MES Math Q/A 58: What is Stellar Aberration? by @mes on 3Speak
▶️ Watch on 3Speak --- If you have math related questions, I may have answers. March 11, 2026 Wednesday at 10:00 AM PST math science physics aether light - Summary: - MES Math Q/A playlist: - All S...
Tags: #math #science #physics #aether #stellaraberration #light #quantumphysics #technology #education #stem
Alright, so we are recording. Alright, so we are live. Alright, so we're back in it with the math Q&A. All right, guys, can you all hear me? And how's my audio? Is it too loud? Not loud enough? Or, et cetera, Mac I-O. This one should be off. Okay, that's off. No, not Mac iOS. Audio Capture. Mac screen. I think this was Teams. Okay, I'll just delete this thingy. I'm just going to delete this, all right, that's deleted, and so on, so I'm going to go, can you all hear me? Yes, so it's going to be, we're going to go over stellar abbreviation, how do you even pronounce it, aberration, aberration, aberration, stellar aberration, and so on, okay, can you out, let's hear, let me check it right now. Like, audio should be fine, and, like, that's max, I'm going to type this here, this is fine here. All right, so that should be fine. I'm going to go into the Rumble, Ask Rumble, and so on. And again, guys, it's Math Q&A. If you have any math, science-related questions, et cetera, I can go cover them, and, yeah, stuff like that. Again, this is my method of forcing me to get on this. And then, I'm going to start doing general experiments, like that testicle and so on, but, like, not on the live stream, just like... forced myself to just experiment and see what happens. Okay, I'm gonna go open this. It's on, on X, so open up the chat. All right, there it is, chat's open, and put it in here. I'm gonna close this, and yeah, so anyways, guys, so we have a lot of stuff to cover today, just random stuff, and again, yeah, we're gonna go over, still abbreviation, to astronomy. And the reason is, is just because I'm trying to understand the ether from the mainstream perspective, because they have some pretty good arguments, because I was covering the, what is it called, the, no, Michelson Morley experiment the other week, or two weeks ago. So I want to cover that. I'm going to actually, before we get to that, this is the Threadcast here, guys. I'll be posting the notes and so on in here as well. and I'm also, I have almost uploaded, I'll be uploading, this can be an epic John Hutchson video. This is actually never before seen anywhere on the internet. We go here, it's not uploaded, yeah, I want to review it all. So I'll show you that right here then. I go to current, go here, I'll show you the current thing, it's going to be on... Brenda Roberts, 1997. Okay, so this one is going to be absolutely epic. I'll open it here, so you all can see. Yeah, this is a 1997 interview, John Hutchson, and Brenda Roberts. This is literally never before seen. There's only part two has been, it's on her channel, but she passed away, I believe in 2015, but anyways. So I'll be uploading this when I have a chance to go through and make timestamps and so on. It goes over his work and he has a whole lot of samples. And then this is that one. He has these both together. It's amazing. This is the one that was in the video of it turning to jelly. And then you got some really high-definition close-up shots. These are pretty good stuff. And there's some other stuff there. This is that aluminum block. And there's the, again, really high-quality photos, videos from 1997 of that. steel, a knife inside aluminum block that did cut open. Unbelievable. There's wood in there, too. That's... Oh, this is great stuff by the Captain John. And I think there was a little clip of stuff like, literally almost like Dustify it, turn the powder there. Or just like the remaining sample. Okay, this stuff here, just turn into... This part right here, I'll just... broke apart like that, that's amazing. This is cool stuff, and then we got Thomas Beard in talking about scalar waves and so on also. It's all new West Windsor. Everything's, like, pretty close to me. It's pretty wild. All right, so I'm going to close this. Stay tuned for that. There'll be, hopefully, this week, if I can get it up. Okay, and Metra-Su Solar is in the show. Let's go, I can hear epic stuff there. Alright, so I'm covering this, first, because the last week I went over Michelson Morley experiment, and then I'm going to open up these thingies right here, stellar abbreviation. So I'm going to, I have these notes. I'm going to, I'll open up the stellar abbreviation first, just to understand this, and then I'll go look at it from, there's that disinfo, Miles Math, see what he covers on it, but he's a 911 of disinfoid, you have to, like, decipher between the lines, once someone's a liar, once, they're always liar, so I'm going to cover this one. Because apparently they use, this is the one used by mainstream to argue against the ether, or ether wind or whatever, mumbo-jumbo-jum -ut-tomut. Let me go like here. I'll show you a few things here. This is, and also I, oh, actually, yeah, I'll do this afterwards. So, I got an email, I actually emailed, what's his name? I emailed Eynaldineau about his ether theory and how it correlates to Mickelson Morley Experiment, and I email them saying, hi, I know, I know, I've been researching the Michaelson Morley Experiment and want to know your thoughts on how your ether model would explain the lack of, quote, ether when in the experiments. Most point to these experiments as, quote, proof of lack of ether, but their assumptions for the ether seem off to me. Please let me know what you think, as well as your thoughts on the mainstream, partial and complete ether dragging set up here. And then he says, hi, Matthew, the ether wind is just not detectable with the MM setup. So this is the part here, the ether wind, should there even be one, just for an experiment at the point of view, to claim that to detect a change in a dependent variable and interference pattern, when you change only your independent variable by 0.01% or 30 kilometers per second, orbital speed of the Earth relative to 300,000 kilometers per second speed of light. It's just insane to me. I've tried to write an article criticizing the... Michaelson Morley experiment many years ago, but this experiment has so many issues that is pointless to argue about it. So I just chose not to waste my time explaining why the MM experiment cannot be used to deny the existence feedback. I did waste my time writing an article in the same type arguing why Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be used to explain gravity, why no theory based on Einstein's principle of equivalence can tell what gravitation is. I do, I think the, I do agree to some extent that are just because, but the mainstream, they're not really trying to. decipher what actually it is, they just look at, there's equivalence, and that's all they go with, and then they ignore what the actual substance is. Back to the M.M. Experiment, I do not think the ether is dragged by the earth, neither completely nor partially. We are traveling through the ether like a sieve travels through water, so in brief, this is my take on the Michelson-Morley experiment. The null result of the experiment can be explained by the physical, real contraction of the apparatus in the direction of its motion through the ether. This is the part where I'm pretty sure... So, basically, if the ether exists, this is probably the reason for getting null stuff, because you got stuff contracting as with and through the ether. This explanation was proposed by Fitzgerald right after the announcement of the Michael Somerli experiment result, and it makes a lot of sense because atoms of a rod... are bond to one another through the ether, and if the rod moves through the ether, those bonds are affected, and so there should be a change in length of the rod. Fluid Dynamics predicts this change in the length of rod as a contraction. No, that is for sure. There are a lot of reflections and refractions occurring than Michael's Morally experiment. We do not know whether the law of reflection is the same when the mirror is at rest in the medium as when it moves through the medium, same with refraction. We do not know whether the law of refraction is the same when... the half transparent mirror is at rest in the medium as when it moves through the medium. These are serious issues as the angles of reflection or fraction may depend on the different direction of the movement in the medium. Yeah, basically, if it's moving with the medium, how is that relative to if it's not? But even then, I think, the Microsoft Moral expert is pretty simple. There's also, like, the later ones that basically, the whole idea is, is there a shift? No, you basically, does it, does the light propagating, does the direction matter? In other words, does it behave like Earth is moving, or does it behave like Earth is stationary? And so according to all of them are related, similar ones, it doesn't, it appears as, it appears as Earth is not moving. We'll go over this as we go through. Again, we have two hours. Again, let me know if any questions, anything, I, if I'm just. fast wording from stuff for my knowledge instead of breaking stuff down. But again, if you've been following along, this should, um, my dialogue should ring some bells. So anyways, there's a Doppler effect that needs to be taken account as a source of light in the MMX route, it moves through the ether and one of the reflecting mirrors moving, uh, also moving towards or away from the beam of light. So the thing is, this is essentially what the Michael Simon Marley experiment is. It's, it is the just Doppler effect. The thing is there's no Doppler, um, yeah, yeah, it's, that is what it is. But the thing is, each time there's no diffraction gradient. All these effects are difficult ultimates, and it is insane decline based on such model, such a flawed experimenter, that ether does not exist. In my theory, the radiation of Earth generates the ether's gravitational field by constantly creating an ether pressure gradient in its motion through the ether in the orbit. Yeah, so basically vibrating of the Earth. Yeah, radiation of the Earth. generates the ether's gravitational field by constantly creating an ether pressure gradient in its motion. So basically, motion through the ether in its orbit, and it's vibrating, it's creating some sort of a gravitational field, and which he has shown through fluid dynamics simulations. So that's that part. But I wanted to cover this again. I'll explain why this aberration thing he is bringing up. So if I go to Michelson Morley. So one thing I realized about the Michaelson Morley, is that around this time, according to mainstream setups, is that, yeah, so basically the experiment compared to speed of light and perpendicularity -gill directions in an attempt to detect a relative motion of matter, including the laboratory through the luminous ether, and... So this results generally consider to be the first strong evidence against some ether theories as well as initiating line of listeners led to special oratively, which rules out motion against an ether. And, yeah, so this is an interesting setup here. Now, I'm going to go right here, aberration. Okay, so I'm going to quickly just to get an overview, I'm going to ask, Grock, or actually in Leo as well. Also do it on you in Leo, ask Leo, give me the order of history and physics, which led to the Michaelson, Morley. Okay, afternoon, guys, oh, I need to follow you, I'm back on X. Okay, Epic stuff, you're back on X. Mikeson Morley experiment, experiment, such as the previous experiments to, um, but, ether, partial, complete drag. theories and how this also relates to stellar operation. I'm just still going off the cuff here, I'm going off the cuff here, I'm going to ask it, instead of using Grock all the time, in the order of history, and then we'll check with Grock how it is, Leok, once it's done. Okay, but anyways, yeah, let me know. stuff, I'm going to go back to this here, okay, so this is, I said something, I'll see if there's an overview of, I'm just going to watch an overview of it. So, actually, I'm going to go, okay, partial, and this is ether drag. Okay, so here is, if there's a way to draw it out, I need to draw this out, actually. I'm trying to see how it's the best method of drawing it up. Just bear with me, so this. Before doing it every week, I can keep track of stuff. Now it's a got, basically, why it's not refreshing? Okay, give me order. Okay, I don't know why it's taking so long. I'm going to go ask rock, then. So, this is not as smooth. Okay, I'm going to go, give me the order of history, and, yeah, just to give this one here. Like, what in the world's going on here? This is a high demand. You can't even run it. Okay, so I'm going to go and use Chachpatty. I'm like, just somebody give me the answer. Just give me the order of this. Okay, let's see what this says. The mic's on, and how do I change this into not blinding mode? Okay, like, there with me guys go, settings, appearance, dark. Okay, there it is. Okay, so Michael Somerlichsmer did not appear suddenly. It was a culmination of 160 years of observations and competing theories of the luminous ether. The key puzzle was light behaved like the wave. All known waves needed a medium. Therefore, physical physicists proposed a medium-filling space, the ether, but astronomical observations like stellar aberration seemed inconsistent with a stationary medium. It blows a chronological... chain of discoveries, and extremers led to the Microsoft Marley. So, discovery of stellar aberration. This is the key one. If you just grab this, and then it will also look at the, um, um, this part right here. I'm going to open up this. So this is from Wallace Mouth, but again, he's a 9-11 disinvolent. And, um, he, he's writing about the ether, uh, and so on. Oh, I never found, okay. And then, but he's describing stellar aberration. I'm going to compare it with his, like the mainstream ones, um, um, mainstream ones, it's just very, straightforward, like, there's nothing really you can, there's nothing really to argue about besides, like, modeling a different ether thing. So, so here's a discovery of stellar aberration, 1727. So think about how long is the way this goes. So, barely discovered that stars appear to shift position annually. This effect occurs because the Earth moves while light travels from the star. So as lights coming in, Earth is slightly moving, so it looks like it's shifted. The angle of aberration is approximately 10 theta equals to V of Earth is Earth's orbital speed divided by the speed of light. Interpretation, light behaves like rain falling vertically while the observer moves. You must tilt a telescope to slightly to catch it. Okay, so it's going to be moving. So if I go to stellar abbreviation here, so it gives what I like about AI, you can literally ask it to get it, basically, get the info in your current mode of thinking. Whether, again, whether it's right or not, that's something you can check, but it also helps you understand, like, it also helps in making a decision of what's right or wrong. So, so in astronomy, aberration also referred to as astronomical aberration, stellar aberration, or velocity aberration. I'm going to start standing now. Okay, one second, guys, I'm going to start standing, and make this timer. Okay, so we have hour 41 minutes. Okay, so in astronomy, aberration also referred to astronomical aberration, stellar aberration, or velocity aberration, is a phenomenon in which, where celestial object exhibit an apparent motion about their positions based on the velocity of the observer. It caused objects to appear to be displaced towards the observer's direction of motion. Okay. The change in angle is of the order of velocity divided by sea. V over C, where C is a speed of light and V is the velocity of the observer in the case of stellar or annual aberration. The apparent position of a star to an observer on Earth varies periodically over the course of a year as Earth's velocity changes as it revolves around the sun by a maximum angle of approximately 20 arc seconds. So that's basically a minute arc, a minute of arc. denoted by the unit of angular measurement equal to one 60th of a degree. So 20, so basically one-third of a degree in right ascension. What in the world? Right-sension is the angular distance of a particular point measured eastward along the celestial equator from the sun at the March equinox to the point in question above the earth when paired. or declination, so by a maximum angle of 20 arc seconds in right ascension or declination. And declination is one of the two angles are located at a point under the celestial sphere and the equatorial cordisystem, the other being hour angle. So the declination angle is measured north, positive or south negative of the celestial equator. I have a look right here at these mumbo jumbos. I'm going to also put this here. Yes, I'm going to put this in the chat. And also, and in Leo, you could do is, does this, this work yet? Okay, there it is, there it is, okay. Bradley, 1728 stellar abrasion discovery showed light velocity combines with Earth's orbital motion, suggests no complete ether drag. Argos, 18, 10, prism, experiment, fund, no refraction change, partial drag. Fresnel's 18, 18, partial drag, above moving median... partial drag, Fresno's 1851 water tube confirmed, Fresno's drag coefficient, Michael Somerly, 1887, tested for absolute ether, but found null, contracting both no drag, stellar, and Fresno's partial drag. Stellar abrasion required Earth to move through stationary ether, yet MM found no detectably, ether windus, this paradox drove Einstein's 1905 resolution. Okay, so basically, it's the celebration is a key part. I'm going to go, and you can also summarize, you could also use this. summarize this article. Okay, so just get this on the Hyde blockchain, and you can summarize it with AI and so on. All right, so, going back into right here, right ascension. So right ascension is the angular distance of a particular point measured eastward along the celestial equator. So here's the equator of the Earth there, and then you make, and then you basically drag it all the way across. So there's Earth's equator. Is it going to move? It's animation, okay. So there's a celestial equator. That's basically where the, it's, I think it should be tilted. Oh, and there's a North Pole celestial equator. Oh, okay. Okay, there's Earth's orbital plane, so Earth's orbiting around this. And this plane there, primary ascension, oh, okay, when the world's going on here? Star is like that, and that's right ascension. declination what in the world does this even mean? I need to, okay, oh Gary Jackson House, okay, epic stuff, Gary, and yeah, I'll look at your messages, Gary, yeah, I just, when I get some time, and also, the doctor has some, uh, crane videos to send you, uh, it's a whipping crane stuff, okay, so, I'm trying to wrap my head around this, okay, primary direction is in the March Econox, I'm not... I'm not to do like a video just, I don't know, like, why they don't explain it properly as well. Okay, so, right ascension, Dignation has seen from outside the celestial sphere. Okay, so this is the equator. Okay, this is how it is, okay, so the, you basically have, the equator is around this side here. This is the equator of the Earth. You have the North Celestial Plyde. Basically, you just draw a giant sphere around Earth. And then the elliptical is basically the path of the sun, the apparent path of the sun, there. So, yeah, basically, that is how the sun would be appearing from the Earth. And then right ascension, and you have this equator's zero degrees. Zero hours, right ascension. Okay, declination is from this angle. So that's, this angle. And this one here, just basically take it from the zero point at the, yeah, so that's what it says March equinox, well, mum, jumbo. So zero is in direction of the sun from Earth at the March Econach. So here's zero. So you go from there, and then you can check how many hours, degrees, whatnot, from there. Anyways. There's line between…