🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message 
news:qh9ti5to0n0ij2u9k61qv5p751inm5dibl@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:39 -0000, "Androcles" 
> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:115ti5l7q2s7aaufmksnq2mi7irsob9svg@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:52:46 -0600, Tom Roberts
>>> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>>> sci.physics.relativity:
>>>>>> In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. 
>>>>>> Neither
>>>>>> is it a
>>>>>> wave.
>>>>>>         There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>>>>>>         Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare
>>>>>> There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday 
>>>>>> life
>>>>>> capture
>>>>>> the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience.
>>>>>> Photons and
>>>>>> quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not
>>>>>> photons or
>>>>>> their quantum implications).
>>>>>
>>>>> Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings!
>>>>
>>>>Dishonest Valev stop ignoring the context! I was responding to 
>>>>marcofuics,
>>>>and
>>>>this is not at all a red herring.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You know that the
>>>>> problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light
>>>>> depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory
>>>>> of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light
>>>>> source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes.
>>>>
>>>>This is not a "crucial problem" at all, because it has been answered.
>>>>Definitively. As only EXPERIMENTS can do. There are numerous 
>>>>measurements
>>>>of the
>>>>speed of light emitted by moving sources, and they all obtain c within
>>>>their
>>>>resolutions. Modeling the speed of light emitted by a source moving with
>>>>speed v
>>>>as c+kv, experimental measurements require k<2*10^-9, SOLIDLY refuting
>>>>emission
>>>>theories such as Newton's:
>>>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
>>>
>>> Such lab experiments have alternative explanations.
>>>
>>> The only real test of the emission theory is the way in which it can
>>> simulate
>>> variable star brightness curves based on c+v values from orbiting stars.
>>>
>>> Matches like these:
>>>
>>> http://www.scisite.info/USge.jpg
>>> http://www.scisite.info/UCep.jpg
>>> http://www.scisite.info/group1.jpg
>>> http://www.scisite.info/R_Cru.jpg
>>> http://www.scisite.info/falseeclipse.jpg
>>>
>>> .....and many others, are pretty convincing evidence that light behaves
>>> ballistically as it travels across the vacuum of space.
>>>
>>> I can only feel very sorry for all those deluded astronomers who are
>>> plainly
>>> wasting their time because of Einstein.
>>>
>>
>>You'll never get past Humpty Roberts' bigotry. He's the worst fuckwit
>>of the lot.
>>
>>Here's a two magnitude dilly for ya
>> 
>> http://cosmicdiary.org/blogs/john_hearnshaw/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ogle-2006-blg-109.png
>
> There is nothing wrong with the concept of gravitational lensing...but we 
> know
> of far a better way to discover planets that are orbiting stars. Androcles 
> and
> Wilsonia are just two.
>
I thought you might like to take a crack at that curve... no big deal.