S/E Asian Thai Consulates going to eVisa online system effective Tuesday Oct 8th

[webfact]

Einstein's theory provides new technique to size up stars

By Irene Klotz

 

FILE PHOTO: This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the bright star-forming ring that surrounds the heart of the barred spiral galaxy NGC 1097, a Seyfert galaxy. NASA/ESA/Hubble/Handout via REUTERS/File Photo

 

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - Astronomers have found a new application for Albert Einstein's century-old theory of relativity - using it to directly measure the size of a star beyond the sun. 

 

In research published on Wednesday, scientists said they used the Hubble Space Telescope to plot minute changes in the path of light coming from a distant background star as it passed by a relatively close target star, known as Stein 2051B.

 

Researchers applied Einstein's findings to measure how Stein 2051B's gravity warped the background star's light, a phenomenon the physicist predicted more than 100 years ago and a direct means to assess its mass. The technique could be applied to other stars.

 

"It was like measuring the motion of a little firefly in front of a light bulb from 1,500 miles away," astronomer Kailash Sahu of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore said at a news conference.

 

The research was presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday and also published in this week's issue of the journal Science.

 

The measurements show the mass of Stein 2051B is about two-thirds of the sun in Earth's solar system. It is a type of star known as a white dwarf, which is what all stars smaller than eight times the size of the sun will become when they run out of nuclear fuel and collapse, leaving a hot core.

 

"The single most important thing for the star is its mass," Sahu said. "If we know the mass, we known what its radius will be, how bright it will be, how long it will live, what will happen after it dies. Everything depends on the mass of the star."

 

Scientists previously determined the mass of three other white dwarf stars using an indirect technique that required the star to have an orbiting partner for measuring gravitational pull.

 

The bending of light was a key test for Einstein's general theory of relativity, which was published more than 100 years ago, and proven in 1919 when scientists measured the curving of starlight around the sun during a total solar eclipse.

 

Einstein's work laid the foundation for modern physics and cosmology, providing a perspective of space and time that is shaped by gravity.

 

Sahu and colleagues are the first to observe the phenomenon in a star beyond the sun, Terry Oswalt of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, said in a related essay in Science.

 

(Reporting by Irene Klotz; Editing by Letitia Stein and Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-08

[atyclb]

cool

[TKDfella]

4 hours ago, atyclb said:

cool

Yep, but a bit more than cool. You would be surprised how many people deny Prof. A. Einstein's work, both the Special and the General Relativity theories. This is just another illustration of A.E.'s strength of insight.

[Richard W]

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

Yep, but a bit more than cool. You would be surprised how many people deny Prof. A. Einstein's work, both the Special and the General Relativity theories. This is just another illustration of A.E.'s strength of insight.

If my memory serves me right, the striking thing about the theory of general relativity in this case is that the bending of the path is twice what one gets from more classical theories.   That factor of 2 isn't obvious - some originally plausible calculations using general relativity didn't get that factor of 2!  Some competitors to his potential equation also get the same result - and I believe this also applies to the precession of Mercury.  A serious theory ain't serious if it doesn't pass these tests.

 

And unless you believe that 'ordinary' matter is actually the less common form of matter, Newton's law of gravity is also broken at very low gravitational intensities, and Einstein's law of gravity doesn't fix that.

[impulse]

24 minutes ago, Richard W said:

If my memory serves me right, the striking thing about the theory of general relativity in this case is that the bending of the path is twice what one gets from more classical theories.   That factor of 2 isn't obvious - some originally plausible calculations using general relativity didn't get that factor of 2!  Some competitors to his potential equation also get the same result - and I believe this also applies to the precession of Mercury.  A serious theory ain't serious if it doesn't pass these tests.

 

And unless you believe that 'ordinary' matter is actually the less common form of matter, Newton's law of gravity is also broken at very low gravitational intensities, and Einstein's law of gravity doesn't fix that.

 

Plus, if you don't know how far away it is, how bright it is, how fast it's moving away from (or towards) the earth, its mass or density, or how much space dust is affecting all the readings, you can make up just about any conclusions you want and fix one of those variables so that every other one fits the equation and your conclusion.  And still be off by a factor of 100.

 

Which is okay as long as you don't count points off when a junior high school kid gets a different answer on a quiz.  Because he may be just as correct.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Richard W said:

If my memory serves me right, the striking thing about the theory of general relativity in this case is that the bending of the path is twice what one gets from more classical theories.   That factor of 2 isn't obvious - some originally plausible calculations using general relativity didn't get that factor of 2!  Some competitors to his potential equation also get the same result - and I believe this also applies to the precession of Mercury.  A serious theory ain't serious if it doesn't pass these tests.

 

And unless you believe that 'ordinary' matter is actually the less common form of matter, Newton's law of gravity is also broken at very low gravitational intensities, and Einstein's law of gravity doesn't fix that.

I believe that classical theories, by which I guess you mean Newton, would say that gravity has no effect at all on light. 

[atyclb]

Measuring light deflection

1919 saw the first successful attempt to measure the gravitational deflection of light. Two British expeditions were organized and sponsored by the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Society. Each of the two groups took photographs of a region of the sky centered on the Sun during the May 1919 total solar eclipse and compared the positions of the photographed stars with those of the same stars photographed from the same locations in July 1919 when the Sun was far from that region of the sky. The results showed that light was deflected, and also that this deflection was consistent with general relativity but not with "Newtonian" physics. The subsequent publicity catapulted Einstein to world fame, and led to his having the only ticker-tape parade ever held for a scientist on Broadway in New York City.

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection

[boomerangutang]

Einstein once said, in his waning years, that if he could go back and do his life over again, he would be a plumber.   Was he joking?   I'm a plumber, and I like the little challenges - much of it like 3-d puzzles.

[avvocato]

17 minutes ago, atyclb said:

Measuring light deflection

*** The subsequent publicity catapulted Einstein to world fame, and led to his having the only ticker-tape parade ever held for a scientist on Broadway in New York City.

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection

But alas no Nobel Prize (for this) ... BTW Nat Geo Channel has a very good series about Einstein's life  this season - Genius. The measuring of light deflection was an episode.

Edited June 8, 2017 by avvocato

[Dumbastheycome]

Back  to  reality. Einstein readily  admitted  his   "theory"  was   mathematically  not perfect because  he  was  pushed  to submit it  to satisfy  his   controllers.

So  apart  from possibly confirming  that  his  singular   genius was theoretically very intuative what  does  it  actually benefit  us  today ? 

Will  we  now  be treated  o a  new  rash  of   wise   quotes written on  his   behalf  or   perhaps   S  Hawkins   will  wheel in  and  add  some  further increasingly  erratic  comment.. 

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Back  to  reality. Einstein readily  admitted  his   "theory"  was   mathematically  not perfect because  he  was  pushed  to submit it  to satisfy  his   controllers.

So  apart  from possibly confirming  that  his  singular   genius was theoretically very intuative what  does  it  actually benefit  us  today ? 

Will  we  now  be treated  o a  new  rash  of   wise   quotes written on  his   behalf  or   perhaps   S  Hawkins   will  wheel in  and  add  some  further increasingly  erratic  comment.. 

Source of this "mathematically not perfect" citation. I couldn't find anything like it via google.

And I don't understand at all the point of the rest of your comments.

 

[atyclb]

i humbly accept is is well beyond my capability to begin to comprehend what went on inside einsteins head.

 

One quote by einstein i very much love due to its great respect, admiration and humility

 

“Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth. (said of Mahatma Gandhi)”

 

 

[Richard W]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I believe that classical theories, by which I guess you mean Newton, would say that gravity has no effect at all on light. 

That's not the reading of his Query 1 "Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays; and is not this action (cæteris paribus) strongest at the least distance?".

[Dumbastheycome]

22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Source of this "mathematically not perfect" citation. I couldn't find anything like it via google.

And I don't understand at all the point of the rest of your comments.

 

Try  this  ...www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/indexcfm?postid=1650562386634195859

 

The   constant   c  in his  equation  was   based  on   the  assumption  the   " universe " as  such  is  in a static state. Therefore his   mathematical   constant  c is  not  a  possible  because  it is  now  known the  universe  is  not static.

An Irish   Mathematician actually   improved  on   c but  because  even he  could  not  provide   a perfect  constant  to  fit   e=mc etc his  result  has  been ignored.

The  smaller the  application  of  Einsteins  theory  the  more  accurate it  gets  because  the  nano percentage of  variables are less.  But applying it  to  the  expanse  of the  universe  quickly  demonstrates  it  is  a  very  perceptive  attempt  at   but  very  deficient in  defining what is  still  not  understood mathematically  or  otherwise.

Which is  why it  remains  a  "theory" and  not a  Law of physics. 

As  to  the  rest of  my  comments.....maybe as  explanation....All  credit   to  Einstein  for  his   attempt but  why is  the  world  left  with  so  many  Space  Cadets  trying  and  sometimes  succeeding  only  in   screwing  up or  distracting  the   very  constant  expectations  of  ordinary  humble  people with  humbug ?

[ilostmypassword]

This sentence give

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Try  this  ...www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/indexcfm?postid=1650562386634195859

 

The   constant   c  in his  equation  was   based  on   the  assumption  the   " universe " as  such  is  in a static state. Therefore his   mathematical   constant  c is  not  a  possible  because  it is  now  known the  universe  is  not static.

An Irish   Mathematician actually   improved  on   c but  because  even he  could  not  provide   a perfect  constant  to  fit   e=mc etc his  result  has  been ignored.

The  smaller the  application  of  Einsteins  theory  the  more  accurate it  gets  because  the  nano percentage of  variables are less.  But applying it  to  the  expanse  of the  universe  quickly  demonstrates  it  is  a  very  perceptive  attempt  at   but  very  deficient in  defining what is  still  not  understood mathematically  or  otherwise.

Which is  why it  remains  a  "theory" and  not a  Law of physics. 

As  to  the  rest of  my  comments.....maybe as  explanation....All  credit   to  Einstein  for  his   attempt but  why is  the  world  left  with  so  many  Space  Cadets  trying  and  sometimes  succeeding  only  in   screwing  up or  distracting  the   very  constant  expectations  of  ordinary  humble  people with  humbug ?

This sentence give reveals the nonsense that is behind this article:

"Which is  why it  remains  a  "theory" and  not a  Law of physics." 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

This sentence give

This sentence give reveals the nonsense that is behind this article:

"Which is  why it  remains  a  "theory" and  not a  Law of physics." 

Which?  This  topic  or  the   web page?

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Dumbastheycome said:

Which?  This  topic  or  the   web page?

web page

[Dumbastheycome]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

web page

Why  so?  That  was  one  I  found   quickly. BUt   my  original  comment  was  based  on  something  from  years  back  and  before   Google.

Einstein  may have been the accredited originator  of the  mathematical  equation  but back in the 1800's the  same  equation had  been used although  with a  different  value  for  C  .

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Why  so?  That  was  one  I  found   quickly. BUt   my  original  comment  was  based  on  something  from  years  back  and  before   Google.

Einstein  may have been the accredited originator  of the  mathematical  equation  but back in the 1800's the  same  equation had  been used although  with a  different  value  for  C  .

possibly you are referring to this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/

[Dumbastheycome]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

possibly you are referring to this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/

To  some of the  references  in that  but as I said  my  comment  was  based  on literature  from approximately 40  years ago. lol

 

My  personal interpretation  of the  equation is Existence = Mindless Counting Squared.

[Scott]

A post which may have been meant humorously but was still a flame has been removed.   Also removed are posts which violate Fair Use Policy.

 

Please don't quote more than 3 sentences and then a link to the remainder of an article.  

 

[atyclb]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

This sentence give

This sentence give reveals the nonsense that is behind this article:

"Which is  why it  remains  a  "theory" and  not a  Law of physics." 

 

one thing einstein never counted on or theorized was the thaivisa forum  and its intrinsic academia 

Edited June 10, 2017 by atyclb

[IMA_FARANG]

I am nor a physics geek, but unless I am wrong (quite possible) the apparent path of the light from such a star is different from the actual path traveled by light from such a star due to the "local curvature{ of the space-time matrix" the light passes through.

This effect reddens the observed light from the star, and makes the calculation of the distance from the star more difficult to measure it's actual position and distance.

This is known as " redshift" to astronomers. and complicates the problem of measuring the real distance to a massive star.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

8 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

I am nor a physics geek, but unless I am wrong (quite possible) the apparent path of the light from such a star is different from the actual path traveled by light from such a star due to the "local curvature{ of the space-time matrix" the light passes through.

This effect reddens the observed light from the star, and makes the calculation of the distance from the star more difficult to measure it's actual position and distance.

This is known as " redshift" to astronomers. and complicates the problem of measuring the real distance to a massive star.

 

Quite  an  accurate overview as  to  effect on measurement of distance  and position .

However  assumptions  are  still  being  made by  many that  time  is a  constant as  established  by the  recognized  speed of  light for  one. Also assumed  that  light  from a  very  distant  source  does  not  get   "tired".

Or  the  accepted  concept  of  an expanding  universe from a  non established  centre does  not  retract  from  the  actual  speed of  light  from a   retreating  source. Or  that   light  from a  source  that is  now  extinct has  not  been  deviated  from   a path  more  than  one  time  by  influences  unknown.

Is  time  a  constant  at all?  Or  is  it  too  stretched  by  the  expanding  universe?

All  fascinating  in  one  sense.

But  bloody  pointless to the  vast majority of daily  human  endeavours of earthly  existence.

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

I am nor a physics geek, but unless I am wrong (quite possible) the apparent path of the light from such a star is different from the actual path traveled by light from such a star due to the "local curvature{ of the space-time matrix" the light passes through.

This effect reddens the observed light from the star, and makes the calculation of the distance from the star more difficult to measure it's actual position and distance.

This is known as " redshift" to astronomers. and complicates the problem of measuring the real distance to a massive star.

 

redshift is 99.9%y a phenomen caused by how fast a star is receding from the viewer.. It's exactly analagous to the doppler effect in the case of sound waves. The common example being as an ambulance with the siren on approaches you each sound wave is slightly shorter than the previous one so the siren sound like it's getting higher in tone. As it moves away from you and the waves get stretched, it sounds like it's getting lower in tone.