The Relativity of Simultaneity

[origin]

. You say he ignores actual measurements ... do you mean that he does not accept observations that clocks show time passing at different rates in different frames?

No it is worse than that. He refuses to accept that light in a vacuum is always measured as c. He believes that if the earth is moving towards a star then the speed of light relative to the earth would be: (the speed of light) + (the orbital speed of earth). If the speed of light from that star was measured 6 months later then the speed of light relative to the earth would be: (the speed of light) - (the orbital speed of earth).

Measurements simply show this to be false.

MD thinks the speed of light will only be measured as c if you have no absolute motion - very odd.:shrug:

 

[Motor Daddy]

"The question" might be more about why someone is unable to see past their own circular reasoning, or why it fails to correspond at all with reality.

In Motor Daddy's world, it's ok to emit some light and be able to tell how far away it is after 1 second, you just "look" at "where the light has traveled to". If it isn't 299,792,458 metres away then the source must have moved.
That this "method" requires you to be able to measure the distance from the source to the light as it moves doesn't seem to matter. That there is no practical way to observe light traveling in space doesn't seem to matter.

In other words, it doesn't matter in MD's world that you need profoundly unphysical measurements to support a model; the model fits so it must be right, Einstein somehow overlooked this obvious solution!

I'll get to how it's done on the train. First, do you understand the concept of absolute motion of the source, the constant velocity of light, and the reason why if the source had a velocity the light would be more than 299,792,458 meters away in one direction and less than 299,792,458 meters away in the opposite direction?? You already understand it, you just don't see how it's possible to measure, right?

 

[arfa brane]

You already understand it, you just don't see how it's possible to measure, right?

Yes, I understand how light would be further away in one direction than the other if the source is moving.
I don't see how it's possible to measure the distance light has traveled from the source without using, say, a mirror to reflect light back to the source.

I don't see how any measurements can be made between a single source and its emitted light, which is what you seem to be saying you can do. So, how do you do it? How do you measure the distance from a source to the light it emitted without using another frame of reference that has a light detector of some kind, or an independent "observer"?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Yes, I understand how light would be further away in one direction than the other if the source is moving.
I don't see how it's possible to measure the distance light has traveled from the source without using, say, a mirror to reflect light back to the source.

I don't see how any measurements can be made between a single source and its emitted light, which is what you seem to be saying you can do. So, how do you do it? How do you measure the distance from a source to the light it emitted without using another frame of reference that has a light detector of some kind, or an independent "observer"?

Ok, so you understand the concept.

So do you also understand the concept that if two light sources are a distance apart in space, and they emit light simultaneously, that the light from each source will meet at the midpoint between the original points in space that the lights were emitted from?

So in other words, if two sources are 299,792,458 meters apart from each other in space and they emit light simultaneously, the light will meet at the midpoint, which is 149,896,229 meters from each origin.

Do you agree so far?

 

[arfa brane]

So in other words, if two sources are 299,792,458 meters apart from each other in space and they emit light simultaneously, the light will meet at the midpoint, which is 149,896,229 meters from each origin.

Do you agree so far?

Sure, the light will meet at the midpoint 149,896,229 metres from each source. All you need to prove that this is true is a way to determine that the two sources are 299,792,458 metres apart when they emit light, and a way to determine that they emit light simultaneously. That sounds do-able.
But:

A source in space emits light. One second later the light sphere will have a radius of ~299,792,458 meters. If the source is at the center of the sphere at the 1 second mark then it had an absolute zero velocity. If the source moved during that 1 second then the source will not be at the center of the light sphere

...determining the distance from the source to the location of an expanding sphere of light means you need another frame of reference. Unless you know of a way to see light traveling through space (?).

 

[Motor Daddy]

Sure, the light will meet at the midpoint 149,896,229 metres from each source. All you need to prove that this is true is a way to determine that the two sources are 299,792,458 metres apart when they emit light, and a way to determine that they emit light simultaneously. That sounds do-able.

Ok.

So you understand and agree with that. So do you also understand that the lights would meet at the midpoint in .5 second? I'm assuming you agree. Then you probably also agree that if the lights were to continue on in their journeys, they would each reach the point in space where the other light was emitted from 1 second previous?

Edit, you said "from each source." That may or may not be true, depending on if the source(s) moved during that time. It's the midpoint between the points in space that the lights were emitted from, not necessarily the midpoint from where the sources are when the lights actually meet.

But:
...determining the distance from the source to the location of an expanding sphere of light means you need another frame of reference. Unless you know of a way to see light traveling through space (?).

That is only an example to show you the concept of an absolute motion. It served its purpose. You understood the concept of absolute motion.

 

[arfa brane]

So do you also understand that the lights would meet at the midpoint in .5 second? . . .if the lights were to continue on in their journeys, they would each reach the point in space where the other light was emitted from 1 second previous?

That would require, however, that both sources remain 299,792,458 metres from each other. How does an observer, at either source or anywhere else, determine that both sources remain at a fixed distance, so the light reaches them both after 1 second? How do observers at either source determine that the time the light arrives is the same time at the other source?

You can think up all kinds of scenarios, but to make them correspond to reality you have to start measuring distances and times with real physical rulers and clocks. You can't assume anything more than being able to copy the same fixed length any number of times (i.e. determine n metres of distance), or that you have an arbitrarily accurate clock (i.e. you can measure t intervals of fixed time and call it "t seconds").

 

[Motor Daddy]

That would require, however, that both sources remain 299,792,458 metres from each other. How does an observer, at either source or anywhere else, determine that both sources remain at a fixed distance, so the light reaches them both after 1 second? How do observers at either source determine that the time the light arrives is the same time at the other source?

You can think up all kinds of scenarios, but to make them correspond to reality you have to start measuring distances and times with real physical rulers and clocks. You can't assume anything more than being able to copy the same fixed length any number of times (i.e. determine n metres of distance), or that you have an arbitrarily accurate clock (i.e. you can measure t intervals of fixed time and call it "t seconds").

In order to learn you need to do more listening than talking. You are going off on tangents here. I will get to how it's done, I am stepping you through the process so that I can detect your error in thinking when it shows itself.

I've worked through this process and I KNOW it to be true! Yet you seem to want to tell me what I can and can't do, like you actually know what an absolute velocity is, and all of its implications.

I have to go now. You can deny reality or you can try to understand it. Your choice.

 

[arfa brane]

I've worked through this process and I KNOW it to be true! Yet you seem to want to tell me what I can and can't do, like you actually know what an absolute velocity is, and all of its implications.

I'm just telling you that you need to use a fixed distance to measure any other distance; and you need accurate clocks to measure intervals of time.
Or do you know of another way?

 

[AlexG]

I've worked through this process and I KNOW it to be true!

In spite of every measurement, experiment and observation in the real, physical universe.

Is there another word for this other than crazy?

 

[arfa brane]

I'm wingin' it here, but I think the problem is that one believes one can compare the velocity of one's motion through space with the velocity of light through space.

It sounds sort of logical, but bumps into the question: "how does one measure the velocity or location of light, in space?". Since you can't see a beam or a spherically expanding wave made of light, you have to detect the wavefront with some kind of device, which will necessarily be made out of matter so it interacts with the light (after all, light is energy that "has motion").

So it seems that one must measure the position/velocity of light wavefronts; it seems that one is obliged to use more than one observer, or at least proxies for observers, and furthermore, one must "locate" these observers at known coordinate values. This then turns the problem back onto itself, because one of the coordinate values that must be fixed is a time coordinate.

The trick, it seems, is to postulate an independent motion (the invariant speed of light), in order to turn the problem away from "itself", by using a fixed velocity as a reference. However, the velocity reference can have no spatial coordinates (you can't observe light directly), which leaves time intervals between locations which are at a known, unchanging distance. Once this is established the principle can be extended to locations which don't stay at a constant distance--they have relative velocity.

It all seems so damnably logical, Holmes.

 

[Neddy Bate]

If there were observers at A and B on the train, and A and B on the embankment, when the points on the train were aligned with the points on the embankment, would their watches agree that it is exactly 12:00:00?

Let's assume that clocks at M' and M both say 12:00:00 when M and M' are lined up. In the embankment frame, all clocks sitting on the embankment are synchronized. So the clocks at A and B sitting on the embankment also both say 12:00:00 when M and M' are lined up.

But the embankment frame does not agree that the the clocks on the train are synchronized. I'm going to call the clocks on the train A' and B'. Let's say that clock B' says 11:59:59 at the time it is lined up with clock B. Let's also say that clock A' says 12:00:01 at the time it is lined up with clock A.

So now we can write in the history books that the lightning struck at these times:

Embankment clocks:
A says 12:00:00 when lightning hits A
M says 12:00:00 when it lines up with M'
B says 12:00:00 when lightning hits B
(lightning strikes were simultaneous in this frame)

Train clocks:
B' says 11:59:59 when lightning hits B'
M' says 12:00:00 when it lines up with M
A' says 12:00:01 when lightning hits A'
(lightning strikes were NOT simultaneous in this frame)

There is no duration to the term 12:00:00, it is a point in time. There is no motion that occurs at the point in time 12:00:00. There is no relative velocity from 12:00:00 to 12:00:00 because there is no duration of time. It is a point in time.

In order for the train observer and the embankment observer to be at the same location at the same point in time (12:00:00) their watches must read the exact same thing.

Do you agree?

I agree that both frames must agree on what was written in the history book above. So now let's check and see if the train frame comes up with the same results that we determined from the embankment frame.

The first thing to think about is the length of the train. In the embankment frame, the train happens to be exactly as long as the distance between A and B. Let's say that length of the train in that frame is equal to AB standard meters. But as Pete explained, the train is length-contracted in that frame, because the train is moving relative to that frame.

So, in the train's own frame, it will be a little longer than AB. Let's say the length of the train in its own frame is equal to A'B' standard meters, where A'B' is greater than AB. What that means is, first B and B' will line up at the front of the train. Then at a later time, M and M' will line up at the middle of the train. Then at an even later later time, A and A' will line up at the rear of the train. And that matches what the history book says:

Train clocks:
B' says 11:59:59 when lightning hits B'
M' says 12:00:00 when it lines up with M
A' says 12:00:01 when lightning hits A'
(lightning strikes were NOT simultaneous in this frame)

 

[Motor Daddy]

Let's assume that clocks at M' and M both say 12:00:00 when M and M' are lined up. In the embankment frame, all clocks sitting on the embankment are synchronized. So the clocks at A and B sitting on the embankment also both say 12:00:00 when M and M' are lined up.

Like the embankment clocks, the train's clocks are also synchronized, so when the midpoint clock on the train reads 12:00:00, the A and B clock on the train read 12:00:00. They have to, because they align with the A and B clocks on the embankment, that read 12:00:00.

But the embankment frame does not agree that the the clocks on the train are synchronized. I'm going to call the clocks on the train A' and B'. Let's say that clock B' says 11:59:59 at the time it is lined up with clock B. Let's also say that clock A' says 12:00:01 at the time it is lined up with clock A.

Yes the embankment frame does agree that all the clocks read 12:00:00, both on the train and the embankment. There is no motion and there is no duration at the point in time 12:00:00, it is 12:00:00 on all clocks, period!

So now we can write in the history books that the lightning struck at these times:

Embankment clocks:
A says 12:00:00 when lightning hits A
M says 12:00:00 when it lines up with M'
B says 12:00:00 when lightning hits B
(lightning strikes were simultaneous in this frame)

Train clocks:
B' says 11:59:59 when lightning hits B'
M' says 12:00:00 when it lines up with M
A' says 12:00:01 when lightning hits A'
(lightning strikes were NOT simultaneous in this frame)

Your history book is wrong, that is not what happened.

I agree that both frames must agree on what was written in the history book above. So now let's check and see if the train frame comes up with the same results that we determined from the embankment frame.

Right, both frames must agree what's written in the history book. So far you've recorded false data in the book by saying the clocks don't agree. That is not a true statement, the clocks DO agree, and they all agree it was 12:00:00 when the points were all aligned.

The first thing to think about is the length of the train. In the embankment frame, the train happens to be exactly as long as the distance between A and B. Let's say that length of the train in that frame is equal to AB standard meters. But as Pete explained, the train is length-contracted in that frame, because the train is moving relative to that frame.

No, the train is not length contracted, ALL the points on the train line up with all the points on the embankment at exactly 12:00:00, which is when lightening struck A and B.

So, in the train's own frame, it will be a little longer than AB. Let's say the length of the train in its own frame is equal to A'B' standard meters, where A'B' is greater than AB. What that means is, first B and B' will line up at the front of the train. Then at a later time, M and M' will line up at the middle of the train. Then at an even later later time, A and A' will line up at the rear of the train. And that matches what the history book says:

Train clocks:
B' says 11:59:59 when lightning hits B'
M' says 12:00:00 when it lines up with M
A' says 12:00:01 when lightning hits A'
(lightning strikes were NOT simultaneous in this frame)

Wrong, the lightening strikes occurred at one point in time, not two points in time. A and B on the train were perfectly aligned with A and B on the embankment, and the midpoint observers were also perfectly aligned, AT EXACTLY 12:00:00!

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

You haven't replied to post #533.

That response is a reply to your claim that Einstein made a mistake in chapter 9 of "Relativity". Since I made that post, you have helpfully linked to Einstein's text here:

Einstein, Relativity, Ch.9

So, let me summarise the example as Einstein puts it, just so we know we're on the same page.

1. The observer M is on the embankment, located half way between two points A and B, marked on the platform.
2. The observer M' is on the train, located half way between the two points A and B, marked on the train.
3. Lightning strikes at simultaneously at points A and B in the frame of the embankment.

The question Einstein asks is: did the lightning strikes also occur simultaneously in the train's frame?

He answers that question as follows:

4. The location of M' coincides with M at the instant the lightning hit points A and B in the embankment frame.
5. After the strikes occur, in the embankment frame, M' moves towards point B and away from point A.
6. In the embankment frame, light travels at the same speed in both directions from A and B towards M'.
7. In the embankment frame, light from B therefore reaches M' before the light from A reaches M'. In other words, M' sees the two flashes at different times and he sees flash B before flash A.
8. In the train's frame, M' does not move relative to points A and B (as marked on the train).
9. In the train's frame, light travels at the same speed in both directions from A and B towards M'. (This is Einstein's 2nd postulate of relativity.)
10. Since M' is remains at all times half way between A and B (as marked on the train), light must travel an equal distance from A to M' compared to from B to M'.
11. As a matter of fact (see point 7), we know that observer M' sees the light from flash B before the light from flash A.
12. Therefore, M' concludes that in the train frame, the strikes did NOT occur simultaneously. Strike B must have occured before strike A in the train frame.

Summary:

• In both frames, light from flash B was received by M' before light from flash A.
• In the embankment frame, the strike at A occured simultaneously with the strike at B.
• In the train frame, strike B occurred earlier than strike A.

Questions for Motor Daddy:

Do you claim there is something wrong with Einstein's reasoning here?

Obviously, we already know that you utterly disagree with point 9 of the above analysis. But it appears you also think that Einstein made some kind of mistake. In other words, you believe that even IF Einstein's 2nd postulate is true (point 9), Einstein has still said something inconsistent and self-defeating in the above argument.

So, question: Given that Einstein is working in a mathematical world where point 9 is taken to be true, is there an error in any of the other points?

If you believe there is an error, please refer me to the numbered point above that is in error and explain what the error is in detail. (e.g. "There is an error in point 6 because ....").

 

[arfa brane]

Motor Daddy:

You have two light sources at different locations. How do you measure the distance between them?

I know you think you can emit light simultaneously from both sources, and if they are 1 light second apart, the emitted light will reach either source after 1 second. But doesn't that mean both sources have to remain at a constant distance of 1 light second?

How do you know that they are still the same distance from each other when the light reaches them as when the light was emitted? How can you determine this?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy:

You haven't replied to post #533.

That response is a reply to your claim that Einstein made a mistake in chapter 9 of "Relativity". Since I made that post, you have helpfully linked to Einstein's text here:

Einstein, Relativity, Ch.9

So, let me summarise the example as Einstein puts it, just so we know we're on the same page.

1. The observer M is on the embankment, located half way between two points A and B, marked on the platform.
2. The observer M' is on the train, located half way between the two points A and B, marked on the train.
3. Lightning strikes at simultaneously at points A and B in the frame of the embankment.

The question Einstein asks is: did the lightning strikes also occur simultaneously in the train's frame?

He answers that question as follows:

4. The location of M' coincides with M at the instant the lightning hit points A and B in the embankment frame.
5. After the strikes occur, in the embankment frame, M' moves towards point B and away from point A.
6. In the embankment frame, light travels at the same speed in both directions from A and B towards M'.
7. In the embankment frame, light from B therefore reaches M' before the light from A reaches M'. In other words, M' sees the two flashes at different times and he sees flash B before flash A.
8. In the train's frame, M' does not move relative to points A and B (as marked on the train).
9. In the train's frame, light travels at the same speed in both directions from A and B towards M'. (This is Einstein's 2nd postulate of relativity.)
10. Since M' is remains at all times half way between A and B (as marked on the train), light must travel an equal distance from A to M' compared to from B to M'.
11. As a matter of fact (see point 7), we know that observer M' sees the light from flash B before the light from flash A.
12. Therefore, M' concludes that in the train frame, the strikes did NOT occur simultaneously. Strike B must have occured before strike A in the train frame.

Summary:

• In both frames, light from flash B was received by M' before light from flash A.
• In the embankment frame, the strike at A occured simultaneously with the strike at B.
• In the train frame, strike B occurred earlier than strike A.

Questions for Motor Daddy:

Do you claim there is something wrong with Einstein's reasoning here?

Obviously, we already know that you utterly disagree with point 9 of the above analysis. But it appears you also think that Einstein made some kind of mistake. In other words, you believe that even IF Einstein's 2nd postulate is true (point 9), Einstein has still said something inconsistent and self-defeating in the above argument.

So, question: Given that Einstein is working in a mathematical world where point 9 is taken to be true, is there an error in any of the other points?

If you believe there is an error, please refer me to the numbered point above that is in error and explain what the error is in detail. (e.g. "There is an error in point 6 because ....").

The errors show up in the numbers because Einstein's 2nd postulate is wrong, which is why the train observer comes to the wrong conclusion that the strikes occurred at different times at A and B on the train, when in fact that is impossible.

That is why I wanted to put actual numbers to the situation, so I could clearly show that my numbers match, and Einstein's contradict reality.

In reality, we know the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously, because those points were only aligned at one point in time, not two points in time. The train observer's watch must read exactly the same time as the embankment observer's watch when they are aligned, and so A and B on the train must also have the same times as A and B on the embankment, because they were also aligned simultaneously when the observers were aligned.

Fact: The strikes occurred simultaneously at A and B in BOTH frames. The mistake is made by the train observer because Einstein led him to believe his second postulate was correct, when in fact it is clearly wrong. Following Einstein's second postulate leads him to believe that the strikes occurred at different times at A and B, which we know for a fact that is impossible.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy:

You have two light sources at different locations. How do you measure the distance between them?

I know you think you can emit light simultaneously from both sources, and if they are 1 light second apart, the emitted light will reach either source after 1 second. But doesn't that mean both sources have to remain at a constant distance of 1 light second?

How do you know that they are still the same distance from each other when the light reaches them as when the light was emitted? How can you determine this?

Say you place a light transmitter a distance away from a receiver on a train, in line from front to back. You don't need to know the distance, just that they are not in relative motion to the train. So say they are bolted to the floor of the train an unknown distance apart from each other.

A light is sent from the transmitter to the receiver, and at the exact same time the light is sent a clock starts in the receiver.

You are timing the light from the point in space it was emitted to the point in space that it is received. The only thing you are concerned about is the time, not the distance, because if you know the time that light traveled you know the distance that light traveled in space. So you know the distance light traveled in space.

So for instance, light takes 1 second to travel from the point it was emitted to the point it was received, so light traveled 299,792,458 meters in space from the time it left the transmitter to the time it was received at the receiver.

That DOESN'T necessarily mean the distance between the transmitter and receiver is 299,792,458 meters. It simply means light traveled 299,792,458 meters in 1 second. For all you know the receiver could have been "running away" from the light, or it could have been "running towards" the light while the light was traveling. Remember the light spheres? Say one of the sources traveled away from its original position after it emitted light, in the direction opposite of the midpoint between the original points in space that the sources emitted light. If the light traveled from the other source, it reached the midpoint of the original positions at the .5 second mark. If the light continued to travel it would reach the point in space where the other light was emitted, and IF that source was there, it would hit that source at exactly 1 second. But if the source was traveling away from that point, the source would not be there when the light arrived.

You with me so far?

 

[origin]

Motor Daddy's belief that the relative speed of light is affected by the motion of the observer and his belief in a absolute motion lead to some rather strange conclusions.

In Motor Daddy's world the speed of light measured by an observer will be dependent on the observers motion. MD believes that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m / s, (amazingly enough this is correct - I believe this is the only correct idea that has come from MD).

Remember that MD believe that if the observer is in motion relative to an absolute fixed point then the relative speed of light will not be 299,792,458 m / s, it will only be c if the observer is at ABSOLUTE rest.

Well boys and girls that leads directly to the inescapable conclusion that earth holds an incredibly important seat in the entire universe. The reality is that light is measured at 299,792,458 m / s on earth! That's right we are the only point in the entire freaking universe that is at absolute rest.

We are NOT orbiting the sun. As MD stated, a smart person would know their absolute motion by measuring the speed of light. So, we know we are not moving, therefore the sun must be moving around us. Now the planets are orbiting the sun but the whole solar system is sort of pin wheeling around us. It just looks like we are orbiting the sun - pure illusion. Like wise we are not orbiting the galaxy we are at rest the galaxy MUST be pin wheeling around us since we are at rest. We are not moving towards the Virgo Supercluster it is moving towards us.

This also explains the large number of UFOs seen on earth and recorded for posterity on You Tube.. Ever wonder why there are so many different styles of ET space ships. Clearly ET's from all over the galaxy if not the universe would like to visit this incredible place of absolute rest. We are essentially the point of reference for the whole universe. I'm so proud!

There are so many implications to this theory. Think of a galaxy that is billions of light years from us and is receding from us at .7c. The old paradigm was that it is an illusion and all points are moving away from each other as the universe expands, but MD realizes that since we are at absolute rest the other galaxies are actually moving at .7c relative to our fixed point. Imagine how odd it would be to be on a planet in that galaxy. Since that speed of the galaxy is .7c compared to earth which is at absolute rest, the speed of the light from their sun would vary as the planet orbited the sun. The speed of light from their sun could be as high as 1.7c and 6 months later at .3c. As the year progressed the sun would change colors from red to blue. It must be very pretty.

I have only scratched the surface. MD has done much more than shown that Einstein was a moron, he has single handedly and fundamentally changed the very foundations of cosmology, physics and basically all of the physical sciences. That or he's an ignorant goof ball....

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy's belief that the relative speed of light is affected by the motion of the observer and his belief in a absolute motion lead to some rather strange conclusions.

In Motor Daddy's world the speed of light measured by an observer will be dependent on the observers motion. MD believes that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m / s, (amazingly enough this is correct - I believe this is the only correct idea that has come from MD).

Remember that MD believe that if the observer is in motion relative to an absolute fixed point then the relative speed of light will not be 299,792,458 m / s, it will only be c if the observer is at ABSOLUTE rest.

Well boys and girls that leads directly to the inescapable conclusion that earth holds an incredibly important seat in the entire universe. The reality is that light is measured at 299,792,458 m / s on earth! That's right we are the only point in the entire freaking universe that is at absolute rest.

We are NOT orbiting the sun. As MD stated, a smart person would know their absolute motion by measuring the speed of light. So, we know we are not moving, therefore the sun must be moving around us. Now the planets are orbiting the sun but the whole solar system is sort of pin wheeling around us. It just looks like we are orbiting the sun - pure illusion. Like wise we are not orbiting the galaxy we are at rest the galaxy MUST be pin wheeling around us since we are at rest. We are not moving towards the Virgo Supercluster it is moving towards us.

This also explains the large number of UFOs seen on earth and recorded for posterity on You Tube.. Ever wonder why there are so many different styles of ET space ships. Clearly ET's from all over the galaxy if not the universe would like to visit this incredible place of absolute rest. We are essentially the point of reference for the whole universe. I'm so proud!

There are so many implications to this theory. Think of a galaxy that is billions of light years from us and is receding from us at .7c. The old paradigm was that it is an illusion and all points are moving away from each other as the universe expands, but MD realizes that since we are at absolute rest the other galaxies are actually moving at .7c relative to our fixed point. Imagine how odd it would be to be on a planet in that galaxy. Since that speed of the galaxy is .7c compared to earth which is at absolute rest, the speed of the light from their sun would vary as the planet orbited the sun. The speed of light from their sun could be as high as 1.7c and 6 months later at .3c. As the year progressed the sun would change colors from red to blue. It must be very pretty.

I have only scratched the surface. MD has done much more than shown that Einstein was a moron, he has single handedly and fundamentally changed the very foundations of cosmology, physics and basically all of the physical sciences. That or he's an ignorant goof ball....

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Those measurements were not taken and calculated using my method, those were using some other method. Then you try to tie my method to those results, and conclude BS. It is Einstein that claims the Earth to be at rest using his "an object can always assume to be at rest" BS. What, it's valid to assume the earth is at rest and everything revolves around the Earth??? Einstein doesn't even have a way to determine an object's motion in space, so he HAS to resort to assume an object can assume to be at rest. He doesn't even have a concept of what that at rest means, or what the "at rest" is compared to. For if he did, he would not be able to use his second postulate, so he would have to abandon his theory and accept mine!

 

[origin]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Those measurements were not taken and calculated using my method, those were using some other method. Then you try to tie my method to those results, and conclude BS. It is Einstein that claims the Earth to be at rest using his "an object can always assume to be at rest" BS. What, it's valid to assume the earth is at rest and everything revolves around the Earth??? Einstein doesn't even have a way to determine an object's motion in space, so he HAS to resort to assume an object can assume to be at rest. He doesn't even have a concept of what that at rest means, or what the "at rest" is compared to. For if he did, he would not be able to use his second postulate, so he would have to abandon his theory and accept mine!

There you go. I was wondering how long it would take you to say we do not know how to measure the speed of light, we must not be able to measure it or you would have to admit you were wrong, which will never happen. So why do you accept the speed of light at 299,792,458 m / s if we can't measure the speed of light properly? You are really a hoot. If you were 1/10 as smart as you think you are you would be twice as smart as you appear.