Requiem for Relativity

There was an occultation of Mercury two days ago, Oct. 28. The next planetary occultation by Luna, is of Jupiter, June 17, 2012. This is said not to be visible from any populated area. Maybe someone could see it from a ship or airplane.

I see from an online source, that the next planetary occultation after this, by Luna, in 2012, is July 15 - again Jupiter. It will be visible in France, Egypt, Kamchatka & Japan, but the rectangle defined by these corners, curves northward so India is excluded.

Hereby an attempt for a physical explanation ...

If we start from the assumption that there is a particle field that we call 'elysium' comprised of the individual particles called elysons.
The elysons have a velocity exceeding the speed of light and interact continuously with each other through elastic collisions.

If we give one elyson particle an extra momentum, then it will exchange this 'extra momentum' with the first elyson particle it elastically collides with.

If would follow the 'virtual' path followed by this 'extra momentum', then we would observe that the 'extra momentum' is not following a straight path: the position of the 'extra momentum' drifts depending on the direction from where bouncing elyson particle comes from. But the direction of the 'extra momentum' is maintained.

If we follow the 'virtual' path on a longer distance, then we will observe that the extra momentum keeps progressing close to a straight path. This is because the direction from where the bouncing elysons come from is a random process: since chances are the same for any direction, the rules of statistics will keep the 'extra momentum' close to a straight line.

The velocity at which the 'extra momentum' progresses is the speed of light (which is dependent on the average velocity of the elysons).

What happens when the 'extra momentum' is nearing a zone of higher elyson density (and equivalent lower elyson velocity)?
Suppose the elyson density is higher at the left then at the right of the direction of the 'extra momentum'; the probability for an elyson to hit another elyson is no longer equal from all directions: chances are higher that the elyson carrying the 'extra momentum' will hit an elyson at the left (zone of higher density). So the 'extra momentum' will drift towards the left where the elyson density is higher.

What happens when the 'extra momentum' is nearing a zone where elysium is drifting from left to right (a drift relative to the elysium where the light has passed through)?
Chances are bigger that the elyson carrying the 'extra momentum' will be hit by an elyson coming from the left. So here too, the 'extra momentum' will drift towards the left (against the direction of the elysium drift).

If we take the perspective of photons being waves: a wave is the synchronised movement of 'extra momentum' carried by a large set of elysons. This large set of elysons, each carying an 'extra momentum', is influencing each other in such a way that the wave keeps synchronised and aligned.

At the boundary where elyson density becomes higher, the 'extra momentum' carried by the elysons in the front part of a wave will have drifted more towards the area of higher density then elysons at the back end of the wave. In other words: the wave has changed direction. This change in direction of the wave will in turn force the direction of the 'extra momentum' of the individual elysons in the new direction of the wave. (causing light to bend towards a mass)

At the boundary where a transverse 'elysium drift' is encountered, the 'extra momentum' carried by the elysons in the front part of the wave will have drifted more against the direction of the transverse 'elysium drift' then the elysons at the back of the wave. In other words: the wave has changed direction. This change in direction of the wave will in turn force the direction of the 'extra momentum' of the elysons in the new direction of the wave (causing light to 'aberrate' against the direction of the elysium drift encountered).

If we take the hypothesis of an elysium that rotates around the solar system and whereby the rotation rate gradually increases from the boundary of the Solar System towards the Sun:

When the light coming from a star reaches the rotating elysium of the Solar System it will change direction against the direction of the of elysium flow.

Considering a star for which the light enters perpendicular onto the Solar System:

By the time the light has reached the orbit of Neptune, it will have changed direction with 4 arcsec. When light continuous its path towards the center of the Solar System it will continue to change direction (by the time it encounters the orbit of Uranus: 5 arcsec; Saturn: 7 arcsec; Saturn: 10 arcsec; Jupiter 13 arcsec; Mars: 17 arcsec; Earch: 20 arcsec; Venus: 24 arcsec; Mercury: 33 arcsec)

If, from the position on the Earth, we observe the above mentioned star, we will observe this star with a 'stellar aberration' of 20.5 arcsec. The same star observed from Jupiter will show a 'stellar aberration' of only 13 arcsec. If, for an observer on Earth, Jupiter is shown right next to this star, then we know that Jupiter is shown with an aberration of 20.5 - 13 = 7.5 arcsec.

By checking the indexes of all the Astronomical Journals through 1900, I found only two more fairly "choice" Jupiter occultation observations. These are for the March 24, 1889 occultation of Jupiter by Luna. These include 1st & 2nd contact, and were by JK Rees at Columbia College Observatory with a 13 inch scope, and by FW Peirson (FP Leavenworth, Dir.) at Haverford College Observatory (which has a 12 inch scope now, but I don't know what they had then).

I don't yet know how to interpret the times they give ("Columbia College Mean Time" and "Haverford Mean Time"). Columbia College moved, from one location to another within New York City, subsequently; I see a modern photo online of a massive old observatory in urban New York, but I don't know if it was built after the move or before. Likewise I don't know where Haverford's observatory was, then. A mere mile is, roughly, an arcminute of longitude, and that is four seconds of time.

Photos on the U. of Virginia website, www.astro.virginia.edu , show that the Leander McCormick observatory is in the same building now as in 1890 (the 26 inch telescope was dedicated in 1885).

What if we apply the proposed physical explanation to light coming from the Sun?

As per the article "The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say" on this website:
- The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position
- Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moons gravitational forces align?

This looks like a similar paradox as the one we encounter for stars that remain visible up to 40 seconds once their actual position is behind the Moon.

The explanation that is given: "As viewed from the Earths frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago."

The above explanation can be challenged in the following way: suppose for a moment that the Earth would not be rotating around is axis, then we would always observe the Sun coming from exactly the same direction. This can be explained by the fact that the amount of displacement is exactly compensated by the rotation of Earth (1 axial rotation over the course of 1 orbit rotation).

So if we observe a solar eclipse 40 seconds before the Sun, Moon and observer on Earth are fully aligned, then this means that the light coming from the Sun must have followed a curved path before arriving at the Moon.

In this article, Tom Van Flanders describes how "Gravity Has No Aberration" and how "Gravity and light do not act in parallel directions".

Linking this back to the physical explanation:
- The 'extra momentum' carried by the elysons follows a straight path
(although subject a drift, the direction of the 'extra momentum' remains the same
- EM waves/Photons follow a curved path

So there may not be a need to assume separate, extremely fast, gravity particles.

From the Wikipedia articles "Columbia Univ." & "History of Columbia Univ.", I read that in 1889, "Columbia College" was at 49th St. & Madison Ave. in Manhattan. This is about 200 meters south of where St. Patrick's Cathedral is today; I used this fact to estimate the observatory coordinates. Haverford Observatory is listed on JPL Horizons; those coordinates are near Haverford, Pennsylvania, so would be, at least, near the actual Haverford College Observatory of 1889. The difference between 1st & 2nd contact, is unaffected by the time system, and negligibly affected by the few miles of uncertainty in the position of the observatories.

My results are now:

Harvard Feb 27, 1850
observed - predicted, 1st contact: -5.2 sec
obs-pred, 2nd contact: -9.9 sec
obs-pred, duration (time between 1st & 2nd contacts): -4.8 sec

(same format as for Harvard)
Princeton, Sep 4, 1889
-6.3, -4.2, +2.1
U. of Virginia, Sep 4, 1889
+1.6, -1.7, -3.3
Lick, Sep 4, 1889
-7.4, -14.3, -6.9
Haverford, Mar 24, 1889
+2.3, -15.1, -17.5
Columbia, Mar 24, 1889
+1.5, -18.4, -19.9

mean obs-pred, 1st contact: -2.2 +/- SEM 1.8 sec
mean obs-pred, 2nd contact: -10.6 +/- SEM 2.7 sec
mean obs-pred, duration: -8.4 +/- SEM 3.5 sec

Summarizing: within the error bars, the best published 19th century U.S. timings of occultations of Jupiter by Luna, found that the 1st contact was consistent with the ephemeris, but the 2nd contact was about 8 to 10 seconds early and the duration correspondingly short.

For these six observations, the interval between 1st & 2nd contact, that is, the duration of the immersion process, is shortened the most (basically because the 2nd contact appearance is most premature) when Jupiter is near the meridian. I find Jupiter's hour angle from the meridian, by applying Napier's rules for right spherical triangles, to the JPL Horizons ephemeris apparent azimuth & elevation. Let theta be the difference in right ascension (R.A.) between Jupiter, and the meridian (i.e. right ascension of the zenith); theta is positive if Jupiter is east of the meridian and negative if Jupiter is west of it. For each of the six observations, consider two quantities:

f = observed minus predicted, for time between 1st & 2nd contacts

g = absolute value of cotangent of (Jupiter R.A. - meridian R.A.)

The correlation coefficient of f & g is -0.913, significant at 2.7 sigma by the usual approximate formula (not very accurate for n=6) given in, inter alia, Dixon & Massey, "Introduction to Statistical Analysis", 2nd ed., sec. 11-7, pp. 200-201. If 5 degrees are subtracted from the angle, Jupiter R.A. - meridian R.A., the correlation improves to -0.931, significant at 2.9 sigma.

Dr Joe, Have contacted the ESA observatory in South America about an occultation of Jupiter in 2005? It might have been recorded by them and would have been a good event. I guess most of this data never goes beyond the observatory doing the job.