On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:23 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake 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.

It's just something that bugs me. The alternative explanations seem logical,
but I don't know if anyone ever debunked them with mathematics.

Ed

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:10:41 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 17:17:55 UTC-4, 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.

Yes, I know about dark matter. It's a fascinating subject. I have my own
theory about what it is, but there's no way to confirm it, so I just keep my
theory to myself.

There is no reason to believe that dark matter exists in any significant amount
BETWEEN galaxies. It seems to collect in galaxies just as normal matter does.

Ed

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:12:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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".

If it's not relevant, why mention it?

> >
> >>>
> >>> 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.

Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space.
It's a point in space with NO "special properties."
And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens.
It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon.

Ed

(snip)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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:
>
(snip)
> >> 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.

I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.

It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.

The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into
motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together.
And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too
much got too close together.

The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of
the Big Bang. The only thing that remained stationary is empty space.
Moving through empty space requires energy.

Ed

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> 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.

Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
and magnetic fields. Just do a Google search for 'what is a photon
made of': https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+photon+made+of&

>
> 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.

It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns.

>
> [#] 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?

I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed
me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is
pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that.

> > 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.

We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon back
to its point of origin. It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was
located when it emitted the photon. "Duration" has nothing to do with anything,
since a photon is emitted instantaneously from a stationary point in space
that is left behind when the emitter moves.

Ed

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

Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one
little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message.

What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior
of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles?

>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?

Heck no, not a personal definition. And “virtually every source” must not
include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is.

>
> (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.

No, you know no such thing. You know there was an EVENT, something that has
no persistence in time, of the emission. You know that the atom emitted the
photon, and whether the atom is moving or not is an accident of choice of
reference frame. It may be moving RELATIVE to YOU, but that doesn’t make
any statement that the emitting atom is moving absolutely. Likewise, you
can point to a location where the emission event happened, and hold your
pointing finger in one place, which simply means you are choosing a point
in space that is at rest RELATIVE to YOU, but that does not mean at all
that the point in space is absolutely at rest, does it? In face, since you
can argue with some conviction that YOU are moving (because you are
standing on a spinning planet orbiting around a moving star), then any
point that is fixed RELATIVE to YOU is not likely at all to be absolutely
stationary.

> 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.

There is absolutely NO REASON to pin that location to be fixed relative to
the surface of the earth, is there? There is NO REASON to say that as the
earth’s surface moves, so does the location. Why would you tie the location
of events to something so arbitrary as the surface of the earth?

> 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
>

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

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> 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.

Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?"

Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
at 1,342,161 mph.

Using trigonometry we can view things from one point in space in the
summer and from another point about 185 million miles away in the winter.
That allows us to measure distances to some objects in space. A type
of star called a "Cepheid variable" pulses at a specific rate, and
because light travels at a specific rate, we can determine how far away
a Cepheid variable is even if it is trillions of miles away. And, of course,
there are ways to measure changes in light frequency and in photon arrival
frequencies.

Or we can just Google the answer: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/is-it-true-that-the-andromeda-galaxy-is-blueshifted-and-moving-toward-us/

Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:

(snip)

> >> 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 ---------
> >
> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one
> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message.
>
> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior
> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles?

We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS. Particles
come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them
contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles.
Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to
other particles.

> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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?
> Heck no, not a personal definition. And “virtually every source” must not
> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is.

Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many
physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them.
Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when
a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a
photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon
can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to
flunk the course.

(snip arguments about mathematical nonsense and not about what happens in reality)

Ed

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're 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.

Ah, so you are 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's
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're 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.

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"?

The Big Bang has a straight line that traces back to a "stationary point in space"

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. NONE contains a
description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
page 1254;

------ Start quote ------

When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
radiation.
We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.

------- end quote ------
The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman

How can a photon sometimes act like a wave and sometimes like a particle?
Don't ask the teacher, you'll just embarrass him. He probably has no clue.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?"
>
> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
> at 1,342,161 mph.

In those cases, we know about the motion because these things complete
closed orbits. The spinning of the earth, the earth’s orbit around the sun,
the sun’s orbit around the galaxy are all examples. You can’t complete a
lap without moving. But now Andromeda…. No evidence of a closed lap, so
what’s the evidence that it is absolutely moving? RELATIVELY moving with
respect to us, sure, we can do that with a number of means. But that could
mean Andromeda is not moving and we are moving, or vice versa, or both are
moving.

Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
moving.

>
> Using trigonometry we can view things from one point in space in the
> summer and from another point about 185 million miles away in the winter.
> That allows us to measure distances to some objects in space. A type
> of star called a "Cepheid variable" pulses at a specific rate, and
> because light travels at a specific rate, we can determine how far away
> a Cepheid variable is even if it is trillions of miles away. And, of course,
> there are ways to measure changes in light frequency and in photon arrival
> frequencies.
>
> Or we can just Google the answer:
> https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/is-it-true-that-the-andromeda-galaxy-is-blueshifted-and-moving-toward-us/
>
> Ed
>

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

On April 25, Stan Fultoni 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?

Because each has his own measurement of when the nova exploded.
Then applying the formulas, they locate it at various places.

So while everyone believes he knows THE spot where it
occurred, they cannot rendezvous. It's very non-intuitive,
even if educated in the theory.
--
Rich

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:23 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake 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.
>
> It's just something that bugs me. The alternative explanations seem logical,
> but I don't know if anyone ever debunked them with mathematics.
>
> Ed
>

Worse, they debunked them with data. That is, those alternative
explanations come with necessary consequences. That is, “If the explanation
is X, then not only does this explain the bending of light but we would
ALSO expect to see Z in the amount W.” Then they looked for the outcome Z
in real observational data and either did not find it at all, or found it
but in a number quite a bit different than the predicted W. This is how
science rules out alternative explanations. You knew that, right?

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> 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 ---------
>>>
>> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one
>> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message.
>>
>> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior
>> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles?
>
> We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS.

Doesn’t matter. Feynman, recall, said that photons behave like PARTICLES.
So then the question is, how do PARTICLES behave (including photons)?
That’s what he spends the book discussing, how particles behave (including
photons).

> Particles
> come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them
> contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles.
> Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to
> other particles.

Photons do not travel in straight lines. That is the point.
And neutrinos (also particles) do not cling to other particles. So it’s
important that you do not attach attributes to particles that do not
pertain.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>> Heck no, not a personal definition. And “virtually every source” must not
>> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is.
>
> Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many
> physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them.

Then you’re not looking at the right textbooks. I have whole textbooks that
are about photons.

> Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when
> a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a
> photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon
> can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to
> flunk the course.

That’s actually straightforward. A photon is neither a classical wave nor a
classical particle. It is a new thing, a field quantum (what Feynman calls
a particle, which is much different than a classical particle). Field
quanta have some properties of particles and some properties of waves,
while not being either one. There’s nothing wrong with that. The erroneous
assumption is that EVERYTHING is either a particle or a wave and it must be
one or the other. That’s simply not true. There is a new kind of thing not
imagined in the 19th century — a field quantum.

Now, to understand what a field quantum is and how it behaves, you’re going
to find books with some mathematics in them. Finding books without any
mathematics that gives you a clear idea what a field quantum is — that’s
going to be a struggle.

>
> (snip arguments about mathematical nonsense and not about what happens in reality)
>
> Ed
>

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

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>
> The Big Bang has a straight line that traces back to a "stationary point in space"
>

Nope, not at all. Not one eensy bit right.

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.

What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.

> NONE contains a
> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
> page 1254;
>
> ------ Start quote ------
>
> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
> radiation.
> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
>
> ------- end quote ------
> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman

It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?

>
> How can a photon sometimes act like a wave and sometimes like a particle?
> Don't ask the teacher, you'll just embarrass him. He probably has no clue.

Don’t be silly, it’s a very well understood answer. In fact, I just gave
you a snippet of the answer in another post.

If it helps, echidnas lay eggs like birds and have spines like fish, but
echidnas are neither birds nor fish, and it would be a mistake to claim
that all animals are either fish or birds. This seems obvious, but now ask
yourself the question why you’d insist that all things are either particles
or are waves, and that no other category makes sense, and if there were
another category it could share no traits with either particles nor waves.

>
> Ed
>

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The Big Bang has a straight line that traces back to a "stationary point in space"
> >
>
> Nope, not at all. Not one eensy bit right.

if there was no force on the moon...the moon would travel in a straight line.

That line can be traced back to a "stationary point in space".

But you probably don't know why it travels in a straight line...and I won't 'press' you on it.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 4/26/22 11:56 AM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> [... lots of correct statements]
> you are taking the isotropic CMBR frame as absolute rest.

But there is no such "frame". Right here in the solar system there is
one such locally-inertial frame, but at the locations of other galaxies,
their locally-inertial isotropic CMBR frame is moving relative to ours.
The key is these are LOCALLY inertial frames, not global ones. There are
no globally-inertial frames in the universe we inhabit, and the
locally-inertial isotropic CMBR frames differ throughout the cosmos.

Tom Roberts

On 4/26/2022 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

<snip>

>> 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?
>
> I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed
> me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is
> pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that.

Taken as a general word and ignoring physics for a moment do you know
and understand what the word "relativity" or "relative notion" mean?

Years of playing with a radar gun have taught you nothing worthwhile.

>>> 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.
>
> We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon back
> to its point of origin.

How can I make this clearer? No. We know that light thinks (if it could
think) it moves in straight lines, but the realities of space-time show
that with curved space, what you think (and a photon would think if it
could) is a straight line is not. (Inside the context of space-time it
appears to be a straight line, but viewed from the outside it is not. So
where you think light came from it didn't.

> It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was
> located when it emitted the photon.

(skip)

> "Duration" has nothing to do with anything,
> since a photon is emitted instantaneously

Well there's "duration" if I ever saw it....

> from a stationary point in space
> that is left behind when the emitter moves.

And there you have it, duration plays a significant role. One second
later the apparent source has moved. A point of light coming from a star
appears to you to be stationary because it is so far away. That source
might not even exist any more after the millions of years it took for
the light to get to you.

I asked earlier what's the point, in other words what's the value, of
knowing where something that might not even exist any more might have
been some millions of years ago?

It appears to me that you are attempting to create a category of points
that are stationary *because* of some instantaneous event that occurred
at a particular point in space-time but there's nothing else significant
about that point.

Given that definition the sky is full of such stationary points that
have no significance to humanity or for any reason worth mentioning.

This, Odd Bodkin, is closer to an example similar to angels dancing on
the head of a pin so we're in agreement on that point.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > you are taking the isotropic CMBR frame as absolute rest.
> But there is no such "frame".

That was explained in detail previously, i.e., the reference is to the union of world lines that are each at rest in the local inertial coordinates in which the CMBR and distant galaxies are maximally isotropic. This gives a unique foliation that is the cosmological absolute rest system of coordinates. This is what Ed tacitly has in mind when he considers how Andromeda is "actually" moving. The point is that this doesn't conflict with local Lorentz invariance, which is what Ed is trying to overthrow.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed
>> me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is
>> pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that.
>
> Taken as a general word and ignoring physics for a moment do you know
> and understand what the word "relativity" or "relative notion" mean?
>
> Years of playing with a radar gun have taught you nothing worthwhile.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon back
>> to its point of origin.
>
> How can I make this clearer? No. We know that light thinks (if it could
> think) it moves in straight lines, but the realities of space-time show
> that with curved space, what you think (and a photon would think if it
> could) is a straight line is not. (Inside the context of space-time it
> appears to be a straight line, but viewed from the outside it is not. So
> where you think light came from it didn't.
>

Well that’s true, but even aside from that there is the matter that photons
do not move in straight lines even in flat spacetime. That’s one of the key
revelations of the double slit experiment. There IS no straight line path
that takes the photon from the source to a one of the bright spots on the
diffraction pattern.

Now, I know that Ed has opined that it is possible that these interference
patterns come from a photon hitting the left edge of one of the slits and
being re-radiated toward the right, to account for a bright spot to the
right of the slit. This however does not explain why there are multiple
peaks and not just two broad ones. Nor does it explain how a single edge
(like the edge of a razor blade) can manage to get light BEHIND the
obstruction. These are details that he’s not thought about, nor probably
has not even been exposed to, which is why I suggested the FULL reading of
the book i did.

>> It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was
>> located when it emitted the photon.
>
> (skip)
>
>> "Duration" has nothing to do with anything,
>> since a photon is emitted instantaneously
>
> Well there's "duration" if I ever saw it....
>
>> from a stationary point in space
>> that is left behind when the emitter moves.
>
> And there you have it, duration plays a significant role. One second
> later the apparent source has moved. A point of light coming from a star
> appears to you to be stationary because it is so far away. That source
> might not even exist any more after the millions of years it took for
> the light to get to you.
>
> I asked earlier what's the point, in other words what's the value, of
> knowing where something that might not even exist any more might have
> been some millions of years ago?
>
> It appears to me that you are attempting to create a category of points
> that are stationary *because* of some instantaneous event that occurred
> at a particular point in space-time but there's nothing else significant
> about that point.
>
> Given that definition the sky is full of such stationary points that
> have no significance to humanity or for any reason worth mentioning.
>
> This, Odd Bodkin, is closer to an example similar to angels dancing on
> the head of a pin so we're in agreement on that point.
>

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

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?"
> >
> > Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
> > on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
> > The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
> > the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
> > at 1,342,161 mph.
> In those cases, we know about the motion because these things complete
> closed orbits. The spinning of the earth, the earth’s orbit around the sun,
> the sun’s orbit around the galaxy are all examples. You can’t complete a
> lap without moving. But now Andromeda…. No evidence of a closed lap, so
> what’s the evidence that it is absolutely moving? RELATIVELY moving with
> respect to us, sure, we can do that with a number of means. But that could
> mean Andromeda is not moving and we are moving, or vice versa, or both are
> moving.
>
> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
> moving.

Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that
everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang.
That determination was the result of the discovery that NEARLY everything in
our visible universe appears red-shifted to us, and the farther away an object is
from us, the more red-shifted it is.

Andromeda is somewhat blue shifted. It is moving toward us and is evidently
going to crash into the Milky Way in about five billion years. There are other
objects in that general direction that are also blue shifted. That could be
because we are moving in that direction as we move away from the point
of the Big Bang.

Plus, all the stars in Andromeda, like all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy, are
orbiting around a Black Hole that is at the center of every galaxy we can see.

Logically, therefore, neither Andromeda nor the Milky Way can be stationary..

And "close laps" only apply things in orbit. Neither Andromeda or the Milky
Way is in orbit around anything - as far as we know. They are simply moving
away from the point of the Big Bang - like virtually all other galaxies.

Ed

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>>> 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 ---------
> >>>
> >> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one
> >> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message.
> >>
> >> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior
> >> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles?
> >
> > We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS.
> Doesn’t matter. Feynman, recall, said that photons behave like PARTICLES.

Actually, what he said was that photons are NOT WAVES, they are particles.
His definition of a particle was simply that you can COUNT the particles as
they hit a photomultiplier, and the brighter the light, the more particles that
hit the photomultiplier.

> So then the question is, how do PARTICLES behave (including photons)?
> That’s what he spends the book discussing, how particles behave (including
> photons).

Yes, but there are many different kinds of particles, and they behave in
different ways. So, you cannot generalize "particles" other than to say
they are individual bits of something, they are NOT WAVES.

> > Particles
> > come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them
> > contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles.
> > Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to
> > other particles.
> Photons do not travel in straight lines. That is the point.

PHOTONS DO TRAVEL IN STRAIGHT LINES. That is one attribute that
distinguishes photons from some other "particles."

> And neutrinos (also particles) do not cling to other particles. So it’s
> important that you do not attach attributes to particles that do not
> pertain.

Right. I didn't do that. Different types of "particles" have different attributes.
The only difference between photon types is how much energy they contain.

> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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?
> >> Heck no, not a personal definition. And “virtually every source” must not
> >> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is.
> >
> > Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many
> > physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them.
> Then you’re not looking at the right textbooks. I have whole textbooks that
> are about photons.
> > Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when
> > a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a
> > photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon
> > can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to
> > flunk the course.
> That’s actually straightforward. A photon is neither a classical wave nor a
> classical particle. It is a new thing, a field quantum (what Feynman calls
> a particle, which is much different than a classical particle). Field
> quanta have some properties of particles and some properties of waves,
> while not being either one. There’s nothing wrong with that. The erroneous
> assumption is that EVERYTHING is either a particle or a wave and it must be
> one or the other. That’s simply not true. There is a new kind of thing not
> imagined in the 19th century — a field quantum.

If you are going to give a photon a name, call it a "photon" and do not call it
a particle. AND DEFINE exactly what a photon is. "Field Quantum" is a name
given to lots of different objects, including objects with mass, and objects
which cannot travel at the speed of light.

>
> Now, to understand what a field quantum is and how it behaves, you’re going
> to find books with some mathematics in them. Finding books without any
> mathematics that gives you a clear idea what a field quantum is — that’s
> going to be a struggle.

It's easier to just Google "What is a Field Quantum?" https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+field+quantum

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda
>>> galaxy is moving?"
>>>
>>> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
>>> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
>>> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
>>> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
>>> at 1,342,161 mph.
>> In those cases, we know about the motion because these things complete
>> closed orbits. The spinning of the earth, the earth’s orbit around the sun,
>> the sun’s orbit around the galaxy are all examples. You can’t complete a
>> lap without moving. But now Andromeda…. No evidence of a closed lap, so
>> what’s the evidence that it is absolutely moving? RELATIVELY moving with
>> respect to us, sure, we can do that with a number of means. But that could
>> mean Andromeda is not moving and we are moving, or vice versa, or both are
>> moving.
>>
>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s
>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way
>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from
>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be
>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were
>> moving.
>
> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that
> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big
Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything
is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is
no identifiable point these are all moving away from.

Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES
SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this
IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct
opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First,
it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what
you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back,
recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is
actually said.

Then, when you have absorbed that fact, this means that there IS NO POINT
IN SPACE that is absolutely stationary that all galaxies are receding from.
This also means that the ONLY THING that is said is that galaxies are
receding, on the whole, from each other. (Andromeda and the Milky Way are a
notable exception to this average behavior. That receding from each other
is a statement about RELATIVE MOTION only. If I tell you that two trucks
are observed to be receding from each other, you have no idea whether this
means one of them is stationary and the other moving, or whether both
trucks are moving. You’d need some external reference, which is absent from
the statement that the two truck are receding from each other. Likewise, if
I say galaxies are on the whole receding from each other (which is the
statement that the Big Bang ACTUALLY SAYS), then you don’t know whether one
is stationary and the other moving or whether both are moving; all you have
is a statement of RELATIVE motion.

> That determination was the result of the discovery that NEARLY everything in
> our visible universe appears red-shifted to us, and the farther away an object is
> from us, the more red-shifted it is.
>
> Andromeda is somewhat blue shifted. It is moving toward us and is evidently
> going to crash into the Milky Way in about five billion years. There are other
> objects in that general direction that are also blue shifted. That could be
> because we are moving in that direction as we move away from the point
> of the Big Bang.
>
> Plus, all the stars in Andromeda, like all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy, are
> orbiting around a Black Hole that is at the center of every galaxy we can see.
>
> Logically, therefore, neither Andromeda nor the Milky Way can be stationary.
>
> And "close laps" only apply things in orbit. Neither Andromeda or the Milky
> Way is in orbit around anything - as far as we know.

That’s right. That’s why the rule about how we know the earth is rotating
and revolving and the Milky Way is rotating and so we know they are MOVING
does NOT work for galaxies. You CANNOT tell that they are moving BECAUSE
they are not orbiting.

> They are simply moving
> away from the point of the Big Bang - like virtually all other galaxies.

Just a reminder: There IS NO center of the Big Bang. This is what the Big
Bang model says, whether you can make sense of that or not.

>
> Ed
>
>

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