Does my Michelson-Morley depend on my aberration being totally correct?

Frank Russo - January 12, 2013.

My stellar aberration paper of June 1995 was slightly ambitious in establishing an absolute speed for both light and the earth, as well as most other things that we observe in our universe. I then went ahead and used these speeds in my 1998 Michelson-Morley paper, so the obvious question is, "does my Michelson-Morley work stand or fall depending on whether my aberration work is correct or not?"

The answer to this is of course an emphatic NO! In actual fact, should my aberration calculations turn out to be rather exaggerated, it would only underscore how correct my Michelson-Morley is, because it can even be balanced with such a large orbital absolute speed of 53,198,115.45 m/sec. No doubt you will recall that in both the "final solution" and "modifications" papers, there is the alternate algebraic derivation which of course does not use numbers... hence whatever the physics establishment ends up deciding the actual figures might be, all one has to do is rework the calculations with the new speeds included and my Michelson-Morley framework will still work beautifully!

One must of course realize that the aberration angle constant is only 20.47 seconds of arc, and not a massive 9.91 degrees! For out of the 53,198,115.45 m/sec absolute speed of the earth, it is obviously only the relative 30,216.6 m/sec that generates the telescope aberration angle! For the rest is matched by a corresponding movement of the star's beam of light in the same direction. However should the foregoing be in error, rest assured that my Michelson-Morley work will still stand! It doesn't matter what figures you use... you can even go ahead and use only the 'old-school' 30 km/sec of the earth, and with my formulations it will work perfectly fine!

In conclusion, seeing that I'm reminiscing about my past aberration work, I should also mention that in calculating the speed of light from the aberration angle one should use a "tan" expression rather than a "radians" one... it however did not significantly change the result - no harm done!

Frank Russo.