🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 19, 12:09 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Com...
> The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
> Radiation by Albert Einstein
> Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
> light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
> Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
> this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
> theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
> considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
> purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
> that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
> light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
> light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
> as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
> Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
> our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
> state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
> like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
> of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
> the emitting to the absorbing object."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
> suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
> the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
> 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
> aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
> les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
> exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
> un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
> vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
> lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
> se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
> l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
> d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
> rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
> certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
> sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
> LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
> AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
> LOGIQUE."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it
> John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
> relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
> transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
> Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
> emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
> There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
> classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
> light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
> past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
> and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
> characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
> emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
> emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
> be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
> in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
> ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
> objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS
> CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, THAT IS ON CONTINUOUS
> STRUCTURES. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

What size is the light wave at emmision? If it is a radio wave does it
form all at once? And for a very very big wave how does it form if
everything is local as Einstein believed?

I say it starts infinitely small and grows to its wavelength.
Otherwise light would itself have to be nonlocal and form faster than
light.

Mitch Raemsch