"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:29:54 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


Poor boy! You're not related to eric geese by any change, are you?

So what's your explanation then?

Explanation of WHAT? You haven't even described a problem yet.

You need it spelling out?

1 You seem to argue that the light we see from gas that is moving away
from
us is coming towards us slower than light from gas that is coming towards
us.

That's correct. Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt us.

2 You also seem to be saying that Cepheid variability is due to 'faster'
light catching up with (and adding to the brightness of) slower light as
stars move in binary orbits or expand/contract as Cepheids do.

Well the light curves match perfectly...that's alI can produce as
evidence..

3 Doppler shift - speed of emitting gas towards us or away from us changes
the wavelength of the light as we receive it. We can measure the motion of
the gas because spectral lines are narrow and the wavelength can be
measured
precisely.

According to BaTh, the frequency of arrival of 'wavecrests' varies with
incoming light speed. The BaTh doppler equation is virtually the same as
those
of SR and LET for vc.

If 2 and 3 are true, then the spectral lines from cepheids _should_ show a
range of wavelengths representing the whole spread of speeds from the
fastest to the slowest at any one time. This range of speeds would be
greatest when the fastest was catching up the slowest (at maximum
brightness
I assume)

This is not true. It is apparent that no 'fast light' ever catches the
slower
light because of extinction.
For cepheids, a range should be observed because the spherical surface
will be
expanding at different rates accros the disk.

4 However, we do not see broad spectral lines from cepheid variables -
hence
at any one time the light that we are receiving was all emitted at the
same
speed relative to us.

You WOULD EXPECT to see broadened lines from huff-puff cepheids for the
above
reason.
If they are narrow, then it backs up the BaTh and the theory that they are
really just ordinary stars in orbit..

If you accept 3 and propose 1 to be true, and imply that 2 is a
consequence
of 1, then observation 4 is a problem for you.

Thankyou Og for backing up the BaTh and shooting yourself in the foot.


Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.