|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:11:11 -0700 (PDT), Talebun <pmparker6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On 24 Jul, 00:21, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Propose an alternative theory. It has to be one though that fits the
>> >facts.
>>
>> All the facts clearly point to light being ballistic in pure vacuum...
>> All arguments against the Ballistic nature of light have been shown to be
>> flawed.
>>
>> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at v wrt the
>> source.
>>
>I do which you learn a little Astronomy. I am in fact a student of the
>subject. How can you ever see double stars? If light was ballistic
>light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
>the other.
I do wish you'd learn a little English.
Light from orbiting stars initially leaves the source at c+vsint/T wrt Earth.
However the conditions for multiple images are never reached because all light
traveling in a particular direction tends towards the same speed, according to
BaTh. Also, there is a hight degree of extinction in the near vicinity of a
binary pair, the amount increasing with decreasing period (proximity).
Just about all variable star curves can be produced using the c+v principle
alone. For instance see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Many binaries appear to involve a just star and a large planet or other cool
object that reflects the star's light 180 out of phase, giving the appearance
of two stars.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein
cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
|
|