Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:38:55 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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

That is central to the Riztian/Wilsonian theory of variable stars.

Yes...and if you can give me one good reason why a pulse of light
emitted six month after another from an accelerating source should be
at rest wrt the former then I would like to hear it.

I would like to hear it too.

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.

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?

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.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap