On 4/25/2022 11:35 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/24/2022 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Those facts have NOTHING to do
>>> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
>> I keep seeing this posted to Usenet and wonder how many of the photons
>> we observe in the night sky actually transcended space for millions of
>> years in a geometrically straight line as the posters impugn. Certainly
>> some, probably many, but "all?" Don't forget, everything out there in
>> space is moving and has been for the very long periods it took those
>> photons to arrive here. Personally I doubt that the "stationary point"
>> you think may have been the point of origin for your particular photon
>> to have begun its journey is where you think it was.
>>
>> So you're arguing about some point or another that you cannot determine
>> where it was at the critical moment millions of years ago. Now what is
>> your point?
>
> Photons travel in a straight line from one atom to another. But each atom
> can send the photon off in some random direction - or absorb the photon
> and change it into a different kind of photon.
>
> When photons travel through empty space they travel in a straight line.
> If they hit something, the atom they hit absorbs the photon and generates
> a NEW photon if the atom cannot hold that extra energy. The NEW photon's
> direction depends upon the type of atom. Silver atoms will send the NEW
> photon back in the direction to first photon came from. Atoms in glass and
> air will generally send the NEW photons off in the same direction the original
> was traveling.
>
> The discussion is ONLY about those photons that traveled in a straight line
> from the point of emission to my telescope.
>
> Ed

You'd have to redefine a number of words/concepts but then you could
make that work. Hope that helps.

On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>
>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>
> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.

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

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 4/25/2022 12:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 9:08:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/24/2022 4:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how
>>>>> light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on,
>>>>> but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those
>>>>> atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago.
>>>> You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference.
>>>
>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
>> It does; it affects where you see the light come from. For example, if
>> you observe a particular star in Andromeda twice, 6 months apart, the
>> points where the light appears to come from not only depends on how far
>> Andromeda moved during those 6 months but also on the earth's motion
>> (and position), so the two rays of light won't be forming a very narrow
>> triangle with vertices you, Andromeda star 2,500,000 years ago and
>> Andromeda 2,499,999.5 years ago because stellar aberration affects where
>> Andromeda and the star appears to be. Aberration changes the angle more
>> than 6 months of approaching does.
>
> Why can't people here understand that if YOU see a light from a star, you
> are seeing DIFFERENT PHOTONS that what I see.
>
> The discussion is NOT about how you see different photons that what I see,
> it is only about the photons that I see and how those photons traveled at
> the speed of light in a STRAIGHT LINE from where they were EMITTED to
> my eye.

I deliberately worded my answer to refer to YOU, Ed Lake, not to myself
or anyone else, to (try to) avoid your sophsist whining.
>
> (snip more nonsense)
>
>>
>> Einstein specifically stated that the properties of motion cannot be
>> applied to a point in empty space. That would also mean it would be
>> meaningless to call a point in empty space "stationary" as stationary is
>> a property of motion.
>
> The "properties of motion cannot be applied to a point in empty space"
> because empty space is stationary.

Relative to what?

> "Stationary" is the ABSENCE OF MOTION,

Relative to what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Interstellar Space Yacht Assoc. plans its 2022 annual
convention. They're all on Fazebook IM, they all watched the
nova. They agree to meet at THAT POINT IN SPACE. A luxury
space liner has been chartered, waiting for them there.

Each yacht man has his own star map, no common frame of
reference. But everyone agrees, they know where the Nike Point
is. See you there! (WHEN is a separate question)

Do they converge, or do they not?
If so, then Ed's intuition is validated.
If impossible, you have to explain why.

--
Rich

On 4/23/22 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> [...] “stationary point in space”?

Unfortunately, you merely display a serious lack of understanding of
geometry. There is no such thing as a "stationary point in space", the
closest concept is "points at constant values of a specified coordinate
system".

For example, draw Cartesian axes X and Y on a piece of paper, and draw a
dot at X=1,Y=1. Is that dot a "stationary point in space"? -- NO: slide
the paper around on your desk and it is quite clear that the dot is not
"stationary" in any meaningful sense [%], but it is at the same point
relative to the X and Y axes.

[%] You probably think of points in the room as "stationary",
but that is clearly ignoring the motion of the earth -- in
our everyday lives we do that sort of thing all the time, but
in physics it leads to serious errors. You are really thinking
in terms of coordinates relative to the room, without
enumerating those coordinates.

In relativity this is more complicated, as time is included in the
geometry of spacetime. Without coordinates [#] there is no way to relate
spatial points at one time to spatial points at some other time.

[#] or equivalent (which are advanced topics).

In modern physics there are two quite different meanings of
"stationary", neither of which is anywhere close to what you are
attempting to discuss:
1) "stationary relative to a given coordinate system" means at
rest in those coordinates.
2) a "stationary region of a manifold" is one in which there is
a timelike Killing vector throughout the region.

Your entire approach is based on a misunderstanding, and is quite
useless.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:25:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
> >>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
> >> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
> >> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
> >> are flatly falsified by aberration.
> >>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
> >>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
> >>
> >> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
> >> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
> >> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
> >> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
> >> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
> >
> > I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work.. And
> > with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
> Correct.
> > and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
> > from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
> Nope. That’s not the behavior of photons.

Then why don't you tell us how photons actually behave?

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

No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating
electric and magnetic fields. The speed at which the fields oscillate determines
the type of photon and how much energy it has. It has no mass, just energy..

Experiments with radar guns will demonstrate how photons work. I've been
experimenting with a radar gun for years. You should try it. You might learn
something. Radar guns emit photons toward a target and compare the photons
that reflect from the target to the photons that the gun emitted to determine
the speed of the target (and/or the radar gun, if the radar gun is moving).

> >
> > We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
> > move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
> > but the point of emission does not,
> The atom that emitted it moves. There is nothing else but the atom. There
> is no “point of emission”. There are coordinates for the emission event,
> but there is no point that persists at all. An event is a zero-duration
> thing. Something with zero duration cannot be said to move or stay put. All
> notion of motion is a non sequitur for events. The only thing that has any
> motion is the atom. There IS NOTHING ELSE besides the atom that has
> persistence, which might be characterized as having some state of motion.

If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission"
at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space.. And that
location is evidently STATIONARY. It doesn't "persist," but it WAS there.

Ed

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:24:10 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> > > >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point,
> > > >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was
> > > >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving.
> > > >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all
> > > >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable
> > > >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which
> > > >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million
> > > >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space".
> > > >
> > > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said,
> > > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
> > > > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
> > > Out of context.
> > Nope. It is exactly on point.
> > > >
> > > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a
> > > > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system."
> > > There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are
> > > using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is
> > > moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on
> > > earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing
> > > Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda
> > > is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use
> > > such a frame.
> > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING
> > to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from
> > a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?
> > > > I am just trying
> > > > to understand what I see.
> > > From your own reference frame. 100% understandable.
> > > > And I see photons coming from a point in space that
> > > > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million
> > > > years ago.
> > > And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see
> > > how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude
> > > Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference
> > > frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda.
> > I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed
> > and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics.
> > >
> > > From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame,
> > > ..... yada yada yada.
> >
> > I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!!
> > I'm just trying to understand what I see.
> > > > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points
> > > > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved.
> > > Only from your reference.
> > Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in.
> > > First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math.
> > > Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations.
> > WHO CARES????? I don't!
> > >
> > > Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not
> > > aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure
> > > out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the
> > > point is no longer located within Andromeda.
> > Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the
> > implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came
> > from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE.
> Every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion.That means that the light you see came from a moving source. This is true since you are on a planet that is moving.

No one is disputing that. The discussion isn't about the source (the atom that
produced the photon), it is about the LOCATION IN SPACE where the photon
was created and emitted.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:

> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion.That
>> means that the light you see came from a moving source. This is true
>> since you are on a planet that is moving.
>
> No one is disputing that. The discussion isn't about the source (the
> atom that produced the photon), it is about the LOCATION IN SPACE where
> the photon was created and emitted.

you throw two atomic bombs over his country. What a shame.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
> > > > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
> > > > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
> > > > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons
> > > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.
>
> > > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
> > >
> > > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic
>
> > That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed
> > the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire
> > State Building.
> >
> That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun gravity curves the light path of stars, as Eddington verified in 1919 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment). The Einstein rings (there are hundreds of them) prove that light from very far light sources (as shown in the diagram in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring) are bent by the gravity of closer objects, where the massive object acts like a lens.

Okay. I cannot prove that light is not affected by gravity, but there seem
to be alternative explanations for the bending of light around the Sun and
around distant galaxies.

But that bending of light requires MASSIVE amounts of gravity and has
VERY TINY effects on the trajectory of the photons. And it has absolutely
NOTHING to do with light we see coming from distant stars, light that did
not pass near anything and just traveled a straight line from the POINT of
emission to a telescope on earth or in orbit around the earth.

Ed

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
> >>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
> >> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
> >> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
> >> are flatly falsified by aberration.
> >>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
> >>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
> >>
> >> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
> >> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
> >> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
> >> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
> >> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
> >
> > I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
> > with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
> > and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
> > from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent
> substance such as glass.

No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space."

> >
> > We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
> > move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
> > but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is
> > a stationary point in space?
> No.

Why not?

> >
> >>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?
> >>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!
> >>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
> >> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago.
> >> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer
> >> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable.
> >>
> >> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
> >> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
> >> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?
> >
> > Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is:
> > 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits
> > the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of
> > the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my
> > refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement.
> >
> >>
> >>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
> >>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
> >> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference
> >> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true
> >> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is
> >> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right?
> >
> > I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another
> > photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon.
> Yes.
> > AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME.
> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event,
> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time,
> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I
> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do
> not know of any.

You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS
that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess
energy by emitting photons. That is what the discussion is about. Finding
some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative.

(snip more stuff about pions)

> >> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you
> >> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is
> >> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc.
> >
> > NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest.
> Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious
> counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The
> origin is the remnant itself.

All you are saying is that you only understand mathematics. You cannot
comprehend someone who just looks into space and sees a star while
knowing that that star is no longer where it appears to be.

>
> Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it
> is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame
> etc., whether you care about that or not.
> > It is
> > about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye.
> > The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is
> > a POINT IN SPACE.
> And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having
> any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify
> stationary with respect to some frame.
> > And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from
> > that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years,
> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda
> itself is massive.
> > that point in
> > space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE.
> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"

Stationary to NOTHING! EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:25:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
>>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
>>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>>>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
>>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>>>
>>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>>>
>>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
>>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
>> Correct.
>>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
>>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
>> Nope. That’s not the behavior of photons.
>
> Then why don't you tell us how photons actually behave?

I gave you a good reference, a book for layman. I don’t think it’s good for
me to replicate the book here. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. Read
the WHOLE THING because the whole thing is relevant.

>
>>
>> You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired
>> along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS
>> (not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave.
>
> No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating
> electric and magnetic fields.

And that’s not what a photon is.

> The speed at which the fields oscillate determines
> the type of photon and how much energy it has. It has no mass, just energy.
>
> Experiments with radar guns will demonstrate how photons work.

No, this will not AT ALL cover the important behaviors. There are about 20
completely different applications you’d need to understand to get a feel
for how photons behave.

If I took your approach, I’d see a sleeping leopard and come to the
conclusion that the description of a leopard is an unconscious spotted
mammal that is found in trees.

> I've been
> experimenting with a radar gun for years. You should try it. You might learn
> something. Radar guns emit photons toward a target and compare the photons
> that reflect from the target to the photons that the gun emitted to determine
> the speed of the target (and/or the radar gun, if the radar gun is moving).
>
>>>
>>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
>>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
>>> but the point of emission does not,
>> The atom that emitted it moves. There is nothing else but the atom. There
>> is no “point of emission”. There are coordinates for the emission event,
>> but there is no point that persists at all. An event is a zero-duration
>> thing. Something with zero duration cannot be said to move or stay put. All
>> notion of motion is a non sequitur for events. The only thing that has any
>> motion is the atom. There IS NOTHING ELSE besides the atom that has
>> persistence, which might be characterized as having some state of motion.
>
> If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission"
> at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space.

A location and a specific time, the time of emission. There is no way to
pin down that location at any time before or any time after, because there
is no duration. Without duration, you cannot assert whether the point is
moving or stationary. This should be obvious.

A mosquito is flying and it collides with the windshield of the car. The
person in the car can point to the mark on the windshield and say, “It
happened THERE.” But that spot on the windshield is moving relative to the
road. A person on the road can point to a place on the road where the car
was when it hit the mosquito. But that spot is now a quarter mile behind
the car. Is the location of the collision stationary or moving? The
collision only lasted an instant.

> And that
> location is evidently STATIONARY. It doesn't "persist," but it WAS there.
>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, escribió:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>
>>>>> Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
>>>>> even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
>>>>> line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
>>>>> POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons
>>>>> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.
>>
>>>> Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
>>>>
>>>> Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic
>>
>>> That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed
>>> the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire
>>> State Building.
>>>
>> That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun
>> gravity curves the light path of stars, as Eddington verified in 1919 (see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment). The Einstein rings
>> (there are hundreds of them) prove that light from very far light
>> sources (as shown in the diagram in
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring) are bent by the gravity of
>> closer objects, where the massive object acts like a lens.
>
> Okay. I cannot prove that light is not affected by gravity, but there seem
> to be alternative explanations for the bending of light around the Sun and
> around distant galaxies.

Those have been hypothesized and tested and found to be unable to
quantitatively account for the bending. Now if you have an idea that you
can calculate from, and which hasn’t been already investigated, have at it.

>
> But that bending of light requires MASSIVE amounts of gravity and has
> VERY TINY effects on the trajectory of the photons. And it has absolutely
> NOTHING to do with light we see coming from distant stars, light that did
> not pass near anything and just traveled a straight line from the POINT of
> emission to a telescope on earth or in orbit around the earth.

You’d be amazed how many times there is something near the path between a
distant star and us.

>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
>>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
>>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>>>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
>>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>>>
>>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>>>
>>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
>>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
>>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
>>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
>> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent
>> substance such as glass.
>
> No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space."
>
>>>
>>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
>>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
>>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is
>>> a stationary point in space?
>> No.
>
> Why not?
>
>>>
>>>>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?
>>>>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!
>>>>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
>>>> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago.
>>>> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your
>>>> inability to answer
>>>> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable.
>>>>
>>>> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
>>>> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
>>>> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?
>>>
>>> Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is:
>>> 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits
>>> the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of
>>> the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my
>>> refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
>>>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
>>>> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference
>>>> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true
>>>> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is
>>>> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right?
>>>
>>> I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another
>>> photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon.
>> Yes.
>>> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME.
>> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event,
>> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time,
>> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I
>> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do
>> not know of any.
>
> You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS
> that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess
> energy by emitting photons. That is what the discussion is about. Finding
> some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative.

On the contrary, the pion decay is a GREAT example of how you can constrain
other variables to study a problem. Unlike the emission of atoms, you can
know to high precision WHEN the emission happened and WHERE it happened.
You also know FOR SURE that the photons came directly from the pion because
the pair reconstruct to the rest mass of the pion, and you can’t be sure
whether light coming from a group of atoms was directly emitted or
scattered or suffered Compton shifts first or what.

Yes, it’s a rarer process, but it is a scientifically very valuable
process. And with it you can say things about light you CANNOT
unambiguously determine from atomic emission without a great deal of
effort.

This is called science, and experimental design. It’s a critical skill.

>
> (snip more stuff about pions)
>
>>>> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you
>>>> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is
>>>> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc.
>>>
>>> NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest.
>> Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious
>> counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The
>> origin is the remnant itself.
>
> All you are saying is that you only understand mathematics. You cannot
> comprehend someone who just looks into space and sees a star while
> knowing that that star is no longer where it appears to be.
>
>>
>> Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it
>> is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame
>> etc., whether you care about that or not.
>>> It is
>>> about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye.
>>> The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is
>>> a POINT IN SPACE.
>> And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having
>> any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify
>> stationary with respect to some frame.
>>> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from
>>> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years,
>> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda
>> itself is massive.
>>> that point in
>>> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE.
>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
>
> Stationary to NOTHING! EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!
>
> Ed
>

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

El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 17:17:55 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't
> > > > > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight
> > > > > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY
> > > > > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons
> > > > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons.
> >
> > > > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
> > > >
> > > > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic
> >
> > > That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum.. If light followed
> > > the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire
> > > State Building.
> > >
> > That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun gravity curves the light path of stars, as Eddington verified in 1919 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment). The Einstein rings (there are hundreds of them) prove that light from very far light sources (as shown in the diagram in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring) are bent by the gravity of closer objects, where the massive object acts like a lens.

> Okay. I cannot prove that light is not affected by gravity, but there seem
> to be alternative explanations for the bending of light around the Sun and
> around distant galaxies.
>
> But that bending of light requires MASSIVE amounts of gravity and has
> VERY TINY effects on the trajectory of the photons. And it has absolutely
> NOTHING to do with light we see coming from distant stars, light that did
> not pass near anything and just traveled a straight line from the POINT of
> emission to a telescope on earth or in orbit around the earth.
>

In what we call deep space, it appears to contain far more mass than previously seen. That excess mas is what is now called DARK MATTER and it contains around 85% of all mass in the universe (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter).
This dark matter is not visible but it affects the rotation of galaxies. It is estimated that dark matter outweighs visible matter by approximately 5 to 1.

On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
>>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
>>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
>>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
>>>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
>>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
>>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
>>>>
>>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
>>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
>>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
>>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
>>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
>>>
>>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
>>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
>>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
>>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
>> Not relevant here, but that's not how light moves through a transparent
>> substance such as glass.
>
> No one said it was. "In empty space" means "in empty space."

You stated that light traveled in a straight line at c from atom to atom
and I pointed out that's not how light in clear substances work. I also
stated "not relevant here".
>
>>>
>>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
>>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
>>> but the point of emission does not, doesn't that mean that the point of emission is
>>> a stationary point in space?
>> No.
>
> Why not?

1) No such thing as a "stationary point in space". Einstein from his SR
paper: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.*"

"Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude.

2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say.
>
>>>
>>>>>> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space?
>>>>> My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!!
>>>>> How can you bring up such an idiotic argument????
>>>> I'm asking you to tell me the point in space where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago.
>>>> I ask this question because I don't think you can answer it, and your inability to answer
>>>> it reveals why your ideas on this subject are untenable.
>>>>
>>>> So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was
>>>> 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction)
>>>> are you just going to run away and refuse to answer?
>>>
>>> Your question has nothing to do with my question. The answer to your question is:
>>> 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits
>>> the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of
>>> the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my
>>> refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were
>>>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope.
>>>> Sure, but it's a different straight line depending on which frame of reference
>>>> you are using, so which frame of reference do you think determines the true
>>>> "point in space"? It has to be the frame at absolute rest... but what frame is
>>>> that? Where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? You can't answer, right?
>>>
>>> I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. If an atom emitted another
>>> photon in another direction, that is a DIFFERENT photon.
>> Yes.
>>> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME.
>> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event,
>> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time,
>> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I
>> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do
>> not know of any.
>
> You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS
> that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess
> energy by emitting photons. That is what the discussion is about. Finding
> some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative.
>
> (snip more stuff about pions)
>
>>>> At best you can infer the origin point in terms of the inertial frame in which you
>>>> are at rest right now, or in which the sun is at rest, or in which the Milky Way is
>>>> at rest, or in which the CMBR is isotropic, etc.
>>>
>>> NONSENSE! The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest.
>> Yes it does. The coordinates depend on the frame. Most obvious
>> counterexample is the frame of the supernova remnant in Andromeda. The
>> origin is the remnant itself.
>
> All you are saying is that you only understand mathematics. You cannot
> comprehend someone who just looks into space and sees a star while
> knowing that that star is no longer where it appears to be.
>
>>
>> Now here you'll respond with your solipsist whine "I DON'T CARE!" But it
>> is still true, and is true for the sun rest frame, Milky Way rest frame
>> etc., whether you care about that or not.
>>> It is
>>> about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated that traveled to my eye.
>>> The atom that emitted the photon was moving, but the POINT IN SPACE is
>>> a POINT IN SPACE.
>> And points in space cannot be described as moving, stationary, or having
>> any state of motion. Even if they did, you'd still need to specify
>> stationary with respect to some frame.
>>> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from
>>> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years,
>> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda
>> itself is massive.
>>> that point in
>>> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE.
>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
>
> Stationary to NOTHING! EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!
>
> Ed

On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

>>> AN ATOM CAN ONLY EMIT ONE PHOTON AT A TIME.
>> Not necessarily. A neutral pion decays into two photons at one event,
>> its decay. Both photons are emitted at the same place at the same time,
>> in opposite directions wrt the frame in which the pion is stationary. I
>> know of no reason why atoms couldn't do something similar although I do
>> not know of any.
>
> You are talking about decaying pions. Most light we see comes from ATOMS
> that absorbed more energy than they can hold, and they get rid of that excess
> energy by emitting photons.

I pointed out a case where two photons ARE emitted at the same place and
the same time, so it definitely CAN happen. And you made an unsupported
assertion that atoms can emit only one photon at a time. Why do you
claim that?

> That is what the discussion is about. Finding
> some very rare exception just means you want to be argumentative.
>
> (snip more stuff about pions)
>
>>> And since the photon traveled IN A STRAIGHT LINE from
>>> that point in space to my eye, a journey that took millions of years,
>> Ignoring GR deflections due to mass. May be relevant since Andromeda
>> itself is massive.
>>> that point in
>>> space MUST BE A STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE.

You came up with some conclusion without providing any evidence or even
an unsupported assertion as to WHY it "MUST" be stationary.

>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
>
> Stationary to NOTHING!

That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative.

> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!

Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in
the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a
better description of those points other than "stationary".
>
> Ed

It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't
grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics.
You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too
stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your
boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your
manifesto, of course.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:11:25 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> Particular, arbitrary co-ordinates or systems are likewise irrelevant.

No, they are not, as explained in the previous messages.

> Do they converge, or do they not?

Not unless they are all using the same frame of reference. If you are going to meet Ed where his refrigerator was yesterday, where would you go? Do you understand why the answer depends on your frame of reference? Try answering based on the Sun's frame, and the Milky Way's frame, and the isotropic CMBR frame. Do you get the same answer each time? (Hint: Of course not.)

Michael Moroney wrote:

> I pointed out a case where two photons ARE emitted at the same place and
> the same time, so it definitely CAN happen. And you made an unsupported
> assertion that atoms can emit only one photon at a time. Why do you
> claim that?

physics.

On 4/25/2022 1:00 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

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

Straight or geodesic, Janitor. No "/" gibberish, one or the other.

On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
incorrect statements.

Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to
the physical situation in which there are trillions and
trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration
to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be
used to model a situation in which there is just a single
photon, or even when there are just a few million of them.

[#] This physical situation is quite different from that
of a light beam containing trillions and trillions of
photons -- the photon configurations are very different.

> I've been experimenting with a radar gun for years.

So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving
along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your
"experimenting" have you actually done this?

> If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission"
> at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space. And that
> location is evidently STATIONARY.

Nope. That point of emission has a duration of ZERO, so "stationary"
cannot be applied to it. You cannot ascribe a "location" to it with
nonzero duration. But you can do so to a location RELATIVE TO THOSE
COORDINATES -- but that has little to do with the emission, and
everything to do with the way you selected/defined the coordinates.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 01:07:22 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 1:00 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > A pity that, according to your insane Shit - light paths
> > [in vacuum] are always straight/geodesic lines.
> Straight or geodesic, Janitor. No "/" gibberish, one or the other.

So, which ones are mentioned in Lobachevsky's Vth axiom,
stupid Mike? One or the other?
They're the same; serious mathematicians know (I'm not
one but I know too), shitty fanatics don't.

On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which
>>> show how fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located?
>> Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions
>> that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of
>> the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue
>> shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can
>> be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?
>>
>> Mikko
>
> The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars
> that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the
> center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the
> black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we
> move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are
> moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and
> blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars.
>
> The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations.
> An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away
> faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side.

Nothing Ed Lake says above means as much as what he doesn't say. He doesn't
answer my question, apparently because he can't. If he could he could also
support, at least to some extents, the opionions he has expressed in earlier
messages. But he didn't, so we can expect that his so far unjustified
opinions will remain unjustified.

Mikko

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:25:35 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:43:54 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>>>> I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the
> >>>>> question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space.
> >>>> To the contrary, that is precisely what stellar aberration is about. You clearly
> >>>> have no grasp of stellar aberration at all, because all your claims and statements
> >>>> are flatly falsified by aberration.
> >>>>> What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what
> >>>>> I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. I'm only interested in what I see.
> >>>>
> >>>> We've already established that you are a solipsist, but you are a logically
> >>>> inconsistent solipsist, because on one hand you recline in the warm embrace
> >>>> of your solipsism, but on the other hand you want other people to listen to
> >>>> you. That's logically inconsistent. I suggest you abandon your solipsism and
> >>>> engage with the grown-up objective world of science.
> >>>
> >>> I can say the same thing about you. In science we learn how things work. And
> >>> with light, we know that light consists of photons, photons are emitted by atoms,
> >> Correct.
> >>> and in empty space those photons travel at the speed of light in a straight line
> >>> from one atom to another atom even if the two atoms are trillions of miles apart.
> >> Nope. That’s not the behavior of photons.
> >
> > Then why don't you tell us how photons actually behave?
> I gave you a good reference, a book for layman. I don’t think it’s good for
> me to replicate the book here. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. Read
> the WHOLE THING because the whole thing is relevant.

I have a hardback copy of "The Character of Physical Law," and I read the whole
thing years ago. About half the pages have passages that I have highlighted or
underlined.

I also have a copy in digital format. Using that copy, I just did a search for the
word "photon" and found this on page 142 (it's on page 134 in my hardcover copy):

------- start quote ------
But of course light is not like a wave of water. Light also comes
in particle-like character, called photons, and as you turn
down the intensity of the light you are not turning down the
effect, you are turning down the number of photons that
are coming out of the source. As I turn down the light I am
getting fewer and fewer photons.
-------- end quote ---------

> >
> >>
> >> You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired
> >> along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS
> >> (not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave.
> >
> > No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating
> > electric and magnetic fields.
> And that’s not what a photon is.

It is what virtually every source says it is. Do you have your own personal definition?

(snip)
> >>> We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to
> >>> move after the photon has gone. The question is: If the source of the light moves
> >>> but the point of emission does not,
> >> The atom that emitted it moves. There is nothing else but the atom. There
> >> is no “point of emission”. There are coordinates for the emission event,
> >> but there is no point that persists at all. An event is a zero-duration
> >> thing. Something with zero duration cannot be said to move or stay put.. All
> >> notion of motion is a non sequitur for events. The only thing that has any
> >> motion is the atom. There IS NOTHING ELSE besides the atom that has
> >> persistence, which might be characterized as having some state of motion.
> >
> > If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission"
> > at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space.
> A location and a specific time, the time of emission. There is no way to
> pin down that location at any time before or any time after, because there
> is no duration. Without duration, you cannot assert whether the point is
> moving or stationary. This should be obvious.

It's obvious that you are just making up nonsense arguments. We know the point
of emission for a photon is stationary because the atom that emitted the photon
was moving and moved on from the point of emission. To claim that the point of
emission is NOT stationary would require an EXPLANATION for WHY you would
believe such a thing and how it could be possible.

> A mosquito is flying and it collides with the windshield of the car. The
> person in the car can point to the mark on the windshield and say, “It
> happened THERE.” But that spot on the windshield is moving relative to the
> road. A person on the road can point to a place on the road where the car
> was when it hit the mosquito. But that spot is now a quarter mile behind
> the car. Is the location of the collision stationary or moving? The
> collision only lasted an instant.

The location of the collision is a location on a spinning earth that is orbiting
the sun which is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So, obviously
that SPOT ON THE WINDSHIELD is moving. If you want to find the spot in
space where the collision occurred, you usually have to have some reason
for doing so. The problem is that we do not know with any precision
how to find that spot. With light we can trace a photon back to a location
because the photon traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from point of emission
to the observing eye.

The point where a photon is emitted is stationary and is left behind as the
earth spins and orbits and moves, but the atom that did the emitting moves
just as the spot where the mosquito hit moves on.

Ed