Aberration and the question of equivalence of some ether theories to special relativity

Goy, François

doi:10.1007/bf02186259

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all other frames, the one-way velocity of light is generally direction-dependent; only the two-way velocity of light is constant in all directions and for all frames. This theory of inertial transformations (IT) explains the Michelson-Morley experiment and many others (Römer, stellar aberration [4], Fizeau, Kennedy-Thorndike, Ives-Stillwell, Mössbauer rotor [5], Brillet-Hall [6], Hils-Hall [7], etc...) just as well as SRT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

A derivation of three-dimensional inertial transformations

Goy¹

1997

Found Phys Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The derivation of the transformations between inertial frames made by Mansouri and Sexl is generalised to three dimensions for an arbitrary direction of the velocity. Assuming length contraction and time dilation to have their relativistic values, a set of transformations kinematically equivalent to special relativity is obtained. The "clock hypothesis" allows the derivation to be extended to accelerated systems. A theory of inertial transformations maintaining absolute simultaneity is shown to be the only one logically consistent with accelerated movements. Algebraic properties of these transformations are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

A derivation of three-dimensional inertial transformations

Goy¹

1997

Found Phys Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Aberration and relativity

Liebscher

Brosche

1998

Astron Nachr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aberration of starlight seems to be one of the simplest phenomena of astronomical observation. However, the story of misunderstandings is long and lasts till now. It is nearly forgotten that the problem of stellar aberration was the cornerstone of the development and the acceptance of relativity. In addition, there seems to be no essentially final point in the discussion of its interpretation, the discussion seems to merely be given up. Of course, with the correct relativistic formulas, there is no need of interpretation any more. The price of this consists in the many incorrect descriptions and interpretations that arise if a textbook tries to explain in words the mere formulas. We try to review the problems discussed in the last three centuries and to give them a final, i.e. geometrical form. We are convinced that this teaches a lot about the geometry of the space-time union.Key words: Relativity -aberration -astrometry The problemsIn 1728, Bradley was trying to solve the riddle of parallaxes. In the years since 1666, when Hooke (Grant 1858) tried to measure the parallax of the earth's orbit, the evidence was always considered to be shaky because of an apparently curious phase shift of the effect. Cassini rejected 1699 observations of Flamstead because of a phase shift of 90° against the expected parallax.' Cassini considered the phase shift with respect t o the ellipses of the expected parallax t o be the obvious indication of an observational error. Bradley established projection ellipses (Bradley 1728). They were independent of the distance of the star and their phase again indicated that they were projections of the hodograph of the earth's orbit. The effect was called aberration and was explained as outflow of an additive composition of the velocities of the light and of the earth (Fig. 1). Light was expected to be an emanation of particles, leaving the source with a certain velocity, which had been measured by Olaf Roemer in the order of nearly 2 astronomical units per 1000 seconds. Indeed, Bradley interpreted his findings as a proof of the motion of the earth.The natural consequence of the emanation theory was the expectation that the light velocity is to be composed with that of the star too. In addition, a dependence of the emanation velocity on the properties of the star was expected, leading Laplace to the belief in the possible existence of stars which withhold their light from emanation at all. However, no dependence of the (longitudinal) velocity of light on the radial motion of the star is observed. Such a dependence would have dramatic effects: If a double star is distant enough, its companion should be seen at more than one place at the same time (Figs. 4 and 5). This has never been observed. The velocity of light coming from the individual stars is always the same.The paradox seemed t o be solved by the undulatory theory of light. Based on the interference phenomena, the theory of light as a wave was developed, and the universality of the velocity of light propagation was obvious. However,...

show abstract

Bell’s Spaceships and Special Relativity

Selleri¹

2002

Quantum [Un]speakables

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aberration and the question of equivalence of some ether theories to special relativity

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

A derivation of three-dimensional inertial transformations

A derivation of three-dimensional inertial transformations

Aberration and relativity

Bell’s Spaceships and Special Relativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About