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 14 Mar 2010 04:27 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >On Mar 13, 10:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes >> >to stellar abberation? >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light �speed emitted by �stars >> that are moving towards or away from us. >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, > >===================== > >> all starlight is adjusted >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. > >Considerably earlier than that by a different form of >the same relation. > >See equation (1146) >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > >Sue... Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu. But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There isn't one. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 14 Mar 2010 04:56 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:s87pp5pam3uedspbqkj24ni8gaa2bbh77n(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." > <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > >>On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train >>> <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: > >>> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes >>> >to stellar abberation? >>> >>> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your >>> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. >>> >>> That's right. That is not in dispute. >>> >>> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for >>> planet Earth >>> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by >>> stars >>> that are moving towards or away from us. >>> >>> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles >>> are far >>> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, >> >>===================== >> >>> all starlight is adjusted >>> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. >> >>Considerably earlier than that by a different form of >>the same relation. >> >>See equation (1146) >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space >> >>Sue... > > Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a > mu. > But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If > you > try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. > > Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. > There > isn't one. > You said something right for a change...
From: Sue... on 14 Mar 2010 10:57 On Mar 14, 4:27 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes > >> >to stellar abberation? > > >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your > >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. > > >> That's right. That is not in dispute. > > >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth > >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars > >> that are moving towards or away from us. > > >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far > >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, > > >===================== > > >> all starlight is adjusted > >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. > > >Considerably earlier than that by a different form of > >the same relation. > > >See equation (1146) > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > >Sue... > > Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu. > But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you > try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". > > Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There > isn't one. Just none that you ever bothered to read. Green's Functions http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html Sue... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 14 Mar 2010 17:34 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >On Mar 14, 4:27�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Mar 13, 10:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes >> >> >to stellar abberation? >> >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your >> >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. >> >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. >> >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth >> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light �speed emitted by �stars >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. >> >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far >> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, >> >> >===================== >> >> >> all starlight is adjusted >> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. >> >> >Considerably �earlier than that by a different form of >> >the same relation. >> >> >See equation (1146) >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space "....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point charges....." "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....." >> >> >Sue... >> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and �a mu. >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. > >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down. Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form. In those, EM is 100% ballistic. >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There >> isn't one. > >Just none that you ever bothered to read. ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame. >Green's Functions >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source. Very good..... That's the basis of Bath. >Sue... > > >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Sue... on 14 Mar 2010 19:06
On Mar 14, 5:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 14, 4:27 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo..com.au> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes > >> >> >to stellar abberation? > > >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your > >> >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. > > >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. > > >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth > >> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars > >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. > > >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far > >> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, > > >> >===================== > > >> >> all starlight is adjusted > >> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. > > >> >Considerably earlier than that by a different form of > >> >the same relation. > > >> >See equation (1146) http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > "....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must > have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point > charges....." > ============== > "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, > is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by > treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....." That sounds like we can't get far enough from anything to see other than 377 ohms. It is certainly not supportive of any anomalous EM behaviour in "truly empty space" as you suggested. > > > > >> >Sue... > > >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu. > >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you > >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. > > >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". > > Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down.. > Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form. > In those, EM is 100% ballistic. That requires particle-light and a theory of inertia. The first is never observed. The second you have never offered. > > >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There > >> isn't one. > > >Just none that you ever bothered to read. > > ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame. > > >Green's Functions > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html > > It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source. No... The motion to the source is not mentioned. That is covered on following pages. Sue... [...] |