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: Inertial on 19 Mar 2010 20:04 "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 it came from a star and is measured measured on earth, then we know that they are relatively moving. If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming from a moving (or stationary)source aimed at a stationary telescope, then slowing it down would *not* change its angle. .. <S> .. .. o .. .. .. / / .. .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. o .. .. / / .. .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. /o/ .. .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. / / .. .. /o/ .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. / / .. .. / / .. .. /o/ If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming from a stationary source aimed at a moving telescope, then slowing it down *would* change its angle. .. <S> .. .. o .. .. .. / / .. .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. o .. .. / / .. .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. /o/ .. .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. / / .. o .. / / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. / / .. .. o / .. .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. / / .. .. / / .. o .. / / .. <S> .. .. .. .. .. .. / / .. .. / / .. .. o/ / > 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. Evidently not, if you are still asking questions that someone who DID understand aberration would know the answers to
From: Inertial on 20 Mar 2010 01:24 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:da7cc9de-2f48-4273-8b73-3fb3d7b2bede(a)f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > 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! You are thinking of a static situation. Net time you are driving in a car ... look at how the rain changes angle the faster you drive through it. > yet another challenge to sanity You're just not thinking about the possiblities > I don't get it. Or maybe I do. Not yet.
From: Androcles on 20 Mar 2010 02:24 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:da7cc9de-2f48-4273-8b73-3fb3d7b2bede(a)f14g2000pre.googlegroups.com... 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. ================================================== Exactly right. 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 =================================================== It doesn't matter if it is light or an arrow, the trigonometry is the same. I see the Sun cross the sky every day, I see the Moon cross the sky every night. Seems like both go around the Earth every 24 hours, yet that's not right. Copernicus and Galileo had an uphill battle explaining why it was wrong, and the same applies to Einstein's idiocy. It's all about believing what you see. The arrow leaves the bow at 90 degrees and hits the target at 60 degrees, that's a fact, and the angle depends on the relative speed. The Earth goes around the Sun and the Moon goes around the Earth, but doesn't do it in 24 hours, it takes a year and it takes a month. How you understand it all depends on relative speed. The arrow has further to go in the target's frame of reference than it does in the bow's frame of reference. Target sees the speed of the arrow as sqrt(c^2 +v^2). Bow sees the arrow's speed as c... there is no v! (There is, of course, the target moves at v, but that get's ignored.) Then along comes an idiot and says the speed of the arrow is c in ALL frames of reference, we'll have to make time relative, and all the other inert idiots believe him.
From: Jerry on 20 Mar 2010 04:22 On Mar 20, 1:32 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> 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 > ============================================ > Division by something less than 1 makes the quotient greater. > Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions, > effects that were never seen. Lying again, as always. Every predicted effect of SR that has been technologically feasible to observe, HAS been observed. Unfortunately, DIRECT measurement of the most famous prediction of SR, length contraction, is outside the realm of technological feasibility. But the EFFECTS of length contraction have been repeatedly observed on a routine basis. Are you familiar with relativistic kinematics? Observed high speed kinematics implies time dilation plus length contraction, i.e. the entirety of the Lorentz transformations are required to explain observed kinematics. If you take two equal mass particles and shoot one at the other so that they collide and rebound elastically, then, according to Newtonian mechanics, conservation of energy plus conservation of momentum means that they shoot off at right angles to each other. In other words, allowing for the limitations of ascii art: _ _/ _/ -----------------<_ 90 degrees \_ \_ There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this prediction of Newtonian kinematics. I can write out the proof for you, if you want. It's easiest to explain if you are familiar with transforming back and forth from center of mass coordinates, but it's not impossible to "do it the hard way" if you aren't familiar with the concept. The bottom applet on this page illustrates this rule: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Applets/ Click on the link to "Two-dimensional collisions" Anyway, what's found in particle accelerators is that collisions do not obey Newtonian kinematics. In particular, the scattering angle between two equal-sized particles is always LESS THAN 90 degrees. __ ___/ ___/ -----------------<___ less than 90 degrees \___ \__ This is impossible according to Newtonian kinematics, but is explained exactly assuming the validity of special relativity. REPEAT: Observed kinematics is calculable as the result of time dilation plus length contraction, i.e. the entirety of the Lorentz transformations are required to explain the observed scattering angles. Jerry
From: Jerry on 20 Mar 2010 09:06
On Mar 20, 4:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> You need to review what it means to transform one set of >> coordinates into another set of coordinates. > ======================================== > You didn't address Einstein's absurd comment > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif (sigh) Look VERY CLOSELY at the equation in the cited gif. sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is less than 1 for v > 0 times t in the observer frame therefore map to a narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame. times tau in the relatively moving frame therefore map to a wider set of values t in the observer frame. That's time dilation. You've been reading the equation backwards. Jerry |