precession of mercury
dsep...@austin.rr.com
velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
source (unstated, but necessary premise). Does the propagation of
gravity also depend on the velocity of the source? If so, how is the
rotation of the sun included in orbital calculations?
Thanks
David Seppala
eric gisse
wrote:
>In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
>velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
>source (unstated, but necessary premise).
No, it doesn't.
> Does the propagation of
>gravity also depend on the velocity of the source?
No, it doesn't.
> If so, how is the
>rotation of the sun included in orbital calculations?
>Thanks
>David Seppala
No, it isn't.
Why don't you read the literature instead of having us explain it to
you?
Paul B. Andersen
> In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
> velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
> source (unstated, but necessary premise).
No.
The velocity of light is not invariant since the direction is
frame dependent, but it does not depend on the velocity of
the source.
That's why we see the light from both components in spectroscopic
binaries as coming from the same direction.
The velocity of the star contributes nothing
to stellar aberration.
> Does the propagation of
> gravity also depend on the velocity of the source? If so, how is the
> rotation of the sun included in orbital calculations?
> Thanks
> David Seppala
--
Paul
dsep...@austin.rr.com
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:40:38 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
> wrote:
>
> >In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
> >velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
> >source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>
> No, it doesn't.
and you fire that laser, if the laser is moving along the x-axis with
some velocity v, the beam travels at an angle that depends on the
velocity of the laser.
David
eric gisse
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 5:45 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:40:38 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
>> >velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
>> >source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>Well if a laser is pointed perpendicular to the x-axis (y direction),
>and you fire that laser, if the laser is moving along the x-axis with
>some velocity v, the beam travels at an angle that depends on the
>velocity of the laser.
You are describing abberation, a separate phenomena.
How many years have you been getting people to solve contrived
scenarios in relativity for you, David?
How many years, David?
dsep...@austin.rr.com
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:05:32 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 22, 5:45 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:40:38 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
> >> >velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
> >> >source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>
> >> No, it doesn't.
> >Well if a laser is pointed perpendicular to the x-axis (y direction),
> >and you fire that laser, if the laser is moving along the x-axis with
> >some velocity v, the beam travels at an angle that depends on the
> >velocity of the laser.
>
> You are describing abberation, a separate phenomena.
>
> How many years have you been getting people to solve contrived
> scenarios in relativity for you, David?
>
> How many years, David?
>
David
eric gisse
Darwin123
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:40:38 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
> wrote:
>
> >In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
> >velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
> >source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>
> No, it doesn't.
The aberration of starlight is an example where the apparent
direction of the light as perceived by the observer depends on the
relative velocity of light source and observer. The direction of the
light is part of the velocity of light, since velocity is a vector.
I think this is the variability in velocity that he is talking
about. He is asking whether there is aberration of sunlight that
corresponds to aberration of starlight.
Darwin123
<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> dsepp...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> > In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
> > velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
> > source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>
> No.
> The velocity of light is not invariant since the direction is
> frame dependent, but it does not depend on the velocity of
> the source.
>
> That's why we see the light from both components in spectroscopic
> binaries as coming from the same direction.
>
> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
> to stellar aberration.
change the direction of starlight as seen by the observer.
Darwin123
> Does the propagation of
> gravity also depend on the velocity of the source?
corresponds to "aberration of light." Look up aberration of light.
However, the "aberration" formulas refer to radiation, not static
fields.
If so, how is the
> rotation of the sun included in orbital calculations?
> Thanks
> David Seppala
Therefore, the gravity coming from the sun which keeps the earth in
orbit is not "propagating" in the way you say it does. Therefore,
there is no "aberration" of orbital gravity.
In the weak gravitational field limit, there is a valid analogy
between the "gravity-gravomagnetic" field and the electromagnetic
field. I think you are using such an analogy, and for the weak
gravitational fields we are talking about the analogy is valid. So if
we were talking about the gravity waves generated by a source, you
would be correct. In order to "image" the star using gravity waves, an
aberration correction would be needed.
However, the gravity that holds us in orbit is not a gravity
wave. In terms of the analogy with the magnetic field, the gravity
that affects orbits is a "near field phenomenon." Look up "near field"
in any electromagnetic textbook. Gravitational waves are a "far field
phenomenon." Look up "far field" in any electromagnetic textbook. The
near field field properties tend to be different from the far field
properties.
When you comb your hair on a dry day, the comb becomes
electrofied. It can be used to attract small pieces of paper. However,
the comb is not emitting electromagnetic waves. The electric field
from the comb is not a radio wave. You can use the laws of optics on
radio waves, but not on the electric field near the comb. If the comb
was shaken very rapidly (VERY rapid) it would be a source of radio
waves. The radio waves would apply pressure that repelled the pieces
of paper soon before burning them. Applying the rules of radio optics
to static electricity is very misleading.
In the same way, the sun is the source for "near field gravity
that influences the orbits. It is not emitting gravity waves. The
gravity waves would push the earth away, anyway. However, the sun
could not emit gravity waves unless it was shaken vigorously. The
gravity of the sun is more analogous to static electricity.
Does this help?
harry
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74ff13e8-2a22-42c8...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
No it doesn't. Only the (change of the) speed of earth matters. The reason
is very simple: star light is emitted in all directions (watch out: this is
NOT valid for a laser pointer!), and the light we observe is emitted from
the position of the star. Due to the enormous distance, the position of the
star is fixed whatever the star's velocity. As Paul pointed out (but you
ignored), this is well known from double stars.
Harald
Harald
Darwin123
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Look up stellar aberration. If light is coming straight down to a
"stationary" inertial frame, it will appear to be coming down at a
different angle to an cospatial observer moving at a constant velocity
perpendicular to the direction of the starlight.
Koobee Wublee
> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
> to stellar aberration.
It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform. Since
the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
aberration. :-)
harry
On Dec 5, 4:48 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:74ff13e8-2a22-42c8...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 23, 8:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> > dsepp...@austin.rr.com wrote:
Due to the enormous distance, the position of the
> star is fixed whatever the star's velocity. As Paul pointed out (but you
> ignored), this is well known from double stars.
>
> Harald
: Look up stellar aberration.
I could write a paper on stellar aberation. But I won't do it here.
: If light is coming straight down to a
: "stationary" inertial frame, it will appear to be coming down at a
: different angle to an cospatial observer moving at a constant velocity
: perpendicular to the direction of the starlight.
Sure. You didn't read what Paul wrote. Nor did you read or try to understand
what I wrote, instead you deleted it. Waste of time.
Harald
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb9948ef-4b61-49a2...@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
>> to stellar aberration.
>
> It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
> relativity. :-)
He's an ASSistant professor at Agder University College.
(West Agder is a minor county in Norway, the next stop to
where Santa Claus and his elves live.)
ASS.-professors clean the chalk board and the toilets.
Andersen is also a proven liar.
> It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
Copernicus (1473 - 1543) preceded Galileo (1564-1642)
by more than a century. Understanding the PoR is crucial
to understanding the "heliocentric universe" (now the solar
system) and eliminated the need for Ptolemy's epicycles.
Paul B. Andersen
Wrong.
If two stars which are moving relative to each other
are close to each other at the time the light we see
was emitted, we will see the stars close to each other.
Obvious, no?
So the starlight from both stars as seen from the Earth
are coming from the same direction.
The velocities of the stars do not affect the direction
we see them in.
Stellar aberration is due _only_ to the change of velocity
of the Earth. Since the orbital speed of the Earth is v = 3E4 m/s,
the change in the observed direction to a star at the galactic pole
will, after 6 months, be arcsin(2v/c) ~= 2v/c = 6E4/3E8 = 2E-4 radians
or 41.2 arc seconds. During one year, the star will appear to move in
a circle with radius 20.6 arc seconds.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 5, 4:48 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:74ff13e8-2a22-42c8...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 23, 8:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>
>> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>> dsepp...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> Due to the enormous distance, the position of the
>> star is fixed whatever the star's velocity. As Paul pointed out (but you
>> ignored), this is well known from double stars.
>>
>> Harald
>>
>> Harald
[unsnip Darwin123's original statement, which is plain wrong]
| The velocity of the star relative to the observer on earth does
| change the direction of starlight as seen by the observer.
When realizing being wrong, state something different which is right,
and pretend that this was what you said, eh? :-)
> Look up stellar aberration. If light is coming straight down to a
> "stationary" inertial frame, it will appear to be coming down at a
> different angle to an cospatial observer moving at a constant velocity
> perpendicular to the direction of the starlight.
Indeed. :-)
And the difference in the observed angle depend _only_
on the observers' relative velocity.
The velocity of the star is irrelevant.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
>> to stellar aberration.
>
> It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
> relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
> Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform.
What a strange statement. :-)
Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that the direction
to a star appear to change throughout the year.
A star at a galactic pole appear to move in a circle
with radius 1E-4 radians. (20.6 arcsecs)
Of course you can calculate what the aberration should be
according to as well the Galilean transform as the Lorentz transform.
The Galilean transform predicts that the star at the galactic pole
should appear to move in a circle with radius arctan(v/c),
where v is the orbital speed of the Earth, v = 3E4 m/s.
The Lorentz transform predicts the angle to be arcsin(v/c).
The difference between arctan(1E-4) and arcsin(1E-4) is 3E-11 radians.
I suppose that even you will realize that this difference
is unmeasurable.
So there is no way to say which of the predictions is the correct one.
Or - as you put it - if "stellar aberration is an application
of the Galilean transform" or of the Lorentz transform.
> Since
> the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
> velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
> aberration. :-)
So the prediction of the Galilean transform cannot be
arctan(v/c) ~= v/c radians = 1E-4 radians (as observed)
since it doesn't depend on the velocity of the star which
is very much important in determining this aberration.
Maybe you can show us the correct prediction of the Galilean transform
which take the velocity of the star into consideration?
Or can't you? :-)
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
news:493AA1BF...@guesswhatuia.no...
It's very important to determine the immeasurable, right, Tusseladd?
I don't suppose that even you will realize that you are talking out of
you arse.
Darwin123
OOPS! You guys are right! I got some other phenomenon confused with
stellar aberration. Stellar aberration has little to do with
relativity.
Darwin123
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:11:40 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
OOPS! You guys are right! I got some other phenomenon confused with
Darwin123
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:50ae9269-2f1f-4725...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 4:48 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:74ff13e8-2a22-42c8...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 23, 8:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> > <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> > > dsepp...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>
> Due to the enormous distance, the position of the
>
> > star is fixed whatever the star's velocity. As Paul pointed out (but you
> > ignored), this is well known from double stars.
>
> > Harald
>
> : Look up stellar aberration.
>
> I could write a paper on stellar aberation. But I won't do it here.
>
> : If light is coming straight down to a
> : "stationary" inertial frame, it will appear to be coming down at a
> : different angle to an cospatial observer moving at a constant velocity
> : perpendicular to the direction of the starlight.
>
> Sure. You didn't read what Paul wrote. Nor did you read or try to understand
> what I wrote, instead you deleted it. Waste of time.
>
> Harald
OOPS! You guys are right! I got some other phenomenon confused with
stellar aberration. Stellar aberration has little to do with
relativity.
Yes, I jumped into the frey unprepared. I apologize for bringing
up stellar aberration, a completely unrelated phenomenon. Sorry,
sorry, sorry. I was wrong.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d0e004dd-454c-497a...@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
...
> Sorry, sorry, sorry. I was wrong.
Confused... never wrong! ;>)
David A. Smith
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
> > relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
> > Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform.
>
> What a strange statement. :-)
Yes, a professor who does not understand the principle of
relativity. :-)
> Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that the direction
> to a star appear to change throughout the year.
> A star at a galactic pole appear to move in a circle
> with radius 1E-4 radians. (20.6 arcsecs)
It is still a phenomenon of the Galilean transform. <shrug>
> Of course you can calculate what the aberration should be
> according to as well the Galilean transform as the Lorentz transform.
> The Galilean transform predicts that the star at the galactic pole
> should appear to move in a circle with radius arctan(v/c),
> where v is the orbital speed of the Earth, v = 3E4 m/s.
> The Lorentz transform predicts the angle to be arcsin(v/c).
Rambling from shallow understanding of the subject. <shrug>
> The difference between arctan(1E-4) and arcsin(1E-4) is 3E-11 radians.
> I suppose that even you will realize that this difference
> is unmeasurable.
Stop barking up the wrong tree. The stellar aberration remains a
phenomenon of the Galilean transform to the first order. <shrug>
> So there is no way to say which of the predictions is the correct one.
> Or - as you put it - if "stellar aberration is an application
> of the Galilean transform" or of the Lorentz transform.
You are caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Give it up, and
behave like a gentleman instead of a sour loser. :-)
> > Since
> > the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
> > velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
> > aberration. :-)
>
> So the prediction of the Galilean transform cannot be
> arctan(v/c) ~= v/c radians = 1E-4 radians (as observed)
> since it doesn't depend on the velocity of the star which
> is very much important in determining this aberration.
More babbling to distract your ignorance, eh?
> Maybe you can show us the correct prediction of the Galilean transform
> which take the velocity of the star into consideration?
Just apply the principle of relativity. <shrug>
> Or can't you? :-)
Well, Professor Andersen is a small man. He cannot concede his
defeat. He is ignorant of the most basic principle that is the
principle of relativity. :-) :-) :-)
Well, Professor Carlip made the same mistake in his monumental paper
on the speed of gravity to dispute Dr. Van Flandern. What’s up with
that? Professor Draper just started babbling as well when faced with
the issue of the twin’s paradox. Professor Roberts, after observing
time dilation in a speeding particle, did not diligently show the
observed time dilation from the particle’s point of view. The mutual
time dilation is predicted by the Lorentz transform as you all know.
It looks like all the featured professors do not understand the 400-
year-old principle of relativity. <shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 6, 8:01 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
[unsnip]
>>> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
>>>> to stellar aberration.
The above is the statement which Koobe Wublee disputes,
and made him write:
Quite.
The first order approximation of the Galilean as well as
the Lorentz transform is v/c.
>> So there is no way to say which of the predictions is the correct one.
>> Or - as you put it - if "stellar aberration is an application
>> of the Galilean transform" or of the Lorentz transform.
>
> You are caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Give it up, and
> behave like a gentleman instead of a sour loser. :-)
Give up what?
This?
The first order approximation of the Stellar aberration is:
A star at the galactic pole will appear to move in a circle
with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
Generally, a star will appear to move along an ellipse, where
the major axis will be 40.96".
This is consistent with observations.
The fact that stellar aberration depend only on the change of
the velocity of the Earth and the speed of light, while the velocity
of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, proves
that this statement of Koobee Wublee's is plain wrong:
>>> Since
>>> the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
>>> velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
>>> aberration. :-)
And here is the consequence of his statement if it were correct:
>> So the prediction of the Galilean transform cannot be
>> arctan(v/c) ~= v/c radians ~= 1E-4 radians (as observed)
>> since it doesn't depend on the velocity of the star which
>> is very much important in determining this aberration.
>
> More babbling to distract your ignorance, eh?
Quite. My ignorance is easily distracted. :-)
Another funny statement to divert the attention from your blunder, Koobee? :-)
>> Maybe you can show us the correct prediction of the Galilean transform
>> which take the velocity of the star into consideration?
>
> Just apply the principle of relativity. <shrug>
Indeed.
Doing so, we find that stellar aberration depends on the change
of the velocity of the Earth and on the speed of light, while
the velocity of the star contributes nothing.
So Koobee Wublee made a great blunder when he wrote:
| Since
| the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
| velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
| aberration. :-)
>> Or can't you? :-)
Obviously not.
You have no idea of how to use the principle of
relativity to calculate the stellar aberration.
Desperate to divert the attention from this fact, Koobee Wublee writes:
> Well, Professor Andersen is a small man. He cannot concede his
> defeat. He is ignorant of the most basic principle that is the
> principle of relativity. :-) :-) :-)
>
> Well, Professor Carlip made the same mistake in his monumental paper
> on the speed of gravity to dispute Dr. Van Flandern. What’s up with
> that? Professor Draper just started babbling as well when faced with
> the issue of the twin’s paradox. Professor Roberts, after observing
> time dilation in a speeding particle, did not diligently show the
> observed time dilation from the particle’s point of view. The mutual
> time dilation is predicted by the Lorentz transform as you all know.
> It looks like all the featured professors do not understand the 400-
> year-old principle of relativity. <shrug>
Funny, eh? :-)
But please keep it up, Koobee.
Keep claiming that:
| Since
| the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
| velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
| aberration. :-)
I love to see cranks make fools of themselves,
so it would be no fun if you admitted your blunder.
But you won't do that, will you? :-)
Because:
Well, Koobee Wublee is a small man. He cannot concede his
defeat. He is ignorant of the most basic principle that is the
principle of relativity. :-) :-) :-)
That's why he is unable to use this principle to calculate the fact
that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
--
Paul, having fun
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Nov 22, 5:45 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:40:38 -0800 (PST), dsepp...@austin.rr.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
>> >velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
>> >source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>Well if a laser is pointed perpendicular to the x-axis (y direction),
>and you fire that laser, if the laser is moving along the x-axis with
>some velocity v, the beam travels at an angle that depends on the
>velocity of the laser.
>David
It doesn't.
The whole beam remains vertical but appears to move sideways. it's the same as
moving a vertical rod sideways.
Consider a column of ants moving up the rod. Each ant moves diagonally but the
column itself remains vertical, like the rod.
My demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
illusttrates the effect as applied to light.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
.....
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>dsep...@austin.rr.com wrote:
>> In special relativity, although the speed of light is constant, the
>> velocity (speed and direction) depends on the velocity of the light
>> source (unstated, but necessary premise).
>
>No.
>The velocity of light is not invariant since the direction is
>frame dependent, but it does not depend on the velocity of
>the source.
>
>That's why we see the light from both components in spectroscopic
>binaries as coming from the same direction.
:)
...always a source of entertainment....
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> [unsnip]
> >>> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >>>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
> >>>> to stellar aberration.
>
> The above is the statement which Koobe Wublee disputes,
> and made him write:
>
> >> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> >>> It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
> >>> relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
> >>> Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform.
> >> What a strange statement. :-)
That is correct. Professor Andersen at that remote university in
Norway still does not understand the 400-year-old principle of
relativity. In his argument, he brought up the Lorentz transform
which the discussion has nothing to do with. After all, the Lorentz
transform still satisfies the principle of relativity in which
Professor Andersen’s statement so skillfully unzipped disputes.
<shrug>
Are all professors in Norway as ignorant? Or just Paul Andersen the
nitwit professor? :-)
Koobee Wublee
> OOPS! You guys are right! I got some other phenomenon confused with
> stellar aberration. Stellar aberration has little to do with
> relativity.
After banishing the concept of absoluteness, it is utterly
contradictory and ignorant (and no excuse) to exclude the principle of
relativity in certain applications.
> Yes, I jumped into the frey unprepared. I apologize for bringing
> up stellar aberration, a completely unrelated phenomenon. Sorry,
> sorry, sorry. I was wrong.
That is some fine sarcasm and excuse to exit the argument gracefully
with idiots all surround you. <applaud>
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 7, 12:53 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> [unsnip]
>> >>> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> >>>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
>> >>>> to stellar aberration.
>>
>> The above is the statement which Koobe Wublee disputes,
>> and made him write:
>>
>>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>>> It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
>>>>> relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
>>>>> Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform.
>>>> What a strange statement. :-)
Wow! Look at these arguments:
> That is correct. Professor Andersen at that remote university in
> Norway still does not understand the 400-year-old principle of
> relativity. In his argument, he brought up the Lorentz transform
> which the discussion has nothing to do with. After all, the Lorentz
> transform still satisfies the principle of relativity which Professor
> Andersen’s statement which he so skillfully unzipped dispute. <shrug>
Funny, eh? :-)
> Are all professors in Norway as ignorant as Paul Andersen? :-)
Maybe it is because we are at a remote university? :-)
I see that Koobee Wublee have realized that he made a blunder.
Why else would he have snipped everything related to the single
statement of mine which he quoted in his original posting?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| The velocity of the star contributes nothing
| to stellar aberration.
Koobee Wublee wrote:
| Since
| the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
| velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
| aberration. :-)
Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
A star at the galactic pole will appear to move in a circle
with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
Generally, a star will appear to move along an ellipse, where
the major axis will be 40.96".
This is consistent with observations.
The fact that stellar aberration depend only on the change of
the velocity of the Earth and of the speed of light, while the velocity
of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, proves
that Koobee Wublee is plain wrong.
Isn't that so, Kooblee Wublee? :-)
You will have to snip this, won't you? :-)
Paul B. Andersen
> Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
> A star at the galactic pole will appear to move in a circle
> with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
> the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
Oooops!
I have now written this a number of times, and nobody has arrested me! :-)
It should obviously be:
Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
A star at the _ecliptic_ pole will appear to move in a circle ...
That is the direction perpendicular to the ecliptic plane.
The galactic pole is indeed something very different!
I have no idea why I did this blunder.
Wasn't thinking..
Androcles and Koobee Wublee - you missed the opportunity.
It's too late now! :-)
--
Paul, now thinking
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
>> A star at the galactic pole will appear to move in a circle
>> with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
>> the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
>
>Oooops!
>I have now written this a number of times, and nobody has arrested me! :-)
>
>It should obviously be:
> Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
> A star at the _ecliptic_ pole will appear to move in a circle ...
....well, almost a circle...
...and what about celestial stellar aberration?
>That is the direction perpendicular to the ecliptic plane.
>
>The galactic pole is indeed something very different!
>
>I have no idea why I did this blunder.
>Wasn't thinking..
>
>Androcles and Koobee Wublee - you missed the opportunity.
>It's too late now! :-)
We are so used to your blunders that we take little notice nowadays.....
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> [unsnip]
> >> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
> >>> to stellar aberration.
>
> The above is the statement which Koobe Wublee disputes,
> and made him write:
>
> >> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
> > relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
> > Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform.
You are absolutely right. Professor Andersen at that remote
university in Norway still does not understand the 400-year-old
principle of relativity. In his argument, he brought up the Lorentz
transform which the discussion has nothing to do with. After all, the
Lorentz transform still satisfies the principle of relativity in which
Professor Andersen’s statement so skillfully unzipped disputes.
<shrug>
Are all professors in Norway as ignorant? Or just Paul Andersen the
nitwit professor? :-)
[Repeat of rambling crap to throw the discussion off track snipped]
> Keep claiming that:
> | Since
> | the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
> | velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
> | aberration. :-)
>
> I love to see cranks make fools of themselves,
> so it would be no fun if you admitted your blunder.
Allow me to claim that again. The stellar aberration is an
application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the
Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the velocity
of the star is very much important in determining this aberration.
<shrug>
> But you won't do that, will you? :-)
I just dared you and did. :-)
> Because:
> Well, Koobee Wublee is a small man. He cannot concede his
> defeat. He is ignorant of the most basic principle that is the
> principle of relativity. :-) :-) :-)
And Professor Andersen just refuse to acknowledge his gross mistake.
All he can do is to invoke the Lorentz transform which the study of
stellar aberration has nothing to do with. <shrug> Bringing up the
Lorentz transform still justify the principle of relativity in the
study of stellar aberration thus stellar aberrational dependence on
the velocity of the star. Professor Andersen is indeed a very small
man who is also a nitwit. :-) :-) :-)
> [...] the velocity of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
That is so grossly ignorant. It grossly violates the principle of
relativity. How can Paul Andersen become a professor? Does the dean
of that remote university in Norway know about this?
Koobee Wublee
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
> > A star at the galactic pole will appear to move in a circle
> > with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
> > the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
>
> Oooops!
> I have now written this a number of times, and nobody has arrested me! :-)
Well, not all of us are glued to the computer all day and all night
long such as Paul Andersen and Paul Draper, both have claimed to be
professors. <shrug>
> It should obviously be:
> Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
> A star at the _ecliptic_ pole will appear to move in a circle ...
I really don’t give a damn if you try to correct off-topic
discussions. The bottom line is that claiming the velocity of the
star (as you did) has nothing to do with stellar aberration is in
direct violation of the principle of relativity in Newtonian sense.
<shrug>
Abusive application in the principle of relativity seems to be the
necessary step in the occult called the special theory of relativity.
<shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 7, 12:53 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Dec 6, 8:01 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> [unsnip]
>> >> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> >>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
>> >>> to stellar aberration.
>>
>> The above is the statement which Koobe Wublee disputes,
>> and made him write:
>>
>>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> It looks like Professor Andersen has never understood the principle of
>>> relativity. :-) It was laid out more than 400 years ago by Galileo.
>>> Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform.
Koobee Wublee repating the only arguments he know: :-)
> You are absolutely right. Professor Andersen at that remote
> university in Norway still does not understand the 400-year-old
> principle of relativity. In his argument, he brought up the Lorentz
> transform which the discussion has nothing to do with. After all, the
> Lorentz transform still satisfies the principle of relativity in which
> Professor Andersen’s statement so skillfully unzipped disputes.
> <shrug>
>
> Are all professors in Norway as ignorant? Or just Paul Andersen the
> nitwit professor? :-)
>
> [Repeat of rambling crap to throw the discussion off track snipped]
Snipped? You just repeated it, didn't you?
>
>> Keep claiming that:
>> | Since
>> | the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
>> | velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
>> | aberration. :-)
>>
>> I love to see cranks make fools of themselves,
>> so it would be no fun if you admitted your blunder.
>
> Allow me to claim that again. The stellar aberration is an
> application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the
> Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the velocity
> of the star is very much important in determining this aberration.
> <shrug>
>
>> But you won't do that, will you? :-)
>
> I just dared you and did. :-)
Thanks.
It's more fun every time you repeat your blunder. :-)
Now it is breathtaking.
And I love to rub it in:
Ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time measured the stellar
aberration, it has been experimentally verified over and over again
that stellar aberrations depends _only_ on the change of the velocity
of the Earth, and of the speed of light. The velocity of the star
contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both
components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that the velocities
of the components are irrelevant.
Knowing this (you know it now), it is pretty stupid to claim:
"the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
this aberration."
You have now the following options:
1. Prove that experimental evidence show that stellar aberration
depend on the velocity of the star, as you claim it should.
2. Admit that you were wrong.
3. Snip all this and hope that nobody has noticed your blunder,
and repeat the only kind of arguments you know, like
people at remote universities are ignorant.
I think I know what it will be. :-)
>> Because:
>> Well, Koobee Wublee is a small man. He cannot concede his
>> defeat. He is ignorant of the most basic principle that is the
>> principle of relativity. :-) :-) :-)
>
> And Professor Andersen just refuse to acknowledge his gross mistake.
> All he can do is to invoke the Lorentz transform which the study of
> stellar aberration has nothing to do with. <shrug> Bringing up the
> Lorentz transform still justify the principle of relativity in the
> study of stellar aberration thus stellar aberrational dependence on
> the velocity of the star. Professor Andersen is indeed a very small
> man who is also a nitwit. :-) :-) :-)
>
>> [...] the velocity of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
>
> That is so grossly ignorant. It grossly violates the principle of
> relativity. How can Paul Andersen become a professor? Does the dean
> of that remote university in Norway know about this?
And here is again the part of my posting which you found so
embarrassing that you had to snip it without comment.
Note the very last statement. :-)
I see that Koobee Wublee have realized that he made a blunder.
Why else would he have snipped everything related to the single
statement of mine which he quoted in his original posting?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| The velocity of the star contributes nothing
| to stellar aberration.
Koobee Wublee wrote:
| Since
| the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the
| velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this
| aberration. :-)
Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
A star at the ecliptic pole will appear to move in a circle
with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
Generally, a star will appear to move along an ellipse, where
the major axis will be 40.96".
This is consistent with observations.
The fact that stellar aberration depend only on the change of
the velocity of the Earth and of the speed of light, while the velocity
of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, proves
that Koobee Wublee is plain wrong.
Isn't that so, Kooblee Wublee? :-)
You will have to snip this, won't you? :-)
--
Paul, having more fun
Paul B. Andersen
>
> ...and what about celestial stellar aberration?
>
What about it?
What is it?
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> ...and what about celestial stellar aberration?
>>
>
>What about it?
>What is it?
I thought you would know.
PD
> On Dec 8, 1:28 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that:
> > > A star at the galactic pole will appear to move in a circle
> > > with radius v/c radians, where v is the orbital speed of
> > > the Earth, v = 2.977E4 m/s. So v/c = 9.93E-5 radian = 20.48".
>
> > Oooops!
> > I have now written this a number of times, and nobody has arrested me! :-)
>
> Well, not all of us are glued to the computer all day and all night
> long such as Paul Andersen and Paul Draper, both have claimed to be
> professors. <shrug>
>
Translation: "Only hacks and amateurs with no professional employment
would make time to be posting on Usenet. I therefore presume that you
have the same level of expertise that I do, and that therefore you are
bluffing."
PD
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 9, 12:52 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Well, not all of us are glued to the computer all day and all night
> > long such as Paul Andersen and Paul Draper, both have claimed to be
> > professors. <shrug>
>
> Translation: "Only hacks and amateurs with no professional employment
> would make time to be posting on Usenet.
Bad translation. <shrug>
> I therefore presume that you
> have the same level of expertise that I do, and that therefore you are
> bluffing."
What are you babbling about? Standing on the shoulders of the
shoulderless amoebas for too long?
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Koobee Wublee repating the only arguments he know: :-)
My arguments have not been addressed. You are just repeating the same
nonsense. <shrug>
I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. If
not, it violates the principle of relativity. Even your beloved
Lorentz transform is proven false if stellar aberration is independent
of star motion.
That can only mean you are a nitwit. Are you really a professor? If
so, the university associated with you must be a mental hospital in
disguise. Ahahaha...
Dono
>
>
> I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
> nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
> the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. If
> not, it violates the principle of relativity.
Dumbshit,
Using two different measurements eliminates the need for knowing the
speed of the star. Actually the method is pretty clever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration#Relative_frame_of_reference
Too bad you are such an old fart, unable to learn anything.
Koobee Wublee
> On Dec 9, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
> > nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
> > the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. If
> > not, it violates the principle of relativity.
>
> Dumbshit,
>
> Using two different measurements eliminates the need for knowing the
> speed of the star. Actually the method is pretty clever:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration#Relative_frame_of_ref...
>
> Too bad you are such an old fart, unable to learn anything.
Don’t Know is a true dumbshit. The velocity of the star is defined
relative to the observer of aberration in order to satisfy the
principle of relativity. <shrug>
Is it not getting old to be the bitch of Einstein Dingleberries like
Gisse?
eric gisse
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 6:45 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> Koobee Wublee repating the only arguments he know: :-)
>
>My arguments have not been addressed. You are just repeating the same
>nonsense. <shrug>
The arrogant idiot never believes his arguments have been addressed,
otherwise why else would he have to repeat them for years on end?
>
>I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
>nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
>the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration.
Prove it. With a literature reference.
ooh I said the endgame phrase for koobs: "literature reference". For
he never has any, and gets angry when someone provides them.
[snip]
Dr. Henri Wilson
Hahahahaha! What a load of crap.
The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v.
If it is orbit, that speed will vary cyclicly. Naturally aberration is
dependent on star motion...but of course the effect is normally much smaller
than that due to the earth's movement.
Too bad you are too young to have any significant brain development...
Dono
> On Dec 9, 11:12 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
> > > nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
> > > the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. If
> > > not, it violates the principle of relativity.
>
> > Dumbshit,
>
> > Using two different measurements eliminates the need for knowing the
> > speed of the star. Actually the method is pretty clever:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration#Relative_frame_of_ref...
>
> > Too bad you are such an old fart, unable to learn anything.
>
> relative to the observer of aberration in order to satisfy the
> principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
It is not. Too bad that you are unable to comprehend the article,
dumbshit.
The Alzheimner caught up with you, old fart. :-)
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 9, 6:45 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> Koobee Wublee repating the only arguments he know: :-)
>
> My arguments have not been addressed. You are just repeating the same
> nonsense. <shrug>
>
> I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
> nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
> the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration.
The irrefutable experimentally proven fact is that the velocity
of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
> If not, it violates the principle of relativity. Even your beloved
> Lorentz transform is proven false if stellar aberration is independent
> of star motion.
Since "if not" is a fact, this implies that you claim that
stellar aberration falsifies the principle of relativity.
But you are wrong again, of course.
This demonstrates that you have no idea of how to apply the principle
of relativity to calculate stellar aberration.
This is how:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
>
> That can only mean you are a nitwit. Are you really a professor? If
> so, the university associated with you must be a mental hospital in
> disguise. Ahahaha...
This seems to be the only kind of arguments you know.
You are right, I have not addressed your 'arguments'.
I have however pointed out the irrefutable fact that you
were wrong when you wrote:
| the velocity of the star is very much important in determining
| this aberration. :-)
In physics, experimental evidence takes precedence.
If you claim something which is experimentally proven to be wrong,
then you are WRONG.
Didn't you know that?
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:12:39 -0800 (PST), Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 9, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
>>> nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
>>> the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. If
>>> not, it violates the principle of relativity.
>>
>> Dumbshit,
>>
>> Using two different measurements eliminates the need for knowing the
>> speed of the star. Actually the method is pretty clever:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration#Relative_frame_of_reference
>
>
> Hahahahaha! What a load of crap.
>
> The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v.
> If it is orbit, that speed will vary cyclicly. Naturally aberration is
> dependent on star motion...but of course the effect is normally much smaller
> than that due to the earth's movement.
OK.
If that is what the BaTh predicts, then we have another falsification of the BaTh.
Thanks for for pointing that out. I will remember it.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
Since astrnomers have only the Willusion to base their facts on, their
conclusion using constant light speed are normally wrong.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
We are talking about aberration and not parallax. It looks like you
are utterly confused between aberration and parallax. Way to go,
professor. :-)
You want to go back and study up on aberration before coming back to
get your ass spanked?
Eric Gisse
Someone who gets the math wrong every time should not be talking about
ass spankings on the subject.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:43:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:12:39 -0800 (PST), Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 9, 10:53 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I suppose there is no need to go on to listen to the same of your
>>>>> nonsense from post to post. That fact remains that the velocity of
>>>>> the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. If
>>>>> not, it violates the principle of relativity.
>>>> Dumbshit,
>>>>
>>>> Using two different measurements eliminates the need for knowing the
>>>> speed of the star. Actually the method is pretty clever:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration#Relative_frame_of_reference
>>>
>>> Hahahahaha! What a load of crap.
>>>
>>> The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v.
>>> If it is orbit, that speed will vary cyclicly. Naturally aberration is
>>> dependent on star motion...but of course the effect is normally much smaller
>>> than that due to the earth's movement.
>> OK.
>> If that is what the BaTh predicts, then we have another falsification of the BaTh.
>> Thanks for for pointing that out. I will remember it.
>
> Since astrnomers have only the Willusion to base their facts on, their
> conclusion using constant light speed are normally wrong.
Don't be such a blatant idiot, Henri.
When you measure stellar aberration, you don't assume
anything about anything.
All you do is to see how the direction to the star changes
throughout the year. (In which direction must
the telescope be pointed to see the star at the centre?)
'The direction to the star' is called the 'apparent position',
and _all_ stars appear to follow an ellipse where the major
axis _always_ is 2v/c radians.
And it is an irrefutable fact that spectroscopic binaries
_always_ will be seen as a single star, even if the magnitude
of the velocity difference between the components may be
_much_ higher than the orbital speed of the Earth.
The different velocities of the components do _not_
affect the direction in which we see them.
You have to be a complete moron not to understand that
it is experimentally proven without a shred of doubt
that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to
stellar aberration.
So if the BaTh predicts that "[stellar] aberration is
dependent on star motion", then this prediction is wrong,
and theories with wrong predictions are _falsified_.
See:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
Looking for a way out without loosing face,
and _this_ was the best you could do? :-)
There is no way out.
You have yet again made a fool of yourself.
I can't resist the temptation to rub it in:
Koobe Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
"utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
Hilarious, no? :-)
Can't he even read, or doesn't he know the difference
between stellar parallax and stellar aberration?
--
Paul
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > We are talking about aberration and not parallax. It looks like you
> > are utterly confused between aberration and parallax. Way to go,
> > professor. :-)
>
> > You want to go back and study up on aberration before coming back to
> > get your ass spanked?
>
> Looking for a way out without loosing face,
> and _this_ was the best you could do? :-)
Not at all. <shrug>
> There is no way out.
That is right. You ought to remember that. <shrug>
> You have yet again made a fool of yourself.
I am not the one who confuses parallax with aberration. <shrug> You
are. :-)
> I can't resist the temptation to rub it in:
It only rubs on yourself. You are a man of no integrity. You are a
small man. <shrug>
> Koobe Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
> "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
That is very correct. <shrug>
> Hilarious, no? :-)
I can only laugh at the so-called professor Andersen. <shrug>
> Can't he even read, or doesn't he know the difference
> between stellar parallax and stellar aberration?
So, Paul Andersen is describing himself. <shrug>
Please pick up all your shit from this thread and apologize to Darwin,
myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in
the butt for your barbaric attitude.
In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity
for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It
is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. <shrug>
Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.
Eric Gisse
[...snip...]
All shield, no spear. You only have bluster because the facts are
never on your side.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 12, 4:28 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> We are talking about aberration and not parallax. It looks like you
>>> are utterly confused between aberration and parallax. Way to go,
>>> professor. :-)
>>> You want to go back and study up on aberration before coming back to
>>> get your ass spanked?
>> Looking for a way out without loosing face,
>> and _this_ was the best you could do? :-)
>
> Not at all. <shrug>
>
>> There is no way out.
>
> That is right. You ought to remember that. <shrug>
>
>> You have yet again made a fool of yourself.
>
> I am not the one who confuses parallax with aberration. <shrug> You
> are. :-)
>
>> I can't resist the temptation to rub it in:
>
> It only rubs on yourself. You are a man of no integrity. You are a
> small man. <shrug>
>
>> Koobe Wublee thinks the following paper shows that I am
>> "utterly confused between aberration and parallax".
>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
See Koobe Wublee whining:
>
> That is very correct. <shrug>
>
>> Hilarious, no? :-)
>
> I can only laugh at the so-called professor Andersen. <shrug>
>
>> Can't he even read, or doesn't he know the difference
>> between stellar parallax and stellar aberration?
>
> So, Paul Andersen is describing himself. <shrug>
>
> Please pick up all your shit from this thread and apologize to Darwin,
> myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in
> the butt for your barbaric attitude.
>
> In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity
> for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It
> is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. <shrug>
>
> Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.
Hilarious, no? :-)
It is an experimentally proven fact that the velocity of
the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration.
But if you wish to make an even bigger fool of yourself,
keep insisting what is experimentally proven to be wrong.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:43:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>
>>> If that is what the BaTh predicts, then we have another falsification of the BaTh.
>>> Thanks for for pointing that out. I will remember it.
>>
>> Since astrnomers have only the Willusion to base their facts on, their
>> conclusion using constant light speed are normally wrong.
>
>Don't be such a blatant idiot, Henri.
>When you measure stellar aberration, you don't assume
>anything about anything.
>All you do is to see how the direction to the star changes
>throughout the year. (In which direction must
>the telescope be pointed to see the star at the centre?)
>'The direction to the star' is called the 'apparent position',
>and _all_ stars appear to follow an ellipse where the major
>axis _always_ is 2v/c radians.
>And it is an irrefutable fact that spectroscopic binaries
>_always_ will be seen as a single star, even if the magnitude
>of the velocity difference between the components may be
>_much_ higher than the orbital speed of the Earth.
>The different velocities of the components do _not_
>affect the direction in which we see them.
:).....:).......:)
I hope you can see the arguments against this without my having to tell you.
>You have to be a complete moron not to understand that
>it is experimentally proven without a shred of doubt
>that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to
>stellar aberration.
Proven by morons who make claims like your above one.
>So if the BaTh predicts that "[stellar] aberration is
>dependent on star motion", then this prediction is wrong,
>and theories with wrong predictions are _falsified_.
>
>See:
>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
....trivial stuff.
The bit about binaries doesn't include local extinction and unification, which
would normally make differences in star positions due to proper motions
immeasurably small.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:19:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>> When you measure stellar aberration, you don't assume
>> anything about anything.
>> All you do is to see how the direction to the star changes
>> throughout the year. (In which direction must
>> the telescope be pointed to see the star at the centre?)
>> 'The direction to the star' is called the 'apparent position',
>> and _all_ stars appear to follow an ellipse where the major
>> axis _always_ is 2v/c radians.
>> And it is an irrefutable fact that spectroscopic binaries
>> _always_ will be seen as a single star, even if the magnitude
>> of the velocity difference between the components may be
>> _much_ higher than the orbital speed of the Earth.
>> The different velocities of the components do _not_
>> affect the direction in which we see them.
>
> :).....:).......:)
> I hope you can see the arguments against this without my having to tell you.
Please tell me.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
How large is a point in the night sky?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:24:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:19:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>>> When you measure stellar aberration, you don't assume
>>>> anything about anything.
>>>> All you do is to see how the direction to the star changes
>>>> throughout the year. (In which direction must
>>>> the telescope be pointed to see the star at the centre?)
>>>> 'The direction to the star' is called the 'apparent position',
>>>> and _all_ stars appear to follow an ellipse where the major
>>>> axis _always_ is 2v/c radians.
>>>> And it is an irrefutable fact that spectroscopic binaries
>>>> _always_ will be seen as a single star, even if the magnitude
>>>> of the velocity difference between the components may be
>>>> _much_ higher than the orbital speed of the Earth.
>>>> The different velocities of the components do _not_
>>>> affect the direction in which we see them.
>>> :).....:).......:)
>>> I hope you can see the arguments against this without my having to tell you.
>> Please tell me.
>
> How large is a point in the night sky?
Please tell me "the arguments against this":
When you measure stellar aberration, you don't assume
anything about anything.
All you do is to see how the direction to the star changes
throughout the year. (In which direction must
the telescope be pointed to see the star at the centre?)
'The direction to the star' is called the 'apparent position',
and _all_ stars appear to follow an ellipse where the major
axis _always_ is 2v/c radians.
And it is an irrefutable fact that spectroscopic binaries
_always_ will be seen as a single star, even if the magnitude
of the velocity difference between the components may be
_much_ higher than the orbital speed of the Earth.
The different velocities of the components do _not_
affect the direction in which we see them.
Of course you can't.
You have to be a complete moron not to understand that
it is experimentally proven without a shred of doubt
that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to
stellar aberration.
So you will probably fail to understand it.
--
Paul
Jerry
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:24:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:19:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >> <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
> >>> When you measure stellar aberration, you don't assume
> >>> anything about anything.
> >>> All you do is to see how the direction to the star changes
> >>> throughout the year. (In which direction must
> >>> the telescope be pointed to see the star at the centre?)
> >>> 'The direction to the star' is called the 'apparent position',
> >>> and _all_ stars appear to follow an ellipse where the major
> >>> axis _always_ is 2v/c radians.
> >>> And it is an irrefutable fact that spectroscopic binaries
> >>> _always_ will be seen as a single star, even if the magnitude
> >>> of the velocity difference between the components may be
> >>> _much_ higher than the orbital speed of the Earth.
> >>> The different velocities of the components do _not_
> >>> affect the direction in which we see them.
>
> >> :).....:).......:)
> >> I hope you can see the arguments against this without my having to tell you.
>
> >Please tell me.
>
> How large is a point in the night sky?
You are, of course, asking whether differences in v/c radians
for the SEMImajor axis are resolvable.
Let us look at Algol. The orbital velocity of the primary star,
projected on our line of sight, is 44 km/s, while that of the
secondary star is 198 km/s. The maximum difference in orbital
velocities between the two components relative to our line of
sight is therefore 242 km/s.
The speed of Earth in its orbit around the sun is approximately
30 km/sec, so the maximum separation (equals the difference in
semimajor axis) of the two stars due to differences in aberration
would be 0.00000008 rad which equals 0.017 seconds of arc. This
is outside the capabilities of an Earthbound telescope not
equipped with active optics, but within the capabilities of large
Earthbound telescopes equipped with adaptive optics such as the
Keck or Gemini instruments as well as the HST, which should
detect the differences as highly distorted stellar images.
There are many binary stars with orbial motions considerably
faster than those of the Algol system, so highly distorted
stellar images from spectroscopic binary systems should have
been noticed a long, long time ago.
Jerry
Paul B. Andersen
I can't understand why you call this the SEMImajor axis.
Which ellipse is it the semi-major axis of?
> Let us look at Algol. The orbital velocity of the primary star,
> projected on our line of sight, is 44 km/s, while that of the
> secondary star is 198 km/s. The maximum difference in orbital
> velocities between the two components relative to our line of
> sight is therefore 242 km/s.
So the difference in aberration due to the different speeds of
light should be (v/c - v/(c+u)) rad ~= (v/c)(u/c) rad
where u = 242km/s and v = 30km/s.
So the difference is 8E-8 rad = 0.0165"
> The speed of Earth in its orbit around the sun is approximately
> 30 km/sec, so the maximum separation (equals the difference in
> semimajor axis) of the two stars due to differences in aberration
> would be 0.00000008 rad which equals 0.017 seconds of arc.
We seem to agree, even if I still don't understand what you
mean by the semimajor axis. :-)
This means that during the 3.8 days period, the two components
should appear to move away from each other till they are 17 mas
apart, then move together, pass each other, and move away till
they are 17 mas apart the other way, move together again, etc.
> This
> is outside the capabilities of an Earthbound telescope not
> equipped with active optics, but within the capabilities of large
> Earthbound telescopes equipped with adaptive optics such as the
> Keck or Gemini instruments as well as the HST, which should
> detect the differences as highly distorted stellar images.
Hardly. Even if all big telescopes now have adaptive optics,
no single telescope (including HST) can resolve 17mas.
But see below!
> There are many binary stars with orbial motions considerably
> faster than those of the Algol system, so highly distorted
> stellar images from spectroscopic binary systems should have
> been noticed a long, long time ago.
>
> Jerry
The resolution which can be achieved with interferometry vastly
exceeds what can be achieved with single telescopes.
Let us look at another eclipsing close binary, beta Lyrae.
The radial velocity can be seen here.
http://vizier.hia.nrc.ca/viz-bin/vizExec/Vgraph?J/A%2bA/463/233/./table3&
A difference of 242km/s is close enough, so we can use the same numbers
as calculated above.
Here are spectroscopic measurements of the binary.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932v1
Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
Where did the 17 mas go? :-)
I think this puts a rather low limit on the change in the speed of light.
--
Paul
Dono
Nice post, I enjoy your answers.
Dono
>
> A difference of 242km/s is close enough, so we can use the same numbers
> as calculated above.
>
>
> Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
>
> Where did the 17 mas go? :-)
>
> I think this puts a rather low limit on the change in the speed of light.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
An even nicer post, I much enjoy your posts on the stellar aberration.
Jerry
<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 3:43 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >
> >> How large is a point in the night sky?
>
> > You are, of course, asking whether differences in v/c radians
> > for the SEMImajor axis are resolvable.
>
> I can't understand why you call this the SEMImajor axis.
> Which ellipse is it the semi-major axis of?
The ellipse apparently traversed by stars due to aberration.
I didn't claim the ability to -resolve- two stars, merely the
capability of detecting something unusual with the stellar image.
The specs for the HST call for its point spread function to
deposit most of the light within a circle of 0.1" diameter. Two
equal magnitude stars separated by 50 mas should show twin peaks
separated by a shallow trough. A 17 mas separation will not be
cleanly resolvable, but the stellar image should look "wrong".
> > There are many binary stars with orbial motions considerably
> > faster than those of the Algol system, so highly distorted
> > stellar images from spectroscopic binary systems should have
> > been noticed a long, long time ago.
>
> >
> > Jerry
>
> The resolution which can be achieved with interferometry vastly
> exceeds what can be achieved with single telescopes.
Definitely! But Henri doesn't believe in interferometry.
He thinks interferometric results are all willusion. I wanted to
avoid his being able to resort to that excuse... :-)
> Let us look at another eclipsing close binary, beta Lyrae.
> The radial velocity can be seen here.
> http://vizier.hia.nrc.ca/viz-bin/vizExec/Vgraph?J/A%2bA/463/233/./table3&
>
> A difference of 242km/s is close enough, so we can use the same numbers
> as calculated above.
>
> Here are spectroscopic measurements of the binary.
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932v1
Very nice!!!
> Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
>
> Where did the 17 mas go? :-)
>
> I think this puts a rather low limit on the change in the speed of light.
Henri will blame everything on "unification", of course...
Whatever. Very nice post. Thanks for the references!
Jerry
Paul B. Andersen
> On Dec 14, 10:22 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 3:43 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>
>>>> How large is a point in the night sky?
>>> You are, of course, asking whether differences in v/c radians
>>> for the SEMImajor axis are resolvable.
>> I can't understand why you call this the SEMImajor axis.
>> Which ellipse is it the semi-major axis of?
>
> The ellipse apparently traversed by stars due to aberration.
OK, my fault, I misunderstood.
You only meant that v/c is the semi-major axis.
Maybe, but I am sceptical. No big deal, though.
>>> There are many binary stars with orbial motions considerably
>>> faster than those of the Algol system, so highly distorted
>>> stellar images from spectroscopic binary systems should have
>>> been noticed a long, long time ago.
>> >
>> > Jerry
>>
>> The resolution which can be achieved with interferometry vastly
>> exceeds what can be achieved with single telescopes.
>
> Definitely! But Henri doesn't believe in interferometry.
>
> He thinks interferometric results are all willusion. I wanted to
> avoid his being able to resort to that excuse... :-)
Henri doesn't believe in experimental evidence. Period.
So of course his excuse is that the measurements are not believable. :-)
>
>> Let us look at another eclipsing close binary, beta Lyrae.
>> The radial velocity can be seen here.
>> http://vizier.hia.nrc.ca/viz-bin/vizExec/Vgraph?J/A%2bA/463/233/./table3&
>>
>> A difference of 242km/s is close enough, so we can use the same numbers
>> as calculated above.
>>
>> Here are spectroscopic measurements of the binary.
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932v1
>
> Very nice!!!
>
>> Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
>>
>> Where did the 17 mas go? :-)
>>
>> I think this puts a rather low limit on the change in the speed of light.
>
> Henri will blame everything on "unification", of course...
Of course.
According to Henri Wilson, the BaTh is not falsifiable.
He doesn't understand the consequence. :-)
http://groups.google.no/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ae7f05fe6c1305b5
PBA:
| So we can sum up the BaTh thus:
| The BaTh knows there are unknown factors which make the results of
| experiments be whatever they are. By putting names on these unknown factors,
| ('EM sphere of influence','influence of solar wind','reverse field bubble',
| 'unification of the speed of light', 'Wilsonian extinction', 'blue fairies')
| the BaTh can explain any measurement or observation.
| Since the factors are unquantifiable, the results can't be predicted, though.
HW:
| That pretty well sums it up...although he fairies are entirely of Einstein's
| making. The second postulate require them..
|
|BaTh has already broughtabout some major discoveries.
|
PBA:
| The BaTh is unfalsifiable.
| Right? :-)
HW:
| Like any other fundamental law of physics.
Hilarious, no? :-)
>
> Whatever. Very nice post. Thanks for the references!
>
> Jerry
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
Unification and extinction takes care of that.
It can't be reolved anyway.
Binary pairs with periods this short have overlapping 'EM spheres of
influence'...so all light leaves their 'vicinity' at around the same speed,
which should be approximately c wrt their barycentre.
Doppler shift will still give a true reading of individual star speeds, wrt
earth, since photons shrink and extend during speed changes.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Experimental evidence is often used to justify postulates. BaTh postulates near
star extinction as well as longer term speed unifucation.
Experimental evidence fully supports both postulates.
>>> Let us look at another eclipsing close binary, beta Lyrae.
>>> The radial velocity can be seen here.
>>> http://vizier.hia.nrc.ca/viz-bin/vizExec/Vgraph?J/A%2bA/463/233/./table3&
>>>
>>> A difference of 242km/s is close enough, so we can use the same numbers
>>> as calculated above.
>>>
>>> Here are spectroscopic measurements of the binary.
>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932v1
>>
>> Very nice!!!
>>
>>> Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
>>>
>>> Where did the 17 mas go? :-)
>>>
>>> I think this puts a rather low limit on the change in the speed of light.
>>
>> Henri will blame everything on "unification", of course...
>
>Of course.
Of course....although unfortunately, no telescope or interferometer is likely
to resolve the effect you are talking about anyway. I just wish it WERE
possible.
However, if such a movement WAS observed, poor relativity-deluded astronomers
would naturally assume that they were seeing two stars in a highly eliptical
orbit with a rapid precession. In reality they would be seeing a very deceptive
Willusion.
>According to Henri Wilson, the BaTh is not falsifiable.
>He doesn't understand the consequence. :-)
You would have more chance of detecting the effect in binaries with high proper
speeds....but I shouldn't have to help you.
>http://groups.google.no/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ae7f05fe6c1305b5
>PBA:
>| So we can sum up the BaTh thus:
>| The BaTh knows there are unknown factors which make the results of
>| experiments be whatever they are. By putting names on these unknown factors,
>| ('EM sphere of influence','influence of solar wind','reverse field bubble',
>| 'unification of the speed of light', 'Wilsonian extinction', 'blue fairies')
>| the BaTh can explain any measurement or observation.
>| Since the factors are unquantifiable, the results can't be predicted, though.
>HW:
>| That pretty well sums it up...although he fairies are entirely of Einstein's
>| making. The second postulate require them..
>|
>|BaTh has already broughtabout some major discoveries.
>|
>PBA:
>| The BaTh is unfalsifiable.
>| Right? :-)
>HW:
>| Like any other fundamental law of physics.
>
>Hilarious, no? :-)
>
>
>>
>> Whatever. Very nice post. Thanks for the references!
>>
>> Jerry
Jerry
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:22:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> >Jerry wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 3:43 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >>> How large is a point in the night sky?
>
> >> You are, of course, asking whether differences in v/c radians
> >> for the SEMImajor axis are resolvable.
>
> >I can't understand why you call this the SEMImajor axis.
> >Which ellipse is it the semi-major axis of?
>
> >> Let us look at Algol. The orbital velocity of the primary star,
> >> secondary star is 198 km/s. The maximum difference in orbital
> >> velocities between the two components relative to our line of
> >> sight is therefore 242 km/s.
>
> >So the difference in aberration due to the different speeds of
> >light should be (v/c - v/(c+u)) rad ~= (v/c)(u/c) rad
> >where u = 242km/s and v = 30km/s.
> >So the difference is 8E-8 rad = 0.0165"
>
> Unification and extinction takes care of that.
> It can't be reolved anyway.
You don't need to actually -resolve- the components to be aware
that something exists that is inconsistent with there being a
single image of a single star.
Remember, the point spread function of the Hubble Space Telescope
is known to a fantastic degree of accuracy. Its PSF is far better
characterized than that of any Earthbound telescope. Deviations
from the well-characterized PSF due to the presence of an
unresolved image of a secondary star separated by 17 mas from the
primary would be extremely noticeable.
You are EXTREMELY inconsistent, by the way, in your posts as to
whether light arriving on Earth arrives at c or c+v. In some
posts, you assert that light arrives on Earth with speed c+v,
then, when your assertion is shown to be wrong, you resort to
your unification argument.
It's very amusing to see you constantly contradict yourself.
So far as you are concerned, light always travels at c+v except
when it is necessary to travel at c to avoid being in conflict
with observation and/or experiment. Do you realize how ABSURD
your position is? No, of course not...
Please note also Paul's remarks:
"The resolution which can be achieved with interferometry vastly
exceeds what can be achieved with single telescopes....
Here are spectroscopic measurements of the binary.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932v1
Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
Where did the 17 mas go?"
Jerry
Paul B. Andersen
What about quasars, Henri?
They are receeding at a considerable fraction of c,
but the aberration is exactly the same as stars, 2v/c.
Can you explain that?
Does the BaTh postulate that the light from all sources are
unified to go at c relative to little planet Earth?
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:4946354D...@hiadeletethis.no...
What about them, Tusseladd?
> They are receeding at a considerable fraction of c,
Nonsense. Light cannot escape from a black hole and
a quasar is a proto black hole, so just before it stops
shining altogether it's light is escaping very slowly. BTW,
can I interest you in a nice bridge I have for sale? It's
a troll bridge.
> but the aberration is exactly the same as stars, 2v/c.
> Can you explain that?
I can explain anything, it won't always be the right explanation.
One thing I can be certain of, though. You are a proven liar.
Paul B. Andersen
>
> Binary pairs with periods this short have overlapping 'EM spheres of
> influence'...so all light leaves their 'vicinity' at around the same speed,
> which should be approximately c wrt their barycentre.
According to the BaTh, Doppler shift is f(c+v)/c
so no change of speed, no Doppler shift.
The Doppler shift is however obvious, that's how we know
it is a binary.
So no 'unification' then.
Right?
Wrong:
> Doppler shift will still give a true reading of individual star speeds, wrt
> earth, since photons shrink and extend during speed changes.
So according to the BaTh, Doppler shift isn't f(c+v)/c,
it is shrunken - or was it extended - photons moving at c!
Great, Henri! :-)
One of these days, you will kill me!
--
Paul, with hurting stomach
Dr. Henri Wilson
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 3:12 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:22:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>> >Jerry wrote:
>> >So the difference in aberration due to the different speeds of
>> >light should be (v/c - v/(c+u)) rad ~= (v/c)(u/c) rad
>> >where u = 242km/s and v = 30km/s.
>> >So the difference is 8E-8 rad = 0.0165"
>>
>> Unification and extinction takes care of that.
>> It can't be reolved anyway.
>
>You don't need to actually -resolve- the components to be aware
>that something exists that is inconsistent with there being a
>single image of a single star.
So what?
>Remember, the point spread function of the Hubble Space Telescope
>is known to a fantastic degree of accuracy. Its PSF is far better
>characterized than that of any Earthbound telescope. Deviations
>from the well-characterized PSF due to the presence of an
>unresolved image of a secondary star separated by 17 mas from the
>primary would be extremely noticeable.
>
>You are EXTREMELY inconsistent, by the way, in your posts as to
>whether light arriving on Earth arrives at c or c+v. In some
>posts, you assert that light arrives on Earth with speed c+v,
>then, when your assertion is shown to be wrong, you resort to
>your unification argument.
You simply don't understand what I have been telling you.
Light leaves the source at c wrt that source. It arrives outside our atmosphere
at c+v +u+ dv, where v is the Earth's speed wrt the source and dv accounts for
speed changes during transit. u is the pair's proper speed component in Earth's
direction.
In the case of close binaries, dv can be large enough in the near vicinity to
cause all light to leave the region at near c wrt the pair's barycentre.
These findings are consistent with variable star observations and curve
matching.
>It's very amusing to see you constantly contradict yourself.
>So far as you are concerned, light always travels at c+v except
>when it is necessary to travel at c to avoid being in conflict
>with observation and/or experiment. Do you realize how ABSURD
>your position is? No, of course not...
>
>Please note also Paul's remarks:
>"The resolution which can be achieved with interferometry vastly
>exceeds what can be achieved with single telescopes....
>Here are spectroscopic measurements of the binary.
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0932v1
>Look at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 on pages 12 and 13
>Where did the 17 mas go?"
It doesn't matter. The angles are far too small to be resolved UNLESS, maybe,
the pair has a very large proper motion across our LOS and the orbit plane was
preferably parallel to it.
Even then, the effect would be a Willusion that astronomers would misinterpret
as an orbit anomaly.
So the confusion increases......
>
>Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
Generally speaking, BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable
effects. It is virtually no different from classical theory.
You are trying to create some kind of argument when none exists.
End of story..
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Binary pairs with periods this short have overlapping 'EM spheres of
>> influence'...so all light leaves their 'vicinity' at around the same speed,
>> which should be approximately c wrt their barycentre.
>
>According to the BaTh, Doppler shift is f(c+v)/c
>so no change of speed, no Doppler shift.
This has beeen thoroughly explained before.
Photons are generally many wavelengths long. When a photon changes speed, its
length changes accordingly.....so wavecrests move closer or further apart.
Doppler is FREQUENCY dependent. It is preserved.
As an analogy, the number of cars moving past a point on a continuous highway
per second is the same in all speed zones. The only change is the average
distance between them.
In other words, the flow at the start of the highway can be determined by
measuring the flow anywhere.
>The Doppler shift is however obvious, that's how we know
>it is a binary.
>So no 'unification' then.
>Right?
>Wrong:
>> Doppler shift will still give a true reading of individual star speeds, wrt
>> earth, since photons shrink and extend during speed changes.
>
>So according to the BaTh, Doppler shift isn't f(c+v)/c,
>it is shrunken - or was it extended - photons moving at c!
>
>Great, Henri! :-)
>
>One of these days, you will kill me!
Paul, I realise that the dedicating one's life to a lost cause would cause many
people to contemplate suicide. But please don't do it yet....Good laughs are
hard to get these days.
Jerry
Nope. You simply don't understand the consequences of your claims.
> Light leaves the source at c wrt that source. It arrives outside our atmosphere
> at c+v +u+ dv, where v is the Earth's speed wrt the source and dv accounts for
> speed changes during transit. u is the pair's proper speed component in Earth's
> direction.
> In the case of close binaries, dv can be large enough in the near vicinity to
> cause all light to leave the region at near c wrt the pair's barycentre.
>
> These findings are consistent with variable star observations and curve
> matching.
Ridiculous.
Consider two UNRELATED stars forming a close visual binary.
Star 1 has a proper motion of u1 with respect to the Earth, while
Star 2 has a proper motion of u2 with respect to the Earth.
Starlight from the two stars enters the atmosphere at an angle of
approximately 45 degrees relative to the outermost fringes of the
atmosphere.
By "outermost fringes" I mean the altitude at which the velocity
of c+v light is unified to constant c.
-------
/ \ 1 2
/ --A \ * *
| / \ |
| \ / |
\ --- /
\ /
-------
Light of different speeds entering the atmosphere will be
refracted by different amounts. Assume that the refractive index
of air is 1.0003 so that the speed of light within the atmosphere
is 0.9997c
Let u1 = 0 and u2 = 30 km/s so that light from Star 1 approaches
Earth at speed c and light from Star 2 approaches Earth at speed
1.0001c
By Snell's law,
sin(45 deg) 1
----------- = --------
sin(theta1) 0.9997
sin(45 deg) 1.0001
----------- = --------
sin(theta2) 0.9997
theta1 = 44.98281384 degrees
theta2 = 44.97708845 degrees
theta1 - theta2 = 0.0057252833 degrees
= 20.6 seconds of arc
At the zenith, of course, there will be no differential refraction.
BaTh is disproven yet again.
Jerry
Jerry
>
> -------
> / \ 1 2
> / --A \ * *
> | / \ |
> | \ / |
> \ --- /
> \ /
> -------
>
I forgot to provide an explicit description of my ascii art
illustration.
The inner circle represents the Earth.
The outer circle represents the atmosphere.
"A" represents an observer on Earth.
Asterisks "1" and "2" are two unrelated stars forming a close
visual binary.
Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
What is a 'close visual binary'? I assume you mean the two members can be
resolved.
>Star 1 has a proper motion of u1 with respect to the Earth, while
>Star 2 has a proper motion of u2 with respect to the Earth.
No No No.
u is the proper motion of their barycentre. The members have an additional
speed of vsin(t/T) for circular orbits.
>
>Starlight from the two stars enters the atmosphere at an angle of
>approximately 45 degrees relative to the outermost fringes of the
>atmosphere.
>
>By "outermost fringes" I mean the altitude at which the velocity
>of c+v light is unified to constant c.
>
> -------
> / \ 1 2
> / --A \ * *
> | / \ |
> | \ / |
> \ --- /
> \ /
> -------
>
>Light of different speeds entering the atmosphere will be
>refracted by different amounts. Assume that the refractive index
>of air is 1.0003 so that the speed of light within the atmosphere
>is 0.9997c
>
>Let u1 = 0 and u2 = 30 km/s so that light from Star 1 approaches
>Earth at speed c and light from Star 2 approaches Earth at speed
>1.0001c
That's pretty fast.
>By Snell's law,
>
>sin(45 deg) 1
>----------- = --------
>sin(theta1) 0.9997
>
>sin(45 deg) 1.0001
>----------- = --------
>sin(theta2) 0.9997
>
>theta1 = 44.98281384 degrees
>theta2 = 44.97708845 degrees
>
>theta1 - theta2 = 0.0057252833 degrees
> = 20.6 seconds of arc
>
>At the zenith, of course, there will be no differential refraction.
>
>BaTh is disproven yet again.
You are ignoring the vital factor of unification. By the time light from both
stars reaches Earth, it will be traveling at very nearly the same speed.
Jerry
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:26:27 -0800 (PST), Jerry
> >Consider two UNRELATED stars forming a close visual binary.
>
> What is a 'close visual binary'? I assume you mean the two members can be
> resolved.
Sorry, I meant "optical double star". Mea culpa.
Two completely unrelated stars happen to lie along the same
line of sight.
> >Star 1 has a proper motion of u1 with respect to the Earth, while
> >Star 2 has a proper motion of u2 with respect to the Earth.
>
> No No No.
> u is the proper motion of their barycentre. The members have an additional
> speed of vsin(t/T) for circular orbits.
Two optical double stars (not visual binaries) have completely
independent motions. There is no barycenter.
> >Starlight from the two stars enters the atmosphere at an angle of
> >approximately 45 degrees relative to the outermost fringes of the
> >atmosphere.
>
> >By "outermost fringes" I mean the altitude at which the velocity
> >of c+v light is unified to constant c.
>
> > -------
> > / \ 1 2
> > / --A \ * *
> > | / \ |
> > | \ / |
> > \ --- /
> > \ /
> > -------
>
> >Light of different speeds entering the atmosphere will be
> >refracted by different amounts. Assume that the refractive index
> >of air is 1.0003 so that the speed of light within the atmosphere
> >is 0.9997c
>
> >Let u1 = 0 and u2 = 30 km/s so that light from Star 1 approaches
> >Earth at speed c and light from Star 2 approaches Earth at speed
> >1.0001c
>
> That's pretty fast.
300030 km/s = 1.0001c
What's unusually fast about that?
> >By Snell's law,
>
> >sin(45 deg) 1
> >----------- = --------
> >sin(theta1) 0.9997
>
> >sin(45 deg) 1.0001
> >----------- = --------
> >sin(theta2) 0.9997
>
> >theta1 = 44.98281384 degrees
> >theta2 = 44.97708845 degrees
>
> >theta1 - theta2 = 0.0057252833 degrees
> > = 20.6 seconds of arc
>
> >At the zenith, of course, there will be no differential refraction.
>
> >BaTh is disproven yet again.
>
> You are ignoring the vital factor of unification. By the time light from both
> stars reaches Earth, it will be traveling at very nearly the same speed.
The two stars, being completely independent of each other,
have no common wilson EM sphere of unification about their
barycenter, since there is no barycenter.
Therefore u1 ~= u2
Jerry
Paul B. Andersen
No, it isn't.
I won't let you flee that easily.
The light from a quasar is heavily red shifted, the same is
the case for distant galaxies. Let's say the red shift is z = 1.
That means that the Doppler shift of the frequency is 1/2.
So according to the BaTh, (c-v)/c = 1/2, v = c/2,
and the speed of light is c/2.
Note that it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by
recession of the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
According to you, gravitational red shift is photons which are slowed
down when climbing out of a gravity well.
The result is the same, if z = 1, then according to the BaTh
the speed of light is c/2.
The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
around _relative to the other stars_!
Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
available on the net.)
The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
within few mas.
Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
No way out, Henri.
Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 3:54 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:26:27 -0800 (PST), Jerry
>
>Two optical double stars (not visual binaries) have completely
>independent motions. There is no barycenter.
OK.
>> >Starlight from the two stars enters the atmosphere at an angle of
>> >approximately 45 degrees relative to the outermost fringes of the
>> >atmosphere.
>>
>> >By "outermost fringes" I mean the altitude at which the velocity
>> >of c+v light is unified to constant c.
>>
>> > -------
>> > / \ 1 2
>> > / --A \ * *
>> > | / \ |
>> > | \ / |
>> > \ --- /
>> > \ /
>> > -------
>>
>> >Light of different speeds entering the atmosphere will be
>> >refracted by different amounts. Assume that the refractive index
>> >of air is 1.0003 so that the speed of light within the atmosphere
>> >is 0.9997c
>>
>> >Let u1 = 0 and u2 = 30 km/s so that light from Star 1 approaches
>> >Earth at speed c and light from Star 2 approaches Earth at speed
>> >1.0001c
>>
>> That's pretty fast.
>
>300030 km/s = 1.0001c
>What's unusually fast about that?
Nothing, now. It might have seemed rather fast for two well separated members
of a binary pair.
>> >By Snell's law,
>>
>> >sin(45 deg) 1
>> >----------- = --------
>> >sin(theta1) 0.9997
>>
>> >sin(45 deg) 1.0001
>> >----------- = --------
>> >sin(theta2) 0.9997
>>
>> >theta1 = 44.98281384 degrees
>> >theta2 = 44.97708845 degrees
>>
>> >theta1 - theta2 = 0.0057252833 degrees
>> > = 20.6 seconds of arc
>>
>> >At the zenith, of course, there will be no differential refraction.
>>
>> >BaTh is disproven yet again.
>>
>> You are ignoring the vital factor of unification. By the time light from both
>> stars reaches Earth, it will be traveling at very nearly the same speed.
>
>The two stars, being completely independent of each other,
>have no common wilson EM sphere of unification about their
>barycenter, since there is no barycenter.
>
>Therefore u1 ~= u2
So?
If the stars have a sideways speed component, they wont stay in line for long
but their relative movements will be calculated incorrectly due to the
willusion.
>Jerry
I think you are becoming quite desperate...
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:45:33 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> .....
>>> What about quasars, Henri?
>>> They are receeding at a considerable fraction of c,
>>> but the aberration is exactly the same as stars, 2v/c.
>>> Can you explain that?
>>>
>>> Does the BaTh postulate that the light from all sources are
>>> unified to go at c relative to little planet Earth?
>>
>>
>> Generally speaking, BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable
>> effects. It is virtually no different from classical theory.
>>
>> You are trying to create some kind of argument when none exists.
>>
>> End of story..
>
>No, it isn't.
>I won't let you flee that easily.
>
>The light from a quasar is heavily red shifted, the same is
>the case for distant galaxies. Let's say the red shift is z = 1.
>That means that the Doppler shift of the frequency is 1/2.
>So according to the BaTh, (c-v)/c = 1/2, v = c/2,
>and the speed of light is c/2.
>
>Note that it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by
>recession of the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
Yes it does. In the former case, wavelength remains constant. With
gravitational slowing, photon wavelength lengthens.
>According to you, gravitational red shift is photons which are slowed
>down when climbing out of a gravity well.
>The result is the same, if z = 1, then according to the BaTh
>the speed of light is c/2.
>
>The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
>be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
>And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
>were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
>around _relative to the other stars_!
>
>Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
>with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
>quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
>(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
>available on the net.)
>
>The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
>within few mas.
>
>Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
>Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
>
>No way out, Henri.
>Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
Hahahahaha!
If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, the
star's image will move in an ellipse over a whole year.
The size of that ellipse is obviously not dependent on the speed of light from
the star.
Jerry
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:25:11 -0800 (PST), Jerry
>
So there should be a DAILY widening and narrowing of the two
stars' separation from each other due to differential refraction
of light from the two stars entering the Earth's atmosphere. I
did not even bother trying to compute a MAXIMUM separation, which
would occur when the stars were near the horizon. The exact
maximum separation is highly dependent on what one takes to be
the "unification altitude" of the atmosphere, but it should be on
the order of several minutes of arc.
By the way, star images near the horizon show prismatic images
due to dispersion. This is a well-known effect and easily
distinguished from the effect discussed here.
http://www.paquettefamily.ca/astro/star_study/
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/astronomy/astro21/sandt/seeing.html
http://www.astrocruise.com/articles/selong/selong.htm
> If the stars have a sideways speed component, they wont stay in line for long
> but their relative movements will be calculated incorrectly due to the
> willusion.
In this gedanken, the two stars have ZERO sideways movement.
Even if they did, a DAILY widening and narrowing of the two
stars' separation of each other by amounts up to several minutes
of arc near the horizon would be quite noticeable, don't you
think?
Try again.
> >Jerry
>
> I think you are becoming quite desperate...
No, it is YOU who are desperate, since you have no answer to the
problem of differential refraction of variable speed light
entering the Earth's atmosphere.
BaTh is dead, of course.
Jerry
Jerry
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >No way out, Henri.
> >Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
>
> Hahahahaha!
>
> If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, the
> star's image will move in an ellipse over a whole year.
> The size of that ellipse is obviously not dependent on the speed of light from
> the star.
Fascinating. When you are cornered, you conveniently forget
everything you ever knew about stellar aberration.
Jerry
Paul B. Andersen
We are not talking about wavelengths, we are talking about
the speed of light relative to the Earth!
According to the BaTh gravitational red shift is caused by slowed
down photons, (as you frequently have asserted for the Pound-Rebka X),
so it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by recession of
the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
According to the BaTh, the light from red shifted quasars and galaxies
should be very slow light. If z = 1, the speed of light relative to
the Earth is c/2 according to the BaTh.
SIC!
See Henri flee! :-)
Previously you wrote:
| The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v.
| If it is orbit, that speed will vary cyclicly. Naturally aberration is
| dependent on star motion.
When this statement backfires and bites you in your ass, you try to flee
by claiming the exact opposite: that aberration is _not_ dependent on
the speed of light! :-)
Of course it is.
The major axis in the ellipse is 2v/c' rad, where v is the orbital speed of
the Earth around the Sun, and c' is the actual speed of the light from the star.
James Bradley understood this in 1726 and used it to measure the speed of light,
which he found to be 301000km/s (limited by the precision by which he could measure
stellar aberration with a telescope fixed to a chimney.)
It has been understood ever since.
(Except by cranks like Koobee Wublee, who still doesn't understand it.)
No way out, Henri.
Stellar aberration falsifies the BaTh.
You can't flee from this one unless you claim that the BaTh predicts
that the speed of light relative to little planet Earth, which didn't
even exist when the light from the quasar was emitted, always is equal to c.
Is that what you now are claiming, Henri? :-)
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
this is becoming quite ridiculous.
You are talking about a hypothetical situation that is very unlikely to be
observed..and even if it was, it would not be regarded as anything unusual
because this kind of thing happens all the time. What are you trying to
achieve?
>
>> >Jerry
>>
>> I think you are becoming quite desperate...
>
>No, it is YOU who are desperate, since you have no answer to the
>problem of differential refraction of variable speed light
>entering the Earth's atmosphere.
>
>BaTh is dead, of course.
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
.....
Jerry
What is so hypothetical and unlikely about two unrelated stars
in the sky lying more or less along the same line of sight, say
within a few minutes of arc?
Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Precisely. ...and how is the speed of a quasar determined? Doppler
shift....usng Einsteiniana...
In reality, the quasers you talk about are probably not moving at c/2 at all. z
does not equal 1.
>According to the BaTh gravitational red shift is caused by slowed
>down photons, (as you frequently have asserted for the Pound-Rebka X),
>so it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by recession of
>the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
>
>According to the BaTh, the light from red shifted quasars and galaxies
>should be very slow light. If z = 1, the speed of light relative to
>the Earth is c/2 according to the BaTh.
My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe
calculates redshifts from whole galaxies based on the slowing of emitted light.
It also shows that most light we see is redshifted because planet Earth is on
the edge of the Milky way and average starlight comes to us from sources that
are closer to galactic centres.
I was talking about the PROPER SPEED.
If the star is moving sideways at high speed, the ellipse will also move
sideways....and the positions of the binaries will vary as I have discusse.d
with Jerry.
>Of course it is.
>The major axis in the ellipse is 2v/c' rad, where v is the orbital speed of
>the Earth around the Sun, and c' is the actual speed of the light from the star.
This is how the argument started:
" >>> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>>>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
>>>> to stellar aberration.
""
Somehow that has now been changed to include the velocity of light. Are you
getting so desperate that you have to change the subject just to confuse? After
all, you have done exactly that many times before...
>James Bradley understood this in 1726 and used it to measure the speed of light,
>which he found to be 301000km/s (limited by the precision by which he could measure
>stellar aberration with a telescope fixed to a chimney.)
>It has been understood ever since.
>(Except by cranks like Koobee Wublee, who still doesn't understand it.)
Different experiment...
>
>No way out, Henri.
>Stellar aberration falsifies the BaTh.
BaTh is not in question
>
>You can't flee from this one unless you claim that the BaTh predicts
>that the speed of light relative to little planet Earth, which didn't
>even exist when the light from the quasar was emitted, always is equal to c.
>Is that what you now are claiming, Henri? :-)
Do you disagree with what I said above?
If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, the
star's image will move in an ellipse over a whole year.
The size of that ellipse is obviously not dependent on the speed of light from
the star.
Do you think Bradley was an idiot like Einstein?
Paul B. Andersen
So red shift isn't caused by slowed down light? :-)
>> According to the BaTh gravitational red shift is caused by slowed
>> down photons, (as you frequently have asserted for the Pound-Rebka X),
>> so it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by recession of
>> the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
>>
>> According to the BaTh, the light from red shifted quasars and galaxies
>> should be very slow light. If z = 1, the speed of light relative to
>> the Earth is c/2 according to the BaTh.
>
> My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe
> calculates redshifts from whole galaxies based on the slowing of emitted light.
> It also shows that most light we see is redshifted because planet Earth is on
> the edge of the Milky way and average starlight comes to us from sources that
> are closer to galactic centres.
So red shift is caused by slowed down light? :-)
And why would you talk about the PROPER SPEED? :-)
>
>> Of course it is.
>> The major axis in the ellipse is 2v/c' rad, where v is the orbital speed of
>> the Earth around the Sun, and c' is the actual speed of the light from the star.
>
> This is how the argument started:
> " >>> On Nov 23, 5:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >>>> The velocity of the star contributes nothing
> >>>> to stellar aberration.
> ""
>
> Somehow that has now been changed to include the velocity of light. Are you
> getting so desperate that you have to change the subject just to confuse? After
> all, you have done exactly that many times before...
Could that be because someone said:
| The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v.
| If it is orbit, that speed will vary cyclicly. Naturally aberration is
| dependent on star motion.
I can understand why you don't want to talk about light arriving at c+v, though. :-)
>
>> James Bradley understood this in 1726 and used it to measure the speed of light,
>> which he found to be 301000km/s (limited by the precision by which he could measure
>> stellar aberration with a telescope fixed to a chimney.)
>> It has been understood ever since.
>> (Except by cranks like Koobee Wublee, who still doesn't understand it.)
>
> Different experiment...
>
>> No way out, Henri.
>> Stellar aberration falsifies the BaTh.
>
> BaTh is not in question
>> You can't flee from this one unless you claim that the BaTh predicts
>> that the speed of light relative to little planet Earth, which didn't
>> even exist when the light from the quasar was emitted, always is equal to c.
>> Is that what you now are claiming, Henri? :-)
>
> Do you disagree with what I said above?
>
> If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, the
> star's image will move in an ellipse over a whole year.
> The size of that ellipse is obviously not dependent on the speed of light from
> the star.
Good grief! :-)
> Do you think Bradley was an idiot like Einstein?
There is no way out, and this is one of them. :-)
I think you have realized that stellar aberration
falsifies the BaTh, Henri.
Back to the drawing board.
Devise a good explanation for why the light is source
dependent and still always arrives at little planet Earth
at the exact speed c.
I am sure you can do it, because the BaTh cannot be wrong, can it? :-)
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
Nothing....but all you see is the willusion. Where are they really?
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:02:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The light from a quasar is heavily red shifted, the same is
>>>>> the case for distant galaxies. Let's say the red shift is z = 1.
>>>>> That means that the Doppler shift of the frequency is 1/2.
>>>>> So according to the BaTh, (c-v)/c = 1/2, v = c/2,
>>>>> and the speed of light is c/2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by
>>>>> recession of the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
>>>> Yes it does. In the former case, wavelength remains constant. With
>>>> gravitational slowing, photon wavelength lengthens.
>>> We are not talking about wavelengths, we are talking about
>>> the speed of light relative to the Earth!
>>
>> Precisely. ...and how is the speed of a quasar determined? Doppler
>> shift....usng Einsteiniana...
>> In reality, the quasers you talk about are probably not moving at c/2 at all. z
>> does not equal 1.
>
>So red shift isn't caused by slowed down light? :-)
What are you trying to say now?
Redshift can indeed indicate slow light....or it could mean the source is
moving away. It could also mean that the light has lost energy as it travels
>>> According to the BaTh gravitational red shift is caused by slowed
>>> down photons, (as you frequently have asserted for the Pound-Rebka X),
>>> so it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by recession of
>>> the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
>>>
>>> According to the BaTh, the light from red shifted quasars and galaxies
>>> should be very slow light. If z = 1, the speed of light relative to
>>> the Earth is c/2 according to the BaTh.
>>
>> My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe
>> calculates redshifts from whole galaxies based on the slowing of emitted light.
>> It also shows that most light we see is redshifted because planet Earth is on
>> the edge of the Milky way and average starlight comes to us from sources that
>> are closer to galactic centres.
>
>So red shift is caused by slowed down light? :-)
You seem terribly confused about this.
That should be obvious.
If an unresolvable binary has no proper speed perpendicular to the LOS then it
will always appear as a point moving in an ellipse (due to aberration). The
effect you are talking about will not be observed.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
.....
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:59:54 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:02:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The light from a quasar is heavily red shifted, the same is
>>>>>> the case for distant galaxies. Let's say the red shift is z = 1.
>>>>>> That means that the Doppler shift of the frequency is 1/2.
>>>>>> So according to the BaTh, (c-v)/c = 1/2, v = c/2,
>>>>>> and the speed of light is c/2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by
>>>>>> recession of the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.
>>>>> Yes it does. In the former case, wavelength remains constant. With
>>>>> gravitational slowing, photon wavelength lengthens.
>>>> We are not talking about wavelengths, we are talking about
>>>> the speed of light relative to the Earth!
>>> Precisely. ...and how is the speed of a quasar determined? Doppler
>>> shift....usng Einsteiniana...
>>> In reality, the quasers you talk about are probably not moving at c/2 at all. z
>>> does not equal 1.
>> So red shift isn't caused by slowed down light? :-)
>
> What are you trying to say now?
That you are contradicting yourself in every second posting. :-)
>
> Redshift can indeed indicate slow light....or it could mean the source is
> moving away. It could also mean that the light has lost energy as it travels.
Quite.
So we can sum it up like this:
If z = 1, then according to the BaTh the speed of light is c/2.
The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
around _relative to the other stars_!
Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
available on the net.)
The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
within few mas.
Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
No way out, Henri.
Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
It doesn't help to talk about something else,
like the PROPER SPEED. :-)
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
Nonononono! You are already in trouble.
If z is OBSERVED as 1, then it might not really be 1. The star might not be
moving away at c/2....nor might its light be slowed to c/2 by gravity.
>The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
>be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
>And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
>were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
>around _relative to the other stars_!
Not by the time the quasar light has passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
Bradley's equation refers to the angular deviation of starlight in the
telescope itself. Its speed should be close to c at ground level.
Consider a telescope on a high tower at the equator, observing a star exactly
on the Earth's axis. If the telescope is firmly fixed and the star's image is
perfectly central, it will not change position at all over the year.
If its image is off centre, it will appear to move around the viewing field.
>Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
>with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
>quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
>(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
>available on the net.)
>
>The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
>within few mas.
>
>Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
>Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
>
>No way out, Henri.
>Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
>
>It doesn't help to talk about something else,
>like the PROPER SPEED. :-)
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
.....
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:42:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
><paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:59:54 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>
>>> Redshift can indeed indicate slow light....or it could mean the source is
>>> moving away. It could also mean that the light has lost energy as it travels.
>>
>>Quite.
>>So we can sum it up like this:
>>
>>If z = 1, then according to the BaTh the speed of light is c/2.
>
>Nonononono! You are already in trouble.
>If z is OBSERVED as 1, then it might not really be 1. The star might not be
>moving away at c/2....nor might its light be slowed to c/2 by gravity.
>
>>The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
>>be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
>>And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
>>were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
>>around _relative to the other stars_!
>
>Not by the time the quasar light has passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
>Bradley's equation refers to the angular deviation of starlight in the
>telescope itself. Its speed should be close to c at ground level.
>Consider a telescope on a high tower at the equator, observing a star exactly
>on the Earth's axis. If the telescope is firmly fixed and the star's image is
>perfectly central, it will not change position at all over the year.
>If its image is off centre, it will appear to move around the viewing field.
Sorry I posted this message accidentally before I had finished it.
The image wont move no matter where it is located in the field.
If a telescope at latitude 30 is watching a star with inclination 'a' on a
certain date, the bloody thing will appear to move in an large ellipse if no
tracking device is used. With latitude correction and proper tracking, the
image should still remain stationary. Please CMIIW.
>>Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
>>with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
>>quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
>>(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
>>available on the net.)
it is full of willusory data.
>>The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
>>within few mas.
That is what one would expect. Light speed is c wrt the telescope by the time
it reaches the ground.
But what about Airy's experiment?
>>Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
>>Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
>>
>>No way out, Henri.
>>Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
>>
>>It doesn't help to talk about something else,
>>like the PROPER SPEED. :-)
Proper speed is what you should be concentrating on.
Jerry
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:42:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
> >be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
> >And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
> >were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
> >around _relative to the other stars_!
>
> Not by the time the quasar light has passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
> Bradley's equation refers to the angular deviation of starlight in the
> telescope itself. Its speed should be close to c at ground level.
The Hipparcos satellite confirms the Bradley equation for all
altitudes between 507 and 35,888 km above the Earth. There is
NO evidence for extinction effects at LEO or variable speed of
light at GEO.
The Hipparcos satellite was stuck in geostationary transfer
orbit due to failure of the apogee boost motor. Nevertheless
all of its science goals were reached, and it provides a
unique opportunity for disproving Henri's assertion that
atmospheric extinction is responsible for lack of observation
of variable speed of light at ground level.
Jerry
Paul B. Andersen
Ta - daaa!
See Henri Wilson's explanation of stellar aberration:
> Not by the time the quasar light has passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
> Bradley's equation refers to the angular deviation of starlight in the
> telescope itself. Its speed should be close to c at ground level.
> Consider a telescope on a high tower at the equator, observing a star exactly
> on the Earth's axis. If the telescope is firmly fixed and the star's image is
> perfectly central, it will not change position at all over the year.
> If its image is off centre, it will appear to move around the viewing field.
Good grief!
How ignorant is it possible to be? :-)
I will save this one as an all time high
"wrong explanation of stellar aberration."
>> Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
>> with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
>> quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
>> (Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
>> available on the net.)
Hipparcos was a satellite outside of Earth's atmosphere.
And still:
>> The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
>> within few mas.
>>
>> Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
>> Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
>>
>> No way out, Henri.
>> Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
>>
>> It doesn't help to talk about something else,
>> like the PROPER SPEED. :-)
Since you have documented your utter ignorance of what
stellar aberration is, you probably don't understand
why it falsifies the BaTh.
It is a fact that it does, though.
No way out.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
It didn't help much to finish it, did it? :-)
This is utter nonsense, you have obiously no clue about what
stellar aberration is.
>>> Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
>>> with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
>>> quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
>>> (Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
>>> available on the net.)
>
> it is full of willusory data.
>
>>> The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
>>> within few mas.
>
> That is what one would expect. Light speed is c wrt the telescope by the time
> it reaches the ground.
> But what about Airy's experiment?
>
>>> Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
>>> Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
>>>
>>> No way out, Henri.
>>> Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
>>>
>>> It doesn't help to talk about something else,
>>> like the PROPER SPEED. :-)
>
> Proper speed is what you should be concentrating on.
>
>
>
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> .....
Not much point in discussing with someone who obviously
has no clue of what we are talking about.
Please learn what stellar aberration is.
You can look it up on the net, and/or read this:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
When you have done that, you can read the following again:
If z = 1, then according to the BaTh the speed of light is c/2.
The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
around _relative to the other stars_!
Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
available on the net.)
The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
within few mas.
Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
No way out, Henri.
Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 4:01 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:42:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
>> >The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
>> >be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
>> >And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
>> >were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
>> >around _relative to the other stars_!
>>
>> Not by the time the quasar light has passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
>> Bradley's equation refers to the angular deviation of starlight in the
>> telescope itself. Its speed should be close to c at ground level.
>
>The Hipparcos satellite confirms the Bradley equation for all
>altitudes between 507 and 35,888 km above the Earth. There is
>NO evidence for extinction effects at LEO or variable speed of
>light at GEO.
This is the kind of stupid claim one would expect from a relativist.
There is no evidence BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LOOK FOR ANY.
>The Hipparcos satellite was stuck in geostationary transfer
>orbit due to failure of the apogee boost motor. Nevertheless
>all of its science goals were reached, and it provides a
>unique opportunity for disproving Henri's assertion that
>atmospheric extinction is responsible for lack of observation
>of variable speed of light at ground level.
Yes yes yes, sure. Its goals were reached ...and its measurements are all wrong
because they assume constant c.
>Jerry
Strich.9
Your ignorance quotient is clearly off the scale. Aberration is not
only proof of emission theory, it discounts the light postulate. But
of course, you need real intelligence to thresh that out.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Oh? Do you disagree with what I said? Please elaborate.
>I will save this one as an all time high
>"wrong explanation of stellar aberration."
This was not supposed to be a model of stellar aberration but of the diurnal
equivalent. It merely provided as a simple illustration of the effect. It
involves the same principle as yearly stellar aberration. You will notice that
I immediately corrected the above after accidentally posting the message
prematurely.
>>> Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
>>> with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
>>> quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
>>> (Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
>>> available on the net.)
>
>Hipparcos was a satellite outside of Earth's atmosphere.
>And still:
>>> The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
>>> within few mas.
>>>
>>> Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
>>> Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.
>>>
>>> No way out, Henri.
>>> Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.
>>>
>>> It doesn't help to talk about something else,
>>> like the PROPER SPEED. :-)
What the hell are you talking about? Stellar aberration has little or nothing
to do with Hipparpcos distance measurements. The angular change over six months
is obviously not light speed dependent. You are proving to be as moronic as the
rest of the EPG. I am very disappointed in you Paul...
>Since you have documented your utter ignorance of what
>stellar aberration is, you probably don't understand
>why it falsifies the BaTh.
>
>It is a fact that it does, though.
>No way out.
As usual, you are raving. I feel very sorry for Norwegian physics students.