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 31 Mar 2010 20:15 On Apr 1, 3:00 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Mar 31, 6:11 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 5:23 pm, harald <h...(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: > > > > > > "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. > > > Galilean relativity makes no special exception for light, but by > > default all phenomena are included, including the emission of light. > > That was the problem. Experiments subsequently showed that there was > > no ether ... > > Which ones do you think? ;-) > -http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html A somewhat careless comment. It is accepted that the MM experiment failed to find any effects predicted by the Aether theory. I personally don't believe in Aether. However I believe it is possible that each point in space is uniquely identified by the strength and direction of gravitational forces in its reqion - an absolute reference point > > > > 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
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 31 Mar 2010 20:29 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:15:41 -0700 (PDT), train <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 1, 3:00�am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Mar 31, 6:11�pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > 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. >> >> > Galilean relativity makes no special exception for light, but by >> > default all phenomena are included, including the emission of light. >> > That was the problem. Experiments subsequently showed that there was >> > no ether ... >> >> Which ones do you think? ;-) >> -http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > >A somewhat careless comment. It is accepted that the MM experiment >failed to find any effects predicted by the Aether theory. It did not ruke out the aether as proposed by Fizgerald and Lorentz. They introduced the LTs...you know...the same ones Einstein stole. >I personally don't believe in Aether. There isn't one. >However I believe it is possible >that each point in space is uniquely identified by the strength and >direction of gravitational forces in its reqion - an absolute >reference point There could be 'local aether-like regions', that effect light speed. >> > > 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 Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 31 Mar 2010 20:41 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:168b92e9-5ac7-4948-9520-bc6a91a292a6(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 1, 3:00 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Mar 31, 6:11 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 30, 5:23 pm, harald <h...(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: >> >> > > > > "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. >> >> > Galilean relativity makes no special exception for light, but by >> > default all phenomena are included, including the emission of light. >> > That was the problem. Experiments subsequently showed that there was >> > no ether ... >> >> Which ones do you think? ;-) >> -http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > > A somewhat careless comment. It is accepted that the MM experiment > failed to find any effects predicted by the Aether theory. > > I personally don't believe in Aether. However I believe it is possible > that each point in space is uniquely identified by the strength and > direction of gravitational forces in its reqion - an absolute > reference point You make it sound like a point is some fixed thing that doesn't move. That isn't the case .. it is all frame of reference dependent.
From: Androcles on 31 Mar 2010 21:12 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0e4f089b-3cfc-4aae-a518-6281cd5f9322(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 31, 10:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a62fc97c-65e9-4f4c-a86b-f151d0c9e7e1(a)y33g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 29, 7:39 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: > > > > > > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote in > > messagenews: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 > > > >>>> 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. > > > 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. > > Could you please explain what you mean? How would you tell the > difference between a moving source and moving telescope? > ============================================= > Easy, the source shines the light and the telescope sees it. > Or the bow shoots the arrow and the target gets hit by it. > How difficult can it be? > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif > > Oh wait, you mean how can you tell which is MOVING? > You can't tell that, you assume the telescope is moving relative > to ALL the stars and the stars are at rest wrt to each other, but > they are not really. Barnard's Star has quite a good speed. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard's_Star > > Based on the data alone you could be in a fast moving spaceship and > Barnard's Star could be at rest, just nearer than the other stars. To quote AE "every child knows" > Yes, that's a disingenuous argument when applied to "[light has] a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec", especially when 15 years earlier he was prepared to say "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v", so he KNOWS the speed of light like any speed is relative. Let's be honest, NO child in school KNOWS light travels at 300,000 km/sec, that's just a number they a told about and are expected to believe. Even you don't KNOW it and this image suggests it isn't, even though Einstein claims to know it with "great exactness" to promote his theory. "At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours." The range of colour is very small, we have the entire electromagnetic spectrum to consider. If the speed of ultra violet and x-rays and the speed of infra-red is different from visible light, then over a great distance the images of a rotating galaxy will differ, and that is just what we are seeing here. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html When you realise Einstein was an abject liar his rhetoric ceases to be persuasive, and if you could read algebra and calculus you would know just how much of a cheat he was. It is obvious to me that you have little education in mathematics or you would not be asking questions here, but teaching as I try to do. He promotes his light postulate above the simpler law of the PoR. Einstein has done more to retard the advancement of science than any man before him. > Poor ASSistant Professor Tusseladd (no degree, a community college > teaching ASSistant in the land of the Vikings) does not accept the PoR. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm > If you see his reply to me you'll notice he didn't have one, all he > could do was snip. That's not very scientific or conduct becoming > a teacher, he should be fired, but I suppose they'll take any old rubbish > in Norway. A Norwegian invented the paper clip, y'know.
From: Inertial on 31 Mar 2010 21:29
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote in message news:LqSsn.14307$Mq2.10036(a)newsfe30.ams2... > > "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:0e4f089b-3cfc-4aae-a518-6281cd5f9322(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 31, 10:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> > wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a62fc97c-65e9-4f4c-a86b-f151d0c9e7e1(a)y33g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 29, 7:39 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_x> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote in >> > messagenews: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 >> >> > >>>> 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. >> >> > 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. >> >> Could you please explain what you mean? How would you tell the >> difference between a moving source and moving telescope? >> ============================================= >> Easy, the source shines the light and the telescope sees it. >> Or the bow shoots the arrow and the target gets hit by it. >> How difficult can it be? >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif >> >> Oh wait, you mean how can you tell which is MOVING? >> You can't tell that, you assume the telescope is moving relative >> to ALL the stars and the stars are at rest wrt to each other, but >> they are not really. Barnard's Star has quite a good speed. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard's_Star >> >> Based on the data alone you could be in a fast moving spaceship and >> Barnard's Star could be at rest, just nearer than the other stars. > > To quote AE "every child knows" >> > Yes, that's a disingenuous argument when applied to > "[light has] a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec", > especially when 15 years earlier he was prepared to say "But the ray moves > relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary > system, with the velocity c-v", so he KNOWS the speed of light like any > speed is relative. You still don't understand the difference between velocity and closing speed. Sad > Let's be honest, NO child in school KNOWS light travels at 300,000 km/sec, > that's just a number they a told about and are expected to believe. Even > you don't KNOW it and this image suggests it isn't, even though > Einstein claims to know it with "great exactness" to promote his theory. > "At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same > for all colours." Well. experiment shows that that is the case > The range of colour is very small, we have the entire electromagnetic > spectrum to consider. No experiment has shown otherwise > If the speed of ultra violet and x-rays and the speed of infra-red is > different from visible light, then over a great distance the images of a > rotating galaxy will differ, and that is just what we are seeing here. > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html That is not the only explanation for that effect. Why don't we see the same thing for EVERY distant object? > When you realise Einstein was an abject liar his rhetoric ceases to be > persuasive, and if you could read algebra > and calculus you would know just how much of a cheat he was. You can't. you've demonstrated that before > It is obvious to me that you have little education in mathematics or you > would not be asking questions here, but teaching as I try to do. BAHAHA .. you? teach mathematics? > He promotes his light postulate above the simpler law of the PoR. > Einstein has done more to retard the advancement of science than any man > before him. Science does not agree >> Poor ASSistant Professor Tusseladd (no degree, a community college >> teaching ASSistant in the land of the Vikings) does not accept the PoR. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm >> If you see his reply to me you'll notice he didn't have one, all he >> could do was snip. That's not very scientific or conduct becoming >> a teacher, he should be fired, but I suppose they'll take any old rubbish >> in Norway. A Norwegian invented the paper clip, y'know. > |