To all,

There are several reasons why what we observe, doesn't represent what is
actually happening right now.

-1- By the time the historic image of lets say a moving star reaches us, it
is no longer where we observe it to be or for that matter, will be what it
looks like.
For example, the star may have exploded or may have collided with another
star during the time it took for its image to reach the observer, as well as
have traveled a further distance.
See the second of my Selected Papers: Frames of Reference, which you will
find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

In the extreme case of a superluminal fly-by, the observed star will
suddenly appear out of nowhere. Next its bright image will split into two
weaker images, one of which travels back in space and time, while the other
image travels forward in space and time.
See: Gamma-Ray Bursters, in my paper: Frames of Reference - Part Two.

-2- It takes time for the gravitational force to affect a neighbouring
(moving) body.
This is because the gravitons of one body, even though they travel at c,
take time to reach the other body. In other words, one body will be
affected by the gravitational force of another (moving) body where it sees
the other body to be, instead of where it actually is.
For an explanation of the Gravitational Force see: The Gravitational Force,
in my paper:
Foundations for Proposed Unified Field Theory.

-3- When a large body like a star emits electromagnetic radiation, such as
light, heat, radio or gravitational waves, it will be emitted at c in
relation to that body rather than in relation to the observer, since the
Electromagnetic Field Of Reference of the emitter is the dominant EFOR close
to the emitter. This means that its radiation is emitted at less than c in
relation to the observer, when the observed body is moving away from the
observer.
See: Moving EFORS, in my paper: Frames of Reference.

However, as the radiation approaches the observer his EFOR will dominate
causing the electromagnetic radiation to increase its speed until it travels
at c towards the observer.
In order to calculate the average speed at which the light of the moving
star traveled towards the observer, we have to know the velocity (speed and
direction) and luminosity of the observed star in relation to the observer.
See: The Variable Speed of Light Model, in my paper: Frames of Reference.

It follows from the above that not only do things happen to the actual
object we are observing during the time it takes for its image to reach us,
but also that the speed and direction at which its image travels towards us
may vary or change direction. Consequently it is impossible to draw any
definite conclusions based on the observed image of a distant moving star.

-4- Of course other distortions have to be taken into account, such as the
Doppler effect which causes the observed light spectrum of a star or galaxy
to look different from what it actually is. That is to say, a star that
moves away from us will look colder than it actually is, whereas a star that
is moving towards us will appear to look hotter than it actually is.
See: The Observation of a Moving Body by a Stationary Observer, in my paper:
Frames of Reference.

-5- If the image of a star passes another moving star on its way to the
observer, it may affect the speed at which the observed image of the star
travels towards the observer as well.
That is to say, if the image travels past a star which is moving away from
us, its moving EFOR will slow down the speed at which the image of the
observed star travels towards us.

-6- Finally, since light travels through a medium, such as water or air, at
less than c, it follows that if the image of the observed star travels
through a large atmosphere which surrounds another star on its way to the
observer, it will not only be slowed down but it may affect its direction of
travel towards the observer. Consequently the observed star's position will
have shifted from its expected observed position. This is the case because
the density of the atmosphere close to the star is greater than further away
from the star. (Sometimes this effect is mistakenly attributed to that of a
gravitational lens.)

For example, the earth atmosphere is most dense at its surface and gets less
dense the further we move away from the earth. Consequently, when we look
at the earth from a distance, we are looking at a (spherical, variable
density, gas) lens with the earth at its centre.

This is why when we look at the setting sun it doesn't look like a perfect
circle any longer as the sun's image touches and sinks below the horizon.
Also, since the earth's variable density's atmosphere also bends light
waves, it follows that we can still see part of the sun after its observed
image has in fact sank below the horizon.

It follows from the above that there is no simple answer to the way a
distant object looks, as compared to where it actually is and what it
actually looks like (and is) right now. Not only has relativistic physics
provided us with the wrong answers to the above mentioned phenomena, but
relativists have oversimplified the problem by suggesting that one
(relativistic) principle or law explains all.

If only things were that simple!

Enjoy, Len.
.................................................. ...........

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
[snip nonsense]

You've been shown recently nonsensical and clueless. How can
you honestly come back with the same kind of crap ?

Do you lack such basic sense of honesty ?

In article ,
says...
In the extreme case of a superluminal fly-by, the observed star will
suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Yep.

Next its bright image will split into two
weaker images, one of which travels back in space and time, while the other
image travels forward in space and time.


No. The observer would see two images both going forward in time away
from him.

--
I am looking for the answer although I don't know the question.

18th saying of Bernard

To Bernard,

Since the observer didn't see the superluminal star coming, he will see it
coming belatedly after it first burst on the scene but backwards, because
the earlier images have a longer way to travel to reach him than the more
recent ones. Think about it. As for the mathematics see "Gamma-Ray
Bursters" in my paper: "Frames of Reference - Part Two" at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Enjoy, Len.
.................................................. .....

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a46d8b9656b34af98979e@news...
In article ,
says...
In the extreme case of a superluminal fly-by, the observed star will
suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Yep.

Next its bright image will split into two
weaker images, one of which travels back in space and time, while the
other
image travels forward in space and time.


No. The observer would see two images both going forward in time away
from him.

--
I am looking for the answer although I don't know the question.

18th saying of Bernard
.................................................. .......

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a46d8b9656b34af98979e@news...
In article ,
says...
In the extreme case of a superluminal fly-by, the observed star will
suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Yep.
Both of you are wrong.
It will be seen coming, but not going.
The same would be true if it fired a bullet at you.
On approach, V = c+v
On receding, V = -c+v
if v |c|, V is negative.

Androcles

Next its bright image will split into two
weaker images, one of which travels back in space and time, while the
other
image travels forward in space and time.


No. The observer would see two images both going forward in time away
from him.

--
I am looking for the answer although I don't know the question.

18th saying of Bernard

To Androcles,

My math doesn't lie. Where is your math to back up your statement below?

Len.
......................................
"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a46d8b9656b34af98979e@news...
In article ,
says...
In the extreme case of a superluminal fly-by, the observed star will
suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Yep.
Both of you are wrong.
It will be seen coming, but not going.
The same would be true if it fired a bullet at you.
On approach, V = c+v
On receding, V = -c+v
if v |c|, V is negative.

Androcles

Next its bright image will split into two
weaker images, one of which travels back in space and time, while the
other
image travels forward in space and time.


No. The observer would see two images both going forward in time away
from him.

--
I am looking for the answer although I don't know the question.

18th saying of Bernard

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
To YBM,


TOLERANCE
[snip]

Tolerance is by no means a support to dishonesty, mediocriy
and ignorance.

To YBM,


TOLERANCE


Often the less a person knows
The more convinced he is
That he has all the answers
And the more determined he becomes
To convert others to his narrow point of view.

Conversely, the more we understand
The more considerate we become
Of alternative points of view
Even though they may not always
Agree with our way of thinking.

Besides we are all unique
And depending on when and where we live
The way to enlightenment for any given person
Will be different from that of
Any other person.

And so it is
That the more we know
The more we realize
How much more
There is to know.


J.L.G., Jan., 2000.


"YBM" wrote in message
...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
[snip nonsense]

You've been shown recently nonsensical and clueless. How can
you honestly come back with the same kind of crap ?

Do you lack such basic sense of honesty ?

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
To YBM,

MINDSET
[...]

You're even worse, if possible, in poetry than in physics...

To YBM,

MINDSET

To be born a Protestant
In Northern Ireland
Is to hate all Catholics
And be hated in return.

To be born a Protestant or Catholic
In Canada
Is to love one another
As fellow Christians.

If our mindset is one of
Ignorance, greed and hatred
We not only cause others to suffer
But will make our own life a misery.

Conversely if we practice kindness and honesty
We can even face personal misfortune
With a peaceful heart because
We will love and trust others
As we love ourselves.

Len Gaasenbeek, March, 1996.
Revised: 1998.
Revised: 2000.
.................................................. ......................

"YBM" wrote in message
...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
To YBM,


TOLERANCE
[snip]

Tolerance is by no means a support to dishonesty, mediocriy
and ignorance.
.................................................. .......