Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
Please do not mistake my tone as being anything other than challenging of premises. I really don't mean to be Nereid-like, although I found that she made me think very deeply about my premises and conclusions. You took my challenge and responded well.

I am very interested in your experience with survey equipment and other EDM technologies. I spoke at length with a veteran surveyor working on my property, who when asked, gave me the usual "speed of light" explanation that "seemed" [as you also said] to make sense, but when I asked how the timing technology work he admitted that it was a refractive difference that was being measured by the sensors, and not the time between send/receive pulses... survey equipment works on very short distances as well as long, so timing actual delay of light signals at the c-rate is not feasible. That said, how do you think the EDM's actually work, and be careful of parroting the "c-rate" explanation without being able to show me the actual measurement technology. I'm guessing that a careful review of computer program algorithms used to interpret signal results might incorporate the constant c is such a way that were it removed there would be no effect on the measurement outcome. I am very interested to know what you can find out about this. I've checked into police radar technology and found that it is not a c-dependent system. "Doppler" radar also appears to be a refraction based system rather than c-dependent, despite the story usually told to the common folk that somehow light pulses are being tracked at 3X10^8m/s. By refraction, I'm pointing at the inference of light speed from the position of a received light signal relative to it's assumed return position. Help me out here, 'Miner, because I really do want to understand this, and GPS system technology as well. Remember to avoid "seeming" explanations and point to the actual apparatus and measurement algorithm.

Yeah, I've gotten grumpy with some posters here that proclaim to be "open minded" and yet admit to being intransigent with respect to their own opinions. One cannot see another's perspective without temporarily adopting their presumptions. Sometimes the presumptions are so preposterous and tightly held that discussion with them is impossible! I try to maintain an open but not empty mind.

That said, I have had very interesting discussions with various people that regard light as motionless. One of them is Rebis, who is a moderator on the General Science Journal Forum, here. I think if you make yourself known there, (you have to sign in for all the features just as you must do here,) you will find him to be willing to start a discussion. If you can figure out how to contact him, and start a discussion, make me a part of it.

A search on "Time Delay Reflectometry" will be worth your while. For example. (You have to believe that light pulses can be detected and turned into electrical pulses for analysis.)

As for me explaining all that I know about GPS and EDM, and light in general, you are asking a bit much. I can come up with references, I do all the time, but so can you! It's something you do on your own. You have to study it as a separate discipline along with developing your own theory, I guess. It's what I do, anyway.

Because the CPF theory does not recognize wavelength but rather the actual angular relationship of color to the central line of sight [from which wavelength was originally, I believe incorrectly, inferred by Young, et.al.], the use of the lambda constant in c-rate algorithms may be misleading. Thus the ratio of frequency to c-rate becomes a self-fulfilling aspect of refraction computations. Planck's constant is a physical fudge factor used to make a relationship between the three work mathematically. So what I need and want to know more about is the actual technology used to make the necessary detections of light reflection that are delivered as a distance to object.

OK, Here is what I think about the "Planck's constant:" (I have stated this elsewhere on the forum, maybe in this very thread) Wave length is in the space domain, the "three dimension" space we all know and love. It is the distance from the start of one oscillation of said radiant energy to the end of said oscillation. If you think radiant energy doesn't oscillate, I've lost you right here. Frequency is in the time domain, the same "time dimension" we all know and love. Not the one on a separate Imaginary axis perpendicular to the "space axes."
On an oscilloscope, the time domain is charted by the "sweep" of the scope. This "sweep" is a closely regulated frequency that forms the time standard of the 'scope. Varying voltages can be traced over time on the face of the scope. Well, anyway, study up on this too. The 'scope shows the wave length and frequency, concurrently.

Oh yeah, the O'scope easily charts the time delay of light over short distances. (Given one with enough band width) See my links above on TDR. Also, Forrest Bishop's posts.

My point is that a frequency or wavelength is not detectable unless it has amplitude. So, whether right or wrong, I think of the h constant as the amplitude of the wave.

calculated the value of specific areal momentum with the mass-energy of a 1-Hz photon as the unit mass.

Mass being the "inertial" part of matter, the resistance to the unaccelerated state of matter, when acted upon by force.

A one Hz "photon" would be 186,000 miles long, and take one second to be "absorbed" by a "black body,"
Right?

So many rabbit trails, so little attention span!

[Goldminer]

The farce disturbance seems to have interrupted your post.

TDR seems to be a relay delay error compensation or adjustment protocol for optical transmission systems.
I looked at several returns to that search, and none of them actually addresses the time delay as a transmission speed of light issue.

Yeah, I must have hit the Submit button instead of the Preview button while compiling my post, then the new post started a new page in the thread, and I failed to see your post here. Good excuse eh?

Somehow your theory has to come up with the fact that the time delay is proportional to the distance traveled by the pulse. The TDR equipment gives the operator the distance to the fault, junction or whatever. For instance this is invaluable to technicians trying to find problems within the miles of wiring on a large airliner, or the maze of cables at a computer server center. The techs can just measure out to where the TDR shows the default and start inspecting for the problem. The time delay caused by the finite speed of the pulse over a given distance is a physically measured distance. (redundancy for emphasis)

TDR works on fiber optics as well as electrical cabling. If you rule out transmission speed from your thinking, you will definitely have a problem figuring out what delay has to do with TDR. For those of us that do not rule out transmission speed from our thinking, your question/confusion would never enter our thinking. I doubt that your theory would ever conceive of developing such a machine.

[webolife]

Or does the signal "strength" vary proportionally to the distance, causing a minute delay in the receptor sensitivity to the return?

Or [for me] there is the issue of a return pulse coming along the same line as the sent pulse. If the light action is instantaneous across distance, there would be a necessary "clearing of the line" in order for the return pulse to be redirected... a relay delay due strictly to vector cancellation, and not to a moving light pulse.

I'm also curious about the idea of a "photon" being 186,000 miles long, and taking a second to be fully received by the detection apparatus... can you elucidate more about this? This brings up a simple relativity dilemma in that the receiver is moving with respect to the sender, or else the light beam/photon is changing its orientation to remain connected to both sender and receiving apparatus... depending on where that question goes, I may have a red shift followup question.

[Goldminer]

Or does the signal "strength" vary proportionally to the distance, causing a minute delay in the receptor sensitivity to the return?

With light, the beam, ray, or sphere is always expanding therefor the "signal strength" is always diminishing. (see the Blaze lab link) once a portion of the expanding sphere, which will be a ray/beam is reflected, it will still keep expanding/diverging. It is a very simple concept, IMHO. The surface area increases as the signal, which is spread over the surface, proportionally decreases. I have no idea how your theory accounts for this property.

Or [for me] there is the issue of a return pulse coming along the same line as the sent pulse. If the light action is instantaneous across distance, there would be a necessary "clearing of the line" in order for the return pulse to be redirected... a relay delay due strictly to vector cancellation, and not to a moving light pulse.

In TDR, one pulse goes and comes back before the next is emitted, or else the pulses are modulated so as to determine which is which. Did you read the article? The return is modulated by the type of fault. An open fault is different from a short fault. A junction registers with a different signature than a capacitive or resistive fault.

I think you should study up on the conventional theory of optics, just so you don't sound so off the wall. Take their theory and show how you solve the same steps. Your theory has to describe why the foreground travels past you seemingly faster than the background and why the distant objects seem to grow as they come into closer view. (I am speaking of the objects directly ahead; the objects more lateral to your view never get quite as big.)

I'm also curious about the idea of a "photon" being 186,000 miles long, and taking a second to be fully received by the detection apparatus... can you elucidate more about this? This brings up a simple relativity dilemma in that the receiver is moving with respect to the sender, or else the light beam/photon is changing its orientation to remain connected to both sender and receiving apparatus... depending on where that question goes, I may have a red shift followup question.

My comment was just a consequence of what Planck put forth. I have seen it stated that a "photon" is one cycle/oscillation, wavelength, I've seen it stated that such is not the case. For me, it doesn't matter, because from my research, the photon never does leave home. One is created at emission, just before the wave actually propagates, and another is created just as the ray or beam part of a wave front is absorbed. Look through my posts for Bill Beaty and Dave de Hilster, or do a search on them.

As to the "connection between sender and receiver;" there isn't one. The emitted expanding sphere just expands into space. Receivers can come and go, speed up, slow down or come to a stop relative the sender. If a receiver comes between another receiver, it just casts a shadow. It is of no consequence to the sender. The number of receivers is essentially unlimited and of no consequence except in the near field.(Transformer action can load the primary, but in the far field the receiver can only receive energy that is present at the distance of said receiver.)

The wavelength/frequency is at its natural state when observers are at rest with the source. It is moving observers who find latency increasing/decreasing along with wavelength/frequency as the distance from the source increases/decreases; the rate of change depending upon the speed.

This discussion is just a simplified abstraction of what transpires in witnessing the scenes around us. Trying to include everything would be like having a map with every atom described.

[webolife]

I understand optics. My theory is an optical theory. What makes you think I would have a problem with matters of perspective or intensity? My contention is that all of the alleged moving light behaviors you describe are still possible if light is not itself moving. There is most definitely a connection between sender and receiver. We call it "seeing". There is no light without a receiver; and I do not mean a "perceiver" necessarily, I mean that the light action occurs at "both ends" [the centroid and peripheral point] or it does not happen at all [or is irrelevant to our experimental observations/measurements]... in addition it behooves standard [or your] theory to explain how an image is created. You draw me an optical ray diagram, and I will tell you that is what light is, for that is how it acts. You may think its is waving or expanding, but I challenge you to explain Olber's paradox with your theory. All the supposed answers say maybe this or maybe that, but never say how wavefronts produce an image, the quintescential light effect, despite the impossibly tenuated wavefront that has stretched itself across an astronomical distance to be seen clear and punctual as that distant star. How can one iota of an immeasurably stretched wavefront produce an informative image of anything? To make it possible you will have to leave your waves and and resort to an optical ray diagram. Your TDR works with short as well as long transmissions. I contend that there is not enough time lapsed for any significant c-time delay to be measured by the technology. Delays may be inferred as a light travel time because that is what you expect, or they may simply be a relay delay that is distance related. When you see light, it is there. I contend that action across a long distance will decrease light's signal/stimulation inducing capacity, whether it is stuff moving or not. You cannot see light "along the way", only when it "arrives", and when it arrives you are not "clocking" it's speed, you simply record the signal.

[Goldminer]

I understand optics. My theory is an optical theory. What makes you think I would have a problem with matters of perspective or intensity?

What makes you think that there is a problem with the finite speed of light and its wave with matters of perspective or intensity? There is none other than what you want to manufacture.

My contention is that all of the alleged moving light behaviors you describe are still possible if light is not itself moving.

So, that's you story. It doesn't explain TDR or multilateration GPS. Finite speed light waves are my story and I'm stickn' to it.

There is most definitely a connection between sender and receiver.

I suppose you have explained multilateration to your satisfaction, but it does not make my day. Finite light speed and latency are simple explanations as far as I am concerned. Your "connections" are tenuous, and your "relay" requires magic to know how much to delay over a given distance, not to mention many receivers over many distances, from the source.

We call it "seeing". There is no light without a receiver; and I do not mean a "perceiver" necessarily, I mean that the light action occurs at "both ends" [the centroid and peripheral point] or it does not happen at all [or is irrelevant to our experimental observations/measurements]... in addition it behooves standard [or your] theory to explain how an image is created.

I have explained that, too. On the atomic level, atoms and molecules change energy levels and potential difference arise allowing signals to the brain, or chemical reactions on film, pictures on frosted plates in a pinhole box etc. You have never explained how your "relay delay" manages to substitute for latency, how its delay is proportional to the distance involved.

A holographic "picture is formed by the interactions of a monochromatic laser reflecting off of a scene. The waves interact and make the holograph. You can cut the holograph in half and still the 3D picture will form when the half holograph is again illuminated with laser light. The whole sequence depends upon waves and the latency of them.

You draw me an optical ray diagram, and I will tell you that is what light is, for that is how it acts.

Exactly! So, you have just said that whatever I explain or draw, you will deny it has any meaning. Why should I waste my time?

You may think its is waving or expanding, but I challenge you to explain Olber's paradox with your theory.[I did, you just don't believe it.

I've explained "Olber's paradox, you never explained why my explanation doesn't work.

All the supposed answers say maybe this or maybe that, but never say how wavefronts produce an image, the quintescential(sic) light effect, despite the impossibly tenuated(sic)wavefront that has stretched itself across an astronomical distance to be seen clear and punctual as that distant star. How can one iota of an immeasurably stretched wavefront produce an informative image of anything?

Seeing is believing. It takes time doesn't it, to form the time exposures in low light conditions, doesn't it? In the mean time if things change position in the "source" the image becomes blurred doesn't it. Time delay has nothing to do with this, I suppose. Nevertheless, We end up seeing further with time exposures don't we? This is your answer, although you won't accept it.

To make it possible[,] you will have to leave your waves and and resort to an optical ray diagram. Your TDR works with short as well as long transmissions. I contend that there is not enough time lapsed for any significant c-time delay to be measured by the technology.

So where do the measurements come from? The device as well as the GPS device give measurements based upon latency of the light/microwave signal. Your claim about technology being unable to make the delay measurement is false.

Delays may be inferred as a light travel time because that is what you expect, or they may simply be a relay delay that is distance related.

Duh! Right! How does your relay know how long to delay? You have just admitted that the time between emission and detection is delayed according to distance. Your "delay is a duration of time. Please, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night!

When you see light, it is there . . .

So? Yes, it is "there!" Of course you have no knowledge of when the far light was emitted and when the near light was emitted, because both rays are received at the same time! The TDR and GPS systems make this measurement possible! You simply refuse to admit it, since it makes your theory superfluous.

I contend that action across a long distance will decrease light's signal/stimulation inducing capacity . . .

So does the expanding sphere explain attenuation or diminished intensity. Seeing is believing. It takes time doesn't it, to form the time exposures in low light conditions, doesn't it? In the mean time if things change position in the "source" the image becomes blurred doesn't it. Time delay has nothing to do with this, I suppose. Nevertheless, We end up seeing further with time exposures don't we? This is your answer, although you won't accept it.

. . . whether it is stuff [meaning waves] moving or not.

It's called attenuation, among other synonyms. I've explained that, too! No big problem.

You cannot see light "along the way", only when it "arrives . . . "

Yes, I agree with that. I've explained the formation of "photons" at the source and reception, and Poynting vector along the way, several times in fact!

. . . and when it arrives you are not "clocking" it's speed, you simply record the signal.

True, it takes special equipment to "clock" the speed. That is what TDR and GPS do.

[webolife]

We're closer than you might think, Goldminer.

Your "photons" not leaving the source or receiver loci is a significant shared view.
The vectoral transmission [interconnection] is another place where we have similar thinking.

Taking time to detect a weak or distant impulse does not require "moving" light, but is a function of the sensitivity of the receiver apparatus. An amplifying [focusing] device is a standard feature. A hologram [not unlike a TDR]combines signals from two different "directions" to create the sense of depth [or distance]; this variation in the information does not require that light be moving, and the relay delay being compensated for by the hardware/software design may be a distance proportional relationship due to the different number of path/relay changes/reflections/refractions involved. I'm not in "mind made up" mode here -- I'm trying to see through the explanation to the actual measurement technology being employed.

[Goldminer]

In the so called "Galilean Transformation" wherein the Pre-STR mathematics are derived, what exactly is the "event"?

Hmmmm! In the latest diagram at WikiP, The "event" has been removed from the diagram! So, now what are they measuring? All they picture is a pair of empty Cartesian coordinate systems separating!

Here

They appear to be avoiding all the contradictions that Steve Waterman brought up concerning the silly lines out to the so-called "event!" (Pictured as "P" in his diagram.)

Here



So, anyway, my question is: What happens at the event? (the one pictured at "P" in Waterman's diagram?)

And what's up at WikiP?

[POV_at_Exit_0]

As a new member please forgive me if these questions have already been broached, and please direct me to the proper thread containing the answers.

• Assuming the static model of the universe as postulated by plasma cosmology is correct, and the universe is not expanding, as in the gravitationa model, how then do we measure the age of the universe in the electric model?
• Is 'red shift' a marker of some other indicator, and can it still be used to measure time/distance?
• Does the static model lead to an instantaneous conclusion, and how do we measure the age of that instantaneous event assuming an electric cosmology?

[Goldminer]

As a new member please forgive me if these questions have already been broached, and please direct me to the proper thread containing the answers.

Yes, off topic. I'll forgive you for a dollar. But then, you can charge me a dollar for explaining how you arrived at your "alias." ("POV_at_Exit_0")

I'll try to give you some ideas in my humble but superior way:

• Assuming the static model of the universe as postulated by plasma cosmology is correct, and the universe is not expanding, as in the gravitational model, how then do we measure the age of the universe in the electric model?

The Universe is obviously dynamic. However Halton Arp has demonstrated that it is probably not expanding at an ever increasing rate. He has proposed that galaxies are born from other galaxies. QUASARs are not the oldest objects in the Universe. Thus the age of the Universe may be infinite. That would make its age superfluous. His catalog of galaxies make his case which anybody can interpret.

• Is 'red shift' a marker of some other indicator, and can it still be used to measure time/distance?

Astronomers measure spectra from light coming to us from anywhere in the universe, and yes, it can be used for a distance measure. If you study Arp's books (I found them exciting. Check them from the library or buy them) The caveat is the intrinsic red shift found in QUASARs, B-LAC objects, and young/unusual galaxies that are closely associated with conventional, less red shifted galaxies.

• Does the static model lead to an instantaneous conclusion, and how do we measure the age of that instantaneous event assuming an electric cosmology?

[/list][/list]

Not sure I follow your logic here. All events have duration. All matter has volume and density. If you have read through this thread, you probably will conclude that IMHO, there is a latency between the emission of a light pulse and its reception at a distance from the source of emission. The delay is proportional to the distance.

The speed of light is: 0.983571057925 foot/nanosecond,  or about 1 foot per nanosecond. This makes it easier to discuss what happens between stationary observers and moving observers; observing a wave front at a particular time and place in space.

Now adjust your thinking here: The moving observer is only at the stationary observer's location for a tiny but measurable instant. The rest of the time the moving observer is moving through the oncoming waves, or traveling with them.

I believe it is this fact that confuses conventional thinkers. Thus, for moving observers, the latency (or time delay between the emission and arrival of a given wave front) is either decreasing or increasing. Conventional thinkers attribute this changing latency to "time dilation/compression," the warping of space, and skewing of coordinate axes; none of which is necessary when properly diagrammed. IMHO, of course!

Please let me know if this makes sense.

Be sure and read the main site, TPODS, and other links. It is ultimately up to you to filter the fantasy from the reality.

[POV_at_Exit_0]

Thank you for responding so quickly Goldminer. I must admit, I did not do a thorough search of the site, but with a quick browse, this Einstein thread seemed like the most likely place to pose my question. If one of the moderators would like to move this discussion to an appropriate thread, I would have no objection.

I'm involved in a debate on another forum with a creationists and I've used the age of the universe to debate this individual's theological arguments. Well, this debate has reached an impasse when this individual presented the below link in rebuttal to the way the age of the universe has been conventionally measured:
http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
As you can see, this creationists has used the work of the man you have recommended to rebut my 'age of the universe' argument.

I have been a long-time subscriber to Talboltt and Thornhill's work, so I thought I could find the solution to my dilemma somewhere, here in this forum. I again apologize for being off-topic.

Thus the age of the Universe may be infinite. That would make its age superfluous.

Perhaps I can find the answer to my stalemate somewhere in Halton Arp's work. It would be a real home run if I could use the same work to rebut the rebuttal.

Not sure I follow your logic here. All events have duration.

I used the term 'static' in the context of: as in opposition to an 'expanding universe'. Of course, I understand that the universe is dynamic.

Yes, off topic. I'll forgive you for a dollar. But then, you can charge me a dollar for explaining how you arrived at your "alias." ("POV_at_Exit_0")

To answer your question: At first appearance, the alias does seem as though I may be referring to Exit 0 of the internet. I like the facade this creates. In reality I live very near an actual exit 0 in the U.S., at the end of the Garden State Parkway. The POV part, as you must already be aware, is an acronym for Point Of View.

Here on the Cape, we consider Exit 0 to be the end, not the beginning. Everyone coming to the Cape using the Parkway are reaching their destination at Exit 0.

[77Gslinger]

Great work Gold miner!

Here are a few links from my website debunking al:

http://www.feandft.com/13%20Einstein's%20Ether.htm

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

http://www.feandft.com/14%20The%20E=MC% ... Theory.htm

http://www.feandft.com/16%20The%20Arm%2 ... matics.htm

Many Blessings Robert

[Goldminer]

Yes, off topic. I'll forgive you for a dollar. But then, you can charge me a dollar for explaining how you arrived at your "alias." ("POV_at_Exit_0")

To answer your question: At first appearance, the alias does seem as though I may be referring to Exit 0 of the internet. I like the facade this creates. In reality I live very near an actual exit 0 in the U.S., at the end of the Garden State Parkway. The POV part, as you must already be aware, is an acronym for Point Of View.

Here on the Cape, we consider Exit 0 to be the end, not the beginning. Everyone coming to the Cape using the Parkway are reaching their destination at Exit 0.

OK, dollar for dollar, I guess were even! It's nice to know there really is a exit 0 somewhere!

Even the beginning and the end are relative, but Exit 0 is absolute!

[Goldminer]

Great work Gold miner!

Here are a few links from my website debunking Al:

http://www.feandft.com/13%20Einstein's%20Ether.htm

http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm

http://www.feandft.com/14%20The%20E=MC% ... Theory.htm

http://www.feandft.com/16%20The%20Arm%2 ... matics.htm

Many Blessings Robert

Thanks for the compliment! One of your links led me to this page and comment by my friend Dr. Smid.

. . . the invariance of c strictly means that the time for a light signal to travel from the source to the observer does not depend on the velocity of either of them but only on their distance at the time of the emission.

Dr Smid's comment leaves much to be filled in by the reader.

1. Quote Dr. Smid: ". . . but only on their distance at the time of the emission." Surely he must mean the distance between source and observers; and must mean "at the time of reception." Albert is far more guilty of skipping ambiguous details that Dr. Smid.

2. There is only one source under discussion, and it is in the "at rest frame" for "at rest observers," not in "the moving frame" (for moving observers) for simplicity's sake. The motion is relative, so It doesn't really matter, since the "at rest with the source observer" will also be moving with the source.

3. If you try to consider multiple sources, things get way too complicated.

4. We must stipulate that the emission is a short pulse, otherwise we do not know what to measure, just as if we try to measure the speed of water flowing in a stream. The short pulse lets us determine when it left and when it arrives.

5. The observer in the "at rest with the source frame" remains at the given distance during the whole duration of the reception. The "moving observer," we must assume, just stops by the "at rest observer" when the pulse serendipitously arrives at the stationary observer. Otherwise, why are we discussing this concept?

6. With the above concepts in mind, we can readily see that:

_____a. There is no problem with simultaneity in the observation since both "stationary with the source" and "moving" observers are both at the same place and time. The moving observer is there only for a very short time!

_____b. There is no problem with the distance to the source since that distance is measured in the "at rest with the source" frame.

_____c. The distance from the moving observer to the coordinate in the moving frame when that moving frame coordinate was at the source when the source emitted the pulse is obviously longer than the distance measured from the at rest observer in the at rest frame to the source. (I know; I hate long sentences too!)

_____d. From this short rendition we can see that Albert's imagination is greater than his logic.


.

[Goldminer]

Page 4 of this thread has a discussion of Einstein's "Light Clock" Gedanken, wherein a "photon" bounces back and forth between two mirrors. (And shows up in the fantasy "moving frame" as a diagonal path of multiple mirrors!)

Here is a cheap experiment that you can do to convince yourself that 100 years of silliness has transpired!

I purchased some (just because they were a dollar each) "laser pointers" in the "pet section" of a "Dollar Only" store, and found a couple of vanity mirrors in a second hand store. Total outlay: $6 US phoney notes.

Maybe you want to see for yourself!

As you move past the mirrors (placed perpendicular to your movement,) you can see the near mirror move to the opposite direction of your movement, and pass by the further mirror. Only when you are in line with both mirrors, can you see the multiple images of the laser light! It should now be obvious that there are not multiple mirrors in the "moving frame" and they do not become diagonally placed.

(You can imagine an imaginary diagonal track on an imaginary invisible surface in your "moving frame," but there is no "photon" that "moves" in your frame at an angle from the laser beam between the mirrors! You only see the same laser beam when lined up with the mirrors that you see when you are stopped at the alignment of the mirrors.) The difference is, you only see the light for an instant.

No matter how fast you move past the mirrors, they will always be perpendicular to you, (when you are in line with both mirrors) and the multiple images of laser light will only appear to be sunk into the faces of the mirrors as you pass the alignment. No diagonal "photons!" You only see two mirrors, no matter how fast you go!

Count 'em! You know how many you purchased!

To Do: Video of experiment, with pleasant young woman (Maybe the one from my string theory?) walking by mirrors and witnessing the downfall of the Special Theory of Relativity! What background music to choose?