Re: Evidence against emission theories

On May 26, 7:10 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 8, 5:23 pm, "fritz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fritz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Here's what John Fox said about it. I buy his argument.

"When a light wave [not photons] sets into motion the charges in a
medium; these in turn emit new waves [by Rayleigh scattering, I think]
whose centers move in vacuum with the velocity of the charges of
the medium." [Added stuff in brackets are mine.]

[Fox then attributed this matter to Tolman. I checked all of Tolman's
articles on the subject. Fox seems to have been wrong on this.
(One of those progammed boo boos?) Tolman thought that the
atmosphere exerted no extinction effects on light. He strictly
played with mirrors.]

J.G Fox, "Evidence Against Emission Theories," Am. J. Phys, 33,
1, (1965), page 4.

Why cite Fox's 1965 paper, and NOT cite his 1967 paper, where he
concludes that "Good evidence, all of recent date, now exists [i.e.
against extinction theory]"?

Fox, J.G. "Constancy of the Velocity of Light" J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57,
967 (1967)http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Fox_1967.pdf

Jerry

Jerry. Good to see you back from the educational grind!

To me, Fox's 1967 article doesn't quite put the lid on the issue.

In that article he says, [and I inject a few amplifying words and
comments in square brackets]

"Strong theoretical(8,9) and experimental(8) arguments are adduced
which show that the 1/e distance for the [extinction] transformation
of the amplitude is lambda/(n-1) where lambda is the wavelength and n
is the index of refraction. The corresponding distance for
transformation of the energy is then lambda/2(n-1). For visible light
in air at sea-level pressure this distance is about 0.2mm."

[That's strong "arguments," NOT experimental results.]

With regard to an experiment, which, in Fox's estimation, "almost
passed muster," he says:

"In the experiment of Waddoups et al.(3) [I don't have my hands on
that article yet, but those authors reference a recent study which
seems to have found some evidence that the second postulate might be
in trouble.] the residual pressure in the evaccuated equipment was 2.6
x 10exp-4 atm. Therefore the extinction distance for 7000-Angstroms
light was 77 cm. The significant light path in the experiment was 1
m. Thus the flux of the primary was [theoretically] reduced to e
exp(-1/0.77) or about 1/4 of its initial value while the remaining 75%
was forward scattered flux which traveled part of its journey at speed
c. This [if extinction is real] strongly affected the fringe shift
expected on the emission theory but its effect was not calculated.
(Indeed it is difficult to do) so this experiment is of little value
in deciding between Einstein and Ritz."

--

I have never seen any article, by Fox, or anyone else in which it was
set out to actually verify the extinction process. By this, I mean,
for a given distance, you calculate what air pressure would be
required to reduce extinction effects to essentially zero, and then
repeatedly run your procedure with ever decreasing values of pressure
until the extinction actually disappears, or it doesn't disappear.

I wouldn't be surprised if the theoretical expressions that Fox uses
are "off" by a factor of 10 to 100. I want Fox's version of
extinction to be real (It helps save the c+v principle), but if sea-
level extinction were to be, even 0.02 mm instead of his calculated
0.2mm then Fox would have to re-write his article.

By the way, I'm planning to start a new thread about measuring the
speed of gamma rays emitted by fast muons. Since one study that Fox
refers to in his 1965 "Evidence Against Emission Theories" article had
the gammas roaring through a skinny circular hole in a five foot
(meters?) thick block of lead, (i.e., a collimator, I got enthralled
with the possibility of gamma rays compton scattering off the walls of
the hole. The scattered gammas would, according to Fox's extinction
theorem, be traveling at c with respect to the scattering centers. One
study I read on the subject says the Compton scattering will be a
minor effect, but it was a theoretical paper because the experiments
are really difficult. Think I'll call the thread, "Fire in the hole!"

Best regards.

Bob fritzius

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ritz ballistic emission theory material
    ... The distance one should use in such modeling is NOT the distance ... what I'm calling John Fox's extinction distance. ... This is, of course, the same John Fox who measured the relative ... and thus on the emission theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ritz ballistic emission theory material
    ... The distance one should use in such modeling is NOT the distance ... what I'm calling John Fox's extinction distance. ... This is, of course, the same John Fox who measured the relative ... and thus on the emission theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ritz ballistic emission theory material
    ... The distance one should use in such modeling is NOT the distance ... what I'm calling John Fox's extinction distance. ... in de Sitter's material on binary stars rather interesting. ... Doppelsterne eine gewisse Vorliebe der Apsidenlinien für die Richtung ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evidence against emission theories
    ... that is way beyond any extinction distance. ... "It is concluded that Algol B fills its Roche lobe and that mass transfer from Algol B ... Mercury systemic velocity 47 km/s, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Perihelion of Mercury question
    ... |>|> neutral pi mesons is the only known source of high energy gammas. ... That extinction distance ultimately ... |>| for the Crab Pulsar. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)