The Relative speed Between
Approaching Cincirob & Glenn's Flash of Light








Glenn: If you are far away approaching me at velocity v, and I flash a light at you, you will meet that flash "part way," and the relative speed between you and the light does change. It becomes c + v. You cannot use the incorrect conclusions of Special Relativity in circular argument to claim that the two speeds, c and v are not additive.






Cincirob: Your response here is the one I've been looking for because it proves you have no concept of relativity. Don't bother arguing, the arguments are over. Here's the 8th grade algebra you need to understand that the term (c + v) does not represent the speed of light. If you can't follow this, then I can't help you. At t = 0: a. You and I are separated by a distance d. b. I start moving toward you at speed v. 3c. You flash your light in my direction. The distance d(me) that I travel in time t is (1) d(me) = vt The distance the light flash travels in time t is (2) d(flash) = ct The flash reaches me when (3) d(me) + d(flash) = d Substituting (1) and (2) into (3) yields (4) vt + ct = d Or, (5) d = (c + v)t Notice, the light travels at c and I travel at v. Nothing travels at (c + v). (c + v) is called a "closing speed" which means it is the rate at which the distance between two moving object is changing. You have finally said enough here to prove your work is wrong. I doubt that many other anti-relativists would support you in this. You see, what Einstein said is that if I measure the speed of your light flash in this scenario, I will get the value of c and so would you. If you had ever read OEMB, you would have found this equation: (6) V(combined) = (v + w)/(1 + vw/c^2) This equation can be used to determine what the velocity of your flash of light is as seen by me. Let my velocity be v and the velocity of the flash be -c because the light and I are travelling in opposite directions: (7) V(combined) = (v - c)/(1 +(v)(-c)/c^2) = (v - c)/(1 (vc/c^2)) Simplifying yields (8) V(combined) = (v - c)/(1 v/c) Now factoring -c out of the numerator (9) V(combined) = -c((1 - v/c)/(1 v/c) Cancelling (1 - v/c) yields (10) V(combined) = -c Which means that "I" in the scenario will see the light at c, the same as you. I'm afraid our little debate has come to an end. You clearly do not understand even the most basic principles of relativity. Any future posts from you will get this same post because it proves you have no case. Im sure you wont accept this and probably will never understand that you are in error; but, others will and will ignore your work.







AAF: You're still the same 'old weasel', Cinci;
you commit a basic algebraic mistake; you claim the other guy knows nothing about Relativity; and then you want to run away and get away with it by declaring it all as the end of all future debates on this topic and with this very nice colleague of yours; that is nothing but silly weaseling on your part, Cinci!

Let's now examine closely your erroneous calculations above:

Except the equation [t = 0], which is useless anyway, all your other equations are wrong:
(1) d(me) = vt is wrong; (2) d(flash) = ct is wrong; (3) d(me) + d(flash) = d is wrong; (4) vt + ct = d is wrong; 5) d = (c + v)t is wrong; and all the rest of them is wrong.

I can't believe it . . . do you forget all the lengthy calculations that Michelson & Morley did for their experiment,which you wrote a few years ago a paper or two on it?

So, let me work out the Glenn Scenario the way Michelson & Morley worked out the light path along the horizontal arm of their experiment:

If you are far away approaching Glenn at velocity v, and he flashes a light at you,
you will meet that flash exactly in the same way Michelson-Morley's approaching mirror meets their experimental beam; i.e. after total time of [t']:

t' = {(d - vt') / c}

And therefore,

t' = d / ( c + v)

Do you remember this equation now, Cinci?

Under no circumstances, you can hide or cancel or do away with the relative speed [c + v] between you and the approaching Glenn's flash of light.




PS: [Einstein was way smarter than Cinci, because he said only the clock of moving Cinci and the clock of stationary Glenn cannot be synchronized and did no calculation whatsoever]!

Always remember, Cinici:

Glenn's Flash of Light, unlike light from your own moving frame of reference,
is going to hit you with an mount of ENERGY
directly proportional to the SQUARE of [c + v]!

That is one more REASON why you should not write off the relative
speed of light [c + v] as something that does not exist in nature.

AAF: is going to hit you with an mount of ENERGY directly proportional to the SQUARE of [c + v]!

energy of light is E = hf - and has nothing to do with velocity of the light.

E^2 = p^2c0^2 +m0^2c0^4 from SR

usually m0 treated as zero for light

then for light E =pc0 where p = momentum, momentum depends on speed, if lightspeed is variable (and not always value c0) then p varies

>>>>usually m0 treated as zero for light

>>>>then for light E =pc0 where p = momentum, momentum depends on speed, if lightspeed is variable (and not always value c0) then p varies

Yes p varies

Now p = mv where m = mo / SQRT{ 1 - v^2 / c^2 }

So momentum for light can be written as p = mo v / SQRT{ 1 - v^2 / c^2 }

As you wrote, mo treated as zero for light, then the momentum of light would be ZERO if the speed of light would not be c; if the momentum would be zero - it would have no energy.

ah you spotted a flaw in the mainstream's thinking

the way they get around that is to play around with different types of mass and so forth

the usual way they deal with it is to say that in the case of light, p is not that relativistic momentum equation you just gave; that wquation just applying for particles of matter not for light.

surely you must be aware of the way Einstein-zombies work by now?

>>>>the usual way they deal with it is to say that in the case of light, p is not that relativistic momentum equation you just gave; that wquation just applying for particles of matter not for light.

I have never seen such a claim; the relativistic momentum equation applies to both light and matter.

Following from the relativistic momentum equation, light would not contain momentum nor energy unless it moves at the speed c.

the equation p = mo v / SQRT{ 1 - v^2 / c^2 }

becomes undefined for m0 = 0 and v = c so gets replaced by another equation

>>>>the equation p = mo v / SQRT{ 1 - v^2 / c^2 }

>>>>becomes undefined for m0 = 0 and v = c so gets replaced by another equation

The equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + mo^2 c^4 is general valid.

For mo = 0 and v != c there is no energy and no momentum.

No energy means no interaction and therefore no observation.

So photons with zero mass and a velocity that differs from the speed of light do not contain energy and there cannot be observed. We only observe photons with the speed c.

nah

"Energy of light is E = hf - and has nothing to do with velocity of the light."


Are you advising Cinci to stay 'sitting-duck' & do nothing, Anonym?

I like it!


The energy of [E = hf] is true only in the case of exchange of light between stationary sources and stationary observers.

In every other case and according to every physical theory we can think of, energy of light must change due to the Doppler effect.

In Newtonian physics, conservation laws of kinetic energy and momentum are used to derive the fore-mentioned proportionality between light energy and the relative speeds of light, as demonstrated, for example, here: Mass-Energy Conservation in the Context of the Doppler Effect

Do you expect, now, the situation for moving Cinci will be safer and better, if Einstein's Special Relativity is true?

Not a chance; to the contrary; it will be far worse; and that is because, as I said before, the theory of Relativity continues to use silently and implicitly the relative speeds of light [(c + v) & (c - v)] in its equations; and furthermore it uses its Gamma Factor to boost the effect of [c + v] on energy of approaching light to much higher levels than just by the square of [c + v]; just take a brief look at the equations of: Relativistic Doppler Shift

Do you see the big DIFFERENCE?

Classical theories of Newton & Maxwell say that the energy of approaching light increases only to about 4 times its stationary value as the relative speed of [c + v] gets closer to [2 c].

By contrast, Einstein's theory says very clearly that the energy of approaching light increases and approaches infinity as [c + v] approaches [2 c]. And that means, if Relativity is correct, and if Cinci dares to approach Glenn's Flash of Light at near [c], then that light will transform itself to a powerful BLAST of gamma rays and hit him so hard and so much so that he won't, probably, know what has just hit him!

AAF : Classical theories of Newton & Maxwell say that the energy of approaching light increases only to about 4 times its stationary value as the relative speed of [c + v] gets closer to [2 c].

Newton yes, Maxwell no. Maxwell's equations are invariant under lorentz transformations. There is no factor 4 in Maxwell's theory. You can see this in the wave equations that follow from Maxwell theory

{ [d/dx]^2 + [d/dy]^2 + [d/dz]^2 - [d/dt]^2 / c^2 } PHI = 0

AAF: Not a chance; to the contrary; it will be far worse; and that is because, as I said before, the theory of Relativity continues to use silently and implicitly the relative speeds of light [(c + v) & (c - v)] in its equations;

relativity uses the expressions c+v and c-v; but they do not represent speeds light of light.

AAF: just take a brief look at the equations of: Relativistic Doppler Shift

Yes at that link you can see:

For light and other electromagnetic waves, the relationship must be modified to be consistent with the Lorentz transformation and the expression becomes ...

no reference to relativity. Lorentz transformations follow from Maxwel. Actually NOWHERE on the link you can find the word relativity. It is all based on Maxwell's theory. Do you disagree with Maxwell's theory?

"Newton yes, Maxwell no. Maxwell's equations are invariant under lorentz transformations. There is no factor 4 in Maxwell's theory."


Oh; there is a factor of 4 in Maxwell's theory, Anonym!

But first, let me be clear about what I mean by 'Maxwell's theory' within this context.
Maxwell's theory, here, means Maxwell's theory as it was up to 1905.

In Maxwell's theory, before its 'modification & mutilation & humiliation' by Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the wave energy is directly proportional to the SQUARE of the wave amplitude whose values vary linearly with Doppler effect and with the relative velocity between the observer and the approaching waves:
Energy Transport and the Amplitude of a Wave: "The energy transported by a wave is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave. This energy-amplitude relationship is sometimes expressed in the following manner":



Finally, I would like to qualify my VERDICT on Cinci's calculations:

Cinci's above calculations are not wrong based on Newtonian considerations;
But they're wrong because of the blatant CONTRADICTION between his use of [t = 0] and his 'wrongheaded' belief in Einstein's Relative Simultaneity at the same time. He can't do this and get away with it; let somebody else pinch me, if this verdict of mine is wrong or unjustified!

>>>>Oh; there is a factor of 4 in Maxwell's theory, Anonym!

You are digging a hole and you cannot get out.

First you say: "ENERGY directly proportional to the SQUARE of [c + v]!"

Now you say: "The energy transported by a wave is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave."

You have just contradicted yourself.

AAF: In Maxwell's theory, before its 'modification & mutilation & humiliation' by Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the wave energy is directly proportional to the SQUARE of the wave amplitude whose values vary linearly with Doppler effect and with the relative velocity between the observer and the approaching waves:http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/u10l2c.cfm

The link you provided speaks about mechanical waves. Maxwell's theory before its 'modification & mutilation & humiliation' can be found here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

The original work of Maxwell contains 4 equations (original written out in detail):

equation (115) div E = rho
equation (18) div B = 0
equation (54) rot E = - (partial B / partial t) / c
equation (112) rot B = J + (partial E / partial t) / c

I have no 'partial' symbol here, so I write d/dt instead of partial/partial t, d/dx instead of partial/partial x, etc...

We see that the c appears where the t appears in the Maxwell equations so we write tau = c t

Combination of the Maxwell equations gives the wave equation

{ [d/dx]^2 + [d/dy]^2 + [d/dz]^2 - [d/d tau]^2 } PHI = 0

The general solution is

PHI = F ( r +/- tau )

waves that propagate with the velocity c.

The Lorentz transformations can be written as

tau' = gamma [tau - beta x]
x' = gamma [x - beta tau]
y' = y
z' =z

So

d/d tau = gamma d/d tau' - beta gamma d/dx'
d/dx = gamma d/dx' - beta gamma d/d tau'
d/dy = d/dy'
d/dz = d/dz'

[d/d tau]^2 = gamma^2 { [d/d tau']^2 + beta^2 [d/dx']^2 - 2 beta [d/d tau'] [d/dx'] }
[d/d x]^2 = gamma^2 { [d/d x']^2 + beta^2 [d/d tau']^2 - 2 beta [d/d tau'] [d/dx'] }
[d/dy]^2 = [d/dy]^2
[d/dz]^2 = [d/dz]^2

Then

[d/dx]^2 + [d/dy]^2 + [d/dz]^2 - [d/d tau]^2 = [d/dx']^2 + [d/dy']^2 + [d/dz']^2 - [d/d tau']^2


A wave that moves from the right to the left can be written as

PHI = F( W[x + tau] )

Lorentz transformations give

tau = gamma [tau' + beta x']
x = gamma [x' + beta tau']

so

x + tau = gamma [1 + beta] [x'+tau']

So the same wave is described in a moving system as

PHI = F( W gamma [1 + beta] [x' + tau'] )

So

W' = W gamma [1 + beta]

Thus

W' = W SQRT{ [1 + beta]/[1 - beta] }

This is the Doppler effect for Maxwell, no relativity required. No factor 4 as you claim.

Thanks, Anonym!


The original FORM of Maxwell's theory is found here:
A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field


And it's also ONLINE here:
File: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field


It's a 50+-page document, but the wording is smooth
as far as scientific documents go;
and Maxwell sparkled it with plenty of physical insights that make
it very interesting.

AAF: Thanks, Anonym!

You are welcome, you appear to be a person who does indead like to discussus issues - that is good!

AAF: The original FORM of Maxwell's theory is found here:
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459.full.pdf+html

Well the link you posted is to a document that is published in 1865...

The link (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force ) I posted is published in 1861... (You can click on the page number on the left to see the original page in the document; the first page can be found here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3APhilosophical_magazine_21_series_4.djvu/181 , there you can read March 1861...)

So your link is not the original - in fact, the link I posted is the oldest known document of Maxwell in which he describes his equations.

But it does not matter. The point is that the classical Maxwell equations are given by

div E = rho
div B = 0
rot E = - (partial B / partial t) / c
rot B = J + (partial E / partial t) / c

(using modern notation)

THESE equations are the birth of relativity (1861 NOT 1905!!!!!).
THESE equations imply the Lorentz-transformations (1861 NOT 1905!!!!!).

Einstein (1905) has just given another interpretation.

Even if Einstein's interpretation is wrong, Maxwell remains correct - and so do the Lorentz-transformations, as both being confirmed by many experiments.

If you disagree with Maxwell, then propose an alternative, being verified by experiment.

Regards - J.

>>>you appear to be a person who does indead like to discussus issues - that is good!

weird you think being INDEAD is good for discussions

Anonym: You are welcome, you appear to be a person who does indead like to discussus issues - that is good! Well the link you posted is to a document that is published in 1865... The linkhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force ) I posted is published in 1861... (You can click on the page number on the left to see the original page in the document; the first page can be found herhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3APhilosophical_magazine_21_series_4.djvu/181 , there you can read March 1861 ...) So your link is not the original - in fact, the link I posted is the oldest known document of Maxwell in which he describes his equations. But it does not matter. The point is that the classical Maxwell equations are given by div E = rho div B = 0 rot E = - (partial B / partial t) / c rot B = J + (partial E / partial t) / c (using modern notation) THESE equations are the birth of relativity (1861 NOT 1905!!!!!). THESE equations imply the Lorentz-transformations (1861 NOT 1905!!!!!). Einstein (1905) has just given another interpretation. Even if Einstein's interpretation is wrong, Maxwell remains correct - and so do the Lorentz-transformations, as both being confirmed by many experiments. If you disagree with Maxwell, then propose an alternative, being verified by experiment. Regards - J.






AAF: I thought, Anonym, you became an expert on knowing my 'indeady-geeky-crackpotty' INTEREST in discussing these issues long time ago!

Anyway, the 1865 PAPER is a better source (in my view) for Maxwell's theory because it's the revised and final version; and because the Philosophical Transactions is a more trusted publisher of it.

I respectfully, disagree with your statement that "THESE equations are the birth of relativity" & "THESE equations imply the Lorentz-transformations".

Maxwell's theory along with its equations is firmly based on the Luminiferous aether, which is by definition inherently non-relativistic and incompatible with any kind of relativity: Galileo's, Lorentz', Einstein's, . . . etc.. Notice that, historically, the failure of searching for the absolute space motion of the earth as predicted by this theory of Maxwell was the main motivation for inventing Lorentz' theory and Einstein's theory. And it took Lorentz and Einstein and others a lot of working and sifting and juggling and shaking all sort of things around to make Maxwell's Four Equations fit in a clearly strange and odd way inside the framework of their theories.

So, please, please, Anonym, give up this implied 'birth of relativity' IDEA; or find better reasons for it!

>>>THESE equations are the birth of relativity (1861 NOT 1905!!!!!).

Just weird interpretation based on a nonsensical point of view

AAF: I respectfully, disagree with your statement that "THESE equations are the birth of relativity" & "THESE equations imply the Lorentz-transformations".

No problem. But do you agree with the equations as given in the Maxwell theory?

"No problem. But do you agree with the equations as given in the Maxwell theory?"



It's hard to say, Anomym!

On the surface, Maxwell's Four Equations look OK.
Furthermore, electrical engineers all over the world spare 'no pain' to point out that they can't live without Maxwell's Four Equations.

Theoretically, however, those equations don't really make much sense without a universal medium for their electromagnetic waves to wave into.

And because, esthetically at least, the existence of such a universal medium in reality would be a huge waste on the part of nature and a big and ugly PIMPLE on its cheeks, there is really no other better alternative than to take it for granted that electromagnetic fields are ultimately corpuscular and made of particles that travel at a muzzle speed of [c] back and forth between charged and magnetized bodies at rest with respect to each other.

And of course, Maxwell's Four Equations would still work quite well within the framework of any particle model of the electromagnetic field, but only statistically, because, from statistical viewpoint, wave models and particle models are practically equivalent and most likely to generate and to spit out similar numerical outputs from similar data inputs most of the time.



PS:

[A] {To postulate the existence of a universal medium to transport electromagnetic waves is like to rent Luxury Ocean Liner, Queen Mary 2 to transport a mouse!}

[B] {I will be most likely quick to reconsider and think again about the universal medium, if Colleagues Anon & Jose show me, here & now, one or two of its beautiful aspects!}

By quantum mechanics we have wave-particle duality. Quantum mechanics also brings back idea of ether in many forms like talk of false vacuum, creation of virtual particles from Heisenberg uncertainty, Dirac sea etc.

So Einstein disposes of ether and quantum mechanics brings it back.

Every now and again an Einstein-zombie will tell us some nonsense of Einstein is a genius and he got rid of ether. They then start making false claims such as that special relativity comes from Maxwell's theory, which is contrary to the facts -- Maxwell's theory was an ether theory! They just talk nonsense for the purposes of retarding physics progress by their hero worshipping. They are a dangerous and fanatical religious cult, and have managed to fill physics textbooks with their nonsense.

That is true, Anon!



But it's, also, still obvious that to assume the existence of a universal medium
for transporting electromagnetic waves is almost at the same level of wizardry
as renting Queen Mary 2 to transport one single 'tiny' mouse across
the Atlantic Ocean OR across the Pacific Ring of Fire!

Walt Disney has billions, so could easily do it if wanted to

"Walt Disney has billions, so could easily do it if wanted to".

Surely, they can afford to do it, Anon!

But, I see now that their MOUSE is fake; and they would be giving away a handsome
some of their billions to the owners of Queen Mary 2 to transport
for them absolutely NOTHING.

AAF: It's hard to say, Anomym!

You may call me Johannes

AAF: On the surface, Maxwell's Four Equations look OK.
Furthermore, electrical engineers all over the world spare 'no pain' to point out that they can't live without Maxwell's Four Equations.

Johannes: Actually - I don't care what electrical engineers all over the world say or point out. I am more interested in your point of view. As so far what you wrote is interesting.

AAF: Theoretically, however, those equations don't really make much sense without a universal medium for their electromagnetic waves to wave into.

Johannes: THAT is the question...

Coulomb force: F = k Q1 Q2 / r2

Alternative: F = Q1 E

where E = k Q2 / r2

Does this field E requires a medium?

AAF: And because, esthetically at least, the existence of such a universal medium in reality would be a huge waste on the part of nature and a big and ugly PIMPLE on its cheeks, there is really no other better alternative than to take it for granted that electromagnetic fields are ultimately corpuscular and made of particles that travel at a muzzle speed of [c] back and forth between charged and magnetized bodies at rest with respect to each other.

Johannes: In my opinion you dig too deep. A field by definition is a concept. We cannot observe a field. We can only observe the behaviour of an object in a "field". And a "field" does not come alone - it requires (an) object(s) to generated it. So WHAT we observe is interaction between objects. Fields are (mathematical) concepts.

AAF: And of course, Maxwell's Four Equations would still work quite well within the framework of any particle model of the electromagnetic field, but only statistically, because, from statistical viewpoint, wave models and particle models are practically equivalent and most likely to generate and to spit out similar numerical outputs from similar data inputs most of the time.

Johannes: True, that is why Maxwell has microscopic (E,B) and macroscopic equations (D,H). However, the microscopic equations (E,B) have no statistical elements whatsoever.

I like the mouse in Queen Mary 2...

>>>So WHAT we observe is interaction between objects. Fields are (mathematical) concepts.


objects are mathematical, we assign numbers to them like mass, volume, density..

>>>>objects are mathematical, we assign numbers to them like mass, volume, density..

The numbers we assign are mathematical, the object itself not.

the only thing relevant are its mathematical properties

add on -- remove all its mathematical properties and it no longer exists

AAF: It's hard to say, Anomym!





Johannes: You may call me Johannes.





AAF: Done! On the surface, Maxwell's Four Equations look OK. Furthermore, electrical engineers all over the world spare 'no pain' to point out that they can't live without Maxwell's Four Equations.





Johannes: Actually - I don't care what electrical engineers all over the world say or point out. I am more interested in your point of view. As so far what you wrote is interesting.






AAF: I don't care about it either; but I suppose they're the ones who care too much and know practically everything about those 'damn' equations! Theoretically, however, those equations don't really make much sense without a universal medium for their electromagnetic waves to wave into.






Johannes: THAT is the question... Coulomb force: F = k Q1 Q2 / r2 Alternative: F = Q1 E where E = k Q2 / r2 Does this field E requires a medium?






AAF: Of course, electrical fields require a universal medium (e.g. aether) to work. Nevertheless, because, esthetically at least, the existence of such a universal medium in reality would be a huge waste on the part of nature and a big and ugly PIMPLE on its cheeks, there is really no other better alternative than to take it for granted that electromagnetic fields are ultimately corpuscular and made of particles that travel at a muzzle speed of [c] back and forth between charged and magnetized bodies at rest with respect to each other.






Johannes: In my opinion you dig too deep. A field by definition is a concept. We cannot observe a field. We can only observe the behaviour of an object in a "field". And a "field" does not come alone - it requires (an) object(s) to generated it. So WHAT we observe is interaction between objects. Fields are (mathematical) concepts.






AAF: Charged objects are supposed to generate electrical waves to interact with each other; but waves go nowhere without a medium to wave into. No medium; no waves; it's that simple. However, Maxwell's Four Equations would still work quite well within the framework of any particle model of the electromagnetic field, but only statistically, because, from statistical viewpoint, wave models and particle models are practically equivalent and most likely to generate and to spit out similar numerical outputs from similar data inputs most of the time.






Johannes: True, that is why Maxwell has microscopic (E,B) and macroscopic equations (D,H). However, the microscopic equations (E,B) have no statistical elements whatsoever. I like the mouse in Queen Mary 2...





AAF: True; unless, of course, you're the one who is required to dig deep into his packet to pay for the transcontinental TRIP of that pampered MOUSE; right? And yes; the equations have no statistical elements; but they require waves as a means of communication between charged bodies; and from statistical standpoint, clouds of particles can play the role of standard waves quite well; and physicists and electrical engineers won't be able to tell the difference between standard ethereal waves and clouds of fast moving particles.

I should point out that if light is made up
of Newtonian corpuscles, then energy of light
[E], due to the motion of the observer
or due to the motion of the light source, must
be directly proportional to the CUBE
of [c + v], i. e.

E = E₀ {1 + v/c}³,

where [E₀] is equal to [hf].

Why should energy of light, on the basis of Newtonian model, be directly proportional to the CUBE of (c + v)?


It's because, in order to account correctly for the wave characteristics of light,
light particles must form spatially ordered beams based on their frequencies.

And therefore, due to Doppler effect, the number of light particles per unit time, (e.g. per second), must increase by a factor of [1 + v/c], in all cases of Doppler blue shift.

And since, the kinetic energy, due to the relative velocity between light and approaching observer, increases by a factor of [1 + v/c]²,
the total energy of light must increase by a factor of [1 + v/c]³.

AAF: Theoretically, however, those equations don't really make much sense without a universal medium for their electromagnetic waves to wave into.

AAF: Of course, electrical fields require a universal medium (e.g. aether) to work.

AAF: Charged objects are supposed to generate electrical waves to interact with each other;

Johannes: What I wanted to point out with the statical example of two charges is that a statical electric field itself is no more that a theoretical concept. An eletric force between two charges can also be described as the one charge "generates" a field while the other charge would "interact" a force in a field. Fields are metaphysical. No experiment allows us to actually measure a field.

As for your remark "Charged objects are supposed to generate electrical waves to interact with each other" - are they? What we know is that charged objects interact with each other. Any experiment would require at least TWO charged objects. One that "generates" a field and the other that "interacts" with the field. However, we cannot exclude the posibility that there is NO field and that there is a direct interaction.

AAF: and from statistical standpoint, clouds of particles can play the role of standard waves quite well.

Johannes: I agree, however, we can then reduce the "problem" into the question - what is the interaction between the particles of the cloud and what does that interaction tells us for the macroscopic point of view. Eventually we end up with interaction between particles (being part of the cloud) without a field.

Regards - Johannes

AAF:

I should point out that if light is made up
of Newtonian corpuscles, then energy of light
[E], due to the motion of the observer
or due to the motion of the light source, must
be directly proportional to the CUBE
of [c + v], i. e.

Johannes: When we consider the idea that light is made of small classical particles, then the energy of one particle is given by

E = 1/2 m c^2 + 1/2 I omega^2

where we allow the particle also to rotate around it axis, "omega" is the angular rotation velocity. Visible light of different colours contains different amounts of energy, while the speed is the same. Most of the energy of light would therefore be due to the rotation of the particles. The question is how the "omega" is associated with properties of light.

Another issue about light as classical particles is refraction due to a medium. Interpretation of experiment would therefore imply that the speed of light represented by classical particles would increase in a medium, due to refraction. While experiment also shows that the speed of light would decrease in a medium. So basically, light represented by classical particles would yield a contradiction when we apply it to refraction.

AAF: I should point out that if light is made up of Newtonian corpuscles...

Johannes: Consider the law of refraction...

Light goes from vacuum to a particular medium. The relation between the angles is given by

sin(IN) / sin(OUT) = K

where IN is the inward angle, OUT is the outward angle and K is a property between the vacuum and the medium (say glass). This laws has been verified by experiment and forms a fundamental law of of optics. The constant K does not depend neither on IN nor on OUT.

Let us consider the idea that light is made up of Newtonian corpuscles. Let the speed of light in vacuum be c. Let there be a potential PHI be associated with the vacuum as well a potential PHI' with the medium. Conservation of energy gives

c^2 + PHI = (c')^2 + PHI'

Using the angles IN and OUT we have

sin(IN) = c_y / c

and

sin(OUT) = c'_y / c'

Due to the gradient of PHI, c_y = c'_y, therefore we obtain

K^2 = ( c^2 + PHI - PHI' ) / c^2

As K>1 we obtain that PHI - PHI' > 1. Consequently we obtain that

c' > c

In word - the speed of light would increase in a medium like glass with respect to the speed of light in vacuum. However, experiment has shown that the speed of light in a medium would decrease with respect to the speed of liight in vacuum. The idea that light is made up of Newtonian corpuscles contradicts simple optical experiments.

Regards

AAF: On the surface, Maxwell's Four Equations look OK. Furthermore, electrical engineers all over the world spare 'no pain' to point out that they can't live without Maxwell's Four Equations.





Johannes: Actually - I don't care what electrical engineers all over the world say or point out. I am more interested in your point of view. As so far what you wrote is interesting.





AAF: I don't care about it either; but I suppose they're the ones who care too much and know practically everything about those 'damn' equations! Theoretically, however, those equations don't really make much sense without a universal medium for their electromagnetic waves to wave into.





Johannes: THAT is the question... Coulomb force: F = k Q1 Q2 / r2 Alternative: F = Q1 E where E = k Q2 / r2 Does this field E requires a medium?





AAF: Of course, electrical fields require a universal medium (e.g. aether) to work. Nevertheless, because, esthetically at least, the existence of such a universal medium in reality would be a huge waste on the part of nature and a big and ugly PIMPLE on its cheeks, there is really no other better alternative than to take it for granted that electromagnetic fields are ultimately corpuscular and made of particles that travel at a muzzle speed of [c] back and forth between charged and magnetized bodies at rest with respect to each other.





Johannes: What I wanted to point out with the statical example of two charges is that a statical electric field itself is no more that a theoretical concept. An electric force between two charges can also be described as the one charge "generates" a field while the other charge would "interact" a force in a field. Fields are metaphysical. No experiment allows us to actually measure a field. As for your remark "Charged objects are supposed to generate electrical waves to interact with each other" - are they? What we know is that charged objects interact with each other. Any experiment would require at least TWO charged objects. One that "generates" a field and the other that "interacts" with the field. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that there is NO field and that there is a direct interaction.





AAF: We can assume that "the one charge "generates" a field while the other charge would "interact" a force in a field". However, such an assumption is immediately dismissed by the observational fact that like charges repel each other, which means each charge always generates its own electrical field regardless of the presence or the absence of other charges. Are electrical fields metaphysical? It depends on what you mean by 'metaphysical', Johannes? If you mean that we can't see 'em by the naked eye, then surely you're right on target! But if you mean that we cannot measure their strength, their spatial extensions, . . . etc., then electrical fields are not metaphysical at all; but truly physical in every sense of the term. And so, the current problem with electrical fields is reduced to this very basic question: Are electrical fields made of waves or particles?

That is enough for the time being . . .
the rest of the response next time . . .
and as Rebis would say, 'Blessings'!

AAF: And so, the current problem with electrical fields is reduced to this very basic question: Are electrical fields made of waves or particles?

Johannes: This is the interesting question, but I cannot give the answer, yet. But we may consider the idea that electrical fields are made of particles. We then need to check what properties the "cloud of particles" have and how those properties are related with what is called the electrical field. So let us focus on that!

AAF: Thanks, Johannes; but let me respond first to your second comment!




Johannes: True, that is why Maxwell has microscopic (E,B) and macroscopic equations (D,H). However, the microscopic equations (E,B) have no statistical elements whatsoever. I like the mouse in Queen Mary 2...




AAF: Yes; the equations have not statistical elements; but they require waves as means of communication between charged bodies; and from statistical standpoint, clouds of particles can play the role of standard waves quite well; and physicists and electrical engineers won't tell the difference.




Johannes: I agree, however, we can then reduce the "problem" into the question - what is the interaction between the particles of the cloud and what does that interaction tells us for the macroscopic point of view. Eventually we end up with interaction between particles (being part of the cloud) without a field. Regards - Johannes




AAF: Originally, the term 'field' is lent metaphorically to physics by agriculture. And hence, it's perfectly permissible to fill it with anything even with grass and trees! I should point out, however, that if electromagnetic fields are filled with light, and if light is made of Newtonian corpuscles, then energy of light [E], due to the motion of the observer or due to the motion of the light source, must be directly proportional to the CUBE of [c + v].




Johannes: When we consider the idea that light is made of small classical particles, then the energy of one particle is given by E = 1/2 m c^2 + 1/2 I omega^2 where we allow the particle also to rotate around it axis, "omega" is the angular rotation velocity. Visible light of different colours contains different amounts of energy, while the speed is the same. Most of the energy of light would therefore be due to the rotation of the particles. The question is how the "omega" is associated with properties of light. Another issue about light as classical particles is refraction due to a medium. Interpretation of experiment would therefore imply that the speed of light represented by classical particles would increase in a medium, due to refraction. While experiment also shows that the speed of light would decrease in a medium. So basically, light represented by classical particles would yield a contradiction when we apply it to refraction.





AAF: I don't think it's possible to account correctly for the observed wave characteristics of light using only the physical properties of one single particle. Surely, it can be used, and it has been used this way as a 'straw-man' argument to knock out Newton's theory of light; but that is it! In short, to take seriously the particle model as a viable physical model of light, you have to think of it in terms of aggregates, groups, clouds, and spatially and temporally ordered beams of particles on the basis of speeds, frequencies, wavelengths, . . .etc..

AAF: Originally, the term 'field' is lent metaphorically to physics by agriculture. And hence, it's perfectly permissible to fill it with anything even with grass and trees! I should point out, however, that if electromagnetic fields are filled with light, and if light is made of Newtonian corpuscles, then energy of light [E], due to the motion of the observer or due to the motion of the light source, must be directly proportional to the CUBE of [c + v].

Johannes: When we compare the energy of two 'frames' a proportional constant should be dimensionless, so I guess that you should have written:

the CUBE of [1 + v/c] - can you be more specific on this statement and how you came to the CUBE?


AAF: I don't think it's possible to account correctly for the observed wave characteristics of light using only the physical properties of one single particle. Surely, it can be used, and it has been used this way as a 'straw-man' argument to knock out Newton's theory of light; but that is it! In short, to take seriously the particle model as a viable physical model of light, you have to think of it in terms of aggregates, groups, clouds, and spatially and temporally ordered beams of particles on the basis of speeds, frequencies, wavelengths, . . .etc..

Johannes: I understand your argument, nevertheless, we can consider the idea of a single particle as being 'light' - what does such a theory predict for refraction of light? It actually does not matter as we consider a single particle or a 'cloud' of particles, but the idea that light are 'Newton particles' should eventually describe a simple phenomena as refraction. Any ideas or references about this?

AAF: Originally, the term 'field' is lent metaphorically to physics by agriculture. And hence, it's perfectly permissible to fill it with anything even with grass and trees! I should point out, however, that if electromagnetic fields are filled with light, and if light is made up of Newtonian corpuscles, then energy of light [E], due to the motion of the observer or due to the motion of the light source, must be directly proportional to the CUBE of [c + v]. I don't think it's possible to account correctly for the observed wave characteristics of light using only the physical properties of one single particle. Surely, it can be used, and it has been used this way as a 'straw-man' argument to knock out Newton's theory of light; but that is it! In short, to take seriously the particle model as a viable physical model of light, you have to think of it in terms of aggregates, groups, clouds, and spatially and temporally ordered beams of particles on the based of speeds, frequencies, wavelengths, . . .etc..




Johannes: When we compare the energy of two 'frames' a proportional constant should be dimensionless, so I guess that you should have written: the CUBE of [1 + v/c] - can you be more specific on this statement and how you came to the CUBE? I understand your argument, nevertheless, we can consider the idea of a single particle as being 'light' - what does such a theory predict for refraction of light? It actually does not matter as we consider a single particle or a 'cloud' of particles, but the idea that light are 'Newton particles' should eventually describe a simple phenomena as refraction. Any ideas or references about this?




AAF: It's doable and valid both ways, Johannes! Why should energy of light, on the basis of Newtonian model, be directly proportional to the CUBE of (c + v)? It's because, in order to account correctly for the wave characteristics of light, light particles must form ordered beams based on their frequencies. And therefore, due to Doppler effect, the number of light particles per unit time, (e.g. per second), must increase by a factor of [1 + v/c], in all cases of Doppler blue shift. And since, the kinetic energy, due to the relative velocity between light and approaching observer, increases by a factor of [1 + v/c]², the total energy of light must increase by a factor of [1 + v/c]³.




Johannes: Consider the law of refraction... Light goes from vacuum to a particular medium. The relation between the angles is given by sin(IN) / sin(OUT) = K where IN is the inward angle, OUT is the outward angle and K is a property between the vacuum and the medium (say glass). This laws has been verified by experiment and forms a fundamental law of of optics. The constant K does not depend neither on IN nor on OUT. Let us consider the idea that light is made up of Newtonian corpuscles. Let the speed of light in vacuum be c. Let there be a potential PHI be associated with the vacuum as well a potential PHI' with the medium. Conservation of energy gives c^2 + PHI = (c')^2 + PHI' Using the angles IN and OUT we have sin(IN) = c_y / c and sin(OUT) = c'_y / c' Due to the gradient of PHI, c_y = c'_y, therefore we obtain K^2 = ( c^2 + PHI - PHI' ) / c^2 As K>1 we obtain that PHI - PHI' > 1. Consequently we obtain that c' > c In word - the speed of light would increase in a medium like glass with respect to the speed of light in vacuum. However, experiment has shown that the speed of light in a medium would decrease with respect to the speed of liight in vacuum. The idea that light is made up of Newtonian corpuscles contradicts simple optical experiments. Regards




AAF: Actually, Johannes; if light is made of waves analogous to that of sound, then it should speed up whenever it goes from less denser media to more denser media; and vice versa. Just click and take a quick look at THE SPEED OF SOUND IN OTHER MATERIALS. Speed of sound in rubber is, obviously, the exception to the general rule! Anyway, the idea that Newtonian corpuscles of light must speed up, instead of slowing down, upon entering a more denser medium from a less denser medium, is an old misconception that must have been caused by casual and careless reading of what Newton wrote in his book: A TREATISE OF THE Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours OF LIGHT. Newton, here, seems to suggest that light corpuscles travel through a refractive medium in the same way test particles fall freely in a gravitational field; i.e. they speed up. But he, also, points out that light corpuscles, in this case, suffers stops and fits on a regular basis. And this hypothesis of fits and stops is remarkably close to the current view of refractions as frequent absorptions and re-emissions of light by atoms of the medium. According to this modern theory of refractions, light, whether it's made of particles or waves, must slow down, upon entering a denser medium, because the process of absorption and re-emission takes a certain amount of time depending on the physical nature of the refractive medium, in question. It follows, therefore, that the old 'speeding-up' objection to the particle model of light is really an outdated, old-hat, and 'straw-man" argument that no longer works or makes any sense at all.

AAF: if light is made of waves analogous to that of sound, then it should speed up whenever it goes from less denser media to more denser media; and vice versa. Just click and take a quick look at THE SPEED OF SOUND IN OTHER MATERIALS.

Johannes: First of all, I am just critical.

As for your reply about waves... I disagree. Light and sound waves behave completely different. While light waves are refracted TOWARDS the normal axis, sound waves are refracted AWAY from the normal axis, when going to a 'denser' material. You can see that also on the site that you posted a link http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/refraction.htm

The point is that a wave is bend TOWARDS the normal axis when the WAVE speed would decrease. While a wave is bend AWAY from the normal when the WAVE speed would increase.

When light as a wave goes from vacuum/air to glass it is bended TOWARDS the normal axis.

When we represent light as a particle beam, the same behaviours must occur.

As for the speed, we must distinghish the speed of WAVES and the speed of PARTICLES.

When light as a wave is refracted TOWARDS the normal axis, the speed of the WAVE must decrease.

When light as a particle is refracted TOWARDS the normal axis, the speed of the PARTICLE must increase - assuming the "fall freely" what you wrote.

Such a "fall freely" would add a constant k to the normal speed.

The laws of optics tell that sin(theta)/c = sin(theta')/c'.

This can be written as sin(theta)/sin(theta') = c/c'.

The c/c' is a constant for a medium.

When we consider particles, considering the 'stops and fits' - this only affect the final velocity.

Without those 'stops and fits' we obtain that

c/c' = c / sqrt [ c² + 2kc sin(phi) + k² ]

this is not constant, but depends on the angle phi - so violation of the laws of optics.

This can be 'compensated' by the 'stops and fits' - however the factor for the 'stops and fits' would depend on the incoming angle. While the 'stops and fits' should be angle independant...

Sorry for being critical, but here again light as particles does not seem to work...

Any suggestion?

AAF: If light is made of waves analogous to that of sound, then it should speed up whenever it goes from less denser media to more denser media; and vice versa. Just click and take a quick look at THE SPEED OF SOUND IN OTHER MATERIALS. Speed of sound in rubber is, obviously, the exception to the general rule! Anyway, the idea that Newtonian corpuscles of light must speed up, instead of slowing down, upon entering a more denser medium from a less denser medium, is an old misconception that must have been caused by casual and careless reading of what Newton wrote in his book: A TREATISE OF THE Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours OF LIGHT. Newton, here, seems to suggest that light corpuscles travel through a refractive medium in the same way test particles fall freely in a gravitational field; i.e. they speed up. But he, also, points out that light corpuscles, in this case, suffers stops and fits on a regular basis. And this hypothesis of fits and stops is remarkably close to the current view of refractions as frequent absorptions and re-emissions of light by atoms of the medium. According to this modern theory of refractions, light, whether it's made of particles or waves, must slow down, upon entering a denser medium, because the process of absorption and re-emission takes a certain amount of time depending on the physical nature of the refractive medium, in question. It follows, therefore, that the old 'speeding-up' objection to the particle model of light is really an outdated, old-hat, and 'straw-man" argument that no longer works or makes any sense at all.







Johannes: First of all, I am just critical. As for your reply about waves... I disagree. Light and sound waves behave completely different. While light waves are refracted TOWARDS the normal axis, sound waves are refracted AWAY from the normal axis, when going to a 'denser' material. You can see that also on the site that you posted a linkhttp://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/refraction.htm The point is that a wave is bend TOWARDS the normal axis when the WAVE speed would decrease. While a wave is bend AWAY from the normal when the WAVE speed would increase. When light as a wave goes from vacuum/air to glass it is bended TOWARDS the normal axis. When we represent light as a particle beam, the same behaviours must occur. As for the speed, we must distinguish the speed of WAVES and the speed of PARTICLES. When light as a wave is refracted TOWARDS the normal axis, the speed of the WAVE must decrease. When light as a particle is refracted TOWARDS the normal axis, the speed of the PARTICLE must increase - assuming the "fall freely" what you wrote. Such a "fall freely" would add a constant k to the normal speed. The laws of optics tell that sin(theta)/c = sin(theta')/c'. This can be written as sin(theta)/sin(theta') = c/c'. The c/c' is a constant for a medium. When we consider particles, considering the 'stops and fits' - this only affect the final velocity. Without those 'stops and fits' we obtain that c/c' = c / sqrt [ c² + 2kc sin(phi) + k² ] this is not constant, but depends on the angle phi - so violation of the laws of optics. This can be 'compensated' by the 'stops and fits' - however the factor for the 'stops and fits' would depend on the incoming angle. While the 'stops and fits' should be angle independent... Sorry for being critical, but here again light as particles does not seem to work... Any suggestion?







AAF: I know you're just critical, Johannes; and I'm just trying to respond correctly to these criticisms! Refraction of light 'TOWARDS the normal axis' was known to Newton and explained by him on the basis of his particle theory of light in the TREATISE above. But even if it implies slower speeds, Neither the slow speeds of light nor the angles of refraction will make much sense in any wave model of light without assuming first the existence of the Aether. And that is because, by definition, the density of the Aether is at its maximum in vacuum, and decreases proportionally with the densities of refractive media; i.e. the greater the density of the refractive medium; the less the density of the Aether inside that medium; and vice versa. And that is in perfect agreement with the above ANALOGY between light waves and sound waves. Because it means light waves go slower in a denser medium, not because the medium is denser, but because the density of the Aether inside that medium becomes less. And so, either we assume explicitly or implicitly the existence of the Aether; OR we give up the wave model of light along with this OLD argument about the slowing down of light speed in denser media. It's that simple, Johannes!