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 1 Apr 2010 03:20 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:29:50 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"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... >> 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. there isn't any difference. >> 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 there have never been any such experiments involving a moving source.. >> The range of colour is very small, we have the entire electromagnetic >> spectrum to consider. > >No experiment has shown otherwise there have never been any such experiments >> 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? We do. Astronomers have been making complete fools of themselves because of Einstein. >> 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? How come you never write any equations? Are you as useless as little eric? >> 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 Einstein destroyed physics. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: harald on 1 Apr 2010 03:38 On Apr 1, 2:15 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(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: > > > > 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. Yes - the problem is with the misleading term "the Aether theory", as in fact you mean the aether theory based on Newtonian mechanics. It then became clear that either Newtonian mechanics or Maxwell's electrodynamics (or both) needed some tinkering with. However, the modifications by SRT are too small to make a measurable difference for stellar aberration. Regards, Harald > 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: train on 2 Apr 2010 11:15 On Apr 1, 12:38 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Apr 1, 2:15 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(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: > > > > > 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. > > Yes - the problem is with the misleading term "the Aether theory", as > in fact you mean the aether theory based on Newtonian mechanics. It > then became clear that either Newtonian mechanics or Maxwell's > electrodynamics (or both) needed some tinkering with. However, the > modifications by SRT are too small to make a measurable difference for > stellar aberration. > > Regards, > Harald > > > 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 So then 'aberration proves SRT' is not a correct statement, not is "aberration disproves SRT?"
From: harald on 2 Apr 2010 20:04 On Apr 2, 5:15 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:38 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1, 2:15 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(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: > > > > > > 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. > > > Yes - the problem is with the misleading term "the Aether theory", as > > in fact you mean the aether theory based on Newtonian mechanics. It > > then became clear that either Newtonian mechanics or Maxwell's > > electrodynamics (or both) needed some tinkering with. However, the > > modifications by SRT are too small to make a measurable difference for > > stellar aberration. > > > Regards, > > Harald > > > > 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 > > So then 'aberration proves SRT' is not a correct statement, not is > "aberration disproves SRT?" Few things "prove" a theory (even non according to some), and indeed aberration is just one test to check a theory. Harald
From: Inertial on 6 Apr 2010 05:06
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:m2flr5hmh2uubhsse18hdm4bu37cv8hrcf(a)4ax.com... > ...poor girl....no physics ability whatsoever.... > > Henry Wilson... You just summed yourself up nicely |