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 20 Mar 2010 22:06 On Mar 20, 5:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> 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 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 understandaberrationnow. > > Evidently not, if you are still asking questions that someone who DID > understandaberrationwould know the answers to I don't see any difference between a moving source and a moving telescope, ie they are moving relatively to each other. Both Galilean Relativity and SRT agree on this. I see no way to defend the Aether medium as a light transport medium. The best I can think of is Ballistic Theory or emission theory. But " Problems with emission theory The simplest form of emission theory says that radiating objects throw off light with a speed of "c" relative to their own state of motion, and (unless we have reason to believe that the light changes speed in flight), we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v) ). This description generates three "odd" results: If a radiant star moves across our field of vision, light given off by differently-moving atoms in its atmosphere should take different amounts of time to reach us. Since the retreating atoms would have a "red" Doppler shift, and the approaching ones a "blue" Doppler shift, the passing star might be expected to appear as a "rainbow streak". Similarly, if a radiant star is eclipsed, one might expect the eclipsing shadow to appear to intercept different colours of Doppler- shifted light in sequence - the eclipse might appear to have coloured fringes. For the case of a double-star system seen edge-on, light from the approaching star might be expected to travel faster than light from its receding companion, and overtake it. If the distance was great enough for an approaching star's "fast" signal to catch up with and overtake the "slow" light that it had emitted earlier when it was receding, then the image of the star system should appear completely scrambled. De Sitter argued that none of the star systems he had studied showed the extreme optical effect behaviour in [3], and this was considered the death knell for Ritzian theory and emission theory in general. Newton appears to have enquired whether or not moons of Jupiter showed coloured fringes at eclipse, suggesting that he may have already been aware of these arguments and problems. " A la Wikipedia Therefore I am in a qaundry. I do not know how the universe works. I can see contradictions but coming up with some grand unified theory (GUT) theory is beyond me. Do you agree? T
From: train on 20 Mar 2010 22:12 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. If you believe in frames of reference > Target sees the speed of the arrow as sqrt(c^2 +v^2). Yes but it is established by definition or postulate or whatever that the target sees arrow at c Ordinarily in Galilean Relativity the target sees the arrow coning at it faster than c > 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. SO what if they believe him? It is like the Five World Religions. T
From: train on 20 Mar 2010 22:20 On Mar 20, 1:22 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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 If particles do not obey Newton I can't do anything about it. However that does not change the fact that certain things in SRT seem inconsistent T
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 21 Mar 2010 01:20 On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Who said? The speed estimates are wrong, that's all. >An accelerator designed according to Wilsonian principles simply >will not work. May I recommend the following light reading? The bubble around a +ve charge might be 1836 times bigger than one around a -ve. >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. I have done that. There was a hand operated one in a lab where I once worked. Even reletavists don't refer to it as a 'relativistic mass increse' any more. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Jerry on 21 Mar 2010 04:15
On Mar 21, 12:20 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Mar 20, 2:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> 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. > > Who said? > The speed estimates are wrong, that's all. The speed estimates are precise. If you knew anything at all about accelerators, you would know why. > >An accelerator designed according to Wilsonian principles simply > >will not work. May I recommend the following light reading? > > The bubble around a +ve charge might be 1836 times bigger than one around a > -ve. Oh, you are such an IDIOT!!! The Tevatron is a proton-antiproton accelerator. If a positive/negative mass discrepancy existed, it would have been noted ages ago. > >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. > > I have done that. There was a hand operated one in a lab where I once worked. > > Even reletavists don't refer to it as a 'relativistic mass increse' any more. The concept of relativistic mass increase has, so to speak, been "refactored". It is not gone. Rather, the language of description has been changed. Your fantasies of competency grow more malignant every day. Jerry |