Requiem for Relativity

Bart,

I believe I have figured out part of our misunderstanding.

What an astronomer calls "stellar aberation", a physicist calls "angular displacement". As a physicist rather than an astronomer, I think in terms of angular displacement. And I am aware of four different phenomena that can cause an object to exhibit angular displacement relative to where I think it ought to be. (There may be others.)

<ul><li>aberration angle (caused by observer motion perpendicular to the particle or wave being observed)</li>
<li>lead angle (caused by target motion perpendicular to the observer)</li><ul>
<li>lead angle is actually the same thing as aberration angle, but the observer is firing a particle or wave at the target instead of observing a particle or wave comming from the target</li></ul>
<li>media drag (caused by particle or wave motion through a surrounding medium)</li>
<li>media drift (caused by motion of the surrounding medium, through which the particle or wave moves, relative to the observer)</li><ul>
<li>if that drift is perpendicular to the path of the particle or wave, it is seen by the observer as similar to aberration</li>
<li>if that drift is parallel, it is seen as similar to drag</li></ul></ul>
Lead angle is not an issue for astronomers. But it is a problem for those who plan space missions. And duck hunters, and snipers. And navigators.) Main stream astronomers further assume that no medium is involved so drift and drag are also not an issue for them. I presume that you are not a main stream astronomer, however, so you (and I) do not have the luxury of assuming that drift and drag can not contribute to the observed angular displacement of a star or planet.

===

The total (or observed) angular displacement (stellar aberration) is actually the sum of angular displacements caused by aberration, media drift and media drag. Any of these terms, or all of them, can be zero under the right circumstances.

If there is an aether (a light carrying medium) and if it contributes to the observed angular displacement of a particular star, that contribution should be listed separately and called drift. Drag seems to be always zero, whether light is assumed to propagate as wave or particle.

===

When drift is present, it is separate from the aberration contribution caused by the observer's motion. But both cause the object to be displaced from where it "ought" to be. Drift is a possible cause for some of the unexpected angular position observations being discussed here.

Regards,
LB

Examples of "Reverse Occultation" ?
assabfn.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-photos...oon-occultation.html
www.icstars.com/HTML/JupiterMoon/MoonJupiter.html
When enlarging the picture of the Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon on 7 Dec 2004 9:14 UT:
spaceweather.com/occultations/07dec04/parker1_huge.jpg there is also a small overlap that can be observed.

Next steps: try to simulate the path followed by the light coming from these planets at the moments indicated.

Therebe consider the 'lead angle' as light will not arrive at the observer on Earth without a 'lead angle' (relative to the straight line between the planet and the Earth). My hypothesis is that the lead angle continues to play on the full length of the path, thereby creating a difference between the light reflected by the moon and the light from the observed planet razing by that some point on the moon.

<b>[Bart] "Therebe consider the 'lead angle' as light will not arrive at the observer on Earth without a 'lead angle' (relative to the straight line between the planet and the Earth)."</b>

Since we are observing <u>light comming from</u> a star or planet rather than <u>sending light to</u> a star, the name of the phenomenon involved is 'drift', not 'lead'.

Drift (what used to be called the 'aether wind' in the old days) does in fact act on the light beam from the moment it leaves the source to the moment it is detected. Assuming of course that there actually is a light carrying medium.

That drift can cause the star being observed to appear displaced from its actual position. Suppose that the drift between there and here is always parallel to Sol's polar axis, and in the direction from north to south. The light of a beam propagating from there to here will be carried 'downward' for the entire trip (if we define Solar north as up), causing it to appear to be 'south' of where it actually is.

The last few hours of travel for that beam will be within the entrained bubble rotating with our solar system, so there will also be a slight 'westward' angular displacement of the beam caused by this last minute change in the 'wind' direction.

-edit1-
The first few hours of travel for that beam will be within the entrained bubble rotating with the source star, so there will also be a slight '???ward' angular displacement of the beam caused by this inial 'wind' of unknown speed and direction.

Because it happens so far away, it is probably not detectable. But I mention it (belatedly) to make my discussion of the overall process more complete.
-edit1-

Finally, at the moment of observation, aberration will be added to the total observed angular displacement. So you see that relying only on an aberration calculation to know where a star is 'supposed to be' might not always be accurate.

The difference between the expected location and the observed location might be evidence for the light carrying medium. This would be especially so if there is a non-zero observed angular displacement when we expect (calculate) "stellar aberration" to be zero.

-edit2- Summary
<u>lead</u> - occurs at the instant a particle or wave leaves the source
<u>drift / drag</u> - occur continuously while a particle or wave is traveling through a medium between source and target
<u>aberration</u> - occurs at the instant a particle or wave is detected at the target

All of these, separately or in various combinations, can cause the observed particle or wave to arrive from a direction other than the stratight line between source and target.
-edit2-


LB

Searching Iowa State University's holdings of the Astronomical Journal, forward through 1960, I find some more planetary occultations by Luna that received one or more reports. Occultation of Mars by Luna, on three different dates in 1948, was reported by four different amateurs who gave little information other than contact times; the instruments used were 9.5 inch, 2 inch and 82mm refractors, and "a 12 power German infantry range finder" (AJ 54:200, 1949 & AJ 53:216, 1948).

(Also, prior to 1900, there is in the AJ a report of an occultation of Saturn by Luna, from Pulkovo Observatory. No anomalies were reported; contact times are in Pulkovo sidereal time.)

The Jan. 12-13 (GMT) 1923 occultation of Venus by Luna, was reported by three major U.S. observatories using large telescopes: the U. of Virginia 26 inch & 5 inch (AJ 35:8, 1923), the U. of Illinois 12, 4 & 2.25 inch (AJ 35:102-103), and the Cincinnati Observatory 16 & 4 inch (AJ 35:107). None reported anomalies. This occultation differed from those of 1855 and 1860, discussed in my previous post: the former occultations were of the lit side of Venus by the dark side of Luna; the 1923 occultation was of the dark side of Venus by the lit side of Luna. Emersion in 1923, would have been of the lit side of Venus from the dark side of Luna, but emersion phenomena are more difficult to observe with the eye because the planet is hidden and there is little warning that emersion is about to occur.

There will be an occultation of Venus by Luna on Aug. 13, 2012, with ingress at about 19h UT or thereabouts (I gather, somewhat later than that, in the U.S., due to lunar parallax) and egress at about 20:30 UT. (This is not to be confused with the transit of Venus across the Sun, in June 2012.)

This would have to be seen in daylight from the U.S., but, I gather, will be far enough above the horizon on the west coast, or better yet Alaska or Hawaii. It will still be night in northeast Asia and that would be the best place to see it. As in 1923, it will be the lit part of Luna covering the dark part of Venus.

Noises at sundown

At sundown, usually on a sunny winter day when the temperature has been near zero Celsius, I have on about four recent evenings heard one or two loud "crack" sounds resembling either distant gunfire or a breaking branch. One, was more like a cannon or a large, loud, distant fireworks explosion. I've heard these sounds from two different farmsteads, but am unsure whether they come from the direction of trees or the direction of farm buildings. All the times I've heard them, they have been from the north or northwest, even though many trees and farm buildings lay in other directions.

I thought it might be freezing water in trees causing branches or trunks to crack. A neighboring farmer suggested that when the winter sun suddenly stops shining on the vertical metal wall of a farm building, sudden contraction of the metal might cause the cracking sound.

Today I timed it. I found that the two cracks I heard, were five minutes and six minutes after sundown (sun center at zero elevation).