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: Androcles on 29 Mar 2010 10:39 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message news:hoqc2q$16l9$1(a)news01.tp.hist.no... > On 21.03.2010 03:06, train wrote: >> On Mar 20, 5:04 am, "Inertial"<relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "train"<gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >>>> 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) ? > > Impossible to say. > The speed of the source is irrelevant. > The velocity (direction) of the photon conveys no information about > the velocity of its source. > >>> >>> 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? > > There is none, and it wouldn't. > > This idea that a water filled telescope should change the direction > of the light stems from rigid ether theory. If the light is a wave > in an ether, and the ether is moving through the telescope, then > the light should be 'dragged along with the ether' when its speed > is reduced, and thus change its direction. (If this had been correct, > you could measure the speed of the ether by measuring the angle.) > But as we know, that is not observed. > Fresnel tried to explain this apparent paradox with his ether drag > theory. He assumed that the water to some extent drag the ether > along with it, exactly enough to keep the light beam straight. > > >>> >>>> 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 am not quite sure what you mean by this statement. Gehan 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. > > The velocity of the source (star) has no effect on the direction in > which we see the star, it is utterly irrelevant. Gehan 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. > > This is very obvious when we observe the light from spectroscopic > binaries. They may have a huge speed relative to each other, yet > we always see them at the same spot, as one star. > Gehan 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. > Remember that aberration is the phenomenon that the direction > of light (or any velocity vector) is frame dependent. > So aberration is _always_ between two relatively moving > frames of reference (observers). Gehan 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. > > If two observers are observing the same source, the aberration > - that is the difference between the directions in which they > see the source - depend _only_ on their relative speed. > The speed of the source relative to them is irrelevant. > Ah... we have switch from "The velocity of the source" -- Andersen to "The speed of the source" -- Andersen Maybe that's your confusion, Tusseladd. Gehan 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. > Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that the direction in > which we see a star changes throughout the year. "The velocity of the source (star) has no effect on the direction in which we see the star, it is utterly irrelevant." -- Andersen > That depends on the _change_ of the velocity of the Earth only. Gehan 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. Poor confused Tusseladd does not accept the PoR. > During half a year, this change is twice the orbital speed of > the Earth, which is 3E4 m/s, or 10^-4 c. > So the angle should be ~ v/c = 2*10^-4 rad = 41", which is what is > observed. > In the frame of the telescope the star moves, which is what is observed. Gehan 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. Poor confused Tusseladd does not accept the PoR.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Mar 2010 17:13 On 29.03.2010 16:39, Androcles wrote: [snip] Shut up, Androcles. You are making noise. Bad boy. Didn't you learn in kindergarten not to shout da-da-da ? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Androcles on 29 Mar 2010 17:35 "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message news:4BB11804.2010802(a)somewhere.no... > On 29.03.2010 16:39, Androcles wrote: > > [snip] > > Shut up, Androcles. > You are making noise. Bad boy. > Didn't you learn in kindergarten not to shout da-da-da ? > " The velocity of the source (star) has no effect on the direction in which we see the star, it is utterly irrelevant." -- da-da-da Andersen " If two observers are observing the same source, the aberration - that is the difference between the directions in which they see the source - depend _only_ on their relative speed." .-- da-da-da Andersen In the frame of the telescope the star moves, which is what is observed even in the far north of Norway where the Sun goes around the horizon without setting, da-da-da Tusseladd. It's only 600 miles for you to get to the Arctic circle, da-da-da Tusseladd. Di you know the Sun is a star, Tusseladd? Gehan 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. Poor confused da-da-da Tusseladd does not accept the PoR.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Mar 2010 18:06 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:45:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 20.03.2010 01:04, Inertial wrote: >> 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/ / > >Hm. >This is correct as it stands, but it rests on an assumption >you may not be aware of. > >Not to nit-pick, but I asked myself these questions: > >What is the difference between the inertial "rest frame", >and the inertial "moving telescope frame"? > >Why is the trajectory of the particle straight in the former >but bent in the latter? > >Let me illustrate. >In inertial frame A, a particle is going 'straight down', >and is reducing its speed from v1 to v2. > > o > o v1 > o > X > o > o v2 > o >The trajectory is a straight line in frame A. > >Frame B is moving 'horizontally' to the right at some speed v. >In this frame the trajectory would look something like this this: > > o > o > o > X > o > o >o > >The trajectory is bent in frame B. > >Why? >The point is that there is no such thing as 'reducing the speed >of the particle along its direction of motion', because the direction >of motion is frame dependent. Hahahhahhhahhahhaha! Let an object accelerate along the centre line of a long straight tube. Does its increase in speed wrt the tube cause the tube to bend whenever a moving observer happens to look at it? ...................the mind of the relativist ccertainly operates in very strange ways.... >So the important question is: > What is the direction of the force that is acting on the particle? >In frame A this force must be acting upwards opposite to the velocity >of the particle. >In frame B the force will still act vertically upwards, so it has an >angle to the velocity of the particle, and will change the direction >of the velocity as well as reducing the speed. > >The point is that if the speed of the particle is reduced by >entering some medium, like a water filled telescope, the speed reducing >force will act opposite to the velocity _in the telescope frame_, >so the trajectory of the particle will be straight _in the telescope >frame_. > >Your somewhat questionable assumption was that the speed reducing >force was acting opposite to the velocity of the particle in >the (arbitrary?) 'rest frame', and thus not in the 'moving telescope frame'. > >The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant. .....to those who still believe in an absolute aether.... Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Androcles on 29 Mar 2010 18:18
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:0882r51d9t6g9occkvrg45thatc87ratv1(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:45:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: <You didn't do a very good snip, Awilson -- you scored zilch on the Awilson IQ snipping scale> >>The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant. > > ....to those who still believe in an absolute aether.... The bow being the source of the arrow... http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif The speed of the target is in any case utterly irrelevant. The speed of Tusseladd's brain is in any case utterly irrelevant, he still doesn't understand the principle of relativity. |