Prev: How is SR this probability problem explained?
Next: The Infinitely Large Arch (was Re: Three times happening together)
From: Jerry on 6 Mar 2010 22:59
On Mar 6, 7:32 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> train wrote:
> > According to the special theory of relativity, the aberration only
> > depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light
> > from the star.
> > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
> > "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the
> > star."
> > Whic is always c , right?
>
> I could not find that quote on that page. That quote is EXTREMELY poorly worded,
> to the point of being wrong, as you point out.
>
> Wikipedia did better, stating aberration "depends only on the observer's
> instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at
> the moment of observation" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light].
> This is still rather loosely worded (in what frame is this measured?), but is
> not wrong -- to apply SR one must select an inertial frame, and the obvious one
> is that of the sun, in which one can apply this.

Actually, that -very same- Wikipedia article was responsible for
the quote to which you objected, as well as the improved quote
that you cited.

Wikipedia is a valuable, though frequently unreliable resource,
and one must keep one's guard up when using it...

> There are a lot of incorrect webpages on this, including the first one that came
> up on a Google search for "stellar aberration relativity" (without quotes). At a
> quick glance, the above Wikipedia article looks OK, as does the above mathpages
> page.

Jerry
From: train on 7 Mar 2010 06:10
On Mar 7, 6:32 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> train wrote:
> > According to the special theory of relativity, the aberration only
> > depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light
> > from the star.
> >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
> > "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the
> > star."
> > Whic is always c , right?
>
> I could not find that quote on that page. That quote is EXTREMELY poorly worded,
> to the point of being wrong, as you point out.
>
> Wikipedia did better, stating aberration "depends only on the observer's
> instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at
> the moment of observation" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light].
> This is still rather loosely worded (in what frame is this measured?), but is
> not wrong -- to apply SR one must select an inertial frame, and the obvious one
> is that of the sun, in which one can apply this.
>
> There are a lot of incorrect webpages on this, including the first one that came
> up on a Google search for "stellar aberration relativity" (without quotes). At a
> quick glance, the above Wikipedia article looks OK, as does the above mathpages
> page.
>
> Tom Roberts

"instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light
beam"

I have always wondered about this "light beam" and also the "ray of
light"
Lets see the Wicklepedia

Ray of Light is the seventh studio album by American singer-songwriter
Madonna, released on March 3, 1998 by Maverick Record

From the side, a beam of light is only visible if part of the light is
scattered by objects: tiny particles like dust, water droplets (mist,
fog, rain), hail, snow, or smoke, or larger objects such as birds. If
there are many objects in the light path, then it appears as a
continuous beam, but if there are only a few objects, then the light
is visible as a few individual bright points. In any case, this
scattering of light from a beam, and the resultant visibility of a
light beam from the side, is known as the Tyndall effect

Train
From: train on 7 Mar 2010 06:11
On Mar 7, 5:34 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4e57380d-678a-4441-bff1-d8fc8f642957(a)b5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > According to the special theory of relativity, the aberration only
> > depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light
> > from the star.
>
> >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
>
> > "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the
> > star."
>
> > Whic is always c , right?
>
> 2+3 = 4, right?
> The Easter Bunny always lays chocolate eggs, right?
> Suicide bombers are only sending those they kill to Paradise, right?
> There are no lying, cheating bastards in this world, right?
> (There are some naive puppies, though.)

instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light
beam

I know you love this
From: train on 11 Mar 2010 08:42
On Mar 9, 2:19 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote:
> On 07.03.2010 01:19, train wrote:
>
> > According to the special theory of relativity, the aberration only
> > depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light
> > from the star.
>
> >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
>
> > "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the
> > star."
>
> > Whic is always c , right?
>
> Stellar aberration depends only on the change of the velocity
> of the Earth.
>
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Will go thru the links
From: train on 13 Mar 2010 20:47
On Mar 11, 2:48 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:19:15 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere..no>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 07.03.2010 01:19, train wrote:
> >> According to the special theory of relativity, theaberrationonly
> >> depends on the relative velocity v between the observer and the light
> >> from the star.
>
> >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
>
> >> "relative velocity v between the observer and the light from the
> >> star."
>
> >> Whic is always c , right?
>
> >Stellaraberrationdepends only on the change of the velocity
> >of the Earth.
>
> >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
>
> ....and theaberrationconstant is far too small to be used as a test for the
> source dependency of light speed.  
> Besides, all light reaching ground level is moving at c/n wrt the atmosphere.
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......provider of free physics lessons

What is the objection to the ballistic theory of light when it comes
to stellar abberation?

If you throw a photon off a moving train, you will have to angle your
telescope in order to catch have it enter the telescope.
T
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: How is SR this probability problem explained?
Next: The Infinitely Large Arch (was Re: Three times happening together)