Common sense tells us that gravity would bend starlight and this easily explains the miniscule light diffraction observed with some stars and their starlight.
Excellent, as ever, and thanks for another great post. I had no idea about this one. Quite technical today so will print off, sit down and study it. It seems to me that what you are really saying here is that if one fish is swimming around another in a whirl pool then it is impossible to say which is moving and which is still and which one is going around the other. Is the universe wobbling? Are we? My head is spinning; but one thing I am sure of is that we do not know for sure one way or the other.
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').
Excellent, as ever, and thanks for another great post. I had no idea about this one. Quite technical today so will print off, sit down and study it. It seems to me that what you are really saying here is that if one fish is swimming around another in a whirl pool then it is impossible to say which is moving and which is still and which one is going around the other. Is the universe wobbling? Are we? My head is spinning; but one thing I am sure of is that we do not know for sure one way or the other.
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').