Re: Relativistic aberration

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:30:07 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Beauty is the splendor of truth.
>
If a theory is not beautiful, it is not true.
>
We are therefore going to talk about a sensitive subject, the notion of
relativistic aberration.
>
A cube is placed in front of an observer, the yellow front side of which
is the only one visible.
>
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?QsysQnpetTSlB_zDsjAhnCKqnbg@jntp/Data.Media:1>
>
This face is 60 meters away, and point M of the cube, relative to this
observer, is exactly 60 meters away.
>
Another observer placed in R', with relative speed Vo=0.8c in the x'ox
direction, crosses the first observer at the same place, at the same
time.
>
For the moment, we are not looking for anything too complicated, namely
what will become of the entire cube.
>
No.
>
We breathe, we breathe, we go very slowly so as not to fall into a
number
of hidden traps or false concepts.
>
We just ask, to start...
>
Where will the point M' in R' corresponding to M in R be located?
>
Note that in Hachel, two joint observers have strictly the same vision
of
the universe (but with an aberration in x). Everything that is seen by
one
is seen at the same moment by the other; everything that is seen is seen
by the other and vice versa; nothing that is not seen by one can be seen
by the other, and vice versa.
>
This is very important to understand.
>
A contradictor who already comes to doubt, would show that he already
completely misunderstands SR as it should be taught.
>
R.H.

The visual field differences between observers are known and regardless
of
the details of the motion are always related by a conformal map. This
alone
accounts for things like the appearance of the outline of a moving
sphere,
the Tyrell "rotation", etc.
Also keep in mind that the two observers, even if they are momentarily
at the same place, will have different visual fields due to the retinas
of their eyes (which are of *finite* extent (i.e., not pointlike))
accounting differently for the visually observed scene because of the
different simultaneity for the two observers.
--
Jan