Long period comets

  • 62 Replies
  • 10641 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2008, 11:18:00 PM »
How is the sun able to affect this change on a comet at a much greater distance than it does the moon?

The comet is in orbit about the celestial pole. The celestial pole is at one focus of its elliptical orbit; it is only the end of the orbit closest to the Earth where it gets nudged slightly so that it appears to be in orbit about the sun.

Why doesn't the sun effect the stars or planets in a similar fashion?

It does; that is why Mercury and Venus orbit the sun. The stars are too far away from the sun to feel a significant effect, and perhaps the same is true of the moon and other planets - there is no evidence to suggest that they orbit in the same plane as the sun.

Why are comets the only bodies that violates the vertical plane of celestial bodies?  What prevents stars from being at this greater vertical height?

Nothing, they just aren't.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2008, 11:22:50 PM »
Are you saying that comets have their own ability to generate their own light (star-like)?  What is the cause of their tail then?  Why does every other body stay on a level plane over the surface of the Earth, but comets are free to move over and under this plane?  Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.

No, they reflect sunlight, as in RET. Here is a depiction of what I am talking about:



There are so many things wrong with your pic. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2008, 11:25:05 PM »
There are so many things wrong with your pic. 

Okay.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2008, 12:34:32 AM »
The comet is in orbit about the celestial pole. The celestial pole is at one focus of its elliptical orbit; it is only the end of the orbit closest to the Earth where it gets nudged slightly so that it appears to be in orbit about the sun.

Sorry, it appeared that they were orbiting the sun in your diagram.


Quote
It does; that is why Mercury and Venus orbit the sun. The stars are too far away from the sun to feel a significant effect, and perhaps the same is true of the moon and other planets - there is no evidence to suggest that they orbit in the same plane as the sun.

The same math that is used to show the height of the sun gives the same results for any celestial body (45° observation of a body located over the equator at a bearing of due south) whether that is a planet, star, moon or the sun.  If you accept that math, then you have to accept the fact that it shows that all celestial objects are the same height over the Earth.  Of course, this shows the same results for a comet because the math won't show a difference in altitude between the comet and the surrounding stars.


Quote
Nothing, they just aren't.

Come on, there has to be a reason.  You can't just come out and say "that is just the way it is" and expect people to just accept it.

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2008, 12:57:08 AM »
But the sun isn't sitting in that stationary position during the visit of a comet, is it? Isn't the sun circling around the equator though, at about 1600 miles an hour?
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2008, 01:28:35 AM »
Quote
It does; that is why Mercury and Venus orbit the sun. The stars are too far away from the sun to feel a significant effect, and perhaps the same is true of the moon and other planets - there is no evidence to suggest that they orbit in the same plane as the sun.

The same math that is used to show the height of the sun gives the same results for any celestial body (45° observation of a body located over the equator at a bearing of due south) whether that is a planet, star, moon or the sun.  If you accept that math, then you have to accept the fact that it shows that all celestial objects are the same height over the Earth.  Of course, this shows the same results for a comet because the math won't show a difference in altitude between the comet and the surrounding stars.

The mathematics of which you speak assumes that light travels in a straight line. If, as I have supposed, it travels in a parabolic arc instead, then the angle of elevation at which objects appear in the sky is not in linear correlation with their actual positions.

Quote
Nothing, they just aren't.

Come on, there has to be a reason.  You can't just come out and say "that is just the way it is" and expect people to just accept it.

Why is the expansion of the Universe accelerating in RET?

But the sun isn't sitting in that stationary position during the visit of a comet, is it? Isn't the sun circling around the equator though, at about 1600 miles an hour?

Yes, and so is the comet, being at perihelion.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2008, 02:38:33 AM »
The mathematics of which you speak assumes that light travels in a straight line. If, as I have supposed, it travels in a parabolic arc instead, then the angle of elevation at which objects appear in the sky is not in linear correlation with their actual positions.

Sorry, I took the math from Earth is not a Globe, I thought that it explained everything.

Light does travel in straight lines.  The Michelson-Morley experiment set-up also shows that light travels in straight lines.



No matter how the apparatus is rotated, the light continues to hit the detector.


Quote
Why is the expansion of the Universe accelerating in RET?

I personally don't know, but there are numerous articles on astronomy sites by people that are much more knowledgeable than me that give explanations.  Of course, they also assume that light travels in straight lines and are based on RET of the universe.

Here is a site that discusses some of the possible explanations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

There are links at the bottom of that page that go to other sites with more in depth information.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2008, 02:56:29 AM »
The current thinking is that the expansion of the universe occurs 'because it does'. I think that is Robosteve's point.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

funkcmc

  • 30
  • wappa
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2008, 03:05:04 AM »
Good post Rig Navigator I had previously tried to find that same picture, I shall be eagerly awaiting for a response from FoolE.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2008, 03:07:33 AM »
intelligent debate is one thing, name calling is just unnecessary.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2008, 06:02:13 AM »
The mathematics of which you speak assumes that light travels in a straight line. If, as I have supposed, it travels in a parabolic arc instead, then the angle of elevation at which objects appear in the sky is not in linear correlation with their actual positions.

Sorry, I took the math from Earth is not a Globe, I thought that it explained everything.

Light does travel in straight lines.  The Michelson-Morley experiment set-up also shows that light travels in straight lines.



No matter how the apparatus is rotated, the light continues to hit the detector.

So light travels in a straight line to within the accuracy that the Michelson-Morley apparatus can measure.

The current thinking is that the expansion of the universe occurs 'because it does'. I think that is Robosteve's point.

Yes.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2008, 06:14:44 AM »

So light travels in a straight line to within the accuracy that the Michelson-Morley apparatus can measure.


Michelson-Morley interferometers are extremely precise and can measure path length differences down to fractions of a wavelength, so for optical frequencies even for a relatively simple laser-pointer based setup this could be just a few nanometres... If light is curving (which RE in combination with GR predicts anyway, although the effect is extremely small and certainly smaller than some of the FE suggestions) then by performing a series of these experiments you should be able to determine which is the more accurate description.  If I wasn't only a few months from finishing my thesis I'd go into the lab right now and do the experiment myself :)
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2008, 06:44:31 AM »
Michelson-Morley interferometers are extremely precise and can measure path length differences down to fractions of a wavelength, so for optical frequencies even for a relatively simple laser-pointer based setup this could be just a few nanometres... If light is curving (which RE in combination with GR predicts anyway, although the effect is extremely small and certainly smaller than some of the FE suggestions) then by performing a series of these experiments you should be able to determine which is the more accurate description.  If I wasn't only a few months from finishing my thesis I'd go into the lab right now and do the experiment myself :)

I still don't consider this sufficient proof that light does not bend.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2008, 06:47:20 AM »
Why not?

Also, your orbit doesn't work, or make sense, please show it with the movement of the sun included. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2008, 06:50:08 AM »

I still don't consider this sufficient proof that light does not bend.


Would you like to quantify your argument by suggesting an optical experiment to test it? To keep it fair, do not tell me you predicted result, I would just like to be able to perform the experiment and show you the data.  I work in a laser lab so I can tell you whether it can easily be performed, and whether I have the time to do it (if I don't then I'm sure someone else on here does).

I do not see why a Michelson-Morley experiment is unsuitable, however, or for that matter why even a simple Fabry-Perot cavity is unsuitable (if light bent by as much as FE would seem to require, the cavity mode would be unstable over anything but a very narrow range of lengths, as corrected by the angle of the end mirrors).  Scanning F-P cavities are used in laser physics all the time and do not experience these issues.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2008, 06:53:34 AM »
Would you like to quantify your argument by suggesting an optical experiment to test it? To keep it fair, do not tell me you predicted result, I would just like to be able to perform the experiment and show you the data.  I work in a laser lab so I can tell you whether it can easily be performed, and whether I have the time to do it (if I don't then I'm sure someone else on here does).

I do not see why a Michelson-Morley experiment is unsuitable, however, or for that matter why even a simple Fabry-Perot cavity is unsuitable (if light bent by as much as FE would seem to require, the cavity mode would be unstable over anything but a very narrow range of lengths, as corrected by the angle of the end mirrors).  Scanning F-P cavities are used in laser physics all the time and do not experience these issues.

Perhaps I shall. This matter requires some consideration, I shall get back to you.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2008, 06:57:56 AM »

Perhaps I shall. This matter requires some consideration, I shall get back to you.


Excellent, I need more ways of procrastinating since I've finished making my thesis look pretty and have filled in all the section headings...  ;D
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

funkcmc

  • 30
  • wappa
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2008, 07:02:11 AM »
Light would need to be perfectly straight for that experiment to work, if there was any bend at all in light it just would not work.  Even if it was conducted over a series of centimetres!
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2008, 07:12:29 AM »
To give you some useful background information to consider when designing your experiment, you may or may not find this useful:

Quote from: Matrix's thesis

Traditionally there are 3 experiments that together provide a complete test of special relativity - Michelson-Morley types [8] for testing the isotropy of the speed of light c, Kennedy-Thorndike types [9] for testing the frame independence of c and Ives-Stilwell types [10] that test the frame independence of the time dilation factor. Ives-Stilwell tests currently have the largest uncertainties by several orders of magnitude1 due to the difficulty in testing the time dilation factor in isolation from length-contracting effects.

1 - At the time of writing the current best Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments
have both been performed by M¨uller et al. [11] which confirmed the predictions of
relativity in both cases to within 10−16 in ([delta]c/c). This compares to the Ives-Stilwell experiment
of Reinhardt et al. [12] which has shown agreement with relativity to within 10−8.


[8] A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley. On the relative motion of the earth and
the luminiferous ether
. American Journal of Science, 34:333–345, 1887.
[9] Roy J. Kennedy and Edward M. Thorndike. Experimental establishment
of the relativity of time
. Physical Review, 42(3):400+, November 1932.
[10] Herbert E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell. An experimental study of the rate of a
moving atomic clock
. J. Opt. Soc. Am., 28(7):215–226, July 1938.
[11] Holger Mueller, Paul L. Stanwix, Michael E. Tobar, Eugene Ivanov, Peter
Wolf, Sven Herrmann, Alexander Senger, Evgeny Kovalchuk, and Achim
Peters. Relativity tests by complementary rotating michelson-morley experiments,
Jun 2007.
[12] Sascha Reinhardt, Guido Saathoff, Henrik Buhr, Lars A. Carlson, Andreas
Wolf, Dirk Schwalm, Sergei Karpuk, Christian Novotny, Gerhard Huber,
Marcus Zimmermann, Ronald Holzwarth, Thomas Udem, Theodor W.
Hansch, and Gerald Gwinner. Test of relativistic time dilation with fast
optical atomic clocks at different velocities
. Nat Phys, 3(12):861–864, December
2007.


I have all of the cited papers (I think) in .pdf format for anyone that's interested.

EDIT: relevant material
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 09:15:35 AM by Matrix »
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

funkcmc

  • 30
  • wappa
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2008, 07:48:51 AM »
idiot^
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2008, 08:55:23 AM »
idiot^

I don't think that was very nice.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 09:12:46 AM by Tai Lung »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2008, 08:57:25 AM »
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #52 on: August 14, 2008, 08:57:56 AM »

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #53 on: August 14, 2008, 09:04:34 AM »

He's not very nice is he?


I wouldn't mind being called an idiot if he actually had a reason for doing so.  Robosteve said he wanted to design and experiment, and so the easiest resource I had for him as reference material was my thesis, which was already written (so I quoted it).  Does that make me an idiot, funkcmc?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2008, 07:57:42 PM »
I still don't consider this sufficient proof that light does not bend.

You should.

If there was the slightest amount of bending produced it would be detectable, especially at the accuracies of measurement that are achievable (nanometers) with this experimental setup.  This setup has been used for almost a century and no bending has been detected.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2008, 08:36:48 PM »
So you are saying that refraction is a myth?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #56 on: August 14, 2008, 09:08:51 PM »
So you are saying that refraction is a myth?

No, I am saying that his concept of EA that bends light whether it is in a vacuum or air is flawed.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #57 on: August 14, 2008, 09:12:10 PM »
Light can bend in a vacuum if a celestial body is nearby.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Long period comets
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2008, 09:33:01 PM »
Light can bend in a vacuum if a celestial body is nearby.

Correct.

And this effect is observable in the apparent position of celestial observations made from the surface of the Earth how?  Certainly not enough to make the apparent observed altitude vary by more than fractions of an arc second.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Long period comets
« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2008, 09:35:28 PM »
I don't know for sure, but wouldn't gravitational lensing not be possible if the change in trajectory was so slight?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?