Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671007
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Stellar aberration - again |
| Date | 2026-05-30 22:14 -0700 |
| Organization | The Starmaker Organization |
| Message-ID | <6A1BC3CA.D63@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 a 13-page monument to wasted LaTeX formatting that mistakes
verbose geometric restatement for insight, ignores a century of
experimental physics that already settled this, and fundamentally
misunderstands what stellar aberration actually demonstrates about
reference frames.
---
**1. The central claim is already experimentally falsified — and the
author doesn't engage with that fact**
The paper claims stellar aberration proves Earth moves through "absolute
space" and that this contradicts special relativity. Except we've had
**direct experimental tests** of whether stellar aberration depends on
the medium (aether, atmosphere, vacuum):
- **Airy's water-filled telescope (1871)** : aberration angle unchanged
when light travels through water in the telescope — kills any
aether-drag theory
- **Michelson-Morley (1887)** and every subsequent interferometric test:
no aether wind
- **Kennedy-Thorndike experiments** : confirmed time dilation and length
contraction are real, not coordinate artifacts
- **Ives-Stilwell (1938)** : direct confirmation of relativistic Doppler
(which this paper's Eq. 13 gets wrong)
The author waves at "Section 5" claiming relativity is wrong but
provides **zero engagement** with why these experiments didn't detect
what he claims should be detectable. That's not a paper — that's a blog
rant with equations.
**2. The "contradiction" with relativity is based on confusing
coordinate velocity with signal velocity**
The author repeatedly treats $c \pm v$ expressions (his Eq. 6, 13) as if
they represent **actual light speed variation** in different frames.
They don't. They represent **coordinate expressions** in a non-inertial
or poorly chosen frame.
In special relativity:
- Light speed is $c$ in **every inertial frame** - Stellar aberration
arises because the **direction** of incoming light transforms under
Lorentz boosts — the velocity addition formula gives $\tan \theta' =
\frac{\sin \theta}{\gamma(\cos \theta + v/c)}$, which reduces to the
classical $\tan \theta \approx v/c$ at low $v$
- The author's Eq. 13 is just the **Doppler shift formula in the
observer's frame** — it's not evidence light "slows down," it's evidence
**frequency shifts**
The paper conflates "light arrives at angle $\theta$" with "light
traveled at speed $c \pm v$." That's freshman-level confusion.
**3. The geometric "derivations" are just Galilean kinematics dressed
up — then falsely claimed to contradict relativity**
Every diagram and equation in Sections 2–4 uses **Galilean velocity
addition** : $\vec{v}_{\text{total}} = \vec{v}_{\text{light}} +
\vec{v}_{\text{Earth}}$. That's fine for a **first-order approximation**
(which is why Bradley got the right angle in 1727), but:
- It's **not accurate** at second order — real measurements (e.g., from
spacecraft Doppler tracking) show relativistic corrections
- The author never derives what **relativity predicts** for the same
setup, so there's no actual comparison
- Claiming "this contradicts relativity" without showing the
relativistic calculation is intellectual malpractice
**4. The "absolute space" conclusion is a non-sequitur**
The author claims stellar aberration proves Earth moves through
"absolute space" (p. 12). But aberration only proves **relative motion
between Earth and the star** . You get the exact same aberration angle
whether you:
- Assume Earth moves and the star is stationary (heliocentric frame)
- Assume the star moves and Earth is stationary (geocentric frame)
- Use any other inertial frame
The **angle depends only on relative velocity** — that's the whole
point. The author confuses "we can measure Earth's orbital velocity
relative to distant stars" with "therefore absolute space exists."
That's like saying "I can measure my car's speed relative to the road,
therefore the road is absolute space."
**5. Section 5's "relativity is wrong" argument is a bait-and-switch**
The author claims (p. 11) that if relativity were correct, we'd need to
add Earth's velocity "twice" (once for aberration, once for Doppler).
This is gibberish. In relativity:
- **Aberration** is a directional effect (angle change)
- **Doppler shift** is a frequency effect
- Both arise from the **same Lorentz transformation** — you don't "add
velocity twice," you apply one boost and get both effects simultaneously
The author is attacking a strawman version of relativity he invented.
**6. Zero engagement with modern precision tests**
If stellar aberration revealed "absolute motion," then:
- **GPS satellites** (which rely on relativistic corrections to ~10 ns
accuracy) would fail catastrophically — they don't
- **Particle accelerators** (which accelerate particles to $v =
0.999999c$ using relativistic dynamics) would miscalculate energies by
factors of 1000+ — they don't
- **Binary pulsar timing** (which confirms gravitational wave energy
loss to 0.1% using GR) would be off — it's not
The author provides **no explanation** for why his "absolute space"
model is compatible with these observations.
---
- **Hidden assumption 1** : That 18th-century geometric intuition
(Bradley's derivation) is somehow more trustworthy than a century of
experimental physics that came after it.
- **Hidden assumption 2** : That "I can derive the aberration angle
using Galilean kinematics" means "relativity is wrong" — when in fact
relativity **reproduces the same first-order result** and adds
corrections this paper never checks.
- **Hidden assumption 3** : That the reader won't notice the author
never actually computes what relativity predicts, so the "contradiction"
is asserted, not demonstrated.
- **Magical thinking** : That you can overturn a theory tested to 1 part
in $10^{18}$ (modern SR tests) with a geometric argument that ignores
all experimental data post-1900.
---
**Who is the audience?** - **Professional physicists** : Will dismiss
this in 30 seconds after seeing no engagement with Airy,
Michelson-Morley, or modern tests.
- **Undergraduates** : Might be confused, but any competent instructor
will point out the Lorentz transformation resolves everything.
- **Relativity deniers** : Will love it — but that's not a validation,
that's a red flag you're producing crank literature.
**Why does this paper exist?** The author clearly put effort into LaTeX
diagrams and derivations. But the **absence of any experimental
discussion** suggests this is either:
- A pedagogical exercise that got misframed as a research claim, or
- Motivated reasoning from someone who decided relativity is wrong and
worked backward
Either way, no journal with peer review would publish this without major
revisions (i.e., "add the actual relativistic calculation and explain
why GPS works").
---
**Prediction** : If this paper's model were correct:
- Stellar aberration would depend on the **medium** light travels
through (it doesn't — Airy's experiment)
- Light speed would vary measurably in different directions on Earth (it
doesn't — Michelson-Morley, modern cavity resonator tests)
- Particle accelerators would need to use Galilean kinematics (they'd
explode if they tried)
**What we actually observe** :
- Aberration angle: matches relativity to all measured precision
- Light speed isotropy: confirmed to 1 part in $10^{15}$
- Relativistic momentum/energy: confirmed in every accelerator, every
day
The paper's model is **already ruled out by data** — the author just
doesn't mention the data.
---
**Unsalvageable** :
- The entire "this contradicts relativity" framing (Sections 5–6) — it's
based on misunderstanding what relativity predicts
- The "absolute space" conclusion (Section 6) — it's a non-sequitur
- Any claim this is novel or challenges modern physics — it doesn't
**What would need to be added to make this remotely credible** :
1. **Derive the relativistic prediction** for stellar aberration (it's
in every SR textbook — takes 10 lines)
2. **Show numerically** where the predictions differ (spoiler: they
don't at first order, and second-order terms match experiment)
3. **Explain Airy's experiment** — why does aberration not change when
light travels through water?
4. **Explain Michelson-Morley** — why is light speed isotropic if Earth
moves through absolute space?
5. **Explain modern tests** — GPS, particle physics, pulsar timing
Without these, this is not a paper — it's a geometric exercise with a
false conclusion stapled on.
---
**The diagrams are clear** (Figures 1–3). If this were reframed as
"here's how Bradley derived aberration in 1727 using pre-relativistic
kinematics, and here's why that approximation works," it would be a
decent pedagogical note.
**The math is correct within its own (wrong) framework** — the Galilean
velocity additions are done properly. The problem is the framework
itself is obsolete and the author doesn't acknowledge that.
That's it. Everything else is either wrong or irrelevant.
---
You've written 13 pages to "disprove" a theory that's been tested to 18
decimal places, using geometric arguments from 1727 that ignore
literally every experiment done since then, and your smoking gun is an
equation that's actually just the Doppler formula written in a confusing
way. This isn't a challenge to relativity — it's a self-own dressed up
in LaTeX.
and I don't have Pointed Ears even...
a golden retrevier could've told you dis.
you are wasting space on earth.
--
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