Visar inlägg med etikett stellar aberration. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett stellar aberration. Visa alla inlägg

söndag 25 september 2011

Bending of Light by Gravity?

Eddinton's plate superimposed on a comparison plate showing outward displacements of stars near the sun during an eclipse.

Einstein's general theory of relativity is believed to be confirmed by an observed apparent shift of position of a star appearing in the sky close to the Sun, claimed to coincide with a bending of light ray by the gravitation from the Sun predicted by relativity theory of size:
  • 1.75" x R/D
where R is the radius of the Sun and D the minimal distance of the light ray from the center of the Sun. For a light ray passing close to the Sun the bending would thus be 1.75".

Since it is difficult to observe a star close to the Sun in the sky, because the Sun light is very much stronger than the light from the star, observations have been made during a full eclipse when the Sun light is shaded by the Moon. The first such observation was made in 1919 by Eddington, who claimed to observe precisely the predicted 1.75" and thereby rocketed Einstein to world fame. Later eclipse observations are claimed to confirm Eddington's results.

Let us now subject the eclipse observations as confirmation of general relativity, to scientific scrutiny. The following questions present themselves:
  1. Why use only eclipse observations with R = D, when the bending effect should present also for say D = 10 R in which case the star may be visible without eclipse shading?
  2. Are there confirming such observations without eclipse?
  3. Is it possible that light rays passing close to the Sun are subject to aberration from other effects than gravitation, like strong magnetic fields?
  4. Is it possible that during an eclipse the phenomenon of stellar aberration varying between 0 and 20" (as discussed in a previous post), disappears because the motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun in the case of no Sun light has no effect?
To use eclipse observations as confirmation of general relativity, it seems as if the answers to the above questions would have to be: 2 Yes, 3 No, 4 No. Is this so?

lördag 24 september 2011

Many-Minds Relativity: Stellar Aberration


Stellar aberration is an astronomical phenomenon of an apparent motion of celestial objects about their real locations upon observation in a telescope, discovered by James Bradley in 1729, who attributed it to the finite speed of light and the motion of Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

On the other hand the two stars of a binary star orbiting each other do not give rise to any aberration; they appear in the telescope as one star. This poses a serious difficulty for Einstein's relativity theory in which the there would be no difference between the case of a moving telescope and the case of a moving star.

In Many-Minds Relativity (or Many-Aethers Relativity) there is a natural explanation of the observed phenomena of telescopic stellar aberration which connects to Bradley's original explanation. In Many-Aethers Relativity a Star being observed and the Sun interact by electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell's equations in a coordinate system fixed to the Star and the Sun. The Earth moves in this coordinate system, which thus acts as a fixed reference coordinate system, and the motion of the Earth gives rise to an effect of aberration, just like that encountered when moving through wind or rain.

Many-Aethers Relativity thus allows a preferred reference frame to be defined by the major actors (Star and Sun) establishing the coordinate system for Maxwell's equations. The same coordinate system would be defined by a binary star, because the distance between the binary star and Sun is so large. In this coordinate system the Star would be fixed and the Earth would be moving which would explain the different observations of (i) stellar aberration and (i) binary star without aberration.

In Einstein's relativity there is no preferred reference frame and no Aether, and the different observations of (i) and (ii) appear contradictory.

Another nail in the Einstein coffin.