SELF 
28 
S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina 

Conclusions In the course of carried out study we revealed that in classical formalism, the statement of the problem of aberration angle that arises in observer’s motion relating the light source is nonidentical to that of stationary observer. This difference considerably grows when the mutual velocity of source either observer approaches to that of light. These models are nonidentical, because aberration arises not due to the motion of reference frames of observer and source, but due to the necessary use of some rulers measuring the angles, when we measure the direction to the star in case of moving observer and when we account the finite velocity of light propagation from the star to observer with the moving source. We also established that Airy method to measure the aberration angle with the telescope filled with water gave a negative result not because of absent effect but due to the masking effects of telescopic system. Based on Airy method, we can develop another method to precisely measure the absolute speed and direction of observer’s motion relating the aether. For it, we have to avoid in the experimental set any optical systems and to choose the scheme of double quadrant. The relativistic formalism is unable to account these details of aberration phenomenology, since in that formalism the aberration effect is based on the transformation of mutually moving reference frames of the source and observer, under stipulation that the cases of moving observer with stationary source and moving source with stationary observer are fully identical. We showed it untrue. And should the aberration effect be caused by the frame transformation, we would not be able to observe it in the media, where the 4 D interval of Einstein  Minkowski is invalid. This also contradicts the observations of wave processes in liquid and gaseous media excited by moving sources. Additionally we established that the very formalism of special theory of relativity is inconsistent within itself and brings absurd results, which makes impossible to think the relativistic description of aberration effect as trustworthy. July 25, 2005 References: 1. Karavashkin, S.B. and Karavashkina, O.N. On transverse Doppler effect in classical formalism. SELF Transactions, 5 (2005), 1, 46 56 2. Born, M. Einstein’s theory of relativity. Dover Publications, New York, 1962 (cited after Russian edition) 3. Poincare, A. On dynamics of electron.  In: Selected works, vol. 3, p. 433 486. Nauka, Moscow, 1974 (Russian) 4. Pohl, R.W. Optics and atomic physics. Nauka, Moscow, 1966 (Russian) 5. Podobed, V.V. Aberration of light.  In: Physical encyclopaedia, vol. 1, p. 9 10. Moscow, Sovetskaya encyclopedia, 1960 (Russian) 6. Zigel, F.Yu. Astronomers observe. Nauka, Moscow, 1977 (Russian) 7. Zisman, G.A. and Todes, O.M. The course of general physics, vol. 3. Nauka, Moscow, 1970 (Russian) 8. Airy, G.B. Proc. Roy. Soc., 20, 35, 1871; 21, 121, 1873; Phil. Mag. 43, 310, 1872 9. Pauli, W. Theory of relativity. GITTL, Moscow Leningrad, 1947 (Russian) 10. Kalitievsky, N.I. Wave optics. Nauka, Moscow, 1971 (Russian) 11. Rautian, S.G. Refraction of light.  In: Physical encyclopaedia, vol. 4, p. 191 192. Moscow, Sovetskaya encyclopedia, 1965 (Russian) 12. Grosswald, E.S. Refractor.  In: Physical encyclopaedia, vol. 4, p. 441. Moscow, Sovetskaya encyclopedia, 1965 (Russian) 13. Karavashkin, S.B. and Karavashkina, O.N. Notes on physical Absolute. SELF Transactions, 3 (2003), 1, 1 8 14. Karavashkin, S.B. and Karavashkina, O.N. On reality of black holes. SELF Transactions, 5 (2005), 2, 1 17 15. Einstein, A. The relativity principle and its corollaries in modern physics.  In: Collection of scientific works, vol. 1, p. 138 164. Nauka, Moscow, 1965 (Russian) 
Contents: / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 /