Spin off from is light sticky -

[studiot]

As required by the Modulator I have started a new thread for you in Speculations.

Quote

Corpuscles from

Until re-propulsion details are explain, objections are premature. No one has requested for it to be explained.

 

This is blatantly untrue as I specifically requested this one hour previously.

 

Quote

Studiot

•  

• Report post
•  

Posted 2 hours ago

3 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

Last I knew, mathematical means attempt to describe events, and depend upon the event being observed correctly.  Particle re-propulsion concept would nullify thinking based upon source emitter proposition.  My "proposal" (aka hypothesis) has not been delineated; its underpinnings have not been explained.

FWIW: Wiki - " The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant..."  Hence... the perceived perception of light's constant speed.

Which is why I am asking you to explain and define the three terms, I have underlined below,  you have introduced that I (and probably many others here) are not familiar with.

In particular the re-propulsion idea.

13 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

photo-atomic and photo-electron events are re-propelling photons along this path

Are you, for instance,  proposing that the same photon is emitted or what after a photo-atomic and photo-electron event ?

 

I think Marcus is referring to change of propagation conditions and Wiki is referring to constant or unchanging propagating conditions, in respect of the constancy of the speed of light.

 

So here is your opportunity to set the record straight.

[Corpuscles]

On 7/25/2018 at 10:52 AM, studiot said:

So here is your opportunity to set the record straight.

Last Comments -

Particle re-propulsion concept nullifies theoretical underpinnings based upon source emitter concept.

Inverse Compton Effect demonstrates photons being re-propelled via electrons....refraction exhibits photons being re-propelled...chemistry's emission concept indicates photons are being re-propelled...photons slowing down in a medium, and then speeding back up to c in vacuum shows photons being re-propelled.

Wave/QED is based upon source emitter concept, not multiple atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions) re-propelling photons in a pathway.  A gun analogy represents the source emitter concept, but photons are being re-propelled along its traveling path in a medium.

Inverse Compton Effect validates re-propulsion concept, and my equation, f (x) = c , explains why light can slow down in a medium, and speed back up to c in vacuum; when my model is explained.

So, either photons are propelled via single source (source emitter), or they are re-propelled along their pathway via atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions).  Current thinking does not address multiple sources of photon re-propulsion.  Hence, current thinking is baseless when re-propulsion concept is accepted.

ORCID identifier is 0000-0003-4536-0088

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

Particle re-propulsion concept nullifies theoretical underpinnings based upon source emitter concept.

And what evidence is there that confirms your idea and falsifies previous theories?

4 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

Wave/QED is based upon source emitter concept, not multiple atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions) re-propelling photons in a pathway. 

What does your model say about light propagating in a vacuum?

4 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

Current thinking does not address multiple sources of photon re-propulsion.  Hence, current thinking is baseless when re-propulsion concept is accepted.

What evidence is there that should make us accept this concept?

4 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

ORCID identifier is 0000-0003-4536-0088

What are we supposed to do with that information?

Can you provide a link to where your idea is published?

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

Last Comments -

Particle re-propulsion concept nullifies theoretical underpinnings based upon source emitter concept.

Inverse Compton Effect demonstrates photons being re-propelled via electrons....refraction exhibits photons being re-propelled...chemistry's emission concept indicates photons are being re-propelled...photons slowing down in a medium, and then speeding back up to c in vacuum shows photons being re-propelled.

Wave/QED is based upon source emitter concept, not multiple atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions) re-propelling photons in a pathway.  A gun analogy represents the source emitter concept, but photons are being re-propelled along its traveling path in a medium.

Inverse Compton Effect validates re-propulsion concept, and my equation, f (x) = c , explains why light can slow down in a medium, and speed back up to c in vacuum; when my model is explained.

So, either photons are propelled via single source (source emitter), or they are re-propelled along their pathway via atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions).  Current thinking does not address multiple sources of photon re-propulsion.  Hence, current thinking is baseless when re-propulsion concept is accepted.

ORCID identifier is 0000-0003-4536-0088

 

 

Thank you for your reply, it just leaves me more mystified than before.

 

re-propelled implies that soemthing 'propelled' the photon in the first place.

What exactly do you mean by propelled?

What exact agent or agents 'propel' a photon?

 

I am not saying they don't or that photons, considered as particles, are not deflected.

 

But they are never accelerated or decelerated.

 

So if this is a genuine theory of photon dynamics it needs starting at the beginning with such observed facts as I just stated and expanding.

 

Finally please confirm that by re-propel it imples that the photon is not extinguished and subsequently regenerated.

 

Further you seem to be proposing that this second mechanism is never witnessed.

[swansont]

20 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

So, either photons are propelled via single source (source emitter), or they are re-propelled along their pathway via atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions).  Current thinking does not address multiple sources of photon re-propulsion.  Hence, current thinking is baseless when re-propulsion concept is accepted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "re-propulsion" but if this means absorption and re-radiation, then this is precisely what mainstream physics theory incorporates.

 

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_31.html

 

Quote

When the electric field of the source acts on these atoms it drives the electrons up and down, because it exerts a force on the electrons. And moving electrons generate a field—they constitute new radiators. These new radiators are related to the source S, because they are driven by the field of the source. The total field is not just the field of the source S, but it is modified by the additional contribution from the other moving charges.

 

[Corpuscles]

On 7/25/2018 at 10:52 AM, studiot said:

So here is your opportunity to set the record straight.

Footnotes - Since today's physicists generally are clueless about Isaac Newton's corpuscular theory, here is a Wiki snip:

" The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. 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). "

Isaac's assumption was not based upon photons being re-propelled after leaving the "emitting object" (source). Newton's "hot bodies" concept was logical, in that time, but when photons are being re-propelled within a medium, "hot bodies" represent the source emitter, but all atomic units (atoms, molecules, ions) that are re-propelling photons along a pathway must also be considered.

Consequently, when Netwon's model is revisited, in terms of f (x) = c equation at each photon-atomic unit collision, his model accounts for expected experimental results of light traveling a pinch less than c in say Earth's atmosphere.  The pinch less time is due to photon-electron events at each molecule a traveling photon hits.

Inverse Compton Effect demonstrates photons being re-propelled via electrons...this also happens in atomic units....end of discussion.

 

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Corpuscles said:

end of discussion.

Does that mean you are not going to provide any evidence for your "theory"?

So should we ask for the thread to be closed, then?

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Does that mean you are not going to provide any evidence for your "theory"?

So should we ask for the thread to be closed, then?

Yes please,

 

I have definitely been wasting my time with this poster who refuses to respond properly.

I asked three specific questions several times about non standard terminology introduced but not defined and have only had an evasive response to one of them.

 

Reported

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

....end of discussion.

!

Moderator Note

Absolutely not. You need to address the questions asked by others in the discussion. Otherwise, it's not a discussion at all.

You have not defended your assertions, nor have you bothered to define the terms you're using, which is rather ironic considering you've called physicists "clueless". How about giving us folks a clue?

 

[Corpuscles]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Absolutely not. You need to address the questions

 

Topic is about describing photon motion...there are off-topic questions. One respondent attempts to use current accepted concepts, which are not relevant in this topic.  Further, since manuscript has not been published, its whole content should not be exposed. 

Bonus - Photon-Wave duality is a misnomer when the concept of photon-electron interactions are perceived as re-propelling photons.  As mentioned in previous topic(1), "Feynman partially explains that a photon will follow a predetermined path which is a choice of one of many possible paths."  It is these atomic units, not the photon, that is determining these photons trajectories. Wiki author further states, "These chosen paths form the pattern; in dark areas, no photons are landing, and in bright areas, many photons are landing."  Consequently, these photons are involved in creating these bright/dark areas, but these bright/dark areas are due to atomic units redirecting photons trajectories.  Just like in refraction, these atomic units are redirecting photons trajectories....so it is with wave displays...atomic units are responsible, not the photons.

Thus, until physicists come to terms with atomic units "rebroadcasting, re-transmitting, or re-propelling" photons, their thinking is based in 19th century empiricism, while the mathematicians found solutions, not based upon atomic units acting as photon repeaters.

Photon Repeater - A photon repeater is an atomic unit (atom, molecule, ion, electron, etc)  that receives a photon and retransmits it in some direction.

In closing, since Nadezda Panarina (andp.201800241) has rejected my manuscript, I guess there will be no enlightenment, and physics will be stuck in 19th century empiricism.

 

1.

 

[MigL]

Whoah, I didn't see that coming from a mile away.
They actually rejected your manuscript ?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Corpuscles said:

Topic is about describing photon motion...there are off-topic questions. One respondent attempts to use current accepted concepts, which are not relevant in this topic. 

Excuse me?? Current accepted mainstream concepts are what primarily science forums worth their salt, are all about. Ever heard of the scientific method? 

 

Quote

Bonus - Photon-Wave duality is a misnomer

Yes, photon wave/particle duality is the proper verified and observed concept.

Quote

In closing, since Nadezda Panarina (andp.201800241) has rejected my manuscript, I guess there will be no enlightenment, and physics will be stuck in 19th century empiricism.

The only enlightenment that needs to be created, is that enlightenment that can make you aware of the error of your unsupported claims.

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Corpuscles said:

Topic is about describing photon motion...there are off-topic questions. One respondent attempts to use current accepted concepts, which are not relevant in this topic.  Further, since manuscript has not been published, its whole content should not be exposed. 

!

Moderator Note

You have successfully argued that there is no point in continuing the discussion. You won't talk about mainstream physics, and you won't present your own model. Both are requirements for discussion in Speculations.

Do not bring your pet theory up again until you are willing to comply with the rules.

 

Quote

Thus, until physicists come to terms with atomic units "rebroadcasting, re-transmitting, or re-propelling" photons, their thinking is based in 19th century empiricism, while the mathematicians found solutions, not based upon atomic units acting as photon repeaters.

!

Moderator Note

Which, as I have pointed out, is part of mainstream physics. Physicists have already come to terms with this.