Requiem for Relativity

On the topic of the curved path: for sure light is following a curved path due to the gravitational field of a mass.
But what triggered the interaction is a different form of curvature.

When we observe a star/planet at the moment when it touches the Moon:
- we know the star/planet is observed ahead of the direction from where the light originated from due to the effect of stellar aberration.
- we know that the Moon is observed with almost no aberration

So if we draw a straight line between ourselves as an observer and the direction/position where the light originated from, then we will cross the surface of the Moon. If we accept that light can't go through the surface of the Moon, it must have followed a path that is different from this straight line. (the light-time delay does not matter: we only care about where the light was emitted and don't need to care about the actual position of the star/planet)

The theory of stellar aberration assumes the aberration is happening near the observer/telescope. This assumption is supported by the fact that the direction and magnitude of the aberration allows itself to be calculated using the actual direction and exact velocity of the Earth. So if the aberration is happening elsewhere, that something else must be moving in the same direction and with the same velocity as the Earth: this is where we assume the elysium comes into play; we assume the elysium is moving along with the Earth in the same direction and with the same velocity.

The aberration must then be caused by changes in the velocity of the elysium on the path between the star/planet and the observer. The 20.5 arcseconds of stellar aberration (for stars) only requires the elysium near the Earth to be flowing at 30 km/s and the elysium outside our solar system to be flowing at 0 km/s: it does not matter where and how fast the variation takes place to attain the 20.5 arcsec: the where and how fast will only influence the shape of the path but not the magnitude and direction of the observed aberration.

The aberration for planets = the light-time correction + stellar aberration (taking into acount the relative difference in velocity with the Earth). Hypothesis: the velocity of the elysium changes gradually from 30km/s to the same speed as the planets encountered.

So the 'curved path' that is at the basis of stellar aberration is different and more significant from the 'curved path' caused by the gravitational field. Here too, we need think of light as propagating as waves.

Quoting Tom Van Flandern:
"For example, when the Moon is observed to occult [pass in front of] a star, the Earth observer sees the star displaced by 20 arc seconds from its geometric position, but sees the Moon nearly at its geometric position. Clearly, whatever displaces the starlight must happen to it before that light passes the Moon's limb, because from there on down the telescope tube the starlight and moonlight must surely remain in synchronization, photon- by-photon. It seems a reasonable inference that stellar aberration occurs at the interface between the Earth's gravitational sphere of influence and the Sun's gravity field. The same argument could be applied to double star systems to explain why their light remains synchronized."

So we can build further upon the observation/analysis provided by Tom Van Flandern. (altough taking a different assumption where it relates to the exact place where aberration occurs). The question that I am left with is why Tom's observation did not lead to more reaction ...

<b>[Bart] "...light is following a curved path due to the gravitational field of a mass."</b>

Since there are two physically distinct fields that can be, and often are, identified by the label "gravitational field", we will need to be careful about using this label without a modifer.

Mainstream astronomers are becomming sloppy about this. We can do better. Of course, sometimes it is possible to tell from context whether one means the gravitational potential field (responsible for clock slowing, light bending, radar delay and other secondary relativistic effects) or the gravitational force field (responsible for orbits and falling), becasuse an author's entire paper is about one or the other.

It will usually matter in the context of this particular discussion, because we will need to speak of both from time to time. So we ought to be specific. I am in the late stages of training myself to always say which one I mean. It does not happen over night. Be patient with yourself.

LB

Here's something to ponder: metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2813
I made a new topic, I don't want to derail this thread

Jupiter/Luna occultation timing anomalies in the 19th century

In the Astronomical Journal 1(14):112, I found a timing report for the Feb. 1850 Jupiter occultation, observed at Harvard College Observatory by WC Bond with "The Great Equatorial", a 15 inch refractor. Also in the Astronomical Journal, nos. 203 & 217, I found three choice observation reports of the Sep. 1889 Jupiter occultation; by "choice", I mean that they included the 1st & 2nd contacts (i.e. start and end of immersion; the 3rd contact, which is the start of emersion, is difficult to time as accurately with manual methods, because one is not looking exactly at the relevant point, when it happens) and were made with big telescopes. These three were by JE Keeler at Lick Observatory with a 36 inch scope (I discussed this one in my original post)(AJ 9:84); by CA Young at Princeton's Halsted Observatory with a 23 inch scope (AJ 9:83), and by Ormond Stone at the U. of Virginia's Leander McCormick Observatory with a 26 inch scope (AJ 10:4).

For these observations, I estimated the orientation of Jupiter's equator, using a line, through a Galilean moon near that moon's maximum separation: in 1850 I used Callisto and in 1889 Europa. I interpolated coordinates and apparent sizes linearly on a three minute interval, and then the net separation, quadratically on two 1.5 minute intervals. (Addendum Oct. 30: today I will also include the small, never more than 0.5 sec, approximate correction for the lack of a perfectly full Jupiter; this affects the 1st contact in 1850 and the 2nd contact in 1889.)

Bond gave "Cambridge Mean Time" which is Harvard College Observatory Mean Time; I converted this to GMT by longitude. Keeler gave Pacific Standard Time, so I only needed to add 8 hr. Young gave both GMT and Halsted Observatory sidereal time (one of Young's times was ambiguous - he wasn't sure if it was 46 or 47 minutes - but it had to be 46 minutes).

Stone gave McCormick Observatory sidereal time, which I converted to Halsted Observatory sidereal time by the longitudes, then to GMT by comparison with Young's GMT & sidereal times. Stone's time is ambiguous by at least +/- 2sec in my interpretation: even from examining Stone's other articles in the Astronomical Journal, I don't know if Stone and Young used the same equinox (equinox of date? equinox of 1889.0?) or whether they used an average equinox or an actual equinox affected by nutation. The difference due to 8 months' precession, is 50"*8/12*1/15 = 2.2sec. The difference due to using the actual nutated equinox vs. the mean equinox, is as much as 17"*1/15 = 1.1sec. Stone changed his time format often, but I found no "Rosetta Stone" for Stone, as I did for Young who gave the time in two formats. For 1885-1886 Lunar occultations of stars (AJ 7:112) Stone reported time as sidereal, using the "sidereal chronometer Bond" except for the last reported, which used "sidereal clock Parkinson & Frodsham".

Comparing the observations, with my program's results based on the online JPL Horizons ephemeris, I found:

Bond, 1850:
1st contact 5.2sec earlier than predicted, 2nd 9.9sec early

Keeler, 1889:
1st 7.4sec early, 2nd 14.3sec early (agrees with my calculation above)
Young, 1889:
1st 6.3sec early, 2nd 4.2sec early
Stone, 1889:
1st 1.6sec late, 2nd 1.7sec early

Averaging the four, the first contact was early by a mean 4.3sec, Standard Error of the Mean 2.0sec. The second contact was early by a mean 7.5sec, SEM 2.8sec. Thus, the duration between 1st & 2nd contact, was shorter than predicted, by a mean 3.2sec, SEM 1.9sec.

The 1889 occultation happened very near Jupiter's stationarity.

<b>[Bart] "The theory of stellar aberration assumes ... "</b>

This sounds like one of those astronomy things I was asking about earlier. To a physicist like me aberration theory is a very simple thing, as I outlined several posts earlier. For an astronomer it is probably a little more involved. Would you mind summarizing it for us?

(Well, for me. But I suspect there are others in the audience that are also interested.)

LB

Joe,

This specific occultation happened earlier than predictied. And its duration was shorter than predicted. I have quite a few questions, so take your time in responding. Thank you.

How often do we see occultations like this?
How often do they deviate from predicted values?
Is there a pattern to the deviations?
Can known factors be eliminated as a cause?

What about the predicted values? I assume they come from calculations based on the most widely accepted theory, starting with the most accurate observations?

What sort of chatter is there in the astronomy community, when a deviation like this happens?

And of course, do you have any personal thoughts about it?

<b>[Joe Keller] "... the 3rd contact, which is the start of emersion, is difficult to time as accurately with manual methods, because one is not looking exactly at the relevant point, when it happens"</b>

Now days I assume these events are recorded and analyzed after the fact, so that the problems associated with manual methods have been eliminated?

LB