Re: precession of mercury

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:48:39 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:42:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:59:54 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:02:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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!
Precisely. ...and how is the speed of a quasar determined? Doppler
shift....usng Einsteiniana...
In reality, the quasers you talk about are probably not moving at c/2 at all. z
does not equal 1.
So red shift isn't caused by slowed down light? :-)
What are you trying to say now?
That you are contradicting yourself in every second posting. :-)

Redshift can indeed indicate slow light....or it could mean the source is
moving away. It could also mean that the light has lost energy as it travels.
Quite.
So we can sum it up like this:

If z = 1, then according to the BaTh the speed of light is c/2.

Nonononono! You are already in trouble.
If z is OBSERVED as 1, then it might not really be 1. The star might not be
moving away at c/2....nor might its light be slowed to c/2 by gravity.

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_!

Ta - daaa!
See Henri Wilson's explanation of stellar aberration:

Not by the time the quasar light has passed through the Earth's atmosphere.
Bradley's equation refers to the angular deviation of starlight in the
telescope itself. Its speed should be close to c at ground level.
Consider a telescope on a high tower at the equator, observing a star exactly
on the Earth's axis. If the telescope is firmly fixed and the star's image is
perfectly central, it will not change position at all over the year.
If its image is off centre, it will appear to move around the viewing field.

Good grief!
How ignorant is it possible to be? :-)

Oh? Do you disagree with what I said? Please elaborate.

I will save this one as an all time high
"wrong explanation of stellar aberration."

This was not supposed to be a model of stellar aberration but of the diurnal
equivalent. It merely provided as a simple illustration of the effect. It
involves the same principle as yearly stellar aberration. You will notice that
I immediately corrected the above after accidentally posting the message
prematurely.

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.)

Hipparcos was a satellite outside of Earth's atmosphere.
And still:
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.

It doesn't help to talk about something else,
like the PROPER SPEED. :-)

What the hell are you talking about? Stellar aberration has little or nothing
to do with Hipparpcos distance measurements. The angular change over six months
is obviously not light speed dependent. You are proving to be as moronic as the
rest of the EPG. I am very disappointed in you Paul...

Since you have documented your utter ignorance of what
stellar aberration is, you probably don't understand
why it falsifies the BaTh.

It is a fact that it does, though.
No way out.

As usual, you are raving. I feel very sorry for Norwegian physics students.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

......
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... 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. ... The major axis in the stellar aberration ellipse should then ... If a telescope is aimed at a star exactly aligned with the Earth's axis, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... the case for distant galaxies. ... 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. ... were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... 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. ... if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy ... were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy ... were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move ... Consider a telescope on a high tower at the equator, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: ... if the stellar aberration for a quasar/galaxy ... were different from stars, the quasar/galaxy would appear to move ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading