Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:24:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:12:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:43:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Why do you call your theory the "BaTh" when it is
identical to SR?
..the experiment was not sufficiently accurate to detect the difference between
the predictions of the two theories.
And the prediction of the BaTh for Fizeau's experiment is? :-)
Try this:
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm
So "the BaTh" is the same as Curt Renshaw's radiation continuum model (RCM)?
Why have you then invented a new name for it?
A copyright violation.
BaTh is far more advanced than other similar theories due to the discoveries
made as a result of my variable star program.
So why can't you tell us what the BaTh predicts for Fizeau's experiment?

How about: Displacement = 2Ln^2v/(c.lambda)

Displacement of what?
You obviously have to show the derivation of the prediction
from the postulates of the BaTh.

But of course you cannot do that, because the "BaTh" is
no theory which can predict anything.

Michelson's data fully supports BaTh..

Sure, the MMX confirmes the emission theory.
But Sagnac and Fizeau and a lot of other experiments
falsifies it.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/