Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

OK, Aardwolf, I now have your theory of how things work expressed several times now. I can hold your theory and what I see concurrently without having a fit.

Can you please humor me and answer the questions I posed in the above post? (I am not trying to trap you, but where there are contradictions, they should be ironed out, don't you think?)

[#1.]I don't see the point in going forward if we can't agree that 2 adjacent flashes of light, traveling through exactly the same medium, will not reach any given destination at exactly the same time. Further discussion will just be the result of your insistence that this doesn't happen. Been here too many times before and this is the crux of it, and its something you can't mechanically resolve even if you are conceptually happy with it. Of course you need to be conceptually happy with it otherwise your entire theory dissolves. In the real world, you know they reach the destination at the same time.

#2. What if instead of 2 separate flashes from X & B there was a single flash caused by an electric arc between X & B?] Now you would have me believe that A & C see the arc at the same time after 5 years, and X & Y see the arc at the same time after 5 years. But Y is 4.5ly past C when the flash reaches it; that's some weirdly twisted sphere.

Comment on highlight #1. These two adjacent flashes of yours must each have a duration, no? Let's stipulate that the sources are separating at 1/2 the speed of light, OK? Let's stipulate that each flash has a duration of 1 second, OK? Let's stipulate that some how we manage to get both sources to begin their flash at one half second before they meet, and end their flash one half second beyond the meeting point, OK?

This expanding sphere wave front (for either source) will be one lightsecond thick. In other words, by the time the initial wave front is one lightsecond away from the source, the trailing portion will just be leaving the source. The shell of this wave front will be 186,000 miles thick. This thickness will remain with this wave front for eternity, AFAWK. [as far as we know]

An observer located anywhere in the source frame (i.e, traveling with the source in the same direction at the same velocity as the source) will just see this source emit for one second. This is true for either source and observers in the same frame.

However, as any one observer views the wavefront of the opposite frame source, they will be traveling through the opposite sphere wave front at one half the speed of light. (This is not what Einsteinians believe with all their hearts. They believe that somehow the 186,00 thick wave front contracts down to, or expands, (I forget which, so that the observer still sees the wave front for one second. Actually it needs to do both, from their POV.)

You see, an observer on the approaching side of the opposite source frame wave front is traveling through a wave front that is moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction. Thus, after seeing the source begin emitting, providing this observer is more than a light-second away from the opposite source, will think the source pulse was only one half second duration; and the entire spectrum of the source's light will be shifted to the blue.

On the other hand you see, an observer on the receding side of the opposite source frame wave front is traveling through a wave front that is moving at the speed of light in the same direction. Thus, after seeing the source begin emitting, providing this observer is more than a light-second away from the opposite source, will think the source pulse was apparently one and one half second duration; and the entire spectrum of the source's light will be shifted to the red.

Comment on highlight #2. Quoting Ardwarf: "What if instead of 2 separate flashes from X & B there was a single flash caused by an electric arc between X & B?"

As I deftly pointed out above, an arc will have a given duration. If we accept the above given situation the arc between (spaceships?) moving at one half the speed of light WRTEO [with respect to each other] will have to be 186,000 miles long if the duration is for one second!

There is no twisted sphere, the expanding sphere only exists in the rest frame of the source, all other observers in whatever moving frame just meet the sphere where they do. An observer can be stipulated to be in the rest frame at close to the exact place the moving observer meets the expanding sphere.

.

[Goldminer]

Do you think the expanding sphere from one source, centered upon where the source was when the flash was emitted; splits in two and now there are two expanding spheres from this source, one in the source frame and one in the moving frame?

If you do, then you must provide an infinite number of spheres split from this source, since there can be an infinite number of moving observer frames observing this one expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the flash was emitted.

No. Only one sphere.

I agree!

At any given time after the initial flash, the expanding sphere caused by the flash will be a certain diameter. Do you think it is possible for a set of observers in the source frame to observe this sphere at a given time from emission, by being present on the surface of the sphere at this time and place in space?

You can't observe the sphere.

I agree! One observer can only observe a ray of the sphere, which is why I stipulated a whole fleet of observers in the moving frame at a given lightsecond away from the source in the opposite frame.

Do you think it is possible that a group of observers in the moving frame can observe this same sphere at the same time and place in space?

You can't observe the sphere.

I agree! See the above comment.

Do you see that during the time the sphere expanded to this size, the whole moving frame including the origin has separated from the source origin in the source frame?

No. I agree the observers in the moving frame have separated from the source origin and source frame, but they have also separated from the moving origin.It's an origin (hence its name) and it has a fixed point in absolute space right next to the source origin(and in my arc example how could they be separated?).

See my belated response in the previous post. You are being duplicitous in your statement that "It's an origin (hence its name) and it has a fixed point in absolute space right next to the source origin."

Each "frame" has a coordinate system at rest in said frame. Go back and look at the "Galilean" transform. The two frames each have an origin dedicated to each said frame. The origins and coordinate systems separate with the frames. It's about the only thing they have right!

P.S. I hope you don't mind my editing your spelling and punctuation when I quote your posts!

.

.

[Aardwolf]

The origins and coordinate systems separate with the frames.

And this is the crux of the problem. My point is that how can it be physically possible (in language and concept) for the origins of any given phenomena to move. Its an oxymoron. How can the origins be moving? Especially when you consider that in my #2 point above the origin of the flash is the same phenomena for both frames.

Mainainting theories with this twisted logic has held back scientific understanding for decades.

Your problem is that you are falling for the einsteinian nonsense that stipulates that either of the frames can be seen to be stationary and can regard the other frame as moving. Therefore both can regard themselves to be at the centre of any light sphere they emit, hence the descent into logical nonsense and paradox. In reality only one is actually stationary and the other is moving. The stationary observer can genuinely regard themselves as at the centre af any light emitted sphere, but the other observer can never do so as they are moving with respect to the origin (which can never move), so at any point after emission they are never again at the centre.

[Goldminer]

As I deftly pointed out above, an arc will have a given duration. If we accept the above given situation the arc between (spaceships?) moving at one half the speed of light WRTEO [with respect to each other] will have to be 186,000 miles long if the duration is for one second!

The length of the arc would actually be 93,000 miles long since the two "spaceships" are separating at half the speed of light.

The origins and coordinate systems separate with the frames.

And this is the crux of the problem. My point is that how can it be physically possible (in language and concept) for the origins of any given phenomena to move. Its an oxymoron. How can the origins be moving? Especially when you consider that in my #2 point above the origin of the flash is the same phenomena for both frames.

If you cannot accept that frames and coordinate systems are imaginary constructs that catalog ideas, I cannot help you understand.

The origin of a pulse of light would be a strobe tube, for instance.

Are you telling me that the strobe tube cannot be seen to move from some vantage point?

Are you telling me that one observer cannot be stationary with the strobe, at some distance from it?

Are you telling me that another observer cannot be observing the strobe from a linear moving vantage point? Sorry, IMHO, you are the one who does not make sense!

Quote Ardwolf: "Especially when you consider that in my #2 point above the origin of the flash is the same phenomena for both frames."

Let's hear it for your #2 point! The strobe has to be in one frame or the other; or in some other frame such as in between the two separating frames, which would place it in yet another frame altogether. It cannot be both "stationary" and "moving," or worse, stationary and moving in opposite directions!

Maintaining theories with this twisted logic has held back scientific understanding for decades.

Which twisted logic? My logic is: "It cannot be both "stationary" and "moving," or worse, stationary and moving in opposite directions!" Your "logic" seems to be the opposite!

I have to say that you don't understand the twin paradox! One twin can go and the other other "stay," or they can go in opposite directions. Einsteinians claim one is older/younger than the other when they unite. I claim that their claim is bogus. Apparently you do too, but your argument misses the whole scheme.

#1. Your problem is that you are falling for the Einsteinian nonsense that stipulates that either of the frames can be seen to be stationary and can regard the other frame as moving.#2. Therefore both can regard themselves to be at the center of any light sphere they emit, hence the descent into logical nonsense and paradox. #3. In reality only one is actually stationary and the other is moving. #4. The stationary observer can genuinely regard themselves as at the center of any light emitted sphere, but the other observer can never do so as they are moving with respect to the origin (which can never move), so at any point after emission they are never again at the center.

[/quote]

My problem is you. Your paragraph quoted above is unfathomable to me!

#1. Quote Ardwolf: "Your problem is that you are falling for the Einsteinian nonsense that stipulates that either of the frames can be seen to be stationary and can regard the other frame as moving."

This point is not "Einsteinian." It is just logic. The "Einsteinian" part is the "time slowing," and the "rod shrinking." It's the diagonal going "photon" traveling between frames. It's the train being shorter as it passes the platform than when it is stopped.

#2. Quote Ardwolf: "In reality only one is actually stationary."
Stationary in relation to what?

Quote Ardwolf:"The other is moving."
Moving in relation to what?

#3. Quote Ardwolf: "The stationary observer can genuinely regard themselves as at the center of any light emitted sphere"

Yes, there can be an observer at the strobe light! But there can also be observers at various distances from the strobe light, not moving in relation to it, and not be at the center of the expanding sphere.

What you apparently cannot understand is that a moving observer can just happen to be passing by the strobe right when it flashes! This moving observer would be at the origin; and at the center of the expanding sphere for a tiny instant no matter how fast he/she/it is moving.

Compounding your problem, you apparently cannot understand that another moving observer can serendipitously just be passing one of the above highlighted "stationary with the source observers not at the center; exactly when the expanding wave front reaches that above said "stationary with the source" observer. Said "moving observer" would also see the same ray of the expanding sphere for a tiny instant.

You are arguing that there is no relativity. That argument is a nonstarter. The problem is that Einsteinians want magical things to happen because of relativity. Magical things do not happen because of motion.

.

[webolife]

Goldminer,
I am having a problem with the way you use the concept "ray of a sphere". As you may realize, I am of the belief that there are only rays, and no expanding spherical wavefront. How is it you are able to see a ray at the imagined surface of a spherical wavefront, when any and all points of the sphere would be indistinguishable, invoking Olber's dilemma? In addition, you describe a wavefront "thickness" remaining constant throughout the imagined expansion of the sphere. 3-dimensionally, this would require that the light ray density be indefinitely expanding along with the imagined wavefront, since it can be easily seen/observed that the rays can be seen from any peripheral position on the imagined sphere-detector interface. If light is rays, and not wavefronts, this is not a problem; but how do you see this?

Also, on the spinning pinballs [very fascinating strobe graph], do you know if the pinballs were being shot through air, or a vacuum? Is there latent "charge" in the air or chamber that needs to be accounted for? Is 27,000 rpm tantamount to defining/describing the spinning ball as "charged"? I wonder to what extent is Bernoulli's principle involved?

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
I am having a problem with the way you use the concept "ray of a sphere". As you may realize, I am of the belief that there are only rays, and no expanding spherical wavefront. How is it you are able to see a ray at the imagined surface of a spherical wavefront, when any and all points of the sphere would be indistinguishable, invoking Olber's dilemma? In addition, you describe a wavefront "thickness" remaining constant throughout the imagined expansion of the sphere. 3-dimensionally, this would require that the light ray density be indefinitely expanding along with the imagined wavefront,

Yes! That is what light does. The intensity decreases by the square of the distance from the source. The "thickness" I presented is not "density" (I think you mean intensity). The intensity of the shell decreases as the wave front advances. The latest lasers can emit pulses measured in femto seconds. This is a very short duration of time! This expanding shell would be very thin! (lasers emit in beams rather that expanding spheres. A beam is just a partial sphere.) see the Xavier Borg link below.

since it can be easily seen/observed that the rays can be seen from any peripheral position on the imagined sphere-detector interface. If light is rays, and not wavefronts, this is not a problem; but how do you see this?

What I am discussing here is a stripped down version of what we actually see. The human eye has a very wide field of vision. Rays enter it from all angles. When you move to a new position, different rays fall on your retina. Every source of reflection and emission is radiating these expanding spheres. Your retina is very tiny; only a tiny portion of each sphere actually enters your eye at a time. Don't confuse what is emitted with what is received!

People "know" what they see, and become utterly convinced of "truths" that ain't necessarily so! I have had discussions with others who are totally convinced that light is "instantaneous" because they see distant "events" at the same time as they see local "events!" No amount of logic and diagrams will convince them that the distant events have already happened, as compared to the local events that are a part of their present!

I have been interested in this subject for a long time. Over the years I have arrived at some unique insights that I think will revolutionize the understanding of "relativity" and the connected ideas of time and space. I know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry are waving their arms begging for attention with a similar claim! Therefore I cannot blame anyone for being critical. At the same time, I am amazed at what some expect me to accept as logical! (Just musing; not directed at you)

So, for instance: Isn't it a bit silly to claim that "time" needs to be on a fourth axis? One perpendicular to the three Euclidean axes that we all know and love? The reality of it all is that they (conventional Einsteinians) are discussing is merely the delay, or latency of the light wave front over various distances.

Xavier Borg has a very comprehensive chapter on concepts of EMF and light. Click here Do yourself a favor and study his work, then criticize it. I think that he will advance your understanding on this subject.

Also, on the spinning pinballs

They are bearings.

[very fascinating strobe graph], do you know if the pinballs were being shot through air, or a vacuum? Is there latent "charge" in the air or chamber that needs to be accounted for? Is 27,000 rpm tantamount to defining/describing the spinning ball as "charged"? I wonder to what extent is Bernoulli's principle involved?

Click here for the article on DePalma's experiment. I think your questions here are very good. Look the article over and research the links, you may be right. Let me know what you find out!

[Aardwolf]

#2. Quote Ardwolf: "In reality only one is actually stationary."

Stationary in relation to what?

Absolute Space. Do you understand what Absolute Space is?

[Aardwolf]

Goldminer,

I also find it odd that you previosly stated that you agree with the concept of Absolute Space and also provided the following quote from Gezari;

On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame

Why would you agree and support Absolute Space yet ask "in relation to what" which is what a relativitist would ask.

[Goldminer]

The origins and coordinate systems separate with the frames.

And this is the crux of the problem. My point is that how can it be physically possible (in language and concept) for the origins of any given phenomena to move. Its an oxymoron. How can the origins be moving? Especially when you consider that in my #2 point above the origin of the flash is the same phenomena for both frames.

Your statement here is ambiguous.
Do you mean:

A. The flash was caused by the same type of device?

B. The flash was caused by a flash in another "unmoving frame" (stationary place) outside these "both frames?"

C. There were two flashes, one in each frame?

D. The flash was connected to both frames?

How can the origins be moving?

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

[Goldminer]

Absolute Space. Do you understand what Absolute Space is?

I have a sneaking suspicion that what I understand and what you understand are not quite the same.

Goldminer,
I also find it odd that you previously stated that you agree with the concept of Absolute Space and also provided the following quote from Gezari;

On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame

Why would you agree and support Absolute Space yet ask "in relation to what" which is what a relativitist would ask.

Here is the whole quote:
(You know what they say about taking things out of context . . . ?)

The most straightforward analysis and interpretation of two-way lunar laser ranging measurement of c presented here suggests that light propagating between the Earth and the Moon obeys a classical rather than special relativistic addition of velocities law.
On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame, a conclusion that most physicists (except perhaps some contemporary field theorists) would be reluctant to accept. Rather than simply dismiss the present results and conclusions as implausible, which would be natural considering the strength of the prevailing view, it would be prudent to critically re-examine and improve the present experimental basis for special relativity in the photon sector.

Ultimately, any concerns about the validity of a theory can only be resolved by experiment. We are now pursuing two new approaches to one-way measurements of the speed of light with slowly moving sources and detectors, both by one-way laser ranging outside the Earth’s atmosphere (Gezari et al. 2010) and by direct optical pulse timing in the laboratory."

The highlighted portion is the main point with which I agree. The "absolute reference frame" to which he is referring, IOMHO, is the frame in which the source is located. I have no idea which reference frame you regard as absolute. Can you explain?

[webolife]

Goldminer,
I'm pretty sure from your response that I misunderstood what you meant in describing the thickness of the expanding light wave front... however you did say that the thickness remains the same as the spherical surface expands... did you mean this? What indication is there that this is true? I also meant by density "expanding" that the light "rays" would have to be INCREASING at a fantastic rate, in order for any particular received portion of a wavefront to impart distinction information to, eg. a tiny pinhole device such as the eye or a camera. I do understand the distance^2 intensity relation, but my question that you didn't answer , is how point focused information can be delivered by a wave front? By rays, that I understand. An optical ray diagram makes this simple and clear. But you have different parts of a wavefront from the same source carrying info to the eye and all being distinguishable as an image of the source. If only one section of a wavefront from a single source/centroid were being received by the eye at a particular time, I might understand how only a single image might be producible from that discrete source. But millions of alleged wavefronts from as many different sources are supposedly impacting the eye at any one time --> Olber's p[aradox. I've read numerous non-answers to Olber's DILEMMA... What property of waves makes this even remotely possible? Especially remotely? The redshift answer is certainly a smokescreen, as it bears no relation to optically imaging a "point" source. Now if you invoke, as you did earlier, that somehow each point of the wavefront is a ray, then I say it is rays and not waves which transfer the light information. As to your insistence against instantaneous light action, I have to ask you: has anyone ever seen [or is it even imaginably possible to see] a light wavefront waving or a light particle moving through space? It is an incident effect, conferring at that moment of incidence the source information. All other devices used to infer the c-rate use formulae that are based on c to take transverse/angular information and convert it to or interpret it as longitudinal. So the received information is the source information, despite your objection to the contrary.

I'm here to ask questions, confront assumptions, and... hopefully... learn more about how stuff works

[Aardwolf]

The origins and coordinate systems separate with the frames.

And this is the crux of the problem. My point is that how can it be physically possible (in language and concept) for the origins of any given phenomena to move. Its an oxymoron. How can the origins be moving? Especially when you consider that in my #2 point above the origin of the flash is the same phenomena for both frames.

Your statement here is ambiguous.
Do you mean:

A. The flash was caused by the same type of device?

B. The flash was caused by a flash in another "unmoving frame" (stationary place) outside these "both frames?"

C. There were two flashes, one in each frame?

D. The flash was connected to both frames?

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

How can the origins be moving?

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

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

[Aardwolf]

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

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

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
I'm pretty sure from your response that I misunderstood what you meant in describing the thickness of the expanding light wave front... however you did say that the thickness remains the same as the spherical surface expands... did you mean this? What indication is there that this is true?

Let's take a one dimension description: two cars travel at 60 miles an hour, in opposite directions from a point . A minute later, another two cars also travel at 60 miles an hour in opposite direction following the first two. As long as they all keep going at the same speed, each set of cars will remain one mile apart, regardless of how long the distance between the two sets becomes.

In the sphere of expanding light, the outside of the shell is the portion that was initiated when the light pulse "lit up" at the source, the inside is where the light pulse turned off at the source. The distance between the two is how far the pulse of light traveled before the source turned turned off. The distance between the inside and outside of the shell will not change. Anyone at rest with the source will see the light source blink on for the same duration, regardless of their location and/or distance from the source. Just as an observer any where along any distance from where the cars started will see one minute pass between the first car and the second in either set.

On the other hand, an observer traveling directly toward the source will not remain in the shell as long, and will see a shorter duration pulse. This is analogous to how an observer traveling towards the set of cars will see only a thirty second delay between seeing the first car and the second.

We must also consider the case where an observer is traveling away from the source and is overtaken by the expanding shell. Now the observer spends longer in the shell and sees a longer duration pulse of light. This is analogous to how an observer traveling ahead of the two cars in the same direction will see a one and a half minute delay between seeing the first car and the second.

I also meant by density "expanding" that the light "rays" would have to be INCREASING at a fantastic rate, in order for any particular received portion of a wavefront to impart distinction information to, eg. a tiny pinhole device such as the eye or a camera. I do understand the distance^2 intensity relation, but my question that you didn't answer , is how point focused information can be delivered by a wave front? By rays, that I understand. An optical ray diagram makes this simple and clear. But you have different parts of a wavefront from the same source carrying info to the eye and all being distinguishable as an image of the source. If only one section of a wavefront from a single source/centroid were being received by the eye at a particular time, I might understand how only a single image might be producible from that discrete source. But millions of alleged wavefronts from as many different sources are supposedly impacting the eye at any one time

Watch this simple animation Since we aren't considering anything but a small, powerful source of light, only being visible for a short duration, all we see is the source itself, which will diminish in size the further away we make our observation. Interestingly enough, the smaller the sphere, the larger the source appears; the larger the sphere, the smaller the source appears.

--> Olber's paradox. I've read numerous non-answers to Olber's DILEMMA... What property of waves makes this even remotely possible? Especially remotely? The redshift answer is certainly a smokescreen, as it bears no relation to optically imaging a "point" source.

Olber's paradox is outside the topic of Silly Einstein's rabbit trails AFAIAC. My opinion probably won't satisfy you either. Short version: Light from the Sun arrives with a small sphere here at Earth, and the atmosphere diffuses the light so that rays from the Sun which would normally not reach our eyes, does. Thus daylight is bright no matter which way we look. On the other hand, other stars are so far away that their expanding spheres are very large in comparison, and they appear so small that the ray you see is much smaller than the Sun's. I am sure that diffusion takes place in our atmosphere at night of star light , too. It's just that the amplitude of the diffused light is too small to sense.

Now if you invoke, as you did earlier, that somehow each point of the wavefront is a ray, then I say it is rays and not waves which transfer the light information. As to your insistence against instantaneous light action, I have to ask you: has anyone ever seen [or is it even imaginably possible to see] a light wavefront waving or a light particle moving through space? It is an incident effect, conferring at that moment of incidence the source information. All other devices used to infer the c-rate use formulae that are based on c to take transverse/angular information and convert it to or interpret it as longitudinal. So the received information is the source information, despite your objection to the contrary.

IMHOP, there has to be duration in the incoming wave. There has to be duration in the light pulse that is emitted. I doubt that the human eye can detect a femto pulse of light, although there are detectors that can. A nanosecond pulse occupies a stretch of space about a foot long. If you ride the crest of a wave in the ocean, you don't see anything waving, you don't move up and down. I think the Poynting vector is longitudinal.

Your retina or the film in a camera essentially stops the waves. Without dust and vapor in the path you can't see a laser beam from the side. Don't know how to answer you about "instantaneous light action" your thought is too ambiguous. Do you doubt that there is a latency between emission and reception of light, longer in duration the more distant the receiver is?

I'm here to ask questions, confront assumptions, and... hopefully... learn more about how stuff works

Yah, me too, and I appreciate your time and responses.

[Goldminer]

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

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

How can the origins be moving?

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

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

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