The Naked Scientists
The Naked Scientists
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Answers to Science Questions
Do an Experiment
Ask a Question
Meet the team
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
Do we see the Moon?
Do we see the Moon?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thanked: 16 times
Naked Science Forum Newbie
Do we see the Moon?
10/01/2019 00:13:09 »
(1) The Moon is towed into deep outer space.
Einstein & Newton & Aetherist are sitting in chairs facing the Moon, true distance to center of Moon is
The true angle subtended by the Moon's diameter at the chairs is 2*artan 1/3 (36.87 deg).
The true angular size of the Moon (tangent to tangent)(at
) is 2*arsine 1/3 (
sees that the Moon appears non-changing, ie it doesn’t move left or right (relative to the alignment of the chair)(& relative to distant stars), & it doesn’t get nearer or farther (the angular size is fixed), & it doesn’t spin (relative to the chair)(& relative to distant stars)(ie the Moon's face appears fixed).
Einstein declares that the Moon is where seen
(apparent position = true). Einstein can see that the chairs are not orbiting the Moon & realizes that the chairs are being held in place by hidden magic (otherwise they fall).
Newton agrees with Einstein
. Newton says that a corpuscle of light is like a ball fired from a cannon, the ball travelling along a straight line throo space. Newton doesn’t know the speed of corpuscles & doesn’t care, the exact speed isn’t relevant (the speed doesn’t even have to be constant along a traject)(& the speed doesn’t even have to be the same for every traject). What is essential is that corpuscles travel in straight lines, which in space they do (we ignore the Moon's gravity), because here Newton (like Einstein) can see (by the stars) that the chairs are not orbiting.
Aetherist doesn't agree with Einstein.
She says that the Moon here aint necessarily where seen. She says that if there is no aetherwind blowing throo the Moon & chairs then Einstein is correct. But in the absence of such information it must be assumed that there is an aetherwind (V kmps), in which case the photons from the Moon will travel at c+V or c-V, & the visible/apparent/seen/observed/perceived/measured Moon will not be true, the Moon that u see or measure photonically will always be an optical illusion.
(2) If the aetherwind is blowing from chairs to Moon, at say c/2.
Then that is the same as the Moon & chairs co-moving throo a static aether at c/2 along that center to center line. If photons travel at c in static aether then the photons emitted from the nearest atoms of the Moon will reach the chairs after the chairs (travelling at c/2) have travelled 2R/3, the photons having travelled 4R/3. Therefore the Moon appears to be at a clear distance of
, & it is tempting to say that the visible angular size of the Moon appears to be 2*arsine(R/(R+4R/3)) or 2*arsine(3/7) which is
(while the true invisible size is
)(based on true distance of
to center of Moon).
However photons from the visible rim-edge will have been emitted a little earlier when the Moon was 0.2482R closer, because these photons have to travel 1.8297R (to the chairs) along a diagonal, while the chairs travel 0.9149R along the centreline (in accord with the specified ratio of 2:1). Hencely the illusory photonic tangents to the visible rim-edge need to be drawn from the illusory distance of
(instead of the illusory distance of 1.3333R), which results in an illusory angular size of
(while the true invisible size is
In addition due to that aetherwind the spherical Moon will not appear spherical. This would be evident if the Moon were replaced with a smooth sphere with a grid of latitude lines & longitude lines marked on its surface. The gridlines would appear distorted (unless the aetherwind was zero kmps), a sure sign that the Moon wasn’t where seen. The grid near center would appear as if 1.3333R away, & the grid near rim-edge would appear as if the grid near center were 1.0851R away, & the grid in between would transition.
do not know about the possibility of aetherwind, nor that light travels at a constant speed (c+-V) in aetherwind, nor that an aetherwind always results in an optical illusion(s).
do not believe in aether & aetherwind, & deny the possibility of any kinds of associated optical illusions.
(3) We now allow for Lorentzian Length Contraction (LLC) of the Moon due to aetherwind.
would say that the c/2 aetherwind blowing throo the Moon contracts the length such that the spherical Moon is truly an ellipsoid with the diameter reduced to
on that alignment. However i reckon that Newton's & Einstein's & Aetherist's eyes suffer that same LLC, hencely they probly see a nearnuff spherical Moon (but this is an optical illusion)(i deal with that in (5)).
Space does not suffer LLC, hencely the distance tween center of the ellipsoid Moon & chairs remains at
, but the clear distance to the nearest atom of the ellipsoid Moon increases from 2R to 2.1340 R.
If the Moon is an ellipsoid then they can see a little more of its surface around the visible rim-edge (compared to if it were truly a spheroid), an additional little annulus of visible area. Despite this additional annulus the illusory visible angular size of the Moon in (3) will be
, which is less than the (naïve)(illusory)(spheroidal) 57.32 deg in (2)(this is because of the contracted skinny shape of an ellipsoid compared to a fat sphere)(even tho the ellipsoid appears nearnuff spherical due to the optical illusion arising from the LCC of the eyes)(warning -- imagining this stuff can injure your brain).
In (2) the true invisible angular size was 38.94 deg)(based on a true sphere at a true distance of 3R to center).
But in (3) the true invisible angular size is
)(based on a true ellipsoid at a true distance of
(4) We now allow for the aetherwind's affect on the vector-angle of photons.
Photons propagating at c throo the aether directly along the line from center of Moon to chairs has a vector of 0.0000 deg & the aetherwind blowing at c/2 along from Moon to chairs has the same vector of 0.0000 deg, hencely the combined vector will be at 0.0000 deg.
But rim-edge photons propagating at c along a vector of 28.36 deg (ie a half of 56.72 deg) meet the chairs travelling at c/2 along a vector of 0.0000 deg, & the combined vector here will in effect be the vector of rim-edge photons hitting Newton's & Einstein's & Aetherist's eyes. This combined vector in effect passes throo a point on the centreline & 3R from the center of the ellipsoid (ie the true position of the chairs), & has an angle of 19.00 deg (which is a half of 37.99 deg)(but is not a half of 38.39 deg)(ie 19.20 deg).
Therefore in (4) the illusory visible angular size of the Moon is
, which is almost the same as the true invisible angular size of
. The Aetherist predicts an illusory visible angular size of
, while Newton & Einstein predict a visible angular size of
(not much difference) & in addition Newton & Einstein both deny that their angle is an illusion.
(5) We now allow for Lorentzian Length Contraction of the eye.
Firstly we consider a pix taken by a pinhole camera (with no lens)(filled with vacuum not air). Newton & Einstein predict that the visible angular size of the Moon is
, as is seen from
, & predict that the camera will confirm this. The Aetherist reckons that the naïve visible angular size (neglecting LLC of the eye) is 37.99 deg, & that the camera will suffer LLC & that the distance tween pinhole & negative film will contract to 86.60% (& the height of the image likewise), which will reduce the inferred measure of the 37.99 deg to
(ie 87.39%)(not 86.60%). This
is equal to the angular size of a static spherical Moon if measured or seen from
(if zero aetherwind).
If we measure the angular size by setting the central crosshairs on the bottom of the Moon & recording the angle, & then likewise on the top of the Moon, then Newton & Einstein predict that the difference (the angular size) will be
Note that here during every reading the photons (from the rim-edge & from anywhere else aimed at) must always travel along the centreline of the telescope (hencely the glass lens makes zero difference)(& it doesn’t matter whether the telescope has air inside or vacuum). The angle tween lower reading (Xhair-line) & upper reading (Xhair-line) must be 37.99 deg, however the vertical scale on the telescope suffers LLC & the observed difference tween the two recorded readings (observations) will therefore be
(note that the pinhole camera also gave 33.20 deg).
Predicting the angular size as seen directly by the human eye presents problems. Will Newton & Einstein & Aetherist see the same angular size as the pinhole camera & telescope. Their eyes are contracted in the same proportion as the Moon, hencely their retinas will be 13.40% closer to their corneas (measured in the horizontal) (similar to the negative in the pinhole camera being 13.40% closer to the pinhole)(except that the retina is curved, whilst the negative is flat). But due to LLC the radii of the corneal lens & the main lens will be longer hencely
the focal lengths of these two lenses
will be longer & the accommodation muscles controlling the focus of the main lens might not supply enough strain & accommodation to overcome this double whammy of longer focal length & closer retina. This accommodation-focusing problem will be partly negated (or praps fully negated)(dunno) by virtue of
the mass density of the lenses
being increased by 15.47% (due to the LLC in the horizontal) which will reduce the speeds of light in the lenses in that ratio & hencely increase the refractive indexes in that ratio (probly)(eg 1.40 increases to 1.4619). However LLC also
increases the refractive index of the vitreous gel
(in the remainder of the eye), & also of the air (if any) outside the eye, thusly partly limiting the goodly effect of the increased density of the lenses.
Conrad Ranzan mentions ocular stuff -- The Physical Nature of Length Contraction -- 2012.
4.3 Not Directly Observable. In a hypothetical situation of physical length contraction, no matter how extreme, the contraction effect would not be directly observable. There is a simple and reasonable argument that explains why. Consider a square object and a round object resting on a table. Initially there is no aether flow and no contraction. If one looks down on each object, in “plan” view, a corresponding image will be produced on the retina of the eye (Fig. 12 (a)). Now, using thought experiment empowerment, we turn “on” the aether flow and induce extreme lateral contraction as shown in Fig. 12 (b). The square object becomes rectangular, the circular object becomes oval, and the eyeball becomes oblate.
………………………………………. Fig. 12(a) & 12(b) [not shown here] …………………………………………………….
Fig. 12. Contraction thought experiment. (a) Objects observed in “plan” view in the absence of length contraction. (b) The same objects with extreme lateral contraction produce a contracted image within a contracted eyeball. The expectation is that the same light receptors would be activated in the retina, for both upper and lower situations, so that the brain would not recognize any significant difference
The eye’s ciliary muscles will, of course, continue to automatically adjust the curvature of the eye’s lens to bring the image into focus on the retina. The ciliary muscles will focus a contracted image onto a contracted retina, activating the same light receptors that had been activated prior to the introduction of a distorting aetherflow. Since the same light receptors would be activated in the retina, the brain would continue to interpret each object shape as a perfect undistorted square and a normal circular disk (Fig. 12 (b)). Although not directly observable, physical contraction is indirectly detectable as discussed briefly in Section 6.
(6) And as a part of that ocular stuff we have to take into account Fresnel Drag.
The speed & angle of light in the eye will be affected by Fresnel drag (due to the aetherwind). I doubt that the Fresnel-Fizeau underlying drag theory is correct, & in any case i doubt that the equations can be extrapolated from their laboratory speeds up to c/2 speeds. So i think i will steer clear of wasting any more time on the ocular.
Last Edit: 11/01/2019 22:19:16 by
Thanked: 16 times
Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Do we see the Moon?
Reply #1 on:
11/01/2019 21:46:45 »
[I WILL REWRITE THIS POSTING, WILL TAKE A FEW DAYS]
(7) We should allow for Lorentzian Angle Contraction.
In (5) above i allowed for the LLC of the vertical circle of the telescope, but i overlooked the Lorentzian Angle Contraction (LAC) of the telescope's body & lenses. When pointed at the upper & lower rims of the Moon the telescope angles up & down at approx 18.9951 deg. The aetherwind we said blows at 00 deg, hencely the LLC deforms the telescope by 86.60% along that 00 deg alignment. This results in the plane of the glass lenses changing their angle, instead of being square to the axis of the telescope they will be 2.3951 deg off square, instead of being at 81.0049 deg to the horizontal they will be at 83.4000 deg.
When Moonlight propagating along the axial line of the telescope
hits the first lens that lens will be at 2.3951 deg, & the light will according to Snell's Law be refracted to 1.5754 deg (n for glass is say 1.52)(n for vacuum is 1) which is a deviation of 0.8196 deg. If there is a say total thickness of 50 mm of glass in the say two telescope lenses then on that angle the light will step up a distance of 0.7153 mm on its way throo the lenses (& when exiting the telescope the light would have refracted back to its original angle)(ie the angle of the axial line of the telescope). If the telescope is 1000 mm long then that step of 0.7153 mm represents an angle of 0.0410 deg. So here when looking at the upper rim of the Moon the telescope will have to be dipped down by 0.0410 deg to bring the rim into line with the crosshairs (depending on where the crosshairs are situated in the telescope)(i assume that they are scratched on the outside of the eyepiece).
This will add 0.0410 deg to the original 2.3951 deg bringing it to 2.4361 deg, & the step now increases to 0.7276 mm & the necessary dipping down increases to
. We can repeat this iteration but i will stop here.
This process means that the final angle will be 18.9951 deg minus 0.0417 deg which is 18.9534 deg. This also applies when looking at the lower rim of the Moon, which means that the final angular size of the Moon will be twice 18.9534 deg, ie 37.9068 deg.
In the original posting
i said that due to LCC of the vertical circle the illusory angular size of the Moon was reduced from
, but now we can predict that due to LAC the illusory angular size will be appear to be
& due to LCC of the vertical circle this reduces to
. The difference (0.08 deg here) will depend on the exact design of the telescope (eg thickness of glass & length of telescope & position of crosshairs etc).
LAC is usually neglected when applying LLC.
LAC must affect reflection off mirrors & refraction throo lenses. But it is ignored, praps not so much ignored as not recognised, ie not known. In the case of Einsteinology, not believed, because Einsteinists don’t believe in LCC nor LAC within any one reference frame, ie where relative velocity is zero. But Aetherists know that the aetherwind creates an absolute reference frame, & LCC & LAC must raise their ugly head in every frame at every time.
Here is how LAC works.
Think of the telescope being a cube with two opposite faces the lenses. U are looking up throo the telescope at 45 deg, ie with one diagonal of the cube horizontal & the other diagonal vertical. An aetherwind of c/2 kmps blows horizontally along that diagonal (a headwind), & hencely that diagonal contracts to 86.60%. The vertical diagonal remains 100.00%.
Both lenses were on an angle of 45.00 deg, but after that contraction the angles are artan 0.8660, ie 49.1074 deg. The top of the cube & bottom are also at 49.1074 deg. The LAC here is 4.1074 deg.
Here to regain the wanted 45.00 deg elevation Igor will need to dip the telescope (cube) down by 4.1074 deg. But this will reduce the LAC of the lenses. The LLC is always 86.60%, but the LAC of the lenses depends on the angle of the aetherwind blowing throo the lenses, the LAC is at a max at 45 deg, & is zero at 00 deg & at 90 deg. Hencely calculating the correct angle for the elevation of the telescope (cube) will require lots of iterations to home in on the answer (or u can use trial & error to get there quicker). This is only a math problem, because in reality Igor (Dr Frankeinstein's assistant) would simply point the telescope at the upper rim of the Moon & Igor would not be aware of these LLC & LAC happenings at all.
Note that when Igor dips the telescope by 4.1074 deg
that the front lens will then be at 8.2148 deg to the axis, ie at 8.2148 deg to the incoming light, hencely the refraction deg will be larger & the step up mm will be larger etc.
But this complication is much weaker for a long shape like a telescope so i ignored it earlier when i calculated the necessary dipping down of 0.0417 deg.
If the telescope happened to be very short (say 100 mm) compared to diameter (say 1000 mm) then the LAC deg will be negligible (for a length of 1 mm the LAC would be nearnuff zero deg).
To develop the full amount of potential LAC then the length must not be less than the diameter, & vice versa (this applies to all shapes & objects).
And in any case as i explained earlier the max LAC deg is only developed when the element or face in question is at 45 deg to the aetherwind.
Last Edit: 13/01/2019 12:23:35 by
Thanked: 15 times
Re: Do we see the Moon?
Reply #2 on:
30/01/2019 22:13:37 »
0 disagrees with all of d above!
Still a hug 2 Newton & a flyin kiss 2 Einstein.
Do v see d Moon?
Human Visual Acuity maxes out at 30miles.
All v c, is sunlite, wich is bein reflected frm d surfce of d mun.
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 481L17Y 70 4D4P7 70 CH4NG3 .
There was an error while thanking