Stationary Points in Space

349 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 23, 2022, 4:35:27 PMApr 23
to
Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into dust thousands of years ago.

Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions.

Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago.

Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"?
Message has been deleted

Stan Fultoni

unread,
Apr 23, 2022, 5:40:29 PMApr 23
to
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.

The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".

The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all
directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference
system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which
Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be
"That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in
terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the
seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity
of simultaneity.

So, in terms of local physics (excluding cosmological symmetries), there is
no physically distinguished "absolute rest", and therefore we can't absolutely
say that a past event occurred at some specific "point in space".

Caveat: We _could_ take the union of the local isotropic CMBR frame states as
defining absolute rest at each location. It's well known that cosmological characteristics
are not Lorentz invariant, and single out a cosmologically distinguished frame of reference.
But this doesn't invalidate the fact of local Lorentz invariance.

whodat

unread,
Apr 23, 2022, 7:07:21 PMApr 23
to
A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated
scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved
(relocated.)

Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece
of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If
we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent
that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary.

Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get
into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these
newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary
points and space have.

Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't
challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear
many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and
provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will
not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless
argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the
question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it
is fun to think about.

Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based
on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that
are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star
because of the sun's gravity.)

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 23, 2022, 9:43:48 PMApr 23
to
Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see
> it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of the
> stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into dust
> thousands of years ago.
>
> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> motion of the emitting body.
>
> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second
> regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is
> traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the direction
> Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction Andromeda is
> traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions.
>
> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda
> to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of
> observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star
> existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago.
>
> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”?

No.

> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is
> NOT moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"?
>



--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 23, 2022, 11:42:39 PMApr 23
to
I was not trying to claim that empty space is "stationary". I was trying
to expand on the comment by Einstein that a state of motion cannot be
applied to a single point of empty space, as in (according to Einstein)
the concept doesn't make sense in SR. Only things IN space can be
described as moving or stationary, and then only with reference to some
reference frame.

I will try to find the exact statement from Einstein, and the context.

Perhaps my earlier reply was in response to John Sefton, who kept
claiming space itself can spin, implying it can move.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 10:56:40 AMApr 24
to
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
> > and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
> > there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".

The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." I am just trying
to understand what I see. And I see photons coming from a point in space that
I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
years ago. Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.

>
> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all
> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference
> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which
> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be
> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in
> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the
> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity
> of simultaneity.

Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the
only one making an observation.

(Snip more of the same.)

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 11:11:20 AMApr 24
to
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into dust thousands of years ago.
> >
> > Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
> >
> > That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions.
> >
> > Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago.
> >
> > Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"?
> A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated
> scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved
> (relocated.)
>
> Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece
> of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If
> we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent
> that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary.
>
> Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get
> into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these
> newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary
> points and space have.

(snip)
> Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based
> on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that
> are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star
> because of the sun's gravity.)

Obviously, stationary space cannot be curved. If we see it affected by some
distant star, then we are misinterpreting something. The trajectory of light
can be affected by different things. When light passes through water, its
trajectory can change. To a lesser degree, the same is true when light passes
through air. What happens when light passes through a gas cloud in space?
What happens when it passes through the "atmosphere" surrounding a star?

I think the idea that light originates from "stationary points in space" is verified
by observations. The problem is that people can have different opinions about
what causes certain visual effects.

In case anyone is interested, I have a science paper on the subject of
"Stationary Points in Space." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf

Ed

Stan Fultoni

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 12:06:42 PMApr 24
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 7:56:40 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> When I look through a telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference
> system."

When you say "no OTHER", do you mean that the only reference system that
exists is the one in which you (Ed) are at rest at any given moment? Remember,
your state of motion changes constantly, because of the earth's rotation, and
it's movement around the sun, and so on. Over a period of thousands of years
your state of motion has changed a lot, so if you are trying to imagine where
(the "point in space") a supernova flash in Andromeda took place 2.5 million years
ago in terms of your current rest frame today (April 2022 and such and such a
time day), the answer will be quite different than the answer in terms of your
rest frame 6 months ago. And it will be quite different than the answer in
terms of the Milky Way's rest CoG rest frame, and extremely different than
the answer in terms of the isotropic CMBR frame. So, which of those do you
think represents the "correct" answer?

> I see photons coming from a point in space that I know is now empty,
> but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million years ago.

Only in terms of a reference frame in which Andromeda is moving. In
terms of the rest frame of Andromeda, the "point in space" where the
supernova flashed is still in Andromeda. But in terms of the rest frame
of the Milky Way galaxy, or the isotropic CMBR frame, the "point in space"
has been left far behind Andromeda (but in different directions and
distances).

> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.

You're not thinking logically at all. Whether or not Andromeda moved,
and in which direction it moved, and how far it moved, depends entirely on
what frame of reference you are using. If you are talking about the isotropic
CMBR frame, then just say so. Your statements have no meaning unless
you specify what frame of reference you are talking about.

> IN REALITY, I am the only one making an observation.

Oh, I see... you are a solipsist. Science is fundamentally opposed to solipsism,
it refers to an external objective world. Science fundamentally rejects the
premise that the only reality is the thoughts of (say) Ed Lake. So you won't find
a sympathetic audience for your solipsist views among scientists.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 1:42:54 PMApr 24
to
On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
>>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
>>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
>> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
>> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
>> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
>> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
>> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
>
> The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
> as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Out of context.
>
> I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
> telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."

There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are
using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is
moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on
earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing
Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda
is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use
such a frame.

> I am just trying
> to understand what I see.

From your own reference frame. 100% understandable.

> And I see photons coming from a point in space that
> I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
> years ago.

And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see
how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude
Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference
frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda.

From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame,
after 2 1/2 million years, the point is on a neutron star/black hole in
Andromeda, the remains of the star that went supernova. I am ignoring
the rotation of Andromeda and whatever proper motion the supernova
remnant has wrt. the observer for this. If you do take those into
account, the supernova remnant has moved during that time, so the origin
point will be some (probably) empty space, but located within the
Andromeda galaxy, and the supernova remnant is no longer there.

Of course, in the frame of the supernova remnant itself, the event took
place at itself, the remnant of the supernova event.

> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.

Only from your reference. Events, such as a supernova explosion have a
4 coordinates (x,y,z,t) in any frame, but each frame has different
(x,y,z,t) for the events. You are trying to hang on to your particular
(x,y,z) for the event and calling them special. They're special to you,
but not to an Andromeda based observer.
>
>>
>> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all
>> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference
>> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which
>> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be
>> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in
>> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the
>> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity
>> of simultaneity.
>
> Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the
> only one making an observation.

First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math.
Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations.

Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not
aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure
out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the
point is no longer located within Andromeda.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 1:52:56 PMApr 24
to
Or rather, pure physics and gedanken bullshit, not math.
And speaking of math, it's always good to remind that
your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest part
false, becuse the postulates of your idiot guru couldn't
agree with it.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 2:12:49 PMApr 24
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 7:56:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > When I look through a telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference
> > system."
> When you say "no OTHER", do you mean that the only reference system that
> exists is the one in which you (Ed) are at rest at any given moment? Remember,
> your state of motion changes constantly, because of the earth's rotation, and
> it's movement around the sun, and so on.

What I'm saying is that I DO NOT CARE about any other "reference system."
I KNOW I am not at rest. I KNOW I am moving as the earth spins on its axis and
as it orbits the sun, and as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

None of that matters when I look at Andromeda. My ONLY question is: 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. The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT
IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE.

(snip)
> > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.
> You're not thinking logically at all. Whether or not Andromeda moved,
> and in which direction it moved, and how far it moved, depends entirely on
> what frame of reference you are using.

I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location.
Any other "frame of reference" would NOT BE MY FRAME OF REFERENCE.
It would be some mathematical concoction or projection.

> Oh, I see... you are a solipsist. Science is fundamentally opposed to solipsism,
> it refers to an external objective world. Science fundamentally rejects the
> premise that the only reality is the thoughts of (say) Ed Lake. So you won't find
> a sympathetic audience for your solipsist views among scientists.

Solipsism is defined as the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist."

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? And others
built the telescope I am using, and others wrote the books I read to study science
and astronomy.

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, and the geometry would not compute to show
where the source WAS located 2.5 million years ago.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 2:24:10 PMApr 24
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
> >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
> >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
> >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
> >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
> >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
> >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
> >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
> >
> > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
> > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
> > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
> Out of context.

Nope. It is exactly on point.

> >
> > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
> > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."
> There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are
> using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is
> moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on
> earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing
> Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda
> is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use
> such a frame.

I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING
to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from
a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?

> > I am just trying
> > to understand what I see.
> From your own reference frame. 100% understandable.
> > And I see photons coming from a point in space that
> > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
> > years ago.
> And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see
> how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude
> Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference
> frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda.

I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed
and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics.

>
> From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame,
> ..... yada yada yada.

I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!!
I'm just trying to understand what I see.

> > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.
> Only from your reference.

Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in.

> First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math.
> Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations.

WHO CARES????? I don't!

>
> Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not
> aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure
> out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the
> point is no longer located within Andromeda.

Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the
implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came
from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 2:36:21 PMApr 24
to
I don’t even think this is an answerable question. It’s of the angels on
the head of a pin category, isn’t it?

There’s no observable test.

>
> Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece
> of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If
> we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent
> that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary.
>
> Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get
> into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these
> newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary
> points and space have.
>
> Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't
> challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear
> many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and
> provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will
> not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless
> argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the
> question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it
> is fun to think about.
>
> Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based
> on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that
> are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star
> because of the sun's gravity.)
>

I don’t think that curvature implies displacement of space from one place
to another. It is not like bending a rod. The metric is a field. It has a
(set of) value(s) at each location, and the intrinsic curvature is a
function of that metric.

Stan Fultoni

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 3:11:28 PMApr 24
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com 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.

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.

> 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?

> 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?

> 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. 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.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 4:14:20 PMApr 24
to
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.
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.

>
> 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
view. 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!!!
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. 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.
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.

> 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.

Relativity is NOT the subject of my argument. My argument is ONLY about
HOW LIGHT WORKS according to Einstein's Second Postulate, specifically
ONE photon traveling from a star in Andromeda to my eye.

Ed

Python

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 4:29:33 PMApr 24
to
Utter Crank Ed Lake wrote:
...
> 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.

*facepalm*

Stan Fultoni

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 4:43:54 PMApr 24
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> 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.

To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
are flatly falsified by aberration.

> 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. I'm only interested in what I see.

We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
engage with the grown-up objective world of science.

> > 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!!!
> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????

I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago.
I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer
it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable.

So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?

> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.

Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference
you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true
"point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is
that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right?

> 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.

Regardless of what frame of reference you choose, the light was emitted at
an event at one location and moved in a straight like to the reception in your
eye, but the spatial position of the emission event depends on the frame of
reference, so you cannot infer the absolute origin point merely from your reception.
At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you
are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is
at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc.

Dong Vassilikos

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 4:48:12 PMApr 24
to
Ed Lake wrote:

> I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has
> NOTHING to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I
> see come from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?

you never know unless compared to something similar known to be
stationary, or moving to a certain speed.

Paparios

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 4:51:16 PMApr 24
to
El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:

> > 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. The photons
> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.

Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

whodat

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 4:55:52 PMApr 24
to
Using a gentler term I would say that angels dancing on the head of a
pin is casting improbables into a reductio ad absurdium. The problem
with space, more properly space-time, is that while we see it or at
least its some of its effects we really don't know what it is, as space
or time or space-time. In a time relevant context you are doubtless
correct, but as much as the angels on the head of a pin is probably
eternally unanswerable if we can ever get a handle on "what space-time
is" I think we can find resolution to my question, can "space-time" be
relocated.

> There’s no observable test.

As of now, yes you and I are in agreement. However the question I asked,
while presently unanswerable, is in the context of the larger scene, a
perfectly legitimate question, and who knows, given a better
understanding time-space might be relocatable, but I wouldn't count on
it. That and real money will get you a cup of coffee.

The question I asked is/was a success. Clearly you gave it significant
thought as probably did others who read it. I think questions like this
one are interesting and worthy of investment. Thank you.

whodat

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 5:19:10 PMApr 24
to
On 4/24/2022 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

I keep seeing this posted to Usenet and wonder how many of the photons
we observe in the night sky actually transcended space for millions of
years in a geometrically straight line as the posters impugn. Certainly
some, probably many, but "all?" Don't forget, everything out there in
space is moving and has been for the very long periods it took those
photons to arrive here. Personally I doubt that the "stationary point"
you think may have been the point of origin for your particular photon
to have begun its journey is where you think it was.

So you're arguing about some point or another that you cannot determine
where it was at the critical moment millions of years ago. Now what is
your point?

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 10:08:13 PMApr 24
to
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
you observe.
>
>>
>> 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
> view.

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
yesterday?

> 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.

Yes.

> 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.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 10:25:51 PMApr 24
to
On 4/24/2022 2:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
>>>>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
>>>>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
>>>> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
>>>> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
>>>> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
>>>> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
>>>> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
>>>
>>> The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
>>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
>>> as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>> Out of context.
>
> Nope. It is exactly on point.

Wrong. He was saying how a simple mathematical formula will not describe
exactly what happens, because there will be loads of tiny effects, such
as there really is air resistance, there are no frictionless surfaces
etc. etc. For the same reason, a physical problem cannot be reduced to
a simple math formula. Everything is an approximation with some sort of
error.
>
>>>
>>> I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
>>> telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."
>> There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are
>> using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is
>> moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on
>> earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing
>> Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda
>> is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use
>> such a frame.
>
> I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING
> to do with the question.

Yes it is established you're a solipsist regarding this.

> The question is: Did the light that I see come from
> a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?

It was an event, with an (x,y,z,t) coordinate relative to you. Ignore
the t, and you have a point in space. But only things have motion, empty
space having motion is meaningless.
>
>>> I am just trying
>>> to understand what I see.
>> From your own reference frame. 100% understandable.
>>> And I see photons coming from a point in space that
>>> I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
>>> years ago.
>> And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see
>> how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude
>> Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference
>> frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda.
>
> I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed
> and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics.

So you accept someone else's mathematics. Meaning you admit there *is*
mathematics, even if you don't do it. But unless you read a similar
problem, you did estimate Andromeda moves enough in 2.5 million years
that the space it occupied back then has been vacated and Andromeda is
definitely not there now.
>
>>
>> From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame,
>> ..... yada yada yada.
>
> I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!!
> I'm just trying to understand what I see.
>
>>> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points

Logically, you may conclude that since Andromeda was moving relative to
earth, you *could* conclude it was from a moving point, and blueshift
would confirm that, except for the fact points in space don't have a
property of motion.

>>> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.
>> Only from your reference.
>
> Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in.
>
>> First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math.
>> Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations.
>
> WHO CARES????? I don't!

Solipsism galore!
>
>>
>> Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not
>> aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure
>> out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the
>> point is no longer located within Andromeda.
>
> Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the
> implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came
> from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE.

A point in space (unique to yourself) may make sense. "Stationary", of
course, does not.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 24, 2022, 10:32:09 PMApr 24
to
That makes no sense. Are you claiming some stationary (relative to
what?) object cannot be affected by curvature? It can; it's seen as the
force of gravity.

> In case anyone is interested, I have a science paper on the subject of
> "Stationary Points in Space." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf
>
If you don't even understand an issue, why are you trying to write a
"paper" on it? Even if one accepts anything on vixra as being a "paper".

Mikko

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 3:56:08 AMApr 25
to
On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> 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?

Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions
that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of
the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue
shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can
be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?

Mikko

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 8:56:29 AMApr 25
to
Here is an experimental fact. A set of them in fact.

Neutral pions are photon sources, emitting two identical ones at the same
time when they decay. The decay time for the pions is about 8E-17 seconds,
which means that even if the pion is traveling a third of the speed of
light (i.e. 1E8 m/s), the travel distance is still only a nanometer. This
means that you can reliably locate where a neutral pion is when it has
decayed to very good precision, regardless of what speed it was traveling
at. Where this helps is that you can create a whole population of neutral
pions (by manufacturing them in collisions) of many different speeds, and
then watch the two photons that come out from all those pions.

1. You can put a photon detector on either side of the pion, equidistant
from the place where the pion decayed (which you recall you know to high
precision). Then you can time whether one of the photons arrived before the
other. E.g. if the pion was traveling at 1/3 c, and you hypothesized
(because it makes sense to do so) that one of the photons was going 4/3 c
and the other 2/3 c, then one would take twice as long to arrive at the
photon detector as the other, and there would be a measurable gap between
their arrival times. The experimental fact is that the photons always
arrive at the same time, regardless of the speed of the pions that produced
the two photons.

2. You can in fact put two photon detectors on ONE side of a pion machine
separated by some fixed distance x, and you can create the pions in tight
bunches. Then you can in fact measure the time of flight of the photons
emerging, simply by seeing the difference in time between photon pulses in
the two detectors T, and then the speed of the photons are directly
measured to be x/T. The experimental fact is that the speed of the photons
is always c, regardless of how fact the pions are moving.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 8:56:30 AMApr 25
to
This actually is untrue. You are trying to make an analogy between space
and some solid object that has boundaries. A metal bar has boundaries that
move when you bend it, and that movement is what you associate with
bending. However, the analogy does not hold because space has no boundary.
There are no boundaries whose movement you can associate with bending. And
so really the questions for you to puzzle over at this point is, how can
something that has a clear concept like space, which has no boundary, be
also bent and have curvature? How could the curvature even be described
without reference to any boundaries like a bar of metal has?

I assure you that there IS such a description of curvature even for
something that has no boundaries, but you are simply unaware of it, and
have only the concept of bending for things with shape and boundaries.

So the first thing you should research is, what does it even MEAN for
something without boundaries or boundary shape to have curvature? In this,
it’s important that you do not try to sort this out just with your common
sense and thinking, because you will not land on it.

> If we see it affected by some
> distant star, then we are misinterpreting something. The trajectory of light
> can be affected by different things. When light passes through water, its
> trajectory can change. To a lesser degree, the same is true when light passes
> through air. What happens when light passes through a gas cloud in space?
> What happens when it passes through the "atmosphere" surrounding a star?
>
> I think the idea that light originates from "stationary points in space" is verified
> by observations. The problem is that people can have different opinions about
> what causes certain visual effects.
>
> In case anyone is interested, I have a science paper on the subject of
> "Stationary Points in Space." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 8:56:30 AMApr 25
to
Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
>>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
>>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
>> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
>> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
>> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
>> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
>> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
>
> The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
> as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
> I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
> telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."

No, and this is a critical point. You are thinking that whatever vantage
point you have is a single inertial reference frame. But in fact, every
time you change your motion (i.e. every time you accelerate), you are
CHANGING from one inertial reference frame to another. That is, if you
stand up in your chair, walk down the driveway, turn left and walk up the
sidewalk, stop to get the mail from the mailbox, turn around to walk back
down the sidewalk, turn right to walk up the driveway, and sit back down in
your chair, you have occupied and been at rest in not one but at least six
DIFFERENT inertial reference frames. Reference frame has a special meaning
in physics, and it is DIFFERENT than the meaning you will find if you look
up that term in the dictionary.

> I am just trying
> to understand what I see. And I see photons coming from a point in space that
> I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
> years ago.
> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.

I think you are confusing “logically” with “it is a reasonable hypothesis”.
This does not mean the reasonable hypothesis is correct. Reality is filled
full of cases with many reasonable hypothesis, most of which are wrong even
though they are reasonable. Please do not conclude from “it makes sense to
me” that “it is true”.

>
>>
>> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all
>> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference
>> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which
>> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be
>> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in
>> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the
>> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity
>> of simultaneity.
>
> Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the
> only one making an observation.

But the fact of the matter is that laws of physics describe what is
happening whether there is one or a thousand different observers. THAT is
reality, not just the perspective of one observer.

>
> (Snip more of the same.)
>
> Ed
>



Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 9:03:20 AMApr 25
to
On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 14:56:29 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Here is an experimental fact. A set of them in fact.
>
> Neutral pions are photon sources, emitting two identical ones at the same
> time when they decay. The decay time for the pions is about 8E-17 seconds,
> which means that even if the pion is traveling a third of the speed of
> light (i.e. 1E8 m/s), the travel distance is still only a nanometer.

It's measured, however, that they may travel far bigger
distances; so take your "set of experimental facts" and put
it straight into your dumb, fanatic ass, where it belong.

Like any other fanatic idiot - you're combining real facts
with your delusions and plain lies - into "set of facts".
That's all.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 9:12:30 AMApr 25
to
Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 7:56:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> When I look through a telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference
>>> system."
>> When you say "no OTHER", do you mean that the only reference system that
>> exists is the one in which you (Ed) are at rest at any given moment? Remember,
>> your state of motion changes constantly, because of the earth's rotation, and
>> it's movement around the sun, and so on.
>
> What I'm saying is that I DO NOT CARE about any other "reference system."
> I KNOW I am not at rest. I KNOW I am moving as the earth spins on its axis and
> as it orbits the sun, and as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

More importantly, as night turns into day, you are CHANGING your inertial
reference system. *ANY* motion that involves a change in speed or direction
involves a CHANGE in inertial reference system. And so you, a single
observer, are constantly changing which inertial reference frames you are
comoving with.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 9:12:30 AMApr 25
to
Space cannot have the property of moving or not moving.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 9:12:31 AMApr 25
to
Exactly. It’s more of a metaphysics question at this point, not a physics
one. There being no presently conceivable test, it’s not really a subject
for science at the moment.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 9:12:32 AMApr 25
to
In fact, all of the light will have been bent at least a little, but the
question is whether the displacement between the apparent location of the
source and the real location of the source is outside the experimental
resolution of the location. I’m willing to bet that for the majority of
sources in the sky, the answer is “no”.

whodat

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 11:26:04 AMApr 25
to
On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> As of now, yes you and I are in agreement. However the question I asked,
>> while presently unanswerable, is in the context of the larger scene, a
>> perfectly legitimate question, and who knows, given a better
>> understanding time-space might be relocatable, but I wouldn't count on
>> it. That and real money will get you a cup of coffee.
>
> Exactly. It’s more of a metaphysics question at this point, not a physics
> one. There being no presently conceivable test, it’s not really a subject
> for science at the moment.

You're happy with your answer, I'm happy with mine.

<snip>


Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 11:26:57 AMApr 25
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > 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.
> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
> are flatly falsified by aberration.
> > 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. I'm only interested in what I see.
>
> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.

I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.

We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is
a stationary point in space?

> > > 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!!!
> > How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago.
> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer
> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable.
>
> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?

Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is:
24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits
the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of
the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my
refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement.

>
> > ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
> > emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference
> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true
> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is
> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right?

I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another
photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon. AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT
ONE PHOTON AT A TIME. Presumably, that other photon was ALSO emitted from
a stationary point in space, but it was a DIFFERENT point in space, maybe some tiny
fraction of an inch from mine, or maybe millions of miles from mine.

> > 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.
> Regardless of what frame of reference you choose, the light was emitted at
> an event at one location and moved in a straight like to the reception in your
> eye, but the spatial position of the emission event depends on the frame of
> reference, so you cannot infer the absolute origin point merely from your reception.

Yes, I can. Because, as stated above, another frame of reference would see a
DIFFERENT PHOTON.

> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you
> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is
> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc.

NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. It is
about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye.
The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is
a POINT IN SPACE. And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from
that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years, that point in
space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE.

Ed

whodat

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 11:43:13 AMApr 25
to
On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
As I asked earlier, what is the point of a question that cannot be
answered other than maybe the point of origin is knowable (within some
guessed resolution) and maybe it is not. Happiness is perhaps an
acceptable probability? Needless to say that's yet another undefined
variable.

Beyond that I refer you to your discussion about the viewer's frame of
reference, dumping more gasoline on the fire.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 11:54:51 AMApr 25
to
There is no object in our known universe that is known to be stationary.
We know, however, that light always travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.
So, the question is: 299,792,458 meters per second RELATIVE TO WHAT?

When we measure the speed of light in a laboratory, the speed is measured
to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND relative to the laboratory. But the
laboratory is moving through space as the earth spins on its axis, as the
earth orbits the sun, as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc.

Einstein explained that the faster an object moves, the slower TIME passes for
that object. He stated "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the
poles under otherwise identical conditions."

That means that a second is longer on the equator than at one of the poles.

The question that poses is: Where would time pass faster than anywhere
else?

The answer seems to be: At a stationary point in space. Find where time
passes faster than anywhere else, and you have found a stationary point
in space. To say that there can be no such thing is saying that time
does not relate to speed, even though many many experiments say you
are wrong.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:20:04 PMApr 25
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed
the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire
State Building.

When light passes through some substance, like air or water, it travels in a straight line
from one atom to the next, BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random
direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can
change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars.

In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:25:35 PMApr 25
to
Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> 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.
>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>> 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. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>
>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>
> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,

Correct.

> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.

Nope. That’s not the behavior of photons.

You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired
along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS
(not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave.

>
> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
> but the point of emission does not,

The atom that emitted it moves. There is nothing else but the atom. There
is no “point of emission”. There are coordinates for the emission event,
but there is no point that persists at all. An event is a zero-duration
thing. Something with zero duration cannot be said to move or stay put. All
notion of motion is a non sequitur for events. The only thing that has any
motion is the atom. There IS NOTHING ELSE besides the atom that has
persistence, which might be characterized as having some state of motion.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:25:36 PMApr 25
to
Well, except in this case, there’s a chance of estimating how many of those
displacements ARE discernible outside the resolution of the observed
source. I don’t know the answer to it, but I can see a path to coming up
with the estimate.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:28:50 PMApr 25
to
No, actually, it does not. Feynman’s little book, The Character of Physical
Law, might help you.

> , BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random
> direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can
> change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars.
>
> In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction.

There doesn’t need to be.

>
> Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:35:07 PMApr 25
to
And actually, to help you avoid a severe case of Soundbititis, when you run
into the statement that Feynman makes that light behaves like a particle,
you’d better keep reading. Because Feynman GOES ON to mention that
particles — as he is using that term — do not travel in straight lines from
one atom to the next. If you read the word “particle” and interpret that to
mean “like a BB or a grain of sand would travel, in a straight line from
one point to another”, then you have read too much into that word.

In fact, what ALL particles do is quite a bit more complicated than your
common experience tells you.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:35:21 PMApr 25
to
Photons travel in a straight line from one atom to another. But each atom
can send the photon off in some random direction - or absorb the photon
and change it into a different kind of photon.

When photons travel through empty space they travel in a straight line.
If they hit something, the atom they hit absorbs the photon and generates
a NEW photon if the atom cannot hold that extra energy. The NEW photon's
direction depends upon the type of atom. Silver atoms will send the NEW
photon back in the direction to first photon came from. Atoms in glass and
air will generally send the NEW photons off in the same direction the original
was traveling.

The discussion is ONLY about those photons that traveled in a straight line
from the point of emission to my telescope.

Ed

Ken Seto

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:45:04 PMApr 25
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:24:10 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
> > >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
> > >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
> > >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
> > >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
> > >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
> > >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
> > >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
> > >
> > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
> > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
> > > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
> > Out of context.
> Nope. It is exactly on point.
> > >
> > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
> > > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."
> > There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are
> > using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is
> > moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on
> > earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing
> > Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda
> > is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use
> > such a frame.
> I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING
> to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from
> a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?
Every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion.That means that the light you see came from a moving source. This is true since you are on a planet that is moving.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:46:28 PMApr 25
to
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 9:08:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.

Why can't people here understand that if YOU see a light from a star, you
are seeing DIFFERENT PHOTONS that what I see.

The discussion is NOT about how you see different photons that what I see,
it is only about the photons that I see and how those photons traveled at
the speed of light in a STRAIGHT LINE from where they were EMITTED to
my eye.

(snip more nonsense)

>
> 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 "properties of motion cannot be applied to a point in empty space"
because empty space is stationary. "Stationary" is the ABSENCE OF MOTION,
it is not a "property of motion."

Ed

Paparios

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:46:42 PMApr 25
to
El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > > 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. The photons
> > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.

> > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
> >
> > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

> That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed
> the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire
> State Building.
>

That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun gravity curves the light path of stars, as Eddington verified in 1919 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment). The Einstein rings (there are hundreds of them) prove that light from very far light sources (as shown in the diagram in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring) are bent by the gravity of closer objects, where the massive object acts like a lens.

> When light passes through some substance, like air or water, it travels in a straight line
> from one atom to the next, BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random
> direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can
> change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars.
>
> In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction.
>
For sure there are, as you could understand if you read the references provided to you. You are calling idiocies to very well known astronomic observations, which are totally explained by using General Relativity.

You need to study more before spouting nonsense as you do with everyone of your posts. No wonder the sites you publish your nonsense avoid to deal with you.

whodat

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 12:58:09 PMApr 25
to
There you have iy.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 1:00:55 PMApr 25
to
On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 18:46:42 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > 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. The photons
> > > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.
>
> > > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
> > >
> > > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic
>
> > That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed
> > the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire
> > State Building.
> >
> That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun gravity curves the light path of stars

A pity that, according to your insane Shit - light paths
[in vacuum] are always straight/geodesic lines.

Ed Lake

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 1:04:23 PMApr 25
to
The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars
that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the
center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the
black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we
move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are
moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and
blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars.

The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations.
An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away
faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side.

Ed

whodat

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 1:14:49 PMApr 25
to
You'd have to redefine a number of words/concepts but then you could
make that work. Hope that helps.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 1:55:26 PMApr 25
to
On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> 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.
>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>> 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. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>
>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>
> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.

Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent
substance such as glass.
>
> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is
> a stationary point in space?

No.

>
>>>> 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!!!
>>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
>> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago.
>> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer
>> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable.
>>
>> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
>> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
>> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?
>
> Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is:
> 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits
> the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of
> the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my
> refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement.
>
>>
>>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
>> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference
>> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true
>> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is
>> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right?
>
> I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another
> photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon.

Yes.

> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME.

Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event,
its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time,
in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I
know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do
not know of any.

> Presumably, that other photon was ALSO emitted from
> a stationary point in space, but it was a DIFFERENT point in space,

Not necessarily. If your claim depends on that, it falls apart if we
substitute "neutral pion" for "atom". Maybe, see above.

> maybe some tiny
> fraction of an inch from mine, or maybe millions of miles from mine.
>
>>> 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.
>> Regardless of what frame of reference you choose, the light was emitted at
>> an event at one location and moved in a straight like to the reception in your
>> eye, but the spatial position of the emission event depends on the frame of
>> reference, so you cannot infer the absolute origin point merely from your reception.
>
> Yes, I can. Because, as stated above, another frame of reference would see a
> DIFFERENT PHOTON.
>
>> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you
>> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is
>> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc.
>
> NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest.

Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious
counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The
origin is the remnant itself.

Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it
is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame
etc., whether you care about that or not.

> It is
> about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye.
> The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is
> a POINT IN SPACE.

And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having
any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify
stationary with respect to some frame.

> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from
> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years,

Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda
itself is massive.

> that point in
> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE.

How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
(Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 2:19:41 PMApr 25
to
On 4/25/2022 11:54 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-5, Dong Vassilikos wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has
>>> NOTHING to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I
>>> see come from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?
>> you never know unless compared to something similar known to be
>> stationary, or moving to a certain speed.
>
> There is no object in our known universe that is known to be stationary.

Statement makes no sense, since you didn't state stationary relative to
what.

> We know, however, that light always travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.
> So, the question is: 299,792,458 meters per second RELATIVE TO WHAT?

Relative to any and every inertial frame.
>
> When we measure the speed of light in a laboratory, the speed is measured
> to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND relative to the laboratory. But the
> laboratory is moving through space as the earth spins on its axis, as the
> earth orbits the sun, as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc.
>
> Einstein explained that the faster an object moves, the slower TIME passes for
> that object.

No he didn't. That is crap YOU made up, and you blame Einstein for YOUR
crap.

> He stated "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
> by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the
> poles under otherwise identical conditions."

(this is actually wrong because Einstein didn't know about GR [yet])
You have to compare TWO clocks here, the one stationary relative to the
earth('s center), at the pole, and the other on the equator. It is also
complicated that this is circular motion, and is really the "traveling
twin" situation. However, for simple time dilation, A sees B's clock
running slow and B sees A's clock running slow. He does NOT claim that a
"moving" clock runs slow, because according to B, A is moving, and
according to A, B is moving.
>
> That means that a second is longer on the equator than at one of the poles.

It means no such thing. There is only one second.
>
> The question that poses is: Where would time pass faster than anywhere
> else?

With respect to what? The answer is a clock stationary wrt. yourself
will have no time dilation, and that's the fastest possible. For GR,
add in as far as possible from masses.

Also you appear not to understand the difference between "time" and
"second". Do you understand the difference between "length" and "meter"?
>
> The answer seems to be: At a stationary point in space. Find where time
> passes faster than anywhere else, and you have found a stationary point
> in space.

Stationary with respect to what? (ignoring, yet again, empty space
cannot be "stationary")

> To say that there can be no such thing is saying that time
> does not relate to speed, even though many many experiments say you
> are wrong.

You seem to be thinking that there is some magic place in space where
"time is fastest". Obviously, this violates the first postulate of SR,
some magic location with different physics, the special property of the
fastest time.
Also, Einstein himself emphasized speed is relative.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 2:43:56 PMApr 25
to
I deliberately worded my answer to refer to YOU, Ed Lake, not to myself
or anyone else, to (try to) avoid your sophsist whining.
>
> (snip more nonsense)
>
>>
>> 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 "properties of motion cannot be applied to a point in empty space"
> because empty space is stationary.

Relative to what?

> "Stationary" is the ABSENCE OF MOTION,

Relative to what?

> it is not a "property of motion."
>
Wrong. "Stationary" is the property of motion where the speed of the
motion is 0.
Or will you claim that 0 is not a number?

Stan Fultoni

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 3:00:54 PMApr 25
to
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:26:57 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
> move after the photon has gone.

Wait... you can't talk about an atom either being in a state of motion
or rest without specifying a system of reference. Is your refrigerator
moving? In terms of your kitchen's rest frame, your refrigerator is not
moving, but in terms of other frames of reference it is moving. If you
want to declare that your refrigerator has some absolute state of motion,
then you are tacitly asserting an absolute rest frame. For example,
you may claim that the frame in which the CMBR is isotropic is the
absolute rest frame. But the equations of physics all take the same
simple homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of
any inertial reference system, regardless of how that system is moving
relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. So this doesn't help you in your
crusade to deny modern physics.

> > So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
> > 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
> > are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?
>
> 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits
> the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of
> the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my
> refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement.

Aha, so you're taking the isotropic CMBR frame as absolute rest. Okay, you can
do that, but, again, it doesn't contradict local Lorentz invariance, which is
what you are trying to deny.

> I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location.

But your solipsistic claim is inconsistent with your statement just above
that declares the CMBR isotropic frame to be the absolute rest frame, and that
is the frame that determines (according to you) the absolute position of every
event. That totally contradicts your solipsistic claim that the only
frame that matters is Ed Lake's rest frame. Make up your mind. I ask again,
where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? Are you going to answer in terms
of your frame of reference (which you say is the only one you have), or are
you going to answer in terms of the CMBR frame (as you did above)?

> The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. It is
> about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated...

But the "point in space" where the photon was emitted (or where your refrigerator
was 24 hours ago) depends on what system of reference you are using. If you
want a single unique answer, you need to choose some frame as the absolute
rest frame, such as the isotropic CMBR frame. But (1) that doesn't contradict
local Lorentz invariance, so it doesn't help you, and (2) you contradict
yourself when you say you are only using your own rest frame.

RichD

unread,
Apr 25, 2022, 3:11:25 PMApr 25
to
On April 23, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
>
> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all
> directions at the speed c,
> So, in terms of local physics, there is no physically distinguished
> "absolute rest", and therefore we can't absolutely
> say that a past event occurred at some specific "point in space".

You danced around Ed's question, with a lecture on relativity.

Let's make it plainer. Nova Nike explodes in Andromeda.
Observers all over our galaxy trace the light rays back to
their source. Regardless of their locations or motion, they
all agree on its 'point in space', the origin, the Nike Point.
They record its position, and fix their cameras on that spot,
for all future, continually compensating for their own motion.

They ignore Andromeda, the entire star system. They're only
interested in the 'point in space'. Particular, arbitrary co-ordinates
or systems are likewise irrelevant.

Nike itself evaporates completely, but no matter, it's unnecessary.

The Interstellar Space Yacht Assoc. plans its 2022 annual
convention. They're all on Fazebook IM, they all watched the
nova. They agree to meet at THAT PO