Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: How is SR this probability problem explained?
Next: The Infinitely Large Arch (was Re: Three times happening together)
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 21 Mar 2010 05:36 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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 Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 21 Mar 2010 05:41 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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: >> >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. Jerry, I was only joking about that .... THe 'relativistic mass increase' of protons has not been accurately determined. >> >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. So what is the mysterious 'mass increase' called now...if it exists at all...which I doubt in protons. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 06:05 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:951fc6e9-d67f-4ae1-9010-3ae8ee3f35ab(a)n39g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > 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. So you cannot see the difference in the diagrams above? Look again > I see no way to defend the Aether medium as a light transport medium. I'm not > The best I can think of is Ballistic Theory or emission theory. But > > " > Problems with emission theory It is refuted experimentally. That is a pretty major problem. > 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. Among other experiments > 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? Try to study SR, and then move onto GR
From: Jerry on 21 Mar 2010 09:41 On Mar 21, 8:37 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: CORRECTION: > I would estimate that there are hundreds of > millions of people worldwide working in various technical fields > who require at least some knowledge of special relativity I MEANT: "I would estimate that there are hundreds of thousands, more likely millions, of people worldwide working in various techniccal fields who require at least some knowledge of special relativity..." Jerry
From: Jerry on 21 Mar 2010 13:39
On Mar 21, 4:41 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Mar 21, 12:20 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> 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. > > Jerry, I was only joking about that .... (sigh) No, you weren't. > THe 'relativistic mass increase' of protons has not been accurately > determined. Knowledge of its value is a crucial element of accelerator design. A factor of 1836 is not something that you can sweep under the rug. > So what is the mysterious 'mass increase' called now...if it exists at > all...which I doubt in protons. I take it that you haven't been reading any of the discussions in these groups about the topic. Jerry |