Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation
train
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?
Androcles
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e57380d-678a-4441...@b5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
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.)
Tom Roberts
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
Jerry
> 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
Inertial
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e57380d-678a-4441...@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.
Nope
train
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
train
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light
beam
I know you love this
Paul B. Andersen
Stellar aberration depends only on the change of the velocity
of the Earth.
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
....and the aberration constant 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
train
Will go thru the links
eric gisse
How do you imagine that the c-v light is accelerated to c?
train
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:19:15 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@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?
>
> 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
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
That's right. That is not in dispute.
Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth
is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars
that are moving towards or away from us.
He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far
too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is adjusted
to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere.
BURT
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light moves at C through empty space. Energy can move below light
speed in space. It is thus possible for light to inch ahead of energy.
Relativity is out. A space frame for motion is in.
Mitch Raemsch
Henry Wilson DSc
Relativity is OK...Einstein's version is bullshit.
>Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:45:22 -0800 (PST), BURT <macro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train
>>> <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> that are moving towards or away from us.
>>>
>>> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles
>>> are far too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all
>>> starlight is adjusted to a common speed c/n when it enters our
>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson...
>>>
>>> .......provider of free physics lessons- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>Light moves at C through empty space. Energy can move below light
>>speed in space. It is thus possible for light to inch ahead of energy.
>>
>>Relativity is out. A space frame for motion is in.
>
> Relativity is OK...Einstein's version is bullshit.
How would you know? You haven't studied it.
Sue...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
=====================
> all starlight is adjusted
> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere.
Considerably earlier than that by a different form of
the same relation.
See equation (1146)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
Sue...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu.
But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you
try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'.
Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There
isn't one.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:uqlop5pfuhhe91fan...@4ax.com...
Hubble is above atmosphere and has another 7 km/sec to add to Earth's
velocity. You are totally irrelevant as usual.
atan( 37000/300,000,000) ~= 25 arc seconds.
Jupiter has an angular diameter of between 30 to 49 arc seconds,
depending on how close we are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:uqlop5pfuhhe91fan...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train
>>
>> That's right. That is not in dispute.
>>
>> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet
>> Earth
>> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by
>> stars
>> that are moving towards or away from us.
>>
>> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles
>> are far
>> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is
>> adjusted
>> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere.
>>
>
>Hubble is above atmosphere and has another 7 km/sec to add to Earth's
>velocity. You are totally irrelevant as usual.
Please read what you stated there and think about it.
On having thought, will you please try to translate it into plain English.
>atan( 37000/300,000,000) ~= 25 arc seconds.
>Jupiter has an angular diameter of between 30 to 49 arc seconds,
>depending on how close we are.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
Who cares about Jupiter? We are talking about the aberration constant here, on
planet Earth.
>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
You are totally irrelevant as usual.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:54:17 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:uqlop5pfuhhe91fan...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train
>
>>>
>>> That's right. That is not in dispute.
>>>
>>> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for
>>> planet
>>> Earth
>>> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by
>>> stars
>>> that are moving towards or away from us.
>>>
>>> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles
>>> are far
>>> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is
>>> adjusted
>>> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere.
>>>
>>
>>Hubble is above atmosphere and has another 7 km/sec to add to Earth's
>>velocity. You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>
> Please read what you stated there and think about it.
>
> On having thought, will you please try to translate it into plain English.
>
See, Wilson, there is this telescope we've had for some time now, called
the Hubble Space Telescope, or "Hubble" for short, and it is above
atmosphere. So any argument about atmosphere is irrelevant. It still
experiences abberation, though.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>>atan( 37000/300,000,000) ~= 25 arc seconds.
>>Jupiter has an angular diameter of between 30 to 49 arc seconds,
>>depending on how close we are.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
>
> Who cares about Jupiter?
The page is about angular diameter, Jupiter is just an example.
> We are talking about the aberration constant here, on
> planet Earth.
"The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration or
stellar aberration) is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an apparent
motion of celestial objects about their real locations. It was discovered
and later explained by the third Astronomer Royal, James Bradley, in 1725,
who attributed it to the finite speed of light and the motion of Earth in
its orbit around the Sun."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
"Motion around the Sun", shithead.
>>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>
> Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as
> usual.
For someone that claims parallax is easy you sure are self-contradictory,
fuckwit.
>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>
> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>
Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless
coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a unit of
distance.
Sue...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space".
>
> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There
> isn't one.
Just none that you ever bothered to read.
Green's Functions
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html
Sue...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 14, 4:27 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:20:23 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 13, 10:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:47:17 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >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.
>>
>> >> That's right. That is not in dispute.
>>
>> >> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for planet Earth
>> >> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by stars
>> >> that are moving towards or away from us.
>>
>> >> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles are far
>> >> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly,
>>
>> >=====================
>>
>> >> all starlight is adjusted
>> >> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere.
>>
>> >Considerably earlier than that by a different form of
>> >the same relation.
>>
>> >See equation (1146)
>> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
>>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
"....Even in classical physics it was realized [23][24] that the vacuum must
have a field-dependent permittivity in the strong fields found near point
charges....."
"....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though,
is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by
treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....."
>>
>> >Sue...
>>
>> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu.
>> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you
>> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'.
>
>We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space".
Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down.
Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form.
In those, EM is 100% ballistic.
>> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There
>> isn't one.
>
>Just none that you ever bothered to read.
ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame.
>Green's Functions
>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html
It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source.
Very good.....
That's the basis of Bath.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:0rbpp593rja538s6v...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:54:17 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>>>> Andersen reckons the measurment of the the aberration constant for
>>>> planet
>>>> Earth
>>>> is sufficiently accurate to detect changes in light speed emitted by
>>>> stars
>>>> that are moving towards or away from us.
>>>>
>>>> He's totally wrong, as usual...on two counts. Firstly aberration angles
>>>> are far
>>>> too small to allow c+v to be resolved and secondly, all starlight is
>>>> adjusted
>>>> to a common speed c/n when it enters our atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hubble is above atmosphere and has another 7 km/sec to add to Earth's
>>>velocity. You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>
>> Please read what you stated there and think about it.
>>
>> On having thought, will you please try to translate it into plain English.
>>
>Gawd, he's gone completely gaga.
>See, Wilson, there is this telescope we've had for some time now, called
>the Hubble Space Telescope, or "Hubble" for short, and it is above
>atmosphere. So any argument about atmosphere is irrelevant. It still
>experiences abberation, though.
Of course.
The HST is orbiting Earth and its orbit plane is the same as the earth's around
the sun? Are you suggesting that aberration for HST should be defined as that
when the telescope is farthest from the sun?
That's OK. It will then be moving at 37 kms/sec relative to the sun.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>
>
>
>>>atan( 37000/300,000,000) ~= 25 arc seconds.
>>>Jupiter has an angular diameter of between 30 to 49 arc seconds,
>>>depending on how close we are.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
>>
>> Who cares about Jupiter?
>
>The page is about angular diameter, Jupiter is just an example.
>
>> We are talking about the aberration constant here, on
>> planet Earth.
>
>"The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration or
>stellar aberration) is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an apparent
>motion of celestial objects about their real locations. It was discovered
>and later explained by the third Astronomer Royal, James Bradley, in 1725,
>who attributed it to the finite speed of light and the motion of Earth in
>its orbit around the Sun."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
>
>"Motion around the Sun", shithead.
That's right, fuckhead.
That's why there is a thing called the 'aberration constant'. Why don't you
read about it.
>>>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
>>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>>
>> Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as
>> usual.
>
>For someone that claims parallax is easy you sure are self-contradictory,
>fuckwit.
Angles don't have dimensions of length.
>>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>>
>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>
>Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless
>coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a unit of
>distance.
You are totally irrelevant as usual.
Sue...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:57:31 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
==============
> "....The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though,
> is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by
> treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space"....."
That sounds like we can't get far enough from anything to see other
than 377 ohms. It is certainly not supportive of any anomalous EM
behaviour
in "truly empty space" as you suggested.
>
>
>
> >> >Sue...
>
> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu.
> >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you
> >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'.
>
> >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space".
>
> Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down.
> Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form.
> In those, EM is 100% ballistic.
That requires particle-light and a theory of inertia.
The first is never observed. The second you have never
offered.
>
> >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There
> >> isn't one.
>
> >Just none that you ever bothered to read.
>
> ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame.
>
> >Green's Functions
> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html
>
> It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source.
No... The motion to the source is not mentioned.
That is covered on following pages.
Sue...
[...]
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 14, 5:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Any attempt to measure it destroys the emptiness. All that is measured is the
property of the field used in the measurement.
>> >> >Sue...
>>
>> >> Well I agree that around any large mass, space might have both an e and a mu.
>> >> But in truly empty space, both these are equal to zero or thereabouts. If you
>> >> try to measure their values, you stuff up the 'emptiness'.
>>
>> >We can worry about that when you find some "truly empty space".
>>
>> Fields are quantized so the inverse square law must eventually break down.
>> Below the Wilson Density Threshold, 'holes of absolutely nothing' form.
>> In those, EM is 100% ballistic.
>
>That requires particle-light and a theory of inertia.
>
>The first is never observed.
.....where have you been for the past 120 years?
>The second you have never
>offered.
sorry, I don't see any connection with 'inertia'. Please explain.
>> >> Maxwell's ...and your...approach needs an absolute spatial reference. There
>> >> isn't one.
>>
>> >Just none that you ever bothered to read.
>>
>> ALL velocities MUST BE specified relative to a particular frame.
>>
>> >Green's Functions
>> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node49.html
>>
>> It says that the speed of light is c wrt its source.
>
>No... The motion to the source is not mentioned.
It doesn't move in its own frame.
>That is covered on following pages.
Light moves at c wrt its source.
Nobody has measured e or mu at a particular point using relatively moving
apparatus.
>Sue...
>
>[...]
Sue...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
====
> Any attempt to measure it destroys the emptiness. All that is measured is the
> property of the field used in the measurement.
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.
Sue...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
It damn well better not face the sun or the electronics will fry. Good thing
you
are too impoverished to own a telescope, you'd look at the sun with it and
burn your eye out.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/scoutnotebook/fires/images/6-3.gif
> That's OK. It will then be moving at 37 kms/sec relative to the sun.
So your crap about atmosphere is totally irrelevant, shit for brains.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
>>
>>
>>
>>>>atan( 37000/300,000,000) ~= 25 arc seconds.
>>>>Jupiter has an angular diameter of between 30 to 49 arc seconds,
>>>>depending on how close we are.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
>>>
>>> Who cares about Jupiter?
>>
>>The page is about angular diameter, Jupiter is just an example.
>>
>>> We are talking about the aberration constant here, on
>>> planet Earth.
>>
>>"The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration or
>>stellar aberration) is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an
>>apparent
>>motion of celestial objects about their real locations. It was discovered
>>and later explained by the third Astronomer Royal, James Bradley, in 1725,
>>who attributed it to the finite speed of light and the motion of Earth in
>>its orbit around the Sun."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
>>
>>"Motion around the Sun", shithead.
>
> That's right, fuckhead.
> That's why there is a thing called the 'aberration constant'. Why don't
> you
> read about it.
Constant as in cos(wt) is "constant".
This particular effect is known as annual aberration or stellar aberration,
because it causes the apparent position of a star to vary periodically over
the course of a year. The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of
a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination.
Although this is a relatively small value, it was well within the
observational capability of the instruments available in the early
eighteenth century.
You must be an Einstein dingleberry, fuckwad.
Why don't you read about it, shit for brains?
>>>>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
>>>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>>>
>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as
>>> usual.
>>
>>For someone that claims parallax is easy you sure are self-contradictory,
>>fuckwit.
>
> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
1 parsec = 3.25 light years.
Years don't have units of length. You are totally stupid as usual.
>
>>>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>>>
>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>
>>Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless
>>coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a unit of
>>distance.
>
> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
Fuck off, you clueless bastard, you've never heard of parallax or a parsec!
Bwahahahaha!
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 14, 7:37 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Give it up.
Your aether theory was tossed out many years ago.
ALL velocities are frame dependent by definition.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:cjlqp515tmvm4croh...@4ax.com...
>>>Gawd, he's gone completely gaga.
>>>See, Wilson, there is this telescope we've had for some time now, called
>>>the Hubble Space Telescope, or "Hubble" for short, and it is above
>>>atmosphere. So any argument about atmosphere is irrelevant. It still
>>>experiences abberation, though.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> The HST is orbiting Earth and its orbit plane is the same as the earth's
>> around
>> the sun? Are you suggesting that aberration for HST should be defined as
>> that
>> when the telescope is farthest from the sun?
>
>It damn well better not face the sun or the electronics will fry. Good thing
>you
>are too impoverished to own a telescope, you'd look at the sun with it and
>burn your eye out.
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/scoutnotebook/fires/images/6-3.gif
grey filter
>
>> That's OK. It will then be moving at 37 kms/sec relative to the sun.
>
>So your crap about atmosphere is totally irrelevant, shit for brains.
The aberration constant, about 20 arc seconds, has been around for centuries.
How long has the HST been up? It will be interesting to see if hubble produces
exactly the same aberration angles as those of ground telescopes.
Andersen reckons it is possible to measure variations in that angle to better
than about 0.01% and so refute source dependency.
This is sheer madness considering that to measure annual aberration at all, a
number of other aberration effects have to be considered as well.
....haven't you woken up to the fact that most wikipedea articles are written
by dingleberries like Roberts and little eric.
>>>>>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
>>>>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as
>>>> usual.
>>>
>>>For someone that claims parallax is easy you sure are self-contradictory,
>>>fuckwit.
>>
>> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
>
> 1 parsec = 3.25 light years.
>Years don't have units of length. You are totally stupid as usual.
..what a pity pommie engineers were never taught dimensional analysis...
>>>>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>>>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>>>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>>>>
>>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>>
>>>Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless
>>>coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a unit of
>>>distance.
>>
>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>
>Fuck off, you clueless bastard, you've never heard of parallax or a parsec!
>Bwahahahaha!
Angles don't have dimensions of length.
Henry Wilson...
Sue...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
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>
Sue...
Koobee Wublee
> 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.
The above statement is wrong under the frame work of relativity.
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
It sounds like you don’t accept relativity.
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
You believe in relativity but apply special frame of reference to
solve the problems.
In reality, you are just confused.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:35:57 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:cjlqp515tmvm4croh...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>Gawd, he's gone completely gaga.
>>>>See, Wilson, there is this telescope we've had for some time now, called
>>>>the Hubble Space Telescope, or "Hubble" for short, and it is above
>>>>atmosphere. So any argument about atmosphere is irrelevant. It still
>>>>experiences abberation, though.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> The HST is orbiting Earth and its orbit plane is the same as the earth's
>>> around
>>> the sun? Are you suggesting that aberration for HST should be defined as
>>> that
>>> when the telescope is farthest from the sun?
>>
>>It damn well better not face the sun or the electronics will fry. Good
>>thing
>>you
>>are too impoverished to own a telescope, you'd look at the sun with it and
>>burn your eye out.
>> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/scoutnotebook/fires/images/6-3.gif
>
> grey filter
>
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/b/b2/Hst_sts82.jpg
That's the flap on the left for dumb ozzies who may not know what a door is.
See, Wilson, the telescope is quite close to the Earth so it is in sunlight
a lot
of the time. When someone wants to reorient it the door is closed in case
the manouvre accidentally causes it to face the Sun.
>>
>>> That's OK. It will then be moving at 37 kms/sec relative to the sun.
>>
>>So your crap about atmosphere is totally irrelevant, shit for brains.
>
> The aberration constant, about 20 arc seconds, has been around for
> centuries.
>
> How long has the HST been up?
Since 1990. It is about due to be decommissioned after 20 years.
> It will be interesting to see if hubble produces
> exactly the same aberration angles as those of ground telescopes.
It can't, it has its own velocity around the Earth. The aberration angle
of a planet or star in the zodiac is reversed six months later because
Earth is travelling in the opposite direction, and the aberration for HST
is reversed every 48 minutes (added onto the aberration for Earth.
There is another aberration for the ground telescope with a 12 hour
period caused by the Earth's axial rotation, but it's very small.
> Andersen reckons it is possible to measure variations in that angle to
> better
> than about 0.01% and so refute source dependency.
> This is sheer madness considering that to measure annual aberration at
> all, a
> number of other aberration effects have to be considered as well.
Andersen forgets that for any realistic v, c+v is very close to c anyway.
If 20.626480659087103378195333865304 arc seconds
is obtained from arcsin (30/300,000) * 3600
then
20.624418217258503065471891373324 arc seconds
for arcsin(30/300030) * 3600, a difference of
0.0020624418286003127234424919840547 arc seconds.
In terms of parallax that's 0.0067 light years, 2.46 light days,
59 light hours, 45 times the distance to Saturn.
As usual, Andersen is talking out of his arse. But you do too.
I can check the arithmetic. You never were any good at basic schoolboy
trigonometry. The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of
a star is approximately 20 arcseconds.
>
>>>>>>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
>>>>>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as
>>>>> usual.
>>>>
>>>>For someone that claims parallax is easy you sure are
>>>>self-contradictory,
>>>>fuckwit.
>>>
>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
>>
>> 1 parsec = 3.25 light years.
>>Years don't have units of length. You are totally stupid as usual.
>
> ..what a pity pommie engineers were never taught dimensional analysis...
>
What a pity ozzie sheep-shaggers never learnt trigonometry.
The sun is half a degree, which means you can obtain its diameter
if you know its distance; you'd take a fucking tape measure to it.
Jupiter has an angular diameter between 30-49 arc seconds, which
means you can count fuckin' pixels and get 480/50 ~= 10 pixels per
arc second in this 480x480 picture
http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
which means you can measure 0.1 arc seconds, so 20 arc seconds
for aberration ought to be fucking easy, its half the fucking planet,
you dim bastard.
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!
>>>>>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>>>>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>>>>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless
>>>>coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a unit
>>>>of
>>>>distance.
>>>
>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>
>>Fuck off, you clueless bastard, you've never heard of parallax or a
>>parsec!
>>Bwahahahaha!
>
> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
I didn't use dimensions of length, I used pixels to measure 20 arc seconds,
FUCKWIT!
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 15, 3:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@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 DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:be2tp55tvfefdbe72...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:35:57 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It damn well better not face the sun or the electronics will fry. Good
>>>thing
>>>you
>>>are too impoverished to own a telescope, you'd look at the sun with it and
>>>burn your eye out.
>>> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/scoutnotebook/fires/images/6-3.gif
>>
>> grey filter
>>
>Hubble closes its door.
> http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/b/b2/Hst_sts82.jpg
>That's the flap on the left for dumb ozzies who may not know what a door is.
>
>See, Wilson, the telescope is quite close to the Earth so it is in sunlight
>a lot
>of the time. When someone wants to reorient it the door is closed in case
>the manouvre accidentally causes it to face the Sun.
Very sensible...even a few seconds of sunlight will distort the mirror.
Our solar telescope had a similar shutter as well as constant temerature
ventilation.
>>>> That's OK. It will then be moving at 37 kms/sec relative to the sun.
>>>
>>>So your crap about atmosphere is totally irrelevant, shit for brains.
>>
>> The aberration constant, about 20 arc seconds, has been around for
>> centuries.
>>
>> How long has the HST been up?
>
>Since 1990. It is about due to be decommissioned after 20 years.
bloody waste of money when they all think light travels at c.
>> It will be interesting to see if hubble produces
>> exactly the same aberration angles as those of ground telescopes.
>
>It can't, it has its own velocity around the Earth. The aberration angle
>of a planet or star in the zodiac is reversed six months later because
>Earth is travelling in the opposite direction, and the aberration for HST
>is reversed every 48 minutes (added onto the aberration for Earth.
>There is another aberration for the ground telescope with a 12 hour
>period caused by the Earth's axial rotation, but it's very small.
That's why I suggested aberration measurements could be arrired out only at the
same phase of each orbit....eg., furthest position from sun.
>> Andersen reckons it is possible to measure variations in that angle to
>> better
>> than about 0.01% and so refute source dependency.
>> This is sheer madness considering that to measure annual aberration at
>> all, a
>> number of other aberration effects have to be considered as well.
>
>Andersen forgets that for any realistic v, c+v is very close to c anyway.
>If 20.626480659087103378195333865304 arc seconds
>is obtained from arcsin (30/300,000) * 3600
>then
>20.624418217258503065471891373324 arc seconds
>for arcsin(30/300030) * 3600, a difference of
>0.0020624418286003127234424919840547 arc seconds.
>
>In terms of parallax that's 0.0067 light years, 2.46 light days,
>59 light hours, 45 times the distance to Saturn.
>As usual, Andersen is talking out of his arse. But you do too.
From a turd's point of view, the arse is the source of all wisdom.
>> ....haven't you woken up to the fact that most wikipedea articles are
>> written
>> by dingleberries like Roberts and little eric.
>
>I can check the arithmetic. You never were any good at basic schoolboy
>trigonometry. The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of
>a star is approximately 20 arcseconds.
>
>>
>>>>>>>The abberation angle is half Jupiter's diameter in this image:
>>>>>>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length. You are totally irrelevant as
>>>>>> usual.
>>>>>
>>>>>For someone that claims parallax is easy you sure are
>>>>>self-contradictory,
>>>>>fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
>>>
>>> 1 parsec = 3.25 light years.
>>>Years don't have units of length. You are totally stupid as usual.
>>
>> ..what a pity pommie engineers were never taught dimensional analysis...
>>
>What a pity ozzie sheep-shaggers never learnt trigonometry.
>The sun is half a degree, which means you can obtain its diameter
>if you know its distance; you'd take a fucking tape measure to it.
No, I'd divide its diameter by tan(pi.0.5/360).........silly ol pom
>Jupiter has an angular diameter between 30-49 arc seconds, which
>means you can count fuckin' pixels and get 480/50 ~= 10 pixels per
>arc second in this 480x480 picture
> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>which means you can measure 0.1 arc seconds, so 20 arc seconds
>for aberration ought to be fucking easy, its half the fucking planet,
>you dim bastard.
It is. I told you that. Even Bradley had no trouble measuring it 250 years ago.
>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.
>>>>>>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>>>>>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>>>>>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless
>>>>>coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a unit
>>>>>of
>>>>>distance.
>>>>
>>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>
>>>Fuck off, you clueless bastard, you've never heard of parallax or a
>>>parsec!
>>>Bwahahahaha!
>>
>> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
>
>I didn't use dimensions of length, I used pixels to measure 20 arc seconds,
>FUCKWIT!
Angles don't have dimensions of length
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
shuttle. Even a blink of sunlight would be a disaster.
>>>>> That's OK. It will then be moving at 37 kms/sec relative to the sun.
>>>>
>>>>So your crap about atmosphere is totally irrelevant, shit for brains.
>>>
>>> The aberration constant, about 20 arc seconds, has been around for
>>> centuries.
>>>
>>> How long has the HST been up?
>>
>>Since 1990. It is about due to be decommissioned after 20 years.
>
> bloody waste of money when they all think light travels at c.
>
HST is excellent value for money, it's not looking for Higgs bosons.
The fucking CERN debacle is the real waste, it's the modern version
of the pyramids, the Great Wall of China or Ankhor Wat. Still, gotta
give us engineers something to do or we'd invent light accelerators.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/lightaccel.gif
Some dozy bastard said have two parallel mirrors approach each
other without realizing they'd have to go back again.
"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
You'd divide its diameter to obtain its diameter...
Fucking drunk at this time of day, don't you ever get sober?
>>Jupiter has an angular diameter between 30-49 arc seconds, which
>>means you can count fuckin' pixels and get 480/50 ~= 10 pixels per
>>arc second in this 480x480 picture
>> http://www.mallorcaweb.net/masm/Planetas/Jupiter.jpg
>>which means you can measure 0.1 arc seconds, so 20 arc seconds
>>for aberration ought to be fucking easy, its half the fucking planet,
>>you dim bastard.
>
> It is. I told you that. Even Bradley had no trouble measuring it 250 years
> ago.
No, you didn't tell me that, you repeated "Angles don't have dimensions of
length " like a fuckin' broken gramophone record.
>
>>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.
>
>>>>>>>>Fractions of an arc second are measurable by counting pixels.
>>>>>>>>You are totally wrong as usual. Stuff your free physic lessons
>>>>>>>>up your arse, they are fuckin' worthless like you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stuff your free physics lessons up your arse, they are fuckin'
>>>>>>worthless
>>>>>>coming from someone that thinks a parsec (parallax second) isn't a
>>>>>>unit
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are totally irrelevant as usual.
>>>>
>>>>Fuck off, you clueless bastard, you've never heard of parallax or a
>>>>parsec!
>>>>Bwahahahaha!
>>>
>>> Angles don't have dimensions of length.
>>
>>I didn't use dimensions of length, I used pixels to measure 20 arc
>>seconds,
>>FUCKWIT!
>
> Angles don't have dimensions of length
That is precisely my point. Awilson is kidding himself.
train
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
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 about aberration that I do not understand.
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.
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)
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.
and implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the
propagation of light
Curioser. I think this one wont make it to the SRT hall of Fame
Androcles
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 3:29 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> 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.
=============================================
Do you know anyone that has actually filled a telescope with water?
http://tinyurl.com/y9cyv9k
http://www.perceptionweb.com/perception/perc0998/p2709ed1.jpg
And yes, I have visited the Octagon Room in Flamsteed House, Greenwich, it's
only 30 minutes away from where I live, and yes, there is a wooden box
telescope there as the image shows.
Inertial
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8f5f4f6-a33b-4614...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Its not that hard.
The faster an object moves, the less aberration there 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.
As light moves slower in water than air, then the light should show more
aberration in a water filled telescope
> 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
> 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.
Jerry
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:i1ftp5t464f5s1ure...@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. 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.
Differential aberration as predicted by emission theories
should have been easy to observe.
Conclusion: Light travels at constant c. Emission theories are
disproven, as usual.
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a01577ed-a2d7-4491...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
==============================================
As we know, wood bends when soaked in water or steamed.
http://www.classicluggage.com/Brigg169MapleWalkingStick.jpg
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Heated atmospheric refractions as predicted by light-bending theories should
have been easy to observe.
Conclusion: Light travels in straight lines. Refraction theories are
disproven, as usual.
As we know, Tom&Jeery is a bigot who'll never be a scientist as long as he
has a hole is in his arse!
Hipparcos can only record what it sees, it doesn't know where the star
really is, you fuckin' shithead.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> Differential aberration as predicted by emission theories
>> should have been easy to observe.
>>
>> Conclusion: Light travels at constant c. Emission theories are
>> disproven, as usual.
>>
>> Jerry
> ==============================================
> As we know, wood bends when soaked in water or steamed.
> http://www.classicluggage.com/Brigg169MapleWalkingStick.jpg
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
>
> Heated atmospheric refractions as predicted by light-bending theories should
> have been easy to observe.
>
> Conclusion: Light travels in straight lines. Refraction theories are
> disproven, as usual.
>
> As we know, Tom&Jeery is a bigot who'll never be a scientist as long as he
> has a hole is in his arse!
>
> Hipparcos can only record what it sees, it doesn't know where the star
> really is, you fuckin' shithead.
Hipparcos could certainly see where a star was relative to other
stars in the same field. Actually, it could not only see where a
star was relative to others in the same field, it could do a
simultaneous double-check against stars in a field 58 degrees
separated from the original field.
Emission theory's prediction is that high-radial-velocity stars
such as LHS 50 and LHS 64 should have wandered up to 0.1" relative
to other stars in the same field due to differential aberration.
This gross effect was never observed. Hence emission theory is
disproven, AS ALWAYS.
Now, please explain your insane splutterings about atmospheric
refraction and its relevance to a discussion about aberration.
Jerry
Androcles
===============================================
"I didn't see it, therefore it doesn't happen" -- Shithead Tom&Jeery.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.
"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system,
is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case
in the stationary system" -- Albert Einstein.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.
"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system,
is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case
in the stationary system" -- Albert Einstein.
This gross effect was never observed. Hence relativity theory is disproven,
AS ALWAYS, ignorant fuckwit.
===============================================
Now, please explain your insane splutterings about atmospheric
refraction and its relevance to a discussion about aberration.
Jerry
==========================================
I refuse.
Can't you see the pencil is bent, dumbfuck?
Can't you see the walking cane is bent, fuckwit?
Why should I explain the obvious to a fuckin' bigot?
It is OBVIOUS that your refraction theory is disproven, AS USUAL.
train
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 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?
So we have moved from SRT is validated by billions of experiments to
That analysis is under debate?
I can see why Androcles goes mad. Hang on Androcles
Henry Wilson DSc
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mar 15, 7:36 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:i1ftp5t464f5s1ure...@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
Inertial
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.
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.
train
Then the Wikipedia diagram is wrong? First Diagram top right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
Sue...
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...
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2a391c62-1497-4c78...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 9:13 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@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
Inertial
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.
Inertial
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2a391c62-1497-4c78...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Nope
> 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...
You have no idea, Sue (as usual).
Y.y.Porat
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
psychopath
-----------------
Henry Wilson DSc
For once you are right.
Jerry
I presume, therefore, that you deny the expansion of the universe?
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...
Galaxies and foreground stars are both razor sharp. Yet ballistic
theory predicts this to be impossible given the constantly
changing motions of the telescope.
So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion?
Jerry
Androcles
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit.jpg
Galaxies and foreground stars are both razor sharp.
========================================================
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Moron Jeery needs new eyeglasses!
Besides which its a JPEG, not even the diffraction spikes are razor sharp!
Inertial
news:bd29e2c9-3fa8-461d...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Porat is a stalker .. ignore him
train
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?
Why should a tube filled with air or water change the behavior of
light traveling down the tube parallel to its walls?
T
Androcles
Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the
path?
================================================
Refractive index.
Contrary to popular belief, refractive index is a ratio between two
transparent
substances, not a property of one of them. We often use the default, either
vacuum or air, to talk about the refractive index of (say) glass or diamond
or
clear plastic, but water has its own refractive index and when you put it up
against the glass you change the angle of the light ray.
http://www.matter.org.uk/Schools/SchoolsGlossary/refractive_index.html
In other words if you fill a telescope with water you'll change the focal
length.
Henry Wilson DSc
Inertial is a wanker...ignore her...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>Why should filling the telescope with anything alter the angle of the
>path?
>
>================================================
>Refractive index.
>Contrary to popular belief, refractive index is a ratio between two
>transparent
>substances, not a property of one of them.
The pommie engineer speaks again...
>We often use the default, either
>vacuum or air, to talk about the refractive index of (say) glass or diamond
>or
>clear plastic, but water has its own refractive index and when you put it up
>against the glass you change the angle of the light ray.
>
> http://www.matter.org.uk/Schools/SchoolsGlossary/refractive_index.html
>
>In other words if you fill a telescope with water you'll change the focal
>length.
>
Henry Wilson DSc
<Cephalobu...@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...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Mar 15, 7:36 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
>> >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:i1ftp5t464f5s1ure...@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
>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.
>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..
>So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion?
Light loses energy as it travels.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>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..
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:ojf2q593d6ehuvjqb...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
>> <Cephalobu...@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...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
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!
Inertial
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.
train
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
Inertial
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?
Jerry
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:30:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
>
>
> 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
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:k9j2q5t090f6cimok...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:40:33 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>>>>>So is the expansion of the universe a Willusion?
Go to bed Andro.
When photons separate from each other, why should they change?
Henry Wilson DSc
<Cephalobu...@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?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
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.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d12e94d2-7e85-4f4a...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > 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?
No point in asking Andro...
Inertial is right...probably for the first time in her life...
Now let inertial tell us what effect the Earth's atmosphere should have on
aberration angles from differently moving souces.
>T
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Don't resort to distraction. It wont help you.
>When photons separate from each other, they change. "Why" is a matter
>for scientific investigation.
Maybe they 'unify'...
>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.
You seem to be learning from ME.
I am the one who first put forward the theory that 'fields are quantized' and
the inverse square law must eventually break down....(beginning at the WDT)
Now if you want to add to my theory you are welcome to do so. If your
contribution is significant, I will mention your name in the bibliography..
>Go to bed, Awilson, I'm wide awake.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Yeah, separation is unifuckation and they do in 3.5 light years from nearby
red-shifted stars instead of 14 Gly from red-shifted galaxies selected by
Hubble and his sidekick Awilson. Isn't it time for you to invent the Ahubble
constant and the Aeinstein cosmological constant after you've fucked with
Doppler? How about some Awilson dork matter as well?
>>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.
>
> You seem to be learning from ME.
> I am the one who first put forward the theory that 'fields are quantized'
> and
> the inverse square law must eventually break down....(beginning at the
> WDT)
>
> Now if you want to add to my theory you are welcome to do so. If your
> contribution is significant, I will mention your name in the
> bibliography..
>
Funny how you wait 5 years to plagiarise my ideas with one of your "maybes".
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my
unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills all the
gaps.
When I get around to it I will be able to predict the velocity curves that
astronomers are calculating using their asumption that spectral shifts are all
due to VDoppler.
That will be the icing on the cake..the final blow that brings Einstein down.
Of course you might beat me to it now that I've given you so many clues...but I
don't need the money or another Nobel....
Inertial
You're deluded or a liar .. I think both. But I'm sure you're comfortable
in your psychosis.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
That one's a keeper.
"I have temporarily dumped my unification theory" - Awilson
Ref: news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com
When is it coming back, next week?
> When I get around to it I will be able to predict the velocity curves that
> astronomers are calculating using their asumption that spectral shifts are
> all
> due to VDoppler.
Here's one.
http://tinyurl.com/yaly8dl
train
> 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
> 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 athttp://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?
Ok here is a telescope
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Here is the photon entering the telescope
0
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|0|
| |
| |
| |
| |
OK now did that photon come from a moving source (relative to the
telescope) or a stationary source (relative to the telescope) ?
If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down,
where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the
telescope with water change the direction of the photon?
I understand aberration now.
T
Androcles
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
0
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|0|
| |
| |
| |
| |
I understand aberration now.
T
================================================
Which is moving, the target or the bow?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
Gehan could you please see if I am correct and explain this to
Inertwit, as I won't bother with raving lunatic?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:44:46 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my
>> unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills
>> all the
>> gaps.
>
>That one's a keeper.
> "I have temporarily dumped my unification theory" - Awilson
>Ref: news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com
>When is it coming back, next week?
If necessary to explain the velocity*distance anomaly that you don't
understand.
"all star orbits are face on to Earth" ....androcles, 2009...
>> When I get around to it I will be able to predict the velocity curves that
>> astronomers are calculating using their asumption that spectral shifts are
>> all
>> due to VDoppler.
>
>Here's one.
> http://tinyurl.com/yaly8dl
...silly old pom....
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:13:35 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:44:46 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my
>>> unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills
>>> all the
>>> gaps.
>>
>>That one's a keeper.
>> "I have temporarily dumped my unification theory" - Awilson
>>Ref: news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com
>>When is it coming back, next week?
>
> If necessary to explain the velocity*distance anomaly that you don't
> understand.
What "anomaly" are you babbling about?
>
> "all star orbits are face on to Earth" ....androcles, 2009...
>
You haven't any reference to prove I ever said that.
What I did say was all cepheid orbits were almost face on to Earth,
and I still do. There is no anomaly to be understood, that is consistent
with theory. If you are too stupid to understand basic trigonometry
that's your problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt
Go on, argue with empirical data.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:rcs7q5tikjbfqvva5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:13:35 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:44:46 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually you will be pleased to know that I have temporarily dumped my
>>>> unification theory in favour of ADoppler. It explains everything..fills
>>>> all the
>>>> gaps.
>>>
>>>That one's a keeper.
>>> "I have temporarily dumped my unification theory" - Awilson
>>>Ref: news:gjj5q5pokel3d6bbk...@4ax.com
>>>When is it coming back, next week?
>>
>> If necessary to explain the velocity*distance anomaly that you don't
>> understand.
>
>What "anomaly" are you babbling about?
The one whose existence you have never recognized.
>> "all star orbits are face on to Earth" ....androcles, 2009...
>>
>You haven't any reference to prove I ever said that.
>What I did say was all cepheid orbits were almost face on to Earth,
>and I still do. There is no anomaly to be understood, that is consistent
>with theory. If you are too stupid to understand basic trigonometry
>that's your problem.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt
>Go on, argue with empirical data.
Well, many 'cepheids' ARE true pulsating stars. That's the only way I can
simulate the 1st harmonic. So in that respect you could argue that they are
always face on. It is reasonable to assume that the radial velocity of
huff-puff star has very similar characteristics to those of a star in
elliptical orbit. The same kind of gravity law applies to the forces that cause
the movement along our LOS. Even the inertia and viscosity of the moving gases
should cause a drag effect that more or less fits in with the 'YAW' angle
concept.
That doesn't mean that many socalled cepheids are NOT just orbiting stars.
But by far the majority of curves of that nature slope to the left...yaw -60
rather than +60.
What is most interesting is the fact that the calculated velocity curves have a
similar shape and phase to the corresponding brightness curves. Astronomers
cannot produce a theory to match this.
My ADoppler is the obvious explanation.
train
The answer is: each target and the bow are moving relative to each
other. The two scenarios are equivalent.
Is this why I had such a problem with aberration? think of it
Androcles - you turn a telescope so light travels down straight down
it - and then you fill your telescope with water and expect the light
to bend one way or the other!
yet another challenge to sanity
I don't get it. Or maybe I do.
T
Jerry
> Ok here is a telescope
>
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> Here is the photon entering the telescope
>
> 0
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> | |
> |0|
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> OK now did that photon come from a moving source (relative to the
> telescope) or a stationary source (relative to the telescope) ?
>
> If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down,
> where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the
> telescope with water change the direction of the photon?
The predicted effects would depend on what you believe about the
properties of the presumptive aether.
Light traveling through water is slowed to about 3/4 of its
speed in air. But if you presume that the "aether wind" continues
blowing across just as hard as it did before, then the prediction
would be that the slower light gets deflected by a larger angle.
This wasn't seen to happen, so aether theorists came up with
desperate excuses to explain away the non-observance of this
effect, like "aether drag". Unfortunately, aether drag brought
along its own set of predictions, effects that were never seen.
Jerry
Inertial
If it came from a star and is measured measured on earth, then we know that
they are relatively moving.
If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming from a
moving (or stationary)source aimed at a stationary telescope, then slowing
it down would *not* change its angle.
. <S>
.
. o
.
.
. / /
.
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
. o
.
. / /
.
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. /o/
.
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. / /
.
. /o/
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. / /
.
. / /
.
. /o/
If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming from a
stationary source aimed at a moving telescope, then slowing it down *would*
change its angle.
. <S>
.
. o
.
.
. / /
.
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
. o
.
. / /
.
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. /o/
.
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. / /
. o
. / /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. / /
.
. o /
.
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. / /
.
. / /
. o
. / /
. <S>
.
.
.
.
.
. / /
.
. / /
.
. o/ /
> If the telescope is aimed so that the photon is going straight down,
> where is the sideways velocity of the photon? Why would filling the
> telescope with water change the direction of the photon?
>
> I understand aberration now.
Evidently not, if you are still asking questions that someone who DID
understand aberration would know the answers to
Inertial
You are thinking of a static situation. Net time you are driving in a car
.. look at how the rain changes angle the faster you drive through it.
> yet another challenge to sanity
You're just not thinking about the possiblities
> I don't get it. Or maybe I do.
Not yet.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Fuck off, shithead.
*plonk*
Androcles
==================================================
Exactly right.
Is this why I had such a problem with aberration? think of it
Androcles - you turn a telescope so light travels down straight down
it - and then you fill your telescope with water and expect the light
to bend one way or the other!
yet another challenge to sanity
I don't get it. Or maybe I do.
T
===================================================
It doesn't matter if it is light or an arrow, the trigonometry is the same.
I see the Sun cross the sky every day, I see the Moon cross the sky
every night. Seems like both go around the Earth every 24 hours, yet
that's not right. Copernicus and Galileo had an uphill battle explaining
why it was wrong, and the same applies to Einstein's idiocy. It's all
about believing what you see. The arrow leaves the bow at 90 degrees
and hits the target at 60 degrees, that's a fact, and the angle depends
on the relative speed. The Earth goes around the Sun and the Moon
goes around the Earth, but doesn't do it in 24 hours, it takes a year
and it takes a month. How you understand it all depends on relative
speed.
The arrow has further to go in the target's frame of reference than
it does in the bow's frame of reference.
Target sees the speed of the arrow as sqrt(c^2 +v^2).
Bow sees the arrow's speed as c... there is no v!
(There is, of course, the target moves at v, but that get's ignored.)
Then along comes an idiot and says the speed of the arrow is c
in ALL frames of reference, we'll have to make time relative, and all
the other inert idiots believe him.
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6810908e-c0a1-483b...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Jerry
============================================
Division by something less than 1 makes the quotient greater.
Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions,
effects that were never seen.
Unfortunately, you are a useless dickhead.
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> The predicted effects would depend on what you believe about the
>> properties of the presumptive aether.
>>
>> Light traveling through water is slowed to about 3/4 of its
>> speed in air. But if you presume that the "aether wind" continues
>> blowing across just as hard as it did before, then the prediction
>> would be that the slower light gets deflected by a larger angle.
>>
>> This wasn't seen to happen, so aether theorists came up with
>> desperate excuses to explain away the non-observance of this
>> effect, like "aether drag". Unfortunately, aether drag brought
>> along its own set of predictions, effects that were never seen.
>>
>> Jerry
> ============================================
> Division by something less than 1 makes the quotient greater.
> Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions,
> effects that were never seen.
Lying again, as always. Every predicted effect of SR that has
been technologically feasible to observe, HAS been observed.
Unfortunately, DIRECT measurement of the most famous prediction
of SR, length contraction, is outside the realm of technological
feasibility. But the EFFECTS of length contraction have been
repeatedly observed on a routine basis.
Are you familiar with relativistic kinematics? Observed high
speed kinematics implies time dilation plus length contraction,
i.e. the entirety of the Lorentz transformations are required to
explain observed kinematics.
If you take two equal mass particles and shoot one at the other
so that they collide and rebound elastically, then, according to
Newtonian mechanics, conservation of energy plus conservation of
momentum means that they shoot off at right angles to each other.
In other words, allowing for the limitations of ascii art:
_
_/
_/
-----------------<_ 90 degrees
\_
\_
There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this prediction of Newtonian
kinematics. I can write out the proof for you, if you want. It's
easiest to explain if you are familiar with transforming back and
forth from center of mass coordinates, but it's not impossible to
"do it the hard way" if you aren't familiar with the concept.
The bottom applet on this page illustrates this rule:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Applets/
Click on the link to "Two-dimensional collisions"
Anyway, what's found in particle accelerators is that collisions
do not obey Newtonian kinematics. In particular, the scattering
angle between two equal-sized particles is always LESS THAN 90
degrees.
__
___/
___/
-----------------<___ less than 90 degrees
\___
\__
This is impossible according to Newtonian kinematics, but is
explained exactly assuming the validity of special relativity.
REPEAT:
Observed kinematics is calculable as the result of time dilation
plus length contraction, i.e. the entirety of the Lorentz
transformations are required to explain the observed scattering
angles.
Jerry
Androcles
On Mar 20, 1:32 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> The predicted effects would depend on what you believe about the
>> properties of the presumptive aether.
>>
>> Light traveling through water is slowed to about 3/4 of its
>> speed in air. But if you presume that the "aether wind" continues
>> blowing across just as hard as it did before, then the prediction
>> would be that the slower light gets deflected by a larger angle.
>>
>> This wasn't seen to happen, so aether theorists came up with
>> desperate excuses to explain away the non-observance of this
>> effect, like "aether drag". Unfortunately, aether drag brought
>> along its own set of predictions, effects that were never seen.
>>
>> Jerry
> ============================================
> Division by something less than 1 makes the quotient greater.
> Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions,
> effects that were never seen.
Lying again, as always.
==============================================
Of course you are. 2 = 1/0.5 isn't less than 1, is it, shithead?
Division by something less than 1 makes the quotient greater!
Einstein's predicted length expansion and time contraction is never
seen to happen, you fucking stooopid moron that can't manage simple
algebra.
Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions,
effects that were never seen. Fuck off, you ignorant cunt.
Androcles
REPEAT:
Observed kinematics is calculable as the result of time dilation
plus length contraction, i.e. the entirety of the Lorentz
transformations are required to explain the observed scattering
angles.
Jerry
============================================
REPEAT:
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is length EXPANSION.
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is time contraction.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
REPEAT: You fucking lying incompetent STOOPID shithead.
Androcles
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:ht58q59u3n7s5u3ic...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:45:31 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_v>
>>
>>>> "all star orbits are face on to Earth" ....androcles, 2009...
>>>>
>>>You haven't any reference to prove I ever said that.
>>>What I did say was all cepheid orbits were almost face on to Earth,
>>>and I still do. There is no anomaly to be understood, that is consistent
>>>with theory. If you are too stupid to understand basic trigonometry
>>>that's your problem.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Swan_Leavitt
>>>Go on, argue with empirical data.
>>
>> Well, many 'cepheids' ARE true pulsating stars.
>
>Fuck off, shithead.
>*plonk*
Plonking me wont cure your insanity.
Jerry
> Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions,
> effects that were never seen. Fuck off, you ignorant cunt.
You didn't address my comments about relativistic kinematics.
These effects are ROUTINELY seen.
Androcles
On Mar 20, 3:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> Unfortunately, relativity brought along its own set of predictions,
> effects that were never seen. Fuck off, you ignorant cunt.
You didn't address my comments about relativistic kinematics.
These effects are ROUTINELY seen.
=================================================
Good, I'm so glad. I'll accept what you say, because that proves
this is nonsense:
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Fuck off, shithead.
*plonk*
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
You need to review what it means to transform one set of
coordinates into another set of coordinates. You COMPLETELY
misinterpret the Lorentz transformation.
Jerry
Henry Wilson DSc
The problem Jerry is that this is not what happens. It is what Einstein says
will happen.... and if students don't accept the crap, they will fail.
>
>Anyway, what's found in particle accelerators is that collisions
>do not obey Newtonian kinematics. In particular, the scattering
>angle between two equal-sized particles is always LESS THAN 90
>degrees.
> __
> ___/
> ___/
>-----------------<___ less than 90 degrees
> \___
> \__
>
>This is impossible according to Newtonian kinematics, but is
>explained exactly assuming the validity of special relativity.
>
>REPEAT:
>Observed kinematics is calculable as the result of time dilation
>plus length contraction, i.e. the entirety of the Lorentz
>transformations are required to explain the observed scattering
>angles.
..the brainwashing continues....
>Jerry
Androcles
========================================
You didn't address Einstein's absurd comment
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif
You need to shut the fuck up, 0.5 = 1/2 even in physics transformations
and 4 = 1/2 is ROUTINELY seen according to you.
REPEAT: You fucking lying incompetent STOOOOOOPID shithead.
Androcles