Stellar Aberration effects on the identification of rotation directions of spiral galaxies

Stellar Aberration effects on the identification of rotation directions of spiral galaxies

Abstract

In this paper the well documented non-relativistic classical effects of stellar aberration (1) are applied to light arriving to the earth observer from external spiral galaxies with possible implications for spiral galaxy rotation direction identifications. It is proposed here in this paper that the range of rotational velocities of stars within any external galaxy(4) must exert a blurring effect on that galaxies total emitted light incident at any earth observers image plane. In that the different internal velocities of all the stars in a spiral galaxy that rotates in the same direction as our Milky Way should effect more blurring of the spiral galaxy at the earth observers image plane due to stellar aberration, than the blurring of light at the image plane will be for light coming from all the stars in a galaxy that rotates in the opposite direction to our Milky Way. This proposed non-relativistic classical effect of stellar aberration(1) could make it harder to identify a co rotating spiral galaxy’s rotation direction than it would for a counter rotating galaxy’s rotation direction at any similar redshift distance from earth.

Introduction

The basis for this papers’ proposed Stellar Aberration effect on light arriving from spiral galaxies is based on the assumption that if light from any stellar object is displaced at an observer’s image plane via stellar aberration (1) then the magnitude of that displacement will be dictated by the earth observer’s relative transverse velocity to that particular stellar source. The accepted rule for stellar aberration (1) being that a higher transverse velocity of a star relative to the earth observers will result in a larger displacement of the star at the observers’ image plane. And that the scale of any additional displacement with any subsequent additional increases in relative transverse velocities will always be observed to increase (1) by smaller displacement amounts at the image plane with any subsequent increases in relative transverse velocities between the source and observer. For example, using only the pre relativistic classical theory of stellar aberration (1), the difference in the lateral displacement of a stars position at the image plane due to a difference in relative transverse velocities of between 0 to 25km/s between source and observer is assumed here to be larger than the difference in displacement of a stars light with a relative transverse velocity difference between the source and observer of between 25-50km/s. As also illustrated below in Fig 1 & 2 and summarised as follows:

For an increase in differences of velocity v in relative transverse velocities between source and observer a displacement d at the observers’ image plane will be observed. For any additional velocity increase of velocity v in relative transverse velocity between source and observer the observed additional increase in displacement at the image plane will be <d

This paper then proposes here that this same classical stellar aberration effect noted for stars in the Milky Way (1) should also be visible in any light coming from any individual star within any observed external spiral galaxy. And thus, that this range in velocities of rotational motions of all the stars in any external spiral galaxy must also effect a visible range of displacements of light from the observed spiral Galaxy as its light arrives at the earth observers image plane.

Current estimates based on observations (2,3) of stellar rotational velocities around the Milky Way core are between 200 - 250km/s. Although rotational velocities may vary greatly across spiral galaxies this cited 200-250km/s velocity range (2,3) for stars in the Milky Way is assumed here for the purposes of this paper to be also an average rotational velocity range for all stars in all spiral galaxies. Thus, it is assumed here in this paper that the internal stellar rotational velocities in all galaxies

around their respective cores can be on average approximated to be in the range of around 200- 250km/s. And that it follows that the average range of stellar velocities around a spiral Galaxy core can be assumed to be approximately 50km/s between the slowest and the fastest stellar velocities. It should be noted here that this assumption is roughly in line with the published analysis of observed data of various spiral galaxy types (4). The conclusion based on this above cited data and reached here in this paper is that the average velocity range of all stars in any spiral Galaxy can be considered here for the purposes of this paper to be equivalent to up to 1/5 of the total average rotational velocity of its host spiral galaxy. This insinuates that all light coming from any spiral galaxy will have a range of transverse velocities relative to the earth observer of approximately 1/5 more or less than its average galactic rotational velocity.

It is important to point out here that although both the James Bradley classical and the later Relativistic theories of Stellar aberration predict similar displacements of light at the earth observers image plane (1). It is considered here for the purposes of this paper necessary only for one to invoke Bradley’s Classical theory of stellar aberration to fully explain not only the displacement of light but the predicted blurring of spiral Galaxies light at the earth observers image plane.

Displacement and blurring mechanism

Taking into account classical stellar aberration effects, it is proposed here in this paper that this assumed average velocity range of stars within galaxies (1,2,3,4) could have a significant measurable effect on light arriving from galaxies to the earth observer. In that the range of displacements from stellar aberration alone (1) at the image plane of light from any spiral galaxy should create an optical blurring of the galaxy at the earth observers image plane. And that it is predicted here in this paper that the images of spiral galaxies will more or less blurred depending on whether or not the observed spiral galaxy is rotating with or oppositely to our own Milky Way. To summarise, displacements of stellar positions within images of spiral galaxies due to the classical theory of stellar aberration will create a proposed range of blurring of spiral galaxies at the earth observers image plane that is straightforward and can be summarised as follows:

A) The relative transverse velocity between any stellar source and earth observer effects a lateral displacement of that light on the image plane due to stellar aberration (1). And that this displacement is then assumed here to occur to light from stars within our Milky Way and from stars located in any other external spiral galaxies.

B) The theory of stellar aberration based on centuries of observation (1) tells us that the higher the relative transverse velocity the greater the displacement at the image plane from stellar aberration will be. And also that any subsequent increase in relative velocity will create a subsequently smaller amount of further lateral displacement on the image plane. (Fig1&2)

C) It is assumed in this paper (3,4) that the average rotation velocity of spiral galaxies will be in a mid range of 225km/s.

D) Based on the above cited averages it assumed here that spiral galaxies rotating oppositely to our Milky Way will have internal stellar transverse rotation velocities of on average between 200- 250km/s relative to an earth observer, and that stars orbiting in spiral galaxies that are rotating with our Milky Way will have an internal transverse velocity range of approximately +-25km/s relative to the earth observer. Both ranges being on average consisting of a velocity difference of 50km/s.

E) Lateral displacements at the image plane due to Stellar aberration always are observed to increase with increases in relative velocities between source and observer (1). But successive lateral displacements increase less so in magnitude between successively larger increases in relative velocities between source and observer (1). As also illustrated in Fig 1 & 2 below.

With all these points taken into consideration it becomes obvious, particularly from point E) above, that the total difference in magnitude of lateral displacements of all light from a set of a galaxy’s stellar sources with a relative transverse motions of 200-250 km/s relative to an earth observer will always be less than the total difference in magnitude of lateral displacements of all light from a set of a galaxy’s stellar sources with relative transverse motions of only +-25km/s relative to the earth observer (Fig1). In other words, this paper proposes here that light incident on the earth observers image plane from a galaxy that rotates with our Milky Way should always be more distorted and blurred due to a greater magnitude of lateral displacements at the image plane due to stellar aberration. Than light incident on the image plane from any spiral galaxy that rotates oppositely to our Milky Way at any similar redshift distance.

Fig 1) A is earth observer and V is relative transverse velocity axis between stellar source and earth observer. Angle x is larger than angle y. Angle x represents range of incident angles of light from galaxies that rotate with the Milky Way and angle y represents range of incident angles of light from galaxies that rotate in opposite directions to the Milky Way. Due to the effects of stellar aberration, light from a galaxy rotating with the Milky Way will arrive with a greater range of incident angles x than the range of incident angles y of light arriving from a galaxy that rotates in the opposite direction to the Milky Way (1). This difference in the range of incident angles between x and y will result in smaller lateral displacements of the galaxy light incident for y at the image plane than the greater range of lateral displacements of light for x at the image plane. And result in this papers’ predicted increased blurring for light arriving at x, than for light arriving at y. The size in arc seconds of any galaxy at the earth observer’s camera image plane becomes proportionately smaller for progressively higher redshifts (taking up less pixels at image plane for higher redshift galaxies). But the 2 relative transverse velocity ranges between any spiral galaxy and the earth observer will always be the same between any redshift galaxy and the earth observer (-+25km/s for co rotating, 200-250km/s for counter rotating*). It follows then that these 2 ratios of image size decreasing with increased redshift vs constant relative transverse velocity between earth and any spiral galaxy at any redshift; will result in a progressively apparent (but not real) increase of blurring of galaxy images at higher redshifts due to stellar aberration. And additionally, should effect a greater amount of blurring of co rotating galaxies than counter rotating galaxies at higher redshifts due to the relative velocity differences between the 2 ratios*. This increased blurring effect for higher redshifts will therefore make it harder to identify co rotating galaxy rotation directions than counter rotating galaxies at progressively higher redshifts.

Fig 2) Three illustrations showing how stellar aberration can displace light from individual stars in a spiral galaxy’s arm to effectively “blur” the galaxies image. Showing different amounts of blurring for different directions of relative galactic rotation between a galaxy and the earth observer. Left is a starfield with no aberration from no relative transverse velocities between all the stars in the galaxy and earth observer. Centre is with a small range of Stellar Aberration from a galaxy that rotates oppositely to the earth observer. Right is with the larger range of Stellar aberration from a galaxy that rotates with the Milky Way. Notice how the co rotating galaxy’s starfield illustrated on the right is more spread out and diffuse due to a larger range of displacements of each stars position within the galaxy due to stellar aberration.

Conclusion

Classical non-relativistic Stellar aberration theory (1), when applied to light from external galaxies, should effect different ranges of displacement of stellar light coming from spiral galaxies as it arrives at the earth observers image plane due to the observed range of different rotational velocities of stars around galaxy cores (1,2,3,4). As a consequence, it is proposed here in this paper that the predicted range of displacements at the earth observers image plane should be greater for all stellar light coming from galaxies that rotate with our Milky Way than for all stellar light coming from spiral galaxies that rotate in an opposite direction to our Milky Way. And further to this it is proposed here that this stellar aberration effect should manifest itself as different amounts of blurring of images of spiral galaxies. And that this blurring effect should be greater for galaxies that have relatively lower transverse rotational velocities relative to an earth observer. And therefore, light arriving at the earth observers image plane from a galaxy that rotates in the same direction as our own Milky Way should appear to be more blurred than a galaxy that rotates in an opposite direction to our Milky Way for spiral galaxies at similar redshifts. And as a conclusion it is proposed here that this purely classical effect of stellar aberration is predicted to make the rotation direction of a galaxy that rotates in the same direction as the milky way harder to identify than any galaxy that rotates oppositely to our own Milky Way at any similar redshift.

Reference

1)Aberration (astronomy) page at Wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_Astronomy

2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).svg

3) Median Statistics Estimate of the Galactic Rotational Velocity.Tia Camarillo et al 

4)Comparison of Rotation Curves of different Galaxy Types. Roberts & Rots, 1973

 

FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

The CHIME/FRB Collaboration:, Thomas C. Abbott

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f#apjladf62fs3

Once again the theorists have misunderstood the true nature of FRB and GRB phenomena. As I have pointed out for decades on this blog, it is a mistake to assume they are massive “explosions” at cosmological scale distances from earth. This is a false assumption based on other false assumptions about our universe and the true nature of electromagnetic radiation. False and unsubstantiated assumptions which I have discussed and refuted elsewhere here on this blog

However, to address this above cited paper specifically. It can be shown here how Gammaraybursts and Fast radio bursts are in fact, the same phenomena but occurring at different length timescales. An FRB is just a very short GRB. Nothing else. And more importantly it can be shown how these phenomena are not explosions at all, but rather purely optical effects coming originally from very distant but constant stellar sources in a non expanding universe. It’s not hard to show that the data in the above cited CHIME paper indeed backs up the GRB/FRB model described here. 

(It is important to point out that as far as this blog is concerned, repeating FRB’s should not in any way be considered to be caused by the same mechanisms as non repeating FRB’s. Which as anyone who is familiar with both repeating and non repeating FRB data will agree. Both types have distinctly different types of data streams that distinguish each type from the other as unrelated.)

For clear evidence  relating GRB and FRB as the same phenomena at different timescales look only to Figure 5 in the CHIME/FRB collaboration paper. (“PA profile of FRB 20250316A as a function of frequency over 400–800 MHz.”)

Notice how the self similar burst profiles in each frequency become more stretched in the time axis at successively lower frequencies. And that this  stretch in the time scale is proportional to wavelength. This exact profile of longer wavelengths being dilated to longer arrival timescales for FRB and GRB’s was predicted and outlined in this blog more than 20 years ago. Before Fast radio bursts were even “discovered” I had modelled and explained FRB ‘s in detail as being just very short GRB’s. But with the same distinctive time lag/wavelength relationship that can be seen in every available GRB burst dataset to date. A wavelength/time lag relationship which can also seen in figure 5 of the recent CHIME Collaboration paper. Notice as pointed out elsewhere on this blog, that all GRB light curve profiles from gamma to radio show the same distinctive wavelength to timescale stretch proportional to wavelength relationship. 

Unfortunately, theorists currently seem unwilling to admit relativity and the Big Bang are failed theories. And that going back to a more correct scientific model of light as a wave only, is the only option left to correctly explain all EMR phenomena including FRB burst profiles. A wave only classical model first described centuries ago by Theorists such as Thomas Young.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2016/10/ives-stillwell-is-consistent-with.html

Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

 Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.19671

With a summary here : 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/zwhd-1k2t

The usual quantum nonsense from physicists pretending that light, when sent through a double slit, is sometimes observed to be a photon and other times as a wave. Fact is; Light isn’t ever actually observed to be a photon. That is a false assumption. Seeing as no one can actually see an imaginary photon as it hits the photodetector plane. All we see is a readout on a pc screen of wave light incident on the photodetector. And as a classical wave only model correctly models, that incident wave radiation is quantised into pulses by the detector atoms and delivered, as an the ‘electron cascade’, to the circuit. To be then sent to the computer screen as dots. Dots that theorists incorrectly assume to be imaginary photons. Any interference pattern created by these dots is simply a readout of the intensity of wave only incident radiation on the detector screen and at that corresponding point on the pc screen. Where there is more light due to an interference pattern at the detector plane, there will be a greater intensity of incident wave radiation at that point. And more of these quantised dots will  appear at that corresponding point in the interference pattern on the computer screen. 

And where there is less incident wave only radiation at other points in the interference pattern there will be fewer quantised pulses from the photodetector and thus at that same corresponding point on the pc screen, fewer dots will be observed. 

No quantum wave particle duality is needed to explain both the dots and any of those dots creating the interference pattern. 

That is unless one is a QT theorist who, when looking at these dots on his pc screen pretended they were photons hitting the detector plane. And then erroneously assumed this collection of these imaginary photons arranged themselves magically into a wave like interference pattern when the source atoms were constrained into a coherent lattice. In fact, all they actually saw was an amplified second generation image of wave only light being quantised at and by the photodetector atoms. Then amplified electronically and delivered via software to the pc screen as an interference pattern.

But to deal specifically with this papers claims of quantum photon/wave duality magic is the following scientific classical wave only theoretical explanation:

What is creating the coherent light in the experiment described in above cited paper? 

If the array of atoms is held in a lattice and reflecting/re-emitting the incident laser light then the atom lattice is essentially a collection of coherent light sources. As we know only coherent light when split into two or more same coherent sources at a “slit” can create interference patterns when incident on any detector plane. First described in Thomas Youngs famous slit screen experiment.

And further to this, what is creating the incoherent light in the experiment when no interference patterns from the source atoms are observed? 

If the atoms are not in a lattice and moving randomly, and reflecting or re-emitting this incoherent light onto the detector screen, then at this point we know that no interference patterns can be created or observed from two or more incoherent sources. This is indeed observed in the above cited paper.

Because, as any one with a basic grasp of physics knows, two or more incoherent light sources cannot produce an interference pattern. And thus in the experiment only the atoms held together in a lattice and reflecting or re-emitting the light are considered multiple coherent light sources. And as mentioned above, two or more coherent sources can create interference patterns at any detector screen. As is observed and confirmed in the paper.

In their attempts to pretend they have supplied further proof of the quantum nature of light, the authors of the paper have forgotten basic physics. In that a classical model can fully explain their experimental results. In that in a wave only classical model of light, any incoherent classical wave light sources will not produce any interference at a detector plane. And will only do so only if the multi atom incoherent light source is artificially constrained into a lattice of multiple coherent light sources that can then produce interference. As is observed in the paper.

For more information on how a classical wave only model can explain so called wave particle duality, read here

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Rapidly Varying Ionization Features in a Quasi-periodic Eruption: A Homologous Expansion Model for the Spectroscopic Evolution

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

Once again anything that the Black hole clerics don’t understand, they call a black hole. Or dark energy if they are really desperate. Odd that they’re still at it considering all of the only 3 “images” of supposed ‘black holes’ to date have no accretion discs. Their flimsy excuse is that by some 1/30,000 coincidence all three Black holes images to date are exactly face on to us here on earth. A ‘fact’ even NASA admits is extremely odd and statistically very unlikely. They just can’t admit these images aren’t black holes.

Although one can only speculate on the real nature of the data from another galaxy referred to in this paper cited above, I prefer the variable speed solar Dynamo model to explain the data rather than using the extremely rapid spinning object model as the above cited paper suggests. The variable speed model of the solar Dynamo cycle is a 22 year cycle consisting of two 11 year phases. For 11 years the inner core of the sun rotates faster than its photosphere, and for the next 11 years slower. Etc. 

And this solar Dynamo model can be used to also model other repeating phenomena like quasars and pulsars. In that these repeating bursts in X-ray or other frequencies are signs of a very short time scale slowing down and speeding up of the stars inner core relative to its outer plasma shell.

So why have a model of a massive star spinning multiple times per second when it’s more realistic to suggest that the objects in question are spinning much slower in hours or days. And instead, as the variable speed solar Dynamo style model proposes, have the inner core and outer photosphere both spinning in the same direction but slowing down and speeding up relative to each other over seconds. Less drastic and unrealistic assumptions are made in the solar Dynamo style model. 

But as mentioned above this dynamo cycle is much faster than the suns 22 year cycle and lasts only just days. And thus being much more energetic. Hence the profuse x ray emissions. 

We should be glad our suns cycle is a long 22 year cycle.

Scientists Found a Quantum Surprise in Ordinary Light

 https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-found-a-quantum-surprise-in-ordinary-light/

Isolating the classical and quantum coherence of a multiphoton system. Chenglong You et al. 2024

Once again the theorists forget that their coincidence counters, called correlation counters in this study, are the magic card trick mechanisms creating the imaginary quantum effects which the researchers claim are being observed. In reality the observed data has nothing to do with spooky magic action at a distance. 

No wonder they supposedly found that classical light sources seem to behave as if they were being subjected to quantum effects. When all that really happens in these ridiculous experiments is that light from different detectors with different polarised states, arrives at the coincidence counter. Where the data is collected , collated and then later matched up as “coincidences” by researchers to make their imaginary quantum effects appear. Where in truth there are none. It can all be explained classically with polarisation. 

It’s a simple card trick used by Quantum researchers ever since the early days of the fakery of quantum eraser experiments as described at the link below.

Basically what all these Quantum experiments do is divide the original light beam into three paths to three detectors. One is the original beam going to a master detector D1 measuring all states of vertical V and horizontal H polarisations. etc. V,H,V,H,V,....etc

Then two more paths with either only V or H beams go to two other detectors D2 and D3. So for instance, D2 gets only the Vertical polarised portion of the cycle and the other detector D3 only receives the Horizontal polarised portion of the cycle. Notice now that a correlation counter will match detections from D2 to D1 but at the same point in time...NO DETECTIONS from D3 to D1 will be recorded. Because the original emitted beams polarisation alternates and therefore peaks at different times between the vertical and horizontal polarised states each cycle. 

This isn’t quantum magic. This is creative accounting making classical polarisation look like quantum magic.

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Scientists pin down the origins of a fast radio burst (MIT)

“Magnetospheric origin of a fast radio burst constrained using scintillation. Kenzie Nimmo2024”

Once again the ‘experts’ continue to make up ridiculous fantastical scenarios to try to explain why FRB’s do not conform to relativity and its constant speed of light in all frames nonsense. A sad history of ignoring the facts that started in 1928 when Hubble found that light changed frequency over distance which refuted Einsteins photon model. And by association refuted his relativity theories which relied on the erroneous assumption that a photon can NOT change frequency over distance.

The real story of FRB’s is that they are just very fast GRB’s. The length of a GRB lightcurve is usually in the order of seconds with the optical counterpart in hours and radio in days as modelled here. But an FRB, being just a very fast short GRB, will have its gamma lightcurve last only in nano seconds, its optical curve in slightly longer nanosecond timescales and the radio transient being the only observable lightcurve, lasting in microseconds. Just long enough to capture as an event in the radio data.