Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part three). Stellar parallax and Stellar aberration don't prove anything.
Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part three). Stellar parallax and Stellar aberration don't prove anything.
Observed and measured data can be explained using other models and views. None of the purported proofs of Copernicanism actually prove anything.
“If, therefore, under all circumstances, and especially in the comparison of days when the sign of aberration has changed, the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., column (B) - (A)] is sensibly constant, it proves that the True Aberration is the same as the Received Aberration, or at least that one is not a multiple of the other.” (George Airy, 1871, p. 37)
Simply put, Airy could not confirm Stellar aberration. And he is far from alone.
The dogma
There are 11 commandments which are deployed as proof of Copernicanism. The observed phenomena used as proofs are however, cogently explained from another viewpoint and model. If another explanation can be applied, than Copernicanism with its attendant scientific theology and observational support is just a theory, and cannot be accepted as proof.
The standard list, used in textbooks and by online gatekeeps of what constitutes ‘proofs’ for Copernicanism beyond the ‘law of gravitational attraction’ includes:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (dealt with in 2 previous posts)
2. The Stellar Parallax
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites (this post)
7. Space probe measurements (this post)
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
This post will cover points 1 and 2, namely the Stellar parallax and aberration. Further posts will go through the rest of the standard list of supposed proofs for heliocentricity.
To Airy is human
George Airy in 1871, could not prove Stellar aberration, a claim that had gone unchallenged by that time, for almost 150 years. Using a water-filled telescope, Airy proposed to confirm both Bradley’s 1725 claim of stellar aberration, and that of the German Klinkerfues in 1867. As with Arago’s attempt in 1810, along with many others who tried and failed, Airy could find no proof of stellar aberration or light aberration (Antonello, 2014) . Airy was a committed Copernican who was dismayed at his own findings.
Many experiments have since reconfirmed Airy’s findings as other posts here have outlined (Michelson, Sagnac, Miller etc). Unfortunately the flat-earthers enthusiastically refer to the Airy experiment, giving ‘The Science’ a convenient and easy target to disparage the reality of what he and others discovered. We should not conflate factual evidence from real experiments with the non-science that the Earth is a pancake surrounded by an ice wall.
Claim 1: The Stellar Parallax Proves the Earth is Moving
This valid cosmological phenomenon has been consistently advocated as the vindicator of heliocentrism. Science textbooks and online apologia will usually declare that Friedrich Bessel (1784–1846) discovered heliocentrism’s long-awaited proof when in 1838, he observed a very slight shift in the position of the nearby star Cygnus against the background of a more distant star.
There are some who claim that Giovanni Pieroni, a friend of both Galileo and Kepler, may well have discovered the parallax in the early 17th century or 200 years earlier. Copernican astronomers usually praise Bessel as the great proof-giver of heliocentricity ignoring Pieroni (he was a Catholic after all). However, the ugly reality is that parallax does not prove heliocentrism.
What is it precious?
A standard definition of a stellar parallax is:
Parallax is the apparent displacement of an object because of a change in the observer's point of view.
This concept is of course central to the theory of Relativity which has been well savaged in other posts. A parallax is used to measure the distance to a star.
From this image, using the heliocentric view of a parallax, we can describe how a parallax measurement would work (Ostlie and Carrol, pp. 57–59).
1. In this model, the Earth is orbiting the Sun;
2. In December, whilst on one side of the orbit, we pull out our telescope and observe 2 stars which are viewed at the same time;
3. One star is near to the Earth, and the other appears further away;
4. For simplicity let’s assume that both stars are aligned vertically in the same plane, that is, one star is at a higher position in our telescope lens than the other, but both are on the same vertical line;
5. Six months later in June we take another look at these 2 stars;
6. If the stars are not in a vertical alignment any longer, and have deviated from the y axis, than we have a ‘parallax’;
7. The parallax motion means that the closer star appears to have shifted to the right off the vertical plane;
8. The shifting of the nearer star is due to the mobile orbit of the Earth around the Sun, since we have viewed this star from 2 different orbital locations, one in December, one in June, now separated by 186 million miles (the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun);
9. Since stellar parallax can now be detected among a select few stars, most astronomers have generalized this interpretation to include all Stars, and offer this as proof for the Earth’s movement around the Sun.
Sounds pretty good. When analysing Copernicanism, I found this to be a somewhat convincing argument.
Note that this evidence was proferred almost 300 years after Copernicus issued his theory, or in the case of Pieroni 80 years post-Copernicus, and was never referenced by Galileo in his dispute with the Church over evidence for heliocentricity. Stellar parallax is the second reported ‘observational proof’ in support of heliocentricity if we follow the standard narrative and credit Bessel in the mid-19th century. Stellar aberration (below) was the first reported proof, some 200 years after Copernicus if we ignore Pieroni. When the Church asked Galileo for proof, this is what it meant. The evidential proofs took hundreds of years to develop.
It proves…?
Yet when you look into the stellar parallax as with the Galilean phases of Venus, you will quickly uncover that the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system explains the same phenomenon quite nicely. This information will never be given to you, nor is it discussed within ‘The Science’ and its ‘educational systems’. This is called a bias.
In the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system, the stars are centered on the Sun, which is also true in the heliocentric system. The only difference is that within the geocentric model the Earth is fixed in space, while both the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth. Given this fact, there can be no difference in the observed phenonema between helio-or geo-centricity. Using the Tychonic model if we view 2 stars in December, they are in vertical alignment. When we look at these same two stars again in June, the nearer star will appear to have shifted to the right of the farther star, and it will do so at the same precise angle as in the heliocentric model.
This equivalence of the geocentric parallax with the heliocentric parallax is to be expected. Based on geometrical reciprocity, the two systems must be equal on all counts, confirmed by Mach and his disciple Einstein. The only difference is that in the heliocentric model the Earth is moving and the stars are fixed, while in the Tychnoic or geo-helio-centric model the Earth is fixed and the stars are moving. Everything else is the same. But no one is told this.
…nothing much
Simply put, parallax does not prove heliocentrism. The phenomenon of parallax only proves that there is a bias towards the Copernican model, even though a perfectly viable alternative exists. One reason why Tycho Brahe’s mixed geo-helio-centric model was accepted by many in the 17th century, was that no one had discovered a stellar parallax. But even despite a parallax, there is no kinematical, mathematical or observational reason why the Tychonic system is incorrect. Back to worldviews, philosophies and man’s place in the cosmos.
Tychonic-geocentric explanation for Stellar parallax - animation
We can see the equivalence when we look at heliocentricity side by side with the Tychonic model. In the diagram above the heliocentric parallax is on the left, the geocentric on the right. In the heliocentric model, the Earth is at the 11:00 o’clock position and is moving counterclockwise. In the geocentric model, the Sun is at the 5:00 o’clock position and moving counterclockwise with the stars. The white lines converge at Earth and form the parallax angle. In both models the parallax angle is the same. At the top of the box is the “View from Earth.” Each box has the same view, showing the equivalence of the heliocentric and geocentric models (R. Sungenis, p. 156)
Maching it
Mach, Einstein, Hoyle and many other physicists have maintained that there is a kinematical and dynamical equivalence between the heliocentric and Tychonic-geocentric systems (Barbour, 2010). There is however, a difference between the two if we view motion. In the neo-Tychonic system, there is an underlying key assumption that the orbits of distant masses move around the Earth, and are synchronized with the Sun’s orbit. To prove this the motion of the Sun and Mars have been analyzed, with the conclusion that an accelerated motion of the Universe as a whole, could generate a “pseudo-potential” that not only explains the origin of the pseudo-forces (Coriolis, Euler, centrifugal), but also the very motion of the celestial bodies as seen from a static Earth (Popov, 34, 383).
This is evidential proof to support the Tychonian view and explanation of the parallax. If these claims are correct, than the stellar parallax is more easily explained by the neo-Tychonic model than by Copernicanism. In any case, it is obvious that the stellar parallax, which is based on a few stars and their displacement throughout the year, does not prove heliocentricity.
Claim #2: ‘Stellar Aberration’ Proves the Earth is Revolving Around the Sun
Stellar aberration has for some 300 years been viewed as a proof for heliocentrism. In fact, it is generally the first ‘observational proof’ of Copernicanism, some 200 years after the theory was proposed. This ‘evidence’ is even implied in the name given to the phenomenon, since it purports to be an ‘aberration’ of star light due to the assumed motion of the Earth around the Sun. It was first discovered by James Bradley in 1725 when he was attempting to find a stellar parallax (Busch, 1838).
Stellar aberration model:
A standard description of Bradley’s stellar aberration is:
…light consists of small particles which travel at a finite speed, and the light particles appear displaced in the direction the Earth was moving in the same way raindrops are displaced by the same effect of a moving Earth
Every textbook and narrative gatekeeper will emphasise on every other line, that Bradley ‘proved heliocentricity’. Did he? ‘The Science’ has conveniently forgotten that light-aberration can occur for 4 reasons:
1- The is Earth moving,
2- The star is moving,
3- Or something between the Earth and the star is moving
4- Or the medium (ether) is causing the aberration
The Sun worshipping narrative
During the year, stars are moving ever so slightly around their general location. The precise path of this movement depends on where the star is in relation to the latitude from which we observe them on Earth. Over an entire year the star should be seen to revolve in a circle when observed from any location on Earth.
In 1725, Bradley sailing down the Thames, observed the star Gamma Draconis, which is very close to the North Star, Polaris. Depending on your Earthly location, say Bradley’s view from the Thames River, or someone else observing from the equator, the eccentricity of this star’s ellipse will be different. Eccentricity simply means how ‘circular’ the ellipse or oval, will appear. The greater the distance from the north pole, the greater the eccentricity or less circular and more oval will be the ellipse.
The orbits of a satellite are oval (ellipse) shaped, they are not circular (a mistake made by Copernius).
This ‘elliptical’ phenomenon occurs for each star in the sky, without apparently any exceptions. It does not matter how far or how close the star is from Earth. This phenomena occurs in both the northern hemisphere and the southern hemispheres, and in the same shapes and proportions. Additionally, the Sun and the planets will show the same aberration, approximately 20.5 arc seconds. An arc second as a measurement is 1/3600 degrees meaning that there are 1,296,000 arc seconds in a full circle (calculated as 360 degrees × 60 seconds × 60 minutes). The only body exempt from this phenomenon is the Earth’s moon (Ostlie, Carrol).
It all seems very convincing.
So, the question is: what is causing the light of these celestial bodies to create these elliptical shapes and why is the moon exempt?
Some answers are given below.
Assume the dogma
Light is affected by the medium of transference. In Einsteinian theory there is no medium in space, so in the 4 reasons listed above for stellar aberration, #4 is ignored. Copernicans always invoke a ‘vacuum’ which is a cover for ‘nothingness’. In the Copernican view therefore, the star light cannot be aberrated by a medium since none exists. This concept is of course wrong. Nothing means nothing. Waves of light and sound do not travel through nothing. But one can accept the Copernican fallacy at face value to analyse what may actually cause stellar aberration.
Let’s accept the incorrect Copernican ideal that space is nothingness. The cause for stellar aberration could therefore arise from:
(a) the source of the light namely the star,
(b) the receiver of the light, in our case the Earth, or
(c) the light itself
Heliocentrists believe that stars are fixed (notwithstanding their slight movement around their location) and the Earth is mobile. This means that for Copernicans (a) is impossible. This leaves either (b) the receiver (Earth) or (c) the light itself as the cause.
Modern heliocentrism would claim that the receiver, or Earth, depending on its speed, determines when and how the star light is observed. That is, the faster the receiver is moving, the more the star light will be aberrated. This is part of the theory of Relativity and the relative motions of objects and observers. This explanation uses the speed of light (see Einstein, Mach).
Within a vacuum, light purportedly travels at 186,000 miles per second and in the heliocentric system, the Earth is moving at 19 miles per second around the Sun. When we combine the speed of light with the Earth’s mobility, we can calculate light aberration as a ratio of the speed of light with the speed of Earth.
This is accomplished by taking the arc tangent of 19 miles per second divided by 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light), which is 0.0057 degrees. Copernicans therefore claim that light will be aberrated over the course of a year by 0.0057 degrees or about 20.5 seconds of arc as stated previously in the above section. This means that the aberration will cover a 20.5/1,296,000 total arc seconds patch of the 360º night sky, or roughly .00016% of the total sky, a rather insignificant amount and barely noticeable and only detected with highly calibrated equipment (Godfray, Ostlie & Carrol).
There are a lot of assumptions in the above Copernican view of stellar aberration but that is the main idea. Two relative bodies are both moving and the receiver of the light will witness an aberration due to relative movement.
The Tychonic-geocentric view
As with the stellar parallax, there is an alternative view that no one is given and which is rarely investigated. The neo-Tychonic explanation for stellar aberration is very simple. This simplicity is more compelling than the Copernican framework.
Video animation of light aberration in the geocentric and heliocentric models
In the Tychonic view there is no aberration of star light. Any apparent aberration is generated by the movement of the star around the Earth. The cause of this light displacement is the essentially like that of the stellar parallax, namely, the stars are aligned with the Sun, and revolve around the Earth each year.
In this view stellar aberration is not caused by a bending of the star’s light, but by the revolution of all the stars around the Earth, which, depending on the latitude of the star with respect to the Earth’s equator, makes the starlight appear as a circular or elliptical annual motion on Earth. The star field rotates around the Earth on the north/south celestial pole, but the pole itself revolves with a 20.5 arc second radius. As viewed from Earth, the motion of the stars on or near the celestial pole will form a circle in the north, an ellipse at 45º latitude and a hyperbola or flat oval at the equator (Popov, 383). This is exactly what is viewed in reality.
It is noteworthy that James Bradley, as noted by Godfray, “when discussing his observations after the discovery of aberration, found that the changes of declination of the stars could not all be accounted for by precession and aberration alone...found an intimate connection between these oscillations of the earth’s axis, to which he gave the name of Nutation.” (Godfray, p. 219).
This insight by Bradley is memory-holed. Precession (change in the direction of a rotating axis) and nutation (small osciallation around an axis, a wobble), are caused by an outside torque, the influence of gravity and/or an imbalance in mass distribution. In the Tychonic system, as the universe rotates 365 times a year around the Earth, it will precess and nutate by 0.112 arc seconds per day, which will cause all the stars to move over the course of the year. Again, this comports with actual measurements but is unaddressed by Copernicans.
By the light of the Moon
There is one other factor to mention and that is the speed of light and the difference between the source and the receiver of the star light. Modern heliocentrism believes:
(a) star light is independent from the star once it is emitted from the star, and
(b) the emitted star light is not independent of the motion of the receiver.
In the Tychonic model, no aberration of light exists, given there is simply a vector radiation of light (electric field, magnetic field, direction), from the star that travels in a linear direction to the viewer on Earth. This was proven in 1871 by George Biddell Airy which refuted heliocentrism (quoted at the beginning of this post) and is explained in another post.
It is also worth noting that in the Copernican model, the Sun and planet’s 20.5" movement is caused by their annual traveling with the rest of the star field and they will therefore react in the same manner as the stars. However, the moon does not show a 20.5" movement since it is locked in place by the gravity of the fixed Earth. The heliocentric model has no explanation for these phenomena.
Bottom Line
As with the stellar parallax, the aberration of light or the solar aberration is not proof of anything. The simpler and more elegant explanation which supports the observed phenomena lies with the geo-helio-centric, neo-Tychonic model. In any event, using the science establishment’s own ‘laws’ and principles, the neo-Tychonic model explains just as well the apparent ‘proofs’ of stellar parallax and aberration. But few know of this. Again, heliocentricity, without evidential mechanical proofs, can only be forwarded as a theory, not a fact.
The next post will criticallly analyse the Foucault pendulum and why it does not prove heliocentricity.
===Related Posts
Heliocentricity and Theoretical proofs (part two). Forces which Copernicanism cannot explain.
Heliocentricity and Theoretical proofs (part one). Newtonian gravitation
Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 3). Georges Sagnac and the ‘Sagnac effect’
Heliocentricity and Scientism (part 2)
Is Heliocentricity a proven fact?
An overview of Special Theory of Relativity (STR)
An introduction to the underlying maths of STR
Key scientists and actors within the STR domain
James Webb Telescope observations which refute parts of STR and the Big Bang
Herbert Dingle’s unanswered clock paradox and the inherent contradiction within STR
Scientism and Special Relativity, the Paradigm is ending
From Aristotle to the Big Bang
(quite a few posts about the scientism of the Big Bang, just use the search icon)
Sources
Airy, George Biddell. “On a supposed alteration in the amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, produced by the passage of the Light through a considerable thickness of Refracting Medium.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Volume XX (1871–1872), No. 130, November 23, 1871 (Art. IV), pp. 35–39
Antonello, Elio. “Water-filled telescopes.” (2014).
Popov, L., 2013, “Newtonian-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions,” Eur. J. Phys., 34, 383
Ostlie, D. A., and Carrol, B. W., 2007, An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics, 2nd ed., San Francisco: Addison Wesley
Barbour, J., 2010, “The definition of Mach’s principle,” arXiv:1007.3368
Sungenis, R. 2017, ‘Galileo was wrong’
Reduction of the Observations Made by Bradley at Kew and Wansted to Determine the Quantities of Aberration and Nutation, Dr. Busch, Assistant Astronomer at the Royal Observatory of Königsberg, Oxford University Press, 1838
Hugh Godfray, A Treatise on Astronomy, Cambridge, MacMillan, 1866