The Aberration of Starlight

Couldn't find any mention of this and was wondering if there was an explanation for this in FET.

It comes from Stars.

It comes from Stars.

Starlight, yes. Its aberration, no.

For those unaware of stellar aberration:

The aberration of starlight was discovered in 1727 by the astronomer James Bradley while he was searching for evidence of stellar parallax, which in principle ought to be observable if the Copernican theory of the solar system is correct. He succeeded in detecting an annual variation in the apparent positions of stars, but the variation was not consistent with parallax. The observed displacement was greatest for stars in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane of the Earth, and most puzzling was the fact that the displacement was exactly three months (i.e., 90 degrees) out of phase with the effect that would result from parallax due to the annual change in the Earth’s position in orbit around the Sun. It was as if he was expecting a sine function, but found instead a cosine function. Now, the cosine is the derivative of the sine, so this suggests that the effect he was seeing was not due to changes in the earth’s position, but to changes in the Earth’s (directional) velocity.

I should Google things before posting non-constructive comments.

I should Google things before posting non-constructive comments.

I am just going to carefully walk away from this one.

Berny
really confused

For those unaware of stellar aberration:

Quote from: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm

The aberration of starlight was discovered in 1727 by the astronomer James Bradley while he was searching for evidence of stellar parallax, which in principle ought to be observable if the Copernican theory of the solar system is correct. He succeeded in detecting an annual variation in the apparent positions of stars, but the variation was not consistent with parallax. The observed displacement was greatest for stars in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane of the Earth, and most puzzling was the fact that the displacement was exactly three months (i.e., 90 degrees) out of phase with the effect that would result from parallax due to the annual change in the Earth?s position in orbit around the Sun. It was as if he was expecting a sine function, but found instead a cosine function. Now, the cosine is the derivative of the sine, so this suggests that the effect he was seeing was not due to changes in the earth?s position, but to changes in the Earth?s (directional) velocity.

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

Yeah. This is a fairly small issue for FET to explain. I'd focus on the bigger problems FET faces with the stars, and the sky in general.

Quote from: markjo on November 04, 2010, 07:10:34 PM

For those unaware of stellar aberration:

Quote from: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm

The aberration of starlight was discovered in 1727 by the astronomer James Bradley while he was searching for evidence of stellar parallax, which in principle ought to be observable if the Copernican theory of the solar system is correct. He succeeded in detecting an annual variation in the apparent positions of stars, but the variation was not consistent with parallax. The observed displacement was greatest for stars in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane of the Earth, and most puzzling was the fact that the displacement was exactly three months (i.e., 90 degrees) out of phase with the effect that would result from parallax due to the annual change in the Earth?s position in orbit around the Sun. It was as if he was expecting a sine function, but found instead a cosine function. Now, the cosine is the derivative of the sine, so this suggests that the effect he was seeing was not due to changes in the earth?s position, but to changes in the Earth?s (directional) velocity.

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

FET would have to predict which stars would move in which direction in order to match the predictive power of RET with the adjustment for the Earth's directional velocity. Since it doesn't, this would be like saying that Tom Bishop kisses boys.

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

While the phenomenon of stellar aberration produces a very slight error in the predicted apparent location of the stars in the sky in real science, producing errors of a few thousandths of a degree, or a few seconds seconds of arc if it is not taken into account, the "Flat Earth Models" make predictions that have several degrees of error, sometimes tens of degrees of error if they even produce a prediction at all.

A model that already has, for example, an error of 45 degrees in the apparent location of the Sun at dawn during the equinox, when seen from the Equator (or about half of that from Europe or the USA) is just as bad whether an additional correction is made to account for aberration. It is like moving some sacks of wheat to the stern in the Titanic to prevent it from sinking.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:03:16 PM

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

While the phenomenon of stellar aberration produces a very slight error in the predicted apparent location of the stars in the sky in real science, producing errors of a few thousandths of a degree, or a few seconds seconds of arc if it is not taken into account, the "Flat Earth Models" make predictions that have several degrees of error, sometimes tens of degrees of error if they even produce a prediction at all.

A model that already has, for example, an error of 45 degrees in the apparent location of the Sun at dawn during the equinox, when seen from the Equator (or about half of that from Europe or the USA) is just as bad whether an additional correction is made to account for aberration. It is like moving some sacks of wheat to the stern in the Titanic to prevent it from sinking.

Were there sacks of wheat on the Titanic? http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_cargo_list.shtml

There is no question about whether the measurements of stellar aberration demolish the already dead flat Earth idea. The Earth is moving towards some stars at some 40000 kilometers per hour faster during the winter than during the summer. If the stars were less than a million kilometers away, we would pass by them in one day. If they were some 5000 kilometers above Earth, we would pass by them in some 12 minutes.

The only way to explain stellar aberration in a flat Earth would be to declare this as another part of the Conspiracy, one that started some 200 years ago.

Quote from: trig on November 05, 2010, 06:39:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:03:16 PM

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

While the phenomenon of stellar aberration produces a very slight error in the predicted apparent location of the stars in the sky in real science, producing errors of a few thousandths of a degree, or a few seconds seconds of arc if it is not taken into account, the "Flat Earth Models" make predictions that have several degrees of error, sometimes tens of degrees of error if they even produce a prediction at all.

A model that already has, for example, an error of 45 degrees in the apparent location of the Sun at dawn during the equinox, when seen from the Equator (or about half of that from Europe or the USA) is just as bad whether an additional correction is made to account for aberration. It is like moving some sacks of wheat to the stern in the Titanic to prevent it from sinking.

Were there sacks of wheat on the Titanic? http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_cargo_list.shtml

Or move a few chairs. The point has nothing to do with the wheat but with what would be achieved by moving some insignificant weight around.

Were there sacks of wheat on the Titanic? http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_cargo_list.shtml

This is a very poor attempt to troll a thread. Why do you believe that list is complete and perfectly detailed? It does not mention bread or wheat. Do you really think they did not serve bread at all during the trip? It does not mention rice, toilet paper, uniforms for the crew, coal, medicines, fresh fruit, tobacco.

Do you really look at the information you quote, or like Tom Bishop, you just quote any written material that you have read for 15 seconds?

I have no idea what this list of cargo items is, whether it is of items being exported or consumed or both. But I can assure you it is not the complete and perfectly detailed list of everything that was shipped for the passengers and crew to consume during the trip.

Quote from: markjo on November 04, 2010, 07:10:34 PM

For those unaware of stellar aberration:

Quote from: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm

The aberration of starlight was discovered in 1727 by the astronomer James Bradley while he was searching for evidence of stellar parallax, which in principle ought to be observable if the Copernican theory of the solar system is correct. He succeeded in detecting an annual variation in the apparent positions of stars, but the variation was not consistent with parallax. The observed displacement was greatest for stars in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane of the Earth, and most puzzling was the fact that the displacement was exactly three months (i.e., 90 degrees) out of phase with the effect that would result from parallax due to the annual change in the Earth?s position in orbit around the Sun. It was as if he was expecting a sine function, but found instead a cosine function. Now, the cosine is the derivative of the sine, so this suggests that the effect he was seeing was not due to changes in the earth?s position, but to changes in the Earth?s (directional) velocity.

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

It's not a question of the stars moving.  It's a question of the stars not moving as originally expected.

My main point here was stellar aberration as evidence of heliocentrism.

Another demonstration of Earth's orbital motion is the aberration of starlight. Astronomical observations and celestial mechanics indicate that Earth should have a 16-19 mi/sec (25-30 km/sec) orbital velocity around the solar system's center which continuously changes its direction due to the gravitational effect of the Sun. James Bradley's (1693-1762) attempt to determine the parallaxes of stars starting in 1725 with a telescope rigidly fixed in a chimney soon found that the apparent positions of the stars shifted along elliptical paths. These ellipses were 90° out of phase with the parallax ellipse for a nearby star on a distant background that is expected to be produced by Earth's motion around the Sun. Moreover the ellipses' semi-major axes were always 20.5", with no variation from the different distances of the stars. These same size ellipses were soon understood to be the yearly paths of the aberrations of the apparent positions of the stars caused by the addition of Earth's constantly changing orbital velocity to the vacuum velocity of the light arriving from the stars (whose true positions are at the centers of the aberrational ellipses). These ellipses show that Earth does indeed have the expected orbital velocity around the solar system's center of mass.

And though I don't fully understand all of this, I'm working on wrapping my head around the main concepts.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2010, 10:03:16 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 04, 2010, 07:10:34 PM

For those unaware of stellar aberration:

Quote from: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm

The aberration of starlight was discovered in 1727 by the astronomer James Bradley while he was searching for evidence of stellar parallax, which in principle ought to be observable if the Copernican theory of the solar system is correct. He succeeded in detecting an annual variation in the apparent positions of stars, but the variation was not consistent with parallax. The observed displacement was greatest for stars in the direction perpendicular to the orbital plane of the Earth, and most puzzling was the fact that the displacement was exactly three months (i.e., 90 degrees) out of phase with the effect that would result from parallax due to the annual change in the Earth?s position in orbit around the Sun. It was as if he was expecting a sine function, but found instead a cosine function. Now, the cosine is the derivative of the sine, so this suggests that the effect he was seeing was not due to changes in the earth?s position, but to changes in the Earth?s (directional) velocity.

If the sun can move north and south throughout the year in the Flat Earth model, why can't the stars?

It's not a question of the stars moving.  It's a question of the stars not moving as originally expected.

To be more precise, Tom Bishop should tell us in which direction each star should move, and by how much, to create the appearance of a stellar aberration where there is none. How should the Northern Hemisphere stars move, lets say, in summer? and in winter? and how should the Southern Hemisphere stars mover in summer and in winter? Why some stars just don't move?

A blanket "stars move" claim is as good as nothing at all. You have to have the prediction of where the stars should be based on your model of the universe, your prediction of where the stars should be with your model plus stellar aberration, and your observed results. Tom Bishop does not even have the first part.

And, by the way, the apparent movement of the stars due to stellar aberration is in general not towards the North or South.

And though I don't fully understand all of this, I'm working on wrapping my head around the main concepts.

The easiest way to see this is:

Go for a stroll during a light drizzle with no wind and look over your left shoulder. You will see the water droplets falling directly downwards, and you will correctly perceive that they are coming from the cloud directly above you.

Now start walking and look over your left shoulder. The water droplets seem to come from someplace in front of you, falling at about 45 degrees. You could incorrectly deduce that they come from a cloud in front of you, not above.

Now picture yourself doing the same experiment with a star above your head. The water is replaced with light, but everything else stays the same. Instead of walking, it is the Earth that is moving around the Sun. You will have to repeat the experiment in winter and spring, for example, to see the effect of moving and not moving in some specified direction.

Quote from: Hessy on November 05, 2010, 09:44:00 AM

And though I don't fully understand all of this, I'm working on wrapping my head around the main concepts.

The easiest way to see this is:

Go for a stroll during a light drizzle with no wind and look over your left shoulder. You will see the water droplets falling directly downwards, and you will correctly perceive that they are coming from the cloud directly above you.

No wind at ground level rarely means no wind at cloud level. The droplets are unlikely to be coming from directly above.

Quote from: trig on November 05, 2010, 10:19:44 AM

Quote from: Hessy on November 05, 2010, 09:44:00 AM

And though I don't fully understand all of this, I'm working on wrapping my head around the main concepts.

The easiest way to see this is:

Go for a stroll during a light drizzle with no wind and look over your left shoulder. You will see the water droplets falling directly downwards, and you will correctly perceive that they are coming from the cloud directly above you.

No wind at ground level rarely means no wind at cloud level. The droplets are unlikely to be coming from directly above.

I take it that the concept of a thought experiment is lost on you, isn't it?

Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 06, 2010, 06:09:04 AM

Quote from: trig on November 05, 2010, 10:19:44 AM

Quote from: Hessy on November 05, 2010, 09:44:00 AM

And though I don't fully understand all of this, I'm working on wrapping my head around the main concepts.

The easiest way to see this is:

Go for a stroll during a light drizzle with no wind and look over your left shoulder. You will see the water droplets falling directly downwards, and you will correctly perceive that they are coming from the cloud directly above you.

No wind at ground level rarely means no wind at cloud level. The droplets are unlikely to be coming from directly above.

I take it that the concept of a thought experiment is lost on you, isn't it?

He has to fight through derailing because he knows the war is lost.

This example works both as thought experiment and as a real experiment you can do, even though you do not know exactly from which cloud the water you are seeing comes from. You really can produce the illusion that the raindrops are falling from a clear spot in the sky.

If for once a true FE'r made an experiment instead of playing armchair scientist, he would see that this is a simple experiment that under the right conditions works and is so easy that even spamer can do it.

But of course spamer is not an FE'r but a troll.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on November 06, 2010, 06:09:04 AM

Quote from: trig on November 05, 2010, 10:19:44 AM

Quote from: Hessy on November 05, 2010, 09:44:00 AM

And though I don't fully understand all of this, I'm working on wrapping my head around the main concepts.

The easiest way to see this is:

Go for a stroll during a light drizzle with no wind and look over your left shoulder. You will see the water droplets falling directly downwards, and you will correctly perceive that they are coming from the cloud directly above you.

No wind at ground level rarely means no wind at cloud level. The droplets are unlikely to be coming from directly above.

I take it that the concept of a thought experiment is lost on you, isn't it?

I thought you did a great job explaining it.