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: Inertial on 17 Mar 2010 21:46 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2aff4475-ae43-49f4-8bcf-f94f124b894d(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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. It doesn't really matter what angle it enters. Slowing it will CHANGE the angle if it is aberrated. I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent can change its aberration angle. Was there something you don't understand about that? As per the diagram you showed from wikipedia .. the light entering the tube at 90-deg relative to the lens (not that you need a lens for this, just a long tube), and the light having some 'sideways' component of velocity relative to the tube. So if light works in the way that the water-filled-tube was testing ( eg like rain falling down as observed by a moving observer) then you should get some change in the angle. I already showed you the diagram of how slowing an objects rate of descent can change its aberration angle. Was there something you don't understand about that? > Androcles could you please see if I am correct and explain this to > Inertial? Don't be silly.. he doesn't understand a thing. Not even very basic mathematics and logic .. let alone physics. If you are interested .. have a look at VDM's page at http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html .. Androcles has a rather large number of fumbles recorded (and that is only scratching the surface). I'll leave the digging into past fumbles as an exercise for the reader, if they so desire :):) What exactly are you claiming to be correct about that is different to what I am explaining to you?
From: Jerry on 17 Mar 2010 22:18 On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > >I presume, therefore, that you deny the expansion of the universe? > > Of course Why does that not surprise me? > >Consider this Hubble Deep Field image: > >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_r... > > >Distant galaxies receding from the Earth at, not mere hundreds of > >km/sec, but HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KILOMETERS PER SECOND, huin > >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. Don't be silly. > >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? The HST tracking system automatically swings the telescope in an ellipse of approximately 5" semi-major axis to accommodate aberration. If red-shifted light from distant galaxies travels at speeds lower than c, their ellipses will be very significantly larger than the aberrational ellipses that nearby stars show, and their images will be smeared out in a time exposure. Ballistic theory is hence totally useless for explaining anything. > Wake up, Jerry.. > > >So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion? > > Light loses energy as it travels. (sigh) No tired light model has survived detailed examination. Sorry. Jerry
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Mar 2010 05:18 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:19:41 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > >"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> >>>>>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! Go to bed Andro. When photons separate from each other, why should they change? Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 18 Mar 2010 05:25 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:18:25 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> >I presume, therefore, that you deny the expansion of the universe? >> >> Of course > >Why does that not surprise me? > >> >Consider this Hubble Deep Field image: >> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_r... >> >> >Distant galaxies receding from the Earth at, not mere hundreds of >> >km/sec, but HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KILOMETERS PER SECOND, huin >> >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. > >Don't be silly. > >> >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? > >The HST tracking system automatically swings the telescope in an >ellipse of approximately 5" semi-major axis to accommodate >aberration. Hmmm! ...an ellipse....why not a cycloid? >If red-shifted light from distant galaxies travels at >speeds lower than c, their ellipses will be very significantly >larger than the aberrational ellipses that nearby stars show, and >their images will be smeared out in a time exposure. I should imagine that an extra 0.001% 'smearing' would be far too small to be noticed in images that are quite smeared anyway. >Ballistic theory is hence totally useless for explaining anything. Jerry is totally useless... > >> Wake up, Jerry.. >> >> >So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion? >> >> Light loses energy as it travels. > >(sigh) > >No tired light model has survived detailed examination. Sorry. By whom? A bunch of relativists or creationists? >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Androcles on 18 Mar 2010 08:13
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:05r3q5djcbo5atunmna1ra2bk6q0dmhki3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:19:41 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> > wrote: > >> >>"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> > >>>>>>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! > > Go to bed Andro. > > When photons separate from each other, why should they change? When you fry an egg, why should it turn from clear to white? When you take a wooden boat out of water, why should it dry out and leak? You are that naive, Awilson, I can make you cry by taking your lollipop. When photons separate from each other, they change. "Why" is a matter for scientific investigation. Beams of light do not obey your juvenile inverse square law bigotry, and light from distant galaxies are photon streams that follow a beam, well, as has already been explained to you. Go to bed, Awilson, I'm wide awake. |