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 16 Mar 2010 15:43 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Mar 15, 7:36�pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:i1ftp5t464f5s1ureocbjrhdacmvqlu1hj(a)4ax.com... > >> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:24:33 -0000, "Androcles" >> >>But as I showed above, abberration is not the way to measure c+v, >> >>you'd be looking for a difference of >> >>0.0020624418286003127234424919840547 arc seconds which is >> >>0.02 PIXELS! >> >> > That is precisely my point. Andersen is kidding himself. >> >> Your point after I've made it for you, you drunken old fool. > >HST was not designed to do precise astrometry. Hipparcos was. > >The Hipparcos catalog includes over 100,000 stars measured to >a median accuracy of about 0.001 arcseconds. Not nearly good enough. >The stars in this >catalog include LHS 50, with a radial velocity of 308 km/s, and >LHS 64, with a radial velocity of -260 km/s. Presumably, these velocities were calculated using conventional doppler shifts. Even if they were correct, measuring aberration of such low inclination stars with sufficient accuracy to refute BaTh is impossible. I have pointed out previously that just about the whole of astronomy is completely wrong because it is totally ignorant of the Wilson Acceleration wavelength Shift (WaSh or ADoppler). Many stellar velocities are much smaller than they appear when calculated by conventional methods. >Differential aberration as predicted by emission theories >should have been easy to observe. No it would not. >Conclusion: Light travels at constant c. Emission theories are >disproven, as usual. poor old Jerry..too old to escape from his indoctrination.... >Jerry > > Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Inertial on 16 Mar 2010 19:46 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0bfd2d9d-1181-4efb-90e6-fe3d96e24456(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 16, 6:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614-8c24-fcdfea1e523e(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >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: >> >> >> >> >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> >> >> >> You are a classical aetherist likeSeto and a few others here. >> >> ...there is no aether. >> >> >> Light exists as ballistic packages in PURE VACUUM. >> >> >> >Sue... >> >> >> plonking wont save you. >> >> >> Henry Wilson... >> >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons >> >> > I found this article, which mentions that a water- filled telescope >> > was expected to behave differently from an air filled one. >> >> > This is one of the things aboutaberrationthat I do not understand. >> >> Its not that hard. >> >> The faster an object moves, the lessaberrationthere is. That is easily >> shown >> >> Consider two object moving downward (on this page) at different speeds. >> From an observer at rest wrt the page you'd see these paths (over time) >> >> . o O >> . o O >> . o O >> . O >> . O >> >> A moving observer would see >> >> . o O >> . o O >> . o O >> . O >> . O >> >> The faster moving O is less aberrated. >> > > OK so far >> As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should show >> moreaberrationin a water filled telescope > > At what angle does the light hit the telescope? 90 degrees? WHy should > that light be aberrated? It doesn't hit at 90 degrees .. gees .. it is aberated. This has been known for a LONG time. But the water in a long tube does not change the aberation. >> > If photons which have no length and mass hit a telescope lens at right >> > angles, how is filling it with water to make a difference? I don't >> > know why anyone even thought of it that way. >> >> You need to know what hypothesis was being tested. >> >> > There is the Ether Drag Theory: NASA Laser Lunar Ranging >> >> > Analysis of the lunar ranging experiment in 2009 by D Gezari [5] [6] >> > prove the Sagnac effect as first order, and suggest either 'c' non- >> > constant or a quantum field 'ether' dragged by the planet. (wikipedia >> > Ether Drag) >> >> That analysis is under debate >> >> > Also, following the link: >> >> > The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a >> > retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip >> > time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed >> > of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed >> > the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200+/-10 m/s, just the >> > speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation >> > of the Earth during the measurements. This is a first-order violation >> > of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the >> > motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, and >> > implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of >> > light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical >> > system to which such a reference frame might be tied. >> >> That analysis is under debate >> >> > and implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the >> > propagation of light >> >> That analysis is under debate > > So we have moved from SRT is validated by billions of experiments to > > That analysis is under debate? Yes/ Other papers challenge those findings (ie the analysis of the data) > I can see why Androcles goes mad. Hang on Androcles He's just a loony. >> > Curioser. I think this one wont make it to the SRT hall of Fame >> >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1922PA.....30..340P >> >> You link was truncated. >
From: train on 16 Mar 2010 21:13 On Mar 17, 4:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0bfd2d9d-1181-4efb-90e6-fe3d96e24456(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 6:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614-8c24-fcdfea1e523e(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >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: > > >> >> >> >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> > > >> >> You are a classical aetherist likeSeto and a few others here. > >> >> ...there is no aether. > > >> >> Light exists as ballistic packages in PURE VACUUM. > > >> >> >Sue... > > >> >> plonking wont save you. > > >> >> Henry Wilson... > > >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > >> > I found this article, which mentions that a water- filled telescope > >> > was expected to behave differently from an air filled one. > > >> > This is one of the things aboutaberrationthat I do not understand. > > >> Its not that hard. > > >> The faster an object moves, the lessaberrationthere is. That is easily > >> shown > > >> Consider two object moving downward (on this page) at different speeds.. > >> From an observer at rest wrt the page you'd see these paths (over time) > > >> . o O > >> . o O > >> . o O > >> . O > >> . O > > >> A moving observer would see > > >> . o O > >> . o O > >> . o O > >> . O > >> . O > > >> The faster moving O is less aberrated. > > > OK so far > >> As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should show > >> moreaberrationin a water filled telescope > > > At what angle does the light hit the telescope? 90 degrees? WHy should > > that light be aberrated? > > It doesn't hit at 90 degrees .. gees .. it is aberated. This has been known > for a LONG time. But the water in a long tube does not change the > aberation. Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? First Diagram top right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light > > > > >> > If photons which have no length and mass hit a telescope lens at right > >> > angles, how is filling it with water to make a difference? I don't > >> > know why anyone even thought of it that way. > > >> You need to know what hypothesis was being tested. > > >> > There is the Ether Drag Theory: NASA Laser Lunar Ranging > > >> > Analysis of the lunar ranging experiment in 2009 by D Gezari [5] [6] > >> > prove the Sagnac effect as first order, and suggest either 'c' non- > >> > constant or a quantum field 'ether' dragged by the planet. (wikipedia > >> > Ether Drag) > > >> That analysis is under debate > > >> > Also, following the link: > > >> > The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a > >> > retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip > >> > time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed > >> > of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed > >> > the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200+/-10 m/s, just the > >> > speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation > >> > of the Earth during the measurements. This is a first-order violation > >> > of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the > >> > motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, and > >> > implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of > >> > light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical > >> > system to which such a reference frame might be tied. > > >> That analysis is under debate > > >> > and implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the > >> > propagation of light > > >> That analysis is under debate > > > So we have moved from SRT is validated by billions of experiments to > > > That analysis is under debate? > > Yes/ Other papers challenge those findings (ie the analysis of the data) > > > I can see why Androcles goes mad. Hang on Androcles > > He's just a loony. > > > > >> > Curioser. I think this one wont make it to the SRT hall of Fame > > >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1922PA.....30..340P > > >> You link was truncated.
From: Sue... on 16 Mar 2010 22:12 On Mar 16, 9:13 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 4:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:0bfd2d9d-1181-4efb-90e6-fe3d96e24456(a)k4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Mar 16, 6:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614-8c24-fcdfea1e523e(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." > > >> >> <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> >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: > > > >> >> >> >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> > > > >> >> You are a classical aetherist likeSeto and a few others here. > > >> >> ...there is no aether. > > > >> >> Light exists as ballistic packages in PURE VACUUM. > > > >> >> >Sue... > > > >> >> plonking wont save you. > > > >> >> Henry Wilson... > > > >> >> .......provider of free physics lessons > > > >> > I found this article, which mentions that a water- filled telescope > > >> > was expected to behave differently from an air filled one. > > > >> > This is one of the things aboutaberrationthat I do not understand. > > > >> Its not that hard. > > > >> The faster an object moves, the lessaberrationthere is. That is easily > > >> shown > > > >> Consider two object moving downward (on this page) at different speeds. > > >> From an observer at rest wrt the page you'd see these paths (over time) > > > >> . o O > > >> . o O > > >> . o O > > >> . O > > >> . O > > > >> A moving observer would see > > > >> . o O > > >> . o O > > >> . o O > > >> . O > > >> . O > > > >> The faster moving O is less aberrated. > > > > OK so far > > >> As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should show > > >> moreaberrationin a water filled telescope > > > > At what angle does the light hit the telescope? 90 degrees? WHy should > > > that light be aberrated? > > > It doesn't hit at 90 degrees .. gees .. it is aberated. This has been known > > for a LONG time. But the water in a long tube does not change the > > aberation. > > Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? First Diagram top right. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light The diagram is misleading if not completely wrong. A telescope is "aimed" by positioning its dielectics and reflectors so that all paths from the emitter to detector are the same length so they interfere constructively. http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0508e/ http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso9811a/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation Sue... > > > > > >> > If photons which have no length and mass hit a telescope lens at right > > >> > angles, how is filling it with water to make a difference? I don't > > >> > know why anyone even thought of it that way. > > > >> You need to know what hypothesis was being tested. > > > >> > There is the Ether Drag Theory: NASA Laser Lunar Ranging > > > >> > Analysis of the lunar ranging experiment in 2009 by D Gezari [5] [6] > > >> > prove the Sagnac effect as first order, and suggest either 'c' non- > > >> > constant or a quantum field 'ether' dragged by the planet. (wikipedia > > >> > Ether Drag) > > > >> That analysis is under debate > > > >> > Also, following the link: > > > >> > The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a > > >> > retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip > > >> > time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed > > >> > of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed > > >> > the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200+/-10 m/s, just the > > >> > speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation > > >> > of the Earth during the measurements. This is a first-order violation > > >> > of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the > > >> > motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, and > > >> > implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of > > >> > light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical > > >> > system to which such a reference frame might be tied. > > > >> That analysis is under debate > > > >> > and implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the > > >> > propagation of light > > > >> That analysis is under debate > > > > So we have moved from SRT is validated by billions of experiments to > > > > That analysis is under debate? > > > Yes/ Other papers challenge those findings (ie the analysis of the data) > > > > I can see why Androcles goes mad. Hang on Androcles > > > He's just a loony. > > > >> > Curioser. I think this one wont make it to the SRT hall of Fame > > > >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1922PA.....30..340P > > > >> You link was truncated. > >
From: Androcles on 17 Mar 2010 02:04
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:2a391c62-1497-4c78-af7a-d44993776696(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Mar 16, 9:13 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? No. First Diagram top right. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light The diagram is misleading if not completely wrong. ======================================== Bullshit, the diagram is fine. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif It is "Sue..." that is misleading AND completely wrong. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif |