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 22 Mar 2010 20:47 On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:46:41 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:55:43 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>news:32hfq5hus6nsjffnret3t2o0qgtoks0bdp(a)4ax.com... >>>> There are no LTs in the real >>>> world. >>> >>>Just keep lying to yourself Henry. The only fool you are fooling is you. >> >> Even an idiot like you should know that nothing at all happens to a rod or >> clock as a result of a speed change. >> >> A rod defines the same absolute spatial interval however and wherever it >> is taken. >> An oscillator period defines an absolute time interval, ditto. > >A decade running and you haven't learned a damn thing. Nice. When are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: train on 24 Mar 2010 19:12 On Mar 23, 5:47 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:46:41 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:55:43 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> > >> wrote: > > >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message > >>>news:32hfq5hus6nsjffnret3t2o0qgtoks0bdp(a)4ax.com... > >>>> There are no LTs in the real > >>>> world. > > >>>Just keep lying to yourself Henry. The only fool you are fooling is you. > > >> Even an idiot like you should know that nothing at all happens to a rod or > >> clock as a result of a speed change. > > >> A rod defines the same absolute spatial interval however and wherever it > >> is taken. > >> An oscillator period defines an absolute time interval, ditto. > > >A decade running and you haven't learned a damn thing. Nice. > > When are you going to say something intelligent? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. Remember I was "Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation" In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at the moment of observation Indeed, dependency on the source is paradoxical: -Wikipedia I understand that aberration is caused by relative velocity between source and the telescope. There is no absolute motion in Galilean Relativity not in SRT So why the 'dependency on the source?' T
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 19:23 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3cbcfae1-4866-41aa-b30e-c7cba7a9ba5a(a)c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 5:47 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:46:41 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:55:43 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >> >>>news:32hfq5hus6nsjffnret3t2o0qgtoks0bdp(a)4ax.com... >> >>>> There are no LTs in the real >> >>>> world. >> >> >>>Just keep lying to yourself Henry. The only fool you are fooling is >> >>>you. >> >> >> Even an idiot like you should know that nothing at all happens to a >> >> rod or >> >> clock as a result of a speed change. >> >> >> A rod defines the same absolute spatial interval however and wherever >> >> it >> >> is taken. >> >> An oscillator period defines an absolute time interval, ditto. >> >> >A decade running and you haven't learned a damn thing. Nice. >> >> When are you going to say something intelligent? >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. > > Remember I was "Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation" > > > In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a > celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's > instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light > beam, at the moment of observation > > Indeed, dependency on the source is paradoxical: And you snip from your quote the explanation for what you are asking > -Wikipedia > > I understand that aberration is caused by relative velocity between > source and the telescope. No .. between arriving light beam and telescope. > There is no absolute motion in Galilean > Relativity not in SRT That's right .. relativity (in the sense of there being no absolute motion) has been around for a LONG time. > So why the 'dependency on the source?' There is none
From: Androcles on 24 Mar 2010 19:42 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3cbcfae1-4866-41aa-b30e-c7cba7a9ba5a(a)c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... Remember I was "Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation" =================================================== Yes, and you've declared you understand it. =================================================== In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at the moment of observation ======================================= Very good, you really do understand it. (Naturally the reference to "instantaneous" is redundant, since it cannot mean something that is not instantaneous.) However, "transverse" is normally applied to a "normal" velocity (i.e. perpendicular), and there is still abberation even if that does not apply (up to but not including radial). ======================================= Indeed, dependency on the source is paradoxical: -Wikipedia ======================================== Bullshit. - Wackypedia ======================================== I understand that aberration is caused by relative velocity between source and the telescope. There is no absolute motion in Galilean Relativity not in SRT ======================================== Ok, so there is no absolute motion not in SRT. Therefore we can cancel "no" with "not" and state there is absolute motion in SRT. ======================================== So why the 'dependency on the source?' ======================================== So why the 'absolute motion in SRT?'
From: train on 25 Mar 2010 10:58
On Mar 25, 4:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3cbcfae1-4866-41aa-b30e-c7cba7a9ba5a(a)c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:47 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:46:41 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:55:43 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message > >> >>>news:32hfq5hus6nsjffnret3t2o0qgtoks0bdp(a)4ax.com... > >> >>>> There are no LTs in the real > >> >>>> world. > > >> >>>Just keep lying to yourself Henry. The only fool you are fooling is > >> >>>you. > > >> >> Even an idiot like you should know that nothing at all happens to a > >> >> rod or > >> >> clock as a result of a speed change. > > >> >> A rod defines the same absolute spatial interval however and wherever > >> >> it > >> >> is taken. > >> >> An oscillator period defines an absolute time interval, ditto. > > >> >A decade running and you haven't learned a damn thing. Nice. > > >> When are you going to say something intelligent? > > >> Henry Wilson... > > >> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. > > > Remember I was "Seekingacorrectexplanation for Stellar Abberation" > > > In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a > > celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's > > instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light > > beam, at the moment of observation > > > Indeed, dependency on the source is paradoxical: > > And you snip from your quote the explanation for what you are asking > > > -Wikipedia > > > I understand that aberration is caused by relative velocity between > > source and the telescope. > > No .. between arriving light beam and telescope. > > > There is no absolute motion in Galilean > > Relativity not in SRT > > That's right .. relativity (in the sense of there being no absolute motion) > has been around for a LONG time. > > > So why the 'dependency on the source?' > > There is none No .. between arriving light beam and telescope. Can you define light beam? In any case, the light goes directly down the tube, which means that the relative velocity of the photons or 'light beam' is parallel to the telescope walls. So the relative velocity between the photons and the telescope is c, or as others might say a little more than c What am I missing here? T |