Re: precession of mercury

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:14:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:45:33 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


.....
What about quasars, Henri?
They are receeding at a considerable fraction of c,
but the aberration is exactly the same as stars, 2v/c.
Can you explain that?

Does the BaTh postulate that the light from all sources are
unified to go at c relative to little planet Earth?

Generally speaking, BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable
effects. It is virtually no different from classical theory.

You are trying to create some kind of argument when none exists.

End of story..
No, it isn't.
I won't let you flee that easily.

The light from a quasar is heavily red shifted, the same is
the case for distant galaxies. Let's say the red shift is z = 1.
That means that the Doppler shift of the frequency is 1/2.
So according to the BaTh, (c-v)/c = 1/2, v = c/2,
and the speed of light is c/2.

Note that it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by
recession of the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.

Yes it does. In the former case, wavelength remains constant. With
gravitational slowing, photon wavelength lengthens.

We are not talking about wavelengths, we are talking about
the speed of light relative to the Earth!

According to the BaTh gravitational red shift is caused by slowed
down photons, (as you frequently have asserted for the Pound-Rebka X),
so it doesn't matter whether the red shift is caused by recession of
the quasar/galaxy, or if it is gravitational red shift.

According to the BaTh, the light from red shifted quasars and galaxies
should be very slow light. If z = 1, the speed of light relative to
the Earth is c/2 according to the BaTh.


According to you, gravitational red shift is photons which are slowed
down when climbing out of a gravity well.
The result is the same, if z = 1, then according to the BaTh
the speed of light is c/2.

The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then
be 4v/c, which is 82"; twice of what is observed.
And note well, if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy
were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move
around _relative to the other stars_!

Hipparcos was able to measure the relative positions of the stars
with a precision of few mas. It also measured the positions of
quasars and galaxies. They don't move around relative to other stars.
(Look it up if you don't believe it. The Hipparcos catalogue is
available on the net.)

The aberration of Quasars and galaxies is _exactly_ like other stars,
within few mas.

Which means that the light from moving sources reach little planet
Earth at at a speed extremely close to c relative to the Earth.

No way out, Henri.
Stellar aberration falsifies the emission theory.

Hahahahaha!

If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, the
star's image will move in an ellipse over a whole year.
The size of that ellipse is obviously not dependent on the speed of light from
the star.

SIC!

See Henri flee! :-)

Previously you wrote:
| The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v.
| If it is orbit, that speed will vary cyclicly. Naturally aberration is
| dependent on star motion.

When this statement backfires and bites you in your ass, you try to flee
by claiming the exact opposite: that aberration is _not_ dependent on
the speed of light! :-)

Of course it is.
The major axis in the ellipse is 2v/c' rad, where v is the orbital speed of
the Earth around the Sun, and c' is the actual speed of the light from the star.

James Bradley understood this in 1726 and used it to measure the speed of light,
which he found to be 301000km/s (limited by the precision by which he could measure
stellar aberration with a telescope fixed to a chimney.)
It has been understood ever since.
(Except by cranks like Koobee Wublee, who still doesn't understand it.)

No way out, Henri.
Stellar aberration falsifies the BaTh.

You can't flee from this one unless you claim that the BaTh predicts
that the speed of light relative to little planet Earth, which didn't
even exist when the light from the quasar was emitted, always is equal to c.
Is that what you now are claiming, Henri? :-)

--
Paul

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... What about quasars, Henri? ... BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable ... If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... What about quasars, Henri? ... but the aberration is exactly the same as stars, ... BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... What about quasars, Henri? ... unified to go at c relative to little planet Earth? ... BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable ... If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aberration proves speed of light IS NOT constant.
    ... What about quasars, Henri? ... unified to go at c relative to little planet Earth? ... BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable ... If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aberration proves speed of light IS NOT constant.
    ... What about quasars, Henri? ... unified to go at c relative to little planet Earth? ... BaTh makes no claims about aberration that have observable ... If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading