Re: c = constant

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:06:27 +0100, "Harry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"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.

Note: Androcles and I differ in that I say light speed is source dependent only
over short ranges. All light traveling simultaneously in a particular direction
through space eventually settles down to about the same speed. Androcles says
it remains c+v forever. I am not adamant that he is wrong.

>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?

The OWLS has never been measured. How do you know it is constant?


>
>> 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?

That's what Androcles is talking about.

>
>Harald
>


Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm