I briefly scanned the aberration of light article and I've formed some uninformed opinions. It looks like while trying to measure the distance to Polaris using the parallax view, they came up with an extra angle of light in their measurements that didn't match the parallax angle over time. In the 1600's their instruments were sensitive enough to measure this tiny aberration of the angle just using the miniscule Earth orbit compared with the distance to Polaris. Assuming the Earth adopted the stationary frame, Polaris would have looked like a light clock in the sky bouncing between two invisible plates that were due to Earth's orbit. I suppose if Polaris is speeding away from Earth, it would have caused Earth to observe the phenomenon of a light clock speeding away from it et voila the gamma function and time dilation and the entire theory of relativity could have been discovered in the 1600's if only there were competent mathematicians able to solve this simple problem. The thing is there were plenty of competent mathematicians and no one was able to solve this "simple" problem until relativity came around. So there's very little chance Greene started with the aberration of light to prove SR when it is far more likely he worked backward from SR to prove the aberration of light and then reversed the proof. That's all fine. But to present the assumption of the aberration of light to derive SR without mentioning it is just fraud. I'm going to use the same tactic to show how the aberration of light is solved by relativity. I've done it but it is so complex with a new caveat learned in drawing the Md, I need verification for the math from an expert or anyone who might know high school algebra. I'm sure Mr. Bate is going to have a good laugh when it took me days to figure out how this works when I could have just got the info from any book. I'm being sarcastic of course. Can't figure out how this thread is still in the alternate theories sub-forum.