the Motion of Matter

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

The Sun doesn't so much "rotate through the galaxy," it rotates with the galaxy.

So you have completely changed your mind. Silly boy, did you really think that I meant the galaxy is stationary and the Sun, and only the Sun, is moving through it?

Yes the galaxy is rotating and as such the Sun is travelling round the galaxy with respect to the galactic centre at an estimated relative speed of about 215-250km/s. So the Sun, and yes the entire solar system is travelling through galactic space.

So having painfully established that the Sun and solar system are travelling through galactic space, I will try again.

I realise the Sun's ecliptic and thus the orbit of Earth may not be oriented exactly as shown. I also realise that the orbit is diagrammed as a circle and that planetary orbits are observed as elliptical (thank you Mr. Kepler). The point I was attempting to make is that the Sun (and the entire solar system) IS, as you have now admitted, travelling through galactic space with respect to the galactic centre - THE SUN IS MOVING!!!!!!.

Light from the Sun travels at c and takes on average 497 seconds to reach Earth (this varies because Earth's orbit it not perfectly circular, thank you Mr. Kepler). In that 497s, the Sun, travelling at rate of about 215-250km/s with respect to the galactic centre, has moved round the galaxy in the order of 107,000km to 124,000km. When the light, photonic or otherwise reaches Earth, it delivers an image of the Sun at the place it was when the light was emitted.
The Sun, that is "the source", has moved since the light signal was emitted. All observation is historical by necessity of the limited speed of light propagation.

In the diagrams, the dashed lines from Sun to Earth are intended to indicate the passage of the image that is viewed from Earth. Viewed from Earth the image of the Sun is in a different position than the actually physical object. We cannot see the actual physical object, we can only see the light signal emitted from it.


Michael

[Michael V]

it has occurred to me that the way in which I have annotated the time next to the Sun and Earth may be a source of confusion. So, here is an update that should contain less ambiguity.

Michael

[Sparky]

Michael

I am hugely surprised. I had no idea that the notion of spiral galaxies rotating was so controversial.

Well, maybe such things should not be assumed, and speculations, calculations, and conclusions based upon those, with falsified theories, need to be questioned before extending the consensus into a more complicated model. If one is offering a more correct theory, some conclusions of the old theory should not be assumed to be correct as argument.

There are things in nature that appear to be spinning, but are not. There is also quite a bit of spinning in nature, so it is understandable that if something appears to be moving, it must be. The sun and planets spin, and if the observations are correct, everything outside the solar system is in a spin. Would the universe be spinning?

Who's lying eyes are we to believe? ireallydonno..

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Placing any reliance on measurements or observational data is for sure a difficult decision. What is the mass of electrons and protons?, what is the "charge" of electrons and protons?, are orbits really elliptical? are estimates of cosmic distances reasonably accurate or way off the mark?. These questions and more, should, and do, vex me constantly. But where do you draw the line between trustworthy data and nonsense data gleaned from nonsense theory?. Should all astronomical and cosmic measurements be tarred with the same brush as cosmic theory? Your comments must surely apply to any and all theories. Can you suggest how one might practically make themselves immune to such risks?

Personally, I think the notion that spiral galaxies rotate seems very reasonable. In fact, I think they have "I'm rotating" written all over them; they positively scream rotation. Do you disagree?

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

The Sun doesn't so much "rotate through the galaxy," it rotates with the galaxy.

So you have completely changed your mind. Silly boy, did you really think that I meant the galaxy is stationary and the Sun, and only the Sun, is moving through it?

Didn't take a change of mind. Who thinks galaxies don't rotate?

Yes the galaxy is rotating and as such the Sun is travelling round the galaxy with respect to the galactic centre at an estimated relative speed of about 215-250km/s. So the Sun, and yes the entire solar system is travelling through galactic space.

So having painfully established that the Sun and solar system are travelling through galactic space, I will try again.

Solar 1.jpg

I realise the Sun's ecliptic and thus the orbit of Earth may not be oriented exactly as shown. I also realise that the orbit is diagrammed as a circle and that planetary orbits are observed as elliptical (thank you Mr. Kepler). The point I was attempting to make is that the Sun (and the entire solar system) IS, as you have now admitted, travelling through galactic space with respect to the galactic centre - THE SUN IS MOVING!!!!!!.

Solar 4.jpg

Light from the Sun travels at c and takes on average 497 seconds to reach Earth (this varies because Earth's orbit it not perfectly circular, thank you Mr. Kepler). In that 497s, the Sun, travelling at rate of about 215-250km/s with respect to the galactic centre, has moved round the galaxy in the order of 107,000km to 124,000km. When the light, photonic or otherwise reaches Earth, it delivers an image of the Sun at the place it was when the light was emitted.
The Sun, that is "the source", has moved since the light signal was emitted. All observation is historical by necessity of the limited speed of light propagation.

Whooptydo, yada, yada. You are trying to make mountains out of mole hills. According to Big Bangers our galaxy is traveling away from some distant galaxies, located beyond the event horizon, at beyond the speed of light. According to your theory, they aren't moving away because they are really moving at right angles, or is it us moving at right angles to them?

Yes, the Sun has moved. So has the Earth. The Sun and the Earth have the same inertial vector with respect to galactic space. (The speed of the Earth relative the galaxy is constantly changing because of its varying orbital direction. But that speed relative the galaxy includes the same inertial vector as the Sun.) I already pointed out that our neighboring stars are basically at rest with the Sun. They all have the same inertial vector. Technicians do not have to take into consideration any of your silly story to place a satellite in any orbit they choose.

For example, you have two cups of coffee before you as you are riding a train. Stir one clockwise the other opposite. Does the coffee try to get out of either cup, just because the train is "moving?" Does the coffee have to compute the speed of light just to rotate in the cup on the train? Is it any different than sitting in a cafe at the train station?

In the diagrams, the dashed lines from Sun to Earth are intended to indicate the passage of the image that is viewed from Earth. Viewed from Earth the image of the Sun is in a different position than the actually physical object. We cannot see the actual physical object, we can only see the light signal emitted from it. Michael

You can't tell if the Sun has moved to a new position just by looking at it. Your diagrams are all your imagination. The Sun's new position relative the Galaxy is determined by comparing its position over time with other stars. All the local stars are not moving relative the Sun, so determining this position is an undertaking.

We see the activities happening on the surface of the Sun 8 minutes after they happen, and we see a new area of the Sun as we orbit it, 8 minutes after we passed over that area, but we see the Sun right where it is, just the same as if it were in the middle of a field and we drove a circle around it. Why is that? Because the Sun is basically at rest with this part of our Galaxy and the Earth simply orbits it as if it (the Sun) is not moving with respect to the Galaxy.

So Good Luck with your theory, silly boy. Your condescending attitude really pisses me off, BTW.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

A group of observers are "at rest" with respect to each other and are located at positions C, D E, F, G and H.
An object is travelling at 0.5c relative to all the observers. At time=t, when at position A, which happens to be equidistant from all the observers, the "source" object emits a short pulse of light spherically. The source then continues to travel onward with no further emissions. At time=t+x, the source object has travelled further along and is now at position B. The pulse of light that was emitted at time=t from position A has expanded to reach the "at rest" observers. All the observers will see the image of the source in the position that the light was emitted - they will see the source object image at position A, even though the source object itself it now at position B.

We see the activities happening on the surface of the Sun 8 minutes after they happen, and we see a new area of the Sun as we orbit it, 8 minutes after we passed over that area, but we see the Sun right where it is, just the same as if it were in the middle of a field and we drove a circle around it. Why is that? Because the Sun is basically at rest with this part of our Galaxy and the Earth simply orbits it as if it (the Sun) is not moving with respect to the Galaxy.

I really do not see how you might have come to this conclusion. The speed of light is constant and limited to c. That the Earth additionally travels in orbit is irrelevant and certainly not any kind of compensation factor the the speed of light flight time from the Sun.

Your condescending attitude really pisses me off, BTW.

I offer my apology.


Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Speed of Light 1.jpg

A group of observers are "at rest" with respect to each other and are located at positions C, D E, F, G and H.
An object is travelling at 0.5c relative to all the observers. At time=t, when at position A, which happens to be equidistant from all the observers, the "source" object emits a short pulse of light spherically. The source then continues to travel onward with no further emissions. At time=t+x, the source object has travelled further along and is now at position B. The pulse of light that was emitted at time=t from position A has expanded to reach the "at rest" observers. All the observers will see the image of the source in the position that the light was emitted - they will see the source object image at position A, even though the source object itself it now at position B.

According to your theory, of course. (Curt Renshaw has already thought of your idea, and he thinks it is great!* His only problem is that the idea requires millions of "expanding spheres." Plus, his "spheres" don't expand! See his figure #5

You haven't caught on to the fact that light travels away from the source at c. That means that observers at rest with the source will all see the pulse at the same time if they are the same radial distance from the source when the pulse travels the radial distance from the source.

In your diagram the observers are in a different frame of reference, one in motion with the source. These observers will only see the pulse simultaneously with each other when they are centered on the source, just as the at rest with the source observers all see the pulse simultaneously. They have to be centered upon the source too, in order to see the pulse, but only for an instant, since they are in relative motion.

Not to mention that the moving observers will see Doppler shift, and those with a transverse view will see the position aberrated. The Doppler shifting and aberration should tell you that the observations in the moving reference frame are quite different than the observations in the at rest with the source reference frame. The at rest with the source reference frame is unique because that is where the light pulse is emitted and moves away from the source there at the speed of light.

There is only one expanding sphere of light.

It doesn't stop being centered upon the source just because a group of relatively moving observers want to see it simultaneously with each other!

Using your theory, (or Curt Renshaw's) there would have to be an infinite number of expanding spheres to accommodate all the spherical groups of observers that might be going whichever way at whatever speeds. Now, that there really makes a lot of sense!

Einstein's theory is a sophomoric attempt at explaining the situation. I can understand the confusion though. None of these early theorists were able to think in terms of light traveling a foot per nanosecond. When this simple shrinking of the space necessary to diagram the situation is considered, one can concentrate on the mechanics.

Albert's idea that the speed of light from a relatively moving source should measure the same speed as the local, source centered speed has never been directly measured. JPL used the simple c+v, c-v in calculating the radar ranging of the planets back in the 1960's without using Einstein's formula. This is explained in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of Physics" book. Search for it. If you can't find it, PM me.

We see the activities happening on the surface of the Sun 8 minutes after they happen, and we see a new area of the Sun as we orbit it, 8 minutes after we passed over that area, but we see the Sun right where it is, just the same as if it were in the middle of a field and we drove a circle around it. Why is that? Because the Sun is basically at rest with this part of our Galaxy and the Earth simply orbits it as if it (the Sun) is not moving with respect to the Galaxy.

I really do not see how you might have come to this conclusion. The speed of light is constant and limited to c. That the Earth additionally travels in orbit is irrelevant and certainly not any kind of compensation factor the the speed of light flight time from the Sun.

You will never see this from your point of view. Even though the Earth is "moving" in orbit, for the purpose of seeing the position of the Sun, the Earth is at rest with the Sun. i.e, its radial distance is not changing. As an observer on the Earth receives each new wave front (a different ray, because the observer has moved transversely to the incoming beam) from the Sun, that observer does not have to wait another 8 minutes to see it. That new ray arrives just a nanosecond or so after the one already seen. The Earth is not moving away from the Sun, as you picture it in your diagram.

What is irrelevant is what the rest of the galaxy is doing, for the better part.

BTW, inertial motion is relative. I don't know if very many people see this though. Any momentum an inertial object has can only be determined by reference to some other object.

Your condescending attitude really pisses me off, BTW.

I offer my apology. Michael

Your need to act superior in your posts is actually a sign of inferiority on your part. So why don't you just treat the rest of us as equals? It is not hard to do.

* I have done a critique of Renshaw's article, which I can email to you, if you or anyone are/is interested.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Some of your comments indicate that you have not understood my diagram and scenario in the manner that I had intended. For the sake of argument I am happy to continue to accept responsibility for this failure of communication.

A group of observers are "at rest" with respect to each other and are located at positions C, D E, F, G and H. They are connected by a system of fixed rods to fully ensure that there is no relative motion between them.
An object is travelling at 0.5c relative to all the observers.

At time=t, when the source object is momentarily at position A, the source object emits a short pulse of light spherically. The pulse of light expands at the speed of c, spherically from position A, the point from which is was emitted. The source object continues to travel onward with no further emissions. There is only one spherically expanding pulse of light, emitted when the source object is coincident with position A. Position A is also equi-distant from all the observers.

At time=t+x, the source object has travelled further along relative to the observers and is now at position B. Position A is the location of the source object at time=t and position B is the location of the source object at time=t+x.

The pulse of light that was emitted at time=t from position A has expanded to reach the "at rest" observers. All the observers will see the image of the source in the position that the light was emitted - they will see the source object image at position A, even though the source object that emitted the light pulse has now move to position B.


If the above scenario still does not meet with your approval, then it has occurred to me that this may more closely match your opinion:

This version is identical to the that previously, except that in this version the spherically expanding pulse of light is centred on the moving source object. So at time=t+x the source object has reached position B and the sphere of light has expanded centred on the source object, so that only the new "at rest" observers at positions X, Y, Z will see the light pulse at time=t+x.

I look forward to further clarification of your view point.


Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Some of your comments indicate that you have not understood my diagram and scenario in the manner that I had intended. For the sake of argument I am happy to continue to accept responsibility for this failure of communication.

Speed of Light 3.jpg

A group of observers are "at rest" with respect to each other and are located at positions C, D E, F, G and H. They are connected by a system of fixed rods to fully ensure that there is no relative motion between them.
An object is travelling at 0.5c relative to all the observers.

At time=t, when the source object is momentarily at position A, the source object emits a short pulse of light spherically. The pulse of light expands at the speed of c, spherically from position A, the point from which is was emitted. The source object continues to travel onward with no further emissions. There is only one spherically expanding pulse of light, emitted when the source object is coincident with position A. Position A is also equi-distant from all the observers.

At time=t+x, the source object has travelled further along relative to the observers and is now at position B. Position A is the location of the source object at time=t and position B is the location of the source object at time=t+x.

The pulse of light that was emitted at time=t from position A has expanded to reach the "at rest" observers. All the observers will see the image of the source in the position that the light was emitted - they will see the source object image at position A, even though the source object that emitted the light pulse has now move to position B.


If the above scenario still does not meet with your approval, then it has occurred to me that this may more closely match your opinion:

Speed of Light 4.jpg

This version is identical to the that previously, except that in this version the spherically expanding pulse of light is centred on the moving source object. So at time=t+x the source object has reached position B and the sphere of light has expanded centred on the source object, so that only the new "at rest" observers at positions X, Y, Z will see the light pulse at time=t+x.

I look forward to further clarification of your view point.


Michael

I understand your diagrams quite well, and they are very nice diagrams. They just do not reflect reality.

It matters not whether you choose the Emitter to be moving or your observers to be moving. There is only relative motion. In other words the distance is changing between the two objects of interest (your observers and the emitter). However the state of affairs is easier to understand if the emitter is chosen to be "stationary," and your group of spherical observers to be moving at 1/2c.

Add another spherical group of observers that are at rest with the emitter, at the same radius as your "moving group". The light pulse expands at the speed of light and when it reaches these "at rest with the emitter" observers, they all see the light pulse at the same time. No one who has given this much thought disagrees with the foregoing sentence.

The emitter is now "stationary" for the sake of this story. The observers in the "stationary" reference frame all see the pulse of light at the same time. The incoming observers have no clue about when the pulse was fired. The leading observers in the moving sphere will move right past the emitter when it fired the pulse, and never know that it fired. This is because they are not there at the emitter when it fired. However, for the sake of this explanation, they arrive at the "stationary observer sphere," fortuitously, just as the expanding light sphere reaches the stationary observers.

Whamo! They get to see the same light pulse as the stationary observers! However, as I explained in the above post, they see the pulse for a shorter duration of time, and those directly in line with the emitter see Doppler shift. The leading observers see red shift and the trailing observers see blue shift. Those on either side of the sphere see aberration in the direction from which the pulse seems to come.

The emitter does not leave one expanding sphere behind for your observers, as you picture in your initial diagrams; and another for the at rest with the emitter observers. All observers passing or at a given radius from the emitter will see the pulse when it arrives at the given radius, if they are there when the pulse arrives there. This precludes Einstein's problem with simultaneity. Without the problem of non-simultaneity, there is no reason to cloud the issue with clocks and rods.

I thought I sent you a copy of my sphere charts. Go back and look at them again.

[Xantos]

As I see it, you are both talking about one and the same idea, just using different wordings of the problem and that's causing you two to fight about it.

And to put a bit more oil to the fire...what do you think? Let's say, that galaxies rotate (which they do). We know that planets don't have a circular path around the Sun but more like an ellipse. So we also know the further you are from the center of the galaxy the faster the rotational speed. So with that in mind, do you think that elliptic path is the result of the solar system's speed vector? If you think about it, Voyager presumably left the galaxy and they found a similar shape as is that of an ellipse.

[Goldminer]

As I see it, you are both talking about one and the same idea, just using different wordings of the problem and that's causing you two to fight about it.

Hopefully this is more of a discussion than a fight. MJV and I definitely have different viewpoints. What we think happens is entirely different too. Einstein had no problem with the light pulse bouncing between the mirrors. No one has ever argued that they don't. Yet Einstein "postulated" (in other words his opinion is) that somehow, just because either the observers or the mirrors go real fast past each other, the mirrors become skewed, and the light pulse takes on a zigzag path between them.

Of course if Einstein's theory is true, the observers in the reference frame opposite the mirror frame become skewed from the point of view of the mirror reference frame. No one ever mentions this outcome.

Einstein used his "photon" instead of the light pulse, but once the "photon" is detected, it is absorbed, so no further determination of where it exists over time is possible. That is why my explanation uses a light pulse. Einstein never thought of determining where the pulse is during the passage of time as it moves back and forth. He was just guessing.

In my diagrams (in the essay posted at Fqxi) I determine (Gedanken-wise) where the light pulse is at each foot/nanosecond as it bounces between the mirrors. This is done through detection of the light pulse. I know of no other way to determine where the pulse is, contrary to MJV's opinion.

Detectors are required in the relatively moving reference frame as well, in order to determine where the light pulse is located by those detectors. Those detectors, each one, has to be on the axis of the bouncing light pulse, exactly when the light pulse arrives at that location along the axis. My diagrams show that as well. The transverse moving reference frame detectors plot a zigzag pattern in the moving reference frame. There is no diagonal going pulse of light magically appearing in this reference frame.

I show how, in the longitudinal going reference frame, the detectors traveling with the direction of the light pulse appear to be compressed. They are not compressed. Nether does the moving reference frame become compressed. That is just the position where individual detectors have to be in that reference frame moving in that direction, in order to be at the axis of the light pulse when and where the pulse actually is.

Einstein came up with his "postulate" that the expanding sphere of light is not centered upon the source/emitter to allow his idea that the speed of light is constant regardless of where it originates. That idea seems to be a rabbit trail to me. The speed of the reference frame is the speed of it, no Einstein correction is needed. His whole theory falls apart.

And to put a bit more oil to the fire...what do you think? Let's say, that galaxies rotate (which they do). We know that planets don't have a circular path around the Sun but more like an ellipse. So we also know the further you are from the center of the galaxy the faster the rotational speed. So with that in mind, do you think that elliptic path is the result of the solar system's speed vector? If you think about it, Voyager presumably left the galaxy and they found a similar shape as is that of an ellipse.

Galaxies rotate very slowly! Otherwise the perimeter stars would exceed the speed of light. There are some kind of objects orbiting the center of the Galaxy at very high speeds. I believe the elliptical orbits are caused by the way the Sun acquired the individual planets, and their subsequent interactions with each other. Worrying about the "Helical paths" of everything accomplishes nothing but conversation, IMHO.

The voyager never left the Galaxy, it is on the border of the known planets, i.e. just passing Pluto's orbit. I have no idea to what "elliptical shape" you refer.

BTW, feel free to criticize my essay on the Fqxi site. I need all the criticism I can get at that site.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Einstein came up with his "postulate" that the expanding sphere of light is not centered upon the source/emitter to allow his idea that the speed of light is constant regardless of where it originates. That idea seems to be a rabbit trail to me. The speed of the reference frame is the speed of it, no Einstein correction is needed.

The above leads me to believe that you are of the opinion that the light inherits the velocity vector of the emitting object. Is this correct?

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Einstein came up with his "postulate" that the expanding sphere of light is not centered upon the source/emitter to allow his idea that the speed of light is constant regardless of where it originates. That idea seems to be a rabbit trail to me. The speed of the reference frame is the speed of it, no Einstein correction is needed.

The above leads me to believe that you are of the opinion that the light inherits the velocity vector of the emitting object. Is this correct?

Michael

Yes, that is correct, that is what we find locally. That is what happens whether Einstein's idea that the speed of light is c regardless of where is was emitted, moving reference frame or not. Light expands spherically centered upon the emitter. My question for Einstein consensus believers is: where does the changeover from being centered upon the source to being centered upon who knows what, happen? Another problem with his idea is this: Speed is relative to some reference point. Just saying the speed of light is constant is meaningless; the question is "constant to what reference?" His answer is that it is constant to both emitter and receiver, and that is the reason for the illogical supposed physical changes in rods and clocks.

My diagrams show that all the wonderment is unnecessary. The light pulse can only be detected when it gets to a detector. There is no problem having moving detectors coincide for an instant with stationary detectors. therefore there is no problem adding the third constrain that the pair of detectors are at the place where the light pulse exists, in passing.

Even at non-relativistic speeds such as automobile travel, the radar used by our revenuers to extract royalties from us, detect phase differences caused by the change in the speed of microwaves returning from reflections off of our cars. Of course, the consensus explanation claims the Doppler shift is caused by contracting matter and dilated time.

The two diagrams that cinch the story had to be cut from the essay to meet the requirements of the contest. If you are really interested in understanding this, Private Message me to arrange receiving these diagrams. They are too big to post to the forum.

.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Michael V: ....that you are of the opinion that the light inherits the velocity vector of the emitting object. Is this correct?

Goldminer: Yes, that is correct,

This helps me immensely. I had not considered this within my parameters of possibility, which explains why most of your previous communications has appeared to me to not make sense and why we have been talking almost completely at cross-purposes. I can now put all of your previous communication into some sort of sensibly understandable context. Hopefully we can now move toward some useful dialogue.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Michael V: ....that you are of the opinion that the light inherits the velocity vector of the emitting object. Is this correct?

Goldminer: Yes, that is correct,

This helps me immensely. I had not considered this within my parameters of possibility, which explains why most of your previous communications has appeared to me to not make sense and why we have been talking almost completely at cross-purposes. I can now put all of your previous communication into some sort of sensibly understandable context. Hopefully we can now move toward some useful dialogue.

Michael

I know you are an intelligent guy so I believe you are sometimes intentionally acting ignorant. I present what I believe to be self evident steps to some hypothesis. If some step lacks logic, point it out. Do not keep reciting your litany. Truth and understanding are not produced by proclamation.