Re: c = constant

"Androcles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Harry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > If light speed is relative to the source, how come it does not depend on
> the
> > source?
> If we make the reasonable assumption that atoms emit light, by whatever
> mechanism you may choose, then one atom emits one tiny bit of light. We
call
> that a photon, and because certain elements exhibit characteristic
spectral
> lines, these photons have specific energy levels. Thus we have a theory
that
> the electrons of the atoms have quantized levels and photons exist.
>
> Putting aside any assumptions of the presence of a medium, or Einstein's
> assertion, and applying the vector addition of velocities, what evidence
do
> you have to support the idea that one photon, emitted from one atom, would
> move in such as way as to be independent of the motion of that atom?
> You've said "how come" as if it were an established fact. What is it that
> makes you certain?

Sorry, clearly my comment was too compressed. I referred to the ballistic
light emission theory that you and Henry seem to have.
In that theory photon speed is relative to the source, and therefore also
determined by the source, am I right?
Then can any of you give a simple or straightforward reason why this speed
is constant independent of the energy level and of the material that emits
it?

> I can duplicate the empirical data from stars (luminosity and spectral
> velocity curves) by modelling them in elliptical orbits that obey Kepler's
> law, plus the principle of relativity, unmodified by Einstein. How come?

Does that include binary stars?

Harald