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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eee40ae9-370b-42c1-9343-4a46a6a95970n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583935 |
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-5, Dong Vassilikos wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has > > NOTHING to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I > > see come from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? > you never know unless compared to something similar known to be > stationary, or moving to a certain speed. There is no object in our known universe that is known to be stationary. We know, however, that light always travels at 299,792,458 meters per second. So, the question is: 299,792,458 meters per second RELATIVE TO WHAT? When we measure the speed of light in a laboratory, the speed is measured to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND relative to the laboratory. But the laboratory is moving through space as the earth spins on its axis, as the earth orbits the sun, as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc. Einstein explained that the faster an object moves, the slower TIME passes for that object. He stated "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." That means that a second is longer on the equator than at one of the poles. The question that poses is: Where would time pass faster than anywhere else? The answer seems to be: At a stationary point in space. Find where time passes faster than anywhere else, and you have found a stationary point in space. To say that there can be no such thing is saying that time does not relate to speed, even though many many experiments say you are wrong. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t46onq$1pop$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584001 |
On 4/25/2022 11:54 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-5, Dong Vassilikos wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has
>>> NOTHING to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I
>>> see come from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE?
>> you never know unless compared to something similar known to be
>> stationary, or moving to a certain speed.
>
> There is no object in our known universe that is known to be stationary.
Statement makes no sense, since you didn't state stationary relative to
what.
> We know, however, that light always travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.
> So, the question is: 299,792,458 meters per second RELATIVE TO WHAT?
Relative to any and every inertial frame.
>
> When we measure the speed of light in a laboratory, the speed is measured
> to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND relative to the laboratory. But the
> laboratory is moving through space as the earth spins on its axis, as the
> earth orbits the sun, as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc.
>
> Einstein explained that the faster an object moves, the slower TIME passes for
> that object.
No he didn't. That is crap YOU made up, and you blame Einstein for YOUR
crap.
> He stated "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
> by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the
> poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(this is actually wrong because Einstein didn't know about GR [yet])
You have to compare TWO clocks here, the one stationary relative to the
earth('s center), at the pole, and the other on the equator. It is also
complicated that this is circular motion, and is really the "traveling
twin" situation. However, for simple time dilation, A sees B's clock
running slow and B sees A's clock running slow. He does NOT claim that a
"moving" clock runs slow, because according to B, A is moving, and
according to A, B is moving.
>
> That means that a second is longer on the equator than at one of the poles.
It means no such thing. There is only one second.
>
> The question that poses is: Where would time pass faster than anywhere
> else?
With respect to what? The answer is a clock stationary wrt. yourself
will have no time dilation, and that's the fastest possible. For GR,
add in as far as possible from masses.
Also you appear not to understand the difference between "time" and
"second". Do you understand the difference between "length" and "meter"?
>
> The answer seems to be: At a stationary point in space. Find where time
> passes faster than anywhere else, and you have found a stationary point
> in space.
Stationary with respect to what? (ignoring, yet again, empty space
cannot be "stationary")
> To say that there can be no such thing is saying that time
> does not relate to speed, even though many many experiments say you
> are wrong.
You seem to be thinking that there is some magic place in space where
"time is fastest". Obviously, this violates the first postulate of SR,
some magic location with different physics, the special property of the
fastest time.
Also, Einstein himself emphasized speed is relative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t450rc$tvp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583922 |
On 4/24/2022 2:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>>>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, >>>>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was >>>>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. >>>> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all >>>> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable >>>> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which >>>> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million >>>> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". >>> >>> The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, >>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far >>> as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." >> Out of context. > > Nope. It is exactly on point. Wrong. He was saying how a simple mathematical formula will not describe exactly what happens, because there will be loads of tiny effects, such as there really is air resistance, there are no frictionless surfaces etc. etc. For the same reason, a physical problem cannot be reduced to a simple math formula. Everything is an approximation with some sort of error. > >>> >>> I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a >>> telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." >> There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are >> using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is >> moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on >> earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing >> Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda >> is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use >> such a frame. > > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING > to do with the question. Yes it is established you're a solipsist regarding this. > The question is: Did the light that I see come from > a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? It was an event, with an (x,y,z,t) coordinate relative to you. Ignore the t, and you have a point in space. But only things have motion, empty space having motion is meaningless. > >>> I am just trying >>> to understand what I see. >> From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. >>> And I see photons coming from a point in space that >>> I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million >>> years ago. >> And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see >> how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude >> Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference >> frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. > > I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed > and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics. So you accept someone else's mathematics. Meaning you admit there *is* mathematics, even if you don't do it. But unless you read a similar problem, you did estimate Andromeda moves enough in 2.5 million years that the space it occupied back then has been vacated and Andromeda is definitely not there now. > >> >> From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, >> ..... yada yada yada. > > I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!! > I'm just trying to understand what I see. > >>> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points Logically, you may conclude that since Andromeda was moving relative to earth, you *could* conclude it was from a moving point, and blueshift would confirm that, except for the fact points in space don't have a property of motion. >>> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. >> Only from your reference. > > Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in. > >> First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. >> Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations. > > WHO CARES????? I don't! Solipsism galore! > >> >> Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not >> aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure >> out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the >> point is no longer located within Andromeda. > > Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the > implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came > from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE. A point in space (unique to yourself) may make sense. "Stationary", of course, does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t466nr$1maa$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583922 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>>>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, >>>>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was >>>>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. >>>> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all >>>> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable >>>> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which >>>> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million >>>> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". >>> >>> The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, >>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far >>> as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." >> Out of context. > > Nope. It is exactly on point. > >>> >>> I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a >>> telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." >> There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are >> using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is >> moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on >> earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing >> Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda >> is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use >> such a frame. > > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING > to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from > a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? Space cannot have the property of moving or not moving. > >>> I am just trying >>> to understand what I see. >> From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. >>> And I see photons coming from a point in space that >>> I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million >>> years ago. >> And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see >> how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude >> Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference >> frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. > > I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed > and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics. > >> >> From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, >> ..... yada yada yada. > > I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!! > I'm just trying to understand what I see. > >>> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points >>> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. >> Only from your reference. > > Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in. > >> First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. >> Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations. > > WHO CARES????? I don't! > >> >> Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not >> aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure >> out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the >> point is no longer located within Andromeda. > > Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the > implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came > from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a9a6455-f593-4160-9c19-6f0e7c82c9den@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583922 |
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:24:10 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > > >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, > > >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was > > >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. > > >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all > > >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable > > >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which > > >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million > > >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > > > > > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, > > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far > > > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > > Out of context. > Nope. It is exactly on point. > > > > > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a > > > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." > > There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are > > using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is > > moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on > > earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing > > Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda > > is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use > > such a frame. > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING > to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from > a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? > > > I am just trying > > > to understand what I see. > > From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. > > > And I see photons coming from a point in space that > > > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million > > > years ago. > > And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see > > how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude > > Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference > > frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. > I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed > and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics. > > > > From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, > > ..... yada yada yada. > > I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!! > I'm just trying to understand what I see. > > > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points > > > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. > > Only from your reference. > Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in. > > First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. > > Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations. > WHO CARES????? I don't! > > > > Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not > > aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure > > out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the > > point is no longer located within Andromeda. > Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the > implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came > from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE. Every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion.That means that the light you see came from a moving source. This is true since you are on a planet that is moving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3caf0858-4be3-4224-b780-3e06526fe294n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584021 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:24:10 PM UTC-4, wrote: > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > > >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, > > > >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was > > > >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. > > > >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all > > > >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable > > > >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which > > > >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million > > > >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > > > > > > > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, > > > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far > > > > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > > > Out of context. > > Nope. It is exactly on point. > > > > > > > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a > > > > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." > > > There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are > > > using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is > > > moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on > > > earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing > > > Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda > > > is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use > > > such a frame. > > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING > > to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from > > a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? > > > > I am just trying > > > > to understand what I see. > > > From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. > > > > And I see photons coming from a point in space that > > > > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million > > > > years ago. > > > And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see > > > how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude > > > Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference > > > frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. > > I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed > > and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics. > > > > > > From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, > > > ..... yada yada yada. > > > > I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!! > > I'm just trying to understand what I see. > > > > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points > > > > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. > > > Only from your reference. > > Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in. > > > First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. > > > Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations. > > WHO CARES????? I don't! > > > > > > Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not > > > aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure > > > out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the > > > point is no longer located within Andromeda. > > Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the > > implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came > > from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE. > Every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion.That means that the light you see came from a moving source. This is true since you are on a planet that is moving. No one is disputing that. The discussion isn't about the source (the atom that produced the photon), it is about the LOCATION IN SPACE where the photon was created and emitted. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$aa7a0$9989da38$a66e9654$585563e3@xurrppjn.cn> |
| In reply to | #584058 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:45:04 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote: >> Every object in our universe is in a state of absolute motion.That >> means that the light you see came from a moving source. This is true >> since you are on a planet that is moving. > > No one is disputing that. The discussion isn't about the source (the > atom that produced the photon), it is about the LOCATION IN SPACE where > the photon was created and emitted. you throw two atomic bombs over his country. What a shame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t465pr$19uj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583898 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." No, and this is a critical point. You are thinking that whatever vantage point you have is a single inertial reference frame. But in fact, every time you change your motion (i.e. every time you accelerate), you are CHANGING from one inertial reference frame to another. That is, if you stand up in your chair, walk down the driveway, turn left and walk up the sidewalk, stop to get the mail from the mailbox, turn around to walk back down the sidewalk, turn right to walk up the driveway, and sit back down in your chair, you have occupied and been at rest in not one but at least six DIFFERENT inertial reference frames. Reference frame has a special meaning in physics, and it is DIFFERENT than the meaning you will find if you look up that term in the dictionary. > I am just trying > to understand what I see. And I see photons coming from a point in space that > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million > years ago. > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. I think you are confusing “logically” with “it is a reasonable hypothesis”. This does not mean the reasonable hypothesis is correct. Reality is filled full of cases with many reasonable hypothesis, most of which are wrong even though they are reasonable. Please do not conclude from “it makes sense to me” that “it is true”. > >> >> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all >> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference >> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which >> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be >> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in >> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the >> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity >> of simultaneity. > > Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the > only one making an observation. But the fact of the matter is that laws of physics describe what is happening whether there is one or a thousand different observers. THAT is reality, not just the perspective of one observer. > > (Snip more of the same.) > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32ae75a3-f803-4a5d-ac83-57b39d00e310n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583856 |
On April 23, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, >> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was >> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. > > The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all > directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable > you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which > is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million > years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all > directions at the speed c, > So, in terms of local physics, there is no physically distinguished > "absolute rest", and therefore we can't absolutely > say that a past event occurred at some specific "point in space". You danced around Ed's question, with a lecture on relativity. Let's make it plainer. Nova Nike explodes in Andromeda. Observers all over our galaxy trace the light rays back to their source. Regardless of their locations or motion, they all agree on its 'point in space', the origin, the Nike Point. They record its position, and fix their cameras on that spot, for all future, continually compensating for their own motion. They ignore Andromeda, the entire star system. They're only interested in the 'point in space'. Particular, arbitrary co-ordinates or systems are likewise irrelevant. Nike itself evaporates completely, but no matter, it's unnecessary. The Interstellar Space Yacht Assoc. plans its 2022 annual convention. They're all on Fazebook IM, they all watched the nova. They agree to meet at THAT POINT IN SPACE. A luxury space liner has been chartered, waiting for them there. Each yacht man has his own star map, no common frame of reference. But everyone agrees, they know where the Nike Point is. See you there! (WHEN is a separate question) Do they converge, or do they not? If so, then Ed's intuition is validated. If impossible, you have to explain why. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ae7e621-8592-409e-b942-71c3e51fa4b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584044 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:11:25 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > Particular, arbitrary co-ordinates or systems are likewise irrelevant. No, they are not, as explained in the previous messages. > Do they converge, or do they not? Not unless they are all using the same frame of reference. If you are going to meet Ed where his refrigerator was yesterday, where would you go? Do you understand why the answer depends on your frame of reference? Try answering based on the Sun's frame, and the Milky Way's frame, and the isotropic CMBR frame. Do you get the same answer each time? (Hint: Of course not.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e225d4d-183e-4075-9b0c-5e7213127fe1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584072 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcjf55Ff15eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #583850 |
On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into dust thousands of years ago. > > Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. > > That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. > > Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. > > Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved (relocated.) Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary points and space have. Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it is fun to think about. Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star because of the sun's gravity.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t42gvb$1bbr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583867 |
On 4/23/2022 7:07 PM, whodat wrote: > On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we >> see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some >> of the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded >> into dust thousands of years ago. >> >> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in >> empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the >> state of motion of the emitting body. >> >> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per >> second regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the >> emitter is traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD >> the direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction >> Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. >> >> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in >> Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the >> moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to >> where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. >> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light >> moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if >> we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there >> 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT >> moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in >> space"? > > > A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated > scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved > (relocated.) > > Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece > of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If > we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent > that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. > > Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get > into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these > newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary > points and space have. > > Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't > challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear > many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and > provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will > not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless > argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the > question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it > is fun to think about. > > Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based > on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that > are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star > because of the sun's gravity.) I was not trying to claim that empty space is "stationary". I was trying to expand on the comment by Einstein that a state of motion cannot be applied to a single point of empty space, as in (according to Einstein) the concept doesn't make sense in SR. Only things IN space can be described as moving or stationary, and then only with reference to some reference frame. I will try to find the exact statement from Einstein, and the context. Perhaps my earlier reply was in response to John Sefton, who kept claiming space itself can spin, implying it can move.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b507f020-8253-41ba-b97c-df7f3c577740n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583867 |
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: > On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into dust thousands of years ago. > > > > Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. > > > > That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. > > > > Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. > > > > Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? > A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated > scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved > (relocated.) > > Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece > of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If > we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent > that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. > > Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get > into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these > newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary > points and space have. (snip) > Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based > on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that > are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star > because of the sun's gravity.) Obviously, stationary space cannot be curved. If we see it affected by some distant star, then we are misinterpreting something. The trajectory of light can be affected by different things. When light passes through water, its trajectory can change. To a lesser degree, the same is true when light passes through air. What happens when light passes through a gas cloud in space? What happens when it passes through the "atmosphere" surrounding a star? I think the idea that light originates from "stationary points in space" is verified by observations. The problem is that people can have different opinions about what causes certain visual effects. In case anyone is interested, I have a science paper on the subject of "Stationary Points in Space." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t45176$1129$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583899 |
On 4/24/2022 11:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: >> On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into dust thousands of years ago. >>> >>> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. >>> >>> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. >>> >>> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. >>> >>> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? >> A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated >> scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved >> (relocated.) >> >> Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece >> of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If >> we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent >> that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. >> >> Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get >> into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these >> newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary >> points and space have. > > (snip) >> Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based >> on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that >> are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star >> because of the sun's gravity.) > > Obviously, stationary space cannot be curved. That makes no sense. Are you claiming some stationary (relative to what?) object cannot be affected by curvature? It can; it's seen as the force of gravity. > In case anyone is interested, I have a science paper on the subject of > "Stationary Points in Space." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf > If you don't even understand an issue, why are you trying to write a "paper" on it? Even if one accepts anything on vixra as being a "paper".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t465pr$19uj$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583899 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: >> On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we >>> see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of >>> the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into >>> dust thousands of years ago. >>> >>> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty >>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of >>> motion of the emitting body. >>> >>> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second >>> regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is >>> traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the >>> direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction >>> Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. >>> >>> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in >>> Andromeda to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the >>> moment of observation that straight line existed and traced back to >>> where a star existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. >>> >>> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light >>> moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if >>> we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there >>> 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT >>> moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? >> A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated >> scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved >> (relocated.) >> >> Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece >> of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If >> we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent >> that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. >> >> Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get >> into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these >> newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary >> points and space have. > > (snip) >> Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based >> on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that >> are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star >> because of the sun's gravity.) > > Obviously, stationary space cannot be curved. This actually is untrue. You are trying to make an analogy between space and some solid object that has boundaries. A metal bar has boundaries that move when you bend it, and that movement is what you associate with bending. However, the analogy does not hold because space has no boundary. There are no boundaries whose movement you can associate with bending. And so really the questions for you to puzzle over at this point is, how can something that has a clear concept like space, which has no boundary, be also bent and have curvature? How could the curvature even be described without reference to any boundaries like a bar of metal has? I assure you that there IS such a description of curvature even for something that has no boundaries, but you are simply unaware of it, and have only the concept of bending for things with shape and boundaries. So the first thing you should research is, what does it even MEAN for something without boundaries or boundary shape to have curvature? In this, it’s important that you do not try to sort this out just with your common sense and thinking, because you will not land on it. > If we see it affected by some > distant star, then we are misinterpreting something. The trajectory of light > can be affected by different things. When light passes through water, its > trajectory can change. To a lesser degree, the same is true when light passes > through air. What happens when light passes through a gas cloud in space? > What happens when it passes through the "atmosphere" surrounding a star? > > I think the idea that light originates from "stationary points in space" is verified > by observations. The problem is that people can have different opinions about > what causes certain visual effects. > > In case anyone is interested, I have a science paper on the subject of > "Stationary Points in Space." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t445b2$1mpu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583867 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we >> see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of >> the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into >> dust thousands of years ago. >> >> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty >> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of >> motion of the emitting body. >> >> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second >> regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is >> traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the >> direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction >> Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. >> >> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda >> to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of >> observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star >> existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. >> >> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light >> moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if >> we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there >> 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT >> moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? > > > A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated > scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved > (relocated.) I don’t even think this is an answerable question. It’s of the angels on the head of a pin category, isn’t it? There’s no observable test. > > Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece > of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If > we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent > that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. > > Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get > into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these > newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary > points and space have. > > Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't > challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear > many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and > provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will > not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless > argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the > question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it > is fun to think about. > > Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based > on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that > are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star > because of the sun's gravity.) > I don’t think that curvature implies displacement of space from one place to another. It is not like bending a rod. The metric is a field. It has a (set of) value(s) at each location, and the intrinsic curvature is a function of that metric. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jclrqlFt4p9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #583923 |
On 4/24/2022 1:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we >>> see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of >>> the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into >>> dust thousands of years ago. >>> >>> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty >>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of >>> motion of the emitting body. >>> >>> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second >>> regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is >>> traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the >>> direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction >>> Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. >>> >>> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda >>> to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of >>> observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star >>> existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. >>> >>> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light >>> moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if >>> we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there >>> 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT >>> moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? >> >> >> A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated >> scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved >> (relocated.) > > I don’t even think this is an answerable question. It’s of the angels on > the head of a pin category, isn’t it? Using a gentler term I would say that angels dancing on the head of a pin is casting improbables into a reductio ad absurdium. The problem with space, more properly space-time, is that while we see it or at least its some of its effects we really don't know what it is, as space or time or space-time. In a time relevant context you are doubtless correct, but as much as the angels on the head of a pin is probably eternally unanswerable if we can ever get a handle on "what space-time is" I think we can find resolution to my question, can "space-time" be relocated. > There’s no observable test. As of now, yes you and I are in agreement. However the question I asked, while presently unanswerable, is in the context of the larger scene, a perfectly legitimate question, and who knows, given a better understanding time-space might be relocatable, but I wouldn't count on it. That and real money will get you a cup of coffee. The question I asked is/was a success. Clearly you gave it significant thought as probably did others who read it. I think questions like this one are interesting and worthy of investment. Thank you. >> Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece >> of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If >> we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent >> that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. >> >> Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get >> into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these >> newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary >> points and space have. >> >> Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't >> challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear >> many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and >> provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will >> not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless >> argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the >> question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it >> is fun to think about. >> >> Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based >> on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that >> are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star >> because of the sun's gravity.) >> > > I don’t think that curvature implies displacement of space from one place > to another. It is not like bending a rod. The metric is a field. It has a > (set of) value(s) at each location, and the intrinsic curvature is a > function of that metric. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t466ns$1maa$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583937 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 4/24/2022 1:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 4/23/2022 3:35 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> Here’s something to ponder: When we look at the Andromeda galaxy, we >>>> see it where it WAS 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today. Some of >>>> the stars we see shining brightly in Andromeda could have exploded into >>>> dust thousands of years ago. >>>> >>>> Einstein’s Second postulate stated “light is always propagated in empty >>>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of >>>> motion of the emitting body. >>>> >>>> That is saying that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second >>>> regardless of the speed of the emitter, OR the direction the emitter is >>>> traveling. Light from Andromeda’s stars travel at c TOWARD the >>>> direction Andromeda is traveling, and ALSO at c in the direction >>>> Andromeda is traveling FROM, and at c in ALL OTHER directions. >>>> >>>> Additionally, light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from a star in Andromeda >>>> to a telescope on Earth. Andromeda moved on, but at the moment of >>>> observation that straight line existed and traced back to where a star >>>> existed at a point in space 2,537,000 years ago. >>>> >>>> Isn’t that point of emission a “stationary point in space”? If light >>>> moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, and if >>>> we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was there >>>> 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. And, if it is NOT >>>> moving, doesn't the straight line trace back to a "stationary point in space"? >>> >>> >>> A while ago in sci.physics I asked (a bit more to the actual stated >>> scenario) whether or not a specific volume of space could be moved >>> (relocated.) >> >> I don’t even think this is an answerable question. It’s of the angels on >> the head of a pin category, isn’t it? > > Using a gentler term I would say that angels dancing on the head of a > pin is casting improbables into a reductio ad absurdium. The problem > with space, more properly space-time, is that while we see it or at > least its some of its effects we really don't know what it is, as space > or time or space-time. In a time relevant context you are doubtless > correct, but as much as the angels on the head of a pin is probably > eternally unanswerable if we can ever get a handle on "what space-time > is" I think we can find resolution to my question, can "space-time" be > relocated. > >> There’s no observable test. > > As of now, yes you and I are in agreement. However the question I asked, > while presently unanswerable, is in the context of the larger scene, a > perfectly legitimate question, and who knows, given a better > understanding time-space might be relocatable, but I wouldn't count on > it. That and real money will get you a cup of coffee. Exactly. It’s more of a metaphysics question at this point, not a physics one. There being no presently conceivable test, it’s not really a subject for science at the moment. > > The question I asked is/was a success. Clearly you gave it significant > thought as probably did others who read it. I think questions like this > one are interesting and worthy of investment. Thank you. > > > >>> Moroney's reply was that no it cannot. And AFAIC that means every piece >>> of space is stationary. Personally I state no opinion on the matter. If >>> we accept as a given that space cannot be moved then it seems apparent >>> that every point in space cannot be moved, and it is all stationary. >>> >>> Naturally this gives rise to endless problems that I'm not going to get >>> into in my postings, there are enough real brains available in these >>> newsgroups to discuss the myriad of difficulties that truly stationary >>> points and space have. >>> >>> Moroney, with all due respect I didn't challenge your reply and I don't >>> challenge it here, but AFAIC any aspect of "stationary" brings to bear >>> many questions, perhaps someone wants to catalog some of those and >>> provide answers. I'm only smart enough to raise the question and will >>> not. myself, get involved to the point where potential endless >>> argumentation yields traps. I'm sure there's enough meat in the >>> question(s) to create a new branch of science. Maybe not, but it >>> is fun to think about. >>> >>> Just as an example, if space is stationary, then how can it curve based >>> on transient events as it must in order to comport to the theories that >>> are accepted (e.g. appearance of the displacement of a distant star >>> because of the sun's gravity.) >>> >> >> I don’t think that curvature implies displacement of space from one place >> to another. It is not like bending a rod. The metric is a field. It has a >> (set of) value(s) at each location, and the intrinsic curvature is a >> function of that metric. >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcnss8FajivU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #583975 |
On 4/25/2022 8:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: <snip> >> >> As of now, yes you and I are in agreement. However the question I asked, >> while presently unanswerable, is in the context of the larger scene, a >> perfectly legitimate question, and who knows, given a better >> understanding time-space might be relocatable, but I wouldn't count on >> it. That and real money will get you a cup of coffee. > > Exactly. It’s more of a metaphysics question at this point, not a physics > one. There being no presently conceivable test, it’s not really a subject > for science at the moment. You're happy with your answer, I'm happy with mine. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web