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: Androcles on 17 Mar 2010 17:40 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:ojf2q593d6ehuvjqb1r5fsfha27srv0jn1(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>On Mar 16, 2:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:14:29 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <Cephalobus_alie...(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" > >>> >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.... >>> >> >>I presume, therefore, that you deny the expansion of the universe? > > Of course > Yep... >>Consider this Hubble Deep Field image: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit.jpg >> >>Distant galaxies receding from the Earth at, not mere hundreds of >>km/sec, but HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KILOMETERS PER SECOND, in >>the same field of view as a sprinkling of foreground stars, the >>result of 342 exposures taken over a ten day period, with the >>Hubble Space Telescope going round and round and round and round >>the Earth... > > Oh dear! ..not FOUR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, I hope. Tomb&Jeery pulls the classic circular argument; the universe is expanding, therefore those galaxies are rushing away, therefore the universe is expanding. And yet there are as many blue galaxies as there are red in the photograph. >>Galaxies and foreground stars are both razor sharp. Yet ballistic >>theory predicts this to be impossible given the constantly >>changing motions of the telescope. > > What are you trying to say? The HST tracking system is useless? > > Wake up, Jerry.. He's trying to tell us a JPEG image is razor sharp. It looks blurred to me, and I've had my eyes tested. I expect he's got cataracts. What he should do is use Windows magnifier. To open Magnifier, click Start, point to All Programs, point to Accessories, point to Accessibility, and then click Magnifier. >>So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion? > > Light loses energy as it travels. Light SPREADS its energy as it travels! Wake up, Awilson..
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 17 Mar 2010 17:49 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:40:33 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:ojf2q593d6ehuvjqb1r5fsfha27srv0jn1(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> 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.... >>>> >>> >>>I presume, therefore, that you deny the expansion of the universe? >> >> Of course >> >Yep... > > >>>Consider this Hubble Deep Field image: >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit.jpg >>> >>>Distant galaxies receding from the Earth at, not mere hundreds of >>>km/sec, but HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KILOMETERS PER SECOND, in >>>the same field of view as a sprinkling of foreground stars, the >>>result of 342 exposures taken over a ten day period, with the >>>Hubble Space Telescope going round and round and round and round >>>the Earth... >> >> Oh dear! ..not FOUR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, I hope. > >Tomb&Jeery pulls the classic circular argument; the universe is expanding, >therefore those galaxies are rushing away, therefore the universe is >expanding. >And yet there are as many blue galaxies as there are red in the photograph. "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS..." Hahahahhhahhahahha! >>>Galaxies and foreground stars are both razor sharp. Yet ballistic >>>theory predicts this to be impossible given the constantly >>>changing motions of the telescope. >> >> What are you trying to say? The HST tracking system is useless? >> >> Wake up, Jerry.. > >He's trying to tell us a JPEG image is razor sharp. It looks blurred to me, >and I've had my eyes tested. I expect he's got cataracts. What he should >do is use Windows magnifier. >To open Magnifier, click Start, point to All Programs, point to Accessories, >point to Accessibility, and then click Magnifier. > > >>>So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion? >> >> Light loses energy as it travels. > >Light SPREADS its energy as it travels! Well, as has already been explained to you, that spreading should only affect the intensity of the light according to the inverse square law, not its wavelength. However, I will not brand you a complete idiot for making your claim since it is indeed not entirely impossible that there could exist a small but yet unknown interactive effect. >Wake up, Awilson.. go to bed Andro... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 17 Mar 2010 18:19 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:k9j2q5t090f6cimokijt97s4aiarql60u2(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:40:33 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:ojf2q593d6ehuvjqb1r5fsfha27srv0jn1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> 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.... >>>>> >>>> >>>>I presume, therefore, that you deny the expansion of the universe? >>> >>> Of course >>> >>Yep... >> >> >>>>Consider this Hubble Deep Field image: >>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit.jpg >>>> >>>>Distant galaxies receding from the Earth at, not mere hundreds of >>>>km/sec, but HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KILOMETERS PER SECOND, in >>>>the same field of view as a sprinkling of foreground stars, the >>>>result of 342 exposures taken over a ten day period, with the >>>>Hubble Space Telescope going round and round and round and round >>>>the Earth... >>> >>> Oh dear! ..not FOUR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, I hope. >> >>Tomb&Jeery pulls the classic circular argument; the universe is expanding, >>therefore those galaxies are rushing away, therefore the universe is >>expanding. >>And yet there are as many blue galaxies as there are red in the >>photograph. > > "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS..." > > Hahahahhhahhahahha! > >>>>Galaxies and foreground stars are both razor sharp. Yet ballistic >>>>theory predicts this to be impossible given the constantly >>>>changing motions of the telescope. >>> >>> What are you trying to say? The HST tracking system is useless? >>> >>> Wake up, Jerry.. >> >>He's trying to tell us a JPEG image is razor sharp. It looks blurred to >>me, >>and I've had my eyes tested. I expect he's got cataracts. What he should >>do is use Windows magnifier. >>To open Magnifier, click Start, point to All Programs, point to >>Accessories, >>point to Accessibility, and then click Magnifier. >> >> >>>>So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion? >>> >>> Light loses energy as it travels. >> >>Light SPREADS its energy as it travels! > > Well, as has already been explained to you, that spreading should only > affect > the intensity of the light according to the inverse square law, not its > wavelength. > > However, I will not brand you a complete idiot for making your claim since > it > is indeed not entirely impossible that there could exist a small but yet > unknown interactive effect. > >>Wake up, Awilson.. > > go to bed Andro... Well, as has already been explained to you, a beam of light doesn't obey your inverse square law or you'd never be able to detect this puny 25 watt transmitter all the way from Saturn. http://space.umd.edu/Projects/Cassini/cassini_config.jpg Even a plane mirror would give you a 2/r^2 "law", and fortunately it has a parabolic dish to knock your stupid inverse square "law" into a cocked fuckin' hat! Photons spray in all directions, that spread gives us the inverse square law you know about, but once a photon is on its way it cannot obey your "law". That's why it takes long exposure times to collect enough photons for an image. WAKE UP, AWILSON!
From: Inertial on 17 Mar 2010 19:58 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a-b415-b2e0dafaa60e(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 17, 11:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:612fb52b-6b81-4cb2-83ec-53986248bdcd(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> No, that diagram is right, showing that the light doesn't hit the >> telescope >> at 90degrees, instead you need to tilt the telescope to other than 90 >> degrees for the light to be able to travel down the centre of the >> telescop >> tube. >> >> When tilted the light enters parallel to the telescope tube .. but >> filling >> the tube with water (which slows the light) does not alter the angle of >> the >> path down the tube. >> >> That is what the experiment was testing. > > Parallel to the tube means 90 degrees to the lens. That is what I was > saying > > Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the > path? I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle changes. See the diagram above. > Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of > light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls? I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle changes. See the diagram above.
From: train on 17 Mar 2010 20:46
On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a-b415-b2e0dafaa60e(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 11:18 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:612fb52b-6b81-4cb2-83ec-53986248bdcd(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > 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 > > >> No, that diagram is right, showing that the light doesn't hit the > >> telescope > >> at 90degrees, instead you need to tilt the telescope to other than 90 > >> degrees for the light to be able to travel down the centre of the > >> telescop > >> tube. > > >> When tilted the light enters parallel to the telescope tube .. but > >> filling > >> the tube with water (which slows the light) does not alter the angle of > >> the > >> path down the tube. > > >> That is what the experiment was testing. > > > Parallel to the tube means 90 degrees to the lens. That is what I was > > saying > > > Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the > > path? > > I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > changes. See the diagram above. > > > Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of > > light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls? > > I already explained. . if you slow a moving object, its aberation angle > changes. See the diagram above. Of course. Provided the moving object ( I assume the photon) is entering the tube with a sideways velocity and hits the lens at 90 degrees or enters the telescope tube at an angle not equal to ninety degrees. Androcles could you please see if I am correct and explain this to Inertial? T |