On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:11:11 -0700 (PDT), Talebun <pmparker6@btinternet.com>
wrote:

On 24 Jul, 00:21, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Propose an alternative theory. It has to be one though that fits the
facts.

All the facts clearly point to light being ballistic in pure vacuum...
All arguments against the Ballistic nature of light have been shown to be
flawed.

Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at v wrt the
source.

I do which you learn a little Astronomy. I am in fact a student of the
subject. How can you ever see double stars? If light was ballistic
light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
the other.

I do wish you'd learn a little English.

Light from orbiting stars initially leaves the source at c+vsint/T wrt Earth.

However the conditions for multiple images are never reached because all light
traveling in a particular direction tends towards the same speed, according to
BaTh. Also, there is a hight degree of extinction in the near vicinity of a
binary pair, the amount increasing with decreasing period (proximity).

Just about all variable star curves can be produced using the c+v principle
alone. For instance see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

Many binaries appear to involve a just star and a large planet or other cool
object that reflects the star's light 180 out of phase, giving the appearance
of two stars.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.