Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles


"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:5k4oa5l5d03sf2brfp3c6gi165ebn9h2rd@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:01:43 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

It is time independent
unless it is changing, and if it is changing then at least one of
frequency or speed must be changing too. If you can make an
instantaneous measurement with a ruler then your relative velocity
does not matter.

If you suppose that lightspeed can vary, then what does a
diffraction grating do?

Causes a change in rotation of a photon.

I have found your particle explanation of diffraction to be quite vague.

Most of what he says is quite vague...but if he would explain it properly
instead of ranting, other people might be able to understand some of it.

Unfortunately when I looked in more detail at the classical wave
explanation of diffraction it turned out to be pretty vague too.

When c is constant you can measure diffraction and you have one
variable. When c is not constant you have two variables -- and a
vector if the velocity of the source makes a difference. When c is
constant it doesn't matter whether you're measuring a wavelength
change or a frequency change -- they have to go together. It doesn't
matter which change is happening -- they have to happen together.
When c can be different then it makes a difference whether it's
frequency that changes or wavelength or both in some ratio.

I imagine the emitter creating a wave

The emitter is a molecule. It can only send a pulse. Imagine all you
want to,
there are NO light waves. Radio waves, yes, but no light waves. It's
time you thought carefully instead of repeating the same old dogma.

Fair enough. I'll look at ways for light particles to do interference.
If I find something I'll let you know.

As Andro shows in his next post, electrons also diffract. They are
particles.

The emitter is a different molecule. The first molecule has to be
recharged with energy before it can fire off a second pulse (in a
different direction).
It can only send a pulse. Imagine all you want to, there are NO light
waves. Radio waves, yes, but no light waves. It's time you thought
carefully instead of repeating the same old dogma.

I'm not disputing you about this. I don't know what the truth is and I
have been looking at approaches that seem comfortable and that fit the
available facts I know about. I want to try imagining you are right and
try looking for ways to make the details work.

Try my model. It seems pretty logical to me.
Photons are particles that also oscillate intrinsically. When a photon is
split
into two and subsequently reunited, the phasing of the two halves
determines
the amount of reinforcement or annihilation. Simple, eh?

Diffraction grating angles still operate on the 'intrinsic wavelength'
principle, on the assumption that photons have a finite cross section.

Does a continuous laser send waves? It's based on the "principle" that a
"charged" molecule can be triggered to "discharge" by light of the
frequency it will send. So a single pulse can somehow set off at least
two others (being absorbed or partly absorbed by those two?) and you
wind up with a cascade that is all in phase but that starts at different
times. Does that count as a wave for you?

It's a pulse of photons. Are they all exactly 'in phase' of not? What
would 'in
phase' actually mean?
I would say it means their intrinsic oscillation is coordinated in some
way by
the lasing action but that would not necessarily cause them have the same
intrinsic phase.

Again I'm not arguing that you're wrong about anything, if you say this
is a wave I'm not going to jump up and down and crow that you admitted
you were wrong about something. If this special case is a wave then I've
learned a little more about your system, and if it isn't a wave then I
have more questions.

Have you ever seen a slow motion movie of a falling raindrop? It oscilates
kind
of like a dumbell, maybe with a few harmonics.

A photon is obviously a particle that oscillates in some intrinsic way,
giving
it both particle and wavelike properties.

Why can nobody else understand this very simple conceot? Am I more
intelligent
than everyone else here?


You'll never catch up to me, you lack the mathematics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU
A photon alternates between electric and magnetic fields
with red representing +ve, blue -ve, yellow north and purple south.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif

[hanson writes]
quote/
Another way to look at photon representation via a sinusoidal EM
parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental**
observation that/of

A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa
versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that

1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens
2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens.
3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field arises.
4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then
5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while
M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till 2pi
/unquote

It's no good showing youtube to the mild little bunny Jonah, though. He's
only got a toy game-playing computer for his kids and it took a while
before he'd admit he was thus handicapped.
I'd like to see him growl like a kitten for a change, then perhaps he'll
grow to roar like a lion and bite "Inertial's" inert head off.








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what is the very first equation in the QM?
    ... Look at the "photon" buildup down near the end of the article. ... all the things waves are known to do. ... But what KIND of particle is it? ... backward from the detector to the source. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Another Part of the Einsteins Hoax.
    ... what do you make of radio waves? ... There is precious little in the way of particle nature at these ... Then it's a big photon, and that is the particle nature of e-m radiation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Another Part of the Einsteins Hoax.
    ... what do you make of radio waves? ... have a wavelength of about 300 meters. ... There is precious little in the way of particle nature at these ... I have explained many times that generated EM like RF uses photon density ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... Causes a change in rotation of a photon. ... I have found your particle explanation of diffraction to be quite vague. ... Radio waves, yes, but no light waves. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon
    ... I like the part where he attempted to debunk Quantum ... light behaving like both a wave and a particle. ... and in fact, waves in general. ... involves a barrier with two vertical slits, ...
    (sci.physics)