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 30 Mar 2010 16:48 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:44:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >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 >>> 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.... > >, 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? ....does the tube bend or not? Answer the question please... >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? ....because you believe the tube bends.... >>> 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. > >Henry, I used to say that your stupidity never cease to amaze. > >Now it does. Paul, how is it that the object's path 'bends' but the tube does not? Have I discovered a flaw in the PoR? Please answer the question. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Mar 2010 18:05 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:46:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >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: >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. You are talking nonsense, as usual. The light slows immediately as it enters the water. It moves down the barrel at c/n.....(more correctly, at (c+v)/n) A telescope is aimed at a distant point source, that lies perpendicular to the Earth's orbit. We want to establish its required angle of tilt so that a narrow beam from that star will move down the centre of the barrel as the telescope traverses that beam. >> 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 and: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm explains why Fizeau refutes SR. >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. This has nothing to do with any 'aether'. It is pure NM. If light is ballistic, (as it is) and supposedly moves more slowly in the water, the telescope angle would have to change when filled with water, to keep the star's image at the same spot. There is no question about that. If this aberration angle DOES NOT change, as claimed experimentally, then it means either that the beam angle changes immediately it enters the water or that the speed of the beam does not change in the water. Rather, its 'wavelength' does. So I have now made another world shattering discovery. INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS DO NOT SLOW DOWN IN A MEDIUM. THEIR INTRINSIC WAVELENGTHS SHRINK. >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) Prove I'm wrong. After all, nobody has directly measured OWLS in water or glass. >> >>> The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant. But you have previously claimed that aberration angle SHOULD be affected by source speed. >> Yeup. >> >> >> Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 30 Mar 2010 18:08 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >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: >> >> >> > >> .. >> > >> 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). It is based on a false postulate. >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). See MY articles on this topic...The others are wrong. >4. No conflict, see above. Light is particulate....it consists of oscillating particles. >Harald Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: train on 31 Mar 2010 12:03 On Mar 29, 5:45 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 20.03.2010 01:04, Inertial wrote: > > > <SNIP> > > . / / > > . > > . / / > > . > > . 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", At rest with respect to what? > 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. Exactly. Now frame A is the telescope frame. Filling it with water will not change anything in this frame and we have no reason to expect it to do so. > > 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. > Is the light continuously slowing down or is it slowed down at the surface? Also the above is true for ballistic theory or emission theory as well. > 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_. > > 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. So the source may as well be stationary ? -c < v < c ? > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: train on 31 Mar 2010 12:06
On Mar 29, 7:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(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. I think so too. So it is impossible to say of the light came from a stationary star or a moving star, once the telescope is angled. So light from a stationary star will not bend as it slows down. What's the difference? > The speed of the source is irrelevant. > The velocity (direction) of the photon conveys no information about > the velocity of its source. Too true > > > > > > >> If it came from a star and is measured measured on earth, then we know that > >> they are relatively moving. We assume it is moving. This assumption is external to the framework we are using > > >> 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. > You just said there was no difference between a stationary and moving source. > >> .<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 beencorrect, > 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. > > 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. > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/aberration.pdfhttp://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |