Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2006 16:41:49 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Is that why the HST didn't work till they software corrected for c+v?
> >> PS: You wont read about it anywhere so don't bother to look...
> >Henri, in YOUR version of emission theory, reflected light bounces
> >off mirrors at the same velocity that it arrived, so your remark is
> >totally fanciful and reveals a dismal ignorance of the consequences
> >of your own theory.
> I have an open mind about that. I am prepared to consider either possibility.
Your analysis of Sagnac assumes that c+/-v light bounces off
mirrors at c+/-v.
Given that you postulate that light from distant stars travels
at a "unified" velocity c, you are not trapped like poor
Androcles, who needs to deny what he USED to know
about reflection. Not that that gets either of you anywhere...
> I don't realy think anyone knows what goes on in specular reflection even
> though classical wave theory appears to account for it.
What alternative do you have? How do YOU account for
reflection? Classical wave theory predicts that light reflected
from mirrors is emitted with velocity c. Do you mean to throw
out everything we know about light, starting with Maxwell's
> >I have stated before, and will state again:
> >George and Paul have a far greater understanding of ballistic
> >theory than YOU do.
> You obviously haven't been reading what they have been posting then.
I don't think John or Ringo have posted anything lately.
> >I daresay even Ringo and John would have a better understanding...
> I think I know more about it than anyone.
You know more about what is going on inside your own head
than anyone, but that doesn't mean you truly understand