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 <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@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"?
>>
>
>
>

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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@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
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> 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.

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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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.

Ed Lake <detect@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.

>
> 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
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@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?

Space cannot have the property of moving or not moving.

>
>>> 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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/2022 1:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> 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.)
>>
>> 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?
>
> 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.

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.

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>

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

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> 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?
>

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”.

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

On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@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>

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

On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> 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”.

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.

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.
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

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, 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

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

Ed Lake <detect@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.

> 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
>

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

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> 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”.
>
> 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.
>
>

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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, 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
>
> 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

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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>> El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, 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
>>
>> 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
>
> No, actually, it does not. Feynman’s little book, The Character of Physical
> Law, might help you.

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.

>
>> , 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 -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> 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?

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

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?
> > > 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.

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.

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

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.

On 4/25/2022 11:25 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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”.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> 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.

There you have iy.

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.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> 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

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