Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 15 Nov 2011 :  16:02:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon on 7 Dec 2004 9:14 UT:
http://spaceweather.com/occultations/07dec04/parker1_huge.jpg
Both Europa and Ganymede are visible on the pictures (which should allow for a more precise localisation)
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2011 :  17:58:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hundreds of stars are occulted by our moon every month. Can these very events be used to establish data needed here? The planets passing stars also might reveal the data you need(?).
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2011 :  05:33:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Additional occultations of moon/star, moon/planet and planet/star should indeed point us in the right direction.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2011 :  04:48:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon on 7 Dec 2004 9:14 UT:
http://spaceweather.com/occultations/07dec04/parker1_huge.jpg

The location of the observation : N 25 39' 5.00" W 80 16' 42.00"

Using Stellarium, I identified the location on Earth that would correspond with the observed positions of Jupiter, Ganymedes and Europa as:
N 25 51' 5.00" W 81 50' 51.98"

Google Earth calculates the distance between both locations as 99 miles / 159 km.

So aberration must be causing a true displacement of the path followed by the light. To know the exact amount displacement near the Moon, the 99 miles/159 km needs to be adjusted downwards taking into account the angle between the surface of the Earth and the direction of the observation.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 19 Nov 2011 :  07:57:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Super Rare Event" Jupiter Grazes The Moon Photos
December 7th, 2004 - Early Morning Hours
7-Mile Bridge - The Florida Keys
http://www.mthurricane.com/jupter_graze.htm

"Jupiter is now grazing the moon ! Half of Jupiter is eclipsed by the moon. Jupiter can faintly be seen in and out for the next 2 minutes as it's light shines across the moons rocky surface. "

If we analyze the occultation at 7-Mile Bridge using Stellarium, then Jupiter should be hiding behind the Moon.
If we reposition Stellarium towards a position 99 miles in the same direction as indicated above, then we observe Jupiter grazing the Moon...
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 20 Nov 2011 :  17:53:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Taking into account the angle between the surface of the Earth and the direction of observation, the 159 km is reduced to 52 km (tangential to the direction of Moon and Jupiter).

The 52km over the distance from the Earth to the Moon corresponds to 28 arcsec.

The typical analogy that explains the Aberration of light is "Moving in the rain" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

What is missing from this analogy is that certain raindrops, although coming from the exact same direction, would need to behave differently. (ic. the raindrops coming from the Moon): as these are not 'affected' by the aberration.

The other aspect missing from this analogy is that it does not explain why light that is behind the Moon can still be visible to us.

Considering figure 2 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light.
Light is not changing direction abruptly when entering the telescope, but must be gradually changing direction long before it reaches the telescope...
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 20 Nov 2011 :  20:23:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart, Does all this data indicate anything about gravity as in the manner of Einstein's light bending idea?
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 21 Nov 2011 :  07:40:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
For certain light is bended through the effect of gravity, but this effect is neglectable in comparison with the effect that goes along with aberration. What's interesting is that only the smaller effect is recognised and accepted. Accepting the larger effect obviously has many consequences ...
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 21 Nov 2011 :  14:45:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart, What are the "many consequences" of which you speak-what is obvious to you is clear as mud to me. I would guess we can assume very little of the data you are amassing is effected by gravity of the moon and maybe none of it is a gravity effect. Is that right or wrong?
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 22 Nov 2011 :  13:35:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The gravity of the moon has absolutely no effect: the magnitude and direction of Stellar Aberration (for stars) can be calculated with just the velocity of the observer relative to the direction of where the light is coming from.

The only thing that moon is doing:
- it is preventing light from getting through
- it provides us with a reference point in the sky of which we know that is not affected by stellar aberration (or at least minimally)

The fact that the velocity of the observer is the only parameter (next to the speed of light) that plays a role did lead to the 'obvious' conclusion that stellar aberration must be occuring nearby the observer. If we claim that stellar aberration cannot happen near the observer, then there must be 'something else' that shares the velocity of the observer (Earth) and this 'something else' must be carrying light.

Accepting a light-carrying medium has "many consequences" as it triggers too many unanswered questions ...
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 25 Nov 2011 :  10:01:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Suppose you use a rocket to hover motionless above the surface of Sol, adjust your altitude to be 1 AU, and wait for Earth to fly past you.

As it does you and another observer (on Earth) take simultaneous measurements of the aberration of light from the same star. He gets a value of 20" (because of his tangental speed), you get a value of 0" (because of your tangental speed). Whether there is a light carrying medium or not.

Aberration does not occur in space or in the telescope tube. It occurs in your eyeball. Or in your CCD camera.

===

Suppose there is an LCM, and parts of it are rotating with Sol and other parts of it are co-moving with the planets. The observer on the rocket is then probably not going to get a reading of exacty zero.

This, it seems to me, is the effect we need to be wondering about. A variation in observed aberration that is not a result of " ... just the velocity of the observer relative to the direction of where the light is coming from."

Supose we observe (from near Earth's equator) a star nearly overhead at midnight, and another nearly overhead at noon. And suppose there is an LCM. Light from the first star will be carried sideways, in one direction only, by the orbiting LCM, causing a small change in the direction it comes from. (This is a physical change in direction, whereas aberration is an apparent change in direction, but both require us to adjust our telescope a little.)

Light from the second star will be carried sideways first in one direction, then in the opposite direction, causing two small changes in the direction it comes from. Since these two changes are of opposite sign, they will tend to cancel. But they are not likely to be the same magnitude so they are not likely to cancel to zero.

===

If we assume that the LCM near the ecliptic is moving at the same speed as each planet at any given distance from Sol (even if that planet is presently on the other side of Sol), it ought to be possible to estimate the magnitude of this "drift effect". Then it ought to be possible to estimate how precise our observations must be, in order to detect this effect.

===

I suspect that this effect is too small to be detectable right now. But I'm not familliar with how aberration is measured by astronomers, so I could be wrong. There are a number of unknowns involved as well, such as how far out Sol's statically entrained LCM bubble extends (probably not way-far beyond Neptune/Pluto), and what happens at the transition zone between static entrainment and dynamic entrainment (probably similar to turbulence, in some ways, but not in other ways).

I still owe you a more accurate and complete discussion of my thoughts about the physical nature of the elyson particle field, so you can better understand some of my conclusions.


Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 25 Nov 2011 :  12:23:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
On the topic of stellar aberration, you may want to read how James Bradley measured the effect (while in search for the effect of parallax) http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2441.

An eyeball or CCD Camera has a lens and a sensor which are physically separated from each other.
As such, these are the equivalent of a telescope tube.

Once the light hits the sensor, the light hits a different place then what you would expect without aberration.
So aberration must occur before hitting the sensor.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 25 Nov 2011 :  13:42:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If it did, the observer in the hovering rocket would get the same reading as the observer right next to him on the orbiting planet.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 26 Nov 2011 :  07:55:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "An eyeball or CCD Camera has a lens and a sensor which are physically separated from each other.
As such, these are the equivalent of a telescope tube."


OK, I'll concede the point. Thank you.

Aberration is an APPARENT change in the direction of a particle or wave caused by the motion of the observer. In the case of a particle it can exist whether or not the particle travels through a medium of some sort.

Aberration occurs at the point of observation. A single particle or wave, observed by three different observers in mutual relative motion, can simultaneously have three different aberration values.

    EDIT -

    A single particle or wave, observed by three different observers in mutual relative motion, MUST simultaneously have three different aberration values.

===

The phenomenon you are talking about - a phenomenon that also changes the angle of arrival of a light beam, but that occurs out in space - is independent from the phenomenon of aberration.

===

This other phenomenon, a drift phenomenon, is a PHYSICALLY REAL change in the arrival direction of a particle or wave caused by the motion of a physically real medium through which the particle or wave has traveled or propagated.

Our three observers in mutual motion will all measure the same drift angle, after each corrects for his (ususally larger) individual aberration angle.


Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 26 Nov 2011 :  12:20:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Aberration is an APPARENT change in the direction of a particle or wave caused by the motion of the observer. "

I understand that this is how stellar aberration described, but this description does not explain the following paradox:

Suppose a star is just behind the border of the moon and that the magnitude and direction of stellar aberration are as such that the star appears right next to the moon: how can a star (that is supposed to be obscured) become visible through a local (apparent) effect?

Instead of using the moon as a reference object, one could observe stars passing behind an object on a mountain.
The object on the mountain is not subject to stellar aberration wheras the stars passing behind are.
The effect of stellar aberration does not cause stars to be displayed on top of the object.
Rather: the stars are visible/invisible based on their apparent direction relative to the object (on not based on their true direction).
This effect can only be explained if the aberration takes place before reaching the object and goes hand-in-hand with a true physical displacement.

I agree that the observers travelling in mutual relative motion must observe different aberration values ...
An observer on Earth would measure the drift angle while the other observers would need to correct for their relative motion.
The Earth and the Moon are both 'static' relative to surrounding medium and that's why observers on both of them see each other without aberration.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 27 Nov 2011 :  20:25:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "Suppose a star is just behind the border of the moon and that the magnitude and direction of stellar aberration are as such that the star appears right next to the moon: how can a star (that is supposed to be obscured) become visible through a local (apparent) effect?"

Our imaginations frequently fail us, but let me give this another try.

I'll use our three observers (A, B and C) again, but this time all three are in rockets. This change is not needed, but perhaps it will make a diference in how the example is processed in your mind?

All three are observing the light arriving from star S.

A is still hovering above Sol, stationary with respect to the incoming light beam.

B (who was previously our observer on Earth) is now orbiting Sol in a ship at one AU, with speed of 30 kps perpendicular to the incoming beam from S, in the same direction as Earth orbits.

C (who was previously not described in much detail) is now orbiting Sol in a ship at one AU, with speed of 30 kps perpendicular to the incoming beam from S, in the opposite direction as Earth orbits.

A sees the beam moving radially inward toward Sol (aberration angle = zero)
B sees the beam moving in at an angle from in front of him (aberration angle = +X)
C also sees the beam moving in at an angle from in front of him (but remember he is in retrograde orbit, so aberration angle = -X)


                                    (S)
                           S_b      
                             \      S_a    
                              \      |       S_c
                               \     |       /
                                \    |      /
                                 \   |     /
                                  \  |    /
                                   \ |   /
                               <--  B|  /
                                     A /
                                      C -->

                  FIG 1    A, B and C see S at different locations



The orbits are timed so that B and C pass closest to A at the same instant, as shown above in Fig 1.

(
I'm trying to inject a little bit of a 3-D effect into my artwork. None of my coordinate axes are shown in either drawing, so I will describe them for you.

(A is at the origin of my coordinate system. )

The X axis passes through A and extends horizontally to the left and right.

The Y axis passes through A, but it slants up/left so that it also passes through B and down/right so that it also passes through C.

The Z axis passes through A, extending vertically up and down, and is the path followed by the light beam from S to A (shown by the vertial dashed line).

The diagonal dashed line from B to S_b is that same beam, seen from B's moving frame.
The diagonal dashed line from C to S_c is that same beam, seen from C's moving frame.
)

Even though all three observers are observing the same star from the same place at the same time, aberration causes each to see the star S at a different position in the sky.

Aberration does not change the path of the light beam (so the direction change is apparent, not physical), but it does require the observer to point his telescope in a different direction (so the aiming change is physical, not apparent).

Aberration has both apparent and physical effects.

===

Let there be an occultation event:

===

Earth and Luna are somewhere else in their orbits, so to create an occultation event I will suddenly invoke a fourth rocket, O, moving between the observers and the star with a speed of 31 kps (1 kps faster than B) perpendicular to the incoming beam from S, in the same direction as Earth orbits. (O is large relative to the distance between the observers and about 400,000 km from them, meaning that parallax can be neglected as a source of timing difference among the observations.)



                                    

                                    (S)
                           S_b     
                             \      S_a O      
                              \      | OOO   S_c
                               \     |OOOOO  /
                                \<---OOOOOOO/
                                 \    OOOOO/ 
                                  \    OOO/
                                   \    O/
                               <--  B   /
                                     A /
                                      C -->

                   FIG 2   A has just observed the occultation of S


At the instant when the leading edge of O blocks the light beam for A, observer B (simulating the Earth based observer from the previous version of this example) can still see the beam and observer C (who actually observed the occultation event begin a bit earlier) is just now seeing S re-appear on the back side of O

FIG 2 is an attempt to depict this new situation.

(I could have chosen the size of O to be larger, in which case C would still not be able to see S at the time A first observes occultation. And so on.)


Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2011 :  08:36:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've been thinking about my attempt to add some 3D effect to my artwork. I did this to make it more informative. To make it easier for you to see in your mind's eye what I see in my mind's eye.

But life has taught me that accurate communication with another mind is not as easy as it ought to be. I say po-TAY-to, you say po-TAH-to. Do we really mean the same thing? The same word can mean different things to different people.

And packing more information into a single drawing is not always the best way to convey more information.

Anyway, I've decided to reproduce my Fig 1 from above with a little more detail, in the hope that I will not further muddy the water. Any comments you might have are welcome.



Fig 1.1 is the original Fig 1.
Fig 1.2 shows only the coordinate axes used in 1.1



                               (S)
                      S_b      
                        \      S_a    
                         \      |       S_c                z 
                          \     |       /                  .
                           \    |      /                   .
                            \   |     /                .   .
                             \  |    /                  .  .
                              \ |   /                    . .
                          <--  B|  /                      ..
                                A /                 ................. x
                                 C -->                     ..
                                                           . .
                                                           .  .
                           Fig 1.1                         .   .
                                                           .    y
 
                                                       Fig 1.2




                               (S)



                     S_b       S_a        S_c
                       \         |         /
                        \        |        /
                         \       |       /
                          \      |      /
                           \     |     / 
                            \    |    /                  z
                             \   |   /                   .
                              \  |  /                    .
                               \ | /                     .
                                \|/                      .
                             <-- C -->          .........y......... x
                                                         .
                                                         .
                     Fig 1.3                             .

                                                   Fig 1.4

Fig 1.3 is Fig 1.1 with the attempt at 3D removed. Observer C is closest to you, so you cannot see A behind him and you cannot see B behind A. The y axis now comes straight up out of the page (or screen).
Fig 1.4 shows only the coordinate axes used in Fig 1.3 (Of course it is the same coordinate system, seen from a different angle.)

The dashed lines in Fig 1.1 and 1.3 still represent the light beam from S to each one of the observers, as seen by each particular observer.

If there is anything about the individual figures, or about them as a group, that is not clear, please ask. If I have failed to communicate, I cannot know that without feedback.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2011 :  16:26:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Our three observers (A, B and C) will indeed observe star S with different aberration angles. The magnitude and orientation of the aberration can exactly be calculated as described and the observers will indeed need to re-point their respective telescopes accordingly.

If we now look at the representation of occultation event: rocket O blocks the light beam for A and as a consequence, A can no longer see star S.

This is exactly where the paradox comes in: let's compare rocket 0 with the light passing the moon.

While rocket O has just come in between star S and observer A, A can still observe star S ... Tom Van Flandern pointed out that with the orbital velocity of the moon, a star S can be observed for an additional 40 seconds (for a star showing an aberration of 20 arcsec) from the moment when star S has gotten behind the border of the moon).

Imagine a balloon passing by at night: would our star S whose apparent position is right next to the balloon be invisible because its true direction is behind the balloon?


So how does this all fit together?

The pictures are missing one essential component: the light carrying medium.

For on observer who is completely 'static' relative to the light carrying medium, the aberration is occuring while the light is travelling through the solar system. The observed aberration equals the velocity/direction of the light carying medium (near the observer) relative to the 'static' star S. The aberration takes place where the tangential velocity of the light carrying medium is changing. (the formula to be used is exactly the same formula used to calculate the stellar aberration but the value changes only gradually with tiny increments ...)

For on observer who is in motion relative to the light carrying medium, there are two forms of aberration that add up to each other:
- the aberration that would be observed by the 'static observer' who is static relative to the light carying medium
- the aberration caused by the difference in speed of the observer relative to the the light carrying medium.

The observed magnitude and direction of the aberration (for a star S) can be determined in exactly the same way for a 'static' observer and for an observer in motion. So in order to calculate the aberration for any of the observers (in rocket A, B and C), the most simple approach is to assume that the aberration takes place near each of these observers and is only dependent on the tangential speed relative to the direction of the incoming light (and the observers will need to re-orient their telescopes accordingly).

We only need to consider the aberration occuring in the light carrying medium when we observe objects (Moon, Planets) for which we know that the observed aberration is different from the value calculated for stellar aberration (whereby we only need to consider the speed of the observer relative to the incoming light).

If we observe the stellar aberration for a star S right next to the moon or right next to a planet, we know that the stellar aberration for that star S is different from the aberration observed for the moon/planet (in addition to the effect of light-time correction).

I calculated the aberration for Jupiter as observed during the occulation by the moon on 7-Dec-2004 and published on:
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/3802

What is interesting is that the observed (and calculated) planetary aberration for Jupiter was larger than the value of the stellar aberration observed for star S right next to Jupiter ...

Go to Top of Page

Michiel

Netherlands
85 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2011 :  17:34:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And I say po-TOO-to (please forgive my outrageous accent).
Here's an attempt to do Larry's figure 1 with less detail.

In this diagram, O moves along with A. What O observes is also shown:


S    S_O  S_A
|   /    /
|  /    /
| /    /
|/    /
O--> /
|   /
|  /
| /
|/
A-->


And in this diagram, O is stationary with respect to S:


S         S_A
|        /
|       /
|      /
|     /
O    O_A
|   /
|  /
| /
|/
A-->


If I understand correctly, S_A should be occluded by O_A in the second diagram.

___

So far, the star S was considered to be stationary, and A was moving.
In special relativity it's allowed to switch to the frame where A is stationary (for linear paths, at least).


<--S    S_O  S_A
   |   /    /
   |  /    /
   | /    /
   |/    /
   O    /
   |   /
   |  /
   | /
   |/
   A   


<--S         S_A
   |        /
   |       /
   |      /
   |     /
<--O    O_A
   |   /
   |  /
   | /
   |/
   A


This looks like a simple light-time correction.
___

If we observe a binary star, where the speed relative to the observer will differ a lot between both stars, we still see a simple light-time correction. Aberration is (almost) the same for both stars.
Of course, in this case the paths are not linear ...

[Sorry Larry, how do you make the board not eat the spaces in your diagrams? (Added code tags, apologies for the edit-spam)]

Edited by - Michiel on 28 Nov 2011 17:39:16
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2220 Posts

Posted - 28 Nov 2011 :  17:41:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I see someone gave you the secret. Good job.

(It's not spam. It's a switchable function in the editor.)

The speed of light is the same for all observers. (All wave phenomena have this property.) So even if the source of the light is changing speed, the light that we see is not. Aberration is a function of the speed of the incoming particle or wave, not a function of the speed of the source of that particle or wave.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 5.02 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03