| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Keith Stein" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 11:41:59 AM |
| Object: |
STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:vihVb.240103$I06.2723179@attbi_s01...
Keith Stein wrote:
experiment is conducted, because the medium
is travelling with the Earth eh!
If that were true there would be no stellar abberation.
Bob Kolker
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
and would certainly still exist with "full aether drag", or
indeed any theory for the transmission of light.......
* STAR <<<<v m/s (relative to you)
O you
Suppose that right now there is a star directly above you.
Let us further suppose that the star is L metres away and
travelling relative to you at v m/s to the left. Now the question
is where do you point your telescope to see such a star?
Clearly one will not see the star by looking straight up,
because that is where the star is now, and we are seeing
the star as it was, and in the position it was when the
light left the star, a time L/c seconds ago. In that time
the star will travel a distance = v * L/c meters.
The angle between the true position of the star, and its
apparent position is therefore ArcTan (( v * L/ c) / L)
=ArcTan(v/c)
Note that in deriving the above it is assumed that the velocity of the
star remains constant, which will be a good approximation for single
stars, but nothing like right if the star is one in a binary system, which
is why binary pairs don't exhibite the large angular separations, which
would be expected from a naieve application of the above formula.
However the principle that we must look for a star in the position it was
when the light left the star will still hold and will give the correct value
for aberration even in the case of binaries, i think.
The other think to note about "Stellar" abberation, is that it isn't just
"stars" which will exhibit it. Even sub atomic particles must exhibit
this so-called "Stella" aberration effect, i should think.........
keith stein
--
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
08 Feb 2004 05:11:00 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bxuVb.14253$P32.13252@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:vihVb.240103$I06.2723179@attbi_s01...
Keith Stein wrote:
experiment is conducted, because the medium
is travelling with the Earth eh!
If that were true there would be no stellar abberation.
Bob Kolker
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
and would certainly still exist with "full aether drag", or
indeed any theory for the transmission of light.......
Keith, you weenie, it's been pointed out to you numerous times that
your theory that aberation is due to the motion of stars, not the
motion of the Earth, would require that all stars and galaxies in the
universe waggle ONE WAY for six months, then waggle back THE OTHER WAY
for the next six months, then repeat. What do you suppose makes them
all DO that? And why is it that the stars and galaxies in the plane of
the Earth's orbit all wiggle in the same way, but those in the
direction of the axis of the Earth's orbit waggle in another way, but
they all do it with a period of 365.24 days. Seems mighty suspicious
that God constructed the universe that way, doesn't it? So that
everything in it wiggles to keep time with our year, and things
billions of light years away know when we're headed toward and away
from them, every year, and know to move back and forth accordingly?
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
08 Feb 2004 06:58:01 PM |
|
|
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
and would certainly still exist with "full aether drag", or
indeed any theory for the transmission of light.......
* STAR <<<<v m/s (relative to you)
O you
Suppose that right now there is a star directly above you.
Let us further suppose that the star is L metres away and
travelling relative to you at v m/s to the left. Now the question
is where do you point your telescope to see such a star?
Clearly one will not see the star by looking straight up,
because that is where the star is now, and we are seeing
the star as it was, and in the position it was when the
light left the star, a time L/c seconds ago. In that time
the star will travel a distance = v * L/c meters.
The angle between the true position of the star, and its
apparent position is therefore ArcTan (( v * L/ c) / L)
=ArcTan(v/c)
"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:79cf0a8.0402081511.1b18ca61@posting.google.com...
Keith, you weenie, it's been pointed out to you numerous times that
your theory that aberation is due to the motion of stars, not the
motion of the Earth, would require that all stars and galaxies in the
universe waggle ONE WAY for six months, then waggle back THE OTHER WAY
for the next six months, then repeat. What do you suppose makes them
all DO that? And why is it that the stars and galaxies in the plane of
the Earth's orbit all wiggle in the same way, but those in the
direction of the axis of the Earth's orbit waggle in another way, but
they all do it with a period of 365.24 days. Seems mighty suspicious
that God constructed the universe that way, doesn't it? So that
everything in it wiggles to keep time with our year, and things
billions of light years away know when we're headed toward and away
from them, every year, and know to move back and forth accordingly?
SBH
Mr. Harris, please note that in the above derivation of the angle of
aberration 'v' is the RELATIVE VELOCITY between the star and
the Earth.
Of course it is the changing velocity of the Earth which causes v to
change, and it is only these 'changes' in the angle of aberration due
to the changing velocity of the Earth which can in fact be measured.
keith stein
--
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
09 Feb 2004 05:06:42 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V6BVb.18989$P32.2309@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
and would certainly still exist with "full aether drag", or
indeed any theory for the transmission of light.......
Are you a parrot or a gramophone?
In the former case, get your owner to teach you a new line.
In the latter case, get your owner to put the needle in a different groove.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
09 Feb 2004 10:33:11 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<V6BVb.18989$P32.2309@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
THEN:
Mr. Harris, please note that in the above derivation of the angle of
aberration 'v' is the RELATIVE VELOCITY between the star and
the Earth.
COMMENT:
You can't have it both ways. You can't seem to make up your mind if
the direction is set by where the star was when light left it, or by
the relative velocity between star and earth when the light left it.
These answers agree and are correct only for uniform relative motion,
which you treat. However, where either the earth or the star is
accelerated (moves back and forth in orbit, say), they give differing
answers. Both wrong, incidentally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
10 Feb 2004 11:40:12 AM |
|
|
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
and would certainly still exist with "full aether drag", or
indeed any theory for the transmission of light.......
* STAR <<<<v m/s (relative to you)
O you
Suppose that right now there is a star directly above you.
Let us further suppose that the star is L metres away and
travelling relative to you at v m/s to the left. Now the question
is where do you point your telescope to see such a star?
Clearly one will not see the star by looking straight up,
because that is where the star is now, and we are seeing
the star as it was, and in the position it was when the
light left the star, a time L/c seconds ago. In that time
the star will travel a distance = v * L/c meters.
The angle between the true position of the star, and its
apparent position is therefore ArcTan (( v * L/ c) / L)
=ArcTan(v/c)
Note that in deriving the above it is assumed that the velocity of the
star remains constant, which will be a good approximation for single
stars, but nothing like right if the star is one in a binary system, which
is why binary pairs don't exhibite the large angular separations, which
would be expected from a naieve application of the above formula.
However the principle that we must look for a star in the position it was
when the light left the star will still hold and will give the correct value
for aberration even in the case of binaries, i think.
The other think to note about "Stellar" abberation, is that it isn't just
"stars" which will exhibit it. Even sub atomic particles must exhibit
this so-called "Stella" aberration effect, i should think.........
keith stein
--
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
10 Feb 2004 10:38:16 PM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<mH8Wb.504$CV6.316@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Note that in deriving the above it is assumed that the velocity of the
star remains constant, which will be a good approximation for single
stars, but nothing like right if the star is one in a binary system, which
is why binary pairs don't exhibite the large angular separations, which
would be expected from a naieve application of the above formula.
However the principle that we must look for a star in the position it was
when the light left the star will still hold and will give the correct value
for aberration even in the case of binaries, i think.
Earth to Keith, Earth to Keith. That is correct. Light comes from the
direction that the star was when the light was emitted. The velocity
of the star at time is irrelevent, because stars emit light in all
directions. The only thing that changes when the star is moving
transversely is not the direction the light you see comes from, but
rather what part of the star you see emitted it. If the star was a
car, if it was going very fast transversely you'd still see it where
it was when the light left, but it would be rotated so that you could
see the front licence plate one way, or the rear one the other. For a
star you just see a slightly different bit of hemisphere, but it's all
the same. Maybe you see a sunspot that otherwise would have been
hidden, but that's all the star's transverse velocity does to the view
from earth.
Relative velocity, and in particular the emitter's transverse
velocity, makes no impact on abberation, and there's no reason
relativistically it should, because acceleration makes the problem
unsymetrical unless all velocities remain fixed during the entire
light flight time (in which case it really is the relative velocity
you need to use to calculate aberation, though on an
orbiting/accelerating earth we've never experienced that kind).
At the base of it, this problem is exactly the same kind of thing as
the twin "paradox" where people want to know why the twin on the
rocket can't consider himself still while the earth accelerates away
and comes back. And the answer is: because relativity is about
relativity of velocity, not acceleration. As soon as you have
acceleration somewhere, everything is unsymetrical and relativity
doesn't apply. The twin on the rocket can't consider himself still,
because he's getting squashed.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
11 Feb 2004 06:18:09 AM |
|
|
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory, or as i
would express it, "the medium is the stuff the light
is going through", is ruled out by "Stellar Aberation".
The following simple explantion of Stellar Aberation,
shows that stellar aberation is a very simple consequence
of the fact that we must look to see a star, not where it
is now, but rather where it was when the light left the star,
and would certainly still exist with "full aether drag", or
indeed any theory for the transmission of light.......
* STAR <<<<v m/s (relative to you)
O you
Suppose that right now there is a star directly above you.
Let us further suppose that the star is L metres away and
travelling relative to you at v m/s to the left. Now the question
is where do you point your telescope to see such a star?
Clearly one will not see the star by looking straight up,
because that is where the star is now, and we are seeing
the star as it was, and in the position it was when the
light left the star, a time L/c seconds ago. In that time
the star will travel a distance = v * L/c meters.
The angle between the true position of the star, and its
apparent position is therefore ArcTan (( v * L/ c) / L)
=ArcTan(v/c)
Note that in deriving the above it is assumed that the velocity of the
star remains constant, which will be a good approximation for single
stars, but nothing like right if the star is one in a binary system, which
is why binary pairs don't exhibite the large angular separations, which
would be expected from a naieve application of the above formula.
However the principle that we must look for a star in the position it was
when the light left the star will still hold and will give the correct value
for aberration even in the case of binaries, i think.
The other think to note about "Stellar" abberation, is that it isn't just
"stars" which will exhibit it. Even sub atomic particles must exhibit
this so-called "Stella" aberration effect, i should think.........
keith stein
--
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
08 Feb 2004 07:26:34 PM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
From: keith stein (ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk)
Subject: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 2001-06-18 00:57:09 PST
It is often claimed that a "full aether drag" theory,
[snip]
*****.
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)
Stooopid Keith Stein is a classic example of negative intelligence -
any effort to educate the turd just makes it stink worse.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
09 Feb 2004 02:03:12 AM |
|
|
* STAR <<<<v m/s (relative to you)
O you
Suppose that right now there is a star directly above you.
Let us further suppose that the star is L metres away and
travelling relative to you at v m/s to the left. Now the question
is where do you point your telescope to see such a star?
Clearly one will not see the star by looking straight up,
because that is where the star is now, and we are seeing
the star as it was, and in the position it was when the
light left the star, a time L/c seconds ago. In that time
the star will travel a distance = v * L/c meters.
The angle between the true position of the star, and its
apparent position is therefore ArcTan (( v * L/ c) / L)
=ArcTan(v/c)
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote > *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: STELLAR ABBERATION made simple for Mr. Kolker |
08 Feb 2004 03:24:41 PM |
|
|
Stellar Aberration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/StellarAberration.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
