Stellar aberration and the principle of relativity

[tusenfem]

First off, it behooves on the ATM proponent to defend his/her theory. So, please do so.
Second off, you are not to ask the mainstream to prove their point.

true,
Hetman, if you have a problem with mainstream then it is your task to show clearly where the mistake is.
up to now you have proved nothing of the kind.
you might want to work on that.

[Hetman]

First off, it behooves on the ATM proponent to defend his/her theory. So, please do so.
Second off, you are not to ask the mainstream to prove their point.
Third off, it is very easy, just apply the formula of relativistic aberration. If you think that experimental observation disagrees with the theory, then you have just acquired another thing to prove.

I proved this at the beginning of the subject:
the relativistic aberration formula does not apply to distant sources,
and further I also explained the situation in which it applies.

Whereas, inserting the Earth's orbital speed to the relativistic aberration formula,
you get just the relativistic aberration of the sun, because this is the speed of the source-observer, in this case.


You can not calculate this? Well, goodbye.

And you should keep to yourself your personal feelings and subjective opinions about me or other users.

[PetersCreek]

Hetman,

While Grassman's post bears a strong resemblance to do-it-yourself moderation (also a no-no on this board) you are nevertheless required to keep your responses polite. Infraction given.

[Hornblower]

I proved this at the beginning of the subject:
the relativistic aberration formula does not apply to distant sources,
and further I also explained the situation in which it applies.

Whereas, inserting the Earth's orbital speed to the relativistic aberration formula,
you get just the relativistic aberration of the sun, because this is the speed of the source-observer, in this case.


You can not calculate this? Well, goodbye.

And you should keep to yourself your personal feelings and subjective opinions about me or other users.

I stand by my opinion that the apparent position shift of any star or other celestial object from Earth's transverse motion is equal for all objects. I cannot tell from your thread what your line of thought is now, as the aggregate of your posts is incoherent, to put it mildly. Do you disagree with my opinion, and if so, why?

[Hetman]

I stand by my opinion that the apparent position shift of any star or other celestial object from Earth's transverse motion is equal for all objects. I cannot tell from your thread what your line of thought is now, as the aggregate of your posts is incoherent, to put it mildly. Do you disagree with my opinion, and if so, why?

This is obvious, because the aberration of light depends only on the velocity of the observer.

And once again, I recall that relativistic aberration is not the aberration of light,
but the angular displacement between:
the delayed image of source, and the current position of the source.

The problem of determining the velocity is exactly the same nature as the principle of relativity:
velocity is the relation pairs of objects,
and the choice of reference system does not affect the considered process
(transformation of coordinates doesn't add any new information).

These are mathematical trifles.

[grav]

I'm sorry, I said before that the angles for each are taken from opposite the direction of the other, but they are taken from the forward direction. From the perspective of the source, the observer is made to be travelling in the +x direction, and the observer is then also made to consider that to be the same + x direction. If the photon is emitted in the +x direction with some y component according to the source, then since cos θ = x / d with the source at the origin, the angle is positive with a positive x component for the direction of travel along the x axis. So that is less than 90 degrees, while it would be negative when travelling in the -x direction with some y component, so greater than 90 degrees. The same thing goes for the observer. The observer measures the angle cos θ' = x' / d' according to the direction of the x component for the direction the photon is travelling.

Your images threw me off. For instance, post #8 that I quoted from shows the source emitting a photon in the vertical direction, then what appears upon further examination to be some type of correction for the angle of travel that the source would have to emit a photon when the observer passes that vertical line in order for the observer to receive the photon, so saying that instead of emitting the photon in the vertical direction directly toward the observer, the angle cosa to the current position the observer is at when the source emits the photon, that the source instead has to emit it at cosa' to arrive at the observer's location some time later. I realize now that seems consistent with your line of reasoning, that you appear to think that cosa is the angle of the current position of the observer when the photon is emitted and cosa' is a correction for the angle the photon must be emitted in order for it to be recieved by the observer. That would be purely Galilean if that were the case, yes, without any Relativity required. But that is not at all what the angles mean. cosa is the angle that the photon is emitted by the source, that is all. cosa' is the angle that the observer receives the photon, the angle that the observer will measure the photon to have travelled to him when considering himself stationary.

[Hetman]

After all, it is perfectly symmetrical.


You could also swap roles: phi' <-> phi

There is a significant fact that the stellar aberration does not depend on the speed of the star-Earth, which is contrary to that formula.

In practice, there is no such symmetry, and not only in the case of aberration:
an atomic clock placed in the airplane slows down, or accelerate, depending on the direction of flight - eastward or westward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%...ing_experiment

[Grassman]

This is obvious, because the aberration of light depends only on the velocity of the observer.

"Velocity of the observer" with respect to what? Please answer, this is a direct question.

And once again, I recall that relativistic aberration is not the aberration of light,
but the angular displacement between:
the delayed image of source, and the current position of the source.

This is false, there is only one aberration.

The problem of determining the velocity is exactly the same nature as the principle of relativity:
velocity is the relation pairs of objects,
and the choice of reference system does not affect the considered process
(transformation of coordinates doesn't add any new information).

"velocity is the relation pairs of objects" is not even a sentence, can you try again? This is a direct question.

[John Mendenhall]

I must be missing something here. Since this is now in ATM, could you state exactly and succinctly what your ATM idea is?

Thanks, John M.

[Hetman]

"Velocity of the observer" with respect to what? Please answer, this is a direct question.
"velocity is the relation pairs of objects" is not even a sentence, can you try again? This is a direct question.

Distance is a relation of two bodies:
two bodies - one distance,
three bodies, three different pairs, so there are three distances.

n objects, n(n-1)/2 pairs, and so many distinguished distances.
(how to calculate the energy of a system consisting of n bodies?).

And velocity is a time derivative of the distance; another derivative - acceleration, etc.

The "relative velocity" is an abstract concept produced for the theory of relativity.

[Grassman]

Distance is a relation of two bodies:

This is not true even in Galilean relativity.

The "relative velocity" is an abstract concept produced for the theory of relativity.

It isn't "abstract" at all since it is being measured routinely.

[Hetman]

I must be missing something here. Since this is now in ATM, could you state exactly and succinctly what your ATM idea is?

The phenomenon of stellar aberration is inconsistent with the basic assumptions of the theory of relativity.

In this model (the Minkowski space), there is no place for such a phenomenon - it does not exist there at all,
and all attempts to calculate / explanation of this phenomenon within the framework of this model are pointless.

There is probably a fairly good analysis of the problem, although still incomplete:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V14N2RUS.pdf

[Grassman]

The phenomenon of stellar aberration is inconsistent with the basic assumptions of the theory of relativity.

Prove it.

In this model (the Minkowski space), there is no place for such a phenomenon - it does not exist there at all,

Yet, mainstream astronomers detect it, how does your theory explain that?

and all attempts to calculate / explanation of this phenomenon within the framework of this model are pointless.

Yet, it is routinely detected in accordance with SR, how do you explain that?

There is probably a fairly good analysis of the problem, although still incomplete:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V14N2RUS.pdf

Apeiron is crackpot journal, this is well known. It publishes any garbage as long as it is against mainstream relativity or quantum mechanics. The paper you are citing is wrong right from the start, at equation (6) where the author calculates .
Do you have any argument that can be formulated in your own words?

[Hetman]

This is not true even in Galilean relativity.

There is no Galilean Relativity, in the literal sense.
Classical physics is completely relational, that is pure mathematics.

It isn't "abstract" at all since it is being measured routinely.

Maybe. There are various apparent phenomena.
The learning process is mainly based on identifying of such illusions, because they are misleading.

[Grassman]

There is no Galilean Relativity, in the literal sense.

What I told you is that your statement is so wrong that it is false even in the domain of applicability of classical physics.

Classical physics is completely relational, that is pure mathematics.

I see , you do not understand that Galilean relativity is a subset of classical physics. So, it is "relativity" that you are denying.

Maybe. There are various apparent phenomena.
The learning process is mainly based on identifying of such illusions, because they are misleading.

Prove it. Do you have a speedometer on your car? Is the speedometer an "illusion"?

[Hetman]

Apeiron is crackpot journal, this is well known. It publishes any garbage as long as it is against mainstream relativity or quantum mechanics. The paper you are citing is wrong right from the start, at equation (6) where the author calculates .

Of course, Galileo, Gauss and Hilbert was also crackpots.
And I finished this very fruitful discussions with you.

[Grassman]

Of course, Galileo, Gauss and Hilbert was also crackpots.
And I finished this very fruitful discussions with you.

You have quite a few questions to answer, please do so.

[tusenfem]

Okay, Hetman this is your last chance to actually address the questions put to you seriously.
If you fail to do so in your next post then this thread will be closed, and you will be infracted.
This would then probably kick you off the board, so think hard about your next answer.

[Hetman]

Questions of the Grassman?
It is well known and old provocateur, troublemaker, probably a naive student.
He is not interested in factual discussion.

[Swift]

Questions of the Grassman?
It is well known and old provocateur, troublemaker, probably a naive student.
He is not interested in factual discussion.

This thread is closed while the moderators have a discussion.

P.S. - The thread is closed permanently with the exit of Hetman from CQ