Re: A Ballistic photon theory

From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 06/26/04 

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:01:55 +0100

Ballisticus writes
>On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:05:37 GMT, "Androcles"
><androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>>Of course. The key is in the phrase "or in uniform motion". The velocity of
>>light will be c+v where v is the velocity of the cloud, relative to the
>>observer. What a binary does inside that doesn't matter. In the case of a
>>planet and "sun" with no cloud, it will be variable and approximate
>>c+v.sin(wt) for an orbit with eccentricity zero. To be precise, we need to
>>incorporate Kepler's equation and include the loss from the atmospheric
>>factor. That gets extremely complex.
>
>So the eventual speed of light emitted by objects inside the cloud is dependent
>on the properties of the cloud. OK.
>
>Maybe the cloud is not just gaseous matter but also 'EM fields'.
>
>This is remakably like Len Gaasenbeek's concept of a local 'EM frame of
>reference' or my own H-aether theory, in which light changes speed as it
>negotiates factors that affect it throughout space. Gravity is one of these.
>

If you go back to the first posting on this thread I did mention a
comment by Aspeden regarding Waldron proposed ballistic theory.

" .... a photon emitted by an atom would travel at the velocity c plus
the thermal agitation velocity of the atom. This latter component is of
the order of 104cm/s, and would completely mask the Doppler effects of
the velocities (as low as 0.1 cm/s) measured in Mossbauer experiments."

"The Mossbauer effect can really only be explained if the photons
generated by energy quanta released by atoms are formed at their
characteristic frequencies in a medium separate from the individual
atoms. This medium, a sort of aether or, if we do not like the word
'aether', a mere notion of something providing a frame of reference for
radiation, appears to be located by the mean positions of atoms in a
crystal lattice. Thus, when energy is released by an atom, the velocity
of the atom relative to this frame has no effect on the velocity of the
energy package transmitted by the photon. The thermal velocity is only
manifested by a slight effect on the value of the energy quantum,
resulting in a line broadening. The photon appears as a disturbance in
the radiation-reference frame, and conveys a Doppler effect determined
by the velocity of this frame, i.e. the velocity of the source body and
not that of the source atom".

It was based upon that that I suggested that c is the natural speed of a
photon in an electric field and that any photon travelling at a
different speed than c in an electric field would interact with the
field and have its speed normalised to be c relative to the field, which
is also the speed relative to the matter producing the field. If a
photon slows down to be c relative to the field then the energy must go
somewhere. My suggestion for a photon was a rotating dipole of charge
which could interchange forward velocity with rotational velocity and
thus normalise its speed without loss of energy.

A photon would leave the source at c relative to the average field of
the source i.e. what Aspeden calls the 'source body' rather than the
source atom. I assumed the final velocity would be constant w.r.t the
field at the surface of the source - a near field effect.

It also explains the Alvager, Farley, Kjellman and Wallin
result in that the pi-meson (if it did exist) would decay to produce
photons while still within the field of the beryllium target and would
have their speed normalised to be c relative to the body of the target
rather than that of the pi-meson. (note the lifetime of the pi-meson is
about 8.4 x 10^-17s or 10^-15s if you believe in time dilation so it
will only travel 0.003mm before decaying).

Alveger et al and De Sitter seem to represent the main evidence against
source dependency. I leave DeSitter to you.

I speculated that as gravity has a very small effect on light that if it
did cause speed normalisation it would take a long distance to have an
effect. I suggested that the Pioneer effect might be evidence of it.

It all makes what you are trying to do rather complicated. For example
light from a double star at the heart of a galaxy will have to travel a
long way in a gravity field and may encounter electric fields all of
which will rob it of initial speed reference.

The point is that without an ether to control the speed there is no
reason to believe that a photon will leave a source at c relative to the
source and steadfastly maintain that speed come what may. If one
believes that c is a sort of natural 'resonance' with respect to the
field creating it then to go through any field at a different speed is
like hitting a resonant circuit with the wrong frequency, or trying to
put a bolt through a nut with the wrong thread. 

-- 
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
Loading