🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:02:28 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_q>
wrote:

>
>"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.

The best I can do is give approximate details of the main star's orbit:
http://www.scisite.info/canopus.jpg

The anomalies 2, 4  and 5 are pretty obvious but I cannot explain them any way
other than lensing.. 


Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

       Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.