Requiem for Relativity

<b>[Bart] "... 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."</b>

Elysium is the particle field postulated to be responsible for the propagation of EM wave energy. Therefore, the instantaneous velocity of individual elyson particles with respect to each place on (and near) the surface of Earth (and presumably every other substantial mass) is, or rather must be, approximately zero [m/sec]. This also means that each particle (near the surface of a substantial mass) is, or rather must be, approximately stationary with respect to each of its neighbors.

Any other answer conflicts with daily observation of all sorts of physical phenomena, and would <u>instantly falsify the hypothesized particle field.</u>

Most of the rest of your suggested explanation depends on your assumption of high relative speed, and therefore must be incorrect.

===

BUT ...

... your speculation is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for. Please adjust your assumptions to match the large body of observations we have been making over the decades, and try again.

21st Century Gravity (Tom Van Flandern):
jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volu...tCenturyGravity1.pdf

"In the elysium model, each elyson has a vibration or oscillation speed that must be slightly faster than the wave speed of that medium. Specifically, if elysium were an ideal gas, average elyson speed would be 3c / sqrt(5)".

This is the basis of my assumption ...

Tonight I checked the indexes of every volume that the ISU library has on the shelf, of the Astronomical Journal 1901-1943 (previously I'd checked from the beginning through 1900). There is an index volume for 1944-1975 and I checked that too. There were no more articles about Jupiter occultations by Luna.

I've also checked all years, all languages, all publication types, in "Web of Science" by searching the topic "Jupiter AND occultation" (288 hits). I found an interesting article on simultaneous planetary occultations by Luna, but the data in it aren't precise enough for my purpose (immersion times given only to the minute). A 1983 Sky & Telescope article on an occultation of Jupiter by Luna, likewise lacks precise information (times only to the minute). There is another Sky & Telescope article from 1969 (which I haven't seen as of Nov. 5) and a worthwhile article in Radio Science from 1970, but the library is closing and I don't have time to look at these tonight.

Addendum Nov. 5: at the Drake Univ. library, I checked the indexes of all the volumes (two volumes lacked indexes) of Astronomische Nachrichten that they had on the shelf, through vol. 240 (1930). I checked the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, three index volumes covering 1939 through 1970. Neither journal had articles about Jupiter occultations by Luna, in the volumes that I checked (except for one report in PASP with a 6 inch telescope and missing 1st contact time).

The abovementioned Radio Science article is by Gulkis, Radio Science 5:505-511, 1970; Drake Univ. has it on the shelf. Gulkis says (p. 505) that as a radio source, Jupiter is several times bigger than as an optical source, and has very fuzzy edges so that an exponential fit had to be used to describe its limits. Gulkis also says (p. 508) that in his and previous studies, the eastern part of the Jupiter radio source (the occultation by Luna allowed the determination of Jupiter's radio brightness as a function of east-west position) was more intense than the western part. He hesitated to draw conclusions, citing the scatter in his data, but my suggestion is that the eastern part of Jupiter somehow was compressed in appearance by the occultation, so that its intensity would be greater, and also so that the "2nd contact" would occur sooner.

Tom is speaking of the vibration speed of the particles. In all media (such as air, water, steel) each particle is *typically* at rest with respect to each other particle until some wave energy passes by. Then each particle will move away from its equilibrium point as far as the forces holding it in place allow, then move back to and past the equilibrium point, as far in the other direction as physics allows, and finally return to its equilibrium point.

As it moves first to, and then fro, it passes the wave energy on to the next particle in line. While moving to and fro, the particle accelerates to a maximum speed, decelerates to zero, accelerates again, and so on, until it comes back to rest at its particular equilibrium point.

The maximum speed it reaches while doing this is 3 * v / sqrt(5), where v is the propagation speed of the wave energy in the medium. In the case of EM waves, v = c, and IF elysium behaves like an ideal gas (I do not think it does - but that is pure theoretical speculation, I have no evidence to back it up) then this relation describes part of the behavior of an elyson as it passes wave energy along to a neighbor. Before and after this event, however, the elyson would be just sitting there, humming quietly with its neighbors.

===

MMX and similar experiments all tell us that if there is anything like an aether it must be stationary with respect to the surface of Earth (and for at least some distance above the surface as well). Otherwise we would detect a doppler shift as we point the experiement in various directions.

Logic dictates that this must also be true on other substantial masses, such as Venus or Jupiter. But we do not (yet) have any hard evidence that allows us to say it is true on smaller masses.

Logic also dictates that there must be an 'interface region' somewhere between Earth and Venus and other substantial masses (probably wide, and contiumous) where the elysium particles are moving with respect to both masses. And with respect to at least some of their neighbors, or their neighbor's neighbors.

===

Do you have aberration data for any of the planets that includes the relative orbital postitions of that planet and Earth at the time the aberration was measured?

LB

Particles in gas, liquids and solids are in continuous motion. The amount particle motion is what we measure as temperature.

Particles in solids are kept to their equilibrium point.
Particles in an ideal gas maintain their speed until collision: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory

The speed equation provided by Tom is a 'statistical average': the particle speeds are ranging over a 'speed distribution' curve.

For a gas, liquid or solid at rest relative to ourselves, the cumulative vector sum of all particle speeds is zero.

So if the MMX tells us that the elysium is stationary, then this means that the vector sum of all elyson speeds is zero while the elysons themselves move at an average speed of 3 * c / sqrt(5).

If Dayton Miller measured a fringe shift(corresponding to a difference of 10km/s), then this means that the vector sum of the elyson speeds has an inbalance (relative to an observer on Earth).

The assumption I take is that elysium is rotating around the Solar System with a rotation speed that is dependent on the distance from the center of the Solar System: SQRT( G * Mass Sun/Distance ). From this perspective any type of mass would have the same speed as the rotating elysium that surrounds it, except when the mass is not travelling in a circular path around the Sun.

The form of the curve described by light (coming from a star) can then be approximated in Excel as follows:
- start the path outside the solar system
- divide the path in a number of sections (e.g. 10000)
- for every point on the path: calculate the rotation speed (outside the solar system: rotation speed = 0)
- calculate the aberration between the two points as : difference rotation speed / speed of light
- for every subsequent point: cumulate the aberration with the prior aberration value
- by the time the path reaches the Earth, the cumulative aberration = 20.5 arcsec
- the curved path can be plotted by showing the calculated Y values

I was looking at the occultation for Columbia, Mar 24, 1889 through the Stellarium software.
Just 4 hours before the occultation, the 'bottom' of the Moon crossed the path of Jupiter.
At the moment of the occulation, the path is already at 1/3 of the 'top' of the Moon.
So the Moon crossed the path of Jupiter very rapidly ...

Knowing that the duration between 1st and 2nd contact is pretty much dependent on where the path of Jupiter is crossing the border of the Moon, a slight difference between the calculated 'Apparent position' and the true 'Apparent position' must result in a difference of the duration.
The duration is a sort of 'fingerprint' of where the apparent position of Jupiter must have been at the moment of first and second contact.

It would be interesting to know the difference beween this position and the calculated position ...