3 hours ago, tar said:

Swansont, my point about the velocities was that if there is constant data coming from Earth to Alpha and a craft takes that constant data flow TO Alpha the ship will arrive with the data 4.24 years BEFORE the constant data flow arrives by light image.

Which is abject nonsense.

Even traveling close to c, the ship will arrive after a light signal that leaves at the same time. The only data it will arrive before is data that was transmitted some time after the craft left. If the craft is transmitting, that data will beat data from earth because it doesn’t have to travel as far, but there’s nothing that should be surprising about that.

If the craft is relaying data from earth, no advantage is gained because it takes time for the signal to get to the ship.

Nothing beats the light signal emitted at the beginning of the trip.

(You can’t assign a single time to a “constant data flow” since it is not transmitted nor received at one time.)

3 hours ago, tar said:

You act like I am trying to disprove Relativity. I am not, I am rather using relativity to inform my understanding of the Universe.

You can’t assume your understanding is correct and deform relativity to fit everything together.

1 hour ago, tar said:

Mars exists now, only once. It is not in ANOTHER space and time. It is in this one, just removed from us by 22 light minutes.
There is only one now that the whole universe is currently in.

Do you realize that nothing Mars does can ever affect you before 22 minutes have passed ???
It could blow up, it could vanish, or even become a Black Hole; the fact is, it is not happening 'now', it is happening 22 minutes from 'now', as that is the only time it will have any effect on you that you can detect.
Before the 22 minutes, you have no idea what, if any, changes have occurred and it might as well be in another space and time, for all you know.

50 minutes ago, tar said:

I believe I am seeing the universe in a common sense way that explains our observation

What were you told about 'common sense' and relativistic effects ?
And what relativistic 'observations' have you made that are explained by your conclusions ?

56 minutes ago, tar said:

If your conclusion at the end of your figuring is that space contracts and time dilates it raises the question of why other things happening around the dilation and contraction do not notice.

Anyone or any detection equipment in the same frame would not notice anything.
If you and I are in space and a satellite passes by us, would you notice differently if I said I couldn't tell who is actually moving, us or the satellite ?

1 hour ago, tar said:

You guys always want to teach me science. I always think I have something to add to the conversation but you don't consider me a peer.

No consideration involved; you are a peer.
But we expect a little better from someone who's been active on this forum for over a dozen years, and has taken 'Physics at a University level".
So why not learn about frames of reference, in what circumstances relativistic effects become noticeable ( and NOT common sense ), and the proper use of space-time diagrams ( light cones ), so you can make sensible contributions to the conversation ?

3 hours ago, tar said:

My task here is to add something, not detract. I believe I am seeing the universe in a common sense way that explains our observations. Where I debate is in the conclusions people draw from certain measurements, in terms of what they MUST mean.

Who told you that nature has any respect for or acknowledgment of your common sense?

The conclusions we draw are in the framework of the best models we have. If you want to interpret them in terms of another model, feel free to present the model. But all of the evidence that’s covered by the model has to fit, and contradictions must be addressed. “Common sense” is not a model and given its spectacular failures, it does not get a seat at the table.

“Common sense” tells us that the earth is flat, the sun (and almost everything in space) orbits the earth, heavy things fall faster. Some people think the position of astronomical objects influence our fate. Some think black holes exert more gravity than other objects of equal mass. That the seasons are caused by the distance to the sun varying. Common sense suggests there is no gravity in space.

Appealing to common sense is just the fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

3 hours ago, tar said:

In science, equations are often applied as if you see the whole experimental space at once.

What examples can you give, and what experience do you have that you can say what happens “often” in science?

3 hours ago, tar said:

This can be done in your head, but that is NOT how reality works. I am thinking that people shift from one observers location to another observer's location, or take an imaginary position from which they can witness the whole experiment at the same time, without making the proper transforms of EVERYTHNG from the one perspectives, to true it with other perspectives.

We (well, most of us doing advanced physics) know when this matters and when it doesn’t. Partly because we quantify things, because we have equations, and know the importance if significant digits in calculations.

3 hours ago, tar said:

When unrealistic conclusions are drawn, you assume the universe is wired. I assume someone is starting with a false premise or failed to take all the variables into account and did not transform EVERY pertinent data point from all the observers into a common frame or perspective that would leave the universe intact and perfectly aligned with itself.

It takes more than the assumption. You need to actually show the premise is false and/or what the missing variable is, or at least provide a compelling argument that there’s something missing (as we did with the neutrino and do with dark matter)

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Which is abject nonsense.

Even traveling close to c, the ship will arrive after a light signal that leaves at the same time. The only data it will arrive before is data that was transmitted some time after the craft left. If the craft is transmitting, that data will beat data from earth because it doesn’t have to travel as far, but there’s nothing that should be surprising about that.

If the craft is relaying data from earth, no advantage is gained because it takes time for the signal to get to the ship.

Nothing beats the light signal emitted at the beginning of the trip.

(You can’t assign a single time to a “constant data flow” since it is not transmitted nor received at one time.)

You can’t assume your understanding is correct and deform relativity to fit everything together.

I know I can't assume I am correct swansont. That is why I am floating my scheme. To see if it does fit with what we know.

In the light cone diagram of spacetime you are at the foci in the middle of the cone, with relative past and present outside the cone, your image going up and out into the future on the upward cone and light illumininating your present is coming in from the downward light cone. Everything inside the upward cone is your absolute present, everything in the downward cone is your absolute past. And here we seem to leave each other. I have, in my model a horizontal plane going through the foci, on which you can find every particle, and every body and every wave and object and location in the universe, right now. In my model this plane that includes the whole universe moves upward, matching exactly the progress of time. Every point in the universe progresses in lockstep, taking its light cone with it.

My model matches yours in every way, I believe. Where we differ is in our assumptions in terms of what we hold variant and invariant. And from whose lighcone we are taking measurement. In your take you require length contraction and time dilation. In my model you can explain everything, with the same math but holding length and time invariant and looking at only blue shift and red shift,, measuring the change in wavelength and frequency and leaving space and time unmodified.

22 hours ago, MigL said:

Do you realize that nothing Mars does can ever affect you before 22 minutes have passed ???
It could blow up, it could vanish, or even become a Black Hole; the fact is, it is not happening 'now', it is happening 22 minutes from 'now', as that is the only time it will have any effect on you that you can detect.
Before the 22 minutes, you have no idea what, if any, changes have occurred and it might as well be in another space and time, for all you know.

What were you told about 'common sense' and relativistic effects ?
And what relativistic 'observations' have you made that are explained by your conclusions ?

Anyone or any detection equipment in the same frame would not notice anything.
If you and I are in space and a satellite passes by us, would you notice differently if I said I couldn't tell who is actually moving, us or the satellite ?

No consideration involved; you are a peer.
But we expect a little better from someone who's been active on this forum for over a dozen years, and has taken 'Physics at a University level".
So why not learn about frames of reference, in what circumstances relativistic effects become noticeable ( and NOT common sense ), and the proper use of space-time diagrams ( light cones ), so you can make sensible contributions to the conversation ?

MigL, I consider any separation in space a separation in time per the theory of relativity, because separate observers will order events differently, but consider motion through space as changing your position in respect to another. The speed of the change does not matter to me as much as the actual positional differential. Because the positional differential puts you out in the other observers future light cone. The farther you go out, the longer it will take for your present image to illuminate the other observers here and now. Same with his image. As you move away the image takes longer to get to you. As you look at each other you see his clock slow and he sees your clock slow, but in actuality neither clock has slowed. Both are ticking along just fine. So you don't have to stretch space or dilate time to explain the time it takes the tick to reach the other. You can just measure the redshift of light coming from the other and know how fast you are separating. When you stop separating the image will be neither red or blue shifted, but now you will be farther away from each other. Your light cones are seperated by distance but your clocks are both fine. They have both ticked of a week but the other clock reads 22 mins slow because you are on Mars and his clock is on Earth. You are both in the same time, just separated by distance. My answer to the traveling twin thought experiment is have both twins set their clock to a pulsar and have their clock tick off a tick at every pulsar pulse. When you get to Mars, you would have counted off the same number of ticks as the Earth clock plus or minus the ticks you would gain or lose depending on whether you were getting closer to the pulsar or further away on your trip to mars. Even though you will see each other's count of the other's pulsar ticks as 22minutes worth of ticks short, if you return to Earth, your ticks of the pulsar will exactly match.

Regards, TAR

1 hour ago, tar said:

My model matches yours in every way, I believe. Where we differ is in our assumptions in terms of what we hold variant and invariant. And from whose lighcone we are taking measurement. In your take you require length contraction and time dilation.

It’s required by the speed of light being invariant.

Having it not be invariant has implications that can be tested, and the proposal fails those tests. It’s already been investigated, which is why there’s no need to consider it.

1 hour ago, tar said:

In my model you can explain everything, with the same math but holding length and time invariant and looking at only blue shift and red shift,, measuring the change in wavelength and frequency and leaving space and time unmodified.

You don’t have a model. If you did we’d be able to make quantitative predictions and show how they fail to agree with experiment. The equations would allow anyone to investigate the implications rather than having to rely on whatever scenario you fabricate.

One problem with redshift/blueshift is that it’s not just signals that get modified. You can move clocks and only compare them when they are at rest, next to each other. They still show relativistic effects. Charge distribution in high-speed nuclei shows length contraction — how does red- or blueshift come into that? Or in muon decay? There’s no EM radiation involved in the latter two.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Who told you that nature has any respect for or acknowledgment of your common sense?

The conclusions we draw are in the framework of the best models we have. If you want to interpret them in terms of another model, feel free to present the model. But all of the evidence that’s covered by the model has to fit, and contradictions must be addressed. “Common sense” is not a model and given its spectacular failures, it does not get a seat at the table.

“Common sense” tells us that the earth is flat, the sun (and almost everything in space) orbits the earth, heavy things fall faster. Some people think the position of astronomical objects influence our fate. Some think black holes exert more gravity than other objects of equal mass. That the seasons are caused by the distance to the sun varying. Common sense suggests there is no gravity in space.

Appealing to common sense is just the fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

What examples can you give, and what experience do you have that you can say what happens “often” in science?

We (well, most of us doing advanced physics) know when this matters and when it doesn’t. Partly because we quantify things, because we have equations, and know the importance if significant digits in calculations.

It takes more than the assumption. You need to actually show the premise is false and/or what the missing variable is, or at least provide a compelling argument that there’s something missing (as we did with the neutrino and do with dark matter)

I don't think you are saying anything I don't agree with, I am in full support of Maxwell's equations and Lorentz transforms and Einsteins equations. I just think the "reason" the equations work might be different that the reasons you think they work.

Something you consider as real I might consider just an image. Something you consider imaginary I might consider actual.

Something might be viewed and measured but be the image of a star that super navaed a thousand years ago. Is it REAL? it is acually an image, so its imaginary. There are two areas in the Universe where things could be considered imaginary. One is all those OLD images coming in for everywhere. The other imaginary take is that right now the stars that sent the photons we are seeing now are putting out photons right now that we will see later. Imaginary but actual. We really will see Alpha Proxima in our skies in 4.24 years. That means the electeromagnetic waves and photons it sent out toward us 4.24 years ago are RIGHT NOW inhabiting the space between here and Alpha. Probably the photons we will see every night as we look at Alpha Proxima are in a curved train starting at Alpha headed out ahead of us at first, as someone would aim in front of a moving object to hit it. Those are all the photons that will hit our equipment in the future. Actually every photon from Alpha that hits our equipment HAS to be part of a spherical shell of photons sent out by Alpha 4.24years prior the photons illuminating our here and now.

What this leads me to posit, in relation to this thread Swansont, is that the space between us and Alpha is not empty. It is loaded with photons coming from every visible object in the visible Universe at every possible frequency, long radio wave to high energy Gamma waves. Perhaps since the space is filled, we are already directly connected to Alpha and there is some way to swing a ball into the row and have the ball at the other end of the row, pop out.

Einstein saw some spooky action at a distance when contemplating entangled particles. If there is such thing as spooky action at a distance, it must have a mechanism. I am just looking for what that mechanism might be.

Regards, TAR

In terms of a comprehensive math to put up against the current model., I do not have it. But I am working on it.

1 hour ago, tar said:

in my model a horizontal plane going through the foci, on which you can find every particle, and every body and every wave and object and location in the universe, right now. In my model this plane that includes the whole universe moves upward, matching exactly the progress of time. Every point in the universe progresses in lockstep, taking its light cone with it.

Maybe if you'd looked up my reference on space-time diagrams

Spacetime - Wikipedia
Spacetime diagram - Wikipedia

You would have realized that a light cone is a space-time diagram rotated about the time axis.
And that any horizontal line, or plane as you describe, is space-like, and involves faster than light information transfer or motion: you know that's impossible, right ?
( actually, true horizontal implies instantaneous transfer or motion )

Until you exorcise these non-sensical preconceptions you have, by doing some basic research, or asking questions, you will be always pitching assertions that don't make sense.
No matter how long you make your posts !

9 minutes ago, tar said:

I don't think you are saying anything I don't agree with, I am in full support of Maxwell's equations and Lorentz transforms and Einsteins equations. I just think the "reason" the equations work might be different that the reasons you think they work.

You can’t BS your way past the math. It either works or it doesn’t. You can’t say you support Lorentz transforms but think that length and time are invariant because those statements contradict each other.

9 minutes ago, tar said:

Something you consider as real I might consider just an image. Something you consider imaginary I might consider actual.

If it’s not imaginary you have to be show it objectively exists.

Being able to imagine something means absolutely nothing, because you can imagine physically impossible things.

9 minutes ago, tar said:

What this leads me to posit, in relation to this thread Swansont, is that the space between us and Alpha is not empty. It is loaded with photons coming from every visible object in the visible Universe at every possible frequency, long radio wave to high energy Gamma waves.

Nothing controversial about that

9 minutes ago, tar said:

Perhaps since the space is filled, we are already directly connected to Alpha and there is some way to swing a ball into the row and have the ball at the other end of the row, pop out.

The photons in space are not connected, nor are they matter, so this kind of connection doesn’t exist. And as has already been explained, if there was some material filling the space between us, it could not be perfectly rigid and signals within it can’t propagate any faster than c.

9 minutes ago, tar said:

Einstein saw some spooky action at a distance when contemplating entangled particles. If there is such thing as spooky action at a distance, it must have a mechanism. I am just looking for what that mechanism might be.

Einstein was shown to be wrong.

On 9/6/2025 at 3:26 PM, tar said:

Well I have been around for 71 years. I have taken math and physics courses, I have read books on QED and relativity. I could not find my book where Einstein explained the train and lightning relativity thing, so I don't have his words to use in this discussion at the moment but I did fine Hermann Bond's Relativity and Common Sense, A New Approach to Einstein, Copyrighted in 1962 and 1964. I read it then and am looking through it now. Reading on the internet, various articles about relativity, I see a lot of misinterpretations and conclusions being drawn about what Relativity is, what it shows and what it might "predict". I will have to reread the book, but a general idea I get, related to this thread is it is important to apply common sense to the equations and not let the equations take you into dreamland where science is not applicable, and hypothesis can not be tested.

Hermann Bondi was a significant scientist, though his version of the steady state theory has fallen by the wayside.

His 'Common Sense' relativity book contains nothing contrary to current explanations of Lorenz or Einsteins additions of relativistic velocites or why it is not possible to travel faster than light.

Indeed he has chapters explaining mainstream theory on all of these.

So please do not invoke this book as backup for your way out propositions.

On 9/9/2025 at 1:47 PM, tar said:

Something might be viewed and measured but be the image of a star that super navaed a thousand years ago. Is it REAL? it is acually an image, so its imaginary.

What is 'real' ?
Something that affects you in some way ?
That you can see, smell, hear, touch, or detect with various equipment ?

Because that star that went supernova a thousand years ago could not affect you in any way whatsoever a thousand years ago.
But the image, which travels at the speed of light, along with any gravitational anomalies whose information travels at the speed of light, and any radiation, like neutrinos, which travel a little slower than the speed of light, are the effects that make it 'real'.

By your definition, the Sun could be going nova as I type, yet it has no effect on me and I cannot detect it in any way for 8.5 min., so how is it 'real' ? Yet in 8.5 min. it will absolutely be real.

On 9/9/2025 at 1:56 PM, MigL said:

Maybe if you'd looked up my reference on space-time diagrams

Spacetime - Wikipedia
Spacetime diagram - Wikipedia

You would have realized that a light cone is a space-time diagram rotated about the time axis.
And that any horizontal line, or plane as you describe, is space-like, and involves faster than light information transfer or motion: you know that's impossible, right ?
( actually, true horizontal implies instantaneous transfer or motion )

Until you exorcise these non-sensical preconceptions you have, by doing some basic research, or asking questions, you will be always pitching assertions that don't make sense.
No matter how long you make your posts !

Maybe Migl, but maybe not. I have done some reading and musing over the years and thought about the spacetime diagram and what it represents.

I have a different take on reality than you do. You think the horizontal line implies faster than light or instant communication. I assume it shows NOW in a location separated from here by distance.\

Regards, TAR\

I am still working on it. Not ready for release.

On 9/11/2025 at 4:25 PM, MigL said:

What is 'real' ?
Something that affects you in some way ?
That you can see, smell, hear, touch, or detect with various equipment ?

Because that star that went supernova a thousand years ago could not affect you in any way whatsoever a thousand years ago.
But the image, which travels at the speed of light, along with any gravitational anomalies whose information travels at the speed of light, and any radiation, like neutrinos, which travel a little slower than the speed of light, are the effects that make it 'real'.

By your definition, the Sun could be going nova as I type, yet it has no effect on me and I cannot detect it in any way for 8.5 min., so how is it 'real' ? Yet in 8.5 min. it will absolutely be real.

On 9/11/2025 at 4:25 PM, MigL said:

What is 'real' ?
Something that affects you in some way ?
That you can see, smell, hear, touch, or detect with various equipment ?

Because that star that went supernova a thousand years ago could not affect you in any way whatsoever a thousand years ago.
But the image, which travels at the speed of light, along with any gravitational anomalies whose information travels at the speed of light, and any radiation, like neutrinos, which travel a little slower than the speed of light, are the effects that make it 'real'.

By your definition, the Sun could be going nova as I type, yet it has no effect on me and I cannot detect it in any way for 8.5 min., so how is it 'real' ? Yet in 8.5 min. it will absolutely be real.

But everything we see has already happened. that is what I learned by reading an thinking about Enstien's theory of relativity. But we don't have to think just about what is real to us a a single observer, we can think about what is real to a second observer, separated by space, right now.

As you can see the flash and smoke from the distant explosion before you hear it and you hear it feel the shock before you feel the heat, and you feel the heat before you smell the gunpowder.

You can KNOW that Alpha Proxima is doing something right now that you will not see for 4.2 years or whatever.

And the light coming in from Alpha Proxima is continual. That is there are photons in space halfway here, 3/4 here etc. All that stuff in between, the cosmic rays, the particles the magnetic waves are ALL real. It does not just become real when it hits our equipment.

On 9/11/2025 at 3:36 PM, studiot said:

Hermann Bondi was a significant scientist, though his version of the steady state theory has fallen by the wayside.

His 'Common Sense' relativity book contains nothing contrary to current explanations of Lorenz or Einsteins additions of relativistic velocites or why it is not possible to travel faster than light.

Indeed he has chapters explaining mainstream theory on all of these.

So please do not invoke this book as backup for your way out propositions.

On 9/11/2025 at 3:36 PM, studiot said:

Hermann Bondi was a significant scientist, though his version of the steady state theory has fallen by the wayside.

His 'Common Sense' relativity book contains nothing contrary to current explanations of Lorenz or Einsteins additions of relativistic velocites or why it is not possible to travel faster than light.

Indeed he has chapters explaining mainstream theory on all of these.

So please do not invoke this book as backup for your way out propositions.

I was only using Bondi to express the idea that it was ok to invoke common sense when talking about space time. I agree that I do not adhere to current thinking. I seem to have wandered off the beaten path a bit. I won't argue the point. I will just try and solidify my thinking and put some math to it so you can compare it with what you've got. I am working on it.

On 9/9/2025 at 2:16 PM, swansont said:

You can’t BS your way past the math. It either works or it doesn’t. You can’t say you support Lorentz transforms but think that length and time are invariant because those statements contradict each other.

If it’s not imaginary you have to be show it objectively exists.

Being able to imagine something means absolutely nothing, because you can imagine physically impossible things.

Nothing controversial about that

The photons in space are not connected, nor are they matter, so this kind of connection doesn’t exist. And as has already been explained, if there was some material filling the space between us, it could not be perfectly rigid and signals within it can’t propagate any faster than c.

Einstein was shown to be wrong.

Well I am wondering if spooky action at a distance might be because something happened that affected both here and there at the same time. That is, the world existed continuously from time T to time T plus 1 in BOTH location A and B. Almost like a reflection. Consider when you raise your right hand the image in the mirror raises his left hand immediately yet the two are separated by a distance.

Thread, I have heard you all and have dropped the unreformable media idea. I agree that no impulse can propagate faster than C.T

Thank you for your instruction.

9 hours ago, tar said:

Well I am wondering if spooky action at a distance might be because something happened that affected both here and there at the same time. That is, the world existed continuously from time T to time T plus 1 in BOTH location A and B. Almost like a reflection.

That’s very ad-hoc, and one needs to explain how “something” happens at the remote location at the same time, and how a random result just happens to always show correlation with the measurement made that also produces a random result.

9 hours ago, tar said:

Consider when you raise your right hand the image in the mirror raises his left hand immediately yet the two are separated by a distance.

They aren’t simultaneous. It’s just that you can’t perceive the delay, which would be at best a few nanoseconds if you’re ~30-50 cm from the mirror.

11 hours ago, tar said:

I have done some reading and musing over the years and thought about the spacetime diagram and what it represents.

Reading, but obviously not understanding.

11 hours ago, tar said:

You think the horizontal line implies faster than light or instant communication. I assume it shows NOW in a location separated from here by distance

A line in a space-time diagram, shows the time taken to traverse a certain section of space; that's why there are two axis.
IOW a speed.

11 hours ago, tar said:

You can KNOW that Alpha Proxima is doing something right now that you will not see for 4.2 years or whatever.
...
It does not just become real when it hits our equipment.

Ok, humor me.
What is it doing right now ?

Maybe you shouldn't have left for the last month and a half to do some reading with your 'bag of misconceptions', but stayed to ask questions, and maybe get rid of some of that baggage.