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 22 Apr 2010 17:33 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:45 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: when are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Androcles on 22 Apr 2010 17:38 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:b4g1t55toov6klickf2pcjl0816j8r1bts(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:45 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > when are you going to say something intelligent? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. Awilson's IQ is his stupid snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 22 Apr 2010 17:58 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:01:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 22.04.2010 00:15, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:26:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> snip >>> >>> No, no, no. >>> The velocity of the star - straight or curved - doesn't >>> affect the direction in which we see the star. >>> >>> But of course will we see the star's position change with time >>> if the star is moving! It doesn't matter if it is moving along >>> a straight line or a curved one, as seen from the Sun, we would see >>> the star where it was in the solar frame when the light was emitted. >>> This is the position which is charted in the star catalogues. >>> This motion is proper motion, it is _not_ stellar aberration. >>> >>> From the Earth, we will see the star moving around that position >>> in an annual ellipse with major axis 41". The centre of that ellipse >>> is the position as it would be seen from the Sun - the position you find >>> in the stellar catalogues. >> >> Yes I am aware of that. >> >>> If the star is moving - (proper motion) - then the ellipse would move along. >>> The resulting curve isn't an ellipse, it is a sum of the proper motion >>> and stellar aberration (and parallax). >>> >>> Do you still not understand that the _fact_ that spectroscopic binaries >>> always appear as one single star, despite the fact that the stars in >>> the binaries are moving along curved paths, and with opposite velocities >>> prove that "In the case of an orbiting star" no periodic error is introduced. >>> IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR IMAGINARY LASERS WOULD HAVE TO BE >>> SWUNG AROUND ALL THE TIME: >> >> I understand that at long distances this is correct. >> >>> So can we now agree that the aberration of your imaginary >>> star, when it is at its original 100LY distance, will be 41" >>> just like any other star, and that the annual 0.062" circular >>> proper motion of your star is negligible? >>> >>> Or do you still claim that there would be no stellar aberration >>> of your imaginary star, and that is thus will appear to move >>> 20.5" back and forth relative to other stars? >> >> No Paul. At long distances, 'photons' from a star that is verticallly above >> arrive traveling almost vertically wrt the earth's plane. Therefore the >> telescope has to lean +/-21" and aberration exists. > >So now you agree that the aberration of your imaginary star is >just like the aberration of any other star. > >Remarkable! > >So now you will probably claim that you never disagreed with me in >the first place, so we have had this long discussion about nothing. Well, I did know the answer all along...but it hasn't been for nothing. The real motive for this thread was to point out the folly of using rotating frames. I said originally that since the star and earth were always MAR, it stands to reason that the telescope should always point directly at the star and there should be no aberration. That is what one might conclude, using the rotating frame....(That of the orbit). Your Sagnac argument is identical to this. You say, if you regard a ring gyro in its rotating frame, it never rotates..... and there can be no fringe displacement according to BaTh. Do you now see how stupid your Sagnac 'BaTh refutation' is? >> Incidentally, your previous claim that the aberration angle is known so >> accurately that it can be used to refute BaTh is quite wrong. >> >> The standard aberration angle has been CALCULATED to 7 significant figures >> based on Earth's orbit parameters....but there is no way it can be MEASURED to >> anything like that accuracy. > >The radial velocity of some close binaries is varying with >an amplitude of 300 km/s. So according to the emission theory, >the speed of light from those stars should vary by c(1 +/- 10^-3). >That means that the aberration angle v/c should change by +/-10^-7 radians. >These binaries have a short period (days). 10^-7 radians = 0.02" = 20mas. >That means that these stars should move 20mas back and forth relative to >other stars in the region, with a period in the order of days. >Hipparcos could measure such a motion with a precision of 1.5 mas. All quoted stellar orbit periods and velocities are likely to be wrong. Rotation frequencies can be exaggerated by factors of one hundred or more due to time compression. Calculated velocities, using spectral line shifts, can also be out by large amounts because wavelength shifts are affected far more by ADoppler than VDoppler...and nobody has even heard of the former. >So yes, if such an aberration anomaly had existed, Hipparcos would >have detected it. >It didn't. Since I am the only person on this Earth who understands ADoppler, it is not surprising that almost ALL astronomy is completely wrong. Tell me Paul, how is it that astronomers cannot explain why cepheid velocity curves are a virtual mirror image of their brightness curves? I know the answer, Paul. ......ADoppler...or 'WaSh' (the Wilson acceleration Shift) Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 22 Apr 2010 17:59 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:38:31 +0100, "Androcles" <Headbullshitter wrote: Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 22 Apr 2010 18:50
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:29:45 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > when are you going to say something intelligent? See? Ralphie can feel embarrassment. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |