On 11/25/2021 6:03 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:33:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
>>>>>> people think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
>>>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
>>>>> obey.
>>>>>
>>>> Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
>>>> think.
>>>
>>> Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
>>> does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
>>> "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
>>> and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
>>> "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
>>> inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.
>> And how would you know what 'a day' is,
>> given that all accurate time you have access to
>> (on the net, as time signals, on an iPhone etc.)
>> is UTC, hence cesium clock seconds.
>
> 1) UTC doesn't keep your ingenious differently local Cs second,

Actually it does. However leap seconds are inserted from time to time to
keep UTC aligned with our wobbly earth since many things depend on times
of sunrise/sunset. So you can listen to a UTC clock tick off seconds
and be confident that each second is 9,192,631,770 Cs periods.

> samely as GPS and TAI.

Nope. Both tick exactly once per 9,192,631,770 Cs periods, and exactly
in lockstep with each other. The only difference is a constant offset
from each other.

UTC also ticks in lockstep with TAI/GPS, but with a different offset.
This offset changes only when a UTC leap second happens. TAI/GPS don't
have a leap second since they are for tracking precision times, not for
tracking our wobbly earth.

> No serious timekeeping system
> is relying on it.

Wrong, UTC/TAI/GPS are all based on 9,192,631,770 Cs cycles per second.

> If it was applied, a clock on a mountain
> couldn't be synchronized with a clock in a valley...

They do drift apart but so slowly that the effect couldn't even be
measured until recently. Anyway, nobody without their own personal
atomic clocks will notice.

> Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

Whose common sense? Certainly not yours!
>
> 2)Somehow, the humanity was able to count days before
> your caesium clocks, and even in these dark ages not
> knowing the light of the relativity. Of course, it required
> some "thinking", making it a process completely
> uncomprehendable for physics and physicists.

They used the best clocks they had. And the earth was perfectly fine for
their low precision needs.
>
>
>>
>> The elapsed time between one noon and the next is
>> 24 * 60 * 60 * 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
>
> No.

Our earth is a little wobbly plus the time from local noon to local noon
depends on the time of year (see amalemma) so not necessarily.
For once the janitor is correct, but not for the reason he thinks.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:03:03 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 11:29:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of time.
>
> Yes! That’s right... and so do LIDAR guns. And they both do this by using the Doppler effect, comparing the period or frequency of transmission with the period or frequency of the return signals. (Periods and frequencies are just reciprocals of each other, so that is not a significant difference.)
> > So, there is no point in continuing.
> Well, now that you’ve agreed that radar and LIDAR speed guns both determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect with sequences of pulses or photons, and that individual photons do not oscillate, and that the operation of these devices has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference, then everything is settled and there is indeed no need for further clarification. In summary, your former beliefs are thoroughly debunked and the standard scientific explanations stands. Excellent!

No, it just means that I typed "radar" when I meant to type "LIDAR."

Ed

El jueves, 25 de noviembre de 2021 a las 17:16:43 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:03:03 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 11:29:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > Radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of time.
> >
> > Yes! That’s right... and so do LIDAR guns. And they both do this by using the Doppler effect, comparing the period or frequency of transmission with the period or frequency of the return signals. (Periods and frequencies are just reciprocals of each other, so that is not a significant difference.)
> > > So, there is no point in continuing.
> > Well, now that you’ve agreed that radar and LIDAR speed guns both determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect with sequences of pulses or photons, and that individual photons do not oscillate, and that the operation of these devices has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference, then everything is settled and there is indeed no need for further clarification. In summary, your former beliefs are thoroughly debunked and the standard scientific explanations stands. Excellent!
> No, it just means that I typed "radar" when I meant to type "LIDAR."
>
> Ed

A typical NHTSA approved lidar device emits 30 ns pulses of laser light with wavelength 905 nm and 50 milliwatts of power with 3 milliradian beam divergence. The power is sufficiently low to ensure no ocular damage occurs. At 905 nm wavelengths, IEC 60825-1 Edition 2.0 allows a maximum energy per pulse of 0.5uJ.

Light travels approximately 30 cm per ns so each pulse has a length of about nine metres. At a target distance of 300 metres the light pulses take 2,000 ns to complete the round trip. The time interval between pulses is no less than one million ns, providing time to make a distance estimation from each pulse. Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, thereby estimating vehicle speed. Returning light is filtered to exclude light not in the wavelength range 899 nm to 909 nm. An internal proprietary algorithm rejects inaccurate readings; detection avoidance methods usually attempt to overload the filter and persuade the error rejection algorithm to incorrectly reject a reading.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 11/25/2021 2:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
> >>>> people think.
> >>>
> >>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> >>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> >>> obey.
> >>>
> >> Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> >> think.
> >
> > Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> > does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> > "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> > and your fellow idiots?
>
> I, like most "regular" people, consider a second a defined period of
> time. I can think in my mind or say "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi" etc.
> and be maybe 10% close. More accurate than that I will use a suitable
> timepiece. Most people don't bother with the detail of it being defined
> as "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" even though technical
> people, when pressed, may come up with that definition.

Timepieces are no longer fashionable.
For most people their time piece has become some networked device,
like a computer or a phone, or a smartwatch.
That means their time is network time,
which in turn means that it is linked directly
to Cesium clocks kept at standards laboratories.

Those who still have an independent timepiece
are in practice forced to reset the thing
every now and then to some time signal,
so once again to network time.
So your time is UTC, even if you don't know that it is,
and your second is those 9,192,631,770 periods. [1]

> I also know about how much a pound or kilogram is, and I don't worry
> about the official definition, especially since it recently changed and
> is no longer a lump of metal in Paris.

It still is, but that lump of metal and its copies
have been degraded to the rank of secondary standard,

Jan

[1] Alternatively you may use a GPS device,
which means your time is linked to the atomic clocks at USNO,
which are again kept in sync with UTC. (up to leap seconds)

Brain Gery <er@cvb.re> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >> > The elapsed time between one noon and the next is 24 * 60 * 60 *
> >> > 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Then please explain to us what your idea of 'a day' is.
> > No great precision needed, a microsecond will do, Jan
>
> this relativist don't understand days, thinking days are constant to
> atomic oscillations. Good laugh.

They are.
If you want to know what the Earth is doing in the meantime
you must consult the IERS, and things become quite complicated.

Jan

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:51:53 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 25 de noviembre de 2021 a las 17:16:43 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:03:03 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 11:29:21 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > Radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of time.
> > >
> > > Yes! That’s right... and so do LIDAR guns. And they both do this by using the Doppler effect, comparing the period or frequency of transmission with the period or frequency of the return signals. (Periods and frequencies are just reciprocals of each other, so that is not a significant difference.)
> > > > So, there is no point in continuing.
> > > Well, now that you’ve agreed that radar and LIDAR speed guns both determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect with sequences of pulses or photons, and that individual photons do not oscillate, and that the operation of these devices has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference, then everything is settled and there is indeed no need for further clarification. In summary, your former beliefs are thoroughly debunked and the standard scientific explanations stands. Excellent!
> > No, it just means that I typed "radar" when I meant to type "LIDAR."
> >
> > Ed
> A typical NHTSA approved lidar device emits 30 ns pulses of laser light with wavelength 905 nm and 50 milliwatts of power with 3 milliradian beam divergence. The power is sufficiently low to ensure no ocular damage occurs. At 905 nm wavelengths, IEC 60825-1 Edition 2.0 allows a maximum energy per pulse of 0.5uJ.
>
> Light travels approximately 30 cm per ns so each pulse has a length of about nine metres. At a target distance of 300 metres the light pulses take 2,000 ns to complete the round trip. The time interval between pulses is no less than one million ns, providing time to make a distance estimation from each pulse. Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, thereby estimating vehicle speed. Returning light is filtered to exclude light not in the wavelength range 899 nm to 909 nm. An internal proprietary algorithm rejects inaccurate readings; detection avoidance methods usually attempt to overload the filter and persuade the error rejection algorithm to incorrectly reject a reading.

Thank you. Here's the link for that explanation: https://everything.explained.today/LIDAR_traffic_enforcement/

Ed

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of time.
> >
> > Yes! That’s right... and so do LIDAR guns. And they both do this by using the Doppler effect, comparing the period or frequency of transmission with the period or frequency of the return signals. (Periods and frequencies are just reciprocals of each other, so that is not a significant difference.)
> > > So, there is no point in continuing.
> > Well, now that you’ve agreed that radar and LIDAR speed guns both determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect with sequences of pulses or photons, and that individual photons do not oscillate, and that the operation of these devices has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference, then everything is settled and there is indeed no need for further clarification. In summary, your former beliefs are thoroughly debunked and the standard scientific explanations stands. Excellent!
>
> No, it just means that I typed "radar" when I meant to type "LIDAR."

Well, that’s not so excellent then. You’ve offered not the slightest trace of any rational basis for your patently illogical beliefs, nor have you even attempted to point out any fault in the standard scientific explanations. Both radar and LIDAR speed guns determine the rate of change of the distance between gun and target using the Doppler effect, as explained above. The speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference. An individual photon does not oscillate. Relativistic time dilation is not involved in the operation of either radar or LIDAR speed guns.

Paparios wrote:
> Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than half
> a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, thereby
> estimating vehicle speed.

You understand that this is using the Doppler effect to infer the speed, right? And that it is essentially the same as how a radar gun determines the relative speed, right?

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:29:21 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

> There can be no resolution to this argument

There can't be any resolution if you keep diverting and running away. You need to address the points we present to you, not by shouting "I WANT REALITY"... You need to show where our reasoning sales are where you disagree.

> because we are not
> discussing the same thing. I am discussing REALITY and you are
> discussing MATHEMATICS.

He is discussing reality and Mathematics. In reality, the lidar and radar use that same formula he gave you. This is the formula programmed into the devices (The Doppler formula). You can verify this Reality by looking in the spec books that you have.

> IN REALITY, radar guns measure changes in distance

A-Ha! So you agree now!? Do you realize that you are contradicting what you said all along? You were saying that radar guns measure distance and here now you're saying measure *changes* in distance. These devices can measure changes in distance without calculating the distances. Do you realize this? [ this is an important step for you to ponder and to agree with... Or to discuss further if you do not understand it]

> and you seem incapable of discussing anything except mathematics.

The common English language is quite inefficient to discuss things like this in depth. So we can Envision another language which is more appropriate. This language is math. Are you willing to learn this language so we may further discuss the subject? It would help a lot.

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 22:01:48 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/25/2021 2:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>> Whose common sense?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> > >>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
> > >>>> people think.
> > >>>
> > >>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> > >>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> > >>> obey.
> > >>>
> > >> Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> > >> think.
> > >
> > > Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> > > does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> > > "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> > > and your fellow idiots?
> >
> > I, like most "regular" people, consider a second a defined period of
> > time. I can think in my mind or say "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi" etc.
> > and be maybe 10% close. More accurate than that I will use a suitable
> > timepiece. Most people don't bother with the detail of it being defined
> > as "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" even though technical
> > people, when pressed, may come up with that definition.
> Timepieces are no longer fashionable.
> For most people their time piece has become some networked device,

Keep dreaming, poor halfbrain. In the meantime
in the real world, forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks will keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did. And
so will UTC clocks.

> Those who still have an independent timepiece
> are in practice forced to reset the thing
> every now and then to some time signal,
> so once again to network time.
> So your time is UTC, even if you don't know that it is,
> and your second is those 9,192,631,770 periods. [1]

No it is not. If we applied your idiocy - our
clocks would have to desynchronize, you know.

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 22:01:48 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Brain Gery <e...@cvb.re> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > >> > The elapsed time between one noon and the next is 24 * 60 * 60 *
> > >> > 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
> > >>
> > >> No.
> > >
> > > Then please explain to us what your idea of 'a day' is.
> > > No great precision needed, a microsecond will do, Jan
> >
> > this relativist don't understand days, thinking days are constant to
> > atomic oscillations. Good laugh.
> They are.

Keep dreaming, poor halfbrain. In the meantime
in the real world, forbidden by your moronic
religion GPS clocks will keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did. And
so will UTC clocks.

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 11:05:07 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> LIDAR guns measure distances between the gun and the target. They do
> not know any coordinates. LIDAR guns MUST be used only while stationary.
> All they need is the TIME the photons were emitted and the TIME the
> photons returned. Knowing those two times AND the SPEED OF LIGHT, the
> gun can determine the distance to the target.
>
> Perform one distance measurement and then another a 20th of a second later
> and the gun will measure how FAR the target moved during that 20th of
> a second, and how FAST the target must have been moving.

Although your description of how Lidar works in performing distance
measurements sounded more or less OK, your explanation of how
Doppler LIDAR works in determining speed "smelled bad." VERY bad.

For instance, I could not conceive of how such a system as you
described could be used in a detailed study of atmospheric air
movements.

So I decided to to look up Doppler Lidar systems. There are several
technologies commonly used in such systems. The simplest for me to
describe involves use of edge filters.
"Edge filters" are multilayered interference filters designed to split
incident light into reflected and transmitted components according to
wavelength. A long wave pass (LWP) filter transmits longer wavelengths,
while a short wave pass filter (SWP) transmits shorter wavelengths.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osne8rugVQ-w8Swmkt9NkzBKaUqTfrg9/view?usp=sharing

A Doppler Lidar system uses an edge filter centered on the wavelength
of the transmission laser frequency. For greater signal-to-noise, two edge
filters of opposite slope (i.e. LWP and SWP) may be used. Comparison of
the intensities of the reflected and transmitted signals allows a sensitive
determination of Doppler shift.

Many Doppler Lidar systems use pulsed lasers. Analysis of the
returned signals allows simultaneous distance and speed measurements
along the line of sight of the laser.

As I stated, several other technologies are used in Doppler Lidar systems,
for instance Fabry-Perot interferometry, fringe imaging, etc.

Absolutely NOBODY uses the method that you propose, which I conclude
represents a fanciful product of your imaginings rather than the product
of any real research.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 22:01:48 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
[-]
> > > I, like most "regular" people, consider a second a defined period of
> > > time. I can think in my mind or say "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi" etc.
> > > and be maybe 10% close. More accurate than that I will use a suitable
> > > timepiece. Most people don't bother with the detail of it being defined
> > > as "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" even though technical
> > > people, when pressed, may come up with that definition.
> > Timepieces are no longer fashionable.
> > For most people their time piece has become some networked device,
>
> Keep dreaming, poor halfbrain. In the meantime
> in the real world, forbidden by your moronic
> religion GPS clocks will keep measuring t'=t,
> just like all serious clocks always did. And
> so will UTC clocks.
>
> > Those who still have an independent timepiece
> > are in practice forced to reset the thing
> > every now and then to some time signal,
> > so once again to network time.
> > So your time is UTC, even if you don't know that it is,
> > and your second is those 9,192,631,770 periods. [1]
>
> No it is not. If we applied your idiocy - our
> clocks would have to desynchronize, you know.

I know, and they do. This is hardly news:
the different rates of clocks at different altitudes
was already recognised fifty years ago.
TAI was redefined starting januari first 1977
as the weighted average of many atomic clocks
-while correcting for their altitude-
So starting 1977 the second is defined as 9,192,631,770 of those periods
of a Caesium atom -on the geoid- (aka at mean sea level)
Full story at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time>
From there:
===
In the 1970s, it became clear that the clocks participating in TAI were
ticking at different rates due to gravitational time dilation, and the
combined TAI scale, therefore, corresponded to an average of the
altitudes of the various clocks. Starting from Julian Date 2443144.5 (1
January 1977 00:00:00), corrections were applied to the output of all
participating clocks, so that TAI would correspond to proper time at the
geoid (mean sea level). Because the clocks were, on average, well above
sea level, this meant that TAI slowed by about one part in a trillion.
The former uncorrected time scale continues to be published, under the
name EAL (Echelle Atomique Libre, meaning Free Atomic Scale)
===
This is what time, and 'serious clocks' means in the real world.

Of course you can have fantasies about times and clocks of your own.
Don't expect anyone to listen,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:46:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can check it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
>>>>>>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
>>>>>>>>>>>> to make the system work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
>>>>>>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
>>>>>>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
>>>>>>>>>>> equal to t'.
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
>>>>>>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
>>>>>>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
>>>>>>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
>>>>>>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
>>>>>>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
>>>>>>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
>>>>>>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
>>>>>>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
>>>>>>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
>>>>>>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
>>>>>>>>>> clock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
>>>>>>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
>>>>>>>>> instead according to those of yours.
>>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>
>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
>>>> think.
>>>
>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
>>> obey.
>>>
>> Nah, that’s just a delusion on your part. Who has attempted to force you
>> into anything?
>
> I would gladly learn; for some months I've been asking
> who or what has FORCED poor Tom. No answer. Also from
> you, poor halfbrain.
>

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 12:43:45 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 22:01:48 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> [-]
> > > > I, like most "regular" people, consider a second a defined period of
> > > > time. I can think in my mind or say "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi" etc.
> > > > and be maybe 10% close. More accurate than that I will use a suitable
> > > > timepiece. Most people don't bother with the detail of it being defined
> > > > as "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" even though technical
> > > > people, when pressed, may come up with that definition.
> > > Timepieces are no longer fashionable.
> > > For most people their time piece has become some networked device,
> >
> > Keep dreaming, poor halfbrain. In the meantime
> > in the real world, forbidden by your moronic
> > religion GPS clocks will keep measuring t'=t,
> > just like all serious clocks always did. And
> > so will UTC clocks.
> >
> > > Those who still have an independent timepiece
> > > are in practice forced to reset the thing
> > > every now and then to some time signal,
> > > so once again to network time.
> > > So your time is UTC, even if you don't know that it is,
> > > and your second is those 9,192,631,770 periods. [1]
> >
> > No it is not. If we applied your idiocy - our
> > clocks would have to desynchronize, you know.
> I know,

Of course you know. You just lie for the sake
of your insane ideology, as expected from a
fanatic idiot.

> -while correcting for their altitude-
> So starting 1977 the second is defined as 9,192,631,770 of those periods
> of a Caesium atom -on the geoid- (aka at mean sea level)

And, of course, you can't see any difference between
a second defined as "9,192,631,770 periods of Cs radiation"
and a second "9,192,631,770 periods of Cs radiation at mean
sea level", right? Well, I do.
BTW, do Cs clocks at sea level on a pole match Cs
clocks at sea level on the equator?

> In the 1970s, it became clear that the clocks participating in TAI were
> ticking at different rates due to gravitational time dilation

Sorry, poor trash. Time is what clocks indicate, they indicate
t'=t, good bye, dilation.
Of course you can have fantasies about times and clocks
of your own. Don't expect anyone to listen,

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 14:27:24 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:46:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can check it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to make the system work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
> >>>>>>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
> >>>>>>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
> >>>>>>>>>>> equal to t'.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
> >>>>>>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
> >>>>>>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
> >>>>>>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
> >>>>>>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
> >>>>>>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
> >>>>>>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
> >>>>>>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
> >>>>>>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
> >>>>>>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
> >>>>>>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
> >>>>>>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
> >>>>>>>>>> clock.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
> >>>>>>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
> >>>>>>>>> instead according to those of yours.
> >>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >>>>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
> >>>> think.
> >>>
> >>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> >>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> >>> obey.
> >>>
> >> Nah, that’s just a delusion on your part. Who has attempted to force you
> >> into anything?
> >
> > I would gladly learn; for some months I've been asking
> > who or what has FORCED poor Tom. No answer. Also from
> > you, poor halfbrain.
> >
>
> So no one has attempted to force you to obey anything.

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
....
> So, your idiot guru screams I'm FORCED.

Well, Wozie, just like, in a way, you are FORCED to call
"bridge" some edifice that allows people to cross a river
but NOT a bunch of garbage on the middle of it as you,
the wannabee engineer, would like to do because you are
incompetent, idiot and mentally ill...

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 14:27:24 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:46:48 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2021 3:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 19:24:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2021 8:53 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 14:25:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 11:46:29 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 16:46:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 14:24:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [-]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your insane religion GPS clocks keep measuring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that t /= t' has been known for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So was the fact that Earth is flat. And many others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic clocks made direct demonstrations possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first by flying them around the world on a 747,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nowadays universally by comparing GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with atomic clocks in their base stations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. They indicate t';=t, with the precision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an acceptable error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays even table-top experiments show that they don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then - put your nowadays experiments straight into your dumb,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fanatic ass, where they belong. The clocks of GPS indicate/measure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t'=t, with the precision of an acceptable error, and anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can check it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But clocks are getting more 'serious' all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowadays the best ones, for example strontium lattice clocks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion doesn't matter, GPS has demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your dilating junk to be worthless when it came to real,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious measurements. Common sense was warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your insane guru. It was warning all of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Build two identical clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when, and why such an idiotic requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I will build some non-identical clocks instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ignore real experimental data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moronic religion non-identical GPS clocks keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring t'=t, just like all serious (and non-identical)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks always did. But, of course, as you ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real experimental data that prove you are wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no point in continuing an argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are good times for you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of things you must be in denial on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is growing all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was only your strawman... I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GPS made accounting for it a practical necessity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make the system work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Common sense was warning your idiot guru,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to work the clocks must be synchronized. "Synchronized"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means - if one indicates t, and another t' - t must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal to t'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, E. wasn't the first idiot fighting the common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. It always ends the same way. So, the clocks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep being synchronized and measuring t'=t, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mad bunch is enchanting the reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it might have slipped your attention that Einstein gave a sample
>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure how to synchronize clocks that are a) at rest relative to each
>>>>>>>>>>>> other, and b) at the same gravitational potential.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it might have (and have) slipped your attention that
>>>>>>>>>>> a) at rest relative to each other, and b) at the same
>>>>>>>>>>> gravitational potential - are ridiculous requirements
>>>>>>>>>>> never fulfilled in the real world, and thus the Holy
>>>>>>>>>>> Procedure is pretty unusable.
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like two clocks on a table would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And in fact, the only way to make two clocks stay synchronized
>>>>>>>>>>>> outside those constraints is to make at least one of them a nonstandard
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not quite; rather - it's to make them according to the
>>>>>>>>>>> standards of common sense and the sane people,
>>>>>>>>>>> instead according to those of yours.
>>>>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
>>>>>> think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
>>>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
>>>>> obey.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah, that’s just a delusion on your part. Who has attempted to force you
>>>> into anything?
>>>
>>> I would gladly learn; for some months I've been asking
>>> who or what has FORCED poor Tom. No answer. Also from
>>> you, poor halfbrain.
>>>
>>
>> So no one has attempted to force you to obey anything.
>
> So, your idiot guru screams I'm FORCED.
>

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 3:16:36 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:16:43 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > Radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of time.
> > >
> > > Yes! That’s right... and so do LIDAR guns. And they both do this by using the Doppler effect, comparing the period or frequency of transmission with the period or frequency of the return signals. (Periods and frequencies are just reciprocals of each other, so that is not a significant difference.)
> > > > So, there is no point in continuing.
> > > Well, now that you’ve agreed that radar and LIDAR speed guns both determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect with sequences of pulses or photons, and that individual photons do not oscillate, and that the operation of these devices has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference, then everything is settled and there is indeed no need for further clarification. In summary, your former beliefs are thoroughly debunked and the standard scientific explanations stands. Excellent!
> >
> > No, it just means that I typed "radar" when I meant to type "LIDAR."
> Well, that’s not so excellent then. You’ve offered not the slightest trace of any rational basis for your patently illogical beliefs, nor have you even attempted to point out any fault in the standard scientific explanations. Both radar and LIDAR speed guns determine the rate of change of the distance between gun and target using the Doppler effect, as explained above. The speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference. An individual photon does not oscillate. Relativistic time dilation is not involved in the operation of either radar or LIDAR speed guns.

Here's the best source on LIDAR guns: https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt5/ch5d1.html

It says:

" Laser radars transmit pulsed infrared laser light to measure target range.. The time it takes a pulse to travel at the speed of light from the lidar to the target and back is used to compute range. The change in range over time is used to calculate speed. Laser radars typically require 0.3 to 0.7 seconds sample time to get one speed reading. Tens to hundreds of pulses are used to calculate one speed reading.

"Laser radars operate from a stationary position only, no moving mode, and measure speed of approaching or receding traffic. Most models also have a range only mode for measuring the range of stationary objects."

The "Doppler Effect" is not a factor in LIDAR guns.

I agree that "Relativistic time dilation is not involved in the operation of either radar or LIDAR speed guns."
The "Cosine effect" demonstrates that. If relativistic time dilation were a factor, there could be no cosine effect.

I also agree that "The speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference."
But that just means that stationary radar guns EMIT photons at c. The photons hit propelled objects at c+v or c-v.

Ed

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 16:24:44 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> ...
> > So, your idiot guru screams I'm FORCED.
> Well, Wozie, just like, in a way, you are FORCED to call
> "bridge" some edifice that allows people to cross a river
> but NOT a bunch of garbage on the middle of it as you,

Exactly opposite, Pytie; what I'm FORCED to according to
poor idiot Tom is to call his useless junk "a clock" for
the sake of his moronic religion teaching how clocks
should behave.

Ed Lake wrote:
....
> I also agree that "The speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference."
> But that just means that stationary radar guns EMIT photons at c. The photons hit propelled objects at c+v or c-v.

Adding "but" then stating the opposite of the initial statement is
silly, Ed.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 16:24:44 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>> ...
>>> So, your idiot guru screams I'm FORCED.
>> Well, Wozie, just like, in a way, you are FORCED to call
>> "bridge" some edifice that allows people to cross a river
>> but NOT a bunch of garbage on the middle of it as you,
>
> Exactly opposite, Pytie; what I'm FORCED to according to
> poor idiot Tom is to call his useless junk "a clock" for
> the sake of his moronic religion teaching how clocks
> should behave.

There are good reasons to call some devices clocks and others
not. You don't understand them because you are a stubborn ignorant
and an idiot, Wozie.

This is not a problem, idiots of your kind have been around
for a long time and, unfortunately will be.

Op 26-nov.-2021 om 18:04 schreef Python:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> ...
>> I also agree that "The speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of
>> every inertia-based system of reference."
>> But that just means that stationary radar guns EMIT photons at c.  The
>> photons hit propelled objects at c+v or c-v.
>
> Adding "but" then stating the opposite of the initial statement is
> silly, Ed.
>
>

Paradoxically, Ed is probably even MORE stupid than Ken Seto.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 8:42:10 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> But that just means that stationary radar guns EMIT photons at c. The photons hit propelled objects at c+v or c-v.
>
Can't fix old fart cretin

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 8:42:10 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The "Doppler Effect" is not a factor in LIDAR guns.

The fact that you put quotation marks around the Doppler effect is very weird. In your mind, what is your rationale for doing that?

Look, to have a meaningful idea about whether LIDAR speed guns do or do not use the Doppler effect, you must first know what the Doppler effect is… which you plainly do not. I’ll help you: The Doppler effect (without quotation marks) is simply the fact that the departure rate and the arrival rate of a sequence of entities are different if the distance they are traveling is changing. There is nothing mysterious or magical about this… it is self-evident to any sentient being. Those rates are the frequencies of departures and arrivals, which are the reciprocals of the time intervals between successive entities. This applies to anything… including photons, pulses, bullets, wavecrests, etc.

Now, I’ve explained to you, both in words and in symbols (taking into account your disability) how the LIDAR speed gun uses the Doppler effect.. You have not offered the slightest hint of any disagreement with the explanation. All you do is post a web page description of LIDAR (for cops), which does not in any way disagree with what I have explained to you. Of course, there exist other web pages that contain false statements, but the web contains false statements on every subject. You need to actually understand what the Doppler effect is, and then you can decide *for yourself* whether LIDAR guns use the Doppler effect.

Part of the problem is that you have too limited an understanding of the word “wave”, which you imagine refers only to a very limited class of phenomena, whereas it actually (as used in the commonly available definitions of the Doppler effect) applies to any repetitive sequence of propagating entities. For example, a sequence of bullets from a machine gun is a wave in this sense, as is a sequence of pulses from a LIDAR speed gun, as is a sequence of photons from a radar speed gun, as is a sequence of wavecrests from a sonar device, etc.

> I agree that "Relativistic time dilation is not involved in the operation
> of either radar or LIDAR speed guns."

That’s great… but you don’t apply this understanding consistently. Whenever you try to reconcile the statements of relativity about the speed of light being c in terms of every inertial reference system, you begin babbling about this being just “apparent” due to the different length of a second. In other words, after claiming that you don’t think relativistic time dilation is relevant, you immediately invoke relativistic time dilation. You need to be consistent in your beliefs.

> The "Cosine effect" demonstrates that. If relativistic time dilation were
>a factor, there could be no cosine effect.

That’s statement is completely bonkers. The cosine effect is pure grade-school geometry, and the effect of angle of incidence on the Doppler effect is unavoidable and obvious to any sentient being. It has no bearing, one way or the other, on the fact that relativistic time dilation is not relevant to the 1st order Doppler effect used in LIDAR and radar speed guns..

> I also agree that "The speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every
> inertia-based system of reference."

Excellent! That’s real progress! If only you understood what that means… which you don’t, as shown by your next sentence.

> But that just means that stationary radar guns EMIT photons at c.

Well, it means the photons have speed c in terms of the inertial reference system in which the gun is at rest, but it also means that they have speed c in terms of every other inertial reference system, including the one in which the target is at rest, and the one in which the road is at rest. You think this is logically impossible, but you are mistaken, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

> The photons hit propelled objects at c+v or c-v.

Again, you just agreed that light has speed c in terms of every inertial system of reference, and now you deny it. That’s the problem. You don’t understand the meanings of the things you are saying, which is why you continually contradict yourself.

On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 18:07:05 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 26 November 2021 at 16:24:44 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >> ...
> >>> So, your idiot guru screams I'm FORCED.
> >> Well, Wozie, just like, in a way, you are FORCED to call
> >> "bridge" some edifice that allows people to cross a river
> >> but NOT a bunch of garbage on the middle of it as you,
> >
> > Exactly opposite, Pytie; what I'm FORCED to according to
> > poor idiot Tom is to call his useless junk "a clock" for
> > the sake of his moronic religion teaching how clocks
> > should behave.
> There are good reasons to call some devices clocks and others
> not. You don't understand them because you are a stubborn ignorant
> and an idiot, Wozie.

There are good reasons to call some devices clocks and others
not. You don't understand them because you are a stubborn ignorant
and an idiot, Pytie.
This is not a problem, idiots of your kind have been around
for a long time and, unfortunately will be.