Frequently Asked Questions


( Last checked 2012/06/03 - The estate of Paul Marmet )
Go to: Next series of questions
Return to list of questions
Return to list of papers
 Series #1 - Non Relative Velocities

Relative Velocity between the Source and the Observer.

        In modern physics, there are frequent discussions about the observation of light from a remote source.  It is generally stated that the phenomenon observed depends on the relative velocity between the source of light and the observer.  We must therefore investigate whether this statement is compatible with observations.  We show here an example in which the change of velocity of the emitting source does not produce an effect corresponding to that statement.  In that case, such a phenomenon depends only on the observer’s velocity independently of the emitter velocity.
        The origin of observations involving only the observer’s velocity is as old as 1725.  James Bradley observed the star g Draconis on December 3rd 1725, when it was passing just above his observing location.  He was using a telescope affixed to a vertical chimneystack, in such manner as to permit a small oscillation of the eyepiece. After several days of observation, he observed that the star was moving southwards.  The observations were continued, and after a year, he concluded that the star made a full north-south oscillation, which was repeated during the following years.  All stars around the observed location were doing the same oscillation.   After serious considerations, it was finally understood that this oscillation of the position of the star is due to the proper velocity of the Earth around the Sun.  Since the Earth is moving around the Sun, stars appear to be shifted in the direction of the Earth's motion (this is analogous to raindrops falling on a person walking).  In fact, Bradley used these observations to make the best known determination of the velocity of light of his time.  This apparent motion of the star is called “star aberration”.  This very interesting story is reported from an old 1911 Encyclopedia at the Web address:  http://brandt.kurowski.net/projects/lsa/wiki/view.cgi?doc=563 (This web page does not seem to be available anymore.)
-
        In modern physics, it is generally claimed that star aberration discovered by Bradley occurs when there is a relative motion between a source of light and an observer.  This idea probably results from the influence due to the Einstein’s Relativity Principle, but it is easy to show that this belief is not compatible with obvious experimental observations.  Since the time Bradley observed the apparent motion of the light source due to the Earth velocity, numerous astronomical observations provided information about the proper velocities of emitting stars. 
        In astronomy, many binary stars are observed.  The velocity of each star forming a binary system can be determined in a very reliably way, using the laws of classical mechanics.  This is compatible with the observations.  Many of the binary stars possess orbits in the same plane as the Earth.  Furthermore, the less massive star in those systems, generally have velocity components, which are much larger that the Earth velocity around the Sun.   Consequently, at some instants during the period of the orbit, the star possesses a velocity, which is equal to the Earth velocity.  Therefore, at that instant, the “relative velocity of the star with respect to Earth is zero”. 
        At some other time, the velocity component of that star is very large, so that its velocity becomes much larger than the Earth velocity.  Consequently, if the star aberration is due to “the relative velocity between the source and the observer”, there should be a very large "star aberration" observed from Earth.  Therefore, during the period of the orbiting star, that star should oscillate due to the star aberration, if we apply the principle of “relative velocity between the source and the observer” (on Earth).   In some binary star systems, the star velocity is so large that one should observe a star aberration, which should be 10 and even 100 times larger than the amplitude observed by Bradley. 
        Using any astronomical observation, it is always obvious that this light aberration from those fast moving stars is totally absent, even if the relative velocity with respect to Earth is very large.  All these observations are in striking contradiction with the assumed principle of “relative velocity between the source and the observer”
         One must conclude that the statement claiming that the Bradley aberration (also called “light aberration”) is due to the relative motion between a source of light and an observer is certainly incorrect.  All observations of fast orbiting stars prove, without hesitation, that the star aberration is due to the velocity of the observer, independently of the velocity of the light source.  The fact that Bradley, when measuring the “star aberration” could actually deduce the velocity of the Earth around the Sun in 1725, is even contrary to the belief that things appear the same in all frames of references.  Physics must be compatible with obvious observations. 
        There are many consequences following those astronomical observations.  For example, due to the obvious error in the claim described above, the phenomenon of “Bradley aberration” has been totally ignored in the calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.  In the paper: “The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment” we see that, when taking into account the phenomenon of star aberration, we find that the null result in the Michelson-Morley experiment means that the Einstein’s space time distortion does not exist.  This is contrary to the common beliefs.   We know that the experimental results observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment were previously claimed to be a key argument in favor of Einstein’s relativity.  Consequently, when we take into account the Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Calculation, demonstrated at the address:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/index.html,  we see that this experiment  hopelessly disproves Einstein’s Relativity Theory. 

Paul Marmet

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

New  Choice of Questions

---

---

- --

---

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Return to top of page
Return to next Series of Questions
 Return to list of questions
 Return to list of papers

<><><><><><><><><><><><>