The VLBI details:
· uses a radio quasar as source
· longer wavelength than optical means poor resolution
· distances to target quasars is unknown - see Halton Arp’s refutation of the deep-space quasar contention
· multiple array antennas have individual atomic clocks which introduces independent random errors.
Radio astronomy VLBI uses a single quasar source as reference source for a multiple array antenna system! So the projected motions of Earth are based on the motion of one(1) star! ( geodetic VLBI applications use multiple sources.) The motions detected by VLBI’s single object are attributed to the Earth which is assumed to be rotating. In GC systems any motion must be external- that is, in the heavens.
Mainstream VLBI uses HC and special relativity models to correct for the Earth’s orbital speed of 30 km/s. This actually introduces errors such as receiver aberration, Lorentz length contractions and dilation of the atomic clock time. Also corrections are made for the elliptic ‘orbit’ of the Earth, the gravity field of the Moon, long term polar motion, precession and nutation.
The GC model makes no such ‘corrections’.
To synchronize remote stations, the Earth is often considered to be temporarily at rest, for a fixed time. Imagine that - the Earth at rest! Sometimes the change is permanent by using the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial ) reference system, which fixes the stars in the Earth’s aether system, not the lab frame. To eliminate gravity effects on the signal, the SSBC (Solar System BaryCentric) frame is used. But there’s a small problem here – no one has tested that this is true, or that the SSBC is properly located by using observations in that frame…. as the scientific method requires.
The VLBI receiving antennae on the Earth’s surface are definitely moving in the SSBC frame, so complex transformations must be used to convert GC ground station data into the preferred frame of the SSBC (preferred frame?? – doesn’t that violate relativity dogma? …. Be quiet and read your Einstein.)
Proper stellar motion is the apparent(?) motion of a star relative to its neighbors. But a star’s local neighborhood is without depth perception … defined as stars within a certain angle of the target, while they may be trillions of miles away in reality!
The definition makes a patchwork of the sky where some areas are considered not moving and others as moving, even though they may contain a few common stars! The logical conflict is – as usual – ignored.
More problems - The rotation models published by standard agencies - like the IERS and the GFSC – are different!
After all these corrections, there’s no surprise that the quasar source appears to move in the VLBI network. The HC interpretation is that all the stars move like the target star….. and that’s because the Earth changed its rotation!
In the reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLBI , the very first sentence reveals the flaw in the VLBI network – a single target is used. In the ALFA GC model, each star can have its own proper motion, driven by its local aether flow. To detect individual motion with respect to its local neighborhood, at least two other stars (forming a triangle) should be used. Separate stellar motion is detected then by any change in the triangle’s shape. Using only one object as target will not distinguish whether the star has an anomalous rotation…. or the Earth.
To show that the Earth’s spin has changed slightly requires that all the stars show the same slight motion at the same time, since the source of the observed extra motion is the entire Earth. This is a necessary but insufficient condition, since the star could all slow down at the same time, with the Earth being at rest.
The VLBI data for single sources as presently used is useless for determining where the extra motion resides, and so cannot discern whether the HC or GC model is correct.