Re: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

You are attempting to muddy the waters.

The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly
ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for
eternity.

Jerry

I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?

The same John G. Fox wrote
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962)
Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964)
(critiqued DeSitter)

and also wrote
Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964)
(conducted experiment designed to counter extinction
arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)

Jerry

Different Fox.

No. It happens naturally.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
was ihnconsistent with BaT.

You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off
when you don't.

Jerry

The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who
subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.

Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large
distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed.

I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance,
the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its
observed brightness pattern doesn't change.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction".
You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter
on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of
extinction.

If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
say it does.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.

Jerry

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.

For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:

S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._
                    v2<T2

        O3

O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.

I understand that SRians agree on this.

The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for
differently moving sources.

Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.

Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits.  Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.

Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
depend on the distance to the star.

There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
 
Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this
argument.

The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.