SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post

**Henri Wilson** · April 6th 07, 08:44 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:11:58 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,
George Dishman wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
..
Ballistic theory of light.

Light moves at c wrt its source and at c+v wrt an observer moving towards
the
source at v. Photons are lioght bullets fired from a gun.

Extinction is the term used to describe changes in light speed as it
enters a
medium such as a gas. Somebody here reckoned the extinction distance in
air is
about 3 cms. If it is exponential, that would be a kind of 'half
distance', I
suppose.
I extended the scope of extinction to imply 'light speed unification'. I
argue
that all photons moving through space in a particular direction tend
towards a
common speed..but only very slowly. There is good reason to believe that
extinction rates are high in the vicinity of large masses and much lower
in
remote space.
I also believe that extinction is not caused solely by the presence of
matter
but also by other factors such as the presence of fields or by the
interaction
between photons.
It's all a bit speculative although the principle of extinction is
generally
accepted.

"Extinction" as it is generally accepted in astronomy has an
entirely different meaning.

OK , a totally crank theory then with no merit.

The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.

Sagnac performed his experiment which disproved Ritz's idea
in 1913 though I'm not sure whether his motivation was testing
that or Einstein's postulate.

Not worth talking about any further.

The speed equalistion that Henry calls extinction was proposed
some decades back I believe to get round the multiple image
problem and is verging on crank because c-v photons get speeded
up, the rest is complete nonsense of course but as Henry says
even he concedes it is speculative. Being merely an attempt at
an explanation for the phenomenon, it is irrelevant.

George

Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

Why? Because a master crank emered and fooled the scientific world for 100
years...

A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

SR is just a piece of maths. If it is translated into physical reality it
becomes plain old LET.

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