🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message 
news:pnqti55kso3ge7v8a7mrr9ct6m4ihgtaks@4ax.com...
> 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..

Hint:
  http://www.britastro.org/vss/
HT Cas