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: train on 19 Mar 2010 11:33 On Mar 18, 6:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2aff4475-ae43-49f4-8bcf-f94f124b894d(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a-b415-b2e0dafaa60e(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 17, 11:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:612fb52b-6b81-4cb2-83ec-53986248bdcd(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Mar 17, 4:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:0bfd2d9d-1181-4efb-90e6-fe3d96e24456(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups..com... > > >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 6:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614-8c24-fcdfea1e523e(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > >> >> >> >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 15, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > >> >> >> >> >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >I think watching paint dry might be more entertaining > >> >> >> >> >> >> >than > >> >> >> >> >> >> >than your accounts of measurements you never made in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >places > >> >> >> >> >> >> >you have never been so I wish you a pleasant week. Bye.. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Give it up. > >> >> >> >> >> >> Your aether theory was tossed out many years ago. > > >> >> >> >> >> >Oh Really? !!! > > >> >> >> >> >> ><< magnetic constant > >> >> >> >> >> >$\mu_0$ > >> >> >> >> >> > Value 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2 > >> >> >> >> >> > Standard uncertainty (exact) > >> >> >> >> >> > Relative standard uncertainty (exact) > >> >> >> >> >> > Concise form 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N > >> >> >> >> >> > A-2 > > >> >> >> >> >> >Source: 2006 CODATA >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0 > >> >> >> >> >> >http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0 > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > >> >> >> >> >> >Bye again <PLONK> > > >> >> >> >> >> You are a classical aetherist likeSeto and a few others here. > >> >> >> >> >> ...there is no aether. > > >> >> >> >> >> Light exists as ballistic packages in PURE VACUUM. > > >> >> >> >> >> >Sue... > > >> >> >> >> >> plonking wont save you. > > >> >> >> >> >> Henry Wilson... > > >> >> >> >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > >> >> >> >> > I found this article, which mentions that a water- filled > >> >> >> >> > telescope > >> >> >> >> > was expected to behave differently from an air filled one. > > >> >> >> >> > This is one of the things aboutaberrationthat I do not > >> >> >> >> > understand. > > >> >> >> >> Its not that hard. > > >> >> >> >> The faster an object moves, the lessaberrationthere is. That is > >> >> >> >> easily > >> >> >> >> shown > > >> >> >> >> Consider two object moving downward (on this page) at different > >> >> >> >> speeds. > >> >> >> >> From an observer at rest wrt the page you'd see these paths > >> >> >> >> (over > >> >> >> >> time) > > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . O > >> >> >> >> . O > > >> >> >> >> A moving observer would see > > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . O > >> >> >> >> . O > > >> >> >> >> The faster moving O is less aberrated. > > >> >> >> > OK so far > >> >> >> >> As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should > >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> moreaberrationin a water filled telescope > > >> >> >> > At what angle does the light hit the telescope? 90 degrees? WHy > >> >> >> > should > >> >> >> > that light be aberrated? > > >> >> >> It doesn't hit at 90 degrees .. gees .. it is aberated. This has > >> >> >> been > >> >> >> known > >> >> >> for a LONG time. But the water in a long tube does not change the > >> >> >> aberation. > > >> >> > Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? First Diagram top right. > > >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light > > >> >> No, that diagram is right, showing that the light doesn't hit the > >> >> telescope > >> >> at 90degrees, instead you need to tilt the telescope to other than 90 > >> >> degrees for the light to be able to travel down the centre of the > >> >> telescop > >> >> tube. > > >> >> When tilted the light enters parallel to the telescope tube .. but > >> >> filling > >> >> the tube with water (which slows the light) does not alter the angle > >> >> of > >> >> the > >> >> path down the tube. > > >> >> That is what the experiment was testing. > > >> > Parallel to the tube means 90 degrees to the lens. That is what I was > >> > saying > > >> > Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the > >> > path? > > >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > >> changes. See the diagram above. > > >> > Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of > >> > light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls? > > >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > >> changes. See the diagram above. > > > Of course. Provided the moving object ( I assume the photon) is > > entering the tube with a sideways velocity and hits the lens at 90 > > degrees or enters the telescope tube at an angle not equal to ninety > > degrees. > > It doesn't really matter what angle it enters. Slowing it will CHANGE the > angle if it is aberrated. > > I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent > can change itsaberrationangle. Was there something you don't understand > about that? > > As per the diagram you showed from wikipedia .. the light entering the tube > at 90-deg relative to the lens (not that you need a lens for this, just a > long tube), and the light having some 'sideways' component of velocity > relative to the tube. > > So if light works in the way that the water-filled-tube was testing ( eg > like rain falling down as observed by a moving observer) then you should get > some change in the angle. > > I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent > can change itsaberrationangle. Was there something you don't understand > about that? > > > Androcles could you please see if I am correct and explain this to > > Inertial? > > Don't be silly.. he doesn't understand a thing. Not even very basic > mathematics and logic .. let alone physics. If you are interested .. have a > look at VDM's page athttp://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html.. > Androcles has a rather large number of fumbles recorded (and that is only > scratching the surface). I'll leave the digging into past fumbles as an > exercise for the reader, if they so desire :):) > > What exactly are you claiming to be correct about that is different to what > I am explaining to you? Ok here is a telescope | | | | | | | | | | | | Here is the photon entering the telescope 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |0| | | | | | | | | OK now did that photon come from a moving source (relative to the telescope) or a stationary source (relative to the telescope) ? If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down, where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the telescope with water change the direction of the photon? I understand aberration now. T
From: Androcles on 19 Mar 2010 13:21 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f106e4e3-bc80-4b92-b111-6e3bdbbb1dfd(a)a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Mar 18, 6:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2aff4475-ae43-49f4-8bcf-f94f124b894d(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a-b415-b2e0dafaa60e(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Mar 17, 11:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:612fb52b-6b81-4cb2-83ec-53986248bdcd(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Mar 17, 4:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:0bfd2d9d-1181-4efb-90e6-fe3d96e24456(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 6:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614-8c24-fcdfea1e523e(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > >> >> >> >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 15, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > >> >> >> >> >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >I think watching paint dry might be more entertaining > >> >> >> >> >> >> >than > >> >> >> >> >> >> >than your accounts of measurements you never made in > >> >> >> >> >> >> >places > >> >> >> >> >> >> >you have never been so I wish you a pleasant week. Bye. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Give it up. > >> >> >> >> >> >> Your aether theory was tossed out many years ago. > > >> >> >> >> >> >Oh Really? !!! > > >> >> >> >> >> ><< magnetic constant > >> >> >> >> >> >$\mu_0$ > >> >> >> >> >> > Value 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2 > >> >> >> >> >> > Standard uncertainty (exact) > >> >> >> >> >> > Relative standard uncertainty (exact) > >> >> >> >> >> > Concise form 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N > >> >> >> >> >> > A-2 > > >> >> >> >> >> >Source: 2006 CODATA >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0 > >> >> >> >> >> >http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0 > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > >> >> >> >> >> >Bye again <PLONK> > > >> >> >> >> >> You are a classical aetherist likeSeto and a few others > >> >> >> >> >> here. > >> >> >> >> >> ...there is no aether. > > >> >> >> >> >> Light exists as ballistic packages in PURE VACUUM. > > >> >> >> >> >> >Sue... > > >> >> >> >> >> plonking wont save you. > > >> >> >> >> >> Henry Wilson... > > >> >> >> >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > >> >> >> >> > I found this article, which mentions that a water- filled > >> >> >> >> > telescope > >> >> >> >> > was expected to behave differently from an air filled one. > > >> >> >> >> > This is one of the things aboutaberrationthat I do not > >> >> >> >> > understand. > > >> >> >> >> Its not that hard. > > >> >> >> >> The faster an object moves, the lessaberrationthere is. That > >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> easily > >> >> >> >> shown > > >> >> >> >> Consider two object moving downward (on this page) at > >> >> >> >> different > >> >> >> >> speeds. > >> >> >> >> From an observer at rest wrt the page you'd see these paths > >> >> >> >> (over > >> >> >> >> time) > > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . O > >> >> >> >> . O > > >> >> >> >> A moving observer would see > > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . o O > >> >> >> >> . O > >> >> >> >> . O > > >> >> >> >> The faster moving O is less aberrated. > > >> >> >> > OK so far > >> >> >> >> As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should > >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> moreaberrationin a water filled telescope > > >> >> >> > At what angle does the light hit the telescope? 90 degrees? WHy > >> >> >> > should > >> >> >> > that light be aberrated? > > >> >> >> It doesn't hit at 90 degrees .. gees .. it is aberated. This has > >> >> >> been > >> >> >> known > >> >> >> for a LONG time. But the water in a long tube does not change the > >> >> >> aberation. > > >> >> > Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? First Diagram top right. > > >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light > > >> >> No, that diagram is right, showing that the light doesn't hit the > >> >> telescope > >> >> at 90degrees, instead you need to tilt the telescope to other than > >> >> 90 > >> >> degrees for the light to be able to travel down the centre of the > >> >> telescop > >> >> tube. > > >> >> When tilted the light enters parallel to the telescope tube .. but > >> >> filling > >> >> the tube with water (which slows the light) does not alter the angle > >> >> of > >> >> the > >> >> path down the tube. > > >> >> That is what the experiment was testing. > > >> > Parallel to the tube means 90 degrees to the lens. That is what I was > >> > saying > > >> > Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the > >> > path? > > >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > >> changes. See the diagram above. > > >> > Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of > >> > light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls? > > >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > >> changes. See the diagram above. > > > Of course. Provided the moving object ( I assume the photon) is > > entering the tube with a sideways velocity and hits the lens at 90 > > degrees or enters the telescope tube at an angle not equal to ninety > > degrees. > > It doesn't really matter what angle it enters. Slowing it will CHANGE the > angle if it is aberrated. > > I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent > can change itsaberrationangle. Was there something you don't understand > about that? > > As per the diagram you showed from wikipedia .. the light entering the > tube > at 90-deg relative to the lens (not that you need a lens for this, just a > long tube), and the light having some 'sideways' component of velocity > relative to the tube. > > So if light works in the way that the water-filled-tube was testing ( eg > like rain falling down as observed by a moving observer) then you should > get > some change in the angle. > > I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent > can change itsaberrationangle. Was there something you don't understand > about that? > > > Androcles could you please see if I am correct and explain this to > > Inertial? > > Don't be silly.. he doesn't understand a thing. Not even very basic > mathematics and logic .. let alone physics. If you are interested .. have > a > look at VDM's page > athttp://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html.. > Androcles has a rather large number of fumbles recorded (and that is only > scratching the surface). I'll leave the digging into past fumbles as an > exercise for the reader, if they so desire :):) > > What exactly are you claiming to be correct about that is different to > what > I am explaining to you? Ok here is a telescope | | | | | | | | | | | | Here is the photon entering the telescope 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |0| | | | | | | | | OK now did that photon come from a moving source (relative to the telescope) or a stationary source (relative to the telescope) ? If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down, where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the telescope with water change the direction of the photon? I understand aberration now. T ================================================ Which is moving, the target or the bow? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif Gehan could you please see if I am correct and explain this to Inertwit, as I won't bother with raving lunatic?
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 19 Mar 2010 20:55 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:45:31 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:rcs7q5tikjbfqvva5rm5n495otidds0dlm(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:13:35 -0000, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbkfeckreuipdeu6300d(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:44:46 -0000, "Androcles" >>>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my >>>> unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills >>>> all the >>>> gaps. >>> >>>That one's a keeper. >>> "I have temporarily dumped my unification theory" - Awilson >>>Ref: news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbkfeckreuipdeu6300d(a)4ax.com >>>When is it coming back, next week? >> >> If necessary to explain the velocity*distance anomaly that you don't >> understand. > >What "anomaly" are you babbling about? The one whose existence you have never recognized. >> "all star orbits are face on to Earth" ....androcles, 2009... >> >You haven't any reference to prove I ever said that. >What I did say was all cepheid orbits were almost face on to Earth, >and I still do. There is no anomaly to be understood, that is consistent >with theory. If you are too stupid to understand basic trigonometry >that's your problem. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt >Go on, argue with empirical data. Well, many 'cepheids' ARE true pulsating stars. That's the only way I can simulate the 1st harmonic. So in that respect you could argue that they are always face on. It is reasonable to assume that the radial velocity of huff-puff star has very similar characteristics to those of a star in elliptical orbit. The same kind of gravity law applies to the forces that cause the movement along our LOS. Even the inertia and viscosity of the moving gases should cause a drag effect that more or less fits in with the 'YAW' angle concept. That doesn't mean that many socalled cepheids are NOT just orbiting stars. But by far the majority of curves of that nature slope to the left...yaw -60 rather than +60. What is most interesting is the fact that the calculated velocity curves have a similar shape and phase to the corresponding brightness curves. Astronomers cannot produce a theory to match this. My ADoppler is the obvious explanation. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: train on 19 Mar 2010 22:19 On Mar 19, 10:21 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f106e4e3-bc80-4b92-b111-6e3bdbbb1dfd(a)a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 18, 6:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:2aff4475-ae43-49f4-8bcf-f94f124b894d(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a-b415-b2e0dafaa60e(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Mar 17, 11:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:612fb52b-6b81-4cb2-83ec-53986248bdcd(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > On Mar 17, 4:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >>news:0bfd2d9d-1181-4efb-90e6-fe3d96e24456(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 6:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >> >>news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614-8c24-fcdfea1e523e(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > > >> >> >> >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> >On Mar 15, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > > >> >> >> >> >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >I think watching paint dry might be more entertaining > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >than > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >than your accounts of measurements you never made in > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >places > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >you have never been so I wish you a pleasant week. Bye. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Give it up. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Your aether theory was tossed out many years ago. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >Oh Really? !!! > > > >> >> >> >> >> ><< magnetic constant > > >> >> >> >> >> >$\mu_0$ > > >> >> >> >> >> > Value 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2 > > >> >> >> >> >> > Standard uncertainty (exact) > > >> >> >> >> >> > Relative standard uncertainty (exact) > > >> >> >> >> >> > Concise form 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N > > >> >> >> >> >> > A-2 > > > >> >> >> >> >> >Source: 2006 CODATA >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0 > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0 > > > >> >> >> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > > >> >> >> >> >> >Bye again <PLONK> > > > >> >> >> >> >> You are a classical aetherist likeSeto and a few others > > >> >> >> >> >> here. > > >> >> >> >> >> ...there is no aether. > > > >> >> >> >> >> Light exists as ballistic packages in PURE VACUUM. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >Sue... > > > >> >> >> >> >> plonking wont save you. > > > >> >> >> >> >> Henry Wilson... > > > >> >> >> >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > > >> >> >> >> > I found this article, which mentions that a water- filled > > >> >> >> >> > telescope > > >> >> >> >> > was expected to behave differently from an air filled one.. > > > >> >> >> >> > This is one of the things aboutaberrationthat I do not > > >> >> >> >> > understand. > > > >> >> >> >> Its not that hard. > > > >> >> >> >> The faster an object moves, the lessaberrationthere is. That > > >> >> >> >> is > > >> >> >> >> easily > > >> >> >> >> shown > > > >> >> >> >> Consider two object moving downward (on this page) at > > >> >> >> >> different > > >> >> >> >> speeds. > > >> >> >> >> From an observer at rest wrt the page you'd see these paths > > >> >> >> >> (over > > >> >> >> >> time) > > > >> >> >> >> . o O > > >> >> >> >> . o O > > >> >> >> >> . o O > > >> >> >> >> . O > > >> >> >> >> . O > > > >> >> >> >> A moving observer would see > > > >> >> >> >> . o O > > >> >> >> >> . o O > > >> >> >> >> . o O > > >> >> >> >> . O > > >> >> >> >> . O > > > >> >> >> >> The faster moving O is less aberrated. > > > >> >> >> > OK so far > > >> >> >> >> As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should > > >> >> >> >> show > > >> >> >> >> moreaberrationin a water filled telescope > > > >> >> >> > At what angle does the light hit the telescope? 90 degrees? WHy > > >> >> >> > should > > >> >> >> > that light be aberrated? > > > >> >> >> It doesn't hit at 90 degrees .. gees .. it is aberated. This has > > >> >> >> been > > >> >> >> known > > >> >> >> for a LONG time. But the water in a long tube does not change the > > >> >> >> aberation. > > > >> >> > Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? First Diagram top right. > > > >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light > > > >> >> No, that diagram is right, showing that the light doesn't hit the > > >> >> telescope > > >> >> at 90degrees, instead you need to tilt the telescope to other than > > >> >> 90 > > >> >> degrees for the light to be able to travel down the centre of the > > >> >> telescop > > >> >> tube. > > > >> >> When tilted the light enters parallel to the telescope tube .. but > > >> >> filling > > >> >> the tube with water (which slows the light) does not alter the angle > > >> >> of > > >> >> the > > >> >> path down the tube. > > > >> >> That is what the experiment was testing. > > > >> > Parallel to the tube means 90 degrees to the lens. That is what I was > > >> > saying > > > >> > Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the > > >> > path? > > > >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > > >> changes. See the diagram above. > > > >> > Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of > > >> > light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls? > > > >> I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > > >> changes. See the diagram above. > > > > Of course. Provided the moving object ( I assume the photon) is > > > entering the tube with a sideways velocity and hits the lens at 90 > > > degrees or enters the telescope tube at an angle not equal to ninety > > > degrees. > > > It doesn't really matter what angle it enters. Slowing it will CHANGE the > > angle if it is aberrated. > > > I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent > > can change itsaberrationangle. Was there something you don't understand > > about that? > > > As per the diagram you showed from wikipedia .. the light entering the > > tube > > at 90-deg relative to the lens (not that you need a lens for this, just a > > long tube), and the light having some 'sideways' component of velocity > > relative to the tube. > > > So if light works in the way that the water-filled-tube was testing ( eg > > like rain falling down as observed by a moving observer) then you should > > get > > some change in the angle. > > > I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent > > can change itsaberrationangle. Was there something you don't understand > > about that? > > > > Androcles could you please see if I am correct and explain this to > > > Inertial? > > > Don't be silly.. he doesn't understand a thing. Not even very basic > > mathematics and logic .. let alone physics. If you are interested .. have > > a > > look at VDM's page > > athttp://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html.. > > Androcles has a rather large number of fumbles recorded (and that is only > > scratching the surface). I'll leave the digging into past fumbles as an > > exercise for the reader, if they so desire :):) > > > What exactly are you claiming to be correct about that is different to > > what > > I am explaining to you? > > Ok here is a telescope > > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > > Here is the photon entering the telescope > > 0 > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > > | | > |0| > | | > | | > | | > | | > > OK now did that photon come from a moving source (relative to the > telescope) or a stationary source (relative to the telescope) ? > > If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down, > where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the > telescope with water change the direction of the photon? > > I understandaberrationnow. > > T > ================================================ > Which is moving, the target or the bow? > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif > > Gehan could you please see if I am correct and explain this to > Inertwit, as I won't bother with raving lunatic? The answer is: each target and the bow are moving relative to each other. The two scenarios are equivalent. Is this why I had such a problem with aberration? think of it Androcles - you turn a telescope so light travels down straight down it - and then you fill your telescope with water and expect the light to bend one way or the other! yet another challenge to sanity I don't get it. Or maybe I do. T
From: Jerry on 19 Mar 2010 23:40
On Mar 19, 10:33 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Ok here is a telescope > > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > > Here is the photon entering the telescope > > 0 > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | | > > | | > |0| > | | > | | > | | > | | > > OK now did that photon come from a moving source (relative to the > telescope) or a stationary source (relative to the telescope) ? > > If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down, > where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the > telescope with water change the direction of the photon? The predicted effects would depend on what you believe about the properties of the presumptive aether. Light traveling through water is slowed to about 3/4 of its speed in air. But if you presume that the "aether wind" continues blowing across just as hard as it did before, then the prediction would be that the slower light gets deflected by a larger angle. This wasn't seen to happen, so aether theorists came up with desperate excuses to explain away the non-observance of this effect, like "aether drag". Unfortunately, aether drag brought along its own set of predictions, effects that were never seen. Jerry |