Hmm. I was just browsing through the textbook "College Physics" by Hugh D. Young, 9th
edition, and I found this on page 104:

------------------- start quote -----------------
Inertial Frames of Reference

In our discussions of relative velocity at the ends of Chapters 2 and 3, we stressed
the concept of a frame of reference. This concept also plays a central role in Newton’s
laws of motion. Suppose you are sitting in an airplane as it accelerates down
the runway during takeoff. You feel a forward force pushing on your back, but
you don’t start moving forward relative to the airplane. If you could stand in the
aisle on roller skates, you would accelerate backward relative to the plane.. In
either case, it looks as though Newton’s first law is not obeyed. Forward net force
but no acceleration, or zero net force and backward acceleration. What’s wrong?
The point is that the plane, accelerating with respect to the earth, is not a suitable
frame of reference for Newton’s first law. This law is valid in some frames of
reference and not in others. A frame of reference in which Newton’s first law is
valid is called an inertial frame of reference. The earth is approximately an inertial
frame of reference, but the airplane is not.

This may sound as though there’s only one inertial frame of reference in the
whole universe. On the contrary, if Newton’s first law is obeyed in one particular
reference frame, it is also valid in every other reference frame that moves with
constant velocity relative to the first. All such frames are therefore inertial. For
instance, Figure 4.9 shows three frames of reference: that of a person standing
beside the runway, that of a truck driving at constant speed in a straight line, and
that of the accelerating airplane. The stationary person’s frame of reference is
inertial. The truck moves with constant velocity relative to the person, so its
frame of reference is also inertial. In both of these frames, Newton’s first law is
obeyed. However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
observers, is in a non-inertial frame.

Thus, there is no single inertial frame of reference that is preferred over all
others for formulating Newton’s laws. If one frame is inertial, then every other
frame moving relative to it with constant velocity is also inertial. Both the state of
rest and the state of uniform motion (with constant velocity) can occur when the
vector sum of forces acting on the object is zero. Because Newton’s first law can
be used to define what we mean by an inertial frame of reference, it is sometimes
called the law of inertia.

-------------------- end quote ----------------

The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial.."

So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
"What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?

Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT? We know that light is emitted
at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.

The answer seems to have something to do with time dilation. The photon is
emitted by an atom, but the speed of the atom does NOT ADD TO the speed of
the photon. HOWEVER, the speed of the atom affects the LENGTH OF A SECOND
when the atom emits a photon at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. That is
true whether the atom is part of an inertial or non-inertial system.

Two perfectly matched radar guns using the same frequencies CAN measure
the speed of a truck from inside the truck. I just need to figure out exactly WHY.
The answer MAY be as a result of time dilation. I need to think about it.

Ed

El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:41:04 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:

>
> The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."
>
> So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
>
> Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT? We know that light is emitted
> at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
> at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
> relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.
>

The answer is right there in the English text. "..velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

That means the emitting body can be AT REST (relative to some inertial frame of reference) OR the emitting body is MOVING relative to that same inertial frame of reference. In both cases the speed of light is the same and equal to c.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 4:41:04 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Hmm. I was just browsing through the textbook "College Physics" by Hugh D.. Young, 9th

> The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."

So you agree now that I mean Urschel frame is one that is not accelerating? Can we agree on that definition?

> So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?

Just reading that by the English language, means that all observers measure the speed of light to be C. In the context of a special relativity, all inertial observers will measure the speed of light to be C.

Then reading the other stuff by Einstein and the math, all also support that he meant that the measured speed of light (By inertial Observers) will always be C.

> Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT?

Relative to the inertial frame in question. Also relative to any inertial frame, any inertial Observer. Note that inertial frame and inertia Luxor are synonymous.

> We know that light is emitted
> at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving.

Yes, observers at rest on Earth, will measure the speed of light to be C. Whether this light comes from a moving radar gun or not. All light passing in front of an inertial observer will be measured to have this feed see no matter where that light comes from.

> The photons do NOT move
> at c PLUS the speed of the gun.

Precisely. Photons, light, moves that speed see relative to any inertial Observer. No matter the Observer measuring the speed of those photons , those observers will measure the speed of it to be C.

> I had been assuming the photons move at c
> relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.

No matter the (inertial) Observer, the (inertial) observer will measure the speed of light to be C.

> The answer seems to have something to do with time dilation.

No need of time dilation. The second postulate ensures, says, specifies that the speed of light will be C. There is no mention of time dilation in the second postulate.

> Two perfectly matched radar guns using the same frequencies CAN measure
> the speed of a truck from inside the truck.

No they can't. Many such experiments, equivalent experiments have been done.. And it is confirmed that within the truck, it can't detect the "speed" of the truck. This is because the "speed of the truck" has no meaning if one does not specify the coordinate system. Truck does not have a speed. A truck has a speed relative to a given coordinate system, or equivalently relative to a given inertial Observer.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:41:04 UTC-3, escribió:
>
> >
> > The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> > stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> > velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."
> >
> > So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> > "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> > 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
> >
> > Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT? We know that light is emitted
> > at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
> > at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
> > relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system..
> >
> The answer is right there in the English text. "..velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
>
> That means the emitting body can be AT REST (relative to some inertial frame of reference) OR the emitting body is MOVING relative to that same inertial frame of reference. In both cases the speed of light is the same and equal to c.

Yes, I know that. It's what I've been saying all along. But why does
a MOVING radar gun that is pointed at a stationary highway sign
show the speed of the GUN, not a a speed of zero? It MUST be
because the gun hits the returning photon at c+v.

I need to think this over. I'm done for today.

Ed

El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 19:14:12 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:41:04 UTC-3, escribió:
> >
> > >
> > > The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> > > stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> > > velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."
> > >
> > > So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> > > "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> > > 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> > > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
> > >
> > > Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT? We know that light is emitted
> > > at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
> > > at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
> > > relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.
> > >
> > The answer is right there in the English text. "..velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
> >
> > That means the emitting body can be AT REST (relative to some inertial frame of reference) OR the emitting body is MOVING relative to that same inertial frame of reference. In both cases the speed of light is the same and equal to c.
> Yes, I know that. It's what I've been saying all along. But why does
> a MOVING radar gun that is pointed at a stationary highway sign
> show the speed of the GUN, not a a speed of zero? It MUST be
> because the gun hits the returning photon at c+v.
>

As you have been told many times this is a Doppler effect. The radar gun shows the relative speed betweeen the radar gun and the highway sign. That relative speed can be due to the radar gun approaching the fixed sign OR the moving sign approaching the fixed gun. Both cases are completely equivalent from the point of view of the gun.

> I need to think this over. I'm done for today.
>
> Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm. I was just browsing through the textbook "College Physics" by Hugh D. Young, 9th
> edition, and I found this on page 104:
>
> ------------------- start quote -----------------
> Inertial Frames of Reference
>
> In our discussions of relative velocity at the ends of Chapters 2 and 3, we stressed
> the concept of a frame of reference. This concept also plays a central role in Newton’s
> laws of motion. Suppose you are sitting in an airplane as it accelerates down
> the runway during takeoff. You feel a forward force pushing on your back, but
> you don’t start moving forward relative to the airplane. If you could stand in the
> aisle on roller skates, you would accelerate backward relative to the plane. In
> either case, it looks as though Newton’s first law is not obeyed. Forward net force
> but no acceleration, or zero net force and backward acceleration. What’s wrong?
> The point is that the plane, accelerating with respect to the earth, is not a suitable
> frame of reference for Newton’s first law. This law is valid in some frames of
> reference and not in others. A frame of reference in which Newton’s first law is
> valid is called an inertial frame of reference.

Right and this is what I told you from the previous textbook you quoted.
You can check back. An inertial reference frame is one in which Newton’s
first law holds.

> The earth is approximately an inertial
> frame of reference, but the airplane is not.

Not while it’s accelerating on the runway.

>
> This may sound as though there’s only one inertial frame of reference in the
> whole universe. On the contrary, if Newton’s first law is obeyed in one particular
> reference frame, it is also valid in every other reference frame that moves with
> constant velocity relative to the first.

That’s right. Any reference frame moving at constant velocity relative to
an inertial frame is also an inertial frame. So this means that, since the
earth’s surface is approximately an inertial reference frame, then a car
traveling at constant velocity on the road is also anchored to an inertial
reference frame. This is true even though the car is obviously being
propelled. That is what I told you.

> All such frames are therefore inertial. For
> instance, Figure 4.9 shows three frames of reference: that of a person standing
> beside the runway, that of a truck driving at constant speed in a straight line, and
> that of the accelerating airplane. The stationary person’s frame of reference is
> inertial.

Yes, because the earth’s surface is approximately an inertial frame.

> The truck moves with constant velocity relative to the person, so its
> frame of reference is also inertial.

Yes, and this is true even though the truck’s engine is propelling it. It
is traveling at constant speed on a straight and flat road. Exactly as I
told you.

> In both of these frames, Newton’s first law is
> obeyed. However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
> observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
>
> Thus, there is no single inertial frame of reference that is preferred over all
> others for formulating Newton’s laws. If one frame is inertial, then every other
> frame moving relative to it with constant velocity is also inertial.

Yes! And so the “local” frame of the earth is not as special as you thought
it was.

> Both the state of
> rest and the state of uniform motion (with constant velocity) can occur when the
> vector sum of forces acting on the object is zero. Because Newton’s first law can
> be used to define what we mean by an inertial frame of reference, it is sometimes
> called the law of inertia.

Isn’t it wonderful when you decide to actually READ the introductory
textbook? You learn so much.

>
> -------------------- end quote ----------------
>
> The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."
>
> So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
>
> Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT?

Exactly! And the answer is, relative to ANY inertial reference frame.

> We know that light is emitted
> at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
> at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
> relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.

And you just learned that the earth is not special and cannot be singled
out.

>
> The answer seems to have something to do with time dilation. The photon is
> emitted by an atom, but the speed of the atom does NOT ADD TO the speed of
> the photon.

That’s what I told you. Velocities do not combine by adding. There is a
rule for how velocities combine, but that’s not it.

If you just pay attention to what people tell you and what books say, and
stop relying on your own internal thought processes, you’ll eventually
understand it.

> HOWEVER, the speed of the atom affects the LENGTH OF A SECOND
> when the atom emits a photon at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. That is
> true whether the atom is part of an inertial or non-inertial system.
>
> Two perfectly matched radar guns using the same frequencies CAN measure
> the speed of a truck from inside the truck. I just need to figure out exactly WHY.
> The answer MAY be as a result of time dilation. I need to think about it.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:41:04 UTC-3, escribió:
>>
>>>
>>> The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
>>> stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
>>> velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."
>>>
>>> So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
>>> "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
>>> 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
>>>
>>> Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT? We know that light is emitted
>>> at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
>>> at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
>>> relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.
>>>
>> The answer is right there in the English text. "..velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
>>
>> That means the emitting body can be AT REST (relative to some inertial
>> frame of reference) OR the emitting body is MOVING relative to that same
>> inertial frame of reference. In both cases the speed of light is the same and equal to c.
>
> Yes, I know that. It's what I've been saying all along. But why does
> a MOVING radar gun that is pointed at a stationary highway sign
> show the speed of the GUN, not a a speed of zero?

It’s showing NEITHER the speed of the sign relative to the earths surface
NOR the speed of the gun relative to the earth’s surface. The earth’s
surface is IRRELEVANT to the radar gun’s reading. The earth’s inertial
reference frame is not special, remember?

The ONLY thing the radar gun is reading is the speed of the sign relative
to the gun. The road has absolutely nothing to do with it.

> It MUST be
> because the gun hits the returning photon at c+v.
>
> I need to think this over. I'm done for today.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake wrote:
....
> I need to think this over. I'm done for today.

You are done for your entire miserable life, Ed. You actually
NEVER have been thinking a single second of your life. NOT
EVEN ONCE.

On 11/16/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> Hmm. I was just browsing through the textbook "College Physics" by Hugh D. Young, 9th
> edition, and I found this on page 104:
>
> ------------------- start quote -----------------
> Inertial Frames of Reference
>
> In our discussions of relative velocity at the ends of Chapters 2 and 3, we stressed
> the concept of a frame of reference. This concept also plays a central role in Newton’s
> laws of motion. Suppose you are sitting in an airplane as it accelerates down
> the runway during takeoff. You feel a forward force pushing on your back, but
> you don’t start moving forward relative to the airplane. If you could stand in the
> aisle on roller skates, you would accelerate backward relative to the plane. In
> either case, it looks as though Newton’s first law is not obeyed. Forward net force
> but no acceleration, or zero net force and backward acceleration. What’s wrong?
> The point is that the plane, accelerating with respect to the earth, is not a suitable
> frame of reference for Newton’s first law. This law is valid in some frames of
> reference and not in others. A frame of reference in which Newton’s first law is
> valid is called an inertial frame of reference. The earth is approximately an inertial
> frame of reference, but the airplane is not.
>
> This may sound as though there’s only one inertial frame of reference in the
> whole universe. On the contrary, if Newton’s first law is obeyed in one particular
> reference frame, it is also valid in every other reference frame that moves with
> constant velocity relative to the first. All such frames are therefore inertial. For
> instance, Figure 4.9 shows three frames of reference: that of a person standing
> beside the runway, that of a truck driving at constant speed in a straight line, and
> that of the accelerating airplane. The stationary person’s frame of reference is
> inertial. The truck moves with constant velocity relative to the person, so its
> frame of reference is also inertial. In both of these frames, Newton’s first law is
> obeyed. However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
> observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
>
> Thus, there is no single inertial frame of reference that is preferred over all
> others for formulating Newton’s laws. If one frame is inertial, then every other
> frame moving relative to it with constant velocity is also inertial. Both the state of
> rest and the state of uniform motion (with constant velocity) can occur when the
> vector sum of forces acting on the object is zero. Because Newton’s first law can
> be used to define what we mean by an inertial frame of reference, it is sometimes
> called the law of inertia.
>
> -------------------- end quote ----------------
>
> The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."

Ed, you need to read that sentence over and over and over and over again
until you finally understand it. It is the exact situation we've been
using all along -- the truck with constant velocity is an inertial
reference frame.
>
> So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
>
> Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT? We know that light is emitted
> at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
> at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
> relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system.
> [...]
> I need to think about it.

Do I detect a crack in the hardheadedness of Ed's stubborn beliefs?
Sounds like it, right?

But no, the idée fixe almost always wins in the end. Ed's idée fixe
rules him. It pwns him. It controls what he believes. Almost as if it's
alive.

I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how the
truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can measure the
speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar measures a
moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road sign because of
c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:05:15 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> I predict tomorrow, he will be roaring forth, posting like mad how the
> truck isn't an inertial frame but the earth is, how you can measure the
> speed of a box truck from inside the metal box, a radar measures a
> moving car's speed when pointed at a stationary road sign because of
> c+v, oscillating photons, etc. etc.

All of the above and more.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:14:12 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> . But why does a MOVING radar gun that is pointed at a stationary highway sign
> show the speed of the GUN, not a a speed of zero?

It must be because the gun is MOVING wrt the sign, you think?

>It MUST be
> because the gun hits the returning photon at c+v.

Few ideas but fixed

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3:41:04 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Two perfectly matched radar guns using the same frequencies CAN measure
> the speed of a truck from inside the truck. I just need to figure out exactly WHY.
> The answer MAY be as a result of time dilation. I need to think about it.

Is that so?

Consider a truck cabin without windows. You have two radar guns
pointed at each other, with their frequencies set against accurate
cesium sources. One transmits a continuous 9.1926 GHz beam to
the other, which heterodynes the received frequency against its
own internal frequency standard.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lA--sSDn6DakJv9QTXA9TogyLxrbbrUN/view?usp=sharing

With the truck stationary, the heterodyned beat frequency is on the
order of several minutes. If you set the truck accelerating, you can
fairly easily detect the changing acceleration of the truck due to
a certain first-order effect that I will not name. There is also a
second effect which is operative, which this arrangement will not
be sensitive enough to detect.

By continuously monitoring the heterodyned beat frequency, you
should be able to calculate the difference in speed of the truck
from its starting motionless state.

BUT SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A POWER FAILURE? After restarting
the two radar guns, can you determine the speed of the truck
relative to the ground?

The answer is no.

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:55:48 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> That means the emitting body can be AT REST (relative to some inertial frame of reference) OR the emitting body is MOVING relative to that same inertial frame of reference. In both cases the speed of light is the same and equal to c.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:59:10 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> No they can't. Many such experiments, equivalent experiments have been done. And it is confirmed that within the truck, it can't detect the "speed" of the truck.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 00:10:11 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

The spirit of Giant Guru would be VERY angry if it was singled out!!!!
Taboo.
Unfortunately, GPS staff has pissed at the spirit and his taboo.

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 06:46:11 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> BUT SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A POWER FAILURE? After restarting
> the two radar guns, can you determine the speed of the truck
> relative to the ground?

BUT SUPPOSE YOU'RE HIT IN THE HEAD? Can you measure
your speed of light as c when unconscious?

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 02:05:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> using all along -- the truck with constant velocity is an inertial
> reference frame.

Stupid Mike, have you never heard of the famous elevator
gedanken of your idiot guru? No it is not.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:46:11 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> By continuously monitoring the heterodyned beat frequency, you
> should be able to calculate the difference in speed of the truck
> from its starting motionless state.

I've left out a number of important details on purpose, leaving
them for you to figure out. For example, how would you tell
the difference between the truck accelerating forwards vs
backing up, etc. I want you to focus on the basic scenario.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3, det....@outlook.com escribió:
> >>> I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
> >>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
> >>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
> >>>
> >>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
> >>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
> >>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
> >>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
> >>>
> >>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
> >>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
> >>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
> >>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
> >>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
> >>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
> >>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
> >>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
> >>>
> >>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
> >>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
> >>>
> >>> Discussion?
> >> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
> >> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
> >> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works.
> >> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
> >> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
> >> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
> >> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
> >> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
> >>
> >> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
> >> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
> >>
> >> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
> >> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
> >> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
> >> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
> >> the homodyne concept".
> >>
> >> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
> >> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
> >> received by the radar gun.
> >
> > The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
> > The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
> > Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
> >
> Oh dear, Ken.
>
> Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
> much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
> stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
> lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
> that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
> nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.
>
> But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
> the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
> wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
> bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
> they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
> the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
> likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?
>
> I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
> 20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
> it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
> terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that. gave the
> distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
> viewed skeptically?

1.The speed of any thing is observer dependent. To make light an exemption you nveted
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3, det....@outlook.com escribió:
> >>> I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
> >>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
> >>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
> >>>
> >>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
> >>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
> >>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
> >>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
> >>>
> >>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
> >>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
> >>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
> >>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
> >>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
> >>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
> >>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
> >>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
> >>>
> >>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
> >>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
> >>>
> >>> Discussion?
> >> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
> >> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
> >> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works.
> >> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
> >> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
> >> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
> >> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
> >> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
> >>
> >> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
> >> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
> >>
> >> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
> >> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
> >> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
> >> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
> >> the homodyne concept".
> >>
> >> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
> >> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
> >> received by the radar gun.
> >
> > The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
> > The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
> > Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
> >
> Oh dear, Ken.
>
> Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
> much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
> stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
> lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
> that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
> nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.
>
> But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
> the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
> wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
> bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
> they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
> the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
> likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?
>
> I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
> 20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
> it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
> terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that gave the
> distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
> viewed skeptically?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3,
>>>> det...@outlook.com escribió:
>>>>> I just uploaded a new version of
>>>> my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
>>>>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
>>>>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
>>>>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
>>>>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
>>>>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
>>>>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
>>>>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
>>>>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
>>>>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
>>>>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
>>>>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
>>>>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
>>>>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussion?
>>>> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
>>>> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
>>>> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works.
>>>> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
>>>> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
>>>> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
>>>> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
>>>> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
>>>> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
>>>>
>>>> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
>>>> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
>>>> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
>>>> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
>>>> the homodyne concept".
>>>>
>>>> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
>>>> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
>>>> received by the radar gun.
>>>
>>> The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
>>> The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
>>> Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
>>>
>> Oh dear, Ken.
>>
>> Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
>> much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
>> stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
>> lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
>> that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
>> nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.
>>
>> But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
>> the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
>> wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
>> bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
>> they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
>> the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
>> likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
>> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?
>>
>> I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
>> 20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
>> it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
>> terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that gave the
>> distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
>> viewed skeptically?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

Oh dear, Ken, it’s possible that you are no longer capable of posting on
Usenet. What are you going to do now?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3,
>>>> det...@outlook.com escribió:
>>>>> I just uploaded a new version of
>>>> my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
>>>>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
>>>>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
>>>>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
>>>>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
>>>>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
>>>>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
>>>>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
>>>>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
>>>>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
>>>>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
>>>>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
>>>>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
>>>>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussion?
>>>> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
>>>> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
>>>> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works.
>>>> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
>>>> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
>>>> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
>>>> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
>>>> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
>>>> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
>>>>
>>>> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
>>>> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
>>>> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
>>>> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
>>>> the homodyne concept".
>>>>
>>>> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
>>>> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
>>>> received by the radar gun.
>>>
>>> The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
>>> The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
>>> Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
>>>
>> Oh dear, Ken.
>>
>> Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
>> much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
>> stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
>> lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
>> that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
>> nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.
>>
>> But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
>> the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
>> wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
>> bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
>> they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
>> the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
>> likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
>> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?
>>
>> I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
>> 20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
>> it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
>> terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that. gave the
>> distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
>> viewed skeptically?
>
> 1.The speed of any thing is observer dependent. To make light an exemption you nveted
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

Oh dear, Ken, it’s possible that you are no longer capable of posting on
Usenet. What are you going to do now?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >>>> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3,
> >>>> det...@outlook.com escribió:
> >>>>> I just uploaded a new version of
> >>>> my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
> >>>>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
> >>>>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
> >>>>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
> >>>>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
> >>>>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
> >>>>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
> >>>>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
> >>>>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
> >>>>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
> >>>>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
> >>>>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
> >>>>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
> >>>>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Discussion?
> >>>> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
> >>>> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
> >>>> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works..
> >>>> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
> >>>> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
> >>>> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
> >>>> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
> >>>> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
> >>>> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
> >>>> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
> >>>> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
> >>>> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
> >>>> the homodyne concept".
> >>>>
> >>>> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
> >>>> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
> >>>> received by the radar gun.
> >>>
> >>> The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
> >>> The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
> >>> Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
> >>>
> >> Oh dear, Ken.
> >>
> >> Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
> >> much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
> >> stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
> >> lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
> >> that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
> >> nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.
> >>
> >> But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
> >> the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
> >> wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
> >> bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
> >> they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
> >> the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
> >> likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
> >> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?
> >>
> >> I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
> >> 20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
> >> it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
> >> terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that gave the
> >> distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
> >> viewed skeptically?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> Oh dear, Ken, it’s possible that you are no longer capable of posting on
> Usenet. What are you going to do now?

Sorry....My computer keep on posting when I am not finish typing..
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:50:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3,
>>>>>> det...@outlook.com escribió:
>>>>>>> I just uploaded a new version of
>>>>>> my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
>>>>>>> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link:
>>>>>>> https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
>>>>>>> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not
>>>>>>> the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT.
>>>>>>> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
>>>>>>> photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
>>>>>>> at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation
>>>>>>> frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher
>>>>>>> oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel
>>>>>>> at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons
>>>>>>> it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and
>>>>>>> is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
>>>>>>> which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Discussion?
>>>>>> You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work
>>>>>> (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police
>>>>>> Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works.
>>>>>> "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
>>>>>> target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference
>>>>>> between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This
>>>>>> difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the
>>>>>> radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target
>>>>>> radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles
>>>>>> per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs,
>>>>>> called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs
>>>>>> since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing
>>>>>> the homodyne concept".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The use of photons for describing the “light" is irrelevant, since the
>>>>>> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
>>>>>> received by the radar gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> The transmitted velocity = (ft*Lambda_t) = c
>>>>> The received velocity = (fr*Lambda_t) = c’
>>>>> Velocity of the moving car =c-c’= (ft*Lambda_t) - (fr*Lambda_t)
>>>>>
>>>> Oh dear, Ken.
>>>>
>>>> Here I thought you had come to your senses and reconciled yourself to how
>>>> much time you’ve wasted on your pointless boondoggle here, and so you
>>>> stopped posting here for a month or so. But it turns out you’ve gotten
>>>> lonely again and hunger for the attention, even the attention of ridicule,
>>>> that you get here. You don’t seem to remember or to care that you’ve gotten
>>>> nothing but laughter and derision from anything you’ve posted here.
>>>>
>>>> But to the point you’ve tried to make above (badly), you seem to be making
>>>> the claim that light speed can ONLY be measured by multiplying an assumed
>>>> wavelength and a measured frequency. But light speed can be measured in a
>>>> bunch of ways, and they don’t agree with the results of your method, and
>>>> they all agree with each other. So why would you then say your method is
>>>> the correct ones and all the other methods are faulty? It’s much more
>>>> likely that it’s your method (the outlier) that’s wrong, since it gets a
>>>> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, if the distance from Xenia OH to Springfield OH were measured to be
>>>> 20 miles by twelve different methods (survey, GPS, a car odometer, pacing
>>>> it off, counting railroad rails, satellite imagery, radar, telephone wire
>>>> terminator echoes, etc.) and you came up with a method that gave the
>>>> distance as 37 miles, don’t you think your method would immediately be
>>>> viewed skeptically?
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> Oh dear, Ken, it’s possible that you are no longer capable of posting on
>> Usenet. What are you going to do now?
>
> Sorry....My computer keep on posting when I am not finish typing..

And since you have blamed others your whole life for your own failings,
you’re now blaming them on a machine.

Oh dear, Ken, it’s possible you are no longer capable of managing your
computer, let alone posting on Usenet. What are you going to do now?

>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 20:10:11 UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com escribió:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I was just browsing through the textbook "College Physics" by Hugh D. Young, 9th
> > edition, and I found this on page 104:
> >
> > ------------------- start quote -----------------
> > Inertial Frames of Reference
> >
> > In our discussions of relative velocity at the ends of Chapters 2 and 3, we stressed
> > the concept of a frame of reference. This concept also plays a central role in Newton’s
> > laws of motion. Suppose you are sitting in an airplane as it accelerates down
> > the runway during takeoff. You feel a forward force pushing on your back, but
> > you don’t start moving forward relative to the airplane. If you could stand in the
> > aisle on roller skates, you would accelerate backward relative to the plane. In
> > either case, it looks as though Newton’s first law is not obeyed. Forward net force
> > but no acceleration, or zero net force and backward acceleration. What’s wrong?
> > The point is that the plane, accelerating with respect to the earth, is not a suitable
> > frame of reference for Newton’s first law. This law is valid in some frames of
> > reference and not in others. A frame of reference in which Newton’s first law is
> > valid is called an inertial frame of reference.
> Right and this is what I told you from the previous textbook you quoted.
> You can check back. An inertial reference frame is one in which Newton’s
> first law holds.
> > The earth is approximately an inertial
> > frame of reference, but the airplane is not.
> Not while it’s accelerating on the runway.
> >
> > This may sound as though there’s only one inertial frame of reference in the
> > whole universe. On the contrary, if Newton’s first law is obeyed in one particular
> > reference frame, it is also valid in every other reference frame that moves with
> > constant velocity relative to the first.
> That’s right. Any reference frame moving at constant velocity relative to
> an inertial frame is also an inertial frame. So this means that, since the
> earth’s surface is approximately an inertial reference frame, then a car
> traveling at constant velocity on the road is also anchored to an inertial
> reference frame. This is true even though the car is obviously being
> propelled. That is what I told you.
> > All such frames are therefore inertial. For
> > instance, Figure 4.9 shows three frames of reference: that of a person standing
> > beside the runway, that of a truck driving at constant speed in a straight line, and
> > that of the accelerating airplane. The stationary person’s frame of reference is
> > inertial.
> Yes, because the earth’s surface is approximately an inertial frame.
> > The truck moves with constant velocity relative to the person, so its
> > frame of reference is also inertial.
> Yes, and this is true even though the truck’s engine is propelling it. It
> is traveling at constant speed on a straight and flat road. Exactly as I
> told you.
> > In both of these frames, Newton’s first law is
> > obeyed. However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
> > observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
> >
> > Thus, there is no single inertial frame of reference that is preferred over all
> > others for formulating Newton’s laws. If one frame is inertial, then every other
> > frame moving relative to it with constant velocity is also inertial.
> Yes! And so the “local” frame of the earth is not as special as you thought
> it was.
> > Both the state of
> > rest and the state of uniform motion (with constant velocity) can occur when the
> > vector sum of forces acting on the object is zero. Because Newton’s first law can
> > be used to define what we mean by an inertial frame of reference, it is sometimes
> > called the law of inertia.
> Isn’t it wonderful when you decide to actually READ the introductory
> textbook? You learn so much.
> >
> > -------------------- end quote ----------------
> >
> > The key parts are a PICTURE of a truck (Figure 4.9) and this statement: "The
> > stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant
> > velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial."
> >
> > So, I need to refine my question before I hunt for answers. The question is:
> > "What exactly did Einstein MEAN when he stated as his Second Postulate that
> > 'light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body'"?
> >
> > Motion of the emitting body RELATIVE TO WHAT?
> Exactly! And the answer is, relative to ANY inertial reference frame.
> > We know that light is emitted
> > at c relative to the earth when a radar gun is moving. The photons do NOT move
> > at c PLUS the speed of the gun. I had been assuming the photons move at c
> > relative to the earth because the earth is a (somewhat) INERTIAL system..
> And you just learned that the earth is not special and cannot be singled
> out.
> >
> > The answer seems to have something to do with time dilation. The photon is
> > emitted by an atom, but the speed of the atom does NOT ADD TO the speed of
> > the photon.
> That’s what I told you. Velocities do not combine by adding. There is a
> rule for how velocities combine, but that’s not it.
>
> If you just pay attention to what people tell you and what books say, and
> stop relying on your own internal thought processes, you’ll eventually
> understand it.

Lake, for sure, will not accept anything we say here. Look his comments of today at his website http://www.ed-lake.com/

One of his comments:

"So, he was saying that the whole truck is inertial, even though it is being propelled and is consuming fuel in order to remain in motion! I don't think any of them had ever argued that before. Or, if they did, I didn't pay attention. It's NUTS! Where did he get that idea from?"