Author Topic: Stellar aberration  (Read 1165 times)

Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Stellar aberration
« on: February 21, 2009, 01:11:43 PM »
Does anyone have any thoughts on the phenomenon of stellar aberration?  It was discovered by James Bradley in 1725 when he was looking for stellar parallax and is said to be conclusive proof that the earth orbits the sun.

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aberration.html
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/aberration/index.html

*oops, moved from Information Repository*
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Ravenwood240

  • Posts: 2093
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
    • View Profile
    • Raven's Wood
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2009, 01:23:57 PM »
Does anyone have any thoughts on the phenomenon of stellar aberration?  It was discovered by James Bradley in 1725 when he was looking for stellar parallax and is said to be conclusive proof that the earth orbits the sun.

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aberration.html
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/aberration/index.html

*oops, moved from Information Repository*


The second link is giving me a headache to read.  I'll finish it tomorrow, but right now I am curious as to why the effects cannot be consistently predicted.

" The exact position where a star appears in the sky does not only depends on the coordinates of the source observed, but also on the observer's relative velocity. The observer velocity is responsible for a phenomenon called "Bradley aberration" or "Stellar aberration". Stellar aberration is a well known phenomenon among astronomers. It was discovered by the astronomer James Bradley [1] in 1727. It is claimed to be caused by the relative transverse motion between the earth and the star emitting the photons.
        Some authors [2-5] have shown that this prediction is not fully compatible with observations. There is no available explanation for the fact that, while the observational data on stellar aberration are compatible with a moving earth, the symmetric description, when the star (and not the observer) possesses the relative transverse motion, does not apparently lead to observations compatible with predictions."

(From the second link in the OP.)

If the supposed motion of the planet and the range to sun remain the same and the speed of light is correct, you should be able to correctly predict all the measurements.
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2009, 05:08:25 PM »
That second link may not have been the best example.  This one should be a little easier read:
http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • ***
  • Posts: 16451
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2009, 05:12:22 PM »
It's proof that the stars move, not the earth.



Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2009, 05:31:43 PM »
It's proof that the stars move, not the earth.


Nope. 
Quote from: http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/geocentrism/aberration.html
If you watch the stars (using the necessary equipment) over the course of a year, you'll note that they move about in little ellipses.  The paths of the stars over the poles (or more precisely, above the plane of the Earth's orbit) will be almost circular, while the paths of those near the equator will be flat.  This effect is called stellar aberration.  Unlike parallax, this affects all stars equally, no matter what their distance.

Here's the effect you see over the course of a year, highly exaggerated (that big yellow circle with the ring around it represents the Solar System, whether it be Heliocentric or Geocentric)


Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • ***
  • Posts: 16451
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2009, 05:42:32 PM »
Quote
Nope.

If the stars shift slightly in patterns over the year and expand and contract in their radius much like the sun, how does it follow that the earth is moving at all? That's not what's observed. No one observed the movement of the earth. The only thing observed and experienced is the movement of the stars.

Instead of making assumptions and forcing your model to fit the facts, how about opening your eyes to the direct and observable.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2009, 05:51:55 PM by Tom Bishop »



Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2009, 05:55:14 PM »
Quote
Nope.


If the stars shift slightly in patterns over the year and expand and contract in their radius much like the sun, how does it follow that the earth is moving at all? That's not what's observed. No one observed the movement of the earth. The only thing observed and experienced is the movement of the stars.

Instead of making assumptions and forcing your model to fit the facts, how about opening your eyes to the direct and observable.


*sigh*  Tom, did you actually read the links that I supplied, or is that not your job?
Quote from: http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm

How Bradley's observations differed from the expected effects of parallax. As shown on the left, as the Earth moves to one side of its orbit, g Draconis should move to the opposite side of its parallactic ellipse (the path the star seems to follow during the year, as a result of our motion around the Sun). Thus, when the Earth is at points A, B and C, the star should appear to be at points a, b and c. Instead, as shown on the right, as the Earth moves from one point to the next, the apparent positions are shifted in the direction of the Earth's motion, which is a quarter circle ahead of the expected parallactic shift. In addition (although not demonstrated here), the amount of the parallactic shift depends upon the star's distance, being larger for closer stars, and smaller for more distant stars; whereas stellar aberration is the same for every star in a given region, regardless of its distance. (Parallax produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals the reciprocal of each star's distance in parsecs, which is of course different for different stars. Stellar aberration produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals a constant, regardless of the distance or angular position of the star, equal to one radian multiplied by the ratio of the Earth's orbital velocity, to the speed of light. Said statements to be explained in further revisions of this page.)
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline avsfan987

  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2009, 05:56:45 PM »

*sigh*  Tom, did you actually read the links that I supplied, or is that not your job?


Tom's job is to ignore the facts and replace them with what Rowbotham wrote.

Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2009, 06:06:18 PM »

*sigh*  Tom, did you actually read the links that I supplied, or is that not your job?


Tom's job is to ignore the facts and replace them with what Rowbotham wrote.

Thing is, stellar aberration was discovered in 1725.  Long before Rowbotham and, to the best of my knowledge, not refuted by any FE'er to date.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • ***
  • Posts: 16451
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2009, 06:06:42 PM »
Quote
*sigh*  Tom, did you actually read the links that I supplied, or is that not your job?

Yep. It said that the observers saw the stars move. Not the earth.



Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2009, 06:16:59 PM »
Quote
*sigh*  Tom, did you actually read the links that I supplied, or is that not your job?

Yep. It said that the observers saw the stars move. Not the earth.

So, how does FET explain the observed aberrant movement of the stars at different angles to the celestial plane?
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • ***
  • Posts: 16451
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2009, 06:33:50 PM »
So, how does FET explain the observed aberrant movement of the stars at different angles to the celestial plane?

The stars expand and contract in their radius over the year, just like the sun.



Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2009, 06:45:06 PM »
So, how does FET explain the observed aberrant movement of the stars at different angles to the celestial plane?

The stars expand and contract in their radius over the year, just like the sun.

Why would they do that? ???
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • ***
  • Posts: 16451
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2009, 07:21:02 PM »
Why would they do that? ???

They do it because that's what we observe them to do.



Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2009, 07:23:40 PM »
Why would they do that? ???

They do it because that's what we observe them to do.

That is the what they do, not the why they do it.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • ***
  • Posts: 16451
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2009, 07:55:27 PM »
That is the what they do, not the why they do it.

It doesn't matter "how" or "why". All that matters is that's what it does.

The astronomer can only observe and interpret.



Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2009, 08:02:20 PM »
That is the what they do, not the why they do it.

It doesn't matter "how" or "why". All that matters is that's what it does.

The astronomer can only observe and interpret.

In other words, you don't have an answer.  Just like I thought.  Would any other FE'er like to take a crack at explaining this phenomenon?
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Offline Anteater7171

  • Posts: 9421
  • I am the FAQ!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2009, 08:43:49 PM »
The earth is rocking (causing tides). This rocking motion puts an observatory at different distances from the celestial bodies, in a consistent reliable pattern. 
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

Offline avsfan987

  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2009, 08:45:13 PM »
The earth is rocking (causing tides). This rocking motion puts an observatory at different distances from the celestial bodies, in a consistent reliable pattern. 

If the earth was rocking, wouldn't all the tides be moving in the same direction?

Offline markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 25244
  • Official wet blanket.
    • View Profile
Re: Stellar aberration
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2009, 08:50:48 PM »
The earth is rocking (causing tides). This rocking motion puts an observatory at different distances from the celestial bodies, in a consistent reliable pattern. 

Nope.  It's not so much that the path of the stars are in ellipses, but that the star's position within that ellipse is not where it should be.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.