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: Inertial on 29 Mar 2010 21:35 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1d23e4a8-317d-4b64-b773-2867093d7c11(a)x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 30, 4:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote in >> messagenews:hoq7db$14db$1(a)news01.tp.hist.no... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 iscorrectas 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 >> >> Yes .. hence the change in angle. It all depends on in which frame the >> 'slowing' happens. >> >> >> >> > 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. >> > 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_. >> >> It really depends how the slowing happens, I guess. Does moving water >> take >> light along with it? >> >> > 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'. >> >> I guess we should ask (if they were still alive) those who did the >> water-in-the-telescope experiments why they were expecting to possibly >> see a >> change in the angle :):) >> >> > The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant. >> >> Yeup. > > It's like this forum - we view the source - Albert Einstein, and > viewed through our own telescopes and our own assumptions we cannot > all agree. > > You raise an important point that since AE is not alive we cannot > really know what he thought? It wasn't his experiment > We are interpreting his theory into our > own FoR - translating it using .. I don't know what. > > Is it all relative? > > Is there a different between photons going down the telecope tube if > the source was moving and the source was at rest? Nope .. other than doppler shift. > A B > > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > | . | | . | > > In A: the source and telescope are in stationary wrt each other > > In B: the source is moving, but the telescope is angled so the photon > goes straight down > > What is the physical difference between A and B? None
From: Paul B. Andersen on 30 Mar 2010 05:22 On 30.03.2010 00:22, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:05:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> 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. > > But you just demonstrated in your previous post that a change in speed DOES > change the angle. > >> 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. >> >> The velocity of the source (star) has no effect on the direction in >> which we see the star, it is utterly irrelevant. >> >> 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. > > We don't...but the difference is too small to be observed. > >> 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). >> >> 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. >> >> Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that the direction in >> which we see a star changes throughout the year. >> That depends on the _change_ of the velocity of the Earth only. >> 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. > > What happens if we observe a star EXACTLY 100 LYs away that just happens to be > moving around an orbit that is parallel and identical to Earth's? > > > ____s>____star's orbit > > > > > > > ____e>____earth's orbit > > The star, which appears as a point source of light, is always at rest wrt > earth. > Why should aberration occur? I see you still don't understand stellar aberration. Why am I not surprised? Read: >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Paul B. Andersen on 30 Mar 2010 05:44 On 30.03.2010 00:06, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > 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.... Ralph, this is simple, basic, Newtonian dynamics. The issue is how a ballistic particle would behave when it changes its speed. Is the trajectory straight, or is it bent? You have just made a gigantic fool of yourself by demonstrating that don't understand what Newton might have explained to you. But why am I not surprised? > >> 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. Ralph, I used to say that your stupidity never cease to amaze. Now it does. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Paul B. Andersen on 30 Mar 2010 06:46 On 30.03.2010 01:09, Inertial wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message > news:hoq7db$14db$1(a)news01.tp.hist.no... >> 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. The figures a screwed up. By your news reader? Does it remove leading spaces? >> >> 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 original figures was like this: (Must be read with fixed width fonts.) 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. > > Yes .. hence the change in angle. It all depends on in which frame the > 'slowing' happens. > >> 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. >> 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_. > > It really depends how the slowing happens, I guess. Right. But remember that we are talking about how a ballistic particle would behave. Light doesn't behave like this. > Does moving water take light along with it? In the real world, yes, sort of. Fizeau's experiment. http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf The speed of light in the water frame is c/n. This speed transforms according to the 'velocity addition formula' just like any other speed. So in a frame of reference where the water is moving, the speed of light will to a first order approximation be: c' = (c/n +/- v)/(1 +/- ((c/n)v/c^2)) where v is the speed of the water. A first order approximation be: c' = c/n +/- v(1-1/n^2) This equation is identical to Fresnel's. So Fresnel got it right (to a first order approximation), but for the wrong reasons. BTW, this 'drag' is the reason why the refraction index doesn't affect the phase shift in a fiber optic gyro: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf > >> 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'. > > I guess we should ask (if they were still alive) those who did the > water-in-the-telescope experiments why they were expecting to possibly > see a change in the angle :):) I addressed that very point in my other posting (response to train): 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. But in the real world this 'drag' (neither ether drag, nor 'relativistic drag' explained above) is the reason why the light beam remains straight in a water filled telescope. Nothing is dragging it sideways, so why should it bend? (as long as the water surface is perpendicular to the light beam, of course) > >> The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant. > > Yeup. > > > -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: harald on 30 Mar 2010 08:23
On Mar 28, 3:00 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 27, 3:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:3df57f91-3000-4475-b243-fefb2293f1c1(a)h35g2000pri.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Mar 26, 4:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(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 > > > > OK > > >> light (eg that the telescope is moving to the right (say) as the photon > > >> is > > > > OK > > > >> travelling downward (say)) .. then slowing the light WILL change the > > >> angle > > > > You aim the telescope so the light goes down it. > > > And the angle will need to be different if filled with water > > > > There is nothing in the experiment about 'slowing the light' > > > Of course there is .. that was the whole POINT of it. > > > > How is > > > this done? > > > Water > > > >> (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? > > In your opinion, Does aberration conflict with > > 1) Galilean Relativity > 2) Special Relativity > 3) The Ballistic theory of light > 4) The Wave theory of light > > This is what I am getting at > > T 1. No conflict if we assume the wave theory of light plus either Fresnel's ether theory (obsolete) or multiple light scattering theory (modern). Galilean relativity doesn't include a theory of light, and aberration is a too small effect to notice the difference between Galilean relativity and special relativity. 2. No conflict (Special Relativity is based on wave theory). 3. It is thought to be in conflict with observations of nearby double stars, see papers on that topic. (Note that there are also other tests than aberration). 4. No conflict, see above. Harald |