Take the 2-minute tour ×
Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. It's 100% free, no registration required.

After Bradley discovered stellar aberration and the corresponding constant of aberration he was able to calculate the speed of light, since he knew the speed of the Earth around the Sun.

As far as I think I understand the math behind his calculations. Yet, I believe that Bradley (and anyone else until Relativity) didn't consider the velocity of the Solar System itself. It seems (to me, that is) that Bradley assumed a Solar System at rest. If the Solar System is moving, this certainly affects the result of the calculation (especially so since at that time the speed of light was not considered constant).

I'd appreciate if someone pointed out to me where my thinking is wrong.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

He didn't need to know the absolute position of the stars. The change of the appearent position has been sufficient to get a good estimate. For velocites small in comparison to the speed of light, the shift of the angle is still small.

For small angles the sine is proportional to the angle with 2nd order precision. The first Taylor summands are $$\sin x = x - \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} - + ... $$

The 2nd order approximation $$\sin x\approx x$$ can be applied on stars perpendicular, or at least apearently perpendicular, to the plane of the Earth orbit, where the method is most accurate.

Hence the underlying reason, for which it works, is the smoothness of sine.

This argument can be adjusted to less optimal conditions.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.