remain individual for very long, particularly in high vacuum. I have good reason to believe that all photons in transit interact and coalesce such that their particular modes of vibration add vectorily. Photons are made of fields and we know what happens to fields in high vacuum by observing gas discharges. All photons moving in or near a particular direction will tend towards a common speed over long periods of time. That speed has no particular value and is always relative to the observer. Photons more or less create their own 'local aether', which varies in strength throughout the universe. It is like a vast turbulent gas with widely varying densities...nothing like classical aether. Until physics learns more about the PHYSICAL nature of fields, it wont progress much further at all. A lot of what you say below is fairly trivial and does make some sense in places. >Speed > The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on > the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection. > It follows from that and the principle of determinism that > the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular > fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the > same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any > particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always > the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg, > electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same > cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same > set of energy levels[2]. > > The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and > spin and is apparent to human observers as colour. >-------- > >Ned __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f096481c-40d2-4a19-bc86-7945dc785286@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362896 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:55:59 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote:
> Copyright © 2001, 2014 Ned Latham
> See the original at
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/model.html
>
> Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which
> have constant mass and variable spin. Having mass, they are subject to
> gravitational attraction. Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like
> behaviours and attributes; in particular:
> ¤ A particle's frequency is defined as its spin rate; ie, the
> number of revolutions it makes per unit time.
> ¤ A particle's wavelength is defined as the distance it travelsi
> linearly while revolving once about its axis.
>
> The model works as follows:
>
> Constancy
> As with any other massive object, a moving photon travels with
> unvarying speed, spin and direction until and unless some force
> acts upon it.
>
> Mass
> Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
> Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), from which the
> photon's mass will be calculable if:
> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength
> of photons from a source are measured, allowing
> numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w;
> 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf replaces Planck's
> constant to adjust for the difference in speed from
> the value assumed in Planck's Law;
> 3 The correct assumptions are made about the shape andi
> density of the photon, allowing the correct formula
> to be substituted for I and the equation rearranged
> to solve for m.
>
> Speed
> The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on
> the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection.
> It follows from that and the principle of determinism that
> the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular
> fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the
> same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any
> particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always
> the same. Similarly with other types of light emission; eg,
> electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same
> cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same
> set of energy levels[2].
>
> The energy of emission is carried in the photon's speed and
> spin and is apparent to human observers as colour.
> ¤ Again from the principle of determinism, it follows
> that because the set of energies of any particular
> type of emission is always the same, so too are its
> sets of speed and spin.
> ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
> light, is relative to the source.
>
> Colour Shift
> Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed
> as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion
> between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the
> photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour.
>
> If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed
> as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy
> transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased
> in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to
> the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light
> undergoes a blue shift.
>
> Similarly, if source and observer are receding from each other,
> the speed as apparent to the observer is decreased by delta v,
> the energy transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon
> is decreased in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength
> as apparent to the observer is increased in proportion to
> delta v. The light undergoes a red shift.
>
> Gravitational Effects
> Light is accelerated towards every massive body in the universe,
> including the body that emits it. If that body's gravity is so
> strong that its escape velocuty is higher than its emission
> speed, an observer sees a "black hole". If not, its acceleration
> slows the light, producing a red shift.
>
> Light falling on a massive body is sped up by the acceleration:
> an observer in such a location sees a blue shift in the light.
>
> Light passing by a massive body is centripetally accelerated,
> changing its direction to produce the "gravitational lense" effect.
>
> Absorption, reflection, refraction
> When light encounters a material substance, the photons are
> affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational
> attraction to particles making up the substance; some or
> all of them collide with particles making up the substance.
>
> Collision sometimes results in capture; the photon is absorbed
> and the substance gains its energy. Collision sometimes results
> in reflection; it depends on the nature of the substance, the
> arrangement of its particles and any resonance between the
> movement of its particles and the movement of the incoming
> photons whether the reflection is differential or
> undistinguished and orderly or scattered. Differential
> reflection colours visible objects; orderly reflection
> produces a mirror effect.
>
> Those photons that do not collide with particles making up
> the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational
> attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed
> within the substance, and changes of direction at the
> interfaces: toward the normal on entry and away from it on
> exit.
>
> Dispersion
> Dispersion is a special case of refraction. When the entry
> and exit interfaces are parallel the change in direction on
> exit is opposite in direction to that on entry, and the beam
> appears to be the same thickness in pre-entry and post-exit.
> When the substance is prismatic, however, both changes are
> in the same direction, and if the light is a mixture of
> colours the beam is seen to be wider on exit than it was on
> entry. It has undergone a differential dispersion, with the
> amount of change in its direction being proportional to the
> energy of its individual photons; ie, the direction of the
> least energetic photons (red) changes least and the direction
> of the most energetic photons (violet) changes most.
>
> The proportionality of the photon's change of direction to
> its energy is also apparent in the gravitational lense effect
> and in refractive lenses, where the spread is called chromatic
> aberration. A mapping of change of direction versus wavelength
> in the chromatic abberration of refractive lenses shows a
> regular but non-linear relationship.
>
> The Photoelectric Effect
> The photoelectric effect is a special case of absorption. With
> some metals, when an incoming photon's energy level is high
> enough, the electron it strikes is dislodged, producing a
> usable electric charge in the metal.
>
> Polarization
> Polarization is a special case of mixed absorption, reflection
> and refraction. Some substances absorb or re-orient some photons
> whose spin axes lie outside a particular orientation. Those
> photons not absorbed either reflect from the material or pass
> through it refractively, and the emergent light, having
> uniformly-oriented spin axes, is aptly described as polarized.
>
> Diffraction
> Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond
> it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend
> towards it. The screen shows a smear of diminishing brightness
> at the end of the pattern closest to the barrier and extending
> beyond where it would reach if the photons passing close to
> the barrier had travelled in a straight line.
>
> With two barriers placed end-to-end (the single slit experiment),
> the courses of photons in the stream bend toward the closer
> barrier. The light emerging from the slit is brightest at the
> centre, where the photons stream straight ahead, diminishing
> in brightness towards the edges at each side.
>
> Gravitational attraction to the barrier implies some collisions
> with it, which in turn implies some reflection from it, which
> in turn implies some scattering of light from it.
>
> Interference
> With two closely-placed parallel slits, the pattern on the
> screen looks like the interference pattern of waves from
> dual sources. That, however, is an illusion. Repeating the
> experiment with larger particles produces the same result.
> And repeating it with very low rates of emission, of any
> usable type of particle, shows the individual particles
> hitting the screen at discrete spots which aggregate into
> the interference-like pattern.
>
> The spotting proves that each particle behaved like a
> particle for the whole of its journey, and the aggregation
> of hits implies a probabilistic element in the course
> changes the particles undergo. Because the pattern looks
> wave-like, that probabilistic element is predicted to be
> an effect of their spin.
>
> It's clear that the spin of the individual photons in a stream is a
> significant factor in polarization and in gravitational lenses,
> refractive lenses and prisms. Diligent investigation will reveal
> its significance in diffraction and interference too.
>
> --------
>
> 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the
> circumstances is temperature.
> 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron
> energy level.
>
> --------
>
> Ned
" The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the
light, is relative to the source. "
The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to be true. I understand this is a bitter pill to take but better to be confused than wrong yes / no ?
Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling over itself leading to a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down the road. What is it that is rolling over itself? What is it made of? Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it that is waving?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <jobluadc2nec1tum45rh9nr9hvigmp43pj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363103 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:52:23 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 1 In the case of incandescence, for example, one of the >> circumstances is temperature. >> 2 Specifically, one emission energy level for each electron >> energy level. >> >> -------- >> >> Ned > > " The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > light, is relative to the source. " > >The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. I know it sounds >crazy it is...and so are you >but it has been tested many times and found to be true. Absolute crap. OWLS from a moving source has never been measured. >I understand this is a >bitter pill to take but better to be confused than wrong yes / no ? Shove your pill where it belongs, idiot! >Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling over itself leading to >a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down the road. What is it that is rolling over itself? >What is it made of? Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it that is waving? It is not a good model. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmum3da.ttt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363103 |
John Heath wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > > light, is relative to the source. > > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put. > I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to > be true. Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research". ----snip---- > Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling > over itself leading to a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down > the road. You'd do better to picture it as it's modelled: a particle in free fall. > What is it that is rolling over itself? It's rotating is all: like a planet rotates as it revolves around its sun. > What is it made of? Read the article "A Particle Theory". > Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it > that is waving? In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation of that is what broke wave theory. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 18:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4154702.dJODLnQ8Eo@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #363145 |
Ned Latham wrote: > In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation > of that is what broke wave theory. Utter nonsense. PointedEars -- Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? A: To a prism. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06e62b5a-16f7-4170-8d2b-01d8f7647ca3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363145 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: > John Heath wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > > > light, is relative to the source. > > > > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. > > That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put. > Welcome to the club. You just made your first step to understanding special relativity. > > I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to > > be true. > > Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the > speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article > "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research". Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c. > > ----snip---- > > > Leaving this aside it is not a bad photon model. Your photon is rolling > > over itself leading to a sine wave somewhat like a tire rolling down > > the road. > > You'd do better to picture it as it's modelled: a particle in free fall. > > > What is it that is rolling over itself? > > It's rotating is all: like a planet rotates as it revolves around its > sun. > > > What is it made of? > > Read the article "A Particle Theory". > > > Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it > > that is waving? > > In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation > of that is what broke wave theory. > > Ned This is word salad. What is your photon made of? I am not asking to turn around and trash your theory. I am not like that. I just want to know what your photon is made of in the interest of a better understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 21:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmun9o8.dp9.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363198 |
John Heath wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > John Heath wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > > > > light, is relative to the source. > > > > > > The speed of light is c period relative to the observer not the source. > > > > That is one of the silliest hypotheses ever put. > > Welcome to the club. You just made your first step to understanding > special relativity. Did that in High School. > > > I know it sounds crazy but it has been tested many times and found to > > > be true. > > > > Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the > > speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article > > "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research". > > Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it > not to be c. Irrelevant. See the term "colour-shifted"? Do try to develop an understanding of the meaning of the term "colour-shifted", and the consequences for theory of meansuring the speed of light emanating from (here come that term again!) colour-shifted sources. ----snip---- > > > What is it made of? > > > > Read the article "A Particle Theory". > > > > > Or the reverse of that question if light is a wave then what is it > > > that is waving? > > > > In hard vacuum there's no medium for wave propagation. The realisation > > of that is what broke wave theory. > > This is word salad. You should get yourself into a Remedial English programme. > What is your photon made of? See the article "A Particle Theory". > I am not asking to turn > around and trash your theory. Of course not. It's plain that you dislike turning around, ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 18:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <qvunua5vjirh5lqdp9et7uqgpuksjcu7m9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363198 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the >> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article >> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research". > >Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c. Idiot! TWLS is always c, as expected according to ballistic theory. Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source because it has been virtually impossible to do so until very recently. Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are at stake. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msh6md$lsp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #363233 |
On 06.09.2015 10:48, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:11:42 -0700 (PDT), John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: > >>> Nope. It has never been tested. And it will never *be* tested unless the >>> speed of light from colour-shifted sources is measured. See the article >>> "A Particle Theory addendum: Suggestions for Research". >> >> Name one person who measured the speed of light in a vacuum and found it not to be c. > > Idiot! Nobody has convincingly measured OWLS using a moving source .. and found it to be different from c. The speed of light from moving sources has however been measured and found to be c. https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > Right now nobody can do it because the dingleberries who run the physics > establishment are not likely to provide funding. Far too many reputations are > at stake. How did Alveger and Filippas get their experiments funded? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web