[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 08:58:03 +1000
Friends I need to have your opinion on my analysis and answer to Alan.
I can't really believe it was so simple. I might be missing something. For
simplicity
I have ignored that there are both annual and diurnal effects to be
considerd.
Alan you said the following.
I saw my brother this evening. He says that the aberration of
light proves that the earth moves.
If the earth were stationary and the stars moving round it, their
angular velocities would all be the same, but their linear velocities
would be different, because of their different distances. This would mean
that the aberration of light would be different for different stars,
depending on their distance.
I need hardly tell you, that the aberration of light is the same
for all stars!
Alan Griffin
Thank you Alan for that information. I hope it is correct that the
aberration is the same for all stars. I have taken so long to respond
because as I said the internet presented too much confusion over this
aberration. I should have gone to my ancient physics book in the beginning.
So now I know what aberration is. I thank you for informing us that the
observed aberration is the same for all stars irrespective of their distance
from us.
I believe that to be true. But you are wrong in taking this to prove the
earth moves. It took a bit of playing with the sugar and salt containers on
the table for me to visualise it.
First lets put the reality of aberration up front. This is not to teach my
learned superiors, but to give them every opportunity to show me my errors
if I get it wrong. This geocentric stuff is a new learning curve for me and
calculus I don't want to know about.
Take a right angle triangle A B the base, and B C the vertical at right
angles to AB. BC is looking at star S. AC is the angle of observation of S'
after the observer has moved from from B to A. BCA is the angle of
aberration. It seems to me here that this angle would occur whether the
star moved, or the observer. But that is irrelevant for the moment.
In practical terms,
Aberration according to my book is the angle one has to shift his gaze (the
angle of the telescope) to keep looking at the particular star as he moves
at right angles to the it. Looking straight out vertically at a star as we
the observer moves forward we have to look back.
Oh dear. I've done that in the train. Hasn't everyone? Notice something?
All those telegraph poles close by have a much greater aberration than the
distant mountains. Thats when I am moving.
Am I getting something wrong here. Ok so the distant stars are really
distant compared to Proxima. So if I am moving, then the angle of
aberration would be greater for proxima (the telegraph pole) than the rim
stars, (the distant mountains) Do it with three salt shakers, one being the
moving observer.
But Alan said with absolute certainty that the aberration for all the stars
is the same. So we cant be moving after all. Either that or all the stars
are the same distance away. (have we heard that before?)
So back to the other proposition. The stars move around the stationary
earth.
I used a gramaphone turntable. With the observer sitting on the shaft
stationary in the centre. I put Proxima half way out and the salt cellar on
the edge and spun the turntable. What do you know. The angle of aberration
was the same for both stars. In fact I had to put Proxima on a slightly
different radian to the other star or I would never be able to see it.
I don't know Alan, but perhaps your brother will have to come up with
something better to prove it is the earth and not the stars moving.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Griffin" <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge
On 31 Jul, Steven Jones <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Griffin,
> You said regarding the Earth's movement:
> "It's not alleged. It's a demonstrated fact."
> The motion of the Earth has never been proven. If your so confident that
> it has, then all I ask of you is simply to cite just one example, which
> I shall refute with the minimum of effort.
I saw my brother this evening. He says that the aberration of
light proves that the earth moves. (Remember the analogy of having to hold
an umbrella tilted forward while walking throught the rain, because the
rain appears to come down at an angle to the vertical?)
He says that the amount of the aberration is due entirely to the
linear speed. If the stars are stationary, and the earth moving, the angle
of the aberration is the same for all stars.
If the earth were stationary and the stars moving round it, their
angular velocities would all be the same, but their linear velocities
would be different, because of their different distances. This would mean
that the aberration of light would be different for different stars,
depending on their distance.
I need hardly tell you, that the aberration of light is the same
for all stars!
Alan Griffin
Other related posts:
