A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AXIOMS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 13, 09:21 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default AXIOMS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate. Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a simple Newtonian theory. (...) In his Corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

So the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be deduced from two axioms:

1. The principle of relativity is valid.

2. The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the light source, v, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

These are the axioms of Newton's emission theory of light relevant for inertial systems; if gravitation is involved, the generalized axioms a

1'. An inertial system floating in gravitation-free spece and a system falling in a uniform gravitational field are both mechanically and optically equivalent.

2'. (Galileo's principle) All mechanical objects fall with the same gravitational acceleration.

In the following video the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field is deduced from Axiom 1' and Axiom 2':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) 07:56 : (c+dc)/c = 1+(g/c^2)dh

It is easy to show that, if Axiom 1' and Axiom 2' are true, Axiom 2 is true as well.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old December 9th 13, 12:02 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default AXIOMS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

The assumption of Newton's emission theory of light that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the emitter, c'=c+v, explains the Michelson-Morley experiment "without recourse to contracting lengths". The assumption of both the ether theory and special relativity that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter, c'=c, is unable to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment "without recourse to contracting lengths":

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Any explanation that depends crucially on "contracting lengths" is invalid because "contracting lengths" are absurd - they imply that arbitrarily long objects can be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers, both with and without compression:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
Stéphane Durand: "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas). De plus, si deux observateurs se mettent en mouvement à des vitesses différentes par rapport à la perche, ces deux observateurs vont mesurer une longueur différente de la même perche. Une situation inexplicable en termes de contraction matérielle de la perche."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old December 9th 13, 08:42 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default AXIOMS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

Newton's emission theory of light predicts that, if the top of a tower of height h emits light downwards, the light will fall with the acceleration of ordinary falling matter. That is, an observer on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

This means that the frequency measured by the observer on the ground will be:

f' = c'/L = f(1 + gh/c^2)

where f=c/L is the initial frequency (measured by an observer at the top of the tower) and L is the wavelength.

The frequency shift predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, f'=f(1+gh/c^2), is exactly the frequency shift that Pound and Rebka measured, that is, their experiment confirmed the emission theory in a straightforward way:

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Einstein's general relativity predicts that, if the top of a tower of height h emits light downwards, the light will fall with twice the acceleration of ordinary falling matter. That is, an observer on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be:

c' = c(1 + 2gh/c^2)

This shift in the speed of light predicted by general relativity is incompatible with the frequency shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) measured by Pound and Rebka, given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

That is, the Pound-Rebka experiment, while confirming Newton's emission theory of light, has in effect REFUTED GENERAL RELATIVITY.

References showing that, according to Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light varies in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/res...s/JeruLect.pdf
LECTURES ON GRAVITATIONAL LENSING, RAMESH NARAYAN AND MATTHIAS BARTELMANN, p. 3: " The effect of spacetime curvature on the light paths can then be expressed in terms of an effective index of refraction n, which is given by (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992):
n = 1-(2/c^2)phi = 1+(2/c^2)|phi|
Note that the Newtonian potential is negative if it is defined such that it approaches zero at infinity. As in normal geometrical optics, a refractive index n1 implies that light travels slower than in free vacuum. Thus, the effective speed of a ray of light in a gravitational field is:
v = c/n ~ c-(2/c)|phi| "

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~rvikt..._Cosmology.pdf
Relativity, Gravitation, and Cosmology, T. Cheng

p.49: This implies that the speed of light as measured by the remote observer is reduced by gravity as

c(r) = (1 + phi(r)/c^2)c (3.39)

Namely, the speed of light will be seen by an observer (with his coordinate clock) to vary from position to position as the gravitational potential varies from position to position.

p.93: Namely, the retardation of a light signal is twice as large as that given in (3.39)

c(r) = (1 + 2phi(r)/c^2)c (6.28)
________________________________________________
[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old December 9th 13, 03:07 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default AXIOMS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

Today's Einsteinians "almost universally" teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supported Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (which implies that the experiment refuted the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light). John Norton and John Stachel rebuke brothers Einsteinians for teaching the lie and believe that Divine Albert, unlike "later writers", was absolutely honest and never cited the experiment as evidence for the principle of constancy of the speed of light. Any time John Norton and John Stachel think of Divine Albert's absolute honesty, they tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-J.../dp/0817641432
Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', John Stachel, p. 179: "Are there any common features to Einstein's mentions of the Michelson-Morley experiment? Yes: Without exception, it is cited as evidence for the relativity principle, and is never cited as evidence for the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

John Norton and John Stachel are right. Divine Albert never taught the lie.. Never! He only taught it once, in 1921, but then repented and never taught it again:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old December 9th 13, 10:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default AXIOMS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

In 1908 Walther Ritz rejects the field concept (light as a continuous field of waves) because it introduces absolute motion, and declares that "the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others":

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."

In 1952 Einstein still advocates the field concept of light:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...ein_space.html
Relativity and the Problem of Space, Albert Einstein (1952): "During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence. (...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description..."

In 1954 "another Einstein" emerges who moves towards Ritz's position and even warns the world that the field concept might have killed physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Einstein has already had a similar burst of honesty in 1909:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories."

Clearly, if the field concept is fatal for physics, as Einstein suggests in 1954, the only reasonable alternative is Newton's emission theory of light:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." [That is, the second postulate is a product of the field concept.]

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN AND THE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 August 14th 12 03:00 PM
NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 April 19th 12 04:18 PM
ONLY ONE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 15 May 8th 11 07:50 AM
EINSTEINIANS DISCUSS NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 August 19th 09 09:13 AM
NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 June 14th 09 10:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.