Paradox of visual and actual positions in space.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 4, 2021
34
2
35
Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks) ... It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.



The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 1 light second. That is, the apparent and actual position of the moon is almost the same. The shortest distance from Earth to Jupiter is about 32 light minutes. The apparent and actual positions of Jupiter differ 4 times more than in the case of the Sun.



The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light? The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light. I do not question the speed of light, it has been measured and refined for several centuries. The official space distances and the sizes of space objects, respectively, are in great doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
599
327
1,260
What makes you think things are in dispute or in "great doubt"? What makes you think that astronomy doesn't take into account the differences between visible (observed) and actual positions of objects? Seems the very things you are questioning are acknowledged and taken into account.
 
Mar 7, 2021
1
0
10
Since light and gravitational waves travel at the same speed, the actual position of space objects plays no role...
 
Apr 9, 2021
12
6
15
When I read this, I started saying, "Oh My God!" over and over again. I love when someone brings up something that completely blows my mind like this. I had never thought about it, but now that I have, I will not be able to stop thinking about it.

I also believe that we have accurately mapped the planets as best we can with the technology that is available to us. The fact that the visual position of the Planet or sun is different than the actual position does not really change much in terms of "Official space distances and sizes of space objects."
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
599
327
1,260
Given the vast distances of objects in three dimensional space, the speed of light, and the fact that things are constantly moving, there will always be some relative variance in actual locations. Not exactly a great mystery and something well understood by science.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
FYI, I am surprised here at post #1. Light-time effect is covered in Jean Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms and discussed for example when it comes to observing occultations of stars by the Moon or planets in the solar system, same applies to asteroid observations of star occultations. The same applies to Galilean moon eclipse events at Jupiter (if you have the wrong calculations for when an eclipse event takes place at Jupiter, using your telescope, you will not see the event and light-time is an issue here). If you use software like Stellarium 0.21.0, this shows light-time and various sky position coordinates for the target in view. The answer is Galilean moon eclipse event ephemerides published like Sky & Telescope or Starry Night, Stellarium all use light-time effect so modern astronomy does this behind the scenes now.

When it comes to the Sun and 8 light-minutes travel time to Earth, that could be a 2 arcminute in sky position difference then. The Earth spins at about 900 arcminutes per hour. 2 arcminute variation at best is not something folks will see obviously in the sky during a sunny day :) Remember, the Sun has an angular size in the sky larger than 30 arcminute. Folks should remember some astronomical history here. In the 1670s and latter, it became apparent using better telescopes that events of Galilean moons at Jupiter were observed off some 20-40 minutes or more. This is what lead astronomers to understand that light travels to Earth from Jupiter at a finite velocity and we are on the way to Einstein and Special Relativity later :)
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
1,159
913
1,560
The Earth spins at about 900 arcminutes per hour. 2 arcminute variation at best is not something folks will see obviously in the sky during a sunny day.
But 900 arcminutes per hour is 15 arcminutes of travel per every minute of time (900arcminutes/60min.). So 8 minutes of time would give us 120 arcminutes of movement, or 4 solar disks.

In the 1670s and latter, it became apparent using better telescopes that events of Galilean moons at Jupiter were observed off some 20-40 minutes or more. This is what lead astronomers to understand that light travels to Earth from Jupiter at a finite velocity and we are on the way to Einstein and Special Relativity later :)
Yes. Roemer may have been the last to make serious astronomical use of the difference between observed and actual. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007 and rod
Jun 1, 2020
1,159
913
1,560
Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks) ... It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.

I think, per my prior post, the difference is ~ 4 solar disks, so even more dramatic. Pluto would be off by about 13 arcminutes, I think. At 600 AU, an object (Planet 9?) would be off by 3 degrees (~ 6 solar or lunar disks). Such things are routinely taken into account when working in celestial mechanics, no doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
599
327
1,260
Back to #1, the only concern I can glean from this is how to represent variance in a 2d drawing (as seen above). Using such diagrams could present a false sense of understanding. Just a guess.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
Helio, gets a math bonus point here :) Stellarium 0.21.0 shows the Sun's altitude and azimuth for *apparent* sky position. There are different sky position coordinates in use and sunrise, transit, and sunset times can vary. All modern astronomy software calculates light-time effect when observing, especially when generating ephemerides for use to watch Galilean moon events or occultations of stars by the planets or even asteroids. For those today who apparently come from the modern geocentric movement on the Internet today, these folks can publish their celestial ephemerides for use when observing various celestial events using telescopes, something easily tested by simple, direct observations of various targets in the sky and a good watch or stop watch, even cell phone times will work. A good book here, Navigation and Nautical Astronomy by Dutton, 1926-1951 at US Naval Academy. Much there on calculating ship locations using the Sun and Moon as well as different stars. If you miscalculate their sky positions and time of day/night, your ship will be at a different latitude/longitude too :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,159
913
1,560
Back to #1, the only concern I can glean from this is how to represent variance in a 2d drawing (as seen above). Using such diagrams could present a false sense of understanding. Just a guess.
There would be some variance in that particular drawing due to the solar image on the horizon which would be affected by atmospheric refraction, which slows the Sun's motion and squishes it a bit. :)

But, the illustration is still kinda cool. If you had a laser that shined, tachyons, at infinite speed and you wanted to hit the Sun, you would have to shift up to about 4 solar disks. A good dove hunter would have no problems as they must always aim ahead of the bird they see.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
"The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light?"

In post #1, this was a good question. The answer is astronomy does this all the time but it took time to discover the light-time effect, first noticed in the 1670s at Jupiter. Jupiter Eclipse Proves the Speed of Light, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jupiter-eclipse-proves-the-speed-of-light/, January 1848 edition.

Originally published in January 1848. “The eclipses of the moons of Jupiter had been carefully observed and a rule was obtained, which foretold the instants when the moons were to glide into the shadow of the planet and disappear, and then appear again. It was found that these appearances took place sixteen minutes and a half sooner when Jupiter was on the same side of the sun with the earth than when on the other side; that is, sooner by one diameter of the earth’s orbit, proving that light takes eight minutes and a quarter to come to us from the sun.” —Scientific American, January

The finite speed of light discovered at Jupiter by observing and timing Galiean moon eclipse events. Started in the early 1670s with Ole Romer astronomer who worked on this in 1672 with more details published in 1676.

I need to see the geocentric teachers ephemerides today so I can use my telescopes and cell phone times to test. The software calculates for light-time effect based upon distance from Earth. Simple to test and observe directly here and see if the geocentric teachers are correct or wrong. Folks using good telescopes with software like Skysafari, Stellarium, Starry Night should ask for the geocentric ephemerides based upon their understanding of celestial distances and movement, and compare and observe.
 
Mar 4, 2021
34
2
35
In post #1, this was a good question. The answer is astronomy does this all the time but it took time to discover the light-time effect, first noticed in the 1670s at Jupiter. Jupiter Eclipse Proves the Speed of Light, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jupiter-eclipse-proves-the-speed-of-light/, January 1848 edition.
In your example with the eclipses of Jupiter's moons, there are several key features that explain the delays or soonernesses in eclipses without the influence of the speed of light: 1) The satellite may be in the shadow of Jupiter; 2) The satellite can be obscured by Jupiter to the terrestrial observer, without being in the shadow of Jupiter. It depends on the position of the Earth in its orbit relative to Jupiter, and in no way depends on the speed of light.





Images source link: https://elementy.ru/problems/1417/Zatmeniya_Io_i_skorost_sveta
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
Eclipse of Jupiter's moon is too complex and multifactorial process to draw any conclusions about the speed of light on its basis.
Interesting thinking expressed here. I have the April 2021 issue of Sky & Telescope and on page 51, Phenomena of Jupiter's Moons, April 2021 ephemerides is presented from 01-April thru 30-April. Stellarium will do this, so too Starry Night software. I view these events routinely using my telescopes and record times. The calculations using light-time and observations of the Galilean moon events is accurate.

By the way, this is a simple way amateurs using quality backyard telescopes can check modern geocentric astronomy claims on the Internet today.
 
Mar 21, 2021
30
12
35
I’m glad this question came up. For some reason I had it in my head that the speed of light was first calculated closely by Michelson-Morley in there experiments to prove the existence of the ether. I see now that James Bradley calculated c at 301,000 m/sec in 1729. Pretty good for 1729!

That’s also evidence for my belief that humans haven’t really gotten smarter over the last 2000 years, we just have a huge body of knowledge and better tools.
 
Aug 14, 2020
255
58
260
What is the precise position, and condition, now of any particular galaxy anyone could name ten billion light years or more from the Earth? I have constantly seen the word "is" this and "is" that (meaning right now in time) used to describe objects many millions to many billions of light years from astronomers on Earth. Using the word "is" in a sense as if what is being described were right next door to the Earth, or to the Milky Way, gets irritating as heck. I once wrote NASA an e-mail concerning a caption they had on a pictured super-nova 70,000 light years away claiming it (the event itself rather than the discovery of it) had just occurred less than week before. It took them no time at all to correct the caption. NASA should not have to do it. They shouldn't have made such a huge mistake in the first place.

But the problem is, it keeps on happening with astronomers and cosmologists. Events as far away as ten billion light years being described as if they actually happened just yesterday.

It's not only captions and articles. What is far worse is zoom videos supposedly zooming out from the Earth and the solar system and the Milky Way to millions to billions of light years from the Earth. In them there is no movement to the solar system, no movement to the Milky Way, no movements to any of the galaxies near and far as the zoom keeps on zooming out. They should be videos of vortices and chaos speeding up -- like a universe traveler would actually witness rearwardly in traveling away -- but they are no such thing. It is all as peacefully still as if it were all a still universe instead of looking like something out of the universe of the small (something out of quantum mechanics) which is actually what it should look like in such zoom video picturing. Time reversal would then be on full display with an earlier, and yet earlier, Milky Way -- if still even in view and not have curved away -- speeding away (into chaos) toward earlier component formations eventually to disappear altogether into the distant Planck / Big Bang horizon. From left, right, top, and bottom of the zooming video more up-to-date (so to speak) universe galactic and other formations would come crowding into the light cone of the zooming view. This way (implied, out of the zoom picture) always zooming into future, that way (shown) always zooming away into past. The zoom having some 'dimensional' look, at least, of real breadth and depth of space and time (most particularly in gaining the inclusion of 'time' dimension) -- to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Mar 4, 2021
34
2
35
Two thoughts on this topic.

1) The distance to the most distant galaxy is supposedly 13.4 billion light years. This means that the light travels the entire distance without any obstacles. This means a straight line, along which there are no objects: stars, galaxies, nebulae, dust, gas - nothing blocking light in a straight line 13.4 billion light years long. Is it possible?

2) What is dark matter? An incomprehensible substance evenly scattered throughout the Universe, or is it the border of the Universe, from where the light is simply not reflecting? New Model Raises Doubt About the Composition of 70% of Our Universe – Dark Energy May Simply Not Exist!
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
FYI, the New Model of the Universe was discussed previously. The universe diameter is one light minute across. Consider what happens to reports like this in astronomy. https://phys.org/news/2021-04-stellar-feedback-airborne-observatory-team.html, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/15/eabe9511, "RCW 120 is a nearby (~1.7 kpc) HII region with a physical diameter of ~4.5 pc (13)."

None of the report here on RCW 120 is possible. Using the modern heliocentric solar system, RCW 120 angular size about 9 arcminute. However all size and velocities are now downsized. Just like the Galilean moon ephemerides needed, all the sizes and velocities and age calculations must be redone :)
 
Mar 4, 2021
34
2
35
None of the report here on RCW 120 is possible. Using the modern heliocentric solar system, RCW 120 angular size about 9 arcminute. However all size and velocities are now downsized. Just like the Galilean moon ephemerides needed, all the sizes and velocities and age calculations must be redone
Quite possibly that proportions are correct, but the scale is wrong.
Distortion to the scale (distances, sizes and velocities) in calculations may be caused by only one coefficient in that calculations. That coefficient may be the gravitational constant.

All celestial, orbital, trigonometrical, mathematical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and velocity - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient* in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and velocities).
* that incorrect coefficient may be the gravitational constant.
"The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy." (Wikipedia)
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
Well AlexKushnirtshuk, very interesting post #22. I note in your New Model of the Universe, "Thus, it is very similar to the fact that the Universe looks approximately like on the Tycho Brahe's model of the Universe, only with the correction for the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass. The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the ProtoEarth's mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the Universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute."

RCW 120 is said to be 4.5 pc in diameter, that is 14.68 light-years in diameter using modern heliocentric solar system astronomy and measurements. 14.68 light-years diameter is much larger than the New Universe Model that is *one light minute* in diameter. As your post said "Quite possibly that proportions are correct, but the scale is wrong."

You need to show the correct sizes now like the Galilean moon ephemerides. In your post #1, consider showing the diagram for the star Sirius, nearly 9 light-years away, not 8 minutes. If the Sun's position is off by 2 degrees, what about Sirius?
 
Mar 4, 2021
34
2
35
If the Sun's position is off by 2 degrees, what about Sirius?
The point is that, this should be so, according to the official model, but it is obvious that this is impossible.
Again.
According to the official model, sunlight travels to Earth for 8 minutes. In 8 minutes, the Sun moves across the sky by approximately the angular distance of two solar disks - this is the difference between the apparent and actual positions in the case of the Sun. In the case of Jupiter, the difference between the apparent and actual position is approximately 4 times greater. I did not consider the stars in order not to overcomplicate the explanation, because in the case of (for example) Sirius, it is difficult even to imagine the difference between its apparent and actual positions. Do you understand that this is proof of the fallacy of the official scale of the universe? Proof by contradiction - we have come to an obvious contradiction - proof of the failure of the official model, at least in terms of its scale.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,933
677
2,560
Okay, in post #24. Just go back and show the true size relative to your one light minute diameter for the universe in the New Model and publish the Galilean moon ephemerides that can be used to make observations of Galilean moon eclipse events. Jupiter is up now in SE sky at my location before sunrise, easy to test and observe now. However, just like RCW 120, the true size relative to the New Universe model is not presented. FYI. You make a distinction between *apparent and actual position* in the sky. You need to publish your ephemerides (Jupiter for example) showing how this changes modern astronomy based upon the heliocentric solar system for testing using telescopes. the New Universe Model will show dramatic differences in timing of observations like sunrise, sunset, transit times, etc. as well as planet occultation of stars, etc. Until the New Universe Model presents the ephemerides showing the corrections and what the true positions should be in the sky (Sirius is a good place to start), telescopes cannot test such claims at this time it seems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS