So, according to the deluded scientific minds, MM experiment failed to detect Ether wind. (The religious scientific folk is confident that the failure of MM experiment to detect Ether wind is not due to its faulty design but is because there isn’t really any Ether wind to detect. Let’s ‘respect’ the religious crowd’s feeling for now!). And this lack of Ether wind meant two things for the physicists: Either there isn’t anything called Ether or if Ether existed, then Earth must be dragging a layer of Ether with it as it moves around the Sun in which case there wouldn’t be any Ether wind for one to detect on the Earth’s surface.
Then the scientific crowd comes with an important cosmological observation called ‘aberration of star light’. They argue that this observation goes completely against the possibility of Ether drag. So the irrational minds are left with no option except to accept the first conclusion of the MM experiment i.e. there isn’t anything called Ether in this universe. In this section we will analyse how the stupid scientific minds use the aberration of star light to argue against Ether drag hypothesis.
Imagine that we are in an observatory and looking at a distant star using a telescope. It is commonsense that we point our telescope in which ever direction we believe that the star is located. Obviously the direction in which we have to point our telescope varies depending upon our location in the space with respect to the star.
For example look at the above picture with three points A, B and C on a plane and a star located high above in the sky as shown. If we are at point ‘A’, we obviously tilt our telescope somewhat towards the ‘left’ to look at the star. And when we go to point B, we angle our scope somewhat to towards the right ward to see the same star. And if we are at the ‘centre point’, we just look straight up without any right or left ward tilt of the telescope. So the ‘angle of view’ or the direction in which we have to tilt our telescope depends upon our position in the space with respect to the star. One doesn’t need any higher education to realise this. But scientists observed something more – when the observer is not stationary but is moving at a high velocity (as is the case with Earth), the ‘correct angle of view’ apparently depends not only upon the position of the observer but also upon the direction of motion of the observer.
We know that Earth moves in an elliptical orbit around the Sun at a significant velocity. Imagine that we are at the North Pole of Earth and want to look at a star located high above the ‘North Pole’ of the Sun. Just like in the above scenario, when Earth is at point A (i.e. on the ‘right side’ of the Sun) we know that we will have to tilt our telescope towards the ‘left’ to look at the above star. And when it comes to point ‘B’ (i.e. to the ‘left’ of the Sun), we will have to tilt our telescope towards the ‘right’ to view the star.
As the points C and Cʹ are in the same ‘sagittal plane’ with respect to the star, we might think that we could just point our telescope ‘straight up’ without any rightward or leftward tilting when Earth is at these locations. But that is not what scientists have observed:
Because Earth rotates around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction, it would be moving ‘leftward’ when it is at point C; and after 6 months as it comes to point Cʹ, it would be moving in the opposite direction (‘rightward’). And scientists observed that when Earth is at point C, they have to tilt the telescope to the left; and when it is at point Cʹ, they have to tilt the scope to the right, albeit by a tiny angle. So despite being in the same sagittal plane, the telescope has to be tilted to different angles to view a star depending upon the direction of motion of the Earth. That is, light rays from a star appear to come from one direction at one time and from a different direction at other time depending upon the direction of the motion of Earth (or in other words, there is apparent change in the position of a star). Scientists term this as ‘aberration of star light’ and argue that as strong proof against the possibility of Ether getting dragged by the Earth.
To support their weird argument they bring in the ‘famous’ rain-umbrella analogy. I urge the readers to go through this link to get some grasp of relativists’ weird thinking and how they misuse the rain-umbrella analogy to explain the aberration of star light and to disprove Ether drag.
Imagine that you are out in the fields on a rainy day and you have an umbrella in hand. If you (earth) are stationary, rain drops (light rays) would fall vertically and you would hold your umbrella (telescope) straight upwards to keep yourself dry. But when you move forward, you would hold your umbrella (telescope) slightly tilted forward i.e. in the direction of your motion. The reason is that you would now feel the rain drops (light rays) coming at an angle despite the fact that it is still raining vertically down.
When the observer is stationary, he feels the rain coming straight down. So he would hold his umbrella straight up to keep himself dry. But when he walks, he would feel the rain coming at an angle, so would hold his umbrella tilted accordingly.
Basically you would hold your umbrella tilted in which ever direction you move (c.f. the telescope is tilted in whichever direction the earth moves) – if you are moving towards the east, you would hold your umbrella tilted towards the east and if you are moving westward, you would hold the same tilted westward. And the faster you walk, the more you would tilt your umbrella to keep yourself dry. So despite the fact that it rains vertically down, the direction from which the rain drops hit you maximum depends upon your direction of motion. And accordingly you would tilt your umbrella in the same direction to protect you to the maximum extent.
But apparently if you were to drag a blob or sphere of air around you as you walk, you wouldn’t have to tilt your umbrella with your motion. That is whether you move east or west, right or left, slow or fast; you could continue to hold your umbrella straight up and keep yourself dry as if you are stationary. Relativists propose that irrespective of the angle at which the rain drops fall upon the ‘surface’ of the blob, once they penetrate into the blob of air, they always travel vertically down. So the relativity maniacs preach that we would only have to point / hold our umbrella straight up without any tilting even while walking and running unlike the case when we don’t drag a blob of air around us.
When we drag a ‘blob’ of air with us as move, irrespective of the angle that the rain hits the ‘surface’ of the blob, apparently the rain drops would always travel vertically down inside the blob of air. It means that any person who drags a blob of air around him would only have to hold his umbrella upright even when he walks or runs.
‘Similarly, if Earth were to drag a blob of Ether around it, light rays from the star located straight above our head would always come vertically down irrespective of the Earth’s motion’ relativists preach. So whether our Earth is at C or Cʹ, we should be able to view the star by pointing our telescope in the same upward direction without the need for any ‘leftward’ tilting at point C or ‘rightward’ tilting at point Cʹ. In other words there wouldn’t be any ‘aberration of star light’ if Earth were to drag a blob of Ether. Thus scientists disprove Ether drag and their relativity mania continues.
Let’s now try to sequentially unravel the uninterrupted stupid thinking of the relativity maniacs.
First of all, the way they depict Ether drag is utter wrong. When a ball moves in air, it wouldn’t drag a blob of air. And similarly when a ball moves inside a stationary pool of water, it wouldn’t drag a fixed blob of water around it. So why would Earth drag a blob of Ether around it? The way they portray ether drag is thus obviously stupid. (I have discussed about the interrelated phenomena of Ether wind and Ether drag here).
Secondly even if we were to believe in their stupid model of Ether drag, it would still not go in their favour ‘unfortunately’. Let’s imagine that we really drag a ‘blob’ of air around us as we walk. We know that the rain drops would hit the ‘surface’ of the blob at an angle depending upon the direction and speed of our motion. Now the relativity pastors try to mesmerise and cheat our minds if we are not diligent – they propose that the rain drops, as they ‘penetrate’ and pass through the blob of air, would change their direction and travel vertically down inside the blob. So the relativity maniacs preach that we would only have to point / hold our umbrella straight up without any tilting even while walking and running unlike the case with when we don’t drag a blob of air around us.
Their preaching implies that from whichever direction the rain drops impinge upon the ‘surface’ of the blob of air, they would always travel vertically down inside the blob of air. Which means that even when we direct some water jet from down below, the water jet would somehow make its way to the top and fall down on the head of the stupid relativist.
That is, even when the rain drops hit the ‘bottom’ of the air blob, for example when a stupid relativist falls down from a height faster than the rain drops, he would still feel the rain drops hitting his head from above. This is so obviously stupid that we have to abandon the relativity religion straightaway. Basically, dragging a blob of air shouldn’t make any difference to the direction of rain fall received by the person inside the blob and he would still have to tilt his umbrella depending upon the direction of his motion. So aberration of star light doesn’t disprove even their stupid model of Ether drag.
The way relativists prove things reminds me of a saying in Telugu- when a stupid person was asked how many are pancha Pandavas (pancha=five, pandavas= sons of the king Pandu), he apparently said “they are like the three legs of a cot” and showed two fingers. Not only that he didn’t know how many are pandavas, he also didn’t know how many legs a cot would have. And he proves more of his idiocy by showing two fingers to represent three. And relativists are not too different.
Explaining the aberration of star light
Imagine that we are standing on a platform inside in a flowing river. Imagine that the river is flowing towards the south and we are facing towards the north. If the platform is stationary, we would obviously feel the water coming from the north. But if the platform moves towards the east, we would feel the water hitting our body from the north-east direction despite the fact that the water is still flowing in the same direction as before. And similarly if the platform moves towards the west, we would feel the force of water coming from the north-west direction. If we close our eyes and are unaware of the motion of the platform, we would think that the water flow is actually coming from the north-east direction when the platform moves towards the east ward and conversely when the platform moves towards the west, we would think that the water flow is coming from the north-west direction.
Imagine that you have a cylindrical pot or bottle and you want to fill that with water. How would you hold the pot/ bottle in each of the above scenarios? You would obviously face the bottle mouth towards north when the platform is stationary, towards north-east when the platform moves east ward and towards north-west when the platform moves west ward. That explains why we have to tilt our telescope depending upon the direction of the Earth’s motion.
One can give any number of analogies from our every day experience to explain the ‘aberration’ of star light.
Go to Main Index
