info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Velocity of Light
76 views
Skip to first unread message
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2017, 8:16:53 PM10/13/17
to
Maxwell justifies the electromagnetic theory of light using the assumption that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light has an electromagnetic field structure but the velocity of light does not change the fact that Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. In addition, the velocity of light has not been accurately measured. Roemer did not measure or calculate the velocity of light in his 1667 paper. Huygens (1690) attempts to measure the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay, using the period of Io as a clock but after the earth propagates to the position L, the dark side of the earth (night) is not facing Jupiter which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid. Bradley's (1729) stellar aberration is used to calculate the velocity of light but the change in the position of Bradley's star is caused by the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions since the change in the position of Bradley's star results in a rotational shift of all the stars of the stellar universe that rotation is centered around the north star (Polaris) which proves Bradley's stellar aberration is an astronomic hoax. Fizeau (1848) attempts to measure the velocity of light uses a high velocity rotating cogwheel (200 rps) that has 750 small slits but the approximate 2 mm slit width cannot produce an intensity after a single light pulse propagates the distance of 16 km; consequently, Foucault (1850) replaced Fizeau's cogwheel with a rotating mirror but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which cannot be accomplished using the Fizeau-Foucault method. Fabry-Perot (1899) uses a glass wedge interference effect to obtain a wavelength that is used in a wave equation (λf = c) to calculate the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the interfering light waves which produces Fabry-Perot glass wedge interference effect does not exist (vacuum) which proves the wave equation cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light. Michelson's (1826) also attempts to calculate the velocity of light using an interference effect formed by an interferometer but Michelson's interference effect is also based on interfering light waves formed by the motion of Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, that does not physically exist which proves ostensible scientists have not successfully determine the velocity of light which patently proves the velocity of light cannot be used to justify Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light nor can Einstein's SR that diametrically is based on the velocity of light.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2017, 8:24:09 PM10/13/17
to
Huygens calculates the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL and a 22 minute time delay (fig 2).
"If one considers the vast size of the diameter KL, which according to me is some 24 thousand diameters of the Earth, one will acknowledge the extreme velocity of Light. For, supposing that KL is no more than 22 thousand of these diameters, it appears that being traversed in 22 minutes this makes the speed a thousand diameters in one minute, that is 16-2/3 diameters in one second or in one beat of the pulse, which makes more than 11 hundred times a hundred thousand toises; since the diameter of the Earth contains 2,865 leagues, reckoned at 25 to the degree, and each each league is 2,282 Toises, according to the exact measurement which Mr. Picard made by order of the King in 1669. But Sound, as I have said above, only travels 180 toises in the same time of one second: hence the velocity of Light is more than six hundred thousand times greater than that of Sound. This, however, is quite another thing from being instantaneous, since there is all the difference between a finite thing and an infinite. Now the successive movement of Light being confirmed in this way, it follows, as I have said, that it spreads by spherical waves, like the movement of Sound." (Huygens, p. 10-11).
Huygens uses the earth's orbital diameter KL and a 22 minute time delay to calculate the velocity of light using Io a moon of Jupiter as a clock but after the earth propagates the position L where KL represents the earth's orbital diameter that is used to calculate the velocity of light, Huygens cannot view the eclipse of Io since at position L the dark side of the earth (night) is not facing Jupiter. Example, Jupiter is in opposition on May 9, 2018 and on November 9, 2018 after the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter in a six month time period Jupiter does not appear in the night sky (http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-calendar-2018.html.).
"If one considers the vast size of the diameter KL, which according to me is some 24 thousand diameters of the Earth, one will acknowledge the extreme velocity of Light. For, supposing that KL is no more than 22 thousand of these diameters, it appears that being traversed in 22 minutes this makes the speed a thousand diameters in one minute, that is 16-2/3 diameters in one second or in one beat of the pulse, which makes more than 11 hundred times a hundred thousand toises; since the diameter of the Earth contains 2,865 leagues, reckoned at 25 to the degree, and each each league is 2,282 Toises, according to the exact measurement which Mr. Picard made by order of the King in 1669. But Sound, as I have said above, only travels 180 toises in the same time of one second: hence the velocity of Light is more than six hundred thousand times greater than that of Sound. This, however, is quite another thing from being instantaneous, since there is all the difference between a finite thing and an infinite. Now the successive movement of Light being confirmed in this way, it follows, as I have said, that it spreads by spherical waves, like the movement of Sound." (Huygens, p. 10-11).
Huygens uses the earth's orbital diameter KL and a 22 minute time delay to calculate the velocity of light using Io a moon of Jupiter as a clock but after the earth propagates the position L where KL represents the earth's orbital diameter that is used to calculate the velocity of light, Huygens cannot view the eclipse of Io since at position L the dark side of the earth (night) is not facing Jupiter. Example, Jupiter is in opposition on May 9, 2018 and on November 9, 2018 after the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter in a six month time period Jupiter does not appear in the night sky (http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astronomy-calendar-2018.html.).
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2017, 8:26:24 PM10/13/17
to
RE: Fresnel--Michelson's experiment
"The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space. According to Fresnel, the ether, which is enclosed in optical media, partakes of the motion of these media, to an extent depending on their indices of refraction. For air, this motion would be but a small fraction of that of the air itself and will be neglected." (Michelson, p. 120).
"The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space. According to Fresnel, the ether, which is enclosed in optical media, partakes of the motion of these media, to an extent depending on their indices of refraction. For air, this motion would be but a small fraction of that of the air itself and will be neglected." (Michelson, p. 120).
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2017, 8:29:27 PM10/13/17
to
"APPLICATIONS OF HUYGENS'S PRINCIPLE TO THE PHENOMENA OF DIFFRACTION"(Fresnel, § 43).
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2017, 8:30:24 PM10/13/17
to
"Now if one examines what this matter may be in which the movement coming from the luminous body is propagated, which I call Ethereal matter" (Huygens, p. 11).
"But the extreme velocity of Light, and other properties which it has, cannot admit of such a propagation of motion, and I am about to show here the way in which I conceive it must occur. For this, it is needful to explain the property which hard bodies must possess to transmit movement from one to another." (Huygens, p. 13).
"But it is still certain that this progression of motion is not instantaneous, but successive, and therefore must take time. For if the movement, or the disposition to movement, if you will have it so, did not pass successively through all these spheres, they would all acquire the movement at the same time, and hence would all advance together; which does not happen. For the last one leaves the whole row and acquires the speed of the one which was pushed. Moreover there are experiments which demonstrate that all the bodies which we reckon of the hardest kind, such as quenched steel, glass, and agate, act as springs and bend somehow, not only when extended as rods but also when they are in the form of spheres or of other shapes." (Huygens, p. 13).
"Now in applying this kind of movement to that which produces Light there is nothing to hinder us from estimating the particles of the ether to be of a substance as nearly approaching to perfect hardness and possessing a springiness as prompt as we choose. It is not necessary to examine here the causes of this hardness, or of that springiness, the consideration of which would lead us too far from our subject. I will say, however, in passing that we may conceive that the particles of the ether" (Huygens, p. 14).
"But though we shall ignore the true cause of springiness we still see that there are many bodies which possess this property; and thus there is nothing strange in supposing that it exists also in little invisible bodies like the particles of the Ether. Also if one wishes to seek for any other way in which the movement of Light is successively communicated, one will find none which agrees better, with uniform progression, as seems to be necessary, than the property of springiness; because if this movement should grow slower in proportion as it is shared over a greater quantity of matter, in moving away from the source of the light, it could not conserve this great velocity over great distances. But by supposing springiness in the ethereal matter, its particles will have the property of equally rapid restitution whether they are pushed strongly or feebly; and thus the propagation of Light will always go on with an equal velocity." (Huygens, p. 15).
"But the extreme velocity of Light, and other properties which it has, cannot admit of such a propagation of motion, and I am about to show here the way in which I conceive it must occur. For this, it is needful to explain the property which hard bodies must possess to transmit movement from one to another." (Huygens, p. 13).
"But it is still certain that this progression of motion is not instantaneous, but successive, and therefore must take time. For if the movement, or the disposition to movement, if you will have it so, did not pass successively through all these spheres, they would all acquire the movement at the same time, and hence would all advance together; which does not happen. For the last one leaves the whole row and acquires the speed of the one which was pushed. Moreover there are experiments which demonstrate that all the bodies which we reckon of the hardest kind, such as quenched steel, glass, and agate, act as springs and bend somehow, not only when extended as rods but also when they are in the form of spheres or of other shapes." (Huygens, p. 13).
"Now in applying this kind of movement to that which produces Light there is nothing to hinder us from estimating the particles of the ether to be of a substance as nearly approaching to perfect hardness and possessing a springiness as prompt as we choose. It is not necessary to examine here the causes of this hardness, or of that springiness, the consideration of which would lead us too far from our subject. I will say, however, in passing that we may conceive that the particles of the ether" (Huygens, p. 14).
"But though we shall ignore the true cause of springiness we still see that there are many bodies which possess this property; and thus there is nothing strange in supposing that it exists also in little invisible bodies like the particles of the Ether. Also if one wishes to seek for any other way in which the movement of Light is successively communicated, one will find none which agrees better, with uniform progression, as seems to be necessary, than the property of springiness; because if this movement should grow slower in proportion as it is shared over a greater quantity of matter, in moving away from the source of the light, it could not conserve this great velocity over great distances. But by supposing springiness in the ethereal matter, its particles will have the property of equally rapid restitution whether they are pushed strongly or feebly; and thus the propagation of Light will always go on with an equal velocity." (Huygens, p. 15).
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 14, 2017, 7:45:05 PM10/14/17
to
Carl Susumu wrote:
>
> Maxwell justifies the electromagnetic theory of light using
> the assumption that since
> radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity
_____________________________________________________________
>
> Maxwell justifies the electromagnetic theory of light using
> the assumption that since
> radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity
Ned Latham wrote:
That is itself an assumption.
And notwithstanding the bleating of the physics groupies here, it
is a baseless assumption.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 14, 2017, 7:46:14 PM10/14/17
to
"This velocity is so nearly that of light, that it seems we have strong reason to conclude that light itself (including radiant heat, and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws." (Maxwell, Intro).
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 14, 2017, 7:47:11 PM10/14/17
to
Maxwell, Clerk. A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Philosophical Magazine. 1864. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 15, 2017, 3:42:29 PM10/15/17
to
dfdfdf
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 15, 2017, 6:33:06 PM10/15/17
to
QED---------> EM expanding?
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 3:02:21 PM10/16/17
to
a
rockbr...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 4:03:51 PM10/16/17
to
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 7:26:24 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> RE: Fresnel--Michelson's experiment
> "The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether,
Maxwell's theory does not assume there to be an underlying medium, but rather REQUIRES it. For without it, there'd be nothing left to determine in which frame of reference a set of isotropic constitutive relations (D = epsilon E, B = mu H) hold. These relations are not invariant under the Galilean transformation, nor even under the Poincare' transformation (except for the special case where epsilon mu = 1/c^2).
> RE: Fresnel--Michelson's experiment
> "The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether,
This made it necessary, after Maxwell over the course of the 19th century, to make a distinction between the "stationary" theory (the one where the constitutive relations are isotropic) versus other frames where they are not. In other frames, the laws would become:
D = epsilon (E + G x B), B = mu (H - G x D)
where G is the velocity associated with that frame. You don't see it clearly in Maxwell's presentation because (1) he made the G x B term part of his E field (i.e. what Maxwell calls E does NOT coincide what we now refer to as E) and (2) he made the mistake of failing to note the -G x D term (partly because he kept confusing B and H from the 1850's onward) -- a correction Thompson later made. Or Thomas, I forgot his name.
Maxwell's E and B were defined in terms of the potentials A and phi by
E_Maxwell = -del phi - dA/dt + G x B, B = del x A
where today we would define them by
E = -del phi - dA/dt, B = del x A
So Maxwell's constitutive law D = epsilon E_Maxwell is equivalent to our D = epsilon (E + G x B).
The -G x D correction was later experimentally verified, at the turn of the 20th century, by a husband and wife team.
The relativistic versions of these relations were published independently by Einstein and Laub in 1908 and Minkowski in 1908 (the latter being the first place 4D Minkowski geometry was used) and in contemporary form they would read:
D + alpha G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
B - alpha G x E = mu (B - G x D)
where alpha = 1/c^2. The sole distinction between the relativistic and non-relativistic forms of electromagnetic theory rest with the value of alpha, which for non-relativistic theory would be 0.
The only condition under which these equations are INDEPENDENT of G are where epsilon mu = alpha. In that case, one can describe the underlying medium as a vacuum because it is invariant under a "boost", as well as being homogeneous, isotropic and stationary (the 4 defining qualities of what comprise a vacuum; i.e. a vacuum is any medium that is invariant under the full set of kinematic transforms: boosts, spatial and temporal translations and rotations).
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 6:06:47 PM10/16/17
to
Maxwell's theory does not assume there to be an underlying medium, but rather REQUIRES it.
____________________________________________________________________________
Vacuum proves Huygens-Fresnel-Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein optical ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2017, 6:09:35 PM10/16/17
to
vacuum is any medium that is invariant under the full set of kinematic transforms: boosts, spatial and temporal translations and rotations).
Vacuum is void of matter; consequently, vacuum is not a medium. Air, water or glass are mediums composed of matter.
benj
Oct 16, 2017, 7:29:27 PM10/16/17
to
benj
Oct 16, 2017, 7:32:17 PM10/16/17
to
dogs have hair! Idiot.
Poutnik
Oct 17, 2017, 5:23:13 AM10/17/17
to
Dne 17.10.2017 v 01:29 benj napsal(a):
does not make from it a luminoferous medium.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.
Boris Mohar
Oct 17, 2017, 6:13:06 AM10/17/17
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:16:48 -0700 (PDT), numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>.......tter, that does not physically exist which proves ostensible scientists have not successfully determine the velocity of light which patently proves the velocity of light cannot be used to justify Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light nor can Einstein's SR that diametrically is based on the velocity of light.
Speed is a scalar quantity and does not keep track of direction; velocity is
a vector quantity and is direction aware.
--
Boris
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>.......tter, that does not physically exist which proves ostensible scientists have not successfully determine the velocity of light which patently proves the velocity of light cannot be used to justify Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light nor can Einstein's SR that diametrically is based on the velocity of light.
Speed is a scalar quantity and does not keep track of direction; velocity is
a vector quantity and is direction aware.
--
Boris
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 17, 2017, 3:44:36 PM10/17/17
to
Fact that vacuum has properties proves you haven't a clue.
____________________________________________________________________
Everything has properties. Even the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system has properties but all the properties of vacuum do not make vacuum a medium, composed of matter.
benj
Oct 17, 2017, 8:02:15 PM10/17/17
to
On 10/17/2017 5:23 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 17.10.2017 v 01:29 benj napsal(a):
>> On 10/16/2017 6:06 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Vacuum proves Huygens-Fresnel-Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein optical ether,
>>> composed of matter, does not physically exist.
>>
>> Fact that vacuum has properties proves you haven't a clue.
>
> Fact that vacuum has properties
> does not make from it a luminoferous medium.
>
>
No, but it proves it is not "nothing". The fact that light travels
> Dne 17.10.2017 v 01:29 benj napsal(a):
>> On 10/16/2017 6:06 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Vacuum proves Huygens-Fresnel-Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein optical ether,
>>> composed of matter, does not physically exist.
>>
>> Fact that vacuum has properties proves you haven't a clue.
>
> Fact that vacuum has properties
> does not make from it a luminoferous medium.
>
>
through a vacuum with wave properties strongly suggests a luminiferous
medium.
Poutnik
Oct 18, 2017, 2:06:21 AM10/18/17
to
Dne 18/10/2017 v 02:02 benj napsal(a):
And Earth suggests to be static and flat.
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 18, 2017, 2:52:16 PM10/18/17
to
On 10/17/2017 5:23 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 17.10.2017 v 01:29 benj napsal(a):
>> On 10/16/2017 6:06 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Vacuum proves Huygens-Fresnel-Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein optical ether,
>>> composed of matter, does not physically exist.
>>
>> Fact that vacuum has properties proves you haven't a clue.
>
> Fact that vacuum has properties
> does not make from it a luminoferous medium.
>
>
No, but it proves it is not "nothing". The fact that light travels
through a vacuum with wave properties strongly suggests a luminiferous
medium.
_____________________________________________________________
> Dne 17.10.2017 v 01:29 benj napsal(a):
>> On 10/16/2017 6:06 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Vacuum proves Huygens-Fresnel-Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein optical ether,
>>> composed of matter, does not physically exist.
>>
>> Fact that vacuum has properties proves you haven't a clue.
>
> Fact that vacuum has properties
> does not make from it a luminoferous medium.
>
>
No, but it proves it is not "nothing". The fact that light travels
through a vacuum with wave properties strongly suggests a luminiferous
medium.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 18, 2017, 4:05:44 PM10/18/17
to
Edward Prochak
Oct 19, 2017, 12:30:04 AM10/19/17
to
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:16:53 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maxwell justifies the electromagnetic theory of light using the assumption
> that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light
> has an electromagnetic field structure
Bzzzzzt, wrong.
> Maxwell justifies the electromagnetic theory of light using the assumption
> that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light
> has an electromagnetic field structure
radio and light are both EM phenomenon because they both behave
the same way. Several properties besides speed show light and
radio waves and X-rays are all Electro-magnetic waves.
Thank you for playing.
[remaining nonsense snipped]
Enjoy,
ed
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 19, 2017, 4:53:50 PM10/19/17
to
Edward Prochak
Oct 18 (16 hours ago)
> Maxwell justifies the electromagnetic theory of light using the assumption
> that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light
> has an electromagnetic field structure
> that since radio waves and light propagate at the same velocity that light
> has an electromagnetic field structure
Bzzzzzt, wrong.
radio and light are both EM phenomenon because they both behave
the same way. Several properties besides speed show light and
radio waves and X-rays are all Electro-magnetic waves.
Thank you for playing.
[remaining nonsense snipped]
Enjoy,
ed
_________________________________________
radio and light are both EM phenomenon because they both behave
the same way. Several properties besides speed show light and
radio waves and X-rays are all Electro-magnetic waves.
Thank you for playing.
[remaining nonsense snipped]
Enjoy,
ed
I am so sorry to correct you which I certainly enjoy doing but radio waves and light are not the same entity since Lenard proves light is composed of particles yet radio waves do not exhibit a particle structure.
Edward Prochak
Oct 20, 2017, 2:59:44 PM10/20/17
to
particles are electrons, not photons (light). So your comment
does not apply.
Care to try again with a more compelling reference?
ed
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 21, 2017, 7:38:27 PM10/21/17
to
As I recall Lenard proved Cathode rays are particles and those
particles are electrons, not photons (light). So your comment
does not apply.
Care to try again with a more compelling reference?
ed
--------------------------------------------------------
particles are electrons, not photons (light). So your comment
does not apply.
Care to try again with a more compelling reference?
ed
Lenard proved light is composed of particles using the photoelectric effect.
Lenard, Philipp. Ueber die lichtelektrische Wirkung. Annalen der Physik. 8:149-198. 1902
numbernu...@gmail.com
Oct 22, 2017, 5:08:54 PM10/22/17
to
dfdf
Edward Prochak
Oct 23, 2017, 9:22:27 AM10/23/17
to
Interesting. That reflects more upon the property of the material
than on the radiation.
That radio waves are also show a particle nature, you only need
to perform the double slit experiment using radio waves.
NOTE: perform the full experiment including
(a) blocking one slit,
(b) reduce the intensity
You will find both of those parts of the experiment show the
particle nature of radio waves, just as they do for visible light.
Enjoy,
ed
0 new messages