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"?

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

If a star goes supernova at a particular event in the Andromeda galaxy, and then a
million years later we want to determine the "point in space" where that supernova
event occurred, the answer depends on the system of reference that we choose,
because (for example) if we measure in terms of the reference system in which
Andromeda is at rest (more or less inertia), the supernova obviously occurred at a
"point in space" that is still in Andromeda, but if we measure in terms of a reference
system in which Andromeda is moving, the supernova will have occurred at a "point
in space" that Andromeda has long since left behind. There are infinitely many
possibilities, one for each reference system we might choose.

The only way we could say there is a unique "point in space" where that supernova
occurred is if we could identify one of the reference systems as absolute rest. For
example, you could take the union of the local isotropic CMBR frame states as defining
absolute rest at each location. It's well known that cosmological characteristics are
not Lorentz invariant, and single out a cosmologically distinguished frame of reference.
But this doesn't invalidate the fact of local Lorentz invariance... which brings us to
your next comment:

> ...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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.)

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"?
>

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

On 4/23/2022 7:07 PM, 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.
>
> 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 was not trying to claim that empty space is "stationary". I was trying
to expand on the comment by Einstein that a state of motion cannot be
applied to a single point of empty space, as in (according to Einstein)
the concept doesn't make sense in SR. Only things IN space can be
described as moving or stationary, and then only with reference to some
reference frame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Snip more of the same.)

Ed

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From your own reference frame. 100% understandable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 19:42:54 UTC+2, 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.
> >
> > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
> > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."
> There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are
> using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is
> moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on
> earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing
> Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda
> is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use
> such a frame.
> > I am just trying
> > to understand what I see.
> From your own reference frame. 100% understandable.
> > And I see photons coming from a point in space that
> > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
> > years ago.
> And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see
> how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude
> Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference
> frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda.
>
> From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame,
> after 2 1/2 million years, the point is on a neutron star/black hole in
> Andromeda, the remains of the star that went supernova. I am ignoring
> the rotation of Andromeda and whatever proper motion the supernova
> remnant has wrt. the observer for this. If you do take those into
> account, the supernova remnant has moved during that time, so the origin
> point will be some (probably) empty space, but located within the
> Andromeda galaxy, and the supernova remnant is no longer there.
>
> Of course, in the frame of the supernova remnant itself, the event took
> place at itself, the remnant of the supernova event.
> > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.
> Only from your reference. Events, such as a supernova explosion have a
> 4 coordinates (x,y,z,t) in any frame, but each frame has different
> (x,y,z,t) for the events. You are trying to hang on to your particular
> (x,y,z) for the event and calling them special. They're special to you,
> but not to an Andromeda based observer.
> >
> >>
> >> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all
> >> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference
> >> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which
> >> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be
> >> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in
> >> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the
> >> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity
> >> of simultaneity.
> >
> > Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the
> > only one making an observation.
> First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math.

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

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

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

None of that matters when I look at Andromeda. My ONLY question is: If
Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how
light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on,
but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those
atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago. The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT
IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE.

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

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

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

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

How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how
fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? And others
built the telescope I am using, and others wrote the books I read to study science
and astronomy.

At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in
other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me
in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years
ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise
the line to it would not be straight, and the geometry would not compute to show
where the source WAS located 2.5 million years ago.

Ed

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

Nope. It is exactly on point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in.

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

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

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

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

Ed

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?

There’s no observable test.

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

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

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

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how
> light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on,
> but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those
> atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago.

You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration.. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference.

Remember, straight lines map to straight lines from one frame to another, so the fact that a pulse of light moves in a straight line does not single out any particular frame, it just means that the angle of the line is different in terms of different frames of reference (aberration). This doesn't tell us anything about how light is created that we didn't already know. And it doesn't uniquely single out any absolute "stationary points in space". The only plausible absolute rest frame is the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is entirely consistent with local Lorentz invariance.

> The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE.

Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?

> I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location.

Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake?

> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how
> fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located?

I didn't say you were a rational or logical solipsist, merely that you are (by your own testimony) a solipsist.

> At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in
> other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me
> in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years
> ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise
> the line to it would not be straight...

That is not true. Again, the line is straight in terms of every frame of reference, so your belief that straightness singles out a particular point in space is simply fallacious reasoning. Also, you are not going to be able to understand the subject without accounting for frames of reference. This isn't limited to special relativity, it applies to Newtonian relativity as well. You need to specify your frame of reference, or you are just spouting nonsense. It's as if you are saying you want to understand Niagra Falls but you are not willing to talk about water.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how
> > light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on,
> > but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those
> > atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago.
> You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration.. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference.

I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing.

>
> Remember, straight lines map to straight lines from one frame to another, so the fact that a pulse of light moves in a straight line does not single out any particular frame, it just means that the angle of the line is different in terms of different frames of reference (aberration). This doesn't tell us anything about how light is created that we didn't already know. And it doesn't uniquely single out any absolute "stationary points in space". The only plausible absolute rest frame is the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is entirely consistent with local Lorentz invariance.

What you seem to be saying is that you cannot comprehend a single point of
view. You ONLY understand Relativity and how different observers see things
differently. THAT IS NOT OF CONCERN TO ME. I'm only interested in what I see.

> > The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE.
> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?

My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!
How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????

> > I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location.
> Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake?

I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that
I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun
is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do
with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.

Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons
I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.

> > How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how
> > fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located?
> I didn't say you were a rational or logical solipsist, merely that you are (by your own testimony) a solipsist.
> > At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in
> > other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me
> > in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years
> > ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise
> > the line to it would not be straight...
>
> That is not true. Again, the line is straight in terms of every frame of reference, so your belief that straightness singles out a particular point in space is simply fallacious reasoning.

CAN"T YOU UNDERSTAND???? The photons that I SEE are ONLY seen by me.
Everyone else sees DIFFERENT PHOTONS! I don't care about those photons!!
I'm ONLY talking about photons that were emitted by atoms at a STATIONARY
POINT IN SPACE and traveled from that point IN A STRAIGHT LINE to my telescope
and my eye.

> Also, you are not going to be able to understand the subject without accounting for frames of reference. This isn't limited to special relativity, it applies to Newtonian relativity as well. You need to specify your frame of reference, or you are just spouting nonsense. It's as if you are saying you want to understand Niagra Falls but you are not willing to talk about water.

No, what you do not seem to be able to understand is that light photons travel
from one POINT to another. OTHER "frames of reference" see OTHER photons.
Those other photons are of NO CONCERN TO ME.

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

Ed

Utter Crank Ed Lake wrote:
....
> No, what you do not seem to be able to understand is that light photons travel
> from one POINT to another. OTHER "frames of reference" see OTHER photons.
> Those other photons are of NO CONCERN TO ME.

*facepalm*

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.

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

> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.

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

> > Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?
> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!
> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????

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

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

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

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

> I'm ONLY talking about photons that were emitted by atoms at a STATIONARY
> POINT IN SPACE and traveled from that point IN A STRAIGHT LINE to my telescope
> and my eye.

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

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.

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

> > Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake?

> I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that
> I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun
> is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do
> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
>
> Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
> even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
> line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
> POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons
> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.

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

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

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.

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.
>

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?

On 4/24/2022 4:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how
>>> light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on,
>>> but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those
>>> atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago.
>> You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference.
>
> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.

It does; it affects where you see the light come from. For example, if
you observe a particular star in Andromeda twice, 6 months apart, the
points where the light appears to come from not only depends on how far
Andromeda moved during those 6 months but also on the earth's motion
(and position), so the two rays of light won't be forming a very narrow
triangle with vertices you, Andromeda star 2,500,000 years ago and
Andromeda 2,499,999.5 years ago because stellar aberration affects where
Andromeda and the star appears to be. Aberration changes the angle more
than 6 months of approaching does.

> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing.

We have established that you are a solipsist, at least regarding what
you observe.
>
>>
>> Remember, straight lines map to straight lines from one frame to another, so the fact that a pulse of light moves in a straight line does not single out any particular frame, it just means that the angle of the line is different in terms of different frames of reference (aberration). This doesn't tell us anything about how light is created that we didn't already know. And it doesn't uniquely single out any absolute "stationary points in space". The only plausible absolute rest frame is the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is entirely consistent with local Lorentz invariance.
>
> What you seem to be saying is that you cannot comprehend a single point of
> view.

He does, but is just reminding you everyone else at different locations
will disagree slightly. Yes, as a solipsist, you don't care, you are
interested in only your point.

> You ONLY understand Relativity and how different observers see things
> differently. THAT IS NOT OF CONCERN TO ME. I'm only interested in what I see.
>
>>> The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE.

>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?
>
> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!

But it is emitting, or at least reflecting, photons. Has it moved since
yesterday?

> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
>
>>> I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location.
>> Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake?
>
> I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that
> I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun
> is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do
> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
>
> Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
> even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
> line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
> POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light.

First of all, clarify "stationary", "stationary" relative to what?
Relative to you? To Andromeda?

While you could argue about a location of a point in space (unique to
you) by using the x,y,z coordinates of the event, "stationary point in
space" makes no sense. Space does not move; things in space move, and
then only with respect to something else (more specifically some frame
where the 'something' is stationary). Second, Andromeda was moving
relative to where the earth was 2.5 million years ago. Which is why you
should specify stationary relative to yourself or relative to Andromeda
or something else.

Einstein specifically stated that the properties of motion cannot be
applied to a point in empty space. That would also mean it would be
meaningless to call a point in empty space "stationary" as stationary is
a property of motion.

> The photons
> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.
>
>>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how
>>> fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located?
>> I didn't say you were a rational or logical solipsist, merely that you are (by your own testimony) a solipsist.
>>> At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in
>>> other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me
>>> in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years
>>> ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise
>>> the line to it would not be straight...
>>
>> That is not true. Again, the line is straight in terms of every frame of reference, so your belief that straightness singles out a particular point in space is simply fallacious reasoning.
>
> CAN"T YOU UNDERSTAND???? The photons that I SEE are ONLY seen by me.

Yes, it's clear you're a solipsist regarding this.

> Everyone else sees DIFFERENT PHOTONS! I don't care about those photons!!
> I'm ONLY talking about photons that were emitted by atoms at a STATIONARY
> POINT IN SPACE and traveled from that point IN A STRAIGHT LINE to my telescope
> and my eye.

Empty points in space don't have the property of motion (or lack of motion).
>
>> Also, you are not going to be able to understand the subject without accounting for frames of reference. This isn't limited to special relativity, it applies to Newtonian relativity as well. You need to specify your frame of reference, or you are just spouting nonsense. It's as if you are saying you want to understand Niagra Falls but you are not willing to talk about water.
>
> No, what you do not seem to be able to understand is that light photons travel
> from one POINT to another.

Yes.

> OTHER "frames of reference" see OTHER photons.
> Those other photons are of NO CONCERN TO ME.

You mean other observers. Everyone/everything is in every possible
frame of reference. You are simply concerned with the frame in which you
are stationary and at the origin.
>
> Relativity is NOT the subject of my argument. My argument is ONLY about
> HOW LIGHT WORKS according to Einstein's Second Postulate, specifically
> ONE photon traveling from a star in Andromeda to my eye.
>
> Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 4/24/2022 11:11 AM, Ed Lake 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.

That makes no sense. Are you claiming some stationary (relative to
what?) object cannot be affected by curvature? It can; it's seen as the
force of gravity.

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