Common sense tells us that gravity would bend starlight and this easily explains the miniscule light diffraction observed with some stars and their starlight.
Every time I read one of your posts, It makes me wonder why most people are unable to apply common sense to science instead of blindly believing the "standard model" and not asking some simple questions.
Example: Logically, a common-sense view would state that ‘light aberration’ as given above may occur for 4 reasons:
1-The is Earth moving,
2-Or the star is moving,
3-Or something between the Earth and the star is moving
4-Or the medium (aether) is causing the aberration
Just because you think you viewed a displacement or change in ‘starlight’ over a period of time does not mean you have proven the Earth is moving.
Thanks Dan, glad you enjoy it and find it useful. Yes common sense left the room about 140 years ago. The results have been quite devastating. As you said, if 1000s of complicated experiments are generating a small net result on light speed variance, which cannot confirm Earth translation or even rotation, that data does give us a clue as to what is going. The actual model can still be in dispute but the 'standard model' cannot use it as support for their preferred model.
There are a few - Brahe in his 1588 claimed the same - that the universe rotates around a stationary Earth ~365 times a year, found also in modern Neo-Tychonian / Geocentric literature (such as works by Robert Sungenis, Gerardus Bouw, or Martin Selbrede).
Machian physics and Thirring's maths support the same possibility.
"Terra in centro mundi quiescens... caelum stelliferum spacio 24 horarum circa eam ab ortu in occasum una cum Sole & Planetis circumvolvi..."
(The Earth resting motionless at the center of the world... the star-bearing heaven turns around it from east to west in the space of 24 hours together with the Sun and Planets...)
Thanks and yes the fish analogy is a good one. Relativists assume we are moving (apriori assumption, unproven). Any 'phenomena' is therefore viewed through that filter (this is unscientific and philosophical). Starlight in a few cases is displaced on its travel to the Earth, but there could be many reasons for that. One should not conclude it is because we are moving. The aether or medium can displace light along with gravity. Modern science postulates that gravity slows down light and time (this is sensible and proven).
The Sun or some very large object (~109 times the size of the Earth), must have an impact on a telescope tracking a star's light over time. This is the simplest explanation at hand. In fact there is a 'Gravity Relativity' theory which if true would completely rewrite cosmology and time. As usual 'the science' mixes up its postulates with observations and says 'there see, it proves we are right!'. This is true of the Sagnac effect which disproves both the speed of light and Relativity yet they now try to claim the opposite (next post discusses how this is used in GPS').
Every time I read one of your posts, It makes me wonder why most people are unable to apply common sense to science instead of blindly believing the "standard model" and not asking some simple questions.
Example: Logically, a common-sense view would state that ‘light aberration’ as given above may occur for 4 reasons:
1-The is Earth moving,
2-Or the star is moving,
3-Or something between the Earth and the star is moving
4-Or the medium (aether) is causing the aberration
Just because you think you viewed a displacement or change in ‘starlight’ over a period of time does not mean you have proven the Earth is moving.
Love your work
Keep doing it
Thanks Dan, glad you enjoy it and find it useful. Yes common sense left the room about 140 years ago. The results have been quite devastating. As you said, if 1000s of complicated experiments are generating a small net result on light speed variance, which cannot confirm Earth translation or even rotation, that data does give us a clue as to what is going. The actual model can still be in dispute but the 'standard model' cannot use it as support for their preferred model.
"In the Tychonic system, as the universe rotates 365 times a year around the Earth" , source?
There are a few - Brahe in his 1588 claimed the same - that the universe rotates around a stationary Earth ~365 times a year, found also in modern Neo-Tychonian / Geocentric literature (such as works by Robert Sungenis, Gerardus Bouw, or Martin Selbrede).
Machian physics and Thirring's maths support the same possibility.
https://people.clas.ufl.edu/ufhatch/2022/07/28/the-tychonic-model-of-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system
https://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/tycho/tychonic_system.html
Brahe in 1588? Ok, which book and which page number? Simple.
Chapter 8 p. 185-6 De Mundi, 1588. Explicitly states the universe moves around the Earth 365 times per year.
I have not found that statement there but for others who would like to check for themselves here is the link:
https://archive.org/details/den-kbd-pil-130018110637-001/page/n199/mode/1up
Translation
https://schoepffer.substack.com/p/recent-phenomena-of-the-aethereal
It is there and clearly stated
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2f-EqKxRN34C
"Terra in centro mundi quiescens... caelum stelliferum spacio 24 horarum circa eam ab ortu in occasum una cum Sole & Planetis circumvolvi..."
(The Earth resting motionless at the center of the world... the star-bearing heaven turns around it from east to west in the space of 24 hours together with the Sun and Planets...)
Thanks and yes the fish analogy is a good one. Relativists assume we are moving (apriori assumption, unproven). Any 'phenomena' is therefore viewed through that filter (this is unscientific and philosophical). Starlight in a few cases is displaced on its travel to the Earth, but there could be many reasons for that. One should not conclude it is because we are moving. The aether or medium can displace light along with gravity. Modern science postulates that gravity slows down light and time (this is sensible and proven).
The Sun or some very large object (~109 times the size of the Earth), must have an impact on a telescope tracking a star's light over time. This is the simplest explanation at hand. In fact there is a 'Gravity Relativity' theory which if true would completely rewrite cosmology and time. As usual 'the science' mixes up its postulates with observations and says 'there see, it proves we are right!'. This is true of the Sagnac effect which disproves both the speed of light and Relativity yet they now try to claim the opposite (next post discusses how this is used in GPS').