| |
Main
Date: 06 Aug 2006 10:07:49
From: subhash
Subject: Questions about annual aberration and annual parallax of stars
|
Dear members,
Please help me to answer the following querries about the above
subject.
1. It is known that the major axis of parallatic ellipse and of
aberrational ellipse are parallel to the ecliptic and their minor
axis of both the ellipse are perpendicular to the ecliptic. I want
to know that do the both axis of the both ellipses are coincide in
such a way that the centre of the both ellipses is same i.e. do the
both ellipses are concentric if not then what are their relative
posistions?
2. Do the ratio of major axis and minor axis of both the individual
ellipses are same or differ?
3. In nautical astronomy bu B.Krasavtsev, B.Khlyustin published by
Mir publisher 1970 edition, on page no. 102-
"Due to aberration the image of a star will describe on the
celestial sphere an ellipse with dimensions tens of times greater
than the ellipse due to parallax and the directions of its axis will
be different."
How it is possible when the parallax varies for star to star and the
major axis of the parallatic ellipse also changes and the major axis
of the aberrational ellipse being 20.47 having a constant value then
how is it possible that the ratio of the both of the major axis will
be always of value 10.
I will be oblidged for the answers.
Yours'
Subhash chand Jain
e-mail-scjain108@yahoo.com
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2006 13:17:07
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Questions about annual aberration and annual parallax of stars
|
subhash wrote:
> Dear members,
> Please help me to answer the following querries about the above
> subject.
> 1. It is known that the major axis of parallatic ellipse and of
> aberrational ellipse are parallel to the ecliptic and their minor
> axis of both the ellipse are perpendicular to the ecliptic. I want
> to know that do the both axis of the both ellipses are coincide in
> such a way that the centre of the both ellipses is same i.e. do the
> both ellipses are concentric if not then what are their relative
> posistions?
> 2. Do the ratio of major axis and minor axis of both the individual
> ellipses are same or differ?
> 3. In nautical astronomy bu B.Krasavtsev, B.Khlyustin published by
> Mir publisher 1970 edition, on page no. 102-
> "Due to aberration the image of a star will describe on the
> celestial sphere an ellipse with dimensions tens of times greater
> than the ellipse due to parallax and the directions of its axis will
> be different."
> How it is possible when the parallax varies for star to star and the
> major axis of the parallatic ellipse also changes and the major axis
> of the aberrational ellipse being 20.47 having a constant value then
> how is it possible that the ratio of the both of the major axis will
> be always of value 10.
> I will be oblidged for the answers.
>
> Yours'
> Subhash chand Jain
> e-mail-scjain108@yahoo.com
The working language for the Mora Luminis or the Equation of Light is
based on observations seen from Earth and accounted for by taking into
account orbital comparisons between Earth and Jupiter in their
respective heliocentric orbits.This insight of Ole Roemer is an
extension and refinement of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity based
on the fact that planetary heliocentric motion is seen directly from
Earth
The Newtonian mutation which re-introduced the celestial sphere into
heliocentric astronomy bundled the Keplerian insight on varying
orbital speed with the Roemerian insight on the Mora Luminis and
conceptually heliocentricity imploded.The following passage is a clear
statement of breaking several astronomical principles involving the
orginal Copernican reasoning and both the Roemerian and Keplerian
refinements -
PH=C6NOMENON V.
"Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.
For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
The Keplerian and Roemerian geometries are seperate insofar as orbital
geometries which account for observed planetary motions and their
variations in orbital speed are quite apart from the variation in speed
of Io.These great insights were lost to celestial sphere geometry.
The final nail in heliocentricity was Bradley's referencing finite
light speed to the celestial sphere.The working language of astronomers
and the striving of some many people,the Western tradition and its
antecedent Ptolemaic roots and stretching back to remote antiquity
was almost lost to a guy who wished to fit a celestial sphere astronomy
into terrestial ballistics.
You can't mix the efforts of Flamsteed/Newton/Bradley with
Copernicus/Kepler/Roemer,the working language and principles which
generated the great insights that stretch Western astronomical
tradition for almost 200 years was undone in a few decades from
Flamsteed through Newton to Bradley
If you have a problem with aberration it is because it is an
invalid,useless and counter-productive concept based on celestial
sphere geometry,the final nail in heliocentricity and the rise of
Newtonian empiricism.The world has almost lost an entire and beautiful
astronomical heritage.
Look,you mean no harm and you are likely to remain in the celestial
cistern/sphere,with a bit of effort you could begin back at Copernicus
and then work through the Keplerian insight and finally the Roemerian
insight and entirely disregard the later mutations.I am afraid you will
have to do this yourself .
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2006 13:46:56
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Questions about annual aberration and annual parallax of stars
|
On 2006-08-06, subhash <scjain108@yahoo.com > wrote:
> How it is possible when the parallax varies for star to star and the
> major axis of the parallatic ellipse also changes and the major axis
> of the aberrational ellipse being 20.47 having a constant value then
> how is it possible that the ratio of the both of the major axis will
> be always of value 10.
The aberration of starlight does not depend on the distance to
the object being observed, but on the motion of the earth
relative to the line of sight to the star and the speed of
light. The annual parallax depends on the annual change in the
light of sight to the star as the earth revolves around the sun.
A star too distant to have a measureable annual parallax will
still show the effect of the aberration of starlight.
Bud
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 09:24:05
From: Bill Owen
Subject: Re: Questions about annual aberration and annual parallax of stars
|
subhash wrote:
> Dear members,
> Please help me to answer the following querries about the above
> subject.
> 1. It is known that the major axis of parallatic ellipse and of
> aberrational ellipse are parallel to the ecliptic and their minor
> axis of both the ellipse are perpendicular to the ecliptic. I want
> to know that do the both axis of the both ellipses are coincide in
> such a way that the centre of the both ellipses is same i.e. do the
> both ellipses are concentric if not then what are their relative
> posistions?
No, they are not concentric, because the earth's orbit is not a circle.
The aberrational ellipse is biased by up to 0.2 arcsec: because stellar
aberration is caused by the velocity of the observer, and the earth
moves faster at perihelion than at aphelion, the net effect is that
the aberrational ellipse is displaced in the direction perpendicular
to the line of apsides. Until 1984 star catalogs *included* these
"e-terms of aberration" so that the catalogued position was the center
of the aberrational ellipse. Since 1984 catalogs contain the position
which one would observe at rest at the barycenter of the solar system.
> 2. Do the ratio of major axis and minor axis of both the individual
> ellipses are same or differ?
They're pretty much the same, because the dominant effect is the
geometrical projection of the earth's orbit onto the plane perpendicular
to the direction to the star. (Foreshortening, if you will. It's a
factor of sin (ecliptic latitude).)
> 3. In nautical astronomy bu B.Krasavtsev, B.Khlyustin published by
> Mir publisher 1970 edition, on page no. 102-
> "Due to aberration the image of a star will describe on the
> celestial sphere an ellipse with dimensions tens of times greater
> than the ellipse due to parallax and the directions of its axis will
> be different."
> How it is possible when the parallax varies for star to star and the
> major axis of the parallatic ellipse also changes and the major axis
> of the aberrational ellipse being 20.47 having a constant value then
> how is it possible that the ratio of the both of the major axis will
> be always of value 10.
It's not. The phrase "tens of times" does not mean "exactly 10 times"
but rather "twenty, thirty or more times." For alpha Centauri it's
about 30 times; for other stars the ratio is much higher.
Hope this helps.
-- Bill Owen
P.S. Parallax and stellar aberration are 90 degrees out of phase, as
one depends on position and the other on velocity. When Bradley
discovered stellar aberration, he was trying to measure parallax.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 05:34:13
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Questions about annual aberration and annual parallax of stars
|
subhash wrote:
> Dear members,
> Please help me to answer the following querries about the above
> subject.
> 1. It is known that the major axis of parallatic ellipse and of
> aberrational ellipse are parallel to the ecliptic and their minor
> axis of both the ellipse are perpendicular to the ecliptic. I want
> to know that do the both axis of the both ellipses are coincide in
> such a way that the centre of the both ellipses is same i.e. do the
> both ellipses are concentric if not then what are their relative
> posistions?
> 2. Do the ratio of major axis and minor axis of both the individual
> ellipses are same or differ?
> 3. In nautical astronomy bu B.Krasavtsev, B.Khlyustin published by
> Mir publisher 1970 edition, on page no. 102-
> "Due to aberration the image of a star will describe on the
> celestial sphere an ellipse with dimensions tens of times greater
> than the ellipse due to parallax and the directions of its axis will
> be different."
> How it is possible when the parallax varies for star to star and the
> major axis of the parallatic ellipse also changes and the major axis
> of the aberrational ellipse being 20.47 having a constant value then
> how is it possible that the ratio of the both of the major axis will
> be always of value 10.
> I will be oblidged for the answers.
>
> Yours'
> Subhash chand Jain
> e-mail-scjain108@yahoo.com
>
Stellar Aberration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/StellarAberration.html
|
|
