Re: precession of mercury

On Dec 30, 4:08 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:44:29 -0800 (PST), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 29, 4:20 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:47:46 -0800 (PST), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:33 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

I'm talking about the ellipse due to parallax.

Pathetic attempt to weasel out of a blunder.

I'm not weaselling out of anything. I have previously explained what I'm
talking about. You are just too stubborn to learn anything new.
I'll repeat it.
If the telescope does not alter its orientation at all during the six months,
the whole field of view will wobble in an ellipse with the above dimension.

Quite obviously, the movement due to aberation causes every object to move in
the same sized ellipse, the major axis of which subtends 41 seconds.

As I have explained before, when it comes to high precision
measurements, this just ain't so. For the contribution to
aberration resulting from a NEO satellite's orbital motions, the
difference in motion between one object and that of another
object located merely 1 degree away would average 50 mas.

Please provide a few details. The above doesn't make much sense.

Consider the HST. Every 97 minutes, the stars in a telescopic
field traverse ellipses with semi-major axes equal to 5" of arc,
whose semi-minor axes depend on their "declination" with respect
to the orbital plane, and whose phase depends on the "right
ascension" with respect to the (ahem) orbital "meridian".

In the orbital plane, the aberration ellipse would be 5" by 0".
At the orbital poles, the aberration ellipse would be 5" by 5".
On average, for every 1 degree change in "declination" between
0 and 90 degrees, the semi-minor axis changes by 5"/90 = 55.5 mas.

Pointed radially outwards at a star, aberration start off maximum
"to the left" by 5". One quarter of an orbit later, aberration is
zero. Aberration increases again to 5" "to the right" (ignore that
blasted Earth in the way) then decreases to zero. The total back-
and-forth longitudinal movement of the star is 20". Divide 20"/360
= 55.5 mas.

Therefore, in a wide field photograph, a star 1 degree from the
center of the field will (depending on where the telescope is
pointing with respect to its orbit) be displaced, on average, by
55.5 mas relative to a star at the center of the field. In a long
exposure, even if the telescope is kept rigorously pointed at the
central star, stars at the outlying edges of the photograph will
move around in small ellipses relative to the central star, and
their images are necessarily blurred by this movement.

In reality, photos from HST are not blurred by anywhere near this
much, because even its wide field camera, the ACS, covers only a
3.4' area. But you get the idea, I hope.

Unfortunately for you and your worthless theory, aberration
movements are all consistent with light speed being constant.

Crank, if a star moves in one ellipse due to parallax and another due to
aberration, how would you determine the contribution of each? If you assume
constant light speed for aberration, you will possibly be a long way out in
your parallax estimate.

The HST has imaged individual supergiant stars as far as 29 Mpc
away with a recessional velocity of 2100 km/s. High redshift
galaxies and quasars have been observed both above and below the
Earth's atmosphere with Z > 6.4, i.e. BaTh predicts that the
speed of the observed light is less than 0.14 c.

NO!. It predicts that this was the original speed. Doppler shift is preserved
during light speed changes.

Yet the observed aberration of all of these objects are
consistent with the Bradley equation. The semi-major axes of the
stellar aberration ellipse for all these objects is identical to
that of stars with low recessional velocity.

Hence BaTh is disproven. Again.

On the contrary. It provides independent support for my unification theory...a
theory that fits beautifully with the distance anomaly in brightness curve
predictions.

Invoking "unification" doesn't doesn't help you. Where does the
light get unified? If light is unified as it enters the Earth's
atmosphere, then refraction will cause a galaxy 45 degrees from
the zenith to appear displaced 40 degrees from its true position.

If the Sun is surrounded by a wilsonian EM control sphere of let
us say, 100000 AU (approx 1.6 ly), then the Z > 6.4 galaxy will
show a yearly displacement of +/- 13.2 seconds of arc due to
refraction, this refractive displacement being easily
distinguished from aberration and from parallax (what parallax?).

Ah, it isn't as simple as that. EM spheres don't necessarily refract like
matter

To deny refraction is to deny the principle of least action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gleeson/httb/chapter1_3_6.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/software/ActionApplets/LeastAction.html

Do you deny this fundamental principle of mechanics?

It ain't gonna happen, Henri.

Jerry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... moves in an ellipse but does not spin. ... much torque is exerted on the telescope due to the outer fringes ... aberration for any particular star is the same throughout out the year no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Physics Behind Contractions.
    ... a telescope which is stationary in that frame must be pointed to see the star. ... (A suspicion creeps in - have you still not understood stellar aberration? ... circles will vary due to parallax.... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Physics Behind Contractions.
    ... If the telescope also orbits the Earth a small diurnal aberration will be ... earth's axis tilt. ... | The speed of the star wrt Earth causes its light to arrive at c+v. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: precession of mercury
    ... I'm talking about the ellipse due to parallax. ... Just divide by the star distance to get the angle. ... Aberration should affect everything in the viewing field equally...assuming it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Physics Behind Contractions.
    ... a telescope which is stationary in that frame must be pointed to see the star. ... (A suspicion creeps in - have you still not understood stellar aberration? ... circles will vary due to parallax.... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)