Re: precession of mercury

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.
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>

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

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform. ... A star at a galactic pole appear to move in a circle ... the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform. ... principle of relativity. ... Lorentz transform still satisfies the principle of relativity in which ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform. ... A star at a galactic pole appear to move in a circle ... the Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... relativity. ... Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform. ... A star at a galactic pole appear to move in a circle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... relativity. ... Stellar aberration is an application of the Galilean transform. ... I see that Koobee Wublee have realized that he made a blunder. ... | velocity of tbe star is very much important in determining this ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)