Re: precession of mercury

Koobee Wublee wrote:
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

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... >> Koobee Wublee wrote: ... > nonsense from post to post. ... > the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. ...
    (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)
  • Re: ABOUT THE THREE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
    ... It is an experimentally proven fact that all stars due to stellar aberration ... regardless of what the velocity of the star is. ...   affect the stellar aberration. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ABOUT THE THREE FALSE THEORIES IN PHYSICS
    ... It is an experimentally proven fact that all stars due to stellar aberration ... It is thus an indisputable fact that the velocity of the star doesn't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... the star must be considered in determining stellar aberration. ... If that is what the BaTh predicts, then we have another falsification of the BaTh. ... of the velocity difference between the components may be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast