S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina
On light aberration
S. B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina
Special Laboratory for Fundamental Elaboration SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg., Prospect Gagarina, Kharkov, 61140, Ukraine
We will study astronomical aberration of light from the view of classical and relativistic formalisms and reveal the following salient feature of aberration in classical formalism: the models of moving observer and stationary source and of moving source and stationary observer are non-identical. As opposite to this, the relativistic formalism has based its modelling on the identity of these models, which causes full phenomenological discrepancy of relativistic approach to the real description of aberration.
We will show that Airy obtained a negative result in his experiment with the telescope filled with water because of features of telescopic system, which he did not account. If getting these masking effects over, we can suggest a method to measure exactly the absolute velocity and direction of the Earth motion based on the feature of aberration predicted by classical formalism. Additionally, we will give one more scheme to register the velocity of Earth. This technique will allow to measure, just as the technique based on aberration, the first-order values of smallness in v/c.
Classification by MSC 2000: 83A05, 85A04
Classification by PASC 2001: 95.10.Jk, 95.30.Tg, 95.50.-n, 95.55.Br
Keywords: astronomy, aberration of light, Airy experiment, relativistic transformation of space-time, theorem of relativistic summation of velocities, measurement of absolute velocity relative to the aether
Before, in , we have proven the relativistic representation of transverse and longitudinal Doppler effects to be wrong. In particular, we showed the relativistic derivation wrong not only in incorrect description of phenomenology but having rough mistakes in derivation.
In the relativistic view, aberration is the phenomenon of the same value as Doppler effect and they consider both effects together. Relativists think at this point so: "All theories based on the idea of ether encounter hard difficulties in attempts to explain aberration. From Galilee transform, deviation of front and propagation of wave do not follow at all" [2, p. 295- 296]. At the same time relativists check their results namely with the classical formula. In this connection, it would be natural to thoroughly compare the relativistic and classical predictions, in particular to clear the following conventional opinion: It seems at the first glance that the aberration of light and optical and electrical phenomena related to it give us a means to determine the absolute motion of the Earth, or rather its motion not relating to other celestial bodies but relating to the ether [3, p. 433]. In this paper we will be addressing to compare with all formal rigour the classical and relativistic approach applied to the aberration description, in order to lift a gamut of misunderstandings and clear discrepancies that have layered due to partial considerations being undertaken before.
Contents: / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 /