| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mo" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2007 07:41:55 PM |
| Object: |
stars are closer than we think |
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
Mo
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
22 Mar 2007 11:26:09 PM |
|
|
"Mo" <moses@bigbutton.com.au> wrote in message
news:1174610515.578988.67540@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
Mo
Oh joy, an empirical idiot. We await your next
pronouncement with great anticipation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
22 Mar 2007 10:40:24 PM |
|
|
"Mo" <moses@bigbutton.com.au> wrote in message =
news:1174610515.578988.67540@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
Mo
Your intelligence is over-estimated and your ignorance under-estimated.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 12:39:24 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Mo
<moses@bigbutton.com.au>
wrote
on 22 Mar 2007 17:41:55 -0700
<1174610515.578988.67540@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
Mo
Good luck. Parallax is used to measure the nearer stars.
Since we know how far those nearer stars are, and their
general spectral type, we can assume that stars farther away
with a similar spectral type are just as bright in terms
of absolute magnitude, and therefore estimate their distance
from their apparent brightness.
Cepheids make it even easier. :-)
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 10:12:57 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Good luck. Parallax is used to measure the nearer stars.
Since we know how far those nearer stars are, and their
general spectral type, we can assume that stars farther away
with a similar spectral type are just as bright in terms
of absolute magnitude, and therefore estimate their distance
from their apparent brightness.
Cepheids make it even easier. :-)
Erm... spectral type alone is not sufficient to infer distance
as can be seen from an HR diagram
http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.18-19/HR_diagram.b.gif
Distance Indicators
http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.24-25/23f23.gif
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 10:55:52 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:12:57 GMT
<Z7SMh.3404$oV.1975@attbi_s21>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Good luck. Parallax is used to measure the nearer stars.
Since we know how far those nearer stars are, and their
general spectral type, we can assume that stars farther away
with a similar spectral type are just as bright in terms
of absolute magnitude, and therefore estimate their distance
from their apparent brightness.
Cepheids make it even easier. :-)
Erm... spectral type alone is not sufficient to infer distance
as can be seen from an HR diagram
http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.18-19/HR_diagram.b.gif
Distance Indicators
http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.24-25/23f23.gif
Oh pooh. Still, I think we've got reasonable guesstimates
for at least the stars in our galaxy, and we're probably
not that far off for the nearer galaxies.
--
#191,
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 10:07:38 AM |
|
|
Mo wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
1) Local: Michelson-Morely experiments on a spinning orbiting
platform - the Earth - plus star positions: No aether.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
2) Celestial: Hipparcos star positosn *not* on a spinning,
orbiting Earth. No aether.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=20
3) Cosmic: No vacuum refractive index, linear or circular
birefringence from radio to UV wavelengths. No aether,
3) Empirical conclusion: No aether, you fucking imbecile.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 11:02:44 AM |
|
|
Forwarded to the Flowing Space Nonsense saucerheads who infest
alt.astronomy:
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Mo wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
1) Local: Michelson-Morely experiments on a spinning orbiting
platform - the Earth - plus star positions: No aether.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
2) Celestial: Hipparcos star positosn *not* on a spinning,
orbiting Earth. No aether.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=20
3) Cosmic: No vacuum refractive index, linear or circular
birefringence from radio to UV wavelengths. No aether,
3) Empirical conclusion: No aether, you fucking imbecile.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 08:52:00 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:230320071002442485%erfc@caballista.org...
Forwarded to the Flowing Space Nonsense saucerheads who infest
alt.astronomy:
Usually one uses Raid to get rid of roaches, but for you homo k00kers I
think we need to get a large tube of K-Y Gel. That'll keep you occupied with
each other's anatomy for a while.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Gay couple play "alien probe" games...Film at 11..... |
23 Mar 2007 09:52:59 PM |
|
|
"Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:zImdnWH_mLzfGZnbnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@giganews.com...
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:230320071002442485%erfc@caballista.org...
Forwarded to the Flowing Space Nonsense saucerheads who infest
alt.astronomy:
Usually one uses Raid to get rid of roaches, but for you homo k00kers I
think we need to get a large tube of K-Y Gel. That'll keep you occupied
with
each other's anatomy for a while.
Art and Gay Duckie take turns pretending to be the "alien" and one anally
probes the other.
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 12:33:04 PM |
|
|
Hagar <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote:
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:230320071002442485%erfc@caballista.org...
Forwarded to the Flowing Space Nonsense saucerheads who infest
alt.astronomy:
Usually one uses Raid to get rid of roaches, but for you homo k00kers I
think we need to get a large tube of K-Y Gel. That'll keep you occupied with
each other's anatomy for a while.
Your bigoted kookfroth is hereby APPROVED. Please continue.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 10:32:59 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
Original poster--take special notice of these that Uncle Al posted!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
22 Mar 2007 10:35:49 PM |
|
|
Mo wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure.
Got evidence?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
22 Mar 2007 11:05:34 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 5:41 pm, "Mo" <m...@bigbutton.com.au> wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
You mean gravitational refraction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mo" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 02:11:48 AM |
|
|
On Mar 23, 2:05 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:41 pm, "Mo" <m...@bigbutton.com.au> wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
You mean gravitational refraction?
Do astronmomers allow for the curvature light gets
when it passes the Sun ? Is the bending of light at the
distance of the Earth from the Sun insignificant when it
comes to measuring parallax ? ie does light from a star
coming to Earth bend because of the Sun ?
Mo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 09:20:43 AM |
|
|
"Mo" <moses@bigbutton.com.au> wrote in message
news:1174720308.783545.295010@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Do astronmomers allow for the curvature light gets
when it passes the Sun ? Is the bending of light at the
distance of the Earth from the Sun insignificant when it
comes to measuring parallax ? ie does light from a star
coming to Earth bend because of the Sun ?
Of course astronomers allow for the bending of light
as it passes the Sun. Take a look at the results from
the Hipparcos mission. The bending was measured up for
angular distances up to 90 degrees from the Sun.
Note that the amount of bending involved is very tiny,
even for light passing very close to the Sun.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 04:06:32 AM |
|
|
"Mo" <moses@bigbutton.com.au> wrote in message
news:1174720308.783545.295010@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 2:05 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:41 pm, "Mo" <m...@bigbutton.com.au> wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
You mean gravitational refraction?
Do astronmomers allow for the curvature light gets
when it passes the Sun ? Is the bending of light at the
distance of the Earth from the Sun insignificant when it
comes to measuring parallax ? ie does light from a star
coming to Earth bend because of the Sun ?
Yes, it bends a bit. Light passing a million miles from
the Sun (remember we are 93 million miles from it so that
is quite close) is bent by about 763 milli-arcseconds if
I haven't made a mistake with the calculator. The Hipparcos
mission measured the parallax of stars with an accuracy of
around 2 milli-arcseconds so correction for bending was
essential even for measurements made when the star was at a
large angle from the Sun.
Comparing the apparent location of the same star as the
Earth moved round its orbit also allowed the equations used
for that correction to be confirmed.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mo" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 04:59:23 AM |
|
|
Do astronmomers allow for the curvature light gets
when it passes the Sun ? Is the bending of light at the
distance of the Earth from the Sun insignificant when it
comes to measuring parallax ? ie does light from a star
coming to Earth bend because of the Sun ?
Yes, it bends a bit. Light passing a million miles from
the Sun (remember we are 93 million miles from it so that
is quite close) is bent by about 763 milli-arcseconds if
I haven't made a mistake with the calculator. The Hipparcos
mission measured the parallax of stars with an accuracy of
around 2 milli-arcseconds so correction for bending was
essential even for measurements made when the star was at a
large angle from the Sun.
Comparing the apparent location of the same star as the
Earth moved round its orbit also allowed the equations used
for that correction to be confirmed.
George-
Thanks George. It is just those monster flares on nearby
stars that just seems too big too often. Smaller distances
and all is much easier.
Mo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Schlyter" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 05:11:54 AM |
|
|
In article <eu2pk3$hl6$1@news.freedom2surf.net>,
George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Mo" <moses@bigbutton.com.au> wrote in message
news:1174720308.783545.295010@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 2:05 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:41 pm, "Mo" <m...@bigbutton.com.au> wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
You mean gravitational refraction?
Do astronmomers allow for the curvature light gets
when it passes the Sun ? Is the bending of light at the
distance of the Earth from the Sun insignificant when it
comes to measuring parallax ? ie does light from a star
coming to Earth bend because of the Sun ?
Yes, it bends a bit. Light passing a million miles from
the Sun (remember we are 93 million miles from it so that
is quite close) is bent by about 763 milli-arcseconds if
I haven't made a mistake with the calculator. The Hipparcos
mission measured the parallax of stars with an accuracy of
around 2 milli-arcseconds so correction for bending was
essential even for measurements made when the star was at a
large angle from the Sun.
Comparing the apparent location of the same star as the
Earth moved round its orbit also allowed the equations used
for that correction to be confirmed.
George
Note though that also in Newtonian physics, a body moving at
light speed (such as a photon) will be subjected to some
deflection due to gravity. The "orbit" will of course be
strongly hyperbolical and the deflection very slight - but
only a particle moving at infinite speed would be able to move
in a perfectly straight line when passing near the Sun. Again,
this is according to Newtonian physics. At Newton's time,
light was generally believed to move infinietly fast though.
In relativity, the gravitational deflection of light passing
near the Sun is approximately twice as large, compared to
Newtonian physics.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freiddie" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 11:09:14 AM |
|
|
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless). So Newtonian
mechanics doesn't actually tell us that light is bent by gravity in
any way.
Freiddie
http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/
http://freiddy.blogspot.com/
http://crazibe.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 12:51:33 PM |
|
|
"Freiddie" <fei.yuanbw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174752554.329395.208860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless). So Newtonian
mechanics doesn't actually tell us that light is bent by gravity in
any way.
The acceleration is given by a = G*M/r^2. Note that
the 'm' has disappeared from the equation in the way
that all good test masses do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Freiddie" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
25 Mar 2007 03:59:30 AM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 7:51 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@VEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Freiddie" <fei.yua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174752554.329395.208860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless). So Newtonian
mechanics doesn't actually tell us that light is bent by gravity in
any way.
The acceleration is given by a = G*M/r^2. Note that
the 'm' has disappeared from the equation in the way
that all good test masses do.
Good point. Now I agree. But do you think people at Newton's era knew
about the mass of photons (if they even called it photons)? (No, it's
just a thought, I'm not arguing in any way.)
Freiddie
http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/
http://freiddie.blogspot.com/
http://crazibe.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
25 Mar 2007 08:32:59 AM |
|
|
"Freiddie" <fei.yuanbw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174813170.431099.77280@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 7:51 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@VEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Freiddie" <fei.yua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174752554.329395.208860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless). So Newtonian
mechanics doesn't actually tell us that light is bent by gravity in
any way.
The acceleration is given by a = G*M/r^2. Note that
the 'm' has disappeared from the equation in the way
that all good test masses do.
Good point. Now I agree. But do you think people at Newton's era knew
about the mass of photons (if they even called it photons)? (No, it's
just a thought, I'm not arguing in any way.)
During Newton's time the majority was of the opinion
that light consisted of waves. It was Newton who
reintroduced the concept of light as particles. But
I don't think that anyone had any idea of light having
mass (which it turns out it doesn't; no rest mass at
any rate).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
24 Mar 2007 11:38:29 AM |
|
|
"Freiddie" <fei.yuanbw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174752554.329395.208860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless).
But f = m*a so a = f/m and if m=0 ....
The solution is
f = G * M * m / r^2
so
a = G * M / r^2
and the acceleration is independent of the mass of the
object (photon in this case).
The deflection depends on the change of speed transverse
to the direction of motion and dv = a * dt so at infinite
speed the photon is accelerated for zero time - no
deflection.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
29 Mar 2007 03:43:50 AM |
|
|
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eu3k1d$4a1$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Freiddie" <fei.yuanbw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174752554.329395.208860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless).
But f = m*a so a = f/m and if m=0 ....
The solution is
f = G * M * m / r^2
so
a = G * M / r^2
and the acceleration is independent of the mass of the
object (photon in this case).
The deflection depends on the change of speed transverse
to the direction of motion and dv = a * dt so at infinite
speed the photon is accelerated for zero time - no
deflection.
George
But you've got to ask yourself what is "infinite speed", other than any
speed that is simply "not relative to the observer"? It is certainly slower
than instantaneous transfer or displacement, but what is it greater than,
other than any and every -- all -- "relative velocity"?
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
29 Mar 2007 12:19:23 PM |
|
|
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:dfOdnfh8x8HZ4ZbbnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@insightbb.com...
"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eu3k1d$4a1$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
"Freiddie" <fei.yuanbw@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174752554.329395.208860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless).
But f = m*a so a = f/m and if m=0 ....
The solution is
f = G * M * m / r^2
so
a = G * M / r^2
and the acceleration is independent of the mass of the
object (photon in this case).
The deflection depends on the change of speed transverse
to the direction of motion and dv = a * dt so at infinite
speed the photon is accelerated for zero time - no
deflection.
George
But you've got to ask yourself what is "infinite speed", other than any
speed that is simply "not relative to the observer"?
No, I specifically meant a speed such that any finite
distance can be traversed in zero time.
It is certainly slower than instantaneous transfer or displacement,
"instantaneous transfer" is exactly what is meant by
the term. I think it was just a caveat by the previous
poster to avoid nit-picking by pedants.
George
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
31 Mar 2007 04:54:23 PM |
|
|
To Ya All The Sun measured from a star inside our galaxy core measures
further away than visa versa Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
31 Mar 2007 07:31:41 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
To Ya All The Sun measured from a star inside our galaxy core measures
further away than visa versa Bert
I don't think so Herb--got evidence?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
31 Mar 2007 06:31:42 PM |
|
|
depends when you looked.
If you looked 8 billion years ago they are pink
and iff you looked sooner thier as red as your eyes.
That star 12 billion light years away aint there idiot...it looks like
its there but its not stupid.
Thats where it was 12 billion years ago .
idiot
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freiddie" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 10:52:19 AM |
|
|
On Mar 23, 2:41 am, "Mo" <m...@bigbutton.com.au> wrote:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
Mo
PLEASE! Ether is an obsolete theory. It no longer exists, okay?????
Don't bring up unproven, discredited and most of all home-brewed
theories.
Freiddie
http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Webb" |
|
| Title: Re: stars are closer than we think |
23 Mar 2007 11:23:52 PM |
|
|
That this has been suppressed is clear evidence of a plot by the
military-industrial-astronomical complex to suppress the truth, possibly
acting on the instructions of the Freemasons and their masters, Jewish
Bankers.
The truth shall set us free.
"Mo" <moses@bigbutton.com.au> wrote in message
news:1174610515.578988.67540@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
Mo
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
