Does anybody nowadays disagree that the aberration of stars (apparent visual
lead) is due to the EMR wave front being absorbed and then emmited by the
first atom in the upper atmosphere it interacts with and it new velocity
being the vector sum of its original velocity in vacuum summed with the
velocity of that atom
Dr ***

"Dr ***" wrote in message ...
Does anybody nowadays disagree that the aberration of stars (apparent visual
lead) is due to the EMR wave front being absorbed and then emmited by the
first atom in the upper atmosphere it interacts with and it new velocity
being the vector sum of its original velocity in vacuum summed with the
velocity of that atom

Although you forgot to add a question mark, this clearly is
a question. You know that it does not work this way. You
must just state a silly random statement and then wait for
Dennis' silly random replies. This way you will learn a lot
more.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message news
"Dr ***" wrote in message
...
Does anybody nowadays disagree that the aberration of stars (apparent
visual
lead) is due to the EMR wave front being absorbed and then emmited by the
first atom in the upper atmosphere it interacts with and it new velocity
being the vector sum of its original velocity in vacuum summed with the
velocity of that atom

Although you forgot to add a question mark, this clearly is
a question. You know that it does not work this way. You
must just state a silly random statement and then wait for
Dennis' silly random replies. This way you will learn a lot
more.

Yes you are quite correct it is fishing for disagreement on a lightweight
physics level.
Although you are incorrect in your statement that I know it does not work
that way and am fairly confident that I can defend that position against all
rational posters and even most irrational ones :-)
As far as I am aware I have not had the benefit of Dennis' silly random
replies, perhaps I know him under another name ?
You forgot to add a smiley perhaps?

Dr ***

Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

Do you have any specific abjection? or is it a gut feeling?
Dr ***

"Dr ***" wrote in message ...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

Do you have any specific abjection? or is it a gut feeling?

Whenever we see a new post of yours, we all experience
a special kind of gut feeling. Dennis might be an exception.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

Do you have any specific abjection? or is it a gut feeling?

Whenever we see a new post of yours, we all experience
a special kind of gut feeling. Dennis might be an exception.

Its so nice to be unwanted. I still have not located Dennis perhaps its best
to leave well alone.:-)
Dr ***

"Dr ***" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

Do you have any specific abjection? or is it a gut feeling?

Whenever we see a new post of yours, we all experience
a special kind of gut feeling. Dennis might be an exception.

Its so nice to be unwanted.

Unwanted?
Don't kid yourself.

Dirk Vdm



I still have not located Dennis perhaps its best
to leave well alone.:-)
Dr ***

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

Do you have any specific abjection? or is it a gut feeling?

Whenever we see a new post of yours, we all experience
a special kind of gut feeling. Dennis might be an exception.

Ok how about this then.
Does anybody nowadays disagree that the aberration of stars (apparent visual
lead) is due to the EMR wave front being absorbed and then emitted by the
first atom in the upper atmosphere and then subsequent atoms with them all
adding a slight movement to the apparent position of the light source until
at the point of observation the direction of source has been shifted in the
direction of the velocity of the atmosphere by the amount observed. a=v/c
Dr ***

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dr ***" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes. In fact, almost everybody will disagree with that.

Do you have any specific abjection? or is it a gut feeling?

Whenever we see a new post of yours, we all experience
a special kind of gut feeling. Dennis might be an exception.

Its so nice to be unwanted.

Unwanted?
Don't kid yourself.

You not going to be sickening and say wanted :-) I may never post to this
group again:-)
You cant claim indifference as you reply to my postes.?
Dr ***