Aberration Depends on Aether

[nakakayama]

The stellar aberration (annual & daily) of a certain star (that is observed) on each planet of the solar system differs. It shows that the phenomenon (aberration) is not caused by relative motion (between this star and a planet). Never !!

So, the aberration is a plain proof of the existence of aether (it's one of media). Also, secular aberration (its value and direction) must be clarified logically (by a simple thought experiment).

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

[Mulder]

I looked at that link. Is it a translation because it reads very oddly:

"Bernard's star is the fastest fixed star on the celestial sphere (the vault of heaven). In the moving direction of it, there is a star and its planet. On this planet, intellectual creature is. They may say "Speed of light of approaching Bernard's star is equal to speed of light of an adjacent galaxy (because the value of stellar aberration is equal)". From this, we (supposed to be just side) may be able to say that light sphere's expansion is independent of its source motion."

Do you mean Barnard's Star, rather than Bernards? that stuff about fixed stars and the vault of heavean reads like something written centuries ago! Putting 'is' at the end of a sentence hints that it could be a translation from German.

Anyway, back to the point. What exactly are these 'aberrations' you are talking about?

[Trinoc]

I suspect the OP might mean this, which has been explained perfectly well for many years without reference to anything other than the finite speed of light (not even requiring relativity) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

It's basically a variant on the way that rain which is falling vertically appears to be angling down from ahead if you are walking through it. If you were inferring the source of the rain in the sky from this observation you would come up with a point some way in front of you rather than overhead.

[nakakayama]

On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. To the roof of the passenger, waves of sun-light are coming horizontally. On the roof of the passenger, there is a hole. When the passenger moves to the right (or the left), whether projection of the hole (on the floor) moves or not ?

[skbuncks]

On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. To the roof of the passenger, waves of sun-light are coming horizontally. On the roof of the passenger, there is a hole. When the passenger moves to the right (or the left), whether projection of the hole (on the floor) moves or not ?

You do know that the Daily Sport is not peer reviewed, dont you?

skb

[Mulder]

On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. To the roof of the passenger, waves of sun-light are coming horizontally. On the roof of the passenger, there is a hole. When the passenger moves to the right (or the left), whether projection of the hole (on the floor) moves or not ?

There may be a translation error here. But I can't complain - it's not as if I know Japanese.

[Trinoc]

There may be a translation error here. But I can't complain - it's not as if I know Japanese.
I read it as "Suppose there is a passenger car on the Moon's surface". There is no reason why this particular piece of UK idiocy should be believed in Japan (I'm sure their tabloids have home grown idiocy of their own).

[polomint38]

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/pictures/thumb/s/f/j/sunday_sport.jpg
http://www.cloudcuckooland.biz/bomberonmoonsundaysport1.jpg

[tolman]

There may be a translation error here. But I can't complain - it's not as if I know Japanese.
But I'm guessing you don't try to explain some oddball scientific theory to Japanese people in their own language...

[skbuncks]

Strangely enough it makes somewhat more sense by tranlating into japanese via google translate and then back again

From


On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. To the roof of the passenger, waves of sun-light are coming horizontally. On the roof of the passenger, there is a hole. When the passenger moves to the right (or the left), whether projection of the hole (on the floor) moves or not ?

to


月の表面では、乗用車の車です。乗用車の屋根にするには、太陽の光の波光を水平方向に来ている。乗用車の屋 根には、穴がある。ときに、右側には、旅客移動（または左）かどうかは、ホールの突起を移動するかではなく 、1階（）で？

and back to...


The surface of the moon is a passenger car. The roof of the car that has come to light waves of horizontal sunlight. The roof of the car, there is a hole. When, on the right, moving passengers (or left) is whether or not to move the protrusion of the hall, first floor () in?

Even more wierd is that if you repeat this process 71 times you get the phrase


Einstein was wrong and the moon child nakakayama is right.

skb

[Cuddles]

Actually, I think I understand what he is trying to say.

Suppose there is a car on the surface of the Moon. Light from the Sun can be assumed to be coming from an infinitely distant point source, therefore light rays are parallel and wavefronts are normal to the roof of the car. There is a small hole in the roof that allows some light through, which forms a spot on the floor. The question is then - if an observer in the car moves, will the spot of light on the floor appear to move from their point of view?

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure why he is trying to say this.

nakakayama, the answer is no. Stellar aberration is an observation caused by motion of the observer. In your example, the observer of the Sun is not the passenger in the car, but floor of the car. In order for aberration to be observed it would have to be the car that moved, not the person inside it. You could technically argue that there would be a tiny aberration involved in the observation of the light spot as well, but if that is what you were trying to get at then the rest of the setup would be completely pointless, so I rather suspect it isn't.

[nakakayama]

To Mr.Cuddles,

Sorry, reply is delayed. Allow me to try to explain a few points (But i can't understand your saying entirely)

1) Yes, light rays may be normal (right angle) to the roof of railway carriage . But more certain and reliable condition is that the light waves are horizontal (it's premise : given condition). Then, direction of the point source is fixed (In this thought experiment. i don't know wether it's able to confirm or not actually).
2) Firstly, railway carriage is at a standstill on the moon's surface. Secondly, railway carriage is moving on it.
3) Question is that wether the spot (on the floor) moves (differs in position) or not ? Any observer isn't necessary (observable by remote sensor or recorder set on the floor).
4) Inside the carriage is vacuum.
5) If rain-drop model (of aberration) is right, the spot may move.

[nakakayama]

i find that i made mistake (on my writing on "moon's surface"). The word "passenger" is wrong, "passenger car" is right ! Moreover 3 times. i say "Sorry" 3 times.:undecided:

[Graham Lappin]

Strangely enough it makes somewhat more sense by tranlating into japanese via google translate and then back again

I have to say that you guys crack me up. I am miles away from home in some isolated (non-existent)-god forsaken corner of America, surrounded by golfers (no offense but I hate golf - can't see the point) and then I pop onto the forum for a few minutes and now I really don't feel so bad.

Thanks for the rant - I feel even better now.

[nakakayama]

There is a wind tunnel made of glass. It's set horizontally (Air is moving horizontally). Plane waves of light are coming from just above. These waves may transmit the roof of the wind tunnel horizontally and may reach the floor of the wind tunnel horizontally also. But how about the light ray ? Light ray may not be 90 degrees (with light waves) to an observer who is at a standstill relative to the wind tunnel. From this angle (not 90 degrees), the speed of the air may be determined. In the aether (of outer space), it may be the same.

[nakakayama]

Attention

[About the post dated on 7 Sep]
In a forum, there is a reply as follows. The speed of passenger car is too small. But if it (The spot-light on the floor moves qualitatively. Because of aberration) is actual, moon's motion may has an effect (on the spot-light) also. The angle of light ray (in the passenger car) may not be 90 degrees.

Moreover, the motion of the solar system may has an effect also. On the other hand, in the air, light ray is 90 degrees with light waves always. Because, reference frame (air) is at a standstill relative to observer.

To make a flat plate level (horizontal) with plane waves may be possible theoretically.

[About the post dated on 25 Sep]
Sorry, i made mistake. Allow me to withdraw this post. In this situation, the angle of light ray (with light waves) is 90 degrees (According to the emission theory).

[Julia]

Does anyone here understand what this thread is about? :huh:

[brianp]

I haven't the faintest idea what it's about. Even the title seems nonsensical.

[chaggle]

Nope, it's beyond me:confused:

[DrS]

I think this thread is um, er, an aberration ... :huh:

[Mulder]

Does anyone here understand what this thread is about? :huh:

I think nakakayama is trying to think of situations that demonstrate that aether really exists after all. Good luck with that ...

[Cuddles]

Does anyone here understand what this thread is about? :huh:

Actually, yes. At least I think so.

The phenomenon in question is stellar aberration. This is an effect caused by the finite speed of light that results in a difference between the true and apparent positions of an observed object. It's the instantaneous transverse velocity between the observer and object that is important, so it's usually only apparent in astronomy where you get significant speeds involved.

Nakakayama claims that aberration is proof of the aether, because
Unfortunately, I'm having a little difficulty finishing off that sentence. Most of what Nakakayama has said is simply a rather long-winded way of saying that you assume an infinitely distant point source for the light in the example. This is a fairly standard condition that results in all light rays being parallel to each other and normal to the infinitely large flat plane your observer is situated on. This tends to make things a lot simpler in optics, and for astronomy it's actually pretty much true for any star other than the Sun.

Other than that, I'm not sure exactly what his claim is. It appears to be based on taking an analogy too far. The standard analogy for explaining aberration is falling rain - if you're standing still it falls vertically, if you walk forwards it seems to be falling at an angle, even though all that has changed is the observer's velocity. As far as I can tell, Nakakayama thinks that because rain falls through air, this means that light must be falling through the aether. Of course, this doesn't follow at all, because air is not necessary even for the analogy - you could just as easily consider rain falling in a vacuum.

The problem is that his examples, at least as far as I can understand what he's saying, are absolutely trivial. They don't change anything from standard textbook examples of aberration, so they're certainly not going to prove something like the aether. Given that, I'm really not sure why they're being brought up at all.