AetherCosPlay Aberration or Starlight

Overview

On 2026-06-26 on the Earth Awakenings Discord server Piezo and MCToon had this conversation about stellar aberration, Bradley's equation, and Airy's failure (transcript: Aries failure).

Discord conversation

Speakers: Piezo (flat / stationary Earth; aberration is not evidence Earth moves), MCToon (globe; stellar aberration supports a moving Earth).

Source: Livestream transcript, 3:43:03 – 3:47:55. The transcript spells Aries failure — almost certainly Airy's failure (George Airy's 1871 water-filled telescope experiment), not Arecibo.

Context: Ether theory → stellar aberration pivot (3:43:03)

Yeah. The ve yeah the the a field also known as the vector potential in Maxwell's equations is the ether.

That's it.

And and and how how does so how does that negate how does that negate aberration of starlight and the color shift of starlight?

So if you want to just start rattling things off one by one, this conversation is going to take forever. But what you asked was right, remember your original question, what are its predictions? And I said, okay, well here is the mathematical description of it that gives all the predictions.

And now you're like pivoting to let's talk about stellar aberration and all this other stuff.

Yeah, you you it needs to be consistent with those loop.

It has to be consistent with all of those things though.

Stellar aberration vs. experiments (3:43:51)

Stellar aberration is not even consistent with experiments.

Yes, it is. Uh not Aries failure. Aries failure was not testing for aberration. It's a stationary geocentric observation. Anyways, a aberration is not a geocentric stationary observation.

Where do you take the measurements from the moving earth as as it confirmed that the earth is moving?

So, it's geocentric then, right?

No, you're you're assume putting the cart before the horse there, buddy.

James Bradley's equation (3:44:24)

You're just you're just affirming the consequence. Brad Bradley's equation Bradley's equation does not correctly predict what will happen if you vary one of the two velocities. It only has two input variables. Yeah.

So if you if you vary one of those variables, then the angle should change and it didn't. That's the important part of invoking when was wait when was when did we vary the rotate the the the linear speed of the Earth around the sun? We didn't we varied the other variable which is the speed of that the light's moving through the telescope.

Ah, yes. But special relativity deals with that just fine. So I don't know what your problem is.

No, it doesn't.

Doing the math — Franco, Wikipedia, arcseconds (3:45:03)

Oh, no it doesn't. There you go. You're smarter than 120 years of of people that actually study this. Got it. If you you can you can take either either the publicly available equations straight off of Wikipedia or you can take the equations that we had Franco the CERN physicist write out and do a seven or eight page PowerPoint presentation on for us. Take either of those two equation sets and plug all the variables in and you'll get either 15 or 28 arcsec and his measurement was 20. So all right, I'd love to see that.

Yeah. I mean, you can go on Allan has it on his website or he can send it to you personally if you want it. All right.

So, you're saying it matches the stationary telescope prediction?

No, I'm saying that the math I'm saying that the I'm saying that the math if you use special relativity and you and you do it with, you know, the index of refraction for water and you plug all the numbers in, depending on which model you use, whether you use the plane wave model or whether you use the like uh photon model, you'll get either 15 arcseconds or 28 arcsec. the plane wave model or the photon model. What are these?

Well, it's the emission theory and the wave theory of light. There's two different theories for light, right? You can treat it as a wave or a particle.

So, either depending on which one you use, you'll either get uh 15 arcsec once you put water in the telescope or you'll get 28.

And Franco did the math for 15. And if you use the other model that's on Wikipedia, you'll get 28, 27, 28. The answer is 20 as to what he measured. It did not change when you put water in it.

That's the only thing you can't have. It has to change one of the other two. You can't have the angle not change. That's the one thing you can't have. That's what he measured.

I don't think that's the actual answer, but okay. I'll have to look at that. Did we give up on tests of flat Earth?

Challenge to reproduce the calculation (3:47:06)

Yes. Yeah, that that was discarded a while ago. So, I do have uh it's coming up on 2 o'clock here and I got a bunch of super chats to read out. So, I won't uh I won't uh bore the uh Geo server here with that.

All right. Yeah, if you're going to read those and wrap up your show. But, uh I just wanted to say I don't I mean, nobody gave up on any of those tests. I don't know what you mean. Just in the conversation.

Yeah, the conversation.

You should make a follow-up video, mcune, where you where you do the math force failure. You can get the equations like they're on Wikipedia or where we can give you the Franco's presentation if you want both models and you can just plug the numbers in and see what it spits out. It's not going to spit out 20. I can tell you that.

You should do a follow-up for your viewers. Sure.

Did you decide on a test? Did you decide?

So everybody can see so everybody can see what the velocity of light is in the water frame or in the sun frame, right? you get.

So, yeah, Brenda, no test was agreed on.

TruthNerds response

In the comments section of that video, TruthNerds wrote: