I The velocity of a moving frame of reference

[RossBlenkinsop]

there may be difficulty devising an experiment to measure where that point is but never the less
u can't have yr cake and eat it to

 

[Ibix]

if a light strobe at a point X1 Y1 simple maths tells us that 3 photons in the wave front will always triangulate back to the same point in space

Please state this maths. How is it different from what I laid out in #46, and which Janus presented diagramatically in #49? Remember to carry out the maths in two different frames and relate the locations in the two frames. If you do this correctly you will realize that "the same point in space" means different things to different frames. It is not an absolute.

the speed of light not invariant or do the photons triangulate to a set point in space ?

They "triangulate back" to different points according to different frames; the point one frame calls "stationary at the centre of the spherical pulse" other frames call "moving and not at the centre". I have stated this multiple times, both verbally and mathematically, and correct diagrams have been presented to you supporting this. That "a fixed point in space" is a frame-dependent notion, not an absolute one, dates back to Galileo and all of physics assumes the notion.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

can you explain how a single strobing light with invariant speed photon can triangulate back to multiple centre points ?

 

[Ibix]

can you explain how a single strobing light with invariant speed photon can triangulate back to multiple centre points ?

I already did. See post #46.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

so it is impossible to conclude that the speed of light is invariant then
ok

 

[Ibix]

so it is impossible to conclude that the speed of light is invariant then
ok

I used the invariance of $c$ in #46...

 

[Ibix]

I repeat: please state the "simple maths" that supports your assertion that there is an absolute frame-invariant point from which the light radiates. You claimed there was some in #50. I know, having done the maths myself and presented a sketch above, that this claim is wrong - so I want to see your maths. Obviously there's a mistake in it somewhere.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

so what you are saying is if there is a single strobing light that strobes only once and 100 different ppl in 100 different frames, they all agree there is only one light and that it strobed once ,

but 3 photons on that wave front will map back to 100 different points

so what should they conclude from the results of that experiment ?

they cannot conclude there was 100 lights cos they all saw one and they can only conclude it strobed once

they would have to conclude there was 1 light simultaneously in 100 different locations
ok

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

or the other thing they could conclude is that there was one light at one location and there is something wrong with the ,measuring technique

Now

If they conclude there is one light at one location , then all roads lead to Rome

 

[Ibix]

so what should they conclude from the results of that experiment ?

Let's define your experiment better: one person is at rest with respect to the strobe. The other 99 are all in motion with respect to the first and to each other, and all pass the first person simultaneously. At the instant they pass him, he triggers the strobe. All one hundred people agree that the light flash happened at their location. Therefore when they subsequently back-trace the light rays they will always lead back to themselves because they each define themselves to be stationary. But they all agree that they are no longer in the same place. So they all disagree about what "where the flash happened" means.

There's nothing wrong with their measurement procedure. It's just ambiguous what "the same place" means, because there's no absolute standard of rest to define it. I don't really understand why you can't grasp this - it's been said enough times in enough different ways, and your own thought experiments lead to it if you analyse them correctly.

I'm still waiting for the "simple maths" that proves this wrong. It will never be forthcoming, of course, because there is no such thing.

 

[Ibix]

Also, a minor point, but you are required to write in proper English on this site, using capitals, punctuation, and actual words - "people" does not have three letters. Poor writing just makes it harder to understand an already complicated topic.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

Let's define your experiment better

no let's not

lets say we have 100 000 people splattered everywhere in 100 000 different frames when the one light strobes once

now you have a single light in 100 000 different locations simultaneously

 

[Ibix]

Same answer. They all say the light flash happened where they are. They all agree that the others are not where they are. Therefore they all disagree about what "where the flash happened" means at any time except when it happened.

Adding zeros doesn't change anything. You are simply wrong 100,000 times instead of 100 times.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

I repeat: please state the "simple maths" that supports your assertion that there is an absolute frame-invariant point from which the light radiates.

so are you saying if there is a single strobe light in my lounge room that strobes once, and photons radiate out from the strobe in straight lines at a set speed

there are multiple center points to that wave front of photons ?

if that is the case the speed of light is not invariant as that is the only way those photons can map back to multiple points

I don't need simple math as your friends animation shows the photons radiate outwards in straight lines in all directions at an invariant speed from a central point... but apparently if time is reversed they map back to multiple points thus negating the entire assertion they are speed invariant

 

[Ibix]

Why do you keep asking the same question? Do you think I'll change my mind if you ask it 23 times? Or 24?

Yes. Every frame has a different interpretation of what "centre point" means in this context. This is perfectly consistent with an invariant speed of light and I don't understand why you think otherwise.

I've already shown you the maths to support my claim (post #46 - note the presence of the same $c$ in both frames' calculations). Show me the maths you claim to have that says otherwise. Until you do so, you are simply waving your hands and refusing to believe that the world doesn't work like you think it ought to.

 

[Nugatory]

so which is it is the speed of light not invariant or do the photons triangulate to a set point in space ?

The speed of light is invariant and the light does not triangulate back to a set point in space.
It does triangulate back to the same point in spacetime (although the correct word for a point in spacetime is “event”, not “point”), the one at which the light was emitted.

You will continue to be confused until you understand the difference between a point in space and a point in spacetime. A point in space is a line (called a “worldline”) in spacetime; googling for “Minkowski diagram worldline” will bring up many explanations and examples.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

Same answer. They all say the light flash happened where they are. They all agree that the others are not where they are. Therefore they all disagree about what "where the flash happened" means at any time except when it happened.

Adding zeros doesn't change anything. You are simply wrong 100,000 times instead of 100 times.

sorry i simply do not understand this reply

 

[Nugatory]

sorry i simply do not understand this reply

He’s saying that if it makes sense for two observers moving relative to one another it will also make sense for ten, or a hundred, or 100,000... so you should focus on understanding the two-observer case.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

as explained before there is a train in a large building, 2 light clocks in the large building (LB) to, 1 in the train the other at rest wrt the building

the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction V

there is a strobe light in the roof

the train heads off along the tracks. Purely by chance the tracks are parallel to the direction of travel of the LB

The train heads off and attains a steady velocity. Purely by chance the velocity of the train is exactly the same as that of the LB , but in the opposite direction

we end up with the situation as depicted.

Purely by chance the strobe light in the roof strobes at the instant the train is directly below the light

once a photon enters a light tube it is reflected up and down

an observer in the frame will see the train whizzing away from them and the light clock in the train will be perceived by the observer to be ticking slower than the clock at rest wrt the observer

as before pulses are sent back along the train lines

will the train line pulses tick faster than the clock at rest wrt the observer

I have drawn the successive events one under another

 

[Nugatory]

can you tell me what is wrong with my logic

This picture shows the light propagating at speed $c$ using the frame in which the railcar is at rest, but not using the frame in which the strobe light and other stuff is at rest. Take another careful look at post #29 of this thread by @Janus and also try drawing a Minkowski diagram instead of trying to represent the passage of time as a series of still pictures.

I also think that you may be overlooking the relativity of simultaneity here. That’s another good google search.

 

[Janus]

as explained before there is a train in a large building, 2 light clocks in the large building (LB) to, 1 in the train the other at rest wrt the building

the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction Vthere is a strobe light in the roof

the train heads off along the tracks. Purely by chance the tracks are parallel to the direction of travel of the LB

The train heads off and attains a steady velocity. Purely by chance the velocity of the train is exactly the same as that of the LB , but in the opposite direction

we end up with the situation as depicted.

Purely by chance the strobe light in the roof strobes at the instant the train is directly below the light

once a photon enters a light tube it is reflected up and down

an observer in the frame will see the train whizzing away from them and the light clock in the train will be perceived by the observer to be ticking slower than the clock at rest wrt the observer

as before pulses are sent back along the train lines

will the train line pulses tick faster than the clock at rest wrt the observer

I have drawn the successive events one under another

I think a large problem is that you seem to think that "the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction V", has meaning in a absolute sense; that there is an absolute state of rest that the building can be said moving with respect to. This is not the case. There is no absolute space against which we can measure motion. We can only measure velocity differences between frames of reference.

So, if we assume that we have three light clocks, A B and C, Instead of a large building we will use a long railway car with a flat bed. On this railway car is an automobile. Clock A is affixed to the tracks. Clock B is affixed to the railway car, and clock C is affixed to the automobile.

The railway car is moving right at v relative to the tracks, and the automobile is moving as v to the right as measured from the railway car.

Ergo, Clocks A and C are at rest with respect to each other.

As measured from the tracks, Clocks A and C run at the same rate and clock B runs slow.
As measured from the automobile, Clocks A and C run at the same rate and clock B runs slow.
As measured from the Railway car, Clocks A and C run at the same rate, but run slower than Clock B.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

I think a large problem is that you seem to think that "the building and everything in it is whizzing thru space at some velocity V in some direction V", has meaning in a absolute sense; that there is an absolute state of rest that the building can be said moving with respect to. This is not the case. There is no absolute space against which we can measure motion. We can only measure velocity differences between frames of reference.

can you say it is not moving ? and if you were to say it is not moving, would that not mean it is stationary in an absolute sense ?

It appears I am at liberty to assume it may be moving ?

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

When one is explaining how a light can appear to be in a different position in a moving frame of reference to a person at rest wrt that frame the typical explanation is "well the photons enter your eye at a glancing angle but because your eye is moving at a velocity equal to the cosine of the angle of the photon with your eye, through space, the light appears to be in front of you when in fact it might not"

the above explanation assumes "movement" which, according to your last post, must mean movement wrt to something aka absolute movement doesn't it ?

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

a person is on a train heading east. Another person is on a train heading west . Person 1 sees the train whiz by, person 2 sees the other train whiz by i assume we are expected to conclude neither train is moving ?

 

[jbriggs444]

can you say it is not moving ? and if you were to say it is not moving, would that not mean it is stationary in an absolute sense ?

It appears I am at liberty to assume it may be moving ?

The point is that an insistence either way is unnecessary. Only relative motion has meaning. There is no meaningful sense of either absolute rest or of absolute motion.

 

[jbriggs444]

a person is on a train heading east. Another person is on a train heading west . Person 1 sees the train whiz by, person 2 sees the other train whiz byi assume we are expected to conclude neither train is moving ?

Both trains are moving with respect to the other. That is all that can be said from the givens of the scenario.

It could be that the east-facing person is stopped at a station (stopped relative to the tracks) while the west bound train passes by.

It could be that the west-facing person is stopped at a station (stopped relative to the tracks) while the east bound train passes by.

It could be that they are each rolling in their respective directions (relative to the tracks).

It could be that the tracks themselves are moving (relative to the center of the Earth) and that the Earth is moving (relative to the Sun) and that the Sun is moving (relative to the Milky Way) and that the Milky Way is moving (relative to a frame of reference in which the cosmic microwave background is isotropic).

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

so you say absolute position and movement has no meaning

but then go on to say that a single flash of light from a single light can map back to multiple points where the location of that point is a function of the position of the observer of the event

does

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

so the outcome of the experiment is a function of the location of where the experiment was conducted !

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

that sounds reproducible

 

[jbriggs444]

so you say absolute position and movement has no meaning

but then go on to say that a single flash of light from a single light can map back to multiple points where the location of that point is a function of the position of the observer of the event

The flash traces back to a single event. That event has coordinates (x,y,z,t) in each frame of reference that one might choose to use. But if one picks out the event now that that is at the same point (same x,y,z but not necessarily t coordinates) as that event then, the event that is chosen will depend on a standard of rest.

A frame of reference is a standard of rest.

[There is a distinction that can be made between "coordinate system" and "frame of reference". I am running roughshod over that distinction in the name of simplicity].

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

so you have multiple people who trace the photons from a single flash of light back to multiple single points

that may be the case but all of those people are stuck with the fact that the particular point they found , as the speed of light is invariant, will not move over time , and if they conducted the same experiment over and over and over over billions of year they would arrive back at the same point

so the points may be in different locations, but all of those points will never move and all of those points will be at rest wrt every other point found

do we now have a matrix of points that appear to hold the same location over any given time frame ?

so if an object is moving wrt those points, is it moving ?

 

[PeterDonis]

so you have multiple people who trace the photons from a single flash of light back to multiple single points

You are really confusing yourself by using this language.

Spacetime has events. Events are points in spacetime, not space. ("Space" is not an invariant concept in relativity; it depends on your choice of reference frame. So there is no such thing as "points in space" in relativity in any invariant sense.) The flash of light is an event. Each of the multiple people observing that flash of light receives it at another event; and those reception events are different for the different people.

If each of the different people uses a different frame (for example, the frame in which they are personally at rest), they will assign different coordinates to the event of the flash of light. But by transforming between frames they will easily be able to show that the flash of light is the same event for all of them.

You need to go back and rethink your entire scenario in the light of the above. Your conceptual grasp of it is fundamentally wrong; until you fix that, nothing will make sense to you, and everyone's efforts to help you understand will be in vain.

 

[Janus]

so the outcome of the experiment is a function of the location of where the experiment was conducted !

No.

For example. I we attach measuring sticks to A, B and C in my last example, You would get somethig like this as measured in the rest frame of B.

If A B and C were at rest with respect to each other, they would measure their sticks as being the same length and the each mark being the same distance apart. But Since A and C are in motion as measured from this frame, their sticks are length contracted. B still remains at the center of the light pulse.

From the rest frame of A, this is what is happening.

A's stick is it's normal length and B and C's sticks are contracted, C's more so because it has a greater relative motion. A remains at the center of the expanding light.

Now let's pick an event that takes place after the light pulse is emitted. Well choose when the emitted light flash reaches the right end of C's measuring stick.

According to B, this is how this event looks:
(this image does not show the exact moment, which occurs between frames in the above animation, but the frame just prior to it)

The end of the rod, (14 marks from C), is just past the eighth mark of B's stick and just shy of the 5th mark of A's stick.

If we look at this same event from A's frame, it looks like this.
(this is the first full frame after the event)

Again, the light reached the 14th mark of C's stick, when that end is just past the eighth mark of B's stick and just shy of the fifth mark on A's stick. Even though now A is at the center of the expanding light.

All three frames will agree on any measurable event, though they may disagree on the order some of those events. So for example in the first image, C has reached the fourth mark of B's stick, while in second image, it hasn't even reached the second mark yet. This means that In B's frame of reference, C reaches the Third mark of B before the light has reached the end of C's stick, while in A's frame, C doesn't reach the third mark until after the light has reached the end of C's stick.

This is the "relativity of simultaneity" @Nugatory referred to.

 

[Nugatory]

but then go on to say that a single flash of light from a single light can map back to multiple points where the location of that point is a function of the position of the observer of the event

Yes. One way to see this is to imagine that you and I are in our railcars, moving in opposite directions on parallel tracks. As @jbriggs444 has said above in post #80 it might be that we're both moving relative to the tracks, or I might be stopped at the station as your train passes by, or you might be stopped at the station while my train passes by... that doesn't matter... we could even remove the tracks, the station, and the surface of the Earth from the thought experiment so that we're moving past one in empty space with no external reference other than the position of the other train.

We're looking out our windows so as we pass one another we're face to face looking at each other from a distance of just a meter or so. At that moment a drone carrying a strobe light zooms between us and the strobe flashes just as it passes between us (the speed of the drone relative to us is irrelevant - all that matters is where it was at the moment that the strobe flashed). For convenience, we both zero our wristwatches at that moment.

Naturally you consider yourself to be at rest while I'm moving. You expect that photdetectors also at rest (relative to you, so they're moving relative to me) and one light-second to your left and right will trigger one second later according to your wristwatch, and indeed they do. You trace the path of the light back from the photodetectors and you come up with the completely unsurprising result that the light was emitted from the point right in front you, where the strobe on the drone flashed. You're not moving, so that point isn't changing.

I can do the same analysis considering myself to be at rest and using photodetectors that are at rest relative to me, and I will come up with a similar conclusion: the light traces back to the point in space right in front of me (in my analysis I am not moving so "right in front of me" is the same point at all times).

But "right in front of me when I'm not moving" is a different point than "right in front of you when you're not moving". That's why there is no absolute position.

However - and this is what we've been teling you even though you don't seem to be listening - an event is a point in spacetime, not a point in space. No matter which of us we consider to be moving, if we trace the path of the light back to where it was emitted, we will agree that it came from:
- right under my nose at the moment that I set my watch to zero
- right under your nose at the moment that you set your watch to zero
- the exact time and place (that's "time and place", as opposed to "place" because we're talking about points in spacetime, not space) that the strobe flashed.

This would be a good time to follow through on my suggestion above about learning about Minkowski diagrams and worldlines.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

so you have multiple people who trace the photons from a single flash of light back to multiple single points

Spacetime has events. Events are points in spacetime, not space. ("Space" is not an invariant concept in relativity; it depends on your choice of reference frame. So there is no such thing as "points in space" in relativity in any invariant sense.) The flash of light is an event. Each of the multiple people observing that flash of light receives it at another event; and those reception events are different for the different people.

my understanding from the last series of posts is if multiple people in multiple frames trace a single flash of a single light back to the origin of the flash they will all end up at multiple points in "Space" ?

 

[Nugatory]

my understanding from the last series of posts is if multiple people in multiple frames trace a single flash of a single light back to the origin of the flash they will all end up at multiple points in "Space" ?

Yes. They will each trace it back to the point in space at which the flash was emitted, which will be a different point in space (that is, has different x, y, and z coordinates) in the dfferent frames. However, they will all trace the flash back to the same point in spacetime (that is, an event identified by x, y, z, and t coordinates).

 

[metastable]

my understanding from the last series of posts is if multiple people in multiple frames trace a single flash of a single light back to the origin of the flash they will all end up at multiple points in "Space" ?

A thought experient that helped me understand the concept a bit better was this... Suppose I fire a 20gev positron followed immediately after by a 20gev + 1ev electron (both in the same direction from the same gun). If I was traveling alongside the center of mass of the collision at the same velocity, I’d witness 2 photons leave the scene going in opposite directions, likely of equal energy, and to me the photons would appear to only have the rest energy of the electron + positron + a small amount of extra energy

But If I am in the frame of the lab, things look very different. Both photons appear to be traveling in almost the same direction, and one of the photons has much more energy than the other.

 

[PeterDonis]

They will each trace it back to the point in space at which the flash was emitted, which will be a different point in space (that is, has different x, y, and z coordinates) in the dfferent frames.

No, it won't, at least if we suppose that at the instant both observers see the strobe flash, they both mark that point in space (in their respective frames) as the origin, $x = y = z = 0$.

With that understood, both observers will say that the point where the flash was emitted is their spatial origin, $x = y = z = 0$. (And since they both synchronized their clocks to read zero at that instant, they will also say the flash was emitted at the event which is their spacetime origin, $x = y = z = t = 0$.)

The difference between the two observers is that what each one calls "my spatial origin" is moving relative to the other. In other words, what each one calls "a point in space" is not a "point in space" relative to the other, because it's moving.

 

[Nugatory]

No, it won't,

Yes, I need to find a less ambiguous way of wording it. Both will trace the flash back to points to which they assign the coordinates x=y=z=0 when they’re using different coordinate systems. But if we limit ourselves to one set of coordinates (the ones in which I am at rest, for definiteness) to talk about the situation, then no matter how we label the point that the other observer calls x=y=z=0, we’re going to label it something other than x=y=z=0. (And if we do the labeling right, x will be a function of t so in effect we’ve specified a line in the Minkowski x-t plane),

And at this point I’ve recapitulated the reason that @Ibix put scare-quotes around the spatial coordinates in post #47 of this thread. @RossBlenkinsop you should ignore this sidebar conversation, instead work on understanding why both observers trace the light back to the same point in spacetime, not space.

 

[Ibix]

Here are a couple of spacetime diagrams. These are essentially displacement-versus-time diagrams, except that conventionally time is shown up the page and position horizontally. Also, the scale is picked to be seconds and light seconds, so that the speed of light (one light second per second) gives the paths followed by light a slope of $\pm 1$.

Apologies for the hand-sketching. All lines are meant to be straight. I can draw computer-generated versions at the weekend if it helps.

Here is the first diagram:

In this diagram there is one observer, marked in red, stationary at the origin. A second observer, marked in blue, passes by moving to the right. At the instant they pass, a flash of light is emitted, marked in fine orange lines. Because the slope of these lines is $\pm 1$, the midpoint ("where the flash was emitted") is always where the red observer is. The blue observer is to the right of this at all times after the actual emission event.

Here's the same scenario in the blue observer's rest frame:

Now the blue observer is stationary at the origin and the red observer approaches moving to the left. Again the flashes are emitted when the observers pass, but this time the midpoint of the flashes is where the blue observer is.

So in both cases "where the flash was emitted" is the origin of the spatial coordinates ($x=0$ in one case, $x'=0$ in the other). But it's clear that the two frames mean different things by this - $x=0$ is where the red observer is and $x'=0$ is where the blue observer is. And they are not in the same place.

If, as @Nugatory has suggested a couple of times, you actually mean that "the flash happens when and where the observers pass one another" then everyone will agree. But this is an event (a place and time), not a point. A point in space has multiple different meanings depending on which frame is doing the describing.

 

[metastable]

A thought experient that helped me understand the concept a bit better was this... Suppose I fire a 20gev positron followed immediately after by a 20gev + 1ev electron (both in the same direction from the same gun). If I was traveling alongside the center of mass of the collision at the same velocity, I’d witness 2 photons leave the scene going in opposite directions, likely of equal energy, and to me the photons would appear to only have the rest energy of the electron + positron + a small amount of extra energy

But If I am in the frame of the lab, things look very different. Both photons appear to be traveling in almost the same direction, and one of the photons has much more energy than the other.

I should add a slight correction to this... the scenario makes a large assumption the lab frame isn't a spacecraft with relatively low mass. If that were the case, the lab derives impulse from each of the firings, accelerating the lab frame between firings, so the collision energy might be a bit different than expected under other circumstances.

 

[Janus]

Here are a couple of spacetime diagrams. These are essentially displacement-versus-time diagrams, except that conventionally time is shown up the page and position horizontally. Also, the scale is picked to be seconds and light seconds, so that the speed of light (one light second per second) gives the paths followed by light a slope of $\pm 1$.

Apologies for the hand-sketching. All lines are meant to be straight. I can draw computer-generated versions at the weekend if it helps.

Here is the first diagram:View attachment 244704
In this diagram there is one observer, marked in red, stationary at the origin. A second observer, marked in blue, passes by moving to the right. At the instant they pass, a flash of light is emitted, marked in fine orange lines. Because the slope of these lines is $\pm 1$, the midpoint ("where the flash was emitted") is always where the red observer is. The blue observer is to the right of this at all times after the actual emission event.

Here's the same scenario in the blue observer's rest frame:
View attachment 244703
Now the blue observer is stationary at the origin and the red observer approaches moving to the left. Again the flashes are emitted when the observers pass, but this time the midpoint of the flashes is where the blue observer is.

So in both cases "where the flash was emitted" is the origin of the spatial coordinates ($x=0$ in one case, $x'=0$ in the other). But it's clear that the two frames mean different things by this - $x=0$ is where the red observer is and $x'=0$ is where the blue observer is. And they are not in the same place.

If, as @Nugatory has suggested a couple of times, you actually mean that "the flash happens when and where the observers pass one another" then everyone will agree. But this is an event (a place and time), not a point. A point in space has multiple different meanings depending on which frame is doing the describing.

Here, I took the liberty of knocking them out for you. It just took a couple of minutes, as I have a program that is designed just for plotting space-time diagrams.

It's a nice little piece of software that allow you to create world-lines, light beams, and events. Then you can either click on any world-line to "match speeds" with it, or assign your own boost to choose the frame from which you want to plot from.

 

[Ibix]

It just took a couple of minutes, as I have a program that is designed just for plotting space-time diagrams.

Thanks. I have something similar, but it doesn't work on my phone. I should do something about that one day, given the amount of PFing I do on my phone.

 

[metastable]

if multiple people in multiple frames trace a single flash of a single light

How do you propose multiple people observe the same photon?

 

[jbriggs444]

How do you propose multiple people observe the same photon?

No need to invoke quantum mechanics. A single flash of light, such as a flashbulb going off can be seen by many people.

 

[Ibix]

How do you propose multiple people observe the same photon?

Why do you assume "flash of light" means one photon?

 

[metastable]

I was thinking a flash of light meant many photons, but each photon can only been seen by one observer.

 

[Ibix]

That really doesn't matter to this scenario. Nothing in this has anything to do with individual photons. The basic idea is to emit an arbitrarily short but very bright pulse and have the observers use a beam splitter to detect the pulse while passing most of it for other observers to detect.

All of the issues that @RossBlenkinsop is struggling with arise without complicating the situation with quantum field theory. Which neither you, Mr Blenkinsop, nor I is qualified to analyse.

 

[PeterDonis]

I was thinking a flash of light meant many photons, but each photon can only been seen by one observer.

If we're talking about classical relativity, the term "photon" should really not be used at all. If it is used, it should be taken to mean "a really short pulse of light in a specific direction", without making any claims whatever about its quantum nature, since at the level of classical relativity we ignore all quantum effects. Basically it's just a pulse of light that travels on a null worldline.

 

[RossBlenkinsop]

my question has still not been answered

if the speed of light is invariant, then according to all frames light will always trace back to a point in space or in space time (you choose) that does not move over time , over all time

on what basis do any of you assert that absolute movement, or lack of absolute movement aka absolute stillness, is not possible ? or is somehow a freakish outcome