Superluminal motion shows that Einstein's Relativity is bull****

Added: sci.physics, sci.astro

What I'd like to know is how did they measure the velocity of the jet
in the first place that got them this *apparent* velocity? I
understand that they're saying it's an optical illusion, etc. But how
do you measure the velocity of the jets? Is it a red or blue shift of
the spectra? And if so, how much of a shift do you need to get an
apparent velocity greater than light?

Yousuf Khan

On May 27, 2:37*pm, PD wrote:
On May 26, 3:50*am, Albertito wrote:



HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Observations of Superluminal
Motion in the M87 Jethttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/520/2/621/

* * * * ABSTRACT.
* * * * We present observations of the M87 jet made with the
* * * * Faint Object Camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope
* * * * at five epochs between 1994 and 1998. These observations
* * * * reveal 10 superluminal features within the first 6'' of
* * * * the jet, with eight of these having apparent speeds in
* * * * the range 4c-6c. Two additional features within the first
* * * * arcsecond of the jet have subluminal speeds of 0.63c and
* * * * 0.84c. The latter of these, named HST-1 East, appears to
* * * * emit new superluminal features moving at 6c, which
* * * * subsequently fade with a half-intensity timescale of ~2 yr.
* * * * The fastest speeds we observe require a Lorentz factor
* * * * gamma 6 for the bulk flow and a jet orientation within
* * * * 19° of the line of sight, in the context of the relativistic
* * * * jet model. Finding such large gamma in an FR I radio source
* * * * like M87 strongly supports BL Lac/FR I unification models.
* * * * These large speeds help to mitigate the particle lifetime
* * * * problem posed by the optical emission, as well as the jet
* * * * confinement problem.

My comment follows,
We can't refute the above observation arguing tricks like
the "narrow angle" must be less than 19° from our line-of-sight.
This "narrow angle" counterargument is no longer credible.

I'm not sure what you find incredible. These results do not
distinguish between being in compliance with relativity and being not
in compliance with relativity. If the jet orientation is less than 19°
from the line of sight, then the results are consistent with
relativity; and if greater than 19°, then the results are not
consistent with relativity. Only if you have some *other* evidence
that the jet orientation is greater than 19° do you have any grounds
for saying that relativity is countermanded.

The
above paper provides evidence that the jet is in fact at about
43° to our line-of-sight. The observed superluminal motion in
that M87 jet is NOT an apparent superluminal motion, but a real
one, and that proves that Einstein's Relativity is bull****.

On Jun 10, 1:01 pm, YKhan wrote:
Added: sci.physics, sci.astro

What I'd like to know is how did they measure the velocity of the jet
in the first place that got them this *apparent* velocity? I
understand that they're saying it's an optical illusion, etc. But how
do you measure the velocity of the jets? Is it a red or blue shift of
the spectra? And if so, how much of a shift do you need to get an
apparent velocity greater than light?

Yousuf Khan

On May 27, 2:37 pm, PD wrote:

On May 26, 3:50 am, Albertito wrote:

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Observations of Superluminal
Motion in the M87 Jethttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/520/2/621/

ABSTRACT.
We present observations of the M87 jet made with the
Faint Object Camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope
at five epochs between 1994 and 1998. These observations
reveal 10 superluminal features within the first 6'' of
the jet, with eight of these having apparent speeds in
the range 4c-6c. Two additional features within the first
arcsecond of the jet have subluminal speeds of 0.63c and
0.84c. The latter of these, named HST-1 East, appears to
emit new superluminal features moving at 6c, which
subsequently fade with a half-intensity timescale of ~2 yr.
The fastest speeds we observe require a Lorentz factor
gamma 6 for the bulk flow and a jet orientation within
19° of the line of sight, in the context of the relativistic
jet model. Finding such large gamma in an FR I radio source
like M87 strongly supports BL Lac/FR I unification models.
These large speeds help to mitigate the particle lifetime
problem posed by the optical emission, as well as the jet
confinement problem.

My comment follows,
We can't refute the above observation arguing tricks like
the "narrow angle" must be less than 19° from our line-of-sight.
This "narrow angle" counterargument is no longer credible.

I'm not sure what you find incredible. These results do not
distinguish between being in compliance with relativity and being not
in compliance with relativity. If the jet orientation is less than 19°
from the line of sight, then the results are consistent with
relativity; and if greater than 19°, then the results are not
consistent with relativity. Only if you have some *other* evidence
that the jet orientation is greater than 19° do you have any grounds
for saying that relativity is countermanded.

The
above paper provides evidence that the jet is in fact at about
43° to our line-of-sight. The observed superluminal motion in
that M87 jet is NOT an apparent superluminal motion, but a real
one, and that proves that Einstein's Relativity is bull****.

Dear Yousuf Khan,

They do not measure any velocity, they only
apply Special Relativity (SR) assumptions to
deduce a velocity.

Let's propose the following:
A microquasar ejects bi-lobed jets of gas in opposite
directions. Say two clouds of gas, C1 and C2, are
actually receding from their source at velocity v, and
the source is at a distance D from us (observers). C1
is approaching to us with an angle phi to our line-of-sight,
so C2, which is receding from us, has the same angle phi.
Then, the apparent velocity of C1 as projected on our
line-of-sight is

v_1 = v*sin(phi)/[1 - (v/c)*cos(phi)]

and apparent velocity of C2 is


v_2 = v*sin(phi)/[1 + (v/c)*cos(phi)]

We can measure proper motions as

mu_1 = v_1/D,
mu_2 = v_2/D,

and we can also experimentally know the ratio of
Doppler-shifted frequencies as

f_1/f_2 = [1 + (v/c)*cos(phi)]/[1 - (v/c)*cos(phi)]

Now, in these latter three equations, we can solve for
v, phi and D.

The issue is that, if we rely on SR, and SR is wrong then
our results for distance D, angle phi, and velocity v, to the
microquasar are all wrong, too, because we are assuming and
relying on a constant c which is independent of v.

Regards

Distance/time.

"made with .... five epochs between 1994 and 1998."
(That's time)

"10 superluminal features within the first 6'' of the jet, "
(that's distance)

"The fastest speeds we observe require a Lorentz factor
gamma 6"
(that's totally ignorant ****ing bull****).


"YKhan" wrote in message
...
Added: sci.physics, sci.astro

What I'd like to know is how did they measure the velocity of the jet
in the first place that got them this *apparent* velocity? I
understand that they're saying it's an optical illusion, etc. But how
do you measure the velocity of the jets? Is it a red or blue shift of
the spectra? And if so, how much of a shift do you need to get an
apparent velocity greater than light?

Yousuf Khan






On May 27, 2:37 pm, PD wrote:
On May 26, 3:50 am, Albertito wrote:



HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Observations of Superluminal
Motion in the M87 Jethttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/520/2/621/

ABSTRACT.
We present observations of the M87 jet made with the
Faint Object Camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope
at five epochs between 1994 and 1998. These observations
reveal 10 superluminal features within the first 6'' of
the jet, with eight of these having apparent speeds in
the range 4c-6c. Two additional features within the first
arcsecond of the jet have subluminal speeds of 0.63c and
0.84c. The latter of these, named HST-1 East, appears to
emit new superluminal features moving at 6c, which
subsequently fade with a half-intensity timescale of ~2 yr.
The fastest speeds we observe require a Lorentz factor
gamma 6 for the bulk flow and a jet orientation within
19° of the line of sight, in the context of the relativistic
jet model. Finding such large gamma in an FR I radio source
like M87 strongly supports BL Lac/FR I unification models.
These large speeds help to mitigate the particle lifetime
problem posed by the optical emission, as well as the jet
confinement problem.

My comment follows,
We can't refute the above observation arguing tricks like
the "narrow angle" must be less than 19° from our line-of-sight.
This "narrow angle" counterargument is no longer credible.

I'm not sure what you find incredible. These results do not
distinguish between being in compliance with relativity and being not
in compliance with relativity. If the jet orientation is less than 19°
from the line of sight, then the results are consistent with
relativity; and if greater than 19°, then the results are not
consistent with relativity. Only if you have some *other* evidence
that the jet orientation is greater than 19° do you have any grounds
for saying that relativity is countermanded.

The
above paper provides evidence that the jet is in fact at about
43° to our line-of-sight. The observed superluminal motion in
that M87 jet is NOT an apparent superluminal motion, but a real
one, and that proves that Einstein's Relativity is bull****.

Sam Wormley wrote:
Apparent Velocity
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...r24/24f09.html
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...r24/24f10.html


No, I understand how apparent velocity works, and how they correct for
it. What I'm asking about is how did they get the original superluminal
velocity in the first place? What technique did they use get the
apparent superluminal speeds?

Yousuf Khan

Albertito wrote:
They do not measure any velocity, they only
apply Special Relativity (SR) assumptions to
deduce a velocity.

They must measure something to arrive at the original superluminal
reading. They correct for SR with the formulas later.

Yousuf Khan

On Jun 10, 2:45 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Albertito wrote:
They do not measure any velocity, they only
apply Special Relativity (SR) assumptions to
deduce a velocity.

They must measure something to arrive at the original superluminal
reading. They correct for SR with the formulas later.

Yousuf Khan

You've snipped the part of my post where I give you the clues.
They measure proper motions and Doppler frequency shifts.
Then, they estimate the source-observer distance and apply
SR assumptions to deduce the apparent and real velocities
along with the angle to the sight-of-sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

Of course, when they apply those false SR's assumptions
they attain a distorted picture of the real universe.

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 2:45 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Albertito wrote:
They do not measure any velocity, they only
apply Special Relativity (SR) assumptions to
deduce a velocity.

They must measure something to arrive at the original superluminal
reading. They correct for SR with the formulas later.

Yousuf Khan

You've snipped the part of my post where I give you the clues.
They measure proper motions and Doppler frequency shifts.
Then, they estimate the source-observer distance and apply
SR assumptions to deduce the apparent and real velocities
along with the angle to the sight-of-sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect

Of course, when they apply those false SR's assumptions
they attain a distorted picture of the real universe.

The SR lookup table:
Chosen gamma
Desired velocity

10
0.994987437106620

100
0.999949998749938

1000
0.999999499999875

10000
0.999999995000000

100000
0.999999999950000



No matter what the energy is, there is always an unmeasured v of 0.99xxxxx
that matches the data within the limits of experimental error, and why you
can't disprove the theory from anything you do with particles. The
relativists manufacture the velocity to get the result they seek.

On Jun 10, 4:22*am, Albertito wrote:
[...]

Uninformed speculation: Almost as good as actual knowledge!

On Jun 10, 4:01*am, YKhan wrote:
Added: sci.physics, sci.astro

What I'd like to know is how did they measure the velocity of the jet
in the first place that got them this *apparent* velocity? I
understand that they're saying it's an optical illusion, etc. But how
do you measure the velocity of the jets? Is it a red or blue shift of
the spectra? And if so, how much of a shift do you need to get an
apparent velocity greater than light?

[...]

Research is /hard/.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-6...621/39787.html

On Jun 10, 6:20*am, Albertito wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:45 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Albertito wrote:
They do not measure any velocity, they only
apply Special Relativity (SR) assumptions to
deduce a velocity.

They must measure something to arrive at the original superluminal
reading. They correct for SR with the formulas later.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

You've snipped the part of my post where I give you the clues.
They measure proper motions and Doppler frequency shifts.
Then, they estimate the source-observer distance and apply
SR assumptions to deduce the apparent and real velocities
along with the angle to the sight-of-sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_...Doppler_effect

Of course, when they apply those false SR's assumptions
they attain a distorted picture of the real universe.

Dude, you think a radio tower doesn't consume any power so long as
there are no listeners. Please don't talk about physics like you know
something about it.