Requiem for Relativity

The occultation of Jupiter is calculated using the "aparant" celestial coords. which means that the planetary aberration for both Jupiter and Luna are factored in. For Jupiter the aberration is up to 11 arcsec, for the Luna the aberration is less then 1 arcsec. (the light time delay does not play a role; the amount of planetary aberration is dependent on the difference in speed between the planet/moon and the Earth)

Considering the moment when Jupiter and Luna were observed to "touch" each other: If we would draw a straight line between Jupiter at the position where the light had departed and the observer on the Earth, then light coming from Jupiter would been (partially) occulted by Luna (because the apparent position of Jupiter is up to 11 arcsec ahead of the direction from where the light departed; whereas the apparent and actual direction of Luna are nearly the same).

Considering the light coming from Jupiter from the moment onwards when it has passed Luna: the light from Jupiter and the light from Luna must be following the exact same path(with mimimal aberration).

As a consequence, the effect of aberration (of up to 11 arcsec) for light coming from Jupiter must occur before it reaches Luna.

Given the fact that the max. planetary aberration increases with the relative velocity of the Earth versus the planets (Mars: 3.9 arcsec; Jupiter: 11.5; Saturn: 13.8; Uranus: 15.9; Neptune: 16.9) it looks logical that light follows a curved path. As an example: if Jupiter would be occulted by Mars, then the light coming from Jupiter will be subject to an aberration of 3.9 from the moment is passes Mars; the remaining 7.6 aberration is occuring between Jupiter and Mars.

The way James Bradley has described the Aberration of light provides us with the right formulas to calculate the "apparent position" of stars. But the hypothesis that the aberration is taking place near the observer (telescope) cannot explain the way how we observe occultations.

Tom Van Flandern described this effect: "If a star is occulted by the Moon as it slowly orbits the Earth, the last rays of the star's light are displaced on the sky by 20 arcseconds, whereas the Moon's position is not so displaced. Such a displacement is readily verified, since it makes a difference of about 40 seconds of time in the moment when the star will be seen to disappear from view."

The fact that the light follows a curve must have a physical background. My hypothesis is that there is a medium that carries the light and that this medium rotates around the Sun with the same velocity as the planets. If we put the findings of Dayton Miller ( gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3418 ) in this context, then this medium must be subject to an additional drift of 10km/s in the direction of a fixed point in space.

If light travels through a medium that is subject to a parallel drift it will follow a curve.

Anomalies during lunar occulatations:
- Venus: 11 Sep 2010: assabfn.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-photos...oon-occultation.html
- Venus: April 22nd, 2009 www.flickr.com/photos/stephen_fischer/3466993091/
- Jupiter: September 15, 1990: www.icstars.com/HTML/JupiterMoon/MoonJupiter.html

These anomalies could be explained through the effect of a transverse drift of which the strength is changing with the seasons (with maxima in April and September). I would expect that the occulatation timing anomaly of Sept. 3, 1889 can be explained through this same effect.

Hi Bart, that sounds very interesting. I've been thinking of giving light a form factor to account for the apparent ftl speed of those wayward neutrinos. If we say that light has further to travel, then neutrinos won't be breaking the speed limit. They appear to be traveling at 2.997999528E 8 metres per second.

I agree that the measurements attributed to the supernova (SN) 1987a explosion, the 3 hour difference between the arrival of neutrinos and the arrival of light could be attributed to the difference in path followed.

For the recent neutrino experiment, the explanation is more likely to be found in the drift.
The famous 60 nanoseconds equal to a difference of 7.4 km/s which is exactly the average drift of the speed of light as found by Dayton Miller.
So if EM waves drift with an average drift of 7 km/s from CERN towards Grand Sasso then the GPS time synchronisation will cause the clock in Grand Sasso to run 60 nanoseconds ahead of the expected time).

neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arr...-late-for-party.html

<b>[Bart] "My hypothesis is that there is a medium that carries the light ..."</b>

DRP[*] has given a name to this particle field. We call it the 'elysium', and the individual particles that comprise this medium are called elysons.

The name elysium is play on the acromym LCM (light carrying medium).

<b>[Bart] "...and that this medium rotates around the Sun with the same velocity as the planets."</b>

That is the way we see it too. Normal sized matter (protons, stars, etc) and elysons do not interact very strongly, but they do interact. Over long periods of time the elysium in the neighborthood of a normal sized mass becomes entrained by that mass.

So the elysium at around 1 AU from Sol is 'orbiting' Sol about once per year, and thus is more or less stationary with respect to Earth. Venus, at about .72 AU, has a similar torus of elysium 'orbiting' along with it.

And so on, for all the other planets.

The elysium torus near Earth is traveling at a slower speed than the one near Venus, so there must be a transition zone of some sort betwee Earth and Venus. It is most likely continuous and very gradual.

===

Smaller masses ought to be less efficient at entraining elysium than larger masses. And we can not directly detect either individual elysons or the bulk field of elysium. So it is not known if there is a torus of elysium 'orbiting' Earth along with Luna.

===

This does work on larger scales, however. Solar systems carry a mass (probably spherical rather than toroidal) of entrained elysium with them as they move within a galaxy. Galaxies carry a mass of entrained elysium as they move through space, and so on.

===

Elysons are composed of the same stuff as normal sized matter. They are just a lot smaller (and they are a candidate for for that stuff the main stream refers to as 'dark matter'). Being 'made of matter', they are subject to gravitational force just like normal sized matter. This causes them to be attracted to larger masses, so that the density of elysium near a mass is greater than far from it.

This density increases as 1/r making it an exact match, mathematically, for gravitational potential. If the tensor equations of General Relativity are physically interpreted as the 'optical density of a physically real 3D particle field', rather than as the 'curvature of a hypothetical 4D space-time manifold', effects like light bending near a mass and clock slowing in a gravitational potential well fall out into your lap.



Regards,
LB

[*]Deep Reality Physics

Thanks Larry !:

to further build upon your explanation ...

Where the rotating elysium of the solar system connects with the elysium flow of the Galaxy we get the effect of turbulence: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/heliosphere-surprise.html

This turbulence (magnetic bubbles) is nothing else then rotating elysium; and rotating medium 'by definition' is magnetism. Take two wires in which electrons are moving in the same direction. Both wires drag the elysium in the same direction. The elysium between the wires is flowing faster then the elysium at the opposite sides of the wire.
The Bernouilli effect is what makes the wires attract to each other and what we call magnetism.

Not only does the density of the elysium increase near a mass, also the velocity of the elysons must be decreasing closer to the mass. This explains why the speed of light is reduced near a mass (as predicted by Einstein): Shapiro effect

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/ch5.htm
www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

Since the rotating speed of the elysium is increasing towards the Sun, the elysium torus near the Sun must be traveling at a significant speed. This in turn is what influences the Solar Cycle for which I documented a number of correlations in: gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3647 (although the planets themselves have a minor effect on the sun, the relative small movements of the Sun within a fast rotating elysium do resort an effect)

<b>[Bart] "...the elysium torus near the Sun ...</b>

The more I think about it, the less I like my idea of describing the elysium as forming a torus-like strucutre for each of the planets.

I originally began thinking along this line because I was visualizing the sphereical mass of elysium attracted to each planet orbiting Sol, and then visualizing that sphere moving around Sol over and over and over.

As a result, a toroidal structure popped into my mind's eye. But seeing one of your ideas in print is different from seeing it in your mind's eye. It forces you to re-examine your idea. Or at least, it ought to. And it did.

===

So, I withdraw that image and offer in its place the image of a sphere of elysium, obviously larger than each planet, tagging along with each planet as it orbits Sol.

<b>[Bart] "... must be traveling at a significant speed."</b>

Actually, not. The speed of the elysium sphere just above the surface of Sol's equator will be identical to the surface rotational speed of Sol (7190 km/hr, or approx 2 km/sec). The process of static entrainment requires this. Farther out, at the orbit of Mercury, the speed of the elysium sphere will have increased to the orbital speed of Mercury and its entrained elysium shadow sphere (approx 48 km/sec). Again this is required by the process of static entrainment.

It is not clear yet if the portion of <b>Sol's</b> elysium sphere at that same altitude, but on the other side of Sol, will be moving at the speed of Mercury, or at the speed of Sol's surface, or at some speed in between.

Each planet farther out from Mercury has a slower orbital speed than Mercury. So the elysium sphere statically entrained by each of them will follow that particular planet at it's particular orbital speed. Pluto, with the slowest orbital speed of all the planets, orbits at a little more than 7 km/sec, so the 'orbital' speed of elysium is slower near Sol than anywhere else in the solar system.

LB