Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message ...
Current astronomical spectrometers are sensitive enough to detect the
variations in the spectra of distant stars due to the earth's orbit.
Does anyone have a reference for a measurement of this? Or a reference
describing how to account for it? Or a textbook discussing this?

Google "Doppler", you ranting idiot.

c-v
f' = f *----------
c

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm


"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

"But the ray moves _RELATIVELY_
to the initial point of k when _MEASURED_
in the stationary system "with the velocity C-V"

--- ALBERT ****ING EINSTEIN, you prat!


_RELATIVELY_
_MEASURED_
C-V

Which part of "c-v" do you not understand, ****head?


(Google
found some lab homework on this, but I want a reference to a measurement
or a discussion.)


No you don't, you want some crap that looks like it will agree with your religion.



BTW how is this handled? I would guess that spectra are conventionally
corrected to the solar system barycenter,

HAHAHAHA!
Spectra is raw data, dumbass.
Do you have any idea how many solar system barycentres there are?
One for each planet, ****-for-brains.

but I know next to nothing
about the details of modern astronomy, and would like to know how real
astronomers handle this.

Take a course.




(Why do I want this? Because I am updating a FAQ page on
experimental tests of Special Relativity, and I just realized
that this would be a good, clear demonstration that
wavelength is observer dependent.)

You know nothing about astronomy, but you want to use it to support
your crackpottery. Typical moron.



Another question: is any spectroscopy done using frequency? If so, can
one combine with a wavelength measurement of the same line and show
f*lambda=c? A reference to that would be most welcome.

Hey imbecile!
lambda is a distance by definition.
f = 1/t by definition.
c = distance/time.

Your ignorance of basic physics is nothing short of astounding, Humpty.

On May 3, 12:22 am, "Androcles"
wrote:

[---]

Your ignorance of basic physics is nothing short of astounding, Humpty.

*snort*

Androcles wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message ...
Current astronomical spectrometers are sensitive enough to detect the
variations in the spectra of distant stars due to the earth's orbit.
Does anyone have a reference for a measurement of this? Or a reference
describing how to account for it? Or a textbook discussing this?

Google "Doppler", you ranting idiot.

c-v
f' = f *----------
c

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm


"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

"But the ray moves _RELATIVELY_
to the initial point of k when _MEASURED_
in the stationary system "with the velocity C-V"

--- ALBERT ****ING EINSTEIN, you prat!


_RELATIVELY_
_MEASURED_
C-V

Which part of "c-v" do you not understand, ****head?


(Google
found some lab homework on this, but I want a reference to a measurement
or a discussion.)


No you don't, you want some crap that looks like it will agree with your religion.



BTW how is this handled? I would guess that spectra are conventionally
corrected to the solar system barycenter,

HAHAHAHA!
Spectra is raw data, dumbass.
Do you have any idea how many solar system barycentres there are?
One for each planet, ****-for-brains.

but I know next to nothing
about the details of modern astronomy, and would like to know how real
astronomers handle this.

Take a course.




(Why do I want this? Because I am updating a FAQ page on
experimental tests of Special Relativity, and I just realized
that this would be a good, clear demonstration that
wavelength is observer dependent.)

You know nothing about astronomy, but you want to use it to support
your crackpottery. Typical moron.



Another question: is any spectroscopy done using frequency? If so, can
one combine with a wavelength measurement of the same line and show
f*lambda=c? A reference to that would be most welcome.

Hey imbecile!
lambda is a distance by definition.
f = 1/t by definition.
c = distance/time.

Your ignorance of basic physics is nothing short of astounding, Humpty.

The key phrase in the Albert Einstein of our generation's text
(Roberts Roberts took this position from Hawking) is "wavelength is
observer dependent". Roberts Roberts knows that Pound and Rebka 1960
result f'=f(c+V/c^2) is consistent with the emission theory equation
c'=c+v (v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer)
in accordance with

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and Einstein's 1911 equation

c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

and Einstein's equivalence principle. If Roberts Roberts could find
some way to prove that the frequency variation is due not to the
variation of the speed of light (as Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) shows) but to a variation of the wavelength, that is, to some
observer-dependence of the wavelength, then Einstein's 1911 equation
would prove wrong but Einstein's theory as a whole would be saved. At
least so Roberts Roberts thinks for the moment. But he may also
discover that this observer-dependence of the wavelength is an idiocy.
Let us see.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message ...
Current astronomical spectrometers are sensitive enough to detect the
variations in the spectra of distant stars due to the earth's orbit.
Does anyone have a reference for a measurement of this? Or a reference
describing how to account for it? Or a textbook discussing this?

Google "Doppler", you ranting idiot.

c-v
f' = f *----------
c

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm


"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

"But the ray moves _RELATIVELY_
to the initial point of k when _MEASURED_
in the stationary system "with the velocity C-V"

--- ALBERT ****ING EINSTEIN, you prat!


_RELATIVELY_
_MEASURED_
C-V

Which part of "c-v" do you not understand, ****head?


(Google
found some lab homework on this, but I want a reference to a measurement
or a discussion.)


No you don't, you want some crap that looks like it will agree with your religion.



BTW how is this handled? I would guess that spectra are conventionally
corrected to the solar system barycenter,

HAHAHAHA!
Spectra is raw data, dumbass.
Do you have any idea how many solar system barycentres there are?
One for each planet, ****-for-brains.

but I know next to nothing
about the details of modern astronomy, and would like to know how real
astronomers handle this.

Take a course.




(Why do I want this? Because I am updating a FAQ page on
experimental tests of Special Relativity, and I just realized
that this would be a good, clear demonstration that
wavelength is observer dependent.)

You know nothing about astronomy, but you want to use it to support
your crackpottery. Typical moron.



Another question: is any spectroscopy done using frequency? If so, can
one combine with a wavelength measurement of the same line and show
f*lambda=c? A reference to that would be most welcome.

Hey imbecile!
lambda is a distance by definition.
f = 1/t by definition.
c = distance/time.

Your ignorance of basic physics is nothing short of astounding, Humpty.

The key phrase in the Albert Einstein of our generation's text
(Roberts Roberts took this position from Hawking) is "wavelength is
observer dependent". Roberts Roberts knows that Pound and Rebka 1960
result f'=f(c+V/c^2) is consistent with the emission theory equation
c'=c+v (v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer)
in accordance with

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and Einstein's 1911 equation

c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

and Einstein's equivalence principle. If Roberts Roberts could find
some way to prove that the frequency variation is due not to the
variation of the speed of light (as Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) shows) but to a variation of the wavelength, that is, to some
observer-dependence of the wavelength, then Einstein's 1911 equation
would prove wrong but Einstein's theory as a whole would be saved. At
least so Roberts Roberts thinks for the moment. But he may also
discover that this observer-dependence of the wavelength is an idiocy.
Let us see.

Pentcho Valev

Humpty Roberts is a tit in a trance. Asking Charles Francis Ph.D (Cambridge),
--a known Einstein dingleberry and the sci.astro.research censor-- anything about
astronomy is going to be a complete waste of time anyway.
Francis doesn't know how to use a minus sign, loves the sound of his own voice,
only permits posts he can argue with and censors anything else. That's what
a "moderator" does. He'll just love showing off to Humpty.

| fitz wrote:
| When can we use special relativity?
|
| SR is strictly valid only in a flat Lorentzian manifold with the
| topology of R^4. This of course is a very poor model of the world we
| inhabit.
|
| But physics is not math, and we often use approximations. SR is
| approximately valid when the curvature of the manifold is negligible
| over the region of interest compared to one's measurement accuracy. That
| is, if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can probably be
| used. -- Humpty Roberts.

"if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can _PROBABLY_ be
used."


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Simple
Simple:
4 a : lacking in knowledge or expertise a simple amateur of the arts b (1) : STUPID (2) : mentally retarded c : not socially or culturally sophisticated : NAIVE; also : CREDULOUS

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" -- Einstein.

Mentally retarded:
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are some:
the binary pulsars, and _OBSERVATIONS_ of accretion disks near black holes" -- Humpty Roberts.

| GSS wrote:
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| I repeat: that is not really "speed".
| Let us elaborate this point.
|
| Imagine a train leaving one city at 12:00 and arriving in a city 60
| miles to its west at 12:01. Do you really think that train traveled
| 3,600 miles per hour? Of course not! This example used two _different_
| coordinate systems for "time", the two timezones of those two cities. To
| obtain the speed you _must_ use a single coordinate system; then you'll
| realize it traveled just under 60 miles per hour. -- Humpty Roberts.


BTW, Humpty Roberts is so-named for his similarity with Humpty Dumpty,
the talking egg.

This one is the real classic:
Humpty Roberts in Wonderland:-
| Tom Roberts

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?


"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes

`I don't know what you mean by "observations",' Alice said.

Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' shrug

`But "observations" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
shrug,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' shrug

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Roberts, `which is to be master -- that's
all.' shrug

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Roberts
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however,
I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
shrug

"And you never responded to how a 2-d surface in a flat 4-d spacetime can
have nonzero curvature, and why that shows that the curvature of such
2-d surfaces is useless in "describing" the geometry of the 4-d
manifold...." he
droned on.

"If you say that the curvature of 2-d surfaces is useless in
"describing" the geometry of the 4-d manifold....I am willing to agree
with you. But I just wanted you people to help me visualize the
intrinsic curvature of 3-d Schw. space. I was told that the Gaussian
curvature of certain 2-d surfaces will represent the intrinsic
curvature of 3-d Schw. space. When I wanted these 2-d surfaces to be
identified, Jan PB had given some interesting suggestions. But now you
say it is *useless*....." said Alice.

"_SOME_ 2-d surfaces can be useful in describing the geometry of 4-d
spacetime, in particular those spanned by a 2-d vector space of
geodesics. But you were discussing 2-d surfaces defined by coordinates,
and _those_ are useless because coordinates are completely arbitrary,
and introducing that arbitrariness destroys their usefulness" replied Humpty
Roberts.

"That means the notion of intrinsic curvature of space is either too
complex that it cannot be visualized or it is just invalid." exclaimed
Alice.

"No. But in many cases using a ball of dust particles is a better
visualization tool than 2-d surfaces.", said Humpty Roberts, teetering
on his wall.

"Mathematically it is good enough to state that in Riemannian geometry
the Riemann tensor is non-zero. Where is the necessity of associating
it with a cooked up fictitious term 'curvature of space'? " asked Alice,
thinking of the cooked up egg she had for breakfast.

"Mathematicians and physicists are human. We share the common desire to
communicate with each other easily, accurately, and concisely -- that's
why technical vocabularies were invented." said Humpty Roberts scornfully
and pretending he is human by saying "we".

Alice pondered this for moment, then asked "Was it required to fool and
mislead the 'layman'?"

"Your problem, not mine", said Humpty Roberts, then realizing his
Freudian slip, he was pretending to be human, added "(ours).
But this technical vocabulary is not secret or unfathomable, it just
takes _STUDY_. shrug"

Alice then went back to say "The term *curvature* basically applies to
the bending of curves and 2-d surfaces."

Ho ho, thought Humpty Roberts, "Not in differential geometry or GR.
The term "curvature" was borrowed by analogy with 2-d surfaces, and
has come to mean the Riemann curvature tensor. That is, a manifold of
_any_ dimension with nonzero Riemann tensor is said to be curved."
and he shrugged like this :- "shrug"

Alice asked "Why *said* to be curved when it is actually not curved?"

Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" sigh", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts
om
The end.
With thanks to Lewis Carroll.

The reader should take careful note here.
Humpty Roberts is not discussing the concepts words represent, he is
discussing the meaning of words. The rest of us use a dictionary.

On May 3, 4:28 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in ...
Current astronomical spectrometers are sensitive enough to detect the
variations in the spectra of distant stars due to the earth's orbit.
Does anyone have a reference for a measurement of this? Or a reference
describing how to account for it? Or a textbook discussing this?

Google "Doppler", you ranting idiot.

c-v
f' = f *----------
c

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

"But the ray moves _RELATIVELY_
to the initial point of k when _MEASURED_
in the stationary system "with the velocity C-V"

--- ALBERT ****ING EINSTEIN, you prat!

_RELATIVELY_
_MEASURED_
C-V

Which part of "c-v" do you not understand, ****head?

(Google
found some lab homework on this, but I want a reference to a measurement
or a discussion.)

No you don't, you want some crap that looks like it will agree with your religion.

BTW how is this handled? I would guess that spectra are conventionally
corrected to the solar system barycenter,

HAHAHAHA!
Spectra is raw data, dumbass.
Do you have any idea how many solar system barycentres there are?
One for each planet, ****-for-brains.

but I know next to nothing
about the details of modern astronomy, and would like to know how real
astronomers handle this.

Take a course.

(Why do I want this? Because I am updating a FAQ page on
experimental tests of Special Relativity, and I just realized
that this would be a good, clear demonstration that
wavelength is observer dependent.)

You know nothing about astronomy, but you want to use it to support
your crackpottery. Typical moron.

Another question: is any spectroscopy done using frequency? If so, can
one combine with a wavelength measurement of the same line and show
f*lambda=c? A reference to that would be most welcome.

Hey imbecile!
lambda is a distance by definition.
f = 1/t by definition.
c = distance/time.

Your ignorance of basic physics is nothing short of astounding, Humpty.

The key phrase in the Albert Einstein of our generation's text
(Roberts Roberts took this position from Hawking) is "wavelength is
observer dependent". Roberts Roberts knows that Pound and Rebka 1960
result f'=f(c+V/c^2) is consistent with the emission theory equation
c'=c+v (v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer)
in accordance with

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and Einstein's 1911 equation

c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

and Einstein's equivalence principle. If Roberts Roberts could find
some way to prove that the frequency variation is due not to the
variation of the speed of light (as Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) shows) but to a variation of the wavelength,

Diffraction grating. Whatever is the speed, the angle at which
light is diffracted is a direct measurement of its wavelength.

When a hydrogen line is physically shifted to a different angle,
that can only happen if that line is arriving at a different
wavelength.
If the wavelength were unchanged, so would the angle be.

The principles of the diffraction grating are pure geometry, it's
so easy to follow the derivation. I don't understand why cranks
have trouble with this. When you figure out what angles the
maxima and minima occur, it only depends on wavelength and
grating spacing, never speed, never frequency.

Even if you mumble something about c = lambda*f the fact
remains: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE ANGLE
WITHOUT CHANGING THE WAVELENGTH.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...


Diffraction grating. Whatever is the speed, the angle at which
light is diffracted is a direct measurement of its wavelength.

When a hydrogen line is physically shifted to a different angle,
that can only happen if that line is arriving at a different
wavelength.
If the wavelength were unchanged, so would the angle be.

The principles of the diffraction grating are pure geometry, it's
so easy to follow the derivation. I don't understand

Of course you don't, you are a ****in' idiot.
Roads have wavelength (distance between bumps), cars have frequency.




why cranks
have trouble with this. When you figure out what angles the
maxima and minima occur, it only depends on wavelength and
grating spacing, never speed, never frequency.

Even if you mumble something about c = lambda*f the fact
remains: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE ANGLE
WITHOUT CHANGING THE WAVELENGTH.

Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.
You need to show that you can explain ALL the data.
Tom & Jeery, 22 Dec 2006 16:03:58 -0800

****ing babbling idiotic ignorant aetherialist crank.
Frequency is constant, wavelength is proportional to speed.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif

Whatever angle a photon is deflected is a direct measure of its speed.
Photons have frequency, waves are paths in time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC/Photon.gif

THERE IS NO AETHER, ****HEAD.

On May 3, 2:22 am, "Androcles"
wrote:

[...]

Is retirement lonely, John?

On May 3, 8:47 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Even if you mumble something about c = lambda*f the fact
remains: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE ANGLE
WITHOUT CHANGING THE WAVELENGTH.

Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.

And how many free parameters are there, exactly, in

lambda = d sin(theta)

when d is fixed and theta is measured?

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
On May 3, 8:47 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Even if you mumble something about c = lambda*f the fact
remains: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE ANGLE
WITHOUT CHANGING THE WAVELENGTH.

Totally unimpressive.
With enough free parameters, you can fit anything to anything.

And how many free parameters are there, exactly, in

lambda = d sin(theta)

when d is fixed and theta is measured?

Ask Tom & Jeery aka "Minor Crank", I echoed his/her/its words.
I answer ALL the questions with consistency, you cannot.


frequency = 1/t.
c = lambda * frequency
lambda = ct, t is constant.
wavelength lambda is directly proportional to velocity, t being
the constant of proportionality.
Frequency is universally invariant, poor ignorant Poe.

Open your ****in' eyes and THINK instead of looking at text books
with aether models in them.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...C/doppler2.gif

THERE IS NO AETHER, poor antiquated ****head.
The velocity of light is source dependent, poor antiquated troll.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Answer the question he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF