|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
On May 3, 12:22 am, "Androcles"
wrote: [---] Your ignorance of basic physics is nothing short of astounding, Humpty. *snort* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
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? 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
"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? 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
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? 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
On May 3, 2:22 am, "Androcles"
wrote: [...] Is retirement lonely, John? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Reference wanted: spectrum shift due to earth's orbit
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
frame-of-reference shift as a linear transformation? | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 17th 07 11:16 AM |
Cosmic relief GR "predicts" (within 7 micro-seconds) EARth's ROTATiON ..and in an EARth-centered frame-of-reference.!! | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | December 14th 05 09:37 PM |
Cosmic relief GR "predicts" (within 7 micro-seconds) EARth's ROTATiON ..and in an EARth-centered frame-of-reference.!! | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 14th 05 09:37 PM |
Polar Shift & Earth's Crust | Mad Scientist | Misc | 13 | August 12th 04 10:48 PM |
Did someone shift the Earth's orbit, or what? | Di£$£L | SETI | 20 | September 7th 03 09:07 PM |