On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:32:25 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:


By the way, 'extinction' requires that that happen. It just requires
that the later photons travel for some distance before they become
'stationary' wrt earlier emitted light pulses. Right?

Yes, that is correct....and it follows that the shorter the period, the
more likely the two pulses travel through similar material in space.
...which is good for my theory.

But, BOTH theories require 'a pulse of light emitted six months after
another from an accelerating source' to be at rest wrt the former.

Well, the BaTh doesn't require 100% extinction. ..that's why I call it 'speed
unification'.

In essence, the two theories are identical except that SR requires that the
'extinction' distance be zero, or close to it.

Why should the extinction distance be anything other than zero?

Extinction wrt what? The source is the only reference.

I have already suggested that there are two distinctly different types of
extinction. One is local to the source and is responsible for unifying
molecular source velocities as well as light from short period binaries and
pulsars. This tends to unify all light to c wrt the barycentre of the binary
pair. ...but since that is usually moving rapidly - and accelerating - no such
unification is likely to be anything like 100%.
The more general unification takes place slowly over long distances...probably
due to electron density in space.
You already know my H-aether theory....in which space is likened to a massive,
very low density turbulent gas. Each swirl acts like a separate but weak EM
reference frame with it own natural light speed, based on a kind of weakened
form of Maxwell.. Light entering such a swirl adjusts speed up or down
accordingly..but never completely.

A light pulse emitted from an accelerating star six months after previous
pulse, can hardly experience 'local unification' with that pulse for the simple
reason that the previous one is no longer 'local' when the second one is
emitted.

As far as under SR, no inertial FoR is allowed to move at c. Composition
of c with any other velocity gives c. From the photon's viewpoint, birth
and death are simultanious. Photons are not allowed to carry clocks, or
the clocks do not tick when photons carry them.

Yes, that's why I ignore Einstein's stupid theory altogether.

What happens to a fighter that gets into the ring without knowing anything
about his opponent's style? He gets knocked out.

You need to know SR BETTER than someone who has been studying it and
working in the field.

No I'll just ignore it. It is no different from LET and that's quite
straightforward.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

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