starlight - aberration

ca 1913, an astronomer checked for aberration in fast co-revolving pairs of stars: none was found, contrary to the simplicity of Einstein's 1905 space-time frame-relativity

[See also Einstein's relative goof integrating zero; and cosmic aether]

Yet even then source-aberration of starlight was not expected beyond its own locus: A star could not throw its light as to appear from where it had not gone before: Only the velocity of the observer (Earth) could misinterpret the starlight as if from a way-off angle. It was so postulatedly true, that its verification should have been performed as an ersatz experiment as was Frame Relativity itself: The aberration of starlight should be estimable for relative momentum, viewer velocity giving relative momentum to incoming things, source velocity carrying outgoing things relatively forward-beyond the viewer: A moving source would appear late-placed only because it was in prior fact in, that place, and there emitted light, which took time to reach .... Starlight actually reaching Earth, would be momentum-balanced as directed to the point receiving it; A star could not throw a curve, unless instantaneously dragging an aether-frame at some interstellar radius,- and partners dragging it back. (The theory stayed while General Relativity joined it to stellar mass frames.)

From a moving star, light-relativistic headlight effects occur: Doppler shift, forward angular compression, gravitational precession; A star emits light in all directions, color and intensity varied by its motion: an intensity no less forward of itself: not behind ... And that should be fixed for the Earth viewer in any of these experimental cases ... The experiment thus proving that co-revolving stars did not proportionally drag a cosmic frame, -which would have been essentially an aether, but which special frame-relativity presumed did not exist nor occur,-- which is as our science expects: objects exist as of, the aether, not separately attached physically-to 'it'.

Simply, Starlight appears aberrated, source-displaced forward by the velocity of the observer and (times) the distance to the source: a focal redistancing of stars inline -if focal distance could be measured of a star;- a displacement angle of stars at the side.

But Frame Relativity was trying to make and answer a larger prior question:--

The first trouble with Frame Relativity v. stellar aberration was in the theory of traversing a wavefront: the presumption being that photon-waves would necessarily appear as wavehead-on (It would not appear so for a ship in sea waves); And stellar aberration which tunnelizes a spot of wavefront, tested the presumption, not-disagreeing, and whence Frame Relativity assumed temporal retranslation making the ship-view of the wave see the front meet the wavehead sooner (cf its long pole fitting in the barn, corollary: the pole sees the barn shorter, so the barn rear door must have opened before the front closed, to pass in the pole's frame-relativity,- while in the barn's frame-relativity, the front door closed before the rear opened, to fit capturing the long pole for that instant) ... to a traveler sitting on the wavehead, the cosmos would appear flat, -per Einstein's famous original question,- depth angles chimerical --and, cosmic background 3° radiation impenetrably ablaze brighter than a supernova core: riding the leading edge of Zeno's paradox as it seemed. Frame Relativity had invented the aetherless photon-wave that always met wavehead-on, though it was well known that a photon lenses equally well at any incipient angle: it does not have to be wavehead-on ... (And, a lens contracted magnifies its focal-distance).

And, the reason this was sensible at all, was that a photon was estimated to be a wavefront: essentially an observable constant within itself, no spinning, no reshaping (though very suspect indeed as ordinary wavefronts spread to fill, taking some time, albeit secondary compared to any ordinary wavicle spin time), and therefore has no measurable estimate of its journey (année-migration, to be correct in light-years); But Einstein, veered into the possibility that this lack-of time was a dimensional shortcoming dilation, when it was but entropic aether-motion, dimensional only in a fractal-metric sense: not Real.

On top of this, the physicists of that era had not decided what any atom would do at near-lightspeed ... the integral electron orbitals wavelengths we learn today would necessarily be shortened by an averaging velocity-length relation, and mostly in the forward inline direction as back-traveling electron-phases swing faster around forward-traveling nuclear protons, and both traveling forward pass further ahead, -and lopsided,- to gain overall distance ... Not a frame relativity but an aether relativity, as causal, not deducible ...

... A multiple-paradox refuting Special Relativity as-was-is ... And its origin had troubles of its own: Michelson Morley interferometry concept schematic

cf Four-Quadrant Light Speed Anisotropy Test By Michelson-Morley Interferometry:

In the lightspeed-anisotropy experiment on the Michelson-Morley Interferometer, a beam of light was split to two perpendicular paths each traveling sixteen table widths and recollimated in a telescope lens (actually a photon interferometry microscope, whatever the distance); Compensation glass was included; The amount of interference they expected in their implementation was less than a photon-wave cycle ....

But their overall strategic arithmetic was unclear in that era, fifty years before the advent of lasers:

... the resultant perpendicular polarizations and statistically uncorrelated phases returning to add energetically rather than spatially interfere,- tending to douse the objective interference to null-difference and appear near constant ... specious experimentation in its own era (per common records and depictions).

(Their experiment did appear to observe a small difference in favor of suggesting they had discovered the evening rush hour traffic.)

ON THE TWO PERPENDICULAR PATHS:

Estimating lightspeed as C=1, and minor aberration angles on first-and second-order -(next-order contributions being insignificant),--

On the longitudinal path inline with Earth velocity V, the Beam Splitter at 45° is effectively laidback to (C/C-V) in their assumption-test aether frame: an angle of V√0.5 and reflected to twice that difference, V√2 (The "perpendicular" beam crossing tilted slightly forward in the laboratory frame but the telescope gathered it back). Its length traversed is extended by secant, 1 + (2 ²V/2) so that both lengths are equal: C (tforward + tback) = (L/C-V) + (L/C+V) = ... = 2 L / 1-²V (in units of C=1).... Third quadrant tilt is anti-similar.

And the momentum analysis agreed: The receding-catch at the Beam Splitter decreases a caught photon inline momentum by V, bounce-reemitted perpendicular with mirror-carried inline momentum of V; whence the bounced beam has momentum V⊥C-V or V√2 at 45° to forward of C perpendicular,-- the same angle difference, at first and second order .... Alike process agrees for inline, passed photons.

But on the transversal path perpendicular to Earth velocity, experiment symmetry retained except the initial source angle shy, would have changed the lengths,- assuming no "space"-bending in turning the platform. [under further construction]

cf Einstein's Square:

Einstein's gedanken experiment removed the light source in a Michelson-Morley Interferometer and assumed a pair of beams bouncing in two dimensions returning to a common point in the experiment frame; And, he presumed the outside cosmic frame would experience a commensurate result, while he neglected stellar aberration at this point .... Had he, not, in an aether-based cosmic frame, he would have gotten a result similar by interpretation, not observation:- Light bouncing perpendicular would have the same inline momentum, without aberration, but observations at the mirror-contact event-points would differ by first order effects and higher:-- ... similar to Einstein's estimate but separating the apparent angle into two components of equal effect until we consider contractions, And we need consider the method of acceleration,- whether that is through atomic paths that will shrink to fit, or, isolated:- Were all three points in the experiment accelerated together, there could be no imposed contraction; But that would have been near impossible for Michelson-Morley, and no easier for Einstein, --and would have succeeded,-- as the experiment at-hand involved atomic shrinkage:

Maintaining gedanken construction and presuming atomic shrinkage is the same explanation as Planck photon shrinkage at higher energy as we now estimate that mass, is, energy, convolved on itself (something that Einstein, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, must not have considered, as their relativistic contraction √(1-(V²/C²)) was inline, not circumferentially curvilinear),- but this presents a small theory anomaly: the electrons are already in orbit about the nucleus, and merely change direction to move forward inline, without changing size ... and more in particular, electron auto-coherence is a function of nuclear proximity and does not significantly change wavelength without emission of a photon ... Nevertheless, the gedanken can play deeper: An electron passing a moving proton, on its rearward path is energized and compressed; and lengthened as it takes the longer forward path: This keeps the electron orbit balanced and not-lopsided, but does not contract the electron on the sideways path sides, front and rear, .... [under further construction]

Correlative Notes, Points Of View:

The approach is to look at the effect of aether on the basic structure of mass itself: Atoms with electrons in integral self-circulation maintaining their phases at all speeds, must do what the physicists postulated as happening because of their experiments: The shape of each orbital electron must shrink in the motion direction, by a light-relativistic factor or possibly by the electron orbit lopsidedness; whence a potential factor in earthquakes, and in liquifaction-maintenance of neutron stars ... Their experiment should have discovered exactly what was going-on, in the aether ....

Aberration being dependent on velocity and distance not length, does not readily fit frame-relativity arithmetic anyway: Galaxies and their cores turning in the distant reaches of the universe would most all appear inside-out and spread out arc-minutes, each ten million lightyears across, a few million and spanning the sky, if frame-relativity did, ... prepostulating that 1913 astronomer's experiment.

Paul Marmet's explanation would have two factors correcting the transversal length, but inspection showed the two to be the same in Quadrant #1: one being the angulating cause; the other being a reinterpretation purportedly related to stellar aberration but which for even that very reason, as per above, Aberration at the source does not arrive at the receiver. But the second factor would apply to Quadrant #2,- and then mirror-tilting also applies ...

NB. Stellar aberration is usually not measured in units of L-traveling but in units of L-still ... which if contracted, needs correction.

An historic note on stellar aberration:

Its discovery is commonly credited to James Bradley ca 1725, But, fifty years prior Robert Hooke ca 1674, is credited with a similar value for the same star seen from the same location on Earth, listing a northward shift:-- An early-evening telescopy sesson would have correlated northward on Earth to eastward in orbit, and so clarified his statement (Cf parallax was suggested a century before that).

A premise discovery under the title,

Grand-Admiral Petry
'Majestic Service in a Solar System'
Nuclear Emergency Management

2003, 2005 GrandAdmiralPetry@Lanthus.net