On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:59:33 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> If I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
> a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.

There are many textbooks that use the same form of the light-speed principle that Einstein used in his 1905 paper, but you will find that they all follow Einstein by immediately asserting the corollary as well, so that won't help you.

Better yet, you can just read Einstein's own more polished expositions (to grown-ups), such as his Princeton lectures, where he says "The fact that, in vacuum, light propagates at speed c, at least with respect to one definite inertial system, must therefore be regarded as proved. According to the principle of relativity, we must therefore also assume the truth of this principle for every other inertial system". You see?

> BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
> physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.

It isn't "wrong", they simply adopt Einstein's corollary as the light-speed principle, to save steps. The point is that everyone, including Einstein, bases special relativity on the general proposition, regardless of whether they take it as a principle or a corollary. (It's actually more correct to take it as a principle, since there is no substance to the derivation as a corollary.)

> My definition [of inertial frame] is ... a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration.

What? When I told you this two days ago, you dismissed it as "hilarious". What gives?

> After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment.

After doing a lot of research? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "After everyone in the world explained it to me a hundred times, I finally comprehended that..."?

> Because that is the way LIDAR guns work, not RADAR guns. Radar guns
> measure oscillation frequency differences, NOT time intervals.

They both measure "oscillation" frequencies (which is equivalent to measuring oscillation periods, i.e., time intervals), they just use different patterns of sequential entities. Both just use the Doppler effect to measure the rate of change of distance between gun and target. We covered this before, didn't we?

On November 19, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> The laws of physics don't care about agreeing or not.
> They also apply to people who disagree with them,

Not so.

If the plane nosedives, the ignoramus doesn't know the laws of
relativity, he will leap up two seconds before impact. So he's moving
upwards at impact, and survives, while the oh so smart physicist
gives up hope and pancakes.

--
Rich

On November 11, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The FACTS are in evidence. They make it totally clear and undeniable that
> light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the observer
> toward or away from the emitter. Radar guns are the prime example.
> I agree there is no point in continuing if you cannot comprehend the
> basic science and mechanics behind radar guns
> unless you have all the numbers you think you need to do the math.

Ed, I'm a bit confused one one point. Let's try a thought experiment:

A highway patrol car is parked along the highway. You zoom toward
him at 70 mph. You both have identical radar guns

i) He clocks you approaching. He's stationary, you're moving, so the
light echoes at c +7 0 and c - 70.
ii) You clock his car. The light beam is independent of emitter speed,
so it echoes from his vehicle at c.
iii) You set your gun to receive only. You pick up his beam.
iv) He sets his gun to receive only. He picks up your beam.

What speed does it read, in each case?

--
Rich

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:38:49 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:

> If the plane nosedives, the ignoramus doesn't know the laws of
> relativity, he will leap up two seconds before impact. So he's moving
> upwards at impact, and survives, while the oh so smart physicist
> gives up hope and pancakes.

I don't think you gave this much thought... just what kind of upward velocity do you think the World's Best Athlete could generate by jumping upwards? 10 mph? 20 mph? 50 mph? What kind of velocity do you think a nosediving airplane would generate? 100 mph? 200 mph? If we assume a 100 MPH airplane and a 50 mph jump, this would mean that the jumping passenger would hit the ground at "only" 50 mph... and you actually think that this is survivable? Really?

Worst analogy *ever*... and what does any of this drivel have to do with relativity in any case?

On Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 01:39:54 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:59:33 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > If I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
> > a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> There are many textbooks that use the same form of the light-speed principle that Einstein used in his 1905 paper, but you will find that they all follow Einstein by immediately asserting the corollary as well, so that won't help you.
>
> Better yet, you can just read Einstein's own more polished expositions (to grown-ups), such as his Princeton lectures, where he says "The fact that, in vacuum, light propagates at speed c, at least with respect to one definite inertial system, must therefore be regarded as proved. According to the principle of relativity, we must therefore also assume the truth of this principle for every other inertial system". You see?

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t.
You see?

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 8:24:21 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:25:07 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@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:
> > > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-5, Paparios:
> > > > > > >> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3, det:
> > > > > > >>> 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 received velocity =
> > > > > > > The (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 weould 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'
> > > Great, except for the minor detail that it has been experimentally
> > > falsified by a clever demonstration experiment with the proton
> > > synchrotron at CERN by Alväger et al. (1966) They measured the
> > > velocity of photons emitted in the forward direction by extreme
> > > relativistic \pi_0 mesons decaying in flight, and established by direct
> > > time of flight measurement for the photons that they move at c, despite
> > > being emitted by a source moving at almost c. (at \gamma = 45)
> > > by
> > This experiment is a direct confirmation that the photons were being
> > transmitted by a stationary aether (the E-Matrix) at constant speed c
> > once they left the source.The motion of of the source have no effect on
> > the time of flight of the photons from the source to the receiver.
> Whatever you want to believe in.
> As long as your as no agrees with special relativity
> at least your conclusion on is correct.

Ken Seto wrote:

> SR constanl light speed has no physical explanation. it is a defined
> constant. Such definition disagrees with all observations that the speed
> of any object is observer dependent.
> In my theory the e speed of light is constant because light is being
> transmitted by a stationary aether called the E-Matrix at constant seed
> c.

changing names won't make it theory, you stupid bag of rocks. You are an
idiot, and a thief. All crap you have is stolen with changed names. You
cretin, shameless imbecile.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:35:34 AM UTC-5, Luigi Cotta wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
>
> > SR constanl light speed has no physical explanation. it is a defined
> > constant. Such definition disagrees with all observations that the speed
> > of any object is observer dependent.
> > In my theory the e speed of light is constant because light is being
> > transmitted by a stationary aether called the E-Matrix at constant seed
> > c.
> changing names won't make it theory, you stupid bag of rocks. You are an
> idiot, and a thief. All crap you have is stolen with changed names. You
> cretin, shameless imbecile.

You are a fucking moron.

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:53:56 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:
> On November 11, wrote:
> > The FACTS are in evidence. They make it totally clear and undeniable that
> > light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the observer
> > toward or away from the emitter. Radar guns are the prime example.
> > I agree there is no point in continuing if you cannot comprehend the
> > basic science and mechanics behind radar guns
> > unless you have all the numbers you think you need to do the math.
>
> Ed, I'm a bit confused one one point. Let's try a thought experiment:
>
> A highway patrol car is parked along the highway. You zoom toward
> him at 70 mph. You both have identical radar guns
>
> i) He clocks you approaching. He's stationary, you're moving, so the
> light echoes at c +7 0 and c - 70.

His gun emits photons that travel at c as c is measured at HIS speed.
Those photons oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per HIS second.
You are moving, so your seconds are longer. That means that
the photons hit at 35,000,007,292 per one second of YOUR time.
Atoms in your car emit NEW photons back toward the patrol car that oscillate
35,000,007,292 times per second. His radar gun receives those photons
and compares their oscillation rate to the oscillation rate of the original
photons it emitted. The difference is 7,292 oscillations per second.

The percentage that 7,292 is of 35,000,000,000 is 2 times the percentage
that 70 mph is of 670,616,629 miles per hour, the speed of light.
Determining the frequency difference allows the gun to calculate the
speed difference, which is the difference in the length of a second for
the moving vehicle versus in the "stationary" vehicle.

> ii) You clock his car. The light beam is independent of emitter speed,
> so it echoes from his vehicle at c.

Your gun emits photons that travel at c as c is measured at YOUR speed.
Those photons oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per YOUR second.
The patrol car is "stationary," so its seconds are shorter. That means that
the photons hit at 34,999,992,708 per one PATROL CAR car second.
Atoms in the patrol car emit photons back toward you that oscillate
34,999,992,708 times per second. Your radar gun receives those photons
and compares their oscillation rate to the oscillation rate of the original
photons it emitted. The difference is 7,292 oscillations per second.

The percentage that 7,292 is of 35,000,000,000 is 2 times the percentage
that 70 mph is of 670,616,629 miles per hour, the speed of light.
Determining the frequency difference allows the gun to calculate the
speed difference, which is the difference in the length of a second for
the moving vehicle versus to the "stationary" vehicle.

> iii) You set your gun to receive only. You pick up his beam.

You get the same result. Your gun may not be transmitting photons
outside of your gun, but your gun is still able to measure the frequency difference.

> iv) He sets his gun to receive only. He picks up your beam.

He gets the same result. His gun may not be transmitting photons
outside of his gun, but his gun is still able to measure the frequency difference.

Ed

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:59:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > If I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
> > a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> There are many textbooks that use the same form of the light-speed principle that Einstein used in his 1905 paper, but you will find that they all follow Einstein by immediately asserting the corollary as well, so that won't help you.

I did a survey of Second Postulates in physics books and found
10 "Good" versions
16 "Helpful" versions
20 "Unhelpful" versions
24 "Bad" versions

>
> Better yet, you can just read Einstein's own more polished expositions (to grown-ups), such as his Princeton lectures, where he says "The fact that, in vacuum, light propagates at speed c, at least with respect to one definite inertial system, must therefore be regarded as proved. According to the principle of relativity, we must therefore also assume the truth of this principle for every other inertial system". You see?
> > BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
> > physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
> It isn't "wrong", they simply adopt Einstein's corollary as the light-speed principle, to save steps. The point is that everyone, including Einstein, bases special relativity on the general proposition, regardless of whether they take it as a principle or a corollary. (It's actually more correct to take it as a principle, since there is no substance to the derivation as a corollary.)

Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:

"Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the motion of THE SOURCE."

It's from "Modern Physics" (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn,
published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12:

Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:

"Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source OR OBSERVER."

It's from "Physics – Principles with Applications" (7th Edition) by Douglas C. Giancoli,
published by Prentice-Hall (2014), page 748

>
> > My definition [of inertial frame] is ... a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration.
>
> What? When I told you this two days ago, you dismissed it as "hilarious". What gives?
>
> > After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
> > realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment.
> After doing a lot of research? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "After everyone in the world explained it to me a hundred times, I finally comprehended that..."?

No, you guys were just making DECLARATIONS without explaining anything.
I thought that measuring differences in the speed of light due to RATE OF TIME
differences between a speed of zero and a speed of 70 mph would be too
small too measure without an atomic clock. Therefore, some other factor
had to play a role. I thought that factor was inertial vs non-inertial systems.

After re-reading some of Einstein's thought experiments, I realized that you
do not need an atomic clock if you are just comparing "wave" frequencies
as measured by a "stationary" emitter and a moving receiver. You don't
VERIFY the frequencies, you just compare them.

When I finish revising my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to remove
that "guns in a truck experiment," I'll explain in detail how rate of time
differences can translate into oscillation frequency differences. It just
means replacing Section V. The rest of the paper is okay.

When you use the "Scientific Method" you learn from your mistakes, and
you often can just "tweek" something to get back on track.

When all you understand is mathematics, it seems that making a mistake
means that you must start all over again from scratch.

Ed

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:55:41 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The percentage that 7,292 is of 35,000,000,000 is 2 times the percentage
> that 70 mph is of 670,616,629 miles per hour, the speed of light.

Right. The problem is that the ratio of “seconds” for the two vehicles due to relativistic time dilation is very much too small to account for this difference in frequency. You’re saying the difference in frequency is 2(v/c), which is (approximately) true, but that is due to the Doppler effect. The relativistic difference in clock rates for clocks in those two vehicles is only half of the *square* of v/c. Instead of giving a difference of 7292 Hz, that gives a difference of only 0.00019 Hz. You see? It is far far to small. Ordinary radar guns are not nearly precise enough to detect the effect of relativistic time dilation.

> His gun emits photons that travel at c as c is measured at HIS speed.
> Those photons oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per HIS second.
>
> You are moving, so your seconds are longer. That means that
> the photons hit at 35,000,007,292 per one second of YOUR time.

It is true that the measures of time are different for the two vehicles (as are the measures of space), but the time difference involves more than just the rates of their co-moving clocks, it also involves the offsets between clocks at different locations. That’s called the relativity of (inertial) simultaneity. The exact relationship between the measures of time (and space) for two relatively moving systems of reference was described in detail in Einstein’s 1905 paper.

But for purposes of understanding radar guns, you don’t even need special relativity, because radar guns only measure the Doppler effect (e.g., 7292 Hz), not the effect due to relativistic time dilation (e.g., 0.00019 Hz).

Remember, the frequency of intrinsic oscillations (like spinning bullets) does not exhibit the Doppler effect, so it’s quite clear that the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is extrinsic (sequence of spatially and temporally separate entities or phases), not intrinsic like spin or internal oscillations.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 12:59:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> If I were to take a course in physics, I'd want to find where they use
>>> a textbook with the CORRECT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
>> There are many textbooks that use the same form of the light-speed
>> principle that Einstein used in his 1905 paper, but you will find that
>> they all follow Einstein by immediately asserting the corollary as well,
>> so that won't help you.
>
> I did a survey of Second Postulates in physics books and found
> 10 "Good" versions
> 16 "Helpful" versions
> 20 "Unhelpful" versions
> 24 "Bad" versions
>
>>
>> Better yet, you can just read Einstein's own more polished expositions
>> (to grown-ups), such as his Princeton lectures, where he says "The fact
>> that, in vacuum, light propagates at speed c, at least with respect to
>> one definite inertial system, must therefore be regarded as proved.
>> According to the principle of relativity, we must therefore also assume
>> the truth of this principle for every other inertial system". You see?
>>> BTW, I got into writing science papers when I found that MOST college
>>> physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
>> It isn't "wrong", they simply adopt Einstein's corollary as the
>> light-speed principle, to save steps. The point is that everyone,
>> including Einstein, bases special relativity on the general proposition,
>> regardless of whether they take it as a principle or a corollary. (It's
>> actually more correct to take it as a principle, since there is no
>> substance to the derivation as a corollary.)
>
> Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
>
> "Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c,
> independent of the motion of THE SOURCE."
>
> It's from "Modern Physics" (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn,
> published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12:
>
> Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
>
> "Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates
> through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of
> the source OR OBSERVER."
>
> It's from "Physics – Principles with Applications" (7th Edition) by Douglas C. Giancoli,
> published by Prentice-Hall (2014), page 748
>
>>
>>> My definition [of inertial frame] is ... a frame of reference that is
>>> not undergoing acceleration.
>>
>> What? When I told you this two days ago, you dismissed it as "hilarious". What gives?
>>
>>> After doing a lot of research into inertial and non-inertial systems, I've
>>> realized I was wrong about my proposed radar gun experiment.
>> After doing a lot of research? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say
>> "After everyone in the world explained it to me a hundred times, I
>> finally comprehended that..."?
>
> No, you guys were just making DECLARATIONS without explaining anything.

Then read books. Don’t come here hoping for an explanation.

> I thought that measuring differences in the speed of light due to RATE OF TIME
> differences between a speed of zero and a speed of 70 mph would be too
> small too measure without an atomic clock. Therefore, some other factor
> had to play a role. I thought that factor was inertial vs non-inertial systems.

Then calculate. If you don’t know how, learn.

>
> After re-reading some of Einstein's thought experiments, I realized that you
> do not need an atomic clock if you are just comparing "wave" frequencies
> as measured by a "stationary" emitter and a moving receiver. You don't
> VERIFY the frequencies, you just compare them.
>
> When I finish revising my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to remove
> that "guns in a truck experiment," I'll explain in detail how rate of time
> differences can translate into oscillation frequency differences. It just
> means replacing Section V. The rest of the paper is okay.
>
> When you use the "Scientific Method" you learn from your mistakes, and
> you often can just "tweek" something to get back on track.

Ed, you have never been taught what the scientific method is. You think it
is just iterating on your thinking based on discussions. That is not what
the scientific method is.

>
> When all you understand is mathematics, it seems that making a mistake
> means that you must start all over again from scratch.
>
> Ed
>

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

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:12:45 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 7:55:41 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > The percentage that 7,292 is of 35,000,000,000 is 2 times the percentage
> > that 70 mph is of 670,616,629 miles per hour, the speed of light.
> Right. The problem is that the ratio of “seconds” for the two vehicles due to relativistic time dilation is very much too small to account for this difference in frequency. You’re saying the difference in frequency is 2(v/c), which is (approximately) true, but that is due to the Doppler effect. The relativistic difference in clock rates for clocks in those two vehicles is only half of the *square* of v/c. Instead of giving a difference of 7292 Hz, that gives a difference of only 0.00019 Hz. You see? It is far far to small. Ordinary radar guns are not nearly precise enough to detect the effect of relativistic time dilation.
> > His gun emits photons that travel at c as c is measured at HIS speed.
> > Those photons oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per HIS second.
> >
> > You are moving, so your seconds are longer. That means that
> > the photons hit at 35,000,007,292 per one second of YOUR time.
> It is true that the measures of time are different for the two vehicles (as are the measures of space), but the time difference involves more than just the rates of their co-moving clocks, it also involves the offsets between clocks at different locations. That’s called the relativity of (inertial) simultaneity. The exact relationship between the measures of time (and space) for two relatively moving systems of reference was described in detail in Einstein’s 1905 paper.
>
> But for purposes of understanding radar guns, you don’t even need special relativity, because radar guns only measure the Doppler effect (e.g., 7292 Hz), not the effect due to relativistic time dilation (e.g., 0.00019 Hz).
>
> Remember, the frequency of intrinsic oscillations (like spinning bullets) does not exhibit the Doppler effect, so it’s quite clear that the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is extrinsic (sequence of spatially and temporally separate entities or phases), not intrinsic like spin or internal oscillations.

The "Doppler Effect" for light is VERY different from the "Doppler Effect"
for sound. Unfortunately, it's easier to explain things using the sound
"Doppler Effect." And that is what books about radar guns tend to do.

The "Doppler Effect" with light is caused by DIFFERENCES IN TIME at
different speeds and locations. A second is longer for the object that is
moving fastest, therefore the faster moving object will count more
oscillations per second. PERIOD. It is simple and perfectly logical,
once you understand Relativity and Time Dilation.

Simply declaring some mathematical reason for believing otherwise
changes nothing.

Ed

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
> “The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the
> motion of THE SOURCE." Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second
> Postulate: "Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c
> independent of the speed of the source OR OBSERVER."

Both of those are somewhat “bad” in the sense that neither of them identifies the system of reference in terms of which the “speeds” are expressed. However, they presumably fill in that explanation later. What they're referring to is the speed of light in terms of an inertial reference system, and the first one says the speed is c independent of the speed of the source, and the second says the speed is c independent of the speed of both the source and the receiver. Both of those are true statements.

The explanation for the difference is simple: For convenience, let P1 denote the principle of relativity, and let P2a and P2b denote the two versions of the light-speed principle that you noted above. In Einstein’s 1905 paper, he asserts that the combination of P1 and P2a implies P2b, and all the reasoning in the paper, developing special relativity, is then based on P1 and P2b. He never uses P2a except to argue that, in combination with P1, it implies P2b. So, to save time, many subsequent authors just take P1 and P2b as their principles.

The point is that everyone (including Einstein) agrees with P2b, and more explicitly that the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system of reference. The fact that Einstein arrived at that by two half-steps instead of one whole step is not significant.

>You guys were just making DECLARATIONS without explaining anything.

I don’t think that’s true. Well, *some* people just make declarations, but I’ve been careful to actually explain things fairly thoroughly. You seem to want to engage more with people who don’t really explain things, and you disregard the thorough explanations as “tedious”. That’s your choice.

> I thought that measuring differences in the speed of light due to RATE
> OF TIME differences between a speed of zero and a speed of 70 mph
> would be too small too measure…

Yes, as explained above, the measured Doppler effect on frequencies in a radar gun is far far larger than the relativistic time dilation effect, which is much too small for the device to measure.

> Therefore, some other factor had to play a role. I thought that factor was
> inertial vs non-inertial systems.

Well, the relevant “factor” is the Doppler effect, which depends only on the rate of change of distance between emitter and target. I think we’ve covered this before, didn't we?

Ed Lake wrote:

> Ed

OH!, you're the radar guy!

Albert Einstein sold Radar information to the military before he sold
atomic bomc and other bombs information the war departments.

I'm not sure what kind of radar information he was peddling..radar guns?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> The "Doppler Effect" for light is VERY different from the "Doppler Effect" for sound.

The Doppler effect (no quotation marks needed) applies to every sequence of entities, such as bullets from a machine gun, electromagnetic radiation (photons), sound waves, and everything else. It's unavoidable when a sequence of entities (particles, wavecrests, whatever) is propagating at some characteristic speed.

> The "Doppler Effect" with light is caused by DIFFERENCES IN TIME at
> different speeds and locations. A second is longer for the object that is
>moving fastest…

Wait… I just got through carefully explaining why the differences in clock rates due to relativistic time dilation are much too small to be relevant. You didn't dispute it, so what are you talking about?

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:00:34 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> > Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
> > “The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the
> > motion of THE SOURCE." Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second
> > Postulate: "Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c
> > independent of the speed of the source OR OBSERVER."
> Both of those are somewhat “bad” in the sense that neither of them identifies the system of reference in terms of which the “speeds” are expressed. However, they presumably fill in that explanation later. What they're referring to is the speed of light in terms of an inertial reference system, and the first one says the speed is c independent of the speed of the source, and the second says the speed is c independent of the speed of both the source and the receiver. Both of those are true statements.

Einstein explains his "system of reference" in his paper. Unfortunately, he
doesn't state it in any single quotable sentence. His system of reference
is the speed of light, which is the maximum speed possible in our universe.
ALL others speeds are "relative to" or a fraction of the speed of light.

He says that makes the "luminiferious" aether superfluous. I.e., if you have
a maximum possible speed to measure speeds against, you do not need
any fictitious aether (or ether).

Ed

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:14:09 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > The "Doppler Effect" for light is VERY different from the "Doppler Effect" for sound.
> The Doppler effect (no quotation marks needed) applies to every sequence of entities, such as bullets from a machine gun, electromagnetic radiation (photons), sound waves, and everything else. It's unavoidable when a sequence of entities (particles, wavecrests, whatever) is propagating at some characteristic speed.
> > The "Doppler Effect" with light is caused by DIFFERENCES IN TIME at
> > different speeds and locations. A second is longer for the object that is
> >moving fastest…
>
> Wait… I just got through carefully explaining why the differences in clock rates due to relativistic time dilation are much too small to be relevant. You didn't dispute it, so what are you talking about?

I didn't dispute it because it was mathematical bullshit. And I do not
argue with mathematicians about mathematics.

You declared: "The relativistic difference in clock rates for clocks in those
two vehicles is only half of the *square* of v/c." You gave no reason for
believing such a thing.

Ed

On 11/20/2021 12:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> I did a survey of Second Postulates in physics books and found
> 10 "Good" versions
> 16 "Helpful" versions
> 20 "Unhelpful" versions
> 24 "Bad" versions

> Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
>
> "Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the motion of THE SOURCE."
>
> It's from "Modern Physics" (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn,
> published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12:
>
> Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
>
> "Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source OR OBSERVER."

Why do you consider the first version as "good" and the second "bad"?
Because the second disagrees with your misinterpretation of the second
postulate but the first is ambiguous enough?

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 2:27:46 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/20/2021 12:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > I did a survey of Second Postulates in physics books and found
> > 10 "Good" versions
> > 16 "Helpful" versions
> > 20 "Unhelpful" versions
> > 24 "Bad" versions
> > Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
> >
> > "Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the motion of THE SOURCE."
> >
> > It's from "Modern Physics" (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn,
> > published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12:
> >
> > Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
> >
> > "Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source OR OBSERVER."
> Why do you consider the first version as "good" and the second "bad"?
> Because the second disagrees with your misinterpretation of the second
> postulate but the first is ambiguous enough?

No, it's because the "good" version says exactly what Einstein stated
AS his second postulate on page 1 of his paper, and the "bad" version
is NOT what Einstein stated AND it is WRONG about how light works.
Light does NOT hit a moving observer at c, it hits at c+v or c-v as is
made clear by radar guns and many experiments which I list here:
http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Ed

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Light does NOT hit a moving observer at c, it hits at c+v or c-v as is
> made clear by radar guns and many experiments which I list here:

Ed,

You were born a cretin, your only consolation is that you are dying a cretin.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Einstein explains his "system of reference" in his paper. Unfortunately, he
> doesn't state it in any single quotable sentence.

He explains his systems of reference clearly in the very first sentence of Part 1: “Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good” (to the first approximation, meaning in the low speed limit). This is sufficient to fully define the systems of reference (no quotation marks needed). This is what’s called an inertial coordinate system, and throughout the paper when he refers to a “system”, he is referring to such systems. For example, if you construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks, at rest and inertially synchronized in a particular frame, the readings on those rulers and clocks represents an inertial coordinate system.

> His system of reference is the speed of light…

No, a speed is not a system of reference, and neither Einstein nor any other competent scientist has ever said any such thing. A system of reference is as explained above. Quoting speeds as fractions of a constant is just a choice of units, not a system of reference.

> You declared: "The relativistic difference in clock rates for clocks in those
> two vehicles is only half of the *square* of v/c." You gave no reason for
> believing such a thing.

What do you mean by “reason for believing”? Are you denying that, according to time dilation of special relativity, in terms of any given inertial reference system, a clock moving at speed v runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)? Or are you denying that to the lowest order this is 1 – (1/2)(v/c)^2 ? Or are you claiming that this does not signify that the difference in frequency due F due to this time dilation is F multiplied by half the square of v/c?

Honestly, I’m not trying to be coy. When I state things that are quite obvious and common knowledge, and you respond by saying I have not given you any reason to believe it, I really don’t know what you mean. If you can explain why you disbelieve it, maybe I can clarify. Are you asking what the empirical basis is for believing that special relativity is true?

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> the "bad" version is NOT what Einstein stated

That's untrue, and you know it. Einstein stated *both* of those things. The first statement he called a principle, and the second statement he presented as an immediate corollary. This has been explained to you countless times. It will never stop being true, no matter how much you want it to be not true.

On 11/20/2021 3:44 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 2:27:46 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/20/2021 12:11 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> I did a survey of Second Postulates in physics books and found
>>> 10 "Good" versions
>>> 16 "Helpful" versions
>>> 20 "Unhelpful" versions
>>> 24 "Bad" versions
>>> Here's an example of a "Good" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
>>>
>>> "Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the motion of THE SOURCE."
>>>
>>> It's from "Modern Physics" (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn,
>>> published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12:
>>>
>>> Here's a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
>>>
>>> "Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source OR OBSERVER."
>> Why do you consider the first version as "good" and the second "bad"?
>> Because the second disagrees with your misinterpretation of the second
>> postulate but the first is ambiguous enough?
>
> No, it's because the "good" version says exactly what Einstein stated
> AS his second postulate on page 1 of his paper, and the "bad" version
> is NOT what Einstein stated

It is what Einstein stated when he stated the second postulate
(Kinematical part, On the Relativity of Lengths and Times, #2).

> AND it is WRONG about how light works.

You need to learn the difference between your BELIEFS on how light works
and actual facts. Your beliefs about how light works are not facts just
because you believe them.

> Light does NOT hit a moving observer at c, it hits at c+v or c-v as is
> made clear by radar guns and many experiments which I list here:

The Doppler Effect is made clear by how radar guns work. The Doppler
Effect is the theory behind creating Doppler Radar in the first place!
(Its name should have given you a clue about that)

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 2:49:56 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Einstein explains his "system of reference" in his paper. Unfortunately, he
> > doesn't state it in any single quotable sentence.
> He explains his systems of reference clearly in the very first sentence of Part 1: “Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good” (to the first approximation, meaning in the low speed limit). This is sufficient to fully define the systems of reference (no quotation marks needed). This is what’s called an inertial coordinate system, and throughout the paper when he refers to a “system”, he is referring to such systems. For example, if you construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks, at rest and inertially synchronized in a particular frame, the readings on those rulers and clocks represents an inertial coordinate system.

We're talking about his two POSTULATES. They are stated on page 1,
NOT in the section titled "Definition of Simultaneity."

>
> > His system of reference is the speed of light…
>
> No, a speed is not a system of reference, and neither Einstein nor any other competent scientist has ever said any such thing. A system of reference is as explained above. Quoting speeds as fractions of a constant is just a choice of units, not a system of reference.

For mathematicians that maybe true. But in REALITY and in RELATIVITY
a maximum possible speed IS something that all other speeds can be
measured against.

> > You declared: "The relativistic difference in clock rates for clocks in those
> > two vehicles is only half of the *square* of v/c." You gave no reason for
> > believing such a thing.
> What do you mean by “reason for believing”? Are you denying that, according to time dilation of special relativity, in terms of any given inertial reference system, a clock moving at speed v runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)? Or are you denying that to the lowest order this is 1 – (1/2)(v/c)^2 ? Or are you claiming that this does not signify that the difference in frequency due F due to this time dilation is F multiplied by half the square of v/c?

I'm not a mathematician. Your use of mathematics just shows you ONLY
understand mathematics, and you ASSUME that everyone else understands
things that way too.

>
> Honestly, I’m not trying to be coy. When I state things that are quite obvious and common knowledge, and you respond by saying I have not given you any reason to believe it, I really don’t know what you mean.. If you can explain why you disbelieve it, maybe I can clarify. Are you asking what the empirical basis is for believing that special relativity is true?

You are reciting memorized equations. You EXPLAIN NOTHING.

Ed