Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

I have no idea which reference frame you regard as absolute. Can you explain?

The easiest way to describe is the frame where the ether is stationary, hence only one of the frames is truly stationary, the one that is stationary with regard to the ether.

Now, where would that be? Since all the galaxies and groups of galaxies seem to be in motion with each other?

[Aardwolf]

E. The flash was caused by an electric arc between ships B & X as they passed each other.

You are asking me to go over this again. Do you deny that your arc has to have a duration? Your ships are passing each other at quite a rapid speed. This arc would leave a burn mark from nose to tail on each ship. The arc would be the center of an expanding sphere in space. The arc is expanding faster than either ship is moving, thus either ship would only see the arc while it was happening in their presence.

When did I deny the flash had a duration? The duration is irrelevant, my point is that for your theory about the 2 spheres requires that their mutual origin must separate, and no matter how many frames or coordinates you wish to introduce, it's a physical impossibility.

How can the origins be moving?

You are obviously not an airplane pilot, or the navigator of a ship; pilots understand that "speed" is relative! They know the difference between air speed, i.e, their speed relative to the air; and ground speed, i.e, their speed relative the ground! They deal with coordinate systems that move in relation to each other. This includes the fact that the origins of each coordinate system move in relation to the other origin. That is how origins can move! Get it?

No. If I were to ask a pilot the origin of a journey I would hope he would answer where the plane journey originated. I have no idea what that has to do with relative speed, coordinate systems etc. or why a single journey has other origins.

That may be true, but if you want to actually pilot an airplane you will have to accept moving origins. Can you direct me to a site where this immutable fact of your "origins cannot move" is stated as common knowledge amongst the world?

Just look up the meaning of the word origin.

[Aardwolf]

I have no idea which reference frame you regard as absolute. Can you explain?

The easiest way to describe is the frame where the ether is stationary, hence only one of the frames is truly stationary, the one that is stationary with regard to the ether.

Now, where would that be? Since all the galaxies and groups of galaxies seem to be in motion with each other?

So what. Not being able to determine if a galaxy is stationary relative to the ether doesn't mean that the ether isn't stationary. Do moving vehicles on the motorway prove that the ground isnt stationary relative to them all? It's difficult to detect the ether so it may apear to some that there is no fixed background, and the same could be said about the vehicles if the ground was undetectable. They would of course be completely wrong.

[Goldminer]

E. The flash was caused by an electric arc between ships B & X as they passed each other.

You are asking me to go over this again. Do you deny that your arc has to have a duration? Your ships are passing each other at quite a rapid speed. This arc would leave a burn mark from nose to tail on each ship. The arc would be the center of an expanding sphere in space. The arc is expanding faster than either ship is moving, thus either ship would only see the arc while it was happening in their presence.

When did I deny the flash had a duration? The duration is irrelevant, my point is that for your theory about the 2 spheres requires that their mutual origin must separate, and no matter how many frames or coordinates you wish to introduce, it's a physical impossibility.

How can the origins be moving?

You are obviously not an airplane pilot, or the navigator of a ship; pilots understand that "speed" is relative! They know the difference between air speed, i.e, their speed relative to the air; and ground speed, i.e, their speed relative the ground! They deal with coordinate systems that move in relation to each other. This includes the fact that the origins of each coordinate system move in relation to the other origin. That is how origins can move! Get it?

No. If I were to ask a pilot the origin of a journey I would hope he would answer where the plane journey originated. I have no idea what that has to do with relative speed, coordinate systems etc. or why a single journey has other origins.

That may be true, but if you want to actually pilot an airplane you will have to accept moving origins. Can you direct me to a site where this immutable fact of your "origins cannot move" is stated as common knowledge amongst the world?

Just look up the meaning of the word origin.

So, Ardwolf, you seem to be able to make cogent logical posts elsewhere on the forum, why are you so illogical here? Are you a troll?

Here is a definition for "origin" from "Google Dictionary:
"A fixed point from which coordinates are measured, as where axes intersect."

According to you, no one else can say where this fixed point is. When I make a logical, relevant point, your comeback is "So what?' Or "irrelevant" or "they would of course be completely wrong." How did you get to be the authority on this particular subject? I can say the same about your points and be equally or more "right" than you.

Notice the definition says that the fixed point is where the axes cross. It says nothing about where the axes have to cross. It says nothing about the aether. It says nothing about whether the fixed point can be on the center of an airplane, car or boat, the equator, or pole of the Earth, Sun, or galaxy.

It says nothing about motion of the "fixed point." A "fixed point" can be noted on a piece of paper; another "fixed point" can be on another piece of paper. I can move one piece of paper over the other piece of paper. Thus, one "fixed point can move in relation to another "fixed point." I can give coordinates of one origin, as time and distance change, in coordinates related to the origin of another coordinate system. Quod erat demonstrandum

[Aardwolf]

E. The flash was caused by an electric arc between ships B & X as they passed each other.

You are asking me to go over this again. Do you deny that your arc has to have a duration? Your ships are passing each other at quite a rapid speed. This arc would leave a burn mark from nose to tail on each ship. The arc would be the center of an expanding sphere in space. The arc is expanding faster than either ship is moving, thus either ship would only see the arc while it was happening in their presence.

When did I deny the flash had a duration? The duration is irrelevant, my point is that for your theory about the 2 spheres requires that their mutual origin must separate, and no matter how many frames or coordinates you wish to introduce, it's a physical impossibility.

How can the origins be moving?

You are obviously not an airplane pilot, or the navigator of a ship; pilots understand that "speed" is relative! They know the difference between air speed, i.e, their speed relative to the air; and ground speed, i.e, their speed relative the ground! They deal with coordinate systems that move in relation to each other. This includes the fact that the origins of each coordinate system move in relation to the other origin. That is how origins can move! Get it?

No. If I were to ask a pilot the origin of a journey I would hope he would answer where the plane journey originated. I have no idea what that has to do with relative speed, coordinate systems etc. or why a single journey has other origins.

That may be true, but if you want to actually pilot an airplane you will have to accept moving origins. Can you direct me to a site where this immutable fact of your "origins cannot move" is stated as common knowledge amongst the world?

Just look up the meaning of the word origin.

So, Ardwolf, you seem to be able to make cogent logical posts elsewhere on the forum, why are you so illogical here? Are you a troll?

Here is a definition for "origin" from "Google Dictionary:
"A fixed point from which coordinates are measured, as where axes intersect."

According to you, no one else can say where this fixed point is. When I make a logical, relevant point, your comeback is "So what?' Or "irrelevant" or "they would of course be completely wrong." How did you get to be the authority on this particular subject? I can say the same about your points and be equally or more "right" than you.

Notice the definition says that the fixed point is where the axes cross. It says nothing about where the axes have to cross. It says nothing about the aether. It says nothing about whether the fixed point can be on the center of an airplane, car or boat, the equator, or pole of the Earth, Sun, or galaxy.

It says nothing about motion of the "fixed point." A "fixed point" can be noted on a piece of paper; another "fixed point" can be on another piece of paper. I can move one piece of paper over the other piece of paper. Thus, one "fixed point can move in relation to another "fixed point." I can give coordinates of one origin, as time and distance change, in coordinates related to the origin of another coordinate system. Quod erat demonstrandum

I'm not stating only I can decide where the fixed point is. I'm stating that once the fixed point is determined in space it cant then move.

Your fixed point on the paper is only fixed with reference to the paper itself which is meaningless in a discussion on a fixed point in empty space. How do you move empty space?

My example was a single fixed point (the flash caused by the passing ships) in both ships reference frames; which you need to separate unlike the 2 required in your invalid example. Demostrate that and explain in a physical, mechanical sense how that shared origin can be separated. All you arguments regarding this are just based on mathmatical abstracts and are meaningless in actual reality.

[Goldminer]

Your fixed point on the paper is only fixed with reference to the paper itself which is meaningless in a discussion on a fixed point in empty space. How do you move empty space?

My example was a single fixed point (the flash caused by the passing ships) in both ships reference frames; which you need to separate unlike the 2 required in your invalid example. Demostrate[sic] that and explain in a physical, mechanical sense how that shared origin can be separated. All you arguments regarding this are just based on mathmatical[sic] abstracts and are meaningless in actual reality.

Listen dear Aardwolf, you made a diagram of several spaceships in "space!" That is an abstract of what you think is going on. Language itself is an abstract. One of the characters of being human is the ability to abstract. A coordinate system/frame is just an abstract. Have you ever seen one through a telescope? Have you ever seen spaceships five lightyears apart? No, your ideas are just meaningless abstracts.

Yes, I am sure my clear logic is meaningless to you. You apparently have never used a drawing program such as [maskurl=http://www.gimp.org/]Gimp or Blender. If you have, you would understand frames, coordinates and origins.

If you remember, I stated that I think the aether does not have the property of motion. Since that is what I think, I would never allude to "moving empty space."

You seem to have no problem diagramming what you think is going on, but if I diagram something, to scale no less, so that measurements can be taken from the diagrams, you say they are meaningless. Sounds to me like you are just a poor looser.

[Aardwolf]

Your fixed point on the paper is only fixed with reference to the paper itself which is meaningless in a discussion on a fixed point in empty space. How do you move empty space?

My example was a single fixed point (the flash caused by the passing ships) in both ships reference frames; which you need to separate unlike the 2 required in your invalid example. Demostrate[sic] that and explain in a physical, mechanical sense how that shared origin can be separated. All you arguments regarding this are just based on mathmatical[sic] abstracts and are meaningless in actual reality.

Listen dear Aardwolf, you made a diagram of several spaceships in "space!" That is an abstract of what you think is going on. Language itself is an abstract. One of the characters of being human is the ability to abstract. A coordinate system/frame is just an abstract. Have you ever seen one through a telescope? Have you ever seen spaceships five lightyears apart? No, your ideas are just meaningless abstracts.

Yes, I am sure my clear logic is meaningless to you. You apparently have never used a drawing program such as [maskurl=http://www.gimp.org/]Gimp or Blender. If you have, you would understand frames, coordinates and origins.

If you remember, I stated that I think the aether does not have the property of motion. Since that is what I think, I would never allude to "moving empty space."

You seem to have no problem diagramming what you think is going on, but if I diagram something, to scale no less, so that measurements can be taken from the diagrams, you say they are meaningless. Sounds to me like you are just a poor looser[sic].

You still you haven't explained how you separate a shared origin. Your paper example had two separate origins to begin with. If, as you state, the ether is immovable, how do you explain the separated shared origin which was created at a single point in the ether by the passing frames?

[Goldminer]

I believe you are a Miles Mathis devotee. You are most likely getting the "origins don't move" idea from his repartee.

Let x’ be a distance in a moving coordinate system; x is the same distance measured from a stationary system. Feynman then explains it this way: “After time t the origin [of x’] has moved a distance vt, and if the two origins originally coincided, then x’ = x – vt.”
Feynman also confirms what Einstein told us in 1905: this equation is the classical transformation from one system to the other. Einstein calls it a Galilei transformation and Feynman calls it Newton’s principle of relativity, but the implication is the same. It is just the accepted equation. It is supposed to be what the Lorentz transformations reduce to if the speed of light is infinite.
The equation is telling us that vt is the distance between the two coordinate systems, and that you add this distance to x’ to get x. Feynman confirms this. It could not be more straightforward.
But the origin of x’ is not moving. If the origins of the two coordinate systems were together at t0 , then they are still together, since origins don’t move, by definition. This is just to say that if the train started from the station at t0 , then after time t the train still started from the station, which has not moved. Train stations do not move, just as origins do not move: t0’ and x0’ are still back at the origin, which is still back at the train station.
Einstein and Feynman are mistaking the back end of the caboose with the origin. Look at what the equation is telling us. Let’s say at t0 the back end of the caboose is at the origin of the moving system, S’. Let’s also say that x’ is the distance to the front of the same caboose, as measured from inside the caboose. The whole train then leaves us at the station and travels a distance given by the term vt. The equation x = x’ + vt is telling us that we, back at the station, will measure the length of the caboose as “how long the caboose is, measured from the caboose” + “the distance it has gone”. As if we will add the length of the traintracks to the length of the caboose! Do you see now how utterly absurd this is? It assumes that we can’t see, with our own eyes, that the back of the caboose has also traveled vt, and must therefore be subtracted from x’ + vt. What we are looking for in this problem is simply “how long the caboose looks to us.” This equation tells us nothing about that at all, not classically, not relativistically, nothing. It is the wrong equation. Classically, the correct equation is just Δx’ = Δx, as I have shown exhaustively elsewhere. Einstein imported an equation that Newton would have used to find the total distance from the origin to the front of the caboose after time t, and applied it to find the length of the caboose as seen from the origin. An absolutely momentous blunder, magnified by its being missed by a thousand Feynmans.
If light had an infinite speed, then the embankment would see both ends of any rod at the same time. The embankment would also see the origin and the point at the same time. If c is infinite, then all measurers will measure equal times, distances and velocities, in all directions and on all possible axes. x’ = x, v’ = v. This is because there is no difference between what I see and what the train sees. Light brings me exactly the same information that it brings the train, at exactly the same time. There can be no transformation equation: not a fancy Lorentz transformation, but also not a simple transformation like x’ = x - vt . So the given equation is not a Galilei transformation, in any sense.

Miles claims that "origins don't move" by definition. My question is: By whose definition? Miles's definition? If that is true, then his definition only applies to his work. If you believe his definition applies anywhere else, it is an "an absolutely momentous blunder."

I agree that the supposed "Galilean transform" has problems, but they have nothing to do with origins moving with respect to each other, or trains and stations. The problems are these:

1. Almost no one admits that there can be only one source of light and that the source has its own frame of reference.

2. Almost no one admits that a single powerful pulse of light is needed to analyze the situation.

3. No one understands that the analysis is about the expanding sphere of light from this source and where the sphere is detected in space.

It has nothing to do with looking at stuff, as in the quoted paragraphs. Miles has conflated a simple diagram into a menagerie of obtuseness, whereas conventional wisdom never gets as far as diagramming the expanding sphere.

[quote="Miles from the above quote]This is just to say that if the train started from the station at t0 , then after time t the train still started from the station, which has not moved. Train stations do not move, just as origins do not move: t0’ and x0’ are still back at the origin, which is still back at the train station.[/quote]

The above quote is nonsense: the train/platform gedankin was used by Silly Albert to visualize several aspects of his theory, none of which was the "Galilean" transform. From the train point of view, the platform does move so Miles is just blowing smoke!

.

[Goldminer]

You still you haven't explained how you separate a shared origin. Your paper example had two separate origins to begin with. If, as you state, the ether is immovable, how do you explain the separated shared origin which was created at a single point in the ether by the passing frames?

It is your contention that there is a shared origin. You have to live with that. I stated that the arc is traveling with one or the other frames of reference, or it is in a frame all its own. Having the arc in its own frame makes the most sense to me.

I do not and will not in the foreseeable future ever claim that the aether is immovable. I believe that detecting the motion of the aether is probably impossible.

.

[Goldminer]

Einstein loved his "Train Gedankens" didn't he? He used several of them. For the sake of those occupied with the idea that the platform/embankment/station is "fixed," Albert should have used a example of trains moving in opposite directions, no? Then the third frame of reference, the tracks, would be better visualized. Then Aardwolf could see that his arc is in the third frame, the track frame.

Back to Miles' cockup: Albert was trying to demonstrate how hard measuring the length of a moving object is for those in a different frame of reference. His Gedanken didn't cover all the problems; and never considered other, just as legitimate, means of doing so.

The gist of Albert's "brain picture" was that when the front of the moving train is detected and marked on the "platform," a signal is sent toward the rear of the oncoming train, so that a mark can also be place on the platform delineating where the end of the caboose was at that same "time." Albert then points out, which is true, that the signal traveling to the rear is delayed by the finite speed of light in the platform frame of reference, while the caboose kept moving with the rest of the train.

Silly Albert then proclaims that since the two marks supposedly "measuring" the length of the train, since they are closer together than when the train was at rest with the platform, "prove" that the moving train is shorter than a train of the same length at rest! His hope is that you have forgotten that the front of the train didn't stop when the mark was made there on the platform. It kept moving, just as caboose did while the signal traveled to the rear of the platform. He has managed to shift the problem to the "measured" length of the train, rather than the problem actually being the latency of the light signal.

Now, just to show how silly Albert really is, or maybe he intended to confuse you: let us do the Gedanken over again, only this time we mark the rear of the caboose on the platform and send the signal forward to mark the front of the train. Now, the front of the train is still moving while the signal travels down the platform to where we mark the front of the train. Guess what? The train is, according to silly Albert's reasoning, now longer than at rest! He failed to point this "minor" problem out, didn't he? Hopefully you can see that the moving train cannot actually be both shorter and longer than the same train at rest with the platform!

As to what Miles Mathis intended to convey with his "take" on the subject, I have no idea, and am not going to spend time in my brain kitchen on that. Whereas Albert is (silly)2, Miles is (silly)4.

.

[Aardwolf]

I believe you are a Miles Mathis devotee. You are most likely getting the "origins don't move" idea from his repartee.

Let x’ be a distance in a moving coordinate system; x is the same distance measured from a stationary system. Feynman then explains it this way: “After time t the origin [of x’] has moved a distance vt, and if the two origins originally coincided, then x’ = x – vt.”
Feynman also confirms what Einstein told us in 1905: this equation is the classical transformation from one system to the other. Einstein calls it a Galilei transformation and Feynman calls it Newton’s principle of relativity, but the implication is the same. It is just the accepted equation. It is supposed to be what the Lorentz transformations reduce to if the speed of light is infinite.
The equation is telling us that vt is the distance between the two coordinate systems, and that you add this distance to x’ to get x. Feynman confirms this. It could not be more straightforward.
But the origin of x’ is not moving. If the origins of the two coordinate systems were together at t0 , then they are still together, since origins don’t move, by definition. This is just to say that if the train started from the station at t0 , then after time t the train still started from the station, which has not moved. Train stations do not move, just as origins do not move: t0’ and x0’ are still back at the origin, which is still back at the train station.
Einstein and Feynman are mistaking the back end of the caboose with the origin. Look at what the equation is telling us. Let’s say at t0 the back end of the caboose is at the origin of the moving system, S’. Let’s also say that x’ is the distance to the front of the same caboose, as measured from inside the caboose. The whole train then leaves us at the station and travels a distance given by the term vt. The equation x = x’ + vt is telling us that we, back at the station, will measure the length of the caboose as “how long the caboose is, measured from the caboose” + “the distance it has gone”. As if we will add the length of the traintracks to the length of the caboose! Do you see now how utterly absurd this is? It assumes that we can’t see, with our own eyes, that the back of the caboose has also traveled vt, and must therefore be subtracted from x’ + vt. What we are looking for in this problem is simply “how long the caboose looks to us.” This equation tells us nothing about that at all, not classically, not relativistically, nothing. It is the wrong equation. Classically, the correct equation is just Δx’ = Δx, as I have shown exhaustively elsewhere. Einstein imported an equation that Newton would have used to find the total distance from the origin to the front of the caboose after time t, and applied it to find the length of the caboose as seen from the origin. An absolutely momentous blunder, magnified by its being missed by a thousand Feynmans.
If light had an infinite speed, then the embankment would see both ends of any rod at the same time. The embankment would also see the origin and the point at the same time. If c is infinite, then all measurers will measure equal times, distances and velocities, in all directions and on all possible axes. x’ = x, v’ = v. This is because there is no difference between what I see and what the train sees. Light brings me exactly the same information that it brings the train, at exactly the same time. There can be no transformation equation: not a fancy Lorentz transformation, but also not a simple transformation like x’ = x - vt . So the given equation is not a Galilei transformation, in any sense.

Miles claims that "origins don't move" by definition. My question is: By whose definition? Miles's definition? If that is true, then his definition only applies to his work. If you believe his definition applies anywhere else, it is an "an absolutely momentous blunder."

I agree that the supposed "Galilean transform" has problems, but they have nothing to do with origins moving with respect to each other, or trains and stations. The problems are these:

1. Almost no one admits that there can be only one source of light and that the source has its own frame of reference.

2. Almost no one admits that a single powerful pulse of light is needed to analyze the situation.

3. No one understands that the analysis is about the expanding sphere of light from this source and where the sphere is detected in space.

It has nothing to do with looking at stuff, as in the quoted paragraphs. Miles has conflated a simple diagram into a menagerie of obtuseness, whereas conventional wisdom never gets as far as diagramming the expanding sphere.

[quote="Miles from the above quote]This is just to say that if the train started from the station at t0 , then after time t the train still started from the station, which has not moved. Train stations do not move, just as origins do not move: t0’ and x0’ are still back at the origin, which is still back at the train station.

The above quote is nonsense: the train/platform gedankin was used by Silly Albert to visualize several aspects of his theory, none of which was the "Galilean" transform. From the train point of view, the platform does move so Miles is just blowing smoke!

.[/quote][/quote][/quote]My statement has nothing to do with Mathis or his work, but obviously we are both just stating that "origins don't move" by definition, due to the definition of the word origin itself. You can't (or won't) see that clarity because you are too tied up in frame/co-ordinate nonsense that has nothing to do with real world examples.

[Aardwolf]

You still you haven't explained how you separate a shared origin. Your paper example had two separate origins to begin with. If, as you state, the ether is immovable, how do you explain the separated shared origin which was created at a single point in the ether by the passing frames?

It is your contention that there is a shared origin. You have to live with that. I stated that the arc is traveling with one or the other frames of reference, or it is in a frame all its own. Having the arc in its own frame makes the most sense to me.

I do not and will not in the foreseeable future ever claim that the aether is immovable. I believe that detecting the motion of the aether is probably impossible.

It's not my contention that there is a shared origin, it's an absolute requirement because the flash is caused by the passing of the ships at the centre of the two frames. There is a single and shared origin. Fact.

If the arc can only be in one or the other frame, or its own, (which is exactly what I have been saying) then how can each of the ship frames be at the centre of the light sphere going forward? To each be at at the centre of the sphere require 2 separate origins? Please explain because in your paper example you specifically needed two separate point origins and now you are saying there is only one. Revisit your paper example and see what happens with the point in only one of the paper frames or on its own.

[Aardwolf]

Einstein loved his "Train Gedankens" didn't he? He used several of them. For the sake of those occupied with the idea that the platform/embankment/station is "fixed," Albert should have used a example of trains moving in opposite directions, no? Then the third frame of reference, the tracks, would be better visualized. Then Aardwolf could see that his arc is in the third frame, the track frame.

I have no problem with the arc being in its own frame as this will be the one that is stationary with respect to the ether. I only had one ship as stationary with it for simplification but I have no problem with the ships passing each other at some speed relative to ether; it just means that neither of their frames will be at the centre of the light sphere, they will just both be moving towards opposite sides of it. Makes no difference to absolute space theory.

[Goldminer]

I believe you are a Miles Mathis devotee. You are most likely getting the "origins don't move" idea from his repartee.

If the origins of the two coordinate systems were together at t0 , then they are still together, since origins don’t move, by definition.

Miles claims that "origins don't move" by definition. My question is: By whose definition? Miles's definition? If that is true, then his definition only applies to his work. Show me where Miles' definition is applied in this situation by anyone besides Miles and Aardwolf.

Where do you get this nonsense that origins cannot move? Who besides you and Mathis believe origins cannot move? The MM experiment demonstrated that the aether's state of motion cannot be determined. Yet you claim that just because two "spaceships" are moving apart, and there is a point between them that happens to be where they meet, then that point becomes the absolute rest with the aether point!!

Let's just suppose for giggles that there is another point in relative motion with this point. Now let's suppose that there are two additional spaceships which happen to pass each other at this new point. Which of the points is at absolute rest with the aether?

Please don't tell me that both points are at rest with the aether.

You originated in your mother's womb. You are telling me that your mother can't move? Your father must have been a very frustrated individual!

My statement has nothing to do with Mathis or his work, but obviously we are both just stating that "origins don't move" by definition, due to the definition of the word origin itself. You can't (or won't) see that clarity because you are too tied up in frame/co-ordinate nonsense that has nothing to do with real world examples.

There is a funny thing about words. They have context, and multiple meanings. You are telling me that I cannot take a picture of a car and a truck and demonstrate them passing each other by moving the pictures past each other! This is a very simple abstraction, yet you don't get it!

[Goldminer]

You still you haven't explained how you separate a shared origin. Your paper example had two separate origins to begin with. If, as you state, the ether is immovable, how do you explain the separated shared origin which was created at a single point in the ether by the passing frames?

It is your contention that there is a shared origin. You have to live with that. I stated that the arc is traveling with one or the other frames of reference, or it is in a frame all its own. Having the arc in its own frame makes the most sense to me.

I do not and will not in the foreseeable future ever claim that the aether is immovable. I believe that detecting the motion of the aether is probably impossible.

It's not my contention that there is a shared origin, it's an absolute requirement because the flash is caused by the passing of the ships at the centre of the two frames. There is a single and shared origin. Fact.

Now you admit that there are two frames, one for each spaceship, but you won't admit that each frame can have its own coordinate system? Exactly who doesn't understand origins? You have smoke filled facts!

If the arc can only be in one or the other frame, or its own, (which is exactly what I have been saying) then how can each of the ship frames be at the centre of the light sphere going forward? To each be at at the centre of the sphere require 2 separate origins? Please explain because in your paper example you specifically needed two separate point origins and now you are saying there is only one. Revisit your paper example and see what happens with the point in only one of the paper frames or on its own.

I am very sorry you are so confused! You are like the Einsteinians. They insist that in proving the problems involved with STR, one must use the very formulas that cause the problems. You are wrong about the center point between the two spaceships being at rest with the aether. No one has ever proved any point in space or on Earth to be at rest with the aether. If you can prove otherwise, please cite the work!