How can the Aumic Theory potentially challenge existing understandings of light?

[PRodQuanta]

I know this could probably go under the homework help zone, but it isn't homework, I'm just curios. I'm doing some research (Science fair project to be exact) on a new theory of light called the Aumic Theory. If you are interested in new theories that defy old theories (looking for a good read) here is the site for the new aumic theory: http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/

I was wondering if there is a way to detect and measure how fast an EM field around a conductor repulses after the current's polarity has been reversed in the conductor?

If you are up for a challenge, here is another question for you:

What experiment would you do to prove this theory?

Paden Roder

 

[chroot]

Here's my friendly recommendation: do not do a science fair project on this steaming pile of bear ****. I read the first third of the page. I got to the point where the author describes his view that the reason a light bulb glows is because photons are carrying electricity through its filament, **** myself laughing, and closed the window. You should do the same, and try to do a project on something with SOME scientific merit.

- Warren

 

[HallsofIvy]

Normally, I would do ANYTHING to avoid agreeing with chroot, but in this case... Well, I didn't actually **** myself reading the website (I have better control than that) but surely one of the things the judges of the science fare will grading on is the ability to distinguish SCIENCE from non-sense.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Normally, I would do ANYTHING to avoid agreeing with chroot

Aww c'mon, I'm a fungi.

- Warren

 

[PRodQuanta]

Go back to the chemistry forums. Yeah, and all of our elementary particles are made up of 1-d strings. Yeah, that would be the day...

That's why they call it a theory.


= sarcasm

 

[chroot]

Do you really want me to list all of the things this person says that are in direct conflict with experimental evidence?

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Is that why my TV doesn't work? The electron gun is... oh wait, its just switched off at the power strip. N/m.

 

[FZ+]

Yeah, and all of our elementary particles are made up of 1-d strings.

Do you want to say why you disagree with string theory? (And even then, there is always the alternative of LQG.)

 

[PRodQuanta]

No, I agree totally with superstring theory. It was a sarcastic remark. Another is: We landed on the moon.
Paden Roder

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by PRodQuanta
I was wondering if there is a way to detect and measure how fast an EM field around a conductor repulses after the current's polarity has been reversed in the conductor?

Someone, I think it was Maxwell,
already figured this out. Electro-
magnetic fields propagate at the
speed of light. Whereever there is
current flowing, an EM field is
being propagated from it at C.

Current travels a lot slower, though. The delay you might measure between switching polari-
ties and seeing a change in the
polarity of the magnetic field
would be much more the result
of the speed of the electric
impulse through the conductor, than the speed of propagation of
the magnetic field.

Now, you mention a science fair,
and you mention repulsion, which
gives me the idea you are thinking
of some sort of demonstration of
the delay between the flick of a
switch and two electromagnets
repelling each other, or one
electromagnet repelling a perman-
ent magnet.

If that is the case the question
is much bigger than the time it
takes for the current to get
through the circuit. There would
be all kinds of other consider-
ations to bring into the account:
friction, inertia, the strength
of the fields, the elastic proper-
ties of the fields, the distance
you want the repulsion to move
something, etc. It's a real
engineering problem.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by PRodQuanta
No, I agree totally with superstring theory. It was a sarcastic remark. Another is: We landed on the moon.
Paden Roder

But there is a difference here, as superstrings if derived from what we observe, and makes testable predictions. The linked theory hwoever begins from incorrect assumptions. (for a start, it says the EPR paradox requires superluminal transmission of information, which is untrue.)

 

[PRodQuanta]

Good point. I never caught that remark. Like in the Einstein discussion, he changed the facts to fit the theory. I'll ask him what he thinks about this.
Paden Roder

 

[McQueen]

"Aumic" Theory

My advice is try the link again http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/natureoflight physics is a science its not a religion , everything is subject to change if proved wrong.