Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: How is SR this probability problem explained?
Next: The Infinitely Large Arch (was Re: Three times happening together)
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 13 Mar 2010 22:32 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 11, 2:48�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:19:15 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 07.03.2010 01:19, train wrote: >> >> According to the special theory of relativity, theaberrationonly >> >> depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light >> >> from the star. >> >> >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm >> >> >> "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the >> >> star." >> >> >> Whic is always c , right? >> >> >Stellaraberrationdepends only on the change of the velocity >> >of the Earth. >> >> >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf >> >> ....and theaberrationconstant is far too small to be used as a test for the >> source dependency of light speed. � >> Besides, all light reaching ground level is moving at c/n wrt the atmosphere. >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes >to stellar abberation? > >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. That's right. That is not in dispute. Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars that are moving towards or away from us. He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is adjusted to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 22:45 On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Mar 11, 2:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:19:15 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> > >> wrote: > > >> >On 07.03.2010 01:19, train wrote: > >> >> According to the special theory of relativity, theaberrationonly > >> >> depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light > >> >> from the star. > > >> >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm > > >> >> "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the > >> >> star." > > >> >> Whic is always c , right? > > >> >Stellaraberrationdepends only on the change of the velocity > >> >of the Earth. > > >> >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf > > >> ....and theaberrationconstant is far too small to be used as a test for the > >> source dependency of light speed. > >> Besides, all light reaching ground level is moving at c/n wrt the atmosphere. > > >> Henry Wilson... > > >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes > >to stellar abberation? > > >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your > >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. > > That's right. That is not in dispute. > > Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth > is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars > that are moving towards or away from us. > > He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far > too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is adjusted > to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light moves at C through empty space. Energy can move below light speed in space. It is thus possible for light to inch ahead of energy. Relativity is out. A space frame for motion is in. Mitch Raemsch
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 13 Mar 2010 23:30 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:45:22 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mar 13, 7:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is adjusted >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Light moves at C through empty space. Energy can move below light >speed in space. It is thus possible for light to inch ahead of energy. > >Relativity is out. A space frame for motion is in. Relativity is OK...Einstein's version is bullshit. >Mitch Raemsch Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 14 Mar 2010 00:59 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:45:22 -0800 (PST), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train >>> <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> that are moving towards or away from us. >>> >>> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles >>> are far too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all >>> starlight is adjusted to a common speed c/n when it enters our >>> atmosphere. >>> >>> Henry Wilson... >>> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >>Light moves at C through empty space. Energy can move below light >>speed in space. It is thus possible for light to inch ahead of energy. >> >>Relativity is out. A space frame for motion is in. > > Relativity is OK...Einstein's version is bullshit. How would you know? You haven't studied it. > >>Mitch Raemsch > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Sue... on 14 Mar 2010 01:20
On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 11, 2:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:19:15 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> > >> wrote: > > >> >On 07.03.2010 01:19, train wrote: > >> >> According to the special theory of relativity, theaberrationonly > >> >> depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light > >> >> from the star. > > >> >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm > > >> >> "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the > >> >> star." > > >> >> Whic is always c , right? > > >> >Stellaraberrationdepends only on the change of the velocity > >> >of the Earth. > > >> >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf > > >> ....and theaberrationconstant is far too small to be used as a test for the > >> source dependency of light speed. > >> Besides, all light reaching ground level is moving at c/n wrt the atmosphere. > > >> Henry Wilson... > > >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes > >to stellar abberation? > > >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your > >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. > > That's right. That is not in dispute. > > Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth > is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars > that are moving towards or away from us. > > He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far > too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, ===================== > all starlight is adjusted > to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. Considerably earlier than that by a different form of the same relation. See equation (1146) http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space Sue... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons |