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: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Apr 2010 17:23 On 14.04.2010 23:46, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:28:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> >> Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> | You throw a ball with a horizontal velocity component v (in ground frame). >> | Is the trajectory in the ground frame a parabola, Henry? >> | >> >> Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson responded: >> | It is indeed. >> >> Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >> | A laser with a vertical beam is moving along the ground under the ball >> | with the speed v, so that the beam always hits the ball. >> | >> | O = ball with horizontal velocity component v >> | X = laser moving along the horizontal ground with speed v >> | | = vertical laser beam always hitting the ball >> | .. = trajectory of ball in ground frame >> | -- = ground >> | >> | . O->v . >> | . | . >> | . | . >> | . X->v . >> | ---------------------------- >> | >> | Is the trajectory of the ball a straight line in >> | the laser frame, Henry? >> >> Henry Wilson responded: >> | Of course. >> >> So Henry Wilson know that the trajectory of >> an object can be a straight line in one frame and a parabola >> in another. > > My argument is over you use of the word 'trajectory'. If you don't know what a 'trajectory' is, look it up. I use the word in the conventional way, and am not interested in any redefinition you might wish to invent. > >> But: >> >> On 14.04.2010 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> Paul, if a moving object's position never deviates from a particular laser >>> beam, how can its TRAJECTORY be anything but straight. >>> >>> You must know how laser beams are used to create level surfaces, for instance >>> for farms and buildings, are you claiming that these are NOT level whenever >>> someone climbs up a ladder? >>> >>> ....and now you have to explain how the laser beam that shines a spot on the >>> object is also apparently curved in frame B. >>> >>> ... >>> >>> You obviously cannot fathom how the path can APPEAR to be bent yet >>> always lies on the straight laser beam. You are stalling for time in the hope >>> that an answer will suddenly appear from the sky. >> >> >> Hilarious, no? :-) > > No. > Paul, let me explain further. > > To the moving observer, the whole laser vertical beam moves sideways. The > object moves up and down that laser beam......ALWAYS IN A STRAIGHT LINE. > > The plain fact is, the moving observer KNOWS the object's movement is always > confined to that straight line even though his plot of its height versus > distance IN HIS FRAME shows a curve. Quite. So when you to my statement: | You throw a ball with a horizontal velocity component v | (in ground frame). | Is the trajectory in the ground frame a parabola, Henry? ... responded: | It is indeed. Then you were wrong. You should have stated: "No it is a straight line". because that's: > ...not hilarious...just plain physics... Right? Or does a thrown stone move along a straight line only when a moving laser shines on it? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 17 Apr 2010 18:08 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 14.04.2010 23:46, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:28:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> >>> Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>> | A laser with a vertical beam is moving along the ground under the ball >>> | with the speed v, so that the beam always hits the ball. >>> | >>> | O = ball with horizontal velocity component v >>> | X = laser moving along the horizontal ground with speed v >>> | | = vertical laser beam always hitting the ball >>> | .. = trajectory of ball in ground frame >>> | -- = ground >>> | >>> | . O->v . >>> | . | . >>> | . | . >>> | . X->v . >>> | ---------------------------- >>> | >>> | Is the trajectory of the ball a straight line in >>> | the laser frame, Henry? >>> >>> Henry Wilson responded: >>> | Of course. >>> >>> So Henry Wilson know that the trajectory of >>> an object can be a straight line in one frame and a parabola >>> in another. >> >> My argument is over you use of the word 'trajectory'. > >If you don't know what a 'trajectory' is, look it up. > >I use the word in the conventional way, and am not >interested in any redefinition you might wish to invent. Then my argument is over you use of the word 'conventional'. >>> But: >>> >>> On 14.04.2010 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>> Paul, if a moving object's position never deviates from a particular laser >>>> beam, how can its TRAJECTORY be anything but straight. >>>> >>>> You must know how laser beams are used to create level surfaces, for instance >>>> for farms and buildings, are you claiming that these are NOT level whenever >>>> someone climbs up a ladder? >>>> >>>> ....and now you have to explain how the laser beam that shines a spot on the >>>> object is also apparently curved in frame B. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> You obviously cannot fathom how the path can APPEAR to be bent yet >>>> always lies on the straight laser beam. You are stalling for time in the hope >>>> that an answer will suddenly appear from the sky. >>> >>> >>> Hilarious, no? :-) >> >> No. >> Paul, let me explain further. >> >> To the moving observer, the whole laser vertical beam moves sideways. The >> object moves up and down that laser beam......ALWAYS IN A STRAIGHT LINE. >> >> The plain fact is, the moving observer KNOWS the object's movement is always >> confined to that straight line even though his plot of its height versus >> distance IN HIS FRAME shows a curve. > >Quite. >So when you to my statement: >| You throw a ball with a horizontal velocity component v >| (in ground frame). >| Is the trajectory in the ground frame a parabola, Henry? > >.. responded: >| It is indeed. > >Then you were wrong. >You should have stated: "No it is a straight line". > >because that's: >> ...not hilarious...just plain physics... > >Right? > >Or does a thrown stone move along a straight line only >when a moving laser shines on it? You are showing a lack of understanding of the basic principles of relativity and are inadvertently claiming to have found a neat way to bend light. Your 'thrown stone' is initially at rest in the ground frame and is then given an acceleration ...along with the laser. This is a noninertial situation. You SHOULD be looking at this problem from the stone's point of view. Let a stone move up and down a STRAIGHT laser beam. It has NO lateral forces acting on it...only vertical ones. To any horizontally moving inertial observer, an y-t plot will produce a curve....in the above case a parabola. But that observer sees the laser beam moving away too and the plotted points are for DIFFERENT values of his x coordinate.. .. So is his plot y-t or y-x? This is now a 3D situation not 2D. My definition of 'TRUE trajectory' is that measured with the x coordinate constant....ie., 2D....and there is only one frame where the stone remains at the same x coordinate. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Apr 2010 16:41 On 18.04.2010 00:08, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: > >> On 14.04.2010 23:46, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:28:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >>>> >>>> Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>>> | A laser with a vertical beam is moving along the ground under the ball >>>> | with the speed v, so that the beam always hits the ball. >>>> | >>>> | O = ball with horizontal velocity component v >>>> | X = laser moving along the horizontal ground with speed v >>>> | | = vertical laser beam always hitting the ball >>>> | .. = trajectory of ball in ground frame >>>> | -- = ground >>>> | >>>> | . O->v . >>>> | . | . >>>> | . | . >>>> | . X->v . >>>> | ---------------------------- >>>> | >>>> | Is the trajectory of the ball a straight line in >>>> | the laser frame, Henry? >>>> >>>> Henry Wilson responded: >>>> | Of course. >>>> >>>> So Henry Wilson know that the trajectory of >>>> an object can be a straight line in one frame and a parabola >>>> in another. >>> >>> My argument is over you use of the word 'trajectory'. >> >> If you don't know what a 'trajectory' is, look it up. >> >> I use the word in the conventional way, and am not >> interested in any redefinition you might wish to invent. > > Then my argument is over you use of the word 'conventional'. > >>>> But: >>>> >>>> On 14.04.2010 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> Paul, if a moving object's position never deviates from a particular laser >>>>> beam, how can its TRAJECTORY be anything but straight. >>>>> >>>>> You must know how laser beams are used to create level surfaces, for instance >>>>> for farms and buildings, are you claiming that these are NOT level whenever >>>>> someone climbs up a ladder? >>>>> >>>>> ....and now you have to explain how the laser beam that shines a spot on the >>>>> object is also apparently curved in frame B. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> You obviously cannot fathom how the path can APPEAR to be bent yet >>>>> always lies on the straight laser beam. You are stalling for time in the hope >>>>> that an answer will suddenly appear from the sky. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hilarious, no? :-) >>> >>> No. >>> Paul, let me explain further. >>> >>> To the moving observer, the whole laser vertical beam moves sideways. The >>> object moves up and down that laser beam......ALWAYS IN A STRAIGHT LINE. >>> >>> The plain fact is, the moving observer KNOWS the object's movement is always >>> confined to that straight line even though his plot of its height versus >>> distance IN HIS FRAME shows a curve. >> >> Quite. >> So when you to my statement: >> | You throw a ball with a horizontal velocity component v >> | (in ground frame). >> | Is the trajectory in the ground frame a parabola, Henry? >> >> .. responded: >> | It is indeed. >> >> Then you were wrong. >> You should have stated: "No it is a straight line". ... which you confirm in this posting. It is interesting to note that Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson only admits to be wrong when he is right. :-) In Wonderland right is wrong and wrong is right. >> >> because that's: >>> ...not hilarious...just plain physics... >> >> Right? >> >> Or does a thrown stone move along a straight line only >> when a moving laser shines on it? > > You are showing a lack of understanding of the basic principles of relativity > and are inadvertently claiming to have found a neat way to bend light. > > Your 'thrown stone' is initially at rest in the ground frame and is then given > an acceleration ...along with the laser. This is a noninertial situation. > > You SHOULD be looking at this problem from the stone's point of view. > > Let a stone move up and down a STRAIGHT laser beam. It has NO lateral forces > acting on it...only vertical ones. > > To any horizontally moving inertial observer, an y-t plot will produce a > curve....in the above case a parabola. But that observer sees the laser beam > moving away too and the plotted points are for DIFFERENT values of his x > coordinate.. .. > > So is his plot y-t or y-x? > This is now a 3D situation not 2D. > > My definition of 'TRUE trajectory' is that measured with the x coordinate > constant....ie., 2D....and there is only one frame where the stone remains at > the same x coordinate. Plain Rabbidgian physics is hilarious, no? :-) I was wrong when I said that your stupidity has ceased to amaze. -- Paul, still amazed - and amused http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Apr 2010 17:43 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:41:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 18.04.2010 00:08, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"<someone(a)somewhere.no> >> wrote: >> >>> On 14.04.2010 23:46, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> Paul B. Andersen" wrote: >>>>> | A laser with a vertical beam is moving along the ground under the ball >>>>> | with the speed v, so that the beam always hits the ball. >>>>> | >>>>> | O = ball with horizontal velocity component v >>>>> | X = laser moving along the horizontal ground with speed v >>>>> | | = vertical laser beam always hitting the ball >>>>> | .. = trajectory of ball in ground frame >>>>> | -- = ground >>>>> | >>>>> | . O->v . >>>>> | . | . >>>>> | . | . >>>>> | . X->v . >>>>> | ---------------------------- >>>>> | >>>>> | Is the trajectory of the ball a straight line in >>>>> | the laser frame, Henry? >>>>> >>>>> Henry Wilson responded: >>>>> | Of course. >>>>> >>>>> So Henry Wilson know that the trajectory of >>>>> an object can be a straight line in one frame and a parabola >>>>> in another. >>>> >>>> My argument is over you use of the word 'trajectory'. >>> >>> If you don't know what a 'trajectory' is, look it up. >>> >>> I use the word in the conventional way, and am not >>> interested in any redefinition you might wish to invent. >> >> Then my argument is over you use of the word 'conventional'. >> >>>>> But: >>>>> >>>>> On 14.04.2010 00:00, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>>> Paul, if a moving object's position never deviates from a particular laser >>>>>> beam, how can its TRAJECTORY be anything but straight. >>>>>> >>>>>> You must know how laser beams are used to create level surfaces, for instance >>>>>> for farms and buildings, are you claiming that these are NOT level whenever >>>>>> someone climbs up a ladder? >>>>>> >>>>>> ....and now you have to explain how the laser beam that shines a spot on the >>>>>> object is also apparently curved in frame B. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> You obviously cannot fathom how the path can APPEAR to be bent yet >>>>>> always lies on the straight laser beam. You are stalling for time in the hope >>>>>> that an answer will suddenly appear from the sky. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hilarious, no? :-) >>>> >>>> No. >>>> Paul, let me explain further. >>>> >>>> To the moving observer, the whole laser vertical beam moves sideways. The >>>> object moves up and down that laser beam......ALWAYS IN A STRAIGHT LINE. >>>> >>>> The plain fact is, the moving observer KNOWS the object's movement is always >>>> confined to that straight line even though his plot of its height versus >>>> distance IN HIS FRAME shows a curve. >>> >>> Quite. >>> So when you to my statement: >>> | You throw a ball with a horizontal velocity component v >>> | (in ground frame). >>> | Is the trajectory in the ground frame a parabola, Henry? >>> >>> .. responded: >>> | It is indeed. >>> >>> Then you were wrong. >>> You should have stated: "No it is a straight line". > >.. which you confirm in this posting. > >It is interesting to note that Henry Wilson >only admits to be wrong when he is right. :-) > >In Wonderland right is wrong and wrong is right. > >>> >>> because that's: >>>> ...not hilarious...just plain physics... >>> >>> Right? >>> >>> Or does a thrown stone move along a straight line only >>> when a moving laser shines on it? >> >> You are showing a lack of understanding of the basic principles of relativity >> and are inadvertently claiming to have found a neat way to bend light. >> >> Your 'thrown stone' is initially at rest in the ground frame and is then given >> an acceleration ...along with the laser. This is a noninertial situation. >> >> You SHOULD be looking at this problem from the stone's point of view. >> >> Let a stone move up and down a STRAIGHT laser beam. It has NO lateral forces >> acting on it...only vertical ones. >> >> To any horizontally moving inertial observer, an y-t plot will produce a >> curve....in the above case a parabola. But that observer sees the laser beam >> moving away too and the plotted points are for DIFFERENT values of his x >> coordinate.. .. >> >> So is his plot y-t or y-x? >> This is now a 3D situation not 2D. >> >> My definition of 'TRUE trajectory' is that measured with the x coordinate >> constant....ie., 2D....and there is only one frame where the stone remains at >> the same x coordinate. > >Plain Wilsonian physics is hilarious, no? :-) > >I was wrong when I said that your stupidity has ceased to amaze. Your plot of the object's height versus time has different values of the object's x coordinate....It results in a curve. There is only one frame in which the object's height can be plotted against time AT CONSTANT x. That gives the true trajectory. It is straight. Get it now, Paul? Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 20 Apr 2010 18:48
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > You are correct that a star's linear motion does not affect aberration > angle. However, any curvature in its path could introduce an error. In the > case of an orbiting star, that error could be significant and should be > periodic. What's it like to discover all these possibly-could-may-be important effects from the comfort of your arm chair without having to do things like actually look through a telescope? Must be pretty neat. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |