The Copernican-Einsteinian and the Tychonian understanding of the phenomenon both “fit the facts”. Therefore only experiments testing their inferences may and must allow us to make a reasoned-out choice. As I have shown: without exception such experiments confirm or favour Tycho Brahe and censure or doubt Copernicus. Hence when around the turn of the century the patrons of that canon of Frauenburg ran out of plausible ad hocs the only possibility left to them was to get on the STR bandwagon.
That their anti-geostatic persuasion could not but constrain them to do this is understandable. The Achilles’ heel that until today only with modus ponendo ponens arguments they have been able to bolster their case is glibly and conveniently overlooked. Also it should amaze nobody that only by ostracizing nay-sayers and relentless peer pressure on persistent opponents their establishment has succeeded in upholding relativity’s preponderance – thus the world wags. However, as soon as in the late sixties manned satellites offered the physicists the possibility to perform a modus tollendo tollens experiment, they did not jump at the obvious chance to verify their belief – and this I hold against them. True scientific spirits would have hastened incontestably to confirm their faith in the a-centric aimless Universe they are hankering after. Why didn’t they? Are they deep-down afraid of their ideal turning out to be an idol?
The point here is that aberration, if after an Einstein demoting space test it will have to be geocentrically understood, this indeed will make mincemeat of four centuries of progressive astronomy. According to Bradley the aberrational displacement is the angle between the star’s geometrical direction and the direction in which the telescope has to be pointed to observe that star. According to the updated Tychonian view the displacement is the angle between the direction in which the star is observed and its geometric direction at the moment of this observation. Or to formulate it otherwise: for the ruling view the aberration orbits are apparent and the Earth’s orbit actual, but for the view actual here defended the former are actual and the Earth’s is non-existent. And thereby hangs a tale! To quote a standard astronomical college text about stellar aberration: “The effect is greatest when the earth is moving at right angles to the direction to the star, and disappears when the earth moves directly toward or away from the star. A star that is on the ecliptic appears to shift back and forth by a small amount in a straight line during the year, for during part of the year the earth is moving in one direction compared to the star’s, and during the rest of the year the earth is moving in the opposite direction A star in a direction perpendicular to the earth’s orbit appears to describe a small circle in the sky, for its apparent direction is constantly displaced in the direction of the earth’s orbital motion from the direction it would have as seen from the sun. Stars in between these extremes appear to shift their apparent directions along tiny elliptical paths”.( 83)
That is to say (see figure 8): standing on and moving in the plane of the ecliptic ABCD we observe no aberration of the star E on that ecliptic when the Earth is at B and six months later at D. The angle BES is, of course, 20 “496, but this and the observed Doppler shifts as well as the apparent changes of place tell us nothing about the star’s distance. Unless it is so near to us that angle BES turns out to be slightly larger than the standard value. For then this difference is a parallactic angle, which allows us to triangulate the star’s distance.
In the geocentric model the situation is different, and this is easiest to demonstrate by means of a star on the ecliptic. Now the Earth is at rest in E, and the star’s orbit is an actual one. When we see the star in B and D it has actually been at those end points of the line segment we observe. Now, the stellar orbit being equal to that of the Sun, we know the true length of BD to be about sixteen light minutes. Angle BES is 20″ 496. And since with about 700 exceptions, we measure this 20” 496 aberration for all stars, a simple trigonometric calculation gives us the radius of the Stellatum, the shell in which they have been placed. That radius turns out to be about 58.1 lights days, i.e. one twentieth of a parsec.
As far as parallaxes are concerned: for those 700 “nearby” stars they are now, of course, far greater than those in the Copernican model (see figure 9). Angle BEC is the standard parallactic aberration for the Stellatum, AED that for “nearby” stars, and angle AEB represents the Copernican parallax.
Finally: in the Copernican estimation we observe the stars where they were from four to many thousand of light years ago. According to the geocentric conviction we see the starry dome in the position it had almost two months ago. Or less if light’s travel slows it down!
To be sure: in case Einstein will be experimentally affirmed I still shall not have to reject a geostatic cosmos. What every descendant of Adam and Eve with their sensorium, with all their senses, experience may still be true – we shall never know! I may, going one step further than Socrates, even generalize this foundational “never” for all aspects of being. To wit: unless in all sciences and in ethics we accept an above proof exalted Divine input, our knowing is a groping in the dark for a hold on nothingness.84) And beyond that: unless an Omniscient Logician stands behind the logic for which He conditioned our brains, all matter-free thinking and abstract reasoning resembles a blowing of soap bubbles.
- The Discarded Image Vindicated Experimentally
- The Bible is Not a Scientific Textbook