Relativity Linear Thread

[Goldminer]

Light travels at the speed of light in the source frame. Wave fronts from two distantly separated sources, at rest with each other, will approach a detector located between them, likewise at rest, at the speed of light. Relative each wave front, the speed between them is twice the speed of light.

(The first paragraph really has little to do with the rest of this post, I just threw it in to show that the speed of light itself violates Einstein's idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light! Sorry.)

Let's place the sources 20 feet apart. Let's pulse them every two nanoseconds for a duration of one nanosecond. Thus each source will be "on" for a nanosecond and "off" for a nanosecond. An at rest detector between these sources will measure a one nanosecond pulse every two nanoseconds from either source.

As long as a moving detector is between the two sources, moving at one half the speed of light along the line of the sources, said detector will measure the oncoming pulse at a half nanosecond every nanosecond, and the receding pulse duration at one and a half nanoseconds every three nanoseconds.

As the detector approaches both sources, before passing the closer of the two, both wavefronts' spectra are blue shifted, and the above said shortening of the pulse applies to both wavefronts; and upon passing the second source, the lengthening of the pulse and red shifting of the spectra apply to both wavefronts. The wavefronts are respectively approaching and receding, only when the detector is between the two sources. Nevertheless, perhaps you can now understand why the conventional belief is that there are "simultaneity problems" with light sources and relativistically moving detectors.

So, yes, seen from this viewpoint, there seem to be "simultaneity problems." In addition, the latency of each succeeding pulse relative each respective source is changing too. In the at rest frame, with the detector's distance to each source unchanging, the latency is constant for each source. With the moving detector, the latency (delay between emission and reception) is constantly changing with the distance. So that is two reasons why one may think "time" slows down, on the other hand, "time" speeds up approaching the source; why this aspect is never mentioned, I don't know.

The only times where the simultaneity problems disappear is when, for the tiniest instant, the moving detector happens to be at the same place in space, at the same time in space, as the at rest with the source detector and the wavefronts that intercept the at rest with the source detector.

[webolife]

The 2c problem is the reason for the Lorentz transformation fudge factor in relativity.
The fact that the simultaneity problem disappears in the case of two wavefronts being in the same detector location at the same time is just another way of saying that, "When you see light, it is there!" The instantaneity of light solves both problems: You can't see or measure light "along the way", and 2c = 2(0) = 0 = c, the only real solution to the c-limit problem.

[Goldminer]

The 2c problem is the reason for the Lorentz transformation fudge factor in relativity.

I think that if you study the history, Lorentz developed his idea for the "Lorentz transformation" from studying Maxwell's ideas. Now, Maxwell had the information from the Continent (Ampère, Gauss, Weber) and lopped off some of Gauss's formula. Heaviside introduced the idea that motion of the charge field which is spherical at rest, becomes ovoid when in motion against the aether. Einstein came along and used this misinformation to concoct the mashup that is STR. The MM interferometer experiments showed that the aether does not have the property of motion, and therefore, an unaccelerated charge is sill spherical unless perturbed by force, irregardless of the speed of any observers, measuring devices or whatever.

The fact that the simultaneity problem disappears in the case of two wavefronts being in the same detector location at the same time is just another way of saying that, "When you see light, it is there!"

You have taken what I wrote, backwards: (Yes, detecting two wavefronts at the same time and place is simultaneity for detecting the wave fronts, but said wavefronts may not have been emitted historically at the same time! Vis: we see the CMEs on the Sun at the same time we see the grass wave before us. The CME happened 8 minutes before the grass waved.) You continue to ignore the evidence for the latency of light.

What I wrote in my previous post is that a moving detector detects the same wavefront as an at rest with the source detector detects when they are both at the same time and place in space. This simultaneity is the same as the coincident origins at the initial originating pulse of the strobe when t=t'=0.

The instantaneity(sic) of light solves both problems: You can't see or measure light "along the way", and 2c = 2(0) = 0 = c, the only real solution to the c-limit problem.

Maybe you and most everybody else can't figure out how to measure light "along the way," but it is quite simply done. If I had the equipment, I would do it. It does not require two clocks, as conventional wisdom insists. I have explained how to accomplish the task in several different posts in the Silly Einstein thread and elsewhere.

P.S. There are also two oppositely going wavefronts on the outside of the two omniradiating strobes. These are separating at twice the speed of light receding away from each other, while the facing wavefronts approach each other at 2c. Once these approaching wavefronts pass each other, they also begin separating at 2c. (This seems confusing without a picture, and is one of the reasons I insist on using only one source to explain what is going on.)
.

[webolife]

Can you explain your CME example further? I am missing how this counters my view of simultaneity...
I don't get the grass waving thing at all... if I see the CME, the light is already happening at my location...

[Goldminer]

Can you explain your CME example further?

I can, my friend, but we have already discussed this. We both agree, I think, that we can see nothing until the light activates our individual retinas. Antenna technology demonstrates that the signal from the source looses energy as it travels away from said antenna. (antenna = strobe)

Everyday observations reveal that objects appear to diminish in size proportionately with distance. The pictures on the cereal or crackerjack boxes denoting that the objects shown are "actual size," are only that way because the object was measured, and the picture's size was adjusted to equal the measurements. Your eyes cannot tell you directly what the actual size of anything really is, except by experience.

The road you travel does not get narrower the further along you move. You know it is about the same width all the way. I do not see where your theory explains these phenomena. I do see how expanding wavefront spheres cause this phenomena.

I am missing how this counters my view of simultaneity . . .

I can't see inside your mind, so I can't help you there. Over Earth and environs, the delay between transmission and reception of light is well documented. If you refuse to accept said information, you are on your own.

I don't get the grass waving thing at all . . .

It doesn't have to be grass waving, it could be that you notice a mouse looking cross-eyed at you for an instant, or you have an itch under your nose. Whatever action that you know to be local. Off in the distance you see lightning strike a mountain top. I am confidant that the appearance of the lightning strike at your eyes happened a few thousand nanoseconds after the actual stroke itself, just as the motion of the mouse's eyes followed the stroke of lightning; even though both wavefronts entered your retinas simultaneously. I understand your reluctance to accept this, as it sort of ruins your closely held theory.

if I see the CME, the light is already happening at my location . . .

Yes, the wavefront bringing you the vision has finally reached your eyes. Kinescope and everything after until digital video, and yet even so, relies upon the mind's inability to see individual pictures being flashed on a screen The flashes become a continuum.

Pay attention here: the the video of a scene, distant and close in, all reach your eyes at the same time, and the motion there (from the surface of the monitor screen) is "instantaneous" as per your theory. Of course the video is not real time. The distance latency cannot be discovered in the recording of a scene.

[Goldminer]

I have been studying Eric Dollard's theories. In this article he discusses the "Hysteresis of the Aether." Now, it strikes me that this selfsame hysteresis is the inertia that unaccelerated matter experiences when acted upon by force. I arrive at this conjecture through diagramming the expansion of a light pulse away from its source, (yet centered upon said source) as detected by "observes" in the "at rest with the source frame" vs those in various "relatively moving frames."

From Eric's article I gather that it is actually the latency of the magnetic field that limits the speed of light. Apparently, the propagation of the electric field is much faster. (The three main properties attributed to the aether are permittivity, permeability and the impedance of "empty space." (As if "empty" has qualities. Qualities=Not empty)

Einstein's folly is that he reifies time. Time is not a substance, it is not a particle. He has conflated the mere passage of time with the time delay between transmission and reception of radiant energy, otherwise known as the speed of light. His attempt to explain the situation by placing an undefined time scale upon an additional axis, which must duplicate one of the Cartesian coordinates of space, is non sequitur.

Steinmetz here transforms all space dimension relations of distance along the transmission line from centimeters to LIGHT – SECONDS. The Light – Year is an equivalent metrical relation.

You see? Nothing new under the Sun! This is exactly what I've done with the charts that I have offered to send to anyone interested. The only difference is that I have reduced the distances involved by using light-nanoseconds (The distance traveled in a "light-nanosecond" is about a foot, thereby giving both the delay and the distance per foot) for the reference, thereby reducing the diagrams to an actual scale that fits on pieces of paper you can manage to peruse on your desk.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

...the charts that I have offered to send to anyone interested.

I am interested. Please be so kind as to send the info to mjv.theory@gmail.com. Thanks.

Einstein's folly is that he reifies time. Time is not a substance, it is not a particle. He has conflated the mere passage of time with the time delay between transmission and reception of radiant energy, otherwise known as the speed of light. His attempt to explain the situation by placing an undefined time scale upon an additional axis, which must duplicate one of the Cartesian coordinates of space, is non sequitur.

It is perhaps impossible to know for sure which came first, but Einstein has effectively done a double reification, both with time and with energy. As you say, there is a conflation of "passage of time" with "time delay", but then also a conflation of "mass/energy proportionality" with "mass/energy equivalency". He has made time into a substance and he has made energy into a substance - and back to the "dark-ages" we go, with science hijacked by superstition.

Michael

[klypp]

Light travels at the speed of light in the source frame. Wave fronts from two distantly separated sources, at rest with each other, will approach a detector located between them, likewise at rest, at the speed of light. Relative each wave front, the speed between them is twice the speed of light.

(The first paragraph really has little to do with the rest of this post, I just threw it in to show that the speed of light itself violates Einstein's idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light! Sorry.)

Let's place the sources 20 feet apart. Let's pulse them every two nanoseconds for a duration of one nanosecond. Thus each source will be "on" for a nanosecond and "off" for a nanosecond. An at rest detector between these sources will measure a one nanosecond pulse every two nanoseconds from either source.

As long as a moving detector is between the two sources, moving at one half the speed of light along the line of the sources, said detector will measure the oncoming pulse at a half nanosecond every nanosecond, and the receding pulse duration at one and a half nanoseconds every three nanoseconds.

This is not the values I get.

The relative speed between the detector and the pulses from the oncoming source would be c plus 0,5c, equals 1,5c. This means that the detector will measure a pulse duration of 0.67 ns and the time between each pulse 1,33 ns.
The relative speed between the detector and the pulses from the receding source would be c minus 0,5c, equals 0,5c. Now the detector will measure a pulse duration of 2 ns and the time between each pulse 4 ns.

Miscalculation? Or are there some strange ideas lurking behind the scenes here?

[Goldminer]

Light travels at the speed of light in the source frame. Wave fronts from two distantly separated sources, at rest with each other, will approach a detector located between them, likewise at rest, at the speed of light. Relative each wave front, the speed between them is twice the speed of light.

(The first paragraph really has little to do with the rest of this post, I just threw it in to show that the speed of light itself violates Einstein's idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light! Sorry.)

Let's place the sources 20 feet apart. Let's pulse them every two nanoseconds for a duration of one nanosecond. Thus each source will be "on" for a nanosecond and "off" for a nanosecond. An at rest with the sources detector between these sources will measure a one nanosecond pulse every two nanoseconds from either source.

As long as a moving detector is between the two sources, moving at one half the speed of light along the line of the sources, said detector will measure the oncoming pulse at a half nanosecond every nanosecond, and the receding pulse duration at one and a half nanoseconds every three nanoseconds.

This is not the values I get.

The relative speed between the detector and the pulses from the oncoming source would be c plus 0,5c, equals 1,5c. This means that the detector will measure a pulse duration of 0.67 ns and the time between each pulse 1,33 ns.
The relative speed between the detector and the pulses from the receding source would be c minus 0,5c, equals 0,5c. Now the detector will measure a pulse duration of 2 ns and the time between each pulse 4 ns.

Miscalculation? Or are there some strange ideas lurking behind the scenes here?

Probably both! I was feeling groggy at the time. I tried to do subtraction where division is required! I remember thinking "Do you have that right? as I clicked the "submit" button, then went off to sleep. I appreciate the wake up call! Thanks.

[Goldminer]

Lorentz force is incompatible with Special Relativity (pdf)

Let us reproduce the situation analyzed in Ref. [1]. Consider a magnet at rest near an electric charge, also at rest. For simplicity, consider also that the magnetic moment of the magnet is orthogonal to the separation from the magnet to the charge. No net force is exchanged between the two: static electric charges only produce electric fields (to which the magnet is oblivious) and static magnets only produce magnetic fields (to which the static electric charge is oblivious). The charge-magnet system stands still indefinitely. Now, consider the same system as seen by an inertial observer moving parallel to the separation between the charge and the magnet. The now moving magnet becomes polarized with an electric dipole moment orthogonal to its magnetic moment and to its velocity [6]. Therefore, the electric field produced by the (moving) charge will exert a torque which, Ref. [1] argues, would rotate the magnet, trying to align its electric dipole moment to the electric field. This clearly contradicts the fact that in the rest frame of the system the magnet stands still.

If the above paragraphs are a true statement of the problem, I fail to understand the author's argument. If any observer moving in any direction happens by the above arrangement of magnet and electrically charged sphere, unless the observer is carrying another magnet, charged sphere, or conductor; what sort of effect can said observer or multitude of observers have upon said arrangement? The motion of observers are irrelevant.

Does anyone else agree that the author has created a straw argument that needs no calculation or wonder in the first place? This argument is about as silly as Einstein claiming that there is a "photon" created by a "moving observer, watching" as pair of mirrors with multiple reflections of a source beam of light encounters the imaginary photon zigzagging at the same speed as said beam bounces in the mirrors.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Yes, that zigzagging light between the mirrors is an embarrassment for relativists and at the same time a superb argument against time dilation.

The point the author was making it that since the moving observer is moving relative to the magnet, then relatively speaking, there is an argument that the moving observer is at rest and the magnet is moving relative to them. And apparently moving magnets and moving static charges do something different to stationary ones. As far as creating a straw argument is concerned, I would say that SR is already a straw argument. If all motion is relative, any attempt to assign an "at rest" frame and a "moving frame" is meaningless since it is supposed to be relative. With Maxwell's electromagnetism is flawed, light as an EM wave totally erroneous, then the making of time and distance arbitrary so as to artificially maintain a constant velocity calculation for light is absurd.

The truth is that the speed of light is constant and that it is constant relative to absolute rest. With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference available, the operational difficulties of establishing a referable point of absolute rest are almost certainly insurmountable. This leaves us only able to judge relative motion relative to the only other motional constant, which is the speed of light. Time and distance are of course also absolute, with measurement being simply an operational difficulty and not intrinsic variables.

There is also an additional flaw in both the author's argument and in the supposed factual knowledge regarding the static and moving magnets and electric charges. It is that the determination of said fact/law seems happy to ignore the fact that, relatively speaking, the Earth rotates at 450m/s, orbits the Sun at 30,000m/s and travels round the galaxy at 220,000m/s. So how anyone on Earth has managed to derive any factual knowledge of non-moving magnets and "static" electric "charges" is unclear.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Yes, that zigzagging light between the mirrors is an embarrassment for relativists and at the same time a superb argument against time dilation.

The point the author was making it that since the moving observer is moving relative to the magnet, then relatively speaking, there is an argument that the moving observer is at rest and the magnet is moving relative to them. And apparently moving magnets and moving static charges do something different to stationary ones.

My point is that the author has not posed any "moving" magnets or charges. All he has stated is that an observer is in motion relative to said magnet and charge which remain at rest with each other. A conductor in motion perpendicular to the magnetic field such that the strength of said field is changing, produces a potential difference between the ends of said conductor. Whether it is the conductor or magnet that "moves" is irrelevant. In fact motion between magnet and conductor is not necessary. The alternating energizing and de-energizing of an electromagnet produces said potential difference in a separate conductor at a fixed distance from the magnet.

A changing electric field does nothing magnetically. However, moving ions of electrons and protons self-organize into "filaments" of like particles, which is how "plasma" got its name. The magnetic field generated by the moving ions causes an interaction that results in the self-organization. Tesla's research may alter my understanding of the foregoing statement.

As far as creating a straw argument is concerned, I would say that SR is already a straw argument. If all motion is relative, any attempt to assign an "at rest" frame and a "moving frame" is meaningless since it is supposed to be relative.

You are ignoring my point here. Yes, "at rest" is meaningless until it is given a reference. Once the reference is given, the term "at rest" most certainly does have meaning. Once "at rest" has meaning, "moving frame" automatically has meaning in reference to the "at rest frame." The reference is the source of the radiation. Einstein and his promoters infer that the source (singular) can be in two places at once. This would require a very elastic source!

With Maxwell's electromagnetism is flawed, light as an EM wave totally erroneous, then the making of time and distance arbitrary so as to artificially maintain a constant velocity calculation for light is absurd.

While your conclusion here is correct, your reasoning leading to it is totally flawed.

The truth is that the speed of light is constant and that it is constant relative to absolute rest. With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference [are] available, the operational difficulties of establishing a referable point of absolute rest are almost certainly insurmountable. This leaves us only able to judge relative motion relative to the only other motional[sic] constant, which is the speed of light. Time and distance are of course also absolute, with measurement being simply an operational difficulty and not intrinsic variables.

Again, while your conclusion here is correct, your reasoning leading to it is totally flawed. Your statement "The truth is that the speed of light is constant and that it is constant relative to absolute rest" is made moot by your second statement that follows.

Your statement " With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference available" negates any "absolute rest" reference point.

There is also an additional flaw in both the author's argument and in the supposed factual knowledge regarding the static and moving magnets and electric charges. It is that the determination of said fact/law seems happy to ignore the fact that, relatively speaking, the Earth rotates at 450m/s, orbits the Sun at 30,000m/s and travels round the galaxy at 220,000m/s. So how anyone on Earth has managed to derive any factual knowledge of non-moving magnets and "static" electric "charges" is unclear.Michael

This last paragraph of yours is a muddled mess. Your car is at rest with your garage when it is parked therein. It is in motion with reference to your garage if you didn't set the brake and it rolls out of the garage, or you are driving it some where. If you stop at the market, your car is again at rest with your garage, since the store and the garage are at rest with each other. You are starting to sound like Miles M.

[Goldminer]

The "walk away" understanding IMHOP, is that nothing is induced until the magnetic or electric field strength either increases or decreases. If there is an induced current, it causes a "resistance" to the motion of one part of the system or the other. If an increased load is applied to the circuit around a generator, the shaft of the generator is harder to turn. If the load is applied to the secondary of a transformer, the primary draws more current.

How does an observer see something that is invisible? Said observer must have instruments for the detection of said fields.

Moving a rock or a tree branch in and out of either a magnetic or electric field does nothing to either the fields or the objects. Actually touching a charged pith ball will transfer charge to whatever object touched it.

Does placing a pair of conducting plates on either side of a charged pith ball create a charged capacitor? Will placing a voltage across said plates actually charge the pith ball?

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Yes, that zigzagging light between the mirrors is an embarrassment for relativists and at the same time a superb argument against time dilation.

The point the author was making it that since the moving observer is moving relative to the magnet, then relatively speaking, there is an argument that the moving observer is at rest and the magnet is moving relative to them. And apparently moving magnets and moving static charges do something different to stationary ones.

My point is that the author has not posed any "moving" magnets or charges. All he has stated is that an observer is in motion relative to said magnet and charge which remain at rest with each other. A conductor in motion perpendicular to the magnetic field such that the strength of said field is changing, produces a potential difference between the ends of said conductor. Whether it is the conductor or magnet that "moves" is irrelevant. In fact motion between magnet and conductor is not necessary. The alternating energizing and de-energizing of an electromagnet produces said potential difference in a separate conductor at a fixed distance from the magnet.

A changing electric field does nothing magnetically. However, moving ions of electrons and protons self-organize into "filaments" of like particles, which is how "plasma" got its name. The magnetic field generated by the moving ions causes an interaction that results in the self-organization. Tesla's research may alter my understanding of the foregoing statement.

As far as creating a straw argument is concerned, I would say that SR is already a straw argument. If all motion is relative, any attempt to assign an "at rest" frame and a "moving frame" is meaningless since it is supposed to be relative.

You are ignoring my point here. Yes, "at rest" is meaningless until it is given a reference. Once the reference is given, the term "at rest" most certainly does have meaning. Once "at rest" has meaning, "moving frame" automatically has meaning in reference to the "at rest frame." The reference is the source of the radiation. Einstein and his promoters infer that the source (singular) can be in two places at once. This would require a very elastic source!

With Maxwell's electromagnetism is flawed, light as an EM wave totally erroneous, then the making of time and distance arbitrary so as to artificially maintain a constant velocity calculation for light is absurd.

While your conclusion here is correct, your reasoning leading to it is totally flawed.

The truth is that the speed of light is constant and that it is constant relative to absolute rest. With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference [are] available, the operational difficulties of establishing a referable point of absolute rest are almost certainly insurmountable. This leaves us only able to judge relative motion relative to the only other motional[sic] constant, which is the speed of light. Time and distance are of course also absolute, with measurement being simply an operational difficulty and not intrinsic variables.

Again, while your conclusion here is correct, your reasoning leading to it is totally flawed. Your statement "The truth is that the speed of light is constant and that it is constant relative to absolute rest" is made moot by your second statement that follows.

Your statement " With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference available" negates any "absolute rest" reference point.

There is also an additional flaw in both the author's argument and in the supposed factual knowledge regarding the static and moving magnets and electric charges. It is that the determination of said fact/law seems happy to ignore the fact that, relatively speaking, the Earth rotates at 450m/s, orbits the Sun at 30,000m/s and travels round the galaxy at 220,000m/s. So how anyone on Earth has managed to derive any factual knowledge of non-moving magnets and "static" electric "charges" is unclear.Michael

This last paragraph of yours is a muddled mess. Your car is at rest with your garage when it is parked therein. It is in motion with reference to your garage if you didn't set the brake and it rolls out of the garage, or you are driving it some where. If you stop at the market, your car is again at rest with your garage, since the store and the garage are at rest with each other. You are starting to sound like Miles M.

Whatsa matter, Michael V? I detect silence when valid criticism of your theories are presented. You are using Nereid's tactic of ignoring said criticism. I hesitated to suggest such a low blow, but your theories seem to be built upon sand.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Be patient young one. Partly, I'm a little busy with other things, but mainly I'm thinking and writing. The fundamental basis of my theory/model/opinion remains in place: a randomly moving aethereal particle field. However, there are some complexities that I am struggling to work through - a limited attention/concentration span combined with a propensity to react to distractions is making it slow going. That said I am fairly confident that I have identified a few hitherto overlooked processes that make a very compelling argument. Hopefully before the year's end.....


One area of investigation that is slowing my progress is the spatial/directional propagation of photons - and I use the word "photon" with no intention of implying particle rather than wave, simply as a convenient word to describe an electron light emission event.

Take a tiny spark at the limit of direct human detection (as opposed to machine detectors), the spark would be visible to a group of observers surrounding the event. This may imply that the photons were emitted spherically from the spark. However, such a humanly detectable event is the result of thousands or millions of photons (i.e. electron emission events), so I am finding difficulty in deciding upon a ray or sphere of emission. You are firmly of the belief that a single "photon event" is emitted with a spherical distribution. Aside from it being a function of your waving aether model, do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

The other factor is reception - that is detection and interpretation. The standard explanation revolves around the reception/interception of a particle or wave photon. However, as implied by Eric's unquantum work (which surely he should have called unphoton, shouldn't he?), emission and reception are by no means proportional. In particular his mention of Planck's "Loading Theory" (I have not been able to find/google any reference to Planck's ideas other than that mentioned by Eric). This concept really struck a chord with the direction my own thoughts had been going. The basic idea is that any given electron may be partly "loaded" or "primed", by "backgound" sources to emit a photon event. The eventual emission is dictated by the environmental circumstances of the electron and the "frequency" received just prior to emission. The implication of a system of "what is emitted may or may not be what is detected" does not seem to be addressed directly by standard theory.



Anyhow, on to more important issues:

The fact is that the speed of light is constant and, that it is constant relative to absolute rest. With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference [are] available, the operational difficulties of establishing a referable point of absolute rest are almost certainly insurmountable. This leaves us only able to judge relative motion relative to the only other motional[sic] constant, which is the speed of light. Time and distance are of course also absolute, with measurement being simply an operational difficulty and not intrinsic variables.

Again, while your conclusion here is correct, your reasoning leading to it is totally flawed. Your statement "The truth is that the speed of light is constant and that it is constant relative to absolute rest" is made moot by your second statement that follows.

Your statement " With all the universe in motion and so no fixed points of reference available" negates any "absolute rest" reference point.

Your bolded response indicates that you have not understood my point. Perhaps you have spent too much time with relativity gedanken diagrams to realise the most obvious flaw.

(The rest frame is the square, the time t is arbitrary, the distance travelled by the light and by the rest frame is not to scale)

"With all the universe in motion"- the "rest frame" and all the reference points that "qualify" it as a rest frame are in motion. Not perhaps within the the supposed thought experiment, but in the real universe - the rest frame IS in motion, not relative to chosen reference points, but it IS IN MOTION.

An instantaneous (i.e. as short as you like) flash of light from the centre of the rest frame can be described as propagating outwards in all directions: after a given time interval, t, the light front will describe a sphere of light at a given distance from the "point of emission". Obviously, there we may also entertain the possibility that light is emitted as a particle based ray. This is of no consequence, since the "sphere of light" merely represents a sphere of radius c times t, centred on the point of emission. Note that for the purposes of this thought experiment there are observers involved or required.

Meanwhile, the rest frame and the light emitter, whether it be a single electron or a light bulb, together with all and any chosen points of reference, have moved in some unknown direction at some unknown velocity, that can only be determined or described relative to other reference points, which are themselves moving.

The instantaneous point of emission at the centre of the light sphere has not moved and will never ever ever move - it is a fixed point of absolute rest for all infinite eternity - it is a co-ordinate point in space with no fixed reference points to establish the co-ordinates to. This is the most obvious flaw in the relativist argument. The emission point of the light is not and cannot be fixed, at the rest frame. The experimenter, may assign a point in the rest frame as a co-ordinate source, but the propagation of light and the motion of the universe are in no way inclined or obliged to co-operate. The rest frame may well be at rest relative to reference points, but the "point of emission" is at absolute rest relative to the expanding light sphere.

Am I in error?, or, has your world just changed?

Michael