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: Jerry on 20 Mar 2010 11:08 On Mar 20, 9:06 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> That's time dilation. > ============================================== > Ok, good. So cosmic muons which decay in 2.2 usec therefore > map to a narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame > and don't last as long as 2.2 usec and do not get to sea level from > the upper atmosphere due to length DILATION. These effects are > ROUTINELY seen. You've been reading THAT backwards, as well. Take another look. Jerry
From: Jerry on 20 Mar 2010 18:32 On Mar 20, 2:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >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. > > The WRFB is the cause of the discrepancy. It has nothing to do with Einstein's > silly theory. Unfortunately, Wilson Reverse Field Bubble theory makes predictions that are at total odds with what is observed. For example, WRFB claims that the increased resistance to acceleration observed at high speed is due to a particle's charge, which pumps energy into the surrounding bubble. The obvious implication is that an electron and a proton should experience the SAME resistance to acceleration, since both have the same amount of charge, although of course of opposite polarity. Instead, the mass increase of protons traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light is 1836 times the mass increase experienced by electrons traveling at the same speed. An accelerator designed according to Wilsonian principles simply will not work. May I recommend the following light reading? Particle Accelerator Physics, third edition by Helmut Wiedemann Springer, 2007 It's a fun book. I had it checked out from the university library for my nephew, who was working on a science fair project last year. He built a cloud chamber with bending magnets so that he would actually be able to estimate the energies of the particles that he was observing. I also supplied him with picocurie amounts of radioactive beta-emitters from the Nuclear Medicine facility at the hospital where I work. He was able to compare the energies of beta particles emitted by the different radioactive tracers. Jerry
From: Androcles on 20 Mar 2010 19:10 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:3d1447ec-2411-4c52-95dc-6720bb7e8c03(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... On Mar 20, 2:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >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. > > The WRFB is the cause of the discrepancy. It has nothing to do with > Einstein's > silly theory. Unfortunately, Wilson Reverse Field Bubble theory makes predictions that are at total odds with what is observed. For example, WRFB claims that the increased resistance to acceleration observed at high speed is due to a particle's charge, which pumps energy into the surrounding bubble. The obvious implication is that an electron and a proton should experience the SAME resistance to acceleration, since both have the same amount of charge, although of course of opposite polarity. Instead, the mass increase of protons traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light is 1836 times the mass increase experienced by electrons traveling at the same speed. An accelerator designed according to Wilsonian principles simply will not work. May I recommend the following light reading? Particle Accelerator Physics, third edition by Helmut Wiedemann Springer, 2007 It's a fun book. I had it checked out from the university library for my nephew, who was working on a science fair project last year. He built a cloud chamber with bending magnets so that he would actually be able to estimate the energies of the particles that he was observing. I also supplied him with picocurie amounts of radioactive beta-emitters from the Nuclear Medicine facility at the hospital where I work. He was able to compare the energies of beta particles emitted by the different radioactive tracers. Jerry ============================================== May I recommend the following light reading? http://www.kidsnumbers.com/long-division.php http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif See if you can calculate tau = t * (something) instead of t = tau/(something). It's fun beating an imbecile alongside the head with a 2x4.
From: Jerry on 20 Mar 2010 20:27 On Mar 20, 6:10 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > May I recommend the following light reading? > http://www.kidsnumbers.com/long-division.php > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif > See if you can calculate tau = t * (something) instead of t = > tau/(something). > It's fun beating an imbecile alongside the head with a 2x4. Don't hurt yourself. Jerry
From: train on 20 Mar 2010 21:16
On Mar 20, 11:24 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(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 withaberration? 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. "> 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" Actually Androcles, so what? Suppose modern physics is constructed around the Relativity Myth by the way, Google Relativity Myth and see = it is interesting The scientific community has been known to be wrong on the past. T |