Re: [NPA Chat] Tom Van Flanern and Non-Aberration of Moonlight

Viraj Fernando

unread,

Jan 25, 2009, 12:55:37 PM1/25/09

to NPA Members Chat Email

Dear Tom,

1. You wrote:

"You are correct, when a planet is in opposition to the earth, planetary aberration would not be observed (based on theory and a practical reason – the sun is in the way).

Have I got the terms 'conjuction' and 'opposition' mixed up? What I meant is the position where the planet appears at th meridian at mid night.

If the moon is also at the meridian at the same time a planet is, their tangential motions will be parallel. In relative motion terms they will be similar because besides the relative tangential motions (wrt earth), there will be no other linear motions to count (i.e axial rotations disregarded)

So if the light from the moon does not exhibit aberration because it has tangential motion only with respect to earth all the time as you say, then it stands to reason that light from a planet at opposition (or is it conjunction?) would not also exhibit aberration at the position its relative motion is perpendicular to the line of centres and parallel to earth's motion.

(I refered up the Definition of 'Opposition' in Norton's Star Atlas. "Conjuction" (0 h R.A.) is when an outer planet is found to be on the same side as the sun when looked from earth. "Opposition" (12 h R.A.) is when sun and the planet are on either side, with the earth in between them. So when in opposition the planet is on the meridian at mid night. Sun is not in the way when a planet is in opposition as as you have stated.. So the practical difficulty you have pointed to of 'the sun being in the way' is non-existent).

2. You also wrote: "The magnitude of planetary aberration for every planetary object changes constantly from zero to some value."

If you referred to 'planetary aberration' in the meaning of what astronomers use it, then it is a two-valued term. (Bradley aberration + correction for light time) as explained in the earlier post. In no position will the correction for light time disappear and attain the value zero as you have stated.

Secondly it is at opposition that the planet is at the meridian at midnight and therefore at this position Bradley aberration is maximum.

Bradley aberration will disappear when the planet is at quadrature (6 h or 18 h R.A.)

Thanks for referring me to David Tombe. I will have a look at Babin's site. I will find out whether David Tombe and I share the same ideas.

However, I would like you to know that I share the same view as Tom Van Flandern in regard to the onion structure of aether fields. If you go through Tom Van Flandern's article "What GPS Tells Us....", you will find him saying:

“If these experimenters had realized that the aether was not a single entity but changed with the local gravity field, they would not have been surprised. It might have helped their understanding to realize that Earth's own Moon does not experience aberration as the distant stars do, but only the much smaller amount appropriate to its small speed through the Earth's gravity field.”

The essence of Tom Van Flandern's message is that Aether is Onion Structured. Like gravity fields envelope one outside the other, so do the local aether fields.

However, I feel that Tom Van Flandern's seeming position of equating local aether with the local gravity field is imprecise. In as much as a gravity field is enveloped inside the other, they interpenetrate. Gravity fields are without boundaries.

A local gravity field is independent of the motion of the central body whose field it is. The local aether field is a separate entity which coincides with the local gravity field considered in motion. In the transmission of light within a moving gravity field (e.g. earth's field orbiting round the sun), light transmitted from one body to another does not undergo aberration. A local aether field is restricted to bodies co-moving with the centre. That is local aether field of the sun is restricted to planets and their satellites all of which have the galilean motion in common with the sun. The local aether field is restricted to the moon (and the artificial satellites) which have a motion in common with the earth round the sun.

I hope this will make it clear that the time is fast approaching to dethrone Einstein-Poincare Principle of Relativity and the enthrone

Galileo-Newton Principle of Relativity whose core concept is that a body not only moves relative to its place of location but also has a motion in common with the place of location.

I think as a tribute to Tom Van Fladern we (NPA Chat) should embark on an analytical/critical study of Tom's work begining with "What GPS Tells Us about Relativity".

Best regards,

Viraj

From: Tom Miles <tem...@cox.net>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, 24 January, 2009 11:17:50
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Questions 3 - What is your "Elevator Pitch" for what is wrong with SRT?

Dear Viraj,

The file you requested will be sent direct to your email address.

You are correct, when a planet is in opposition to the earth, planetary aberration would not be observed (based on theory and a practical reason – the sun is in the way). The magnitude of planetary aberration for every planetary object changes constantly from zero to some value.

And actually, I do not recognize that light is independent of the motion of the source.

You seem to be an ether drag proponent. Are you familiar with David Tombe? He is of like mind and you might enjoy communication with him. He has papers posted at Babin Science Journal (including his email address).

Best regards,

Tom Miles

From: membersch...@worldnpa.org [mailto:membersch...@worldnpa.org] On Behalf Of Viraj Fernando
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:29 PM
To: NPA Members Chat Email
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Questions 3 - What is your "Elevator Pitch" for what is wrong with SRT?

Dear Tom,

Thanks for your info. Please do send me the pages from the Explanatory Notes.

When, say, Mars or Jupiter is in opposition with the earth, their motion relative to the earth is similar to moon's tangential motion relative to the earth. (Is planetary aberration when at opposition any different from other positions?). We must recognise the fact that light leaving Mars or the Moon or (even a star) is independent of the motion of the source.

What matters is the motion of the earth relative to the sun and not the relative motion between the source and the earth. Is it not the case that as far as relative motion goes, whether earth is considered at rest and moon is in motion, or moon is considered at rest and earth is in motion, they are equivalent. As far as relative motion goes earth's position at the centre makes no difference.. So there is rectilienar relative motion between the two. But relative motion does not count in so far as aberration is concerned because motion of light is independent of the source. What counts is the motion of the earth relative to the sun as against the on coming light, no matter what the source is.

In relation to planets and stars, earth's motion relative to the sun is discrete. The only object in relation to which earth's orbital motion is not discrete is the moon.. That is because they have this motion in common between them. Nevertheless even against the on coming light from the moon, once it has left the moon it is independent, and earth's motion relative to the sun still has to count.. The question is why does it not count?

Best regards,

Viraj

From: Tom Miles <tem...@cox.net>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Friday, 23 January, 2009 22:56:41

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Questions 3 - What is your "Elevator Pitch" for what is wrong with SRT?

Dear Viraj,

I discussed this subject with Tom Van Flandern last year. He directed me to the “Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris”, 1961 edition. The Supplement explains that stellar and planetary aberration depend upon the relative (rectilinear) motion of the observer to the source. Since there is no rectilinear motion between the moon and earth, there can be no aberration.

I would be happy to send you the pages if you wish.

Best regards,

Tom Miles

From: membersch...@worldnpa.org [mailto:membersch...@worldnpa.org] On Behalf Of Viraj Fernando
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:51 AM
To: NPA Members Chat Email
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Questions 3 - What is your "Elevator Pitch" for what is wrong with SRT?

Dear All,

Here's my answer to Q.3

Playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

In Tom Van Flandern’s paper “What GPS Tell Us about Relativity..”, there is the curious observation, viz., “Moon exempt”, recorded against aberration. This begs the question:”What is the physical basis that renders light from the Moon not to manifest aberration, whereas light from planets, stars and galaxies exhibit it?” Since all physicists, that is relativists and their opponents alike have lost track of the core concept underlying Galileo’s principle of relativity, they are all clueless why the “moon is exempt”. Leaving out this core concept amounts to something like both sides trying to play Hamlet without the Prince, in two different impoverished versions. I shall return to this below.

What is wrong with relativity theory is that it has destroyed the trend of thinking along which the epistemological development physics took root since Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, of recognition of the natural order of hierarchy of motions as the basis of physics, (i.e. the sum of true relative motions = ‘absolute motion’). SRT has destroyed this trend in order to create a mathematical methodology to obtain results (by hook or by crook) by imposing man-made conventions in lieu. This is analogous to the overthrow of the Helio-centric system of pre-Aristolean philosophers by the geo-centric system developed between Aristotle-Callipippus-Ptolemy by the arbitrary introduction of epicycles out of pragmatic considerations.

The essence of the Copernican revolution is the recognition of the natural order of hierarchy of motions as the basis of physics. However, even to-day, it is found that the geo-centric system is convenient and provides results mathematically. Nevertheless, on account of this, nobody would dare to legitimize the (modified) Ptolemaic theory as a physical theory. However, in contrast, by virtue of the mathematical convenience offered by the theory of relativity, the mainstream has misconstrued it as a physical theory.

The natural order of hierarchy of motions implies a ‘rest frame’ and it infers the theorem that the sum total motions relative to this ‘rest frame’ is equal to the ‘absolute motion’. This riddle should have been solved by showing that ‘absolute motion’ is not absolute, and by demonstrating that there is no rest frame as such, but depending on the circumstances different frames in the hierarchy of motions play the role of the ‘rest frame’. That is, ‘absolute motion’ is relative depending on the boundary within which a given phenomenon occurs in a system.

The idea of this relative rest frame is embedded in Galileo’s principle of relativity. “The reason for the correspondences of effects (of bodies moving inside the cabin of the ship) is that they all have a motion in common with the ship”. If the ship lost its motion and the objects lost theirs too, the ship and the objects will all come to rest on earth. Earth is the common boundary frame of the system consisting of the moving ship and the bodies moving relative to it. This common boundary frame of motion is what is known by the misnomer the ‘rest frame’. What was required to be done at the turn of 20^th century was to clear this misunderstanding. That is to recognize that the ‘rest frame’ does not mean that there is an ultimate frame at absolute rest but that nature’s systems work within boundaries and the frame that defines the boundary of a given system is the de facto ‘rest frame’ of that system.

In its stead, the Poincare-Einstein principle of relativity, threw the whole conceptual framework of Galilean physics based on the hierarchy of motions overboard, and along with it the motion that a body has in common with its immediate frame in the hierarchy, relative to the boundary frame (i.e. the ‘rest frame’). They postulated (i.e. arbitrarily introduced the idea) that all inertial frames are equivalent. This destroyed the very idea of motion in common embedded in Galileo’s principle of relativity. Unfortunately, even the most vehement opponents of SRT who claim to remain loyal to Galilean concepts are afflicted by the same malady, they too have lost track of Galilean concept of the motion that a body has in common with the immediate frame of motion in the hierarchy. In their opposition to SRT, some have even fallen into the medieval trap of absolute rest represented by a stationary aether.

Why we are tied up in knots about aberration of light is because we have failed to recognise that the medium of propagation of light is layered. Moon has a motion in common with the earth around the sun, whereas earth does not share a common motion relative to the sun with planets and other bodies. This explains why the light from the moon which traverses along the local layer of the ‘light-medium’ which is common to earth-moon system does not manifest the common motion of earth’s orbit in the form of aberration; whereas light transmitted along other non-local layers of the ‘light-medium’ do manifest earth’s motion Within the domain of the local layer there is no aberration of moon light and there is a null result in MMX. (You can call this local layer of the ‘light medium’ common to earth-moon system as the ‘entrained aether’). I shall explain aberration in the above terms in a separate paper.

My plea: Bring the Galilean Prince (common motion) back on to the stage of physics, and Hamlet will once again turn out to be an astounding drama full of glamour and glory!

Best regards,

Viraj

From: Steven Bryant <Steven...@RelativityChallenge.Com>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, 17 January, 2009 13:06:41
Subject: [NPA Chat] Questions 3 - What is your "Elevator Pitch" for what is wrong with SRT?

Hi NPAers and friends,

Thank you for the responses and discussions to the first two questions in the series. I think we have some good conversations occurring as a result. One of the things that binds the NPA community together is a feeling that something is wrong with certain mainstream theories. And for those who believe the mainstream theories are correct, they participate with NPA because they have an interest in hearing what others have to say. So, far, we've discussed what is right (or useful) with SRT, and we've explored what it would take to change people's minds to believe something different.

This week, I would like to us to examine what it is we think is wrong with SRT. However, in order to avoid this becoming a question where everyone writes a 10 page e-mail dissertation, or says "read my paper, book, or watch my video", I am going to outline a few parameters for our answers.

Question 3:

What is your "Elevator Pitch" for what is wrong with SRT?

(In other words, using ONE printed page or less, please describe your argument against SRT. Begin with a simple statement like "The main problem with SRT is ...".)

Background:

In business, we often refer to the "Elevator Pitch" as that 30 second blurb of information you give that tells someone what your company is about. Conceptually, you think of it as what you would tell someone if you only have enough time to ride down (or up) and elevator with him/her. The advantage of an elevator pitch is that it enables one to quickly community some key points that, hopefully, they remember if you see them again (or, if you are in sales, when you call them later that day). It may not be ALL of your points, but enough to pique their interest. Ideally, your elevator pitch is only one, two, or three sentences. Then if the elevator ride is longer than expected, they might ask for more information, which of course you could do - keeping in mind that your time will up when the doors open.

Our community can benefit from the elevator pitch in that it helps us clearly communicate our thoughts; in this case, our thoughts around what is wrong with SRT. Why is this important? I think it is important to be concise. And when we reach out to people in the mainstream community, they are more likely to give replies to well worded, SHORT messages that grab their attention. This is what an elevator pitch is all about.

To be honest, if we we can't be concise with our message, we will have a much harder time having others understand us. So, I am asking for your elevator pitch, not your formal "proof" that something is wrong. Of course, if you can get your proof on one page, then go for it. So, with this backdrop, consider the 1 page limit a hard rule for the purposes of answering this question. If you are replying by e-mail, the the page limit applies to your response only, not to the original question (e.g., not this e-mail which might be appended to your answer)... And, no, please don't use a font smaller than 10 point. I already wear glasses as it is. :-)

What are your thoughts and how would you answer the question?

-------------------------------------------

Guidelines: I would like this to be as free-form as possible, but I do think we should have a few simple ground rules.

1. Reply to the original question or to someone else's response, but please stay on topic (and somewhat related to the original question).

2. Discuss one question at a time. If you have specific questions you'd like to ask, send them to me; or start your own thread.

3. Take part in the discussion. I hope that the resulting dialogue helps everyone. As long as there's interest, I'll keep asking questions.

-------------------------------------------

Steven

Steven...@RelativityChallenge.Com

Tom Miles

unread,

Jan 25, 2009, 1:26:36 PM1/25/09

to NPA Members Chat Email

Dear Viraj,

Yes, I meant to say and should have been more explicit that it was the Bradley component of planetary aberration varies from zero to some value.

Yes, it would be a good idea and tribute to Tom for NPA to study and discuss his ideas.

David Tombe may share Tom’s vision of ether in that he posits that local ethers are entrained within what he calls a ‘gravitosphere’… But I should not speak for him.

hil...@hiltonratcliffe.com

unread,

Jan 25, 2009, 1:33:41 PM1/25/09

to NPA Members Chat Email

Good evening friends,

I noted Tom Miles' comment that "it would be a good idea and tribute to Tom for NPA to study and discuss his ideas"

Chip Arp is working with Mike Van Flandern to produce and publish a monograph of Tom's ideas and theories. I will keep you posted as it develops.

Kind regards

Hilton

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

Viraj Fernando

unread,

Jan 25, 2009, 3:19:26 PM1/25/09

to NPA Members Chat Email

Dear Tom and Hilton,

It appears that the non-existence of Bradley aberration of moonlight provides a vital clue in the resolution of the jigsaw of Relativistic phenomena. If we hold fast to the onion structure of local aether fields, and discuss things with reference to it, I have a feeling things will become clearer and clearer.

Allow me to muse a little. I think that the common motion of a body (moon) and its place of location (earth) being the determinatant of the local aether field, this common velocity renders there to be no constraint (a potential difference or a velocity resistance?) between the two bodies. In the transmission of light within a local aether there being no constraint, there is no Bradley aberration. When a ray of light crosses over so many local fields and enters local solar aether field (before entering the earth's locl aether field at the instant of incidence). So it is always the constraint (potential difference?) between the solar field and the geo-centric field that comes into play in Bradley aberration (as witnessed from earth), no matter where it has originated.from. This constraint is maximum when the velocity of the earth is perpendicular to the direction of incidence and becomes zero when they are co-linear.

Yes, the best tribute we can pay to Tom Van Flandern is to discuss and further his ideas. Perhaps, we can invite David Tombe and any others who have ideas closer to Tom's to participate as special guests, if and when we commence these discussions.

Best regards,

Viraj

From: Tom Miles <tem...@cox.net>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Sent: Sunday, 25 January, 2009 13:26:36

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Tom Van Flanern and Non-Aberration of Moonlight

Dear Viraj,

Yes, I meant to say and should have been more explicit that it was the Bradley component of planetary aberration varies from zero to some value.

Yes, it would be a good idea and tribute to Tom for NPA to study and discuss his ideas.

David Tombe may share Tom’s vision of ether in that he posits that local ethers are entrained within what he calls a ‘gravitosphere’… But I should not speak for him.

Best regards,

Tom Miles

From: membersch...@worldnpa.org [mailto:membersch...@worldnpa.org] On Behalf Of Viraj Fernando
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:56 AM
To: NPA Members Chat Email
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Tom Van Flanern and Non-Aberration of Moonlight

Dear Tom,

1. You wrote:

"You are correct, when a planet is in opposition to the earth, planetary aberration would not be observed (based on theory and a practical reason – the sun is in the way).

Have I got the terms 'conjuction' and 'opposition' mixed up? What I meant is the position where the planet appears at th meridian at mid night.

If the moon is also at the meridian at the same time a planet is, their tangential motions will be parallel.. In relative motion terms they will be similar because besides the relative tangential motions (wrt earth), there will be no other linear motions to count (i.e axial rotations disregarded)