Talk:Relativistic aberration

Merge with Relativistic aberration formula
Yes, certainly merge the pages 'Relativistic aberration and Relativistic aberration formula'. It makes no sense to keep them separate.Garthbarber 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Done 11/30/07Trilobitealive 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on merge proposal
I doubt if this article is ripe for a merger with the article on 'aberration of light'. They are both rather complicated subjects, and I suggest that the descriptions of both of them need to be made clearer (and perhaps on certain points also more correct) than they currently are. At the moment, the relativistic aberration article appears cryptic and theoretical rather than explanatory, specially its practical implications are not reliably spelled out.

In the meantime, I suspect that a merger would make the aggregated text less clear and accessible. Terry0051 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rigorous definition of "v"
Einstein's definition of the v used in his relativistic aberration formula was incorrect. v is actually the relative velocity between the emitter at the time of emission, and the observer at the time of absorption. v is not determined solely by the state of the system at the time of emission.

For example, Proxima is 4.25 light years away, the observed annual aberration is out of phase with that predicted by Einstein's definition by 90 degrees.

In many cases "the vector between the source and observer at the time of emission" is undefined. Light from the most distant sources was emitted billions of years before the solar system came into existence, in these cases the "vector between the source and observer at the time of emission" does not exist.

The same is true for the relativistic doppler formula. The annual doppler effect (discovered in 1887 by Vogel & Scheiner ) is also effected by the velocity of the earth at the time of observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

figures, alternative formulae
This article is problematic at the moment because it doesn't have a good diagram. Some figures at Commons that may be used to derive the formula in a different form are here:

These can be used to explain how to get $$\mathrm{tan}\theta' = \frac{\sin\theta}{\gamma (\beta + \cos\theta)}$$

When beta is small, clearly the two theta's are nearly identical, with tan theta' approx tan theta. Aberration of light presents both the tan and cosine formula without explaining the relation between them. The sign of beta may have to changed depending on precisely how you define the problem and write the formulae.

Someone who wants to clean up should work out which parts are most relevant in this article - the relativistic derivation - and which parts (quoting the result) make sense in Aberration of light, with appropriate cross-references each way. Boud (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Relativistic Aberration and Apparent Superluminal Motion
A few pages that involve relativistic jets point toward relativistic aberration as a reason why the jets appear to be moving faster than the speed of light from earth. It would be nice if this page had an explanation of how this phenomenon causes the illusion.

Bgovern (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)