Sun-Earth-Moon Gravity

The problem is that people are asking questions with one coordinate system in mind, and the answers are being given in a different coordinate system. Questions need to be more specific, and answers need to be more specific. In relativity, one always has to have the frame of reference in mind. As you point out, answers become nonsensical when people mix up frames of reference.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Consider the murder on the train.The person on the platform, when asked where the murder occurred, will reply, "Several miles down the track." But when told they need to examine the body, she will answer, "Oh, well it occurred in the third compartment."In the same way, the man on the train, when asked where the murder occurred, will reply, "In the compartment 100 ft behind me." But if they make it clear they need to know in which jurisdiction the murder took place so they can charge the murderer properly, then the man, knowing that county lines are painted on the ground that is moving past him outside, will then say, "Oh, well then it happened in the other county a few miles back."See? Both people will give the same answers as long as it is clear what the questions really are and what the appropriate coordinate systems are to use.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

No, the whole problem is that you think that there is one true frame of reference but there isn't.That isn't to say some frames of reference aren't more convenient for some problems than others, just that there is no absolute true frame of reference.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

It's wrong to me too, since what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever.Edited by Chiroptera, : Completely replaced post.Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

I never agreed that we should do anything. I merely pointed out that when we measure the distance to a galaxy cluster, we are measuring the distance to where the light was emitted. How else can we make the measurement? We can only make the measurement based on what we see, and what we see is the point in space and time when the light was emitted.- But "where" and "when" the light from the lightning was emitted depends on the frame of reference in which you are making these measurements. In the ground's frame of reference, the light was emitted at the strike marks. So the strike marks indicate where the light was emitted. In the train's frame of reference, the strike marks are moving, and so, after some time, the strike marks are no longer at the point in space where the light was emitted.- This makes no sense whatsoever. All we can know about the galaxy and train is from the light (or other signals) that reach us from there. So this is going to determine to where we measure the distance. We cannot measure the distance to where the train is now, because we don't know where the train or the galaxy is now. Millions, even more, have passed since the events that we are observing now. The train and galaxy could be anywhere now. In fact, for all we know, the train and the galaxy don't even exist any more. We know nothing about the train or the galaxy now.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Sure they were, in the frame of reference of the strike marks themselves. In a frame of reference where the stike marks are not moving, then the strike marks aren't moving. Therefore, in that frame of reference, the strike marks remain exactly where the light from the strike was emitted.You really seem to be having trouble with a concept that really isn't very difficult.- Sure, but the point in space where they used to exist certainly exists. Just because a house burns down, we can point out the location where it used to be. So we can still use a reference frame where the strike marks were stationary; then the strike marks are associated with a definite position, a definite spatial coordinate, in that frame of reference.I'm beginning to suspect that you are having difficulty with the concept of coordinate systems. Either that, or you're a troll having us all on.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Not in the frame of reference of the mark itself. In that frame of reference, the mark isn't moving at all.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

You see, this shows that you don't even know what the words mean.The mark isn't moving at all in its reference frame. So it is in the same position it was when the light from the lightning was emitted. Therefore, it is in the exact same position where the light from the lightning was emitted.This is just what those words mean. "Not moving at all" means "in the same position that it has always been". If it has not moved at all since the lightning struck, then it is still in the same position right now where the lightning struck.- Exactly. Except for an observer in the reference frame of the mark itself, because according to her measurements the mark has never moved from that spot. So, according to a person in the same frame of reference as the mark from the lightning strike, that mark is in the same spot where the lightning struck, and so in the same spot from which the light she is observing was emitted. This is what "frame of reference" means. If you cannot understand this, then you don't understand the meaning of "frame of reference", and in that case any sentence you type with the words "frame of reference" is gibberish.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Okay, so we can now conclude a couple of things.(1) You have no idea what you are talking about.(2) You don't really want to learn anything. You think that just disagreeing with something for the sake of disagreement marks you as an "independent thinker". I bet you are between 15 and 21 years old.At any rate, there is no point in continuing this conversation. I did enjoy it. I enjoyed it for two reasons:One reason is that your attempts at rebuttal gave me the opportunity to make further refinements in the explanation of frames of reference. I hope that anyone trying to understand something about "frames of reference" now has a little better understanding what the concept means. But I think that the basic idea has been explained about as much as it can be, and there is no point going further.The other reason is that I participate in these evolution/creation debate forums because I enjoy the silly monkey dance that creationists do. You have that same mind set -- someone who doesn't have any understanding of the principles, yet you insist that you have something important to tell the world. I could go on for another couple of pages watching you dance around and make those funny faces and noises. However, the operators of this board have a different idea of the purpose of this board -- they are interested in foster an "intelligent debate" about the principles involved. That isn't going to happen here, since you don't understand the principles involved, and aren't really interested in learning them.So I'm pretty much going to leave it there. It's been interesting for me, and it's been fun, but there is no more point in continuing. And we've gotten a bit from the Sun-Earth-Moon Gravity topic anyway.Edited by Chiroptera, : typos

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders