On 4/24/2022 4:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how
>>> light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on,
>>> but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those
>>> atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago.
>> You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference.
> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
It does; it affects where you see the light come from. For example, if
you observe a particular star in Andromeda twice, 6 months apart, the
points where the light appears to come from not only depends on how far
Andromeda moved during those 6 months but also on the earth's motion
(and position), so the two rays of light won't be forming a very narrow
triangle with vertices you, Andromeda star 2,500,000 years ago and
Andromeda 2,499,999.5 years ago because stellar aberration affects where
Andromeda and the star appears to be. Aberration changes the angle more
than 6 months of approaching does.
> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing.
We have established that you are a solipsist, at least regarding what
>> Remember, straight lines map to straight lines from one frame to another, so the fact that a pulse of light moves in a straight line does not single out any particular frame, it just means that the angle of the line is different in terms of different frames of reference (aberration). This doesn't tell us anything about how light is created that we didn't already know. And it doesn't uniquely single out any absolute "stationary points in space". The only plausible absolute rest frame is the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is entirely consistent with local Lorentz invariance.
> What you seem to be saying is that you cannot comprehend a single point of
He does, but is just reminding you everyone else at different locations
will disagree slightly. Yes, as a solipsist, you don't care, you are
interested in only your point.
> You ONLY understand Relativity and how different observers see things
> differently. THAT IS NOT OF CONCERN TO ME. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>> The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE.
>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?
> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!
But it is emitting, or at least reflecting, photons. Has it moved since
> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
>>> I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location.
>> Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake?
> I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that
> I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun
> is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do
> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
> Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
> even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
> line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
> POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light.
First of all, clarify "stationary", "stationary" relative to what?
Relative to you? To Andromeda?
While you could argue about a location of a point in space (unique to
you) by using the x,y,z coordinates of the event, "stationary point in
space" makes no sense. Space does not move; things in space move, and
then only with respect to something else (more specifically some frame
where the 'something' is stationary). Second, Andromeda was moving
relative to where the earth was 2.5 million years ago. Which is why you
should specify stationary relative to yourself or relative to Andromeda
or something else.
Einstein specifically stated that the properties of motion cannot be
applied to a point in empty space. That would also mean it would be
meaningless to call a point in empty space "stationary" as stationary is
a property of motion.
> The photons
> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.
>>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how
>>> fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located?
>> I didn't say you were a rational or logical solipsist, merely that you are (by your own testimony) a solipsist.
>>> At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in
>>> other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me
>>> in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years
>>> ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise
>>> the line to it would not be straight...
>> That is not true. Again, the line is straight in terms of every frame of reference, so your belief that straightness singles out a particular point in space is simply fallacious reasoning.
> CAN"T YOU UNDERSTAND???? The photons that I SEE are ONLY seen by me.
Yes, it's clear you're a solipsist regarding this.
> Everyone else sees DIFFERENT PHOTONS! I don't care about those photons!!
> I'm ONLY talking about photons that were emitted by atoms at a STATIONARY
> POINT IN SPACE and traveled from that point IN A STRAIGHT LINE to my telescope
> and my eye.
Empty points in space don't have the property of motion (or lack of motion).
>> Also, you are not going to be able to understand the subject without accounting for frames of reference. This isn't limited to special relativity, it applies to Newtonian relativity as well. You need to specify your frame of reference, or you are just spouting nonsense. It's as if you are saying you want to understand Niagra Falls but you are not willing to talk about water.
> No, what you do not seem to be able to understand is that light photons travel
> from one POINT to another.
> OTHER "frames of reference" see OTHER photons.
> Those other photons are of NO CONCERN TO ME.
You mean other observers. Everyone/everything is in every possible
frame of reference. You are simply concerned with the frame in which you
are stationary and at the origin.