On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:25:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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


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'.

But Both theories....

SR doesn't require anything except a bunch of fairies.

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.

You said 'stationary wrt earlier emitted light pulses'. BaT+extinction
requires that.

This is what seems to happen...but I could be wrong....

Light leaving an orbiting star at any particular orbit phase must move at c wrt
the star. It has no other reference. However, all the light emitted in a
particular direction will tend toward a common speed. The rate of this
unification appears to vary inversely with the orbit period..or maybe more to
the point, with orbit speed.

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%.

Especially since the barycentre moves after the photons are emitted.

As it usually does, particulalry in the case of pulsars.

The more general unification takes place slowly over
long distances...probably due to electron density in space.

Seems like the figures you and George were developing were rather
'shorter' than previously expected.

George would like that to be true...but it only appears to be true for very
short period binaries.

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.

Yet that is what BaTh + extinction requires.

6 light months is only a small percentage of the distance that most star
light travels before it reaches the earth.

That's right.
Also, this type of unification is not likely to cause scattering and image
blurring, as some would have us believe.

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.



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

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