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 25 Mar 2010 10:59 On Mar 25, 4:42 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3cbcfae1-4866-41aa-b30e-c7cba7a9ba5a(a)c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > Remember I was "Seekingacorrectexplanation 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?' I meant 'nor' . I made a mistake - I am not AE you know So is there a dependency on the source which is paradoxical? T
From: Androcles on 25 Mar 2010 11:27 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dd12006a-88c8-4062-a950-c8a7da62d422(a)f13g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 25, 4:42 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3cbcfae1-4866-41aa-b30e-c7cba7a9ba5a(a)c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> >> Remember I was "Seekingacorrectexplanation 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?' > > I meant 'nor' . I made a mistake - I am not AE you know > I'm not clairvoyant or a mind reader, I can only comment on what you say, not what you mean. > So is there a dependency on the source which is paradoxical? Does an arrow's speed depend on the bow? Look carefully, the arrow is spinning. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif If it spins it has a "wavelength", the distance it travels forward in one revolution. Both arrows make exactly the same number of turns in exactly the same time, but the target sees the arrow travel further than the bow sees it travel. It follows that the target sees a longer wavelength than the bow sees. Same for a photon. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif Maybe you think that's a paradox.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Mar 2010 16:00 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:47 -0700 (PDT), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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?' If a photon is emitted by a remote source 10 billion light years away, why should its speed be exactly c wrt little planet Earth...which didn't even exist when the photon was emitted. Relativists believe that the fairies adjust the speeds of all light so it all moves at precisely c wrt little planet Earth. Like the 'big bang' theory, this notion comes directly from the biblical claim that Earth is the centre of the universe....nothing else. Generally speaking, emitted light has only one speed reference...its source. As far as we know, it moves at c wrt that source. > >T Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 19:11 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:02d05217-670e-4373-a79d-48d3fc7d85c0(a)x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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. That only depends on the position of the light source at the time a given photon was emitted > Can you define light beam? It is the set of positions of all the photons at a given time > In any case, the light goes directly down the tube, Yes > 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 Except when you put water in it .. and it slows down > What am I missing here? If the angle is due to the motion of the telescope wrt the normal to the light (eg that the telescope is moving to the right (say) as the photon is travelling downward (say)) .. then slowing the light WILL change the angle (as it will move downward by a smaller distance over the length of the telescope tube) and so it will no longer go directly down the tube (not parallel to it). We don't see that. If the angle is due to the photon being aimed directly toward a fixed telescope, then there is no change in angle if the photon changes speed .. it just travels slower down the tube at the same angle. That is what we observe .. the same results as if the telescope was fixed. Do you understand now?
From: Inertial on 25 Mar 2010 19:12
"train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dd12006a-88c8-4062-a950-c8a7da62d422(a)f13g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 25, 4:42 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3cbcfae1-4866-41aa-b30e-c7cba7a9ba5a(a)c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> >> Remember I was "Seekingacorrectexplanation 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?' > > I meant 'nor' . I made a mistake - I am not AE you know He made mistakes to .. he was only human :) > So is there a dependency on the source which is paradoxical? That it is not dependent SEEMS paradoxical. The article you snipped your quote from explains that. |