On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 10:51:14 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> If I am traveling through space, away from
> the Earth and toward Alpha Centauri, will a light photon that I emit at a
> right angle to my direction of travel continue to move at a right angle to
> me, or will it move at a right angle to the point where the photon was emitted?

In your spaceship, you set up a latticework, a grid, a reference frame. This basically defines what is meant by a straight line, or "above" in your spaceship. If your spaceship is inertial, a photon will continue at right angles, " vertically", say, and hit the ceiling directly above.
I.e.: Your source at x=0, y=0. The photon will hit x=0, y=1, say. In between, is irrelevant what happens to the photon since we are not detecting it in between (along its "trajectory"). We are only sending out the photon, and detecting it at a specified place.

If your ship were not inertial, the photon will typically not hit directly above.

On Tuesday, March 29, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> But the real question is: Does a photon ALWAYS travel
> in a straight line away from the emitting atom, or can it also travel sideways
> if the emitting atom is traveling sideways?
> If it can't also travel sideways, then why would a photon travel in a straight line
> from wall to wall even when the ship is NOT accelerating?
> I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just trying to figure out why you CAN'T
> measure your speed (in theory) even when not accelerating.

Of course you can.

It's like, you're a passenger in an airplane, doing 500 mph. The light
fixture above your head breaks and falls. Due to the plane's high speed,
it hits the seat behind you.

Measure the distance it traveled sideways, then you can deduce the
aircraft's speed.

Galileo understood these things 400 years ago.
So you're a bit behind the curve -

--
Rich

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:05:59 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 10:51 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > My question is very simple: If I am traveling through space, away from
> > the Earth and toward Alpha Centauri, will a light photon that I emit at a
> > right angle to my direction of travel continue to move at a right angle to
> > me, or will it move at a right angle to the point where the photon was emitted?
> In which frame? That of the spaceship or of Earth (or Alpha Centauri)?
> Since I already know you don't understand the concept of frames in
> physics, I don't expect a rational answer to this, or a rational
> response to anyone who answers you.
> >
> > The answer seems obvious: The photon will move away from the point
> > where it was emitted, not away from me.
> Did you do the special relativity math to work out the answer? Oh that's
> right, "mathematicians" are your boogeymen so math is the incantation of
> evil.

It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.

You can look at it a different way: I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge,
heading north. The river under the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.

If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.

Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the photon is
irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.

Ed

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 1:56:32 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 7:51:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > If I am traveling through space, away from the Earth and toward Alpha
> > Centauri, will a light photon that I emit at a right angle to my direction of
> > travel continue to move at a right angle to me...
>
> Yes, if you are not accelerating, then in terms of your co-moving inertial reference system the pulse of light will propagate in a straight line in whatever direction you emitted it. So, if you emitted it perpendicular to the rocket axis in terms of your co-moving inertial system of reference, it will continue to move in that direction at speed c in terms of that system of reference.
>
> Of course, in terms of the Earth's inertial reference system you emitted the pulse at a forward angle, not perpendicular to the axis of your rocket, and the pulse will continue in that non-perpendicular direction in terms of that system of reference. Likewise the pulse will move in a straight line at whatever angle it was emitted in terms of any specified inertial reference system, and it will move at speed c in terms of each of those systems.
>
> Note that this is a different question than you asked originally. You began by describing a ship that is undergoing constant proper acceleration of 1G, and you were asking about the curving of light paths in terms of an accelerating reference system, related to the curving of paths in a gravitational field. Now you have discarded the acceleration, and are purely talking about special relativity in flat spacetime.
> > or will it move at a right angle to the point where the photon was emitted?
> That phrase doesn't make sense, because a pulse of light is emitted from an event (time and place), and there is no absolute rest frame to enable you to identify spatial points at different times. For example, suppose you emit the pulse of light when you are passing a several space beacons in various states of motion that all coincided with your rocket at the time of the emission. Thereafter, which of those beacons do you regard at "the point where the photon was emitted"? It would have to be the beacon that is at absolute rest, but there is no such thing. So you can't talk meaningfully about "the [spatial] point where the pulse was emitted" at any time after the emission.
> > The answer seems obvious: The photon will move away from the point
> > where it was emitted, not away from me.
> No, that's not correct. In general, the pulse will not be moving in a direction perpendicular to the ship's axis in any system of reference other than that of the ship itself, given that you emitted it perpendicularly in terms of that system of reference.
> > And it doesn’t make any difference if I emit the photon while accelerating
> > or while coasting.
> That too is incorrect. If you are accelerating, then your co-moving system of inertial reference is constantly changing, and the pulse will follow a curved path in terms of your co-moving system of coordinates (which is necessarily limited, since it is accelerating).

You're talking math. I'm talking science.

You need a "frame of reference" in order to do your math.

The only "frame of reference" in the problem is the point in space where
the photon was emitted. The photon will move in a straight line away
from that point in space regardless of what the rocket does or earth
or anything else in the universe. If the photon is emitted inside the
rocket it will only travel as far as a wall. If the photon is emitted outside
the rocket, the photon will travel away from the point of emission until
it hits something, which could take a trillion years.

Ed

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 1:59:40 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:33:16 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > Using different frames of reference will just give different answers.
> It is called "relativity", stubborn imbecile.

Yes, but the problem isn't really about "relativity." There is only ONE
observer, and the motion is not relative to him, it is relative to where
he WAS in the past.

It is a SCIENCE question about how a photon works when it is emitted
out of the side of a moving vehicle.

Ed

On March 30, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
> I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
> the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
> I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
> move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.
> If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
> 90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
> at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.
> Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the photon is
> irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.

Right.

Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the basket.

The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.

--
Rich

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:29:39 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, wrote:
> > But the real question is: Does a photon ALWAYS travel
> > in a straight line away from the emitting atom, or can it also travel sideways
> > if the emitting atom is traveling sideways?
> > If it can't also travel sideways, then why would a photon travel in a straight line
> > from wall to wall even when the ship is NOT accelerating?
> > I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just trying to figure out why you CAN'T
> > measure your speed (in theory) even when not accelerating.
> Of course you can.
>
> It's like, you're a passenger in an airplane, doing 500 mph. The light
> fixture above your head breaks and falls. Due to the plane's high speed,
> it hits the seat behind you.
>
> Measure the distance it traveled sideways, then you can deduce the
> aircraft's speed.
>
> Galileo understood these things 400 years ago.
> So you're a bit behind the curve -

But your example has nothing to do with the problem.
The light fixture would hit me, not the seat behind me, because the
air in the plane is moving at the same speed as the plane. There is
nothing to push the light fixture backwards. It's an inertial system.

Galileo understood these things 400 years ago.
So, you're a bit behind the times.

Ed

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On March 30, wrote:
> > It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
> > I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
> > the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
> > I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
> > move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.
> > If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
> > 90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
> > at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.
> > Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the photon is
> > irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.
> Right.
>
> Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
> left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the basket.
>
> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.

Hmm.. We agree! That may be a first for this forum.

Ed

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:55:46 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> When we view light from a distant galaxy, we do not see that galaxy where it is today, we see that galaxy where it WAS when it emitted the light. The light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from POINT OF EMISSION to me.
>
> According to many sources, if I am in a rocket ship that accelerates at 1G, and if it continues to accelerate for that rate for close to one year, it will nearly reach the speed of light.
> Link: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/10/238139/can-constant-acceleration-be-used-to-produce-artificial-gravity-in-space/
>
> My question is: If I am traveling at such speeds, and if I send a beam of light from one side of my ship to the other side, will the light travel in a straight line across the room as I see it, or will the light travel in a curved line down toward the floor?
>
> I am emitting light in a direction that is at a right angle to MY direction of movement. Wouldn’t light travel across the room to a point on the wall that is NOT at a right angle to my direction of movement, but in a straight line through space from the original point of emission?
>
> If true, I could mark points on the far wall that would indicate where the light photons will hit when my rocket is moving at different speeds.
>
> Of course, this would only be possible when traveling at a high enough speed so that the trajectory of the photons will measurably change while crossing a room that is only 10 or 20 feet wide.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ed

Why do you waste time on question like this?

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:58:59 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> You need a "frame of reference" in order to do your math.

Well, you need to specify a system of reference in order to talk meaningfully about positions, times, speeds, directions of motion, and so on. Without a system of reference, you're just spouting meaningless words. It's essential to understand this.

> The only "frame of reference" in the problem is the point in space where
> the photon was emitted.

No, we covered this before. Again, the phrase "point in space where the photon was emitted" doesn't make sense, because a pulse of light is emitted from an *event* (time and place), and there is no absolute rest frame to enable you to identify spatial points at different times.

For example, suppose you emit the pulse of light when you are passing a several space buoys in various states of motion that all coincided with your rocket at the time of the emission. Thereafter, which of those buoys do you regard at "the point where the photon was emitted"?

It would have to be the buoy that is at absolute rest, but there is no such thing. So you can't talk meaningfully about "the [spatial] point where the pulse was emitted" at any time after the emission. It is essential to understand this.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 1:05:10 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 1:59:40 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:33:16 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > > Using different frames of reference will just give different answers.
> > It is called "relativity", stubborn imbecile.
> Yes, but the problem isn't really about "relativity."

Relativity is the branch of SCIENCE that gives the answer to your question.

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> But the real question is: Does a photon ALWAYS travel
>> in a straight line away from the emitting atom, or can it also travel sideways
>> if the emitting atom is traveling sideways?
>> If it can't also travel sideways, then why would a photon travel in a straight line
>> from wall to wall even when the ship is NOT accelerating?
>> I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just trying to figure out why you CAN'T
>> measure your speed (in theory) even when not accelerating.
>
> Of course you can.
>
> It's like, you're a passenger in an airplane, doing 500 mph. The light
> fixture above your head breaks and falls. Due to the plane's high speed,
> it hits the seat behind you.

LOL.

>
> Measure the distance it traveled sideways, then you can deduce the
> aircraft's speed.

You’re joking.

>
> Galileo understood these things 400 years ago.
> So you're a bit behind the curve -
>

Now you’re REALLY joking.

> --
> Rich
>
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 2:29:39 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 29, wrote:
>>> But the real question is: Does a photon ALWAYS travel
>>> in a straight line away from the emitting atom, or can it also travel sideways
>>> if the emitting atom is traveling sideways?
>>> If it can't also travel sideways, then why would a photon travel in a straight line
>>> from wall to wall even when the ship is NOT accelerating?
>>> I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just trying to figure out why you CAN'T
>>> measure your speed (in theory) even when not accelerating.
>> Of course you can.
>>
>> It's like, you're a passenger in an airplane, doing 500 mph. The light
>> fixture above your head breaks and falls. Due to the plane's high speed,
>> it hits the seat behind you.
>>
>> Measure the distance it traveled sideways, then you can deduce the
>> aircraft's speed.
>>
>> Galileo understood these things 400 years ago.
>> So you're a bit behind the curve -
>
> But your example has nothing to do with the problem.
> The light fixture would hit me, not the seat behind me,

True

> because the
> air in the plane is moving at the same speed as the plane.

Wrong reason. Were the air absent, it would still behave as above.

> There is
> nothing to push the light fixture backwards. It's an inertial system.
>
> Galileo understood these things 400 years ago.
> So, you're a bit behind the times.
>
> Ed
>

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

Op 30-mrt.-2022 om 22:16 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
>> On March 30, wrote:
>>> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
>>> I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
>>> the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
>>> I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
>>> move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.
>>> If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
>>> 90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
>>> at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.
>>> Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the photon is
>>> irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.
>> Right.
>>
>> Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
>> left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
>> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the basket.
>>
>> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
>> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.
>
> Hmm.. We agree! That may be a first for this forum.
>
> Ed

It's not that uncommon, one idiot agreeing with another.
If you try really hard, even Richard Hertz, Ken Seto and
Ross Finlayson will agree with you.

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:58:59 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You're talking math. I'm talking science.
> You need a "frame of reference" in order to do your math.

You have it the wrong way. Science requires reference frames.
Are you sure you know what "reference frame" means?

Math does not require reference frames (but did you often make use of it).

On 3/30/2022 4:16 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
>> On March 30, wrote:
>>> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.

Science these days have LOTS of math. Sorry to disappoint you, but if
you are so scared of those mathematician boogeymen, most sciences,
physics in particular, are not for you. Most models have math equations
to describe what's going on, like a home run baseball moving in a
parabola or whatever.

>>> I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
>>> the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
>>> I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
>>> move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.

Actually no. Ignoring air resistance, it will still be going 50 mph to
the north upon striking the water. Ignoring water resistance, it would
be going somewhat east of north in the river.

Of course the can is light enough it will really be going at the speed
of the wind upon hitting the water and the *significant* water
resistance will mean it will almost immediately move at the speed of the
water. So you are correct, but not for the reason you think.

>> Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
>> left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
>> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the basket.

Nope, he'll have to angle slightly backward (in his frame) when throwing
the ball. In the frame of the court, it will go straight in.

Pro basketball players do this automatically without even thinking of it.
>>
>> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
>> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.
>
> Hmm.. We agree! That may be a first for this forum.

Must be because you're both wrong...

On 3/30/2022 12:33 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 11:05:59 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 3/30/2022 10:51 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> My question is very simple: If I am traveling through space, away from
>>> the Earth and toward Alpha Centauri, will a light photon that I emit at a
>>> right angle to my direction of travel continue to move at a right angle to
>>> me, or will it move at a right angle to the point where the photon was emitted?
>> In which frame? That of the spaceship or of Earth (or Alpha Centauri)?
>> Since I already know you don't understand the concept of frames in
>> physics, I don't expect a rational answer to this, or a rational
>> response to anyone who answers you.
>>>
>>> The answer seems obvious: The photon will move away from the point
>>> where it was emitted, not away from me.
>> Did you do the special relativity math to work out the answer? Oh that's
>> right, "mathematicians" are your boogeymen so math is the incantation of
>> evil.
>
> No, it just clouds the issue. It is as Einstein once 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.”

THAT's the basis of your belief? A single mined quote of Einstein's,
almost certainly taken out of context?
>
> I'm trying to discuss reality, and all you can understand is mathematics.

Nope. It's just that most science models are heavy in math. Like the
home run baseball. You (or an outfielder) may almost instinctively
think of where it will land, but science models have formulas which
predict where it will land, if the angle and speed it left the bat is
known. Again, if you don't like such math (or the boogeyman!) physics
isn't for you.
>
> Using different frames of reference will just give different answers.
> The question is about REALITY. In REALITY, the photon moves away from
> the POINT where it was emitted by an atom. Once the atom has moved
> on, there is nothing at that point. There is just a photon moving through
> empty space. And mathematicians cannot comprehend an object
> moving through empty space.

Mathematicians don't care. They do math, not physics.

> They REQUIRE that ALL OBJECTS move
> relative to some other object.

Nope, that's physics that uses that. Mathematicians deal with the
abstract, it's all numbers and formulas, with no objects or motion,
relative or otherwise.

> But the photon is not moving relative to any object.
>
> Ed

Don't forget to look under your bed before going to sleep! There may be
a MATHEMATICIAN hiding there!!!!

On 30-Mar-22 6:33 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:08:41 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> When we view light from a distant galaxy, we do not see that galaxy where
>>> it is today, we see that galaxy where it WAS when it emitted the light.
>>> The light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from POINT OF EMISSION to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> According to many sources, if I am in a rocket ship that accelerates at
>>> 1G, and if it continues to accelerate for that rate for close to one
>>> year, it will nearly reach the speed of light.
>>> Link:
>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/10/238139/can-constant-acceleration-be-used-to-produce-artificial-gravity-in-space/
>>>
>>> My question is: If I am traveling at such speeds, and if I send a beam
>>> of light from one side of my ship to the other side, will the light
>>> travel in a straight line across the room as I see it, or will the light
>>> travel in a curved line down toward the floor?
>> Curved. See Clifford Will’s book “Was Einstein Right?”
>
> Ah! Okay. At long last we agree on something.
>
> Ed

Assuming you're not at cross-purposes.

The curvature effect arises from the acceleration, not the speed. If you
stop accelerating, then the curvature vanishes, regardless of your speed
relative to your starting speed.

You would require very sensitive measuring equipment to detect the
curvature at 1g. After all, you get the same curvature on Earth, and
people tend not to notice that.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 00:38:58 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 4:16 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> >> On March 30, wrote:
> >>> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
> Science these days have LOTS of math.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your
bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important and successful part false, as it didn't want to
cooperate with your madness.

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:

> Op 30-mrt.-2022 om 22:16 schreef Ed Lake:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> >> On March 30, wrote:
> >>> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
> >>> I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
> >>> the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
> >>> I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
> >>> move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.
> >>> If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
> >>> 90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
> >>> at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.
> >>> Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the
> >>> photon is irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.
> >> Right.
> >>
> >> Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to
> >> his left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
> >> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
> >> basket.
> >>
> >> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
> >> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.
> >
> > Hmm.. We agree! That may be a first for this forum.
> >
> > Ed
>
> It's not that uncommon, one idiot agreeing with another.
> If you try really hard, even Richard Hertz, Ken Seto and
> Ross Finlayson will agree with you.

Not what I have seen with flat Earthers.
All that they can agree on is that the Earth is NOT a sphere
floating in space, but they have a great many crazy theories
about what the real situation must be,

Jan

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 11:07:30 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Not what I have seen with flat Earthers.
> All that they can agree on is that the Earth is NOT a sphere
> floating in space, but they have a great many crazy theories
> about what the real situation must be,

It's very similiar amongst your bunch of idiots: all that
you agree is that your insane guru and his Shit are
ingenious.

Op 31-mrt.-2022 om 11:07 schreef J. J. Lodder:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Op 30-mrt.-2022 om 22:16 schreef Ed Lake:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
>>>> On March 30, wrote:
>>>>> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
>>>>> I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
>>>>> the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
>>>>> I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
>>>>> move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.
>>>>> If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
>>>>> 90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
>>>>> at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.
>>>>> Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the
>>>>> photon is irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to
>>>> his left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
>>>> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
>>>> basket.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
>>>> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.
>>>
>>> Hmm.. We agree! That may be a first for this forum.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> It's not that uncommon, one idiot agreeing with another.
>> If you try really hard, even Richard Hertz, Ken Seto and
>> Ross Finlayson will agree with you.
>
> Not what I have seen with flat Earthers.
> All that they can agree on is that the Earth is NOT a sphere
> floating in space, but they have a great many crazy theories
> about what the real situation must be,
>
> Jan

We all agree that the Earth is not a sphere floating in space:
it is a Finlayson-infinite cone, being isotropically vertically
pushed around sideways in Lake Ed, by Ken Seto's E-strings,
vibrating at 10000 Hertz.

Dirk Vdm

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Op 30-mrt.-2022 om 22:16 schreef Ed Lake:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
>>>> On March 30, wrote:
>>>>> It's NOT a math problem! It's a SCIENCE problem.
>>>>> I'm driving at 50 mph across a bridge, heading north. The river under
>>>>> the bridge is moving toward the east at 10 mph.
>>>>> I toss an empty Pringles can into the river. The Pringles can is going to
>>>>> move east at 10 mph away from the bridge, regardless of what I do.
>>>>> If I'm moving straight ahead in empty space and shoot out a photon at a
>>>>> 90 degree angle to my course, the photon is going to continue moving
>>>>> at a 90 degree angle from my path regardless of what I do later.
>>>>> Whether I was coasting or accelerating at the time I shot out the
>>>>> photon is irrelevant. It doesn't change the course of the photon.
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> Like, if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to
>>>> his left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
>>>> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
>>>> basket.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
>>>> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the SCIENCE.
>>>
>>> Hmm.. We agree! That may be a first for this forum.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> It's not that uncommon, one idiot agreeing with another.
>> If you try really hard, even Richard Hertz, Ken Seto and
>> Ross Finlayson will agree with you.
>
> Not what I have seen with flat Earthers.
> All that they can agree on is that the Earth is NOT a sphere
> floating in space, but they have a great many crazy theories
> about what the real situation must be,
>
> Jan
>

“I’d rather be original and clueless than a knowledgeable sheeple”

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

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/2022 12:33 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
>>> Did you do the special relativity math to work out the answer? Oh that's
>>> right, "mathematicians" are your boogeymen so math is the incantation of
>>> evil.
>>
>> No, it just clouds the issue. It is as Einstein once 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.”
>
> THAT's the basis of your belief? A single mined quote of Einstein's,
> almost certainly taken out of context?
>>

It’s purely self-serving soundbite grabbing, and he knows it. Because Ed is
mathematically illiterate, it makes sense to him to dismiss mathematics as
not only unnecessary but detrimental.

It’s easy to point out how silly that tactic is. Simply point to the 1905
paper written by the same author and ask, “why then is there so much
mathematics (though rather basic mathematics) in the paper?”

The same goes for the apocryphal soundbite that any good theory should be
explainable to a barmaid (which is misattribute to Einstein). The response
is to point to the popularization written by Einstein himself, Relativity:
The Special and General Theory, and to say, “fine, this book was written
for barmaids; now, do you understand what is written there?”

The common complaint is, “I am interested in this subject. How dare you say
I am unequipped for it?” But if I point out that true interest is marked by
a willingness to do the work to get equipped, then the complaint is, “No,
that’s not fair. It’s asking too much. I have no time or interest in
getting equipped.” To which I say, “Exactly. You’re not interested enough.”

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

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 3:30:43 PM UTC-5, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:55:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > When we view light from a distant galaxy, we do not see that galaxy where it is today, we see that galaxy where it WAS when it emitted the light. The light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from POINT OF EMISSION to me.
> >
> > According to many sources, if I am in a rocket ship that accelerates at 1G, and if it continues to accelerate for that rate for close to one year, it will nearly reach the speed of light.
> > Link: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/10/238139/can-constant-acceleration-be-used-to-produce-artificial-gravity-in-space/
> >
> > My question is: If I am traveling at such speeds, and if I send a beam of light from one side of my ship to the other side, will the light travel in a straight line across the room as I see it, or will the light travel in a curved line down toward the floor?
> >
> > I am emitting light in a direction that is at a right angle to MY direction of movement. Wouldn’t light travel across the room to a point on the wall that is NOT at a right angle to my direction of movement, but in a straight line through space from the original point of emission?
> >
> > If true, I could mark points on the far wall that would indicate where the light photons will hit when my rocket is moving at different speeds.
> >
> > Of course, this would only be possible when traveling at a high enough speed so that the trajectory of the photons will measurably change while crossing a room that is only 10 or 20 feet wide.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Ed
> Why do you waste time on question like this?

Because it is a fundamental question about how photons work, and if the
answer is what it seems it must be, it has implications that could shake up
the whole physics community.

Ed