Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 16:04 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 10:05 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 06:03 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 15:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 09:58 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81b1cff7-bbf7-4831-bebe-a29997062afdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584079 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a891c2a-c9ad-406e-9d01-19f416716e5dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584024 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t474pg$101g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584061 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b707f42-eea0-424d-b120-4d05d2244589n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584064 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t499gl$vrf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584121 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36aea9e2-6c70-4a14-a0ff-c5e75288c563n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584061 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4025591-1e62-4308-b800-e40a58cb3190n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584067 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jclt6bFtcfpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #583930 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t466nt$1maa$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583939 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 4/24/2022 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > > <snip> > >> Those facts have NOTHING to do >> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. > > I keep seeing this posted to Usenet and wonder how many of the photons > we observe in the night sky actually transcended space for millions of > years in a geometrically straight line as the posters impugn. Certainly > some, probably many, but "all?" Don't forget, everything out there in > space is moving and has been for the very long periods it took those > photons to arrive here. Personally I doubt that the "stationary point" > you think may have been the point of origin for your particular photon > to have begun its journey is where you think it was. > > So you're arguing about some point or another that you cannot determine > where it was at the critical moment millions of years ago. Now what is > your point? > In fact, all of the light will have been bent at least a little, but the question is whether the displacement between the apparent location of the source and the real location of the source is outside the experimental resolution of the location. I’m willing to bet that for the majority of sources in the sky, the answer is “no”. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcntscFapjuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #583976 |
On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 4/24/2022 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Those facts have NOTHING to do >>> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >> >> I keep seeing this posted to Usenet and wonder how many of the photons >> we observe in the night sky actually transcended space for millions of >> years in a geometrically straight line as the posters impugn. Certainly >> some, probably many, but "all?" Don't forget, everything out there in >> space is moving and has been for the very long periods it took those >> photons to arrive here. Personally I doubt that the "stationary point" >> you think may have been the point of origin for your particular photon >> to have begun its journey is where you think it was. >> >> So you're arguing about some point or another that you cannot determine >> where it was at the critical moment millions of years ago. Now what is >> your point? >> > > In fact, all of the light will have been bent at least a little, but the > question is whether the displacement between the apparent location of the > source and the real location of the source is outside the experimental > resolution of the location. I’m willing to bet that for the majority of > sources in the sky, the answer is “no”. As I asked earlier, what is the point of a question that cannot be answered other than maybe the point of origin is knowable (within some guessed resolution) and maybe it is not. Happiness is perhaps an acceptable probability? Needless to say that's yet another undefined variable. Beyond that I refer you to your discussion about the viewer's frame of reference, dumping more gasoline on the fire.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t46i1t$lnq$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583998 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 4/24/2022 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Those facts have NOTHING to do >>>> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >>> >>> I keep seeing this posted to Usenet and wonder how many of the photons >>> we observe in the night sky actually transcended space for millions of >>> years in a geometrically straight line as the posters impugn. Certainly >>> some, probably many, but "all?" Don't forget, everything out there in >>> space is moving and has been for the very long periods it took those >>> photons to arrive here. Personally I doubt that the "stationary point" >>> you think may have been the point of origin for your particular photon >>> to have begun its journey is where you think it was. >>> >>> So you're arguing about some point or another that you cannot determine >>> where it was at the critical moment millions of years ago. Now what is >>> your point? >>> >> >> In fact, all of the light will have been bent at least a little, but the >> question is whether the displacement between the apparent location of the >> source and the real location of the source is outside the experimental >> resolution of the location. I’m willing to bet that for the majority of >> sources in the sky, the answer is “no”. > > As I asked earlier, what is the point of a question that cannot be > answered other than maybe the point of origin is knowable (within some > guessed resolution) and maybe it is not. Happiness is perhaps an > acceptable probability? Needless to say that's yet another undefined > variable. > > Beyond that I refer you to your discussion about the viewer's frame of > reference, dumping more gasoline on the fire. > > Well, except in this case, there’s a chance of estimating how many of those displacements ARE discernible outside the resolution of the observed source. I don’t know the answer to it, but I can see a path to coming up with the estimate. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jco28tFbjpcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584011 |
On 4/25/2022 11:25 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/24/2022 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> Those facts have NOTHING to do >>>>> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >>>> >>>> I keep seeing this posted to Usenet and wonder how many of the photons >>>> we observe in the night sky actually transcended space for millions of >>>> years in a geometrically straight line as the posters impugn. Certainly >>>> some, probably many, but "all?" Don't forget, everything out there in >>>> space is moving and has been for the very long periods it took those >>>> photons to arrive here. Personally I doubt that the "stationary point" >>>> you think may have been the point of origin for your particular photon >>>> to have begun its journey is where you think it was. >>>> >>>> So you're arguing about some point or another that you cannot determine >>>> where it was at the critical moment millions of years ago. Now what is >>>> your point? >>>> >>> >>> In fact, all of the light will have been bent at least a little, but the >>> question is whether the displacement between the apparent location of the >>> source and the real location of the source is outside the experimental >>> resolution of the location. I’m willing to bet that for the majority of >>> sources in the sky, the answer is “no”. >> >> As I asked earlier, what is the point of a question that cannot be >> answered other than maybe the point of origin is knowable (within some >> guessed resolution) and maybe it is not. Happiness is perhaps an >> acceptable probability? Needless to say that's yet another undefined >> variable. >> >> Beyond that I refer you to your discussion about the viewer's frame of >> reference, dumping more gasoline on the fire. >> >> > > Well, except in this case, there’s a chance of estimating how many of those > displacements ARE discernible outside the resolution of the observed > source. I don’t know the answer to it, but I can see a path to coming up > with the estimate. There you have iy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c93ea1d5-7422-41ab-87c8-087c5ce4491cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583939 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jco385FbpbfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584017 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t44vq9$gei$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583930 |
On 4/24/2022 4:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, wrote: >>> If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how >>> light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on, >>> but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those >>> atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago. >> You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference. > > I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the > question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. It does; it affects where you see the light come from. For example, if you observe a particular star in Andromeda twice, 6 months apart, the points where the light appears to come from not only depends on how far Andromeda moved during those 6 months but also on the earth's motion (and position), so the two rays of light won't be forming a very narrow triangle with vertices you, Andromeda star 2,500,000 years ago and Andromeda 2,499,999.5 years ago because stellar aberration affects where Andromeda and the star appears to be. Aberration changes the angle more than 6 months of approaching does. > What is seen from other "frames of reference" has NOTHING to do with what > I SEE. And what I see is all that I am discussing. We have established that you are a solipsist, at least regarding what you observe. > >> >> Remember, straight lines map to straight lines from one frame to another, so the fact that a pulse of light moves in a straight line does not single out any particular frame, it just means that the angle of the line is different in terms of different frames of reference (aberration). This doesn't tell us anything about how light is created that we didn't already know. And it doesn't uniquely single out any absolute "stationary points in space". The only plausible absolute rest frame is the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is entirely consistent with local Lorentz invariance. > > What you seem to be saying is that you cannot comprehend a single point of > view. He does, but is just reminding you everyone else at different locations will disagree slightly. Yes, as a solipsist, you don't care, you are interested in only your point. > You ONLY understand Relativity and how different observers see things > differently. THAT IS NOT OF CONCERN TO ME. I'm only interested in what I see. > >>> The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE. >> Has your refrigerator moved since yesterday, or is it at the same point in space? > > My refrigerator is NOT emitting photons into space from millions of miles away!!! But it is emitting, or at least reflecting, photons. Has it moved since yesterday? > How can you bring up such an idiotic argument???? > >>> I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location. >> Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake? > > I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that > I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun > is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do > with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were > emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. First of all, clarify "stationary", "stationary" relative to what? Relative to you? To Andromeda? While you could argue about a location of a point in space (unique to you) by using the x,y,z coordinates of the event, "stationary point in space" makes no sense. Space does not move; things in space move, and then only with respect to something else (more specifically some frame where the 'something' is stationary). Second, Andromeda was moving relative to where the earth was 2.5 million years ago. Which is why you should specify stationary relative to yourself or relative to Andromeda or something else. Einstein specifically stated that the properties of motion cannot be applied to a point in empty space. That would also mean it would be meaningless to call a point in empty space "stationary" as stationary is a property of motion. > The photons > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. > >>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how >>> fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? >> I didn't say you were a rational or logical solipsist, merely that you are (by your own testimony) a solipsist. >>> At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in >>> other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me >>> in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years >>> ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise >>> the line to it would not be straight... >> >> That is not true. Again, the line is straight in terms of every frame of reference, so your belief that straightness singles out a particular point in space is simply fallacious reasoning. > > CAN"T YOU UNDERSTAND???? The photons that I SEE are ONLY seen by me. Yes, it's clear you're a solipsist regarding this. > Everyone else sees DIFFERENT PHOTONS! I don't care about those photons!! > I'm ONLY talking about photons that were emitted by atoms at a STATIONARY > POINT IN SPACE and traveled from that point IN A STRAIGHT LINE to my telescope > and my eye. Empty points in space don't have the property of motion (or lack of motion). > >> Also, you are not going to be able to understand the subject without accounting for frames of reference. This isn't limited to special relativity, it applies to Newtonian relativity as well. You need to specify your frame of reference, or you are just spouting nonsense. It's as if you are saying you want to understand Niagra Falls but you are not willing to talk about water. > > No, what you do not seem to be able to understand is that light photons travel > from one POINT to another. Yes. > OTHER "frames of reference" see OTHER photons. > Those other photons are of NO CONCERN TO ME. You mean other observers. Everyone/everything is in every possible frame of reference. You are simply concerned with the frame in which you are stationary and at the origin. > > Relativity is NOT the subject of my argument. My argument is ONLY about > HOW LIGHT WORKS according to Einstein's Second Postulate, specifically > ONE photon traveling from a star in Andromeda to my eye. > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4efd137-1d9c-4058-954e-8614f2d7bfb7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583950 |
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 9:08:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/24/2022 4:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:12:49 AM UTC-7, wrote: > >>> If Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how > >>> light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on, > >>> but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those > >>> atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago. > >> You should learn about stellar aberration. When astronomers look at stars and galaxies, they notice a seasonal shift in the apparent positions of all the stars and galaxies, and this shift is due to the changing motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's what causes stellar aberration. Mind you, this is different from parallax (which is negligible for galaxies anyway), this is specifically due to our changing state of motion, i.e., our changing frame of reference. So, you see, changing our frame of reference affects where we see Andromeda today, and where we would extrapolate its earlier positions. The only effect we typically notice is our 6-month seasonal effect, but this is superimposed on the aberration due to the Sun's motion and the Milky Way's motion, etc., we just don't detect those differences because they are always present, whereas our seasonal motion changes direction every 6 months, so we can see the difference. > > > > I know about stellar aberration. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the > > question of whether or not light comes from a stationary point in space. > It does; it affects where you see the light come from. For example, if > you observe a particular star in Andromeda twice, 6 months apart, the > points where the light appears to come from not only depends on how far > Andromeda moved during those 6 months but also on the earth's motion > (and position), so the two rays of light won't be forming a very narrow > triangle with vertices you, Andromeda star 2,500,000 years ago and > Andromeda 2,499,999.5 years ago because stellar aberration affects where > Andromeda and the star appears to be. Aberration changes the angle more > than 6 months of approaching does. Why can't people here understand that if YOU see a light from a star, you are seeing DIFFERENT PHOTONS that what I see. The discussion is NOT about how you see different photons that what I see, it is only about the photons that I see and how those photons traveled at the speed of light in a STRAIGHT LINE from where they were EMITTED to my eye. (snip more nonsense) > > Einstein specifically stated that the properties of motion cannot be > applied to a point in empty space. That would also mean it would be > meaningless to call a point in empty space "stationary" as stationary is > a property of motion. The "properties of motion cannot be applied to a point in empty space" because empty space is stationary. "Stationary" is the ABSENCE OF MOTION, it is not a "property of motion." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t46q58$eo2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584023 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t45k6l$vct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #583921 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01557d6b-f05b-4e25-b4a0-813de82fe18dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583958 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said: > > > How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which > > show how fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? > Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions > that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of > the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue > shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can > be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? > > Mikko The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars. The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations. An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t48f1n$t6q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584029 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web