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 14 Mar 2010 19:37 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >On Mar 14, 5:34�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Mar 14, 4:27�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Mar 13, 10:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes >> >> >> >to stellar abberation? >> >> >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your >> >> >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. >> >> >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. >> >> >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth >> >> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light �speed emitted by �stars >> >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. >> >> >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far >> >> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, >> >> >> >===================== >> >> >> >> all starlight is adjusted >> >> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. >> >> >> >Considerably �earlier than that by a different form of >> >> >the same relation. >> >> >> >See equation (1146) >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space >> >> "....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must >> have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point >> charges....." >> > >============== > >> "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, >> is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by >> treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....." > >That sounds like we can't get far enough from anything to see other >than 377 ohms. It is certainly not supportive of any anomalous EM >behaviour >in "truly empty space" as you suggested. Any attempt to measure it destroys the emptiness. All that is measured is the property of the field used in the measurement. >> >> >Sue... >> >> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and �a mu. >> >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you >> >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. >> >> >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". >> >> Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down. >> Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form. >> In those, EM is 100% ballistic. > >That requires particle-light and a theory of inertia. > >The first is never observed. ......where have you been for the past 120 years? >The second you have never >offered. sorry, I don't see any connection with 'inertia'. Please explain. >> >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There >> >> isn't one. >> >> >Just none that you ever bothered to read. >> >> ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame. >> >> >Green's Functions >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html >> >> It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source. > >No... The motion to the source is not mentioned. It doesn't move in its own frame. >That is covered on following pages. Light moves at c wrt its source. Nobody has measured e or mu at a particular point using relatively moving apparatus. >Sue... > >[...] > Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Sue... on 14 Mar 2010 19:49 On Mar 14, 7:37 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 14, 5:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo..com.au> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Mar 14, 4:27 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek....(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes > >> >> >> >to stellar abberation? > > >> >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your > >> >> >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. > > >> >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. > > >> >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth > >> >> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars > >> >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. > > >> >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far > >> >> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, > > >> >> >===================== > > >> >> >> all starlight is adjusted > >> >> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. > > >> >> >Considerably earlier than that by a different form of > >> >> >the same relation. > > >> >> >See equation (1146) > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > >> "....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must > >> have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point > >> charges....." > > >============== > > >> "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, > >> is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by > >> treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"......" > > >That sounds like we can't get far enough from anything to see other > >than 377 ohms. It is certainly not supportive of any anomalous EM > >behaviour > >in "truly empty space" as you suggested. > ==== > Any attempt to measure it destroys the emptiness. All that is measured is the > property of the field used in the measurement. I think watching paint dry might be more entertaining than than your accounts of measurements you never made in places you have never been so I wish you a pleasant week. Bye. Sue... > > >> >> >Sue... > > >> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu. > >> >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you > >> >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. > > >> >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". > > >> Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down. > >> Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form.. > >> In those, EM is 100% ballistic. > > >That requires particle-light and a theory of inertia. > > >The first is never observed. > > .....where have you been for the past 120 years? > > >The second you have never > >offered. > > sorry, I don't see any connection with 'inertia'. Please explain. > > >> >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There > >> >> isn't one. > > >> >Just none that you ever bothered to read. > > >> ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame. > > >> >Green's Functions > >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html > > >> It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source. > > >No... The motion to the source is not mentioned. > > It doesn't move in its own frame. > > >That is covered on following pages. > > Light moves at c wrt its source. > > Nobody has measured e or mu at a particular point using relatively moving > apparatus. > > >Sue... > > >[...] > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 15 Mar 2010 15:24 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >On Mar 14, 7:37�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Mar 14, 5:34�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Mar 14, 4:27�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Mar 13, 10:32�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes >> >> >> >> >to stellar abberation? >> >> >> >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your >> >> >> >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. >> >> >> >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. >> >> >> >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth >> >> >> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light �speed emitted by �stars >> >> >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. >> >> >> >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far >> >> >> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, >> >> >> >> >===================== >> >> >> >> >> all starlight is adjusted >> >> >> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. >> >> >> >> >Considerably �earlier than that by a different form of >> >> >> >the same relation. >> >> >> >> >See equation (1146) >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space >> >> >> "....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must >> >> have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point >> >> charges....." >> >> >============== >> >> >> "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, >> >> is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by >> >> treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....." >> >> >That sounds like we can't get far enough from anything to see other >> >than 377 ohms. �It is certainly not supportive of any anomalous EM >> >behaviour >> >in "truly empty space" �as you suggested. >> > >==== >> Any attempt to measure it destroys the emptiness. All that is measured is the >> property of the field used in the measurement. > >I think watching paint dry might be more entertaining than >than your accounts of measurements you never made in places >you have never been so I wish you a pleasant week. Bye. Give it up. Your aether theory was tossed out many years ago. ALL velocities are frame dependent by definition. >Sue... > >> >> >> >> >Sue... >> >> >> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and �a mu. >> >> >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you >> >> >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. >> >> >> >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". >> >> >> Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down. >> >> Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form. >> >> In those, EM is 100% ballistic. >> >> >That requires �particle-light and a theory of inertia. >> >> >The first is never observed. >> >> .....where have you been for the past 120 years? >> >> >The second you have never >> >offered. >> >> sorry, I don't see any connection with 'inertia'. Please explain. >> >> >> >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There >> >> >> isn't one. >> >> >> >Just none that you ever bothered to read. >> >> >> ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame. >> >> >> >Green's Functions >> >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html >> >> >> It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source. >> >> >No... The motion to the source is not mentioned. >> >> It doesn't move in its own frame. >> >> >That is covered on following pages. >> >> Light moves at c wrt its source. >> >> Nobody has measured e or mu at a particular point using relatively moving >> apparatus. >> >> >Sue... >> >> >[...] >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Sue... on 15 Mar 2010 16:25 On Mar 15, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 14, 7:37 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo..com.au> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Mar 14, 5:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >On Mar 14, 4:27 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> >On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes > >> >> >> >> >to stellar abberation? > > >> >> >> >> >If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your > >> >> >> >> >telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope. > > >> >> >> >> That's right. That is not in dispute. > > >> >> >> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth > >> >> >> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars > >> >> >> >> that are moving towards or away from us. > > >> >> >> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far > >> >> >> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, > > >> >> >> >===================== > > >> >> >> >> all starlight is adjusted > >> >> >> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere. > > >> >> >> >Considerably earlier than that by a different form of > >> >> >> >the same relation. > > >> >> >> >See equation (1146) > >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > >> >> "....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must > >> >> have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point > >> >> charges....." > > >> >============== > > >> >> "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, > >> >> is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by > >> >> treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....." > > >> >That sounds like we can't get far enough from anything to see other > >> >than 377 ohms. It is certainly not supportive of any anomalous EM > >> >behaviour > >> >in "truly empty space" as you suggested. > > >==== > >> Any attempt to measure it destroys the emptiness. All that is measured is the > >> property of the field used in the measurement. > > >I think watching paint dry might be more entertaining than > >than your accounts of measurements you never made in places > >you have never been so I wish you a pleasant week. Bye. > > Give it up. > Your aether theory was tossed out many years ago. Oh Really? !!! << magnetic constant $\mu_0$ Value 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2 Standard uncertainty (exact) Relative standard uncertainty (exact) Concise form 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2 Source: 2006 CODATA >> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0 http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space Bye again <PLONK> Sue... > ALL velocities are frame dependent by definition. > > > > >Sue... > > >> >> >> >Sue... > > >> >> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu. > >> >> >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you > >> >> >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'. > > >> >> >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space". > > >> >> Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down. > >> >> Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form. > >> >> In those, EM is 100% ballistic. > > >> >That requires particle-light and a theory of inertia. > > >> >The first is never observed. > > >> .....where have you been for the past 120 years? > > >> >The second you have never > >> >offered. > > >> sorry, I don't see any connection with 'inertia'. Please explain. > > >> >> >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There > >> >> >> isn't one. > > >> >> >Just none that you ever bothered to read. > > >> >> ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame. > > >> >> >Green's Functions > >> >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html > > >> >> It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source. > > >> >No... The motion to the source is not mentioned. > > >> It doesn't move in its own frame. > > >> >That is covered on following pages. > > >> Light moves at c wrt its source. > > >> Nobody has measured e or mu at a particular point using relatively moving > >> apparatus. > > >> >Sue... > > >> >[...] > > >> Henry Wilson... > > >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons
From: Koobee Wublee on 15 Mar 2010 16:41
On Mar 8, 2:19 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 07.03.2010 01:19, train wrote: > > According to the special theory of relativity, the aberration only > > depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light > > from the star. > > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm > > > "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the > > star." > > > Whic is always c , right? > > Stellar aberration depends only on the change of the velocity > of the Earth. The above statement is wrong under the frame work of relativity. > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf It sounds like you dont accept relativity. > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ You believe in relativity but apply special frame of reference to solve the problems. In reality, you are just confused. |