Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671003

Re: Stellar aberration - again

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Stellar aberration - again
Date	2026-05-30 12:47 -0700
Organization	The Starmaker Organization
Message-ID	<6A1B3ED9.757B@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
References	<10vemas$r46i$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> I have made a new version of my article about stellar aberration:
> 
> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf
> 
> Comments will be appreciated.
> 
> PointedEars  ?
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

This paper reads like someone discovered a calculator, got excited that
two formulas produce slightly different numbers, and then mistook that
for a revolution in physics.

1. It attacks a strawman, not relativity.

The entire setup is built around comparing a Galilean treatment of
aberration with a Lorentz treatment and highlighting a numerical
difference.

That's not a problem.

That's the expected outcome.

Relativity was invented precisely because Galilean velocity
transformations fail for light. Showing that the two frameworks give
different aberration angles is about as shocking as discovering that
Newtonian gravity and General Relativity predict different perihelion
precession values.

No physicist ever claimed they should agree.

The paper spends effort deriving a difference without establishing why
the difference is problematic.

That's not criticism.

That's bookkeeping.

2. The paper never identifies an experimental contradiction.

This is the fatal wound.

A scientific challenge to relativity requires one of two things:

    a mathematical inconsistency,

    an observational contradiction.

The paper provides neither.

It derives two predictions and notes they differ.

Then what?

Where is the measurement?

Where is the telescope data?

Where is the uncertainty analysis?

Where is the comparison against modern astrometry?

Where is the demonstration that the Lorentz prediction fails?

Nowhere.

Without that, the entire exercise collapses into:

    "Formula A gives one answer and Formula B gives another."

Congratulations. Physics has known that for over a century.

3. The geometry is engineered to manufacture a tiny discrepancy.

The paper chooses a star near the ecliptic pole and compares
observations six months apart in frames moving at relative speed (2v).
(Paul Båno)

This is a highly specialized setup designed to isolate a second-order
correction.

The Earth's orbital velocity is roughly 30 km/s.

That means:

[
\beta = \frac{v}{c} \approx 10^{-4}
]

The disagreement between Galilean and relativistic treatments appears at
order:

[
\beta^2 \approx 10^{-8}
]

That's microscopic.

The paper is essentially waving around a correction term that relativity
predicts should exist and acting as though finding it is somehow
suspicious.

It's the intellectual equivalent of discovering pennies in the
accounting ledger and declaring the company bankrupt.

4. It ignores the mountain of evidence supporting relativistic
aberration.

Stellar aberration isn't an isolated phenomenon.

The same Lorentz framework explains:

    relativistic Doppler shift,

    time dilation,

    particle accelerator results,

    GPS timing corrections,

    relativistic beaming,

    VLBI astrometry,

    spacecraft navigation.

The paper behaves as though aberration exists in a vacuum.

It doesn't.

If you're going to challenge Lorentz transformations, you inherit the
burden of explaining why thousands of independent relativistic
observations continue to work.

The paper doesn't even attempt this.

5. The argument is asymmetrical and incomplete.

Suppose the author actually wanted to overthrow the relativistic
treatment.

Then the minimum requirement would be:

    derive competing predictions,

    identify a measurable regime,

    show observations favor the alternative.

The paper stops at step 1.

That's like writing:

    "I derived a different route to Chicago."

Then never checking whether the road actually reaches Chicago.

[Garbage]

"Different prediction = relativity problem"

No.

Different prediction means different theory.

The burden is showing reality follows yours.

The paper quietly assumes the discrepancy itself is evidence.

It isn't.
"Small corrections are suspicious"

Relativity is full of tiny corrections.

Mercury's perihelion shift.

Gravitational redshift.

Time dilation in GPS.

Relativistic aberration.

Tiny effects are not evidence against relativity.

They're often evidence for it.
"Derivation equals validation"

A derivation proves only that algebra was performed.

Nature does not care how pretty the algebra looks.

Nature cares whether the prediction survives measurement.
[Incentive & Human-Behavior Landmines]
Physics is not impressed by isolated derivations.

Professional physicists see hundreds of papers every year claiming:

    relativity is wrong,

    quantum mechanics is wrong,

    cosmology is wrong.

Nearly all share the same defect:

they stop at mathematics and never connect to decisive evidence.

This paper falls directly into that trap.
Confirmation bias is doing heavy lifting.

The document is written as though the existence of a discrepancy is
itself meaningful.

That mindset is how people convince themselves they have overturned
established science when all they've actually done is compare two
equations.

[Scale, Physics & Reality Check]

Modern astrometry is absurdly precise.

Projects such as the European Space Agency mission Gaia measure
positions at microarcsecond levels. Stellar aberration is routinely
modeled as part of high-precision astrometric reductions. (arXiv)

That means any claim that the standard relativistic treatment is
fundamentally wrong is entering a battlefield already covered in
precision measurements.

The paper provides:

    no observational campaign,

    no data reduction,

    no residual analysis,

    no comparison with modern catalogs.

So its practical impact is effectively zero.

    The entire implication that "prediction difference" is evidence
against relativity.

    The absence of observational validation.

    The failure to compare against actual astrometric datasets.

    The failure to engage with existing aberration literature.

    The implicit assumption that a second-order discrepancy
automatically creates a theoretical crisis.

All of that needs rebuilding from scratch.

One thing survives:

The derivation itself is a legitimate exercise in comparing Galilean and
Lorentz transformations for stellar aberration.

As a pedagogical calculation, it's fine.

As evidence that relativity has a problem, it's toothless.

This paper doesn't wound relativity; it barely inconveniences it. It
spends pages deriving a difference everyone already expects, then
forgets to do the one thing that matters: show that reality agrees with
the author's side instead of Einstein's.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Thread

Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-05-30 14:55 +0200
  Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 10:28 -0700
    Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 10:43 -0700
  Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 12:47 -0700
  Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 22:07 -0700
  Re: Stellar aberration - again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-05-30 22:14 -0700
  Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-31 12:34 +0300
    Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-05-31 13:51 +0200
      Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-31 18:07 +0300
        Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2026-05-31 20:46 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-01 11:03 +0300
  Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-05-31 22:19 +0200
    Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-05-31 22:55 +0200
      Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-01 11:01 +0300
        Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-01 10:11 +0200
      Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-01 20:50 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-01 21:46 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-02 10:52 +0300
            Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-02 11:17 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-02 13:56 +0200
            Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-02 14:15 +0200
              Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-03 13:53 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-03 14:20 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-03 15:15 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-03 15:48 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 12:37 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-04 12:51 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 13:39 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-04 14:40 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 15:26 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Chadd Babaitsev <sace@iddi.ru> - 2026-06-04 12:50 +0000
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-06 09:05 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-06 09:25 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Troyonta Funakoshi <kttr@auso.jp> - 2026-06-06 11:08 +0000
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-06 23:38 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Abner Ustinovich <ibuvov@sbucn.ru> - 2026-06-07 08:23 +0000
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-08 08:54 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Newton Grünewald <dznn@ldt.de> - 2026-06-08 09:58 +0000
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Dylan Wyrzyk <wnyl@yzwrr.pl> - 2026-06-08 10:13 +0000
                Re: Stellar aberration - again phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 07:42 -0600
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Andreas Amoretto <tossto@trmatad.it> - 2026-06-08 15:00 +0000
                Re: Stellar aberration - again phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 09:06 -0600
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Raymundo Nishikawa <iunm@aiamr.jp> - 2026-06-09 13:12 +0000
        Re: Stellar aberration - again Rommel Barakov <aelro@rmobao.ru> - 2026-06-02 12:40 +0000
    Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-01 20:45 +0200
      Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-02 21:43 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-02 21:56 +0200
        Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-03 15:10 +0200
          Re: Stellar aberration - again Deshawn Wronski <sirok@ewiiw.pl> - 2026-06-03 14:35 +0000
          Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-03 21:21 +0200
            Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-04 12:57 +0200
              Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-09 21:43 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-10 15:10 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-10 15:23 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-10 21:25 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-11 21:36 +0200
                Re: Stellar aberration - again Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-11 21:34 +0200
  Re: Stellar aberration - again Hugo Babarin <nr@nigaro.ru> - 2026-06-02 12:44 +0000
  Re: Stellar aberration - again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-02 22:10 +0200

csiph-web