Medium entrainment considered as flow

<b>[Bart]
"On the other hand, when we can observe a star for which we know:
- the observed displacement to be 20.5 arcsec (because direction is perpendicular to the motion of the Earth)
- the actual direction is behind the border of the Moon (in other words: would have been invisible without the 20.5 displacement)"</b>

Luna is almost, but not quite, stationary with respect to Earth. So Luna is moving relative to the background objects. The light carrying medium entrained by Earth is stationary. (I presume that this entrained volume of medium extends out to at least the orbit of Luna, but I do not know for sure.)

These factors will impact the observation details of the occulatation of a background star/planet/moon. The LCM between here and a background planet/moon will be different from the LCM between here and a background star.

So the amount of drift a light beam experiences from any of these background objects can be different from the drift experienced by the others.

The amount of aberration for observations of Luna ought to be different than the aberration for observations of background stars.

Some combination of these phenomena ought to allow for an explanation of the observed occultation.


<b>[Bart]
"Then we can logically deduct:
- the observed displacement of 20.5 arcsec cannot have occured near the observer
- the observed displacement must be occuring in a medium
- this medium must have the same speed as the Earth"</b>

Hmmm. The only part of the medium that can have the same speed as the Earth (observer) is the part that is near the observer. I suppose that there could be some LCM between here and a star that was in fact moving at the same speed and in the same direction as Earth (briefly since these numbers for Earth are always changing), but it would really have to be just coincidence. Wouldn't it?

===

Trying to analyze an anomaly is not easy. But it is fun.

Another way to reflect on aberration:
"The effect of planetary aberration on Venus transit observations "
www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/4044

Interesting enough, this effect was already described back in 1770:
A Letter from Richard Price to Benjamin Franklin on the Effect of the Aberration of Light on the Time of a Transit of Venus Over the Sun: www.jstor.org/stable/105919?seq=1

OK Bart - you are the astronomer. You are seeing anomalies in transit observation times that other astronomers cannot explain. Mostly, they seem not to care - but you do. You suspect there is a medium of some sort out there that causes light beams moving within it to shift, so that when we observe those shifted light beams they are not where they "ought" to be. The occultation happens at the wrong time.

I'm the physicist. I am working on a theory that postulates a light carrying medium. It has specific physical properties, such as entrainment by large masses, that allow it to shift light beams in specific ways.

If I can produce a picture of my medium in your mind's eye that resembles the picture in my mind's eye, it seems likely that you could process your timing anomalies with my specific medium in mind, and determine whether or not my medium has a chance of accounting for your anomalies.

If it actually did, it would probably be a big deal.

Are you interested?

If light goes in a curve, then this implies that there must be a light carrying medium. At the same time, the postulate of a light carrying medium is what keeps scientists/astronomers walk away from the 'problem statement' as it looks to be disapproving proven theories. I would be reluctant to believe that scientists wouldn't care.

I follow the reasoning that the light carrying medium interacts with masses (as the light carrying medium must have a mass itself). This interaction is what was being measured with Gravity Probe B.

To picture what I have in mind:

The way I envision the light carrying medium is that the Solar System is a sort of 'cyclone' of light carrying medium with the Sun (almost) at the center. Within this cyclone, the planets are rotating with about the same speed as the surrounding light carrying medium. So from the perspective of the planets, the light carrying medium looks to be somewhat 'static' which was the topic of investigation of the Michelson Morley experiment.

This MMX experiment included 2 postulates:
a.- there is a light carrying medium
b.- the light carrying medium is either static or moves in a linear direction
The expected outcome was to measure a velocity of the light carrying medium of at least 30km/s.

Since the outcome of the experiment did not meet the expectations, postulate (a) was rejected;
In my opinion, postulate (b) should have been rejected instead.

At the same time, the light-carrying medium is the basis of 'magnetism'.
If you hold a magnet, then image the light-carrying medium to rotate around the magnet in the same direction as the electrons. If you hold another magnet next to it with the magnetic poles pointing in the same direction:
the light-carrying medium between the two magnets will rotate faster because the rotations of both magnets add up to each other. The 'bernouilli effect' will make the two magnets to attract each other thereby providing a 'causal effect' that explains the magnetic force.

If a rotating light carrying medium is what constitutes a magnetic field, then the solar system must be one giant magnet of which the magnetic field is getting stronger when getting closer to the Sun.
As a consequence: the Sun must be surrounded with a strong magnetic field.

The position of the Sun changes all the time dependent on the position of the planets that pull on it.
As a consequence the Sun is accelerating/decelarating periodically.
In the paper: www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3647 I indicate that the acceleration/decelaration of the Sun correlates with Sun magnetic field.

This would mean that the magnetic field of the Sun is caused by magnetic induction (a Sun as a conductor moving in a strong magnetic field).

Going back to the 'cyclone model' of the solar system. If a planet would find itself 'above' the plane of the cyclone of light-carrying medium, then the light carrying medium below would be faster then light-carrying medium above. As a consequence of the Bernouilli effect, the planet will be pulled back into the plane of the cyclone. This in turn would explain why the plane of the planets are largely aligned with each other.

Interested to interact on the topic although I am doing this in my free time and out of intellectual curiosity (calling it hobbyphysics...).

Although this is more than a hobby for me, I understand the problem of limited time. It applies to me also. Happily, there is no deadline for this enterprise.

<b>[Bart] "The way I envision the light carrying medium is that the Solar System is a sort of 'cyclone' of light carrying medium with the Sun (almost) at the center."</b>

Suppose we use a different solar system as our example for a while? This system has a single star with about the same mass as Sol. But it has no planets, no moons, no asteroids or comets. And, the star is not rotating. Never has rotated since it formed almost 4 billion years ago.

Now, what does the entrained LCM bubble for this solar system look like?

If the star has not been rotating for 4 billion years, then would indicate that there is no rotating LCM bubble around it. Otherwise the star would have been forced to rotate through entrainment.

On the other hand, if such a star would be put into the plane of the galaxy (which itself is a rotating LCM bubble in the form of a cyclone), then this 'static' star would be forced to rotate and form a rotating LCM bubble around it (entrained through the Coriolis effect acting on the LCM).

At the level of the planets, I would assume the disks of Saturn and Jupiter to be contained in an LCM bubble rotating around these planets. This bubble enforces a flat disk-like structure (through the Bernouilli effect), similar to the structure of the Solar System.