On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 4:41:13 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> From "College Physics" (9th edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille, page 89:
>
> "The tendency of an object to continue in its ORIGINAL state of motion is
> called inertia."

Irrelevant to the discussion. Try to stay on topic. The topic is, the definition/concept of "inertial system" or "inertial frame".
The topic is NOT "inertia"; that's a totally different concept.

>
> From page 112:
> "Newton’s First Law
> "Newton’s first law states that an object moves at constant velocity unless acted
> on by a force.

That is badly stated. Consult other presentations of N's First law (and what the eqs actually say). You will see that they say:
"an object moves at constant velocity unless acted on by a *net* force different from zero".

IOW, If NET force = 0 then it moves at constant speed, and vice-versa. That is what N's law says/means. Agree?

> "The tendency for an object to maintain its ORIGINAL state of motion is called inertia."

"inertia" is off topic. We are discussing "inertial systems/frames".

> P.S. That same book also mentions "rotational inertia" which no one
> seems to ever have heard of.

Doesn't that tell you that that book is poorly written?
Don't consult just one reference, consult a few. Wouldn't that be safer?
Wiki is one readily available.

So, whats the definition of "inertial system" ?
Answer that asap so that we may (finally) agree on its meaning so that we may continue...

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> I suddenly realized that this is almost certainly the argument that caused Albert Einstein to devise so many "thought experiments" comparing moving trains to a person standing on a railroad station platform. He was evidently countering arguments from mathematicians who claimed that a train moving at a steady rate is an "inertial system." But according to Einstein, when turning on a light in a moving train, the light will only appear to illuminate the front and rear walls at the same time, but will actually light up the rear wall first, because that wall is moving toward the source of the light, while the front wall is moving away from the source of the light. In other words, light will travel at c to the rear wall and hit at c+v, then bounce back at c and will hit the observer at c-v because the observer is moving away from the source of the light. Meanwhile, light will travel at c to the front wall, it will hit the front wall at c-v, and it will bounce back to hit the observer at c+v.

Statements like that make me have no hope that you will be able to answer
correctly my question about two radar guns within a truck.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lA--sSDn6DakJv9QTXA9TogyLxrbbrUN/view?usp=sharing

On November 13, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> This discussion is getting tedious.

Aggravating, ain't it? Every time you show up here with your
latest paper, revealing the TRUTH about relativity, the FACTS,
it ends this way.  Because they've been bamboozled by the
mathematicians, they've lost grip on reality.

That's how it is, Ed.  A prophet is never appreciated in his own
era. Think of it - 6 billion hominids on this rock, and not a single
one comprehends your analysis. That's how we measure genius,
is it not? The fewer who understand, the greater the genius.

And that goes for the Nobel committee as well.  They're part of the conspiracy.

I sympathize. I proved it's impossible to get the pizza
home before it cools. I submitted my paper to the Journal of
Melted Cheese & Tomato Sauce. They rejected it. Those fools!

Don't lose heart. I'm confident you'll eventually be vindicated,
taking your seat in the pantheon with Lysenko, Moniz, and von Daniken.

--
Rich

On November 15, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> He's given you a WHOLE WEBPAGE filled with such experiments.
> What MORE do you want?

"Sir, I have given you an explanation. I'm not obliged to find you an understanding."
- Samuel Johnson

--
Rich

On November 11, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves. A radar
> gun emitting WAVES cannot possibly work. The return waves would be
> scrambled. You'd get return waves from the bumper mixed with return waves
> from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
> the ground and objects on the ground. There would be NO WAY to tell which waves
> to compare to the transmitted waves.

Is that why my car radios never worked? Because they used waves,
instead of photons?

I feel like such a sucker, swallowing the promises of those oily salesmen -

--
Rich

On November 11, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> No. Individual photons don't "have" a speed,
>
> PHOTONS travel at the speed of light. They are oscillating packets of ENERGY
> being transferred from one atom to another.
> Radar guns do NOT emit beams. They emit a burst of INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS.
> And the emitter does NOT have to be inertial.
> Experiments show that if you turn down the energy source
> the emitter will emit FEWER individual photons. There are no waves. There are
> not beams. There is just a burst of individual OSCILLATING photons.

Ed, if you dial down the intensity, to a single photon, can
you bounce it back and forth?

That is, if you had mirror ping pong paddles, and a mirror table,
and really good reflexes, could you play photon ping pong, with
a single photon ball?

Quantum mechanics says that every particle has a spin. So if
you slice your backhand, could you impart spin to the ball?
And if you hit a smash, does the kinetic energy modulate the ball's
frequency, causing a Doppler effect?

Is there a difference between spin rate and frequency?

--
Rich

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:21:37 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

If you continue to humor him and spread disinformation, I will report you as spam.
Learn a little respect!

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:28:06 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Ed, what part of "unless acted upon by an unbalanced force" do you not understand? A truck propelled down a level road at a constant speed is in an inertial frame. If the truck runs out of gas and therefore is subject to friction and air resistance it becomes acted upon by *unbalanced forces* and undergoes a negative acceleration until it stops its motion with respect to the road, whereupon it once more is in an inertial frame!

You are tilting at windmills! Your educational ignorance is prodigeous!

“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
— Albert Einstein

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 23:14:44 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> > Op 17-nov.-2021 om 22:53 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>> I wrote elsewhere:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you check back in this thread, you'll find that I already quoted a text book
> >>>> that seems to disagree with your beliefs. Here's the quote and a second
> >>>> quote from the same textbook:
> >>>>
> >>>> From "College Physics" (9th edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille, page 89:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The tendency of an object to continue in its ORIGINAL state of motion is
> >>>> called inertia."
> >>>>
> >>>> From page 112:
> >>>> "Newton’s First Law
> >>>> "Newton’s first law states that an object moves at constant velocity unless acted
> >>>> on by a force.
> >>>> "The tendency for an object to maintain its ORIGINAL state of motion is called inertia."
> >>>>
> >>>> Question: What is the "original state" of motion of a truck?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>> P.S. That same book also mentions "rotational inertia" which no one
> >>>> seems to ever have heard of.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> “Inertia” does not have the same meaning as “inertial motion” or “inertial
> >>> frame”. It is a mistake to conflate them.
> >>>
> >>> And almost everyone here (except you) has not only heard of rotational
> >>> inertia (which means something else entirely) but is completely familiar
> >>> with what it means.
> >>>
> >>> Physics is new to you, Ed. It involves lots of terms you don’t know and
> >>> can’t correctly guess.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Moreover, you are taking “original state of motion” of a truck to be “at
> >> rest relative to the earth”, because that’s where it was first fabricated
> >> or because that’s where it was parked overnight.
> >>
> >> That is NOT AT ALL what “original state of motion” means to the author. It
> >> does not mean “where you find it before you turn it on.” It does not mean
> >> “where it was when it was created”. It does not mean “where it was when you
> >> woke up and first looked at it.” It does not mean “where it was when the
> >> universe was created.”
> >>
> >> The kind of stupid mistake you make with inferences like this comes from
> >> your unwillingness to READ.
> >
> > I doubt that. He is willing to read all right.
> > And he reads. A LOT.
> > The problem is just that he is too stupid to understand.
> > It's sad, but true.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> There are people who read to learn new things. There are other people who
> read to support their existing views.

And people that don't read, because they've already learned
everything; like Odd Bodkin and his idiot gurus.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
idiot; why would I waste time making posts have no content?
>
> 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

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:07:44 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto 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 exception you invented a new set of measuring tools to ensure every observer get c.....1meter=1/299,631,770 light-seconds. But you failed to realize that your procedure eliminated the effect of absolute motion of the observer that’s why every observer get a defined c.
2. However, the incoming light from another source will arrive at the receiving observer at c’ and the observer will measure the incoming light at c’ as follows:
c’=(wavelength of the source)(detected measured frequency of the incoming light)
3. There the speed of incoming light is not c and the absolute motion of the receiving observer is: c-c'
,

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> idiot; why would I waste time making posts have no content?

Hasn’t stopped you so far.

I see you’re still having problems. Not sure if it’s your fingers or your
mind or your computer. Let’s blame the computer.

>>
>> 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
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:07:44 AM UTC-5, Ken Seto 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
> exception you invented a new set of measuring tools to ensure every
> observer get c....1meter=1/299,631,770 light-seconds. But you failed to
> realize that your procedure eliminated the effect of absolute motion of
> the observer that’s why every observer get a defined c.
> 2. However, the incoming light from another source will arrive at the
> receiving observer at c’ and the observer will measure the incoming light at c’ as follows:
> c’=(wavelength of the source)(detected measured frequency of the incoming light)
> 3. There the speed of incoming light is not c and the absolute motion of
> the receiving observer is: c-c'
> ,
>
>

I see that it took you several days to muster that up. You must be
exhausted from the mental effort.

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

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I didn't realize that your beliefs about inertial systems were
> also in physics textbooks... Einstein was almost certainly arguing
> against those beliefs...

To the contrary, the first foundational principle on which Einstein based special relativity was that the very same equations of physics (e.g., Newton's equations of mechanics) hold good in terms of reference systems that are "in uniform translatory [straight line] motion relative to each other". He also notes that the laws of mechanics and the laws of electromagnetism both take the same form in terms of all such systems of reference. That's why, for example, your radar gun reads zero when pointed inside any truck that is unaccelerated. The laws governing the operation of the device take the same form, whether in a truck sitting stationary on the ground or a truck moving at constant speed in a straight line. That's what "uniform translatory motion" means.

If you know how to juggle, you know that you can juggle equally well inside a uniformly moving vehicle as you can inside a vehicle at rest on the ground, but if the vehicle is accelerating (speeding up, slowing down, going around a corner), you can't. That's because, and Newton and Einstein agreed, the laws of physics work the same in terms of all reference systems that are unaccelerated.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/17/2021 4:41 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> I wrote elsewhere:
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >
> > If you check back in this thread, you'll find that I already quoted a text book
> > that seems to disagree with your beliefs. Here's the quote and a second
> > quote from the same textbook:
> >
> > From "College Physics" (9th edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille, page 89:
> >
> > "The tendency of an object to continue in its ORIGINAL state of motion is
> > called inertia."
> >
> > From page 112:
> > "Newton’s First Law
> > "Newton’s first law states that an object moves at constant velocity unless acted
> > on by a force.
> > "The tendency for an object to maintain its ORIGINAL state of motion is called inertia."
> That's right, stupidbot.
> > Question: What is the "original state" of motion of a truck?

> Moving at a constant 50 mph.

Here's what it says on page 88 of that same book:

"Before about 1600, scientists felt that the natural state of matter was the state of
rest. Galileo, however, devised thought experiments—such as an object moving on
a frictionless surface ... —and concluded that it’s not the nature of
an object to stop, once set in motion, but rather to continue in its ORIGINAL state of
motion. This approach was later formalized as Newton’s first law of motion:
An object moves with a velocity that is constant in magnitude and direction
unless a non-zero net force acts on it."

So, the truck is inertial until someone starts the engine and gets it to moving.
Then, when it reaches 50 mph, if the engine is stopped, inertia will cause the
truck will coast to a stop and become inertial once again.

You can consider "stopped" to be its "original state," or you can consider 50 mph
to be its "original state."

The truck has mass. Force was applied to get that mass moving. When that
force was cut, the inertia of that mass kept the truck going for awhile as
gravity and friction gradually slowed it to a stop.

>
> Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
> straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
> to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
> takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?

There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c.
It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."

So, if both are "inertial systems," why is there a difference in how light
works? I say one system is "inertial" and the other is "powered," but
no text book mentions "powered inertial systems."

Einstein explains it with a thought experiment involving two
observers. The right kind of radar guns can demonstrate it with one
observer. Einstein says it is an, "astonishing result which flatly contradicts
the apparently well-founded concepts of classical physics."

It's like "wave-particle duality." There is a MAJOR difference between
an "inertial system" and a "powered inertial system" that no one wants
to discuss.

Ed

El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 13:56:50 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
> > straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
> > to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
> > takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?

> There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
> while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
> the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
> wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c.
> It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."
>

You always use this incorrect assertion. Why is it wrong? Because c+v and c-v are closing speeds AS MEASURED from the ground!!!! (see Einstein's explaining this in https://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html).

Inside the truck, the speed v does not exist!!! v is the speed of all the materials of the truck.

The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons) traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 13:56:50 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
>>> straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
>>> to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
>>> takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?
>
>> There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
>> while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
>> the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
>> wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c.
>> It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."
>>
>
> You always use this incorrect assertion. Why is it wrong? Because c+v and
> c-v are closing speeds AS MEASURED from the ground!!!! (see Einstein's
> explaining this in https://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html).
>
> Inside the truck, the speed v does not exist!!! v is the speed of all
> the materials of the truck.
>
> The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons)
> traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.
>
>

This will mean nothing to Ed, because the whole idea of reference frames is
lost on him. To him, the speed of things sitting in the box of the truck
are traveling at v, regardless whether the frame is the rest frame of the
truck or the rest frame of the road. To Ed, the REALITY is that taken from
the rest frame of the road, and any other reference frame is trickery by
mathematicians.

He does not understand reference frames. He will therefore say they are
nonsense.

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

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 13:56:50 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
> > > straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
> > > to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
> > > takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?
>
> > There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
> > while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
> > the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
> > wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c.
> > It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."
> >
> You always use this incorrect assertion. Why is it wrong? Because c+v and c-v are closing speeds AS MEASURED from the ground!!!!

That doesn't make it wrong.
>
> Inside the truck, the speed v does not exist!!! v is the speed of all the materials of the truck.

Inside the truck, v DOES exist. But the only way to measure it is by using
the speed of light. Light hits the front wall at c-v and the rear wall at c+v.
Your absurd claim is that the inside of the truck is stationary while the
outside is moving at v. Can't you see how ABSURD that is????

>
> The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons) traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.

Correct, but the truck is traveling at v whether it is noticeable within the
truck or not. And light will hit the front wall at c-v and the rear wall at c+v.

Ed

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> > El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 13:56:50 UTC-3, escribió:
> >> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >>> Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
> >>> straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
> >>> to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
> >>> takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?
> >
> >> There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
> >> while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
> >> the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
> >> wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c..
> >> It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."
> >>
> >
> > You always use this incorrect assertion. Why is it wrong? Because c+v and
> > c-v are closing speeds AS MEASURED from the ground!!!! (see Einstein's
> > explaining this in https://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html).
> >
> > Inside the truck, the speed v does not exist!!! v is the speed of all
> > the materials of the truck.
> >
> > The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons)
> > traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.
> >
> >
> This will mean nothing to Ed, because the whole idea of reference frames is
> lost on him. To him, the speed of things sitting in the box of the truck
> are traveling at v, regardless whether the frame is the rest frame of the
> truck or the rest frame of the road. To Ed, the REALITY is that taken from
> the rest frame of the road, and any other reference frame is trickery by
> mathematicians.
>
> He does not understand reference frames. He will therefore say they are
> nonsense.

I understand reference frames. They are mathematical constructs that
may or may not represent reality. In a talk Einstein gave to the Prussian
Academy of Sciences in 1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics
refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do
not refer to reality.”

He was probably talking about mathematical reference frames.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:

>
> Correct, but the truck is traveling at v whether it is noticeable within the
> truck or not.

As I said, Paparios, the whole idea of reference frames is lost on Ed.

It’s tough when he doesn’t even know what the words mean.

> And light will hit the front wall at c-v and the rear wall at c+v.
>
> Ed
>

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

El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:39 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> > El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 13:56:50 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > > > Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
> > > > straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
> > > > to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
> > > > takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?
> >
> > > There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
> > > while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
> > > the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
> > > wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c.
> > > It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."
> > >
> > You always use this incorrect assertion. Why is it wrong? Because c+v and c-v are closing speeds AS MEASURED from the ground!!!!

> That doesn't make it wrong.

It sure does!!! When you are inside an airplane (traveling at v=500 mph, relative to the ground) and somebody throws a baseball ball, from the back to the front of the plane, at c=50 mph, the ball arrives to the catcher at c=50 mph and not at c+v=550 mph (that would be the closing speed as seen from the ground).

> >
> > Inside the truck, the speed v does not exist!!! v is the speed of all the materials of the truck.

> Inside the truck, v DOES exist. But the only way to measure it is by using
> the speed of light. Light hits the front wall at c-v and the rear = wall at c+v.
> Your absurd claim is that the inside of the truck is stationary while the
> outside is moving at v. Can't you see how ABSURD that is????

The absurdity is all yours. If you are inside the truck, you and all the truck components are indeed moving at speed v, relative to the ground (that is one frame of reference). However, you, and the back and front walls of the truck are not moving relative to the frame of reference of the truck (you are at rest in that frame). This is basic physics.

> >
> > The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons) traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.
> Correct, but the truck is traveling at v whether it is noticeable within the
> truck or not. And light will hit the front wall at c-v and the rear wall at c+v.
>
> Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
>>> El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 13:56:50 UTC-3, escribió:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 3:53:32 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Now, you answer this question: While the truck is moving at 50 mph on a
>>>>> straight level road, the driver shifts into neutral and the truck rolls
>>>>> to a stop. Name the forces acting on the truck. During the time it
>>>>> takes to roll to a stop, is the truck inertial? Why or why not?
>>>
>>>> There are certainly a lot of sources which state that the truck is "inertial"
>>>> while it is moving at a steady speed, BUT, according to Einstein, inside
>>>> the MOVING truck, light will hit the back wall at c+v and will hit the front
>>>> wall at c-v. Inside a STATIONARY truck, light will hit both walls at c.
>>>> It's on page 187 and 188 of his book "The Evolution of Physics."
>>>>
>>>
>>> You always use this incorrect assertion. Why is it wrong? Because c+v and
>>> c-v are closing speeds AS MEASURED from the ground!!!! (see Einstein's
>>> explaining this in https://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html).
>>>
>>> Inside the truck, the speed v does not exist!!! v is the speed of all
>>> the materials of the truck.
>>>
>>> The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons)
>>> traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.
>>>
>>>
>> This will mean nothing to Ed, because the whole idea of reference frames is
>> lost on him. To him, the speed of things sitting in the box of the truck
>> are traveling at v, regardless whether the frame is the rest frame of the
>> truck or the rest frame of the road. To Ed, the REALITY is that taken from
>> the rest frame of the road, and any other reference frame is trickery by
>> mathematicians.
>>
>> He does not understand reference frames. He will therefore say they are
>> nonsense.
>
> I understand reference frames. They are mathematical constructs that
> may or may not represent reality.

That statement right there captures how I characterized your view.

You simply do not understand or buy into that there is no more “reality”
associated with the earth’s rest frame than in any other reference frame.
To you, other reference frames do not represent reality. That is an
incorrect claim, though you do not understand why.

And because you do not understand them, you say they are mathematical
trickery that have nothing to do with reality — as I said.

You do not understand reference frames. Period.

> In a talk Einstein gave to the Prussian
> Academy of Sciences in 1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics
> refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do
> not refer to reality.”
>
> He was probably talking about mathematical reference frames.
>
> Ed
>

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

El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:56:47 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > This will mean nothing to Ed, because the whole idea of reference frames is
> > lost on him. To him, the speed of things sitting in the box of the truck
> > are traveling at v, regardless whether the frame is the rest frame of the
> > truck or the rest frame of the road. To Ed, the REALITY is that taken from
> > the rest frame of the road, and any other reference frame is trickery by
> > mathematicians.
> >
> > He does not understand reference frames. He will therefore say they are
> > nonsense.
> I understand reference frames. They are mathematical constructs that
> may or may not represent reality. In a talk Einstein gave to the Prussian
> Academy of Sciences in 1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics
> refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do
> not refer to reality.”
>

All human measurements are made by using reference frames (or systems of coordinates as Einstein used in his 1905 paper). You measure your height using the ground as a reference frame, etc.
You find your way to your bed in your home, by using a frame of reference, etc.

> He was probably talking about mathematical reference frames.
>
> Ed

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 18:17:17 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:

> The emission of light, inside the truck, will generate waves (photons) traveling at speed c, as per the second postulate.

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.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 19:04:50 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 18 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:56:47 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > This will mean nothing to Ed, because the whole idea of reference frames is
> > > lost on him. To him, the speed of things sitting in the box of the truck
> > > are traveling at v, regardless whether the frame is the rest frame of the
> > > truck or the rest frame of the road. To Ed, the REALITY is that taken from
> > > the rest frame of the road, and any other reference frame is trickery by
> > > mathematicians.
> > >
> > > He does not understand reference frames. He will therefore say they are
> > > nonsense.
> > I understand reference frames. They are mathematical constructs that
> > may or may not represent reality. In a talk Einstein gave to the Prussian
> > Academy of Sciences in 1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics
> > refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do
> > not refer to reality.”
> >
> All human measurements are made by using reference frames (or systems of coordinates as Einstein used in his 1905 paper). You measure your height using the ground as a reference frame, etc.

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.