Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671006
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Stellar aberration - again |
| Date | 2026-05-30 22:07 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <6A1BC21A.F4A@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | <10vemas$r46i$1@dont-email.me> |
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 is pseudoscientific garbage dressed up with star catalogs and
half-remembered Einstein quotes — a delusional redefinition of stellar
aberration that collapses under basic physics.
1. **The "self-evident rule" is intellectual fraud**
The repeated claim "We will observe a star at the position in our
rest frame where it was when the observed light was emitted" and
"velocities... are irrelevant" guts the entire paper. This is not
aberration. This is a light-time correction for source motion (retarded
position). Standard stellar aberration is the apparent shift due to the
*observer's* changing velocity vector relative to the incoming light
wavefront, independent of the star's transverse velocity for distant
sources. You butchered the definition on page 1 and never recovered.
2. **Conflating proper motion displacement with aberration**
For ? Aurigae, you calculate ~23.5" shift over 141 years light time
from its proper motion and call *that* the aberration angle. Real annual
stellar aberration is ~20.5" *amplitude* from Earth's ~30 km/s orbital
speed, varying cyclically over one year regardless of the star's slow
proper motion (which contributes negligibly in 1 year: ~0.017" for that
star). Your numbers are off by orders of magnitude in timescale and
mechanism. This is not even wrong.
3. **Misuse of Einstein's 1905 paper**
You drag in Einstein's aberration formula (section 7) but apply it to
a scenario where you claim the star has significant transverse velocity
relative to the Sun, then pivot to "velocities are irrelevant."
Einstein's derivation is for relative motion between frames affecting
the wave vector direction. Your "simpler intuitive way" directly
contradicts it. Cherry-picking formulas while rejecting the underlying
relativistic (or even classical) kinematics is textbook crackpottery.
4. **Ignoring the actual observed phenomenon**
Annual stellar aberration produces a small elliptical path in star
positions with ~20.5" semi-major axis, discovered by Bradley in 1727 as
evidence for heliocentrism and finite c. Your model for a general star
(semi-major 20.5", minor sin?) accidentally spits out the right number
but attributes it to magic light-travel displacement instead of
v_earth/c tan? approximation. That's survivorship bias on the output
while the reasoning is rotten.
You assume light propagates in a way that the observer simply "sees the
past position" without accounting for aberration of light rays in the
moving frame — the exact thing Bradley explained with the
raindrop/telescope analogy. You assume proper motion over centuries
dominates yearly observations (it doesn't). You assume "unobservable
from the Sun" hand-waves away why telescopes on Earth *do* see and
correct for it. Massive hidden assumption that classical retarded
positions explain everything without velocity addition for light.
Real astronomers and physicists will dismiss this instantly upon seeing
the redefinition of "stellar aberration" to exclude velocity — the core
of the effect. Competitors (actual relativists) will shred it in seconds
on arXiv comments or forums. No journal touches this. Your target
audience is fringe readers who hate "establishment physics," but even
they get better crank material elsewhere. Regulators and funders? Zero
interest in funding redefined basics.
This fails at the most basic level: aberration must match v_observer/c ~
10^{-4} rad ~20.5" for Earth's orbit, observed across all stars with the
same constant (adjusted for ecliptic latitude). Your light-travel proper
motion "explanation" scales with distance and individual star velocity,
predicting wildly different "aberrations" per star and no yearly
periodicity tied to Earth's motion. It breaks immediately for stars with
negligible proper motion. Physics reality: aberration exists even for
stationary sources in the observer's instantaneous frame. Your model
requires magical irrelevance of relative velocity, violating both
classical and relativistic optics. Quantitatively, your ? Cassiopeiae
14" over 550 years is irrelevant to the 20.5" annual cycle.
The entire conceptual framework: the distinction between general
aberration and "stellar" aberration, the "self-evident rule," all
calculations attributing effect to source displacement instead of
observer velocity, the misuse of Einstein, and the conclusions claiming
"velocity of the star is not the cause." Replace with actual special
relativity treatment or even Bradley's classical explanation. The
specific star data tables are salvageable as reference but pointless
here.
Nothing. Every core claim is on fire. The observational parameters for
the stars are standard but misused.
Stop pretending you've discovered some deep insight about aberration by
redefining it into something else entirely. This paper isn't challenging
orthodoxy — it's embarrassing incompetence that wouldn't survive a
first-year astrophysics TA's red pen. Burn it and start over from
Bradley 1727.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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