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 measure hods are faulty? It’s much more
> likely that it’s your method (th this e outlier) that’s wrong, since it get a
> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree? , localt

Idiot, physicists refused to measure the owls directly because it will not get c. So (wavelength*frequency) is the only way.
It tun out that every observer using this procedure to measure local light speed will get will get c. Why? Because all local measurements will eliminate the effect of absolute motion.

> 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

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-8, 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.

His second POSTULATE is NOT A "COROLLARY." It is a POSTULATE.
He states it as a POSTULATE.

"Corollary" is defined as "a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved."
"Postulate" is defined as "suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."

Einstein's second POSTULATE is a POSTULATE, NOT a corollary. It is a
statement that is assumed to be true as a basis for understanding
time dilation and his theory of special relativity.

Ed

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:26:42 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com 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.

Wait, you said that Einstein explains “system of reference” in his paper, but nowhere in a single quotable sentence… and I corrected you by pointing out the single quotable sentence in which he defines what he means by systems of reference. Your response is “We’re talking about postulates!” Huh? That’s a complete non-sequitur. You made a false statement, and I corrected it, and educated you about what Einstein defined as systems of reference.

> > 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.

That statement does not make any sense. This has nothing to do with anyone’s profession. These are simple statements of fact. You claimed that Einstein said or implied the speed of light is a system of reference, and I pointed out that neither Einstein nor any other competent physicist ever said or implied any such thing. A speed is not a system of reference. A system of reference is as explained above. Quoting speeds as fractions of a specified 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?
>
>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.

Now wait just one minute, partner. You started out computing differences in frequencies and a bunch of numbers, and trying to claim that they were due to time dilation, and I showed that your calculations are wrong by a huge amount, and I explained how to do the calculations correctly, and in response you complain that I am using mathematics, and therefore what I’m saying is invalid. That just doesn’t make sense. When I’m saying is no more “mathematical” than what you are saying… the only difference is that what I’m saying is correct and what you are saying is blatantly incorrect.

Look, the physical concepts have been clearly explained to you, many times, without mathematics, and you just cover your ears. Einstein’s paper has been explained to you, with verbatim quotes, many times, and you just cover your ears. Then you present computations and your errors are explained, and you just cover your ears.

>You are reciting memorized equations.

This is untrue. Ad hominem is bad, and false ad hominem is worse.

> You EXPLAIN NOTHING.

That too is untrue. I’ve explained the physical meaning and justification for the propositions of special relativity (and quantum field theory) and radar guns, and LIDAR guns, and everything else, to you quite clearly, without mathematics (respecting your self-avowed disability). You just cover your ears.

> His second POSTULATE is NOT A "COROLLARY." It is a POSTULATE.

Wow. First, Einstein didn’t use the German word for postulate, he used a word that is more like “premise” at first, and then in the body of the paper where he gives the explicit definition he refers to them as the two principles. But that’s just semantics. Second, if you could try to concentrate for just 15 seconds, and listen to what I am saying: Einstein states two principles (or call them postulates if you insist), the second of which is that the speed of light is c in terms of *one* inertial reference system, and from these he immediately deduces a corollary, which is that the speed of light is c in terms of *every* system of inertial coordinates. Later writers just save steps by taking Einstein’s corollary as the second principle (postulate). The point is that everyone, including Einstein, agrees that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

This has been explained to you, with the verbatim quotes from Einstein’s paper, many times. You really have no excuse to go on being confused about this.

On November 19, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> Most physics textbooks present a "strong" version of the second
> postulate which is a straightforward lemma resulting from applying
> the first postulate to Einstein's original "weak" formulation of the
> second postulate. The proof of the lemma entails, at most, one
> paragraph of straightforward explanation.

What are these two versions?

--
Rich

On November 20, et...@outlook.com wrote:
>>> They make it totally clear 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.
>
>> 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 + 70 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 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.

Wait a second, something doesn't compute.

The photons that I echo oscillate 35,000,007,292 times per MY second, but
only 35,000,000,000 per HIS shorter second. So his gun registers no change
in frequency. Methinks the gun will get confused -

>> 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.

But then my gun will register no change in frequency. See (i) above.
--
Rich

On November 18, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> 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 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.

But, what if you wait 12 hours, then repeat the experiment?
The earth has rotated, and the truck now travels in the opposite direction.
Will the photons then hit the front wall at c+v?

--
Rich

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:11:48 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> 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."

And that's an 'ok' statement. If you analyzed that statement purely from the language perspective, this is what we conclude:

"The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c"

The above sentence means no matter the Observer, that Observer will measure the speed of light to be c.
(more precisely, inertial Observers.). Therefore the speed being c for every Observer, means that this value is independent of the speed of the source.. Then the rest of postulate 2 " independent of the motion of THE SOURCE." need not to be sad since it is implied from the previous part of the statement. It's just redundant to specify it and confuses people. All this from the language perspective. It has nothing to do with the physics. The language and logic of language implies that all observers will measure the speed of light to be C. Agree?

> 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."

And this is equivalent to what has been stated above. Simply stating "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c." means the speed is C independent of source or Observer.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:11:48 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> 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

What you term a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate is an
IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of applying the First Postulate to the
"GOOD" version of the Second Postulate. Given a source and an
observer in relative motion, the propagation speed of light measured
by the observer CANNOT depend on whether the source is considered
to be in motion, or the observer is considered to be in motion. For
such to be otherwise would represent a violation of the First Postulate.

Einstein is not to be blamed for not devoting an entire paragraph to
explaining this simple deduction. He merely stated that what you term
the "BAD" version of the Second Postulate is an immediate
consequence and went on from there.

He was not writing for dunderheads.

Most textbooks start off with the "strong" version of the Second
Postulate to save time, but I have elsewhere argued that from a
pedagogical standpoint, this is a mistake. If I were writing a textbook,
I could easily devote an entire section to discussing this simple
deduction, accompanying the text with illustrations and references
to experimental validation.

WIthout such a detailed explanation, too many students have
balked at the Second Postulate as usually stated

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> 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.

This is a physics jargon term, which Einstein used but did not need to
define.

> Unfortunately, he
> doesn't state it in any single quotable sentence. His system of reference
> is the speed of light,

No, that is completely incorrect. Since you don’t know what reference frame
means, you also don’t know what inertial reference frame means. You quoted
a Wikipedia article about inertial reference frames but you don’t know what
the terms mean in the article either.

> 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
>

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

On Saturday, 20 November 2021 at 18:12:45 UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> 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

No, it's not. Anyone can check GPS, the clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. You're just enchanting
the reality, as expected from a fanatic moron.

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 02:20:44 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:11:48 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> > 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
> What you term a "BAD" version of Einstein's Second Postulate is an
> IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of applying the First Postulate to the
> "GOOD" version of the Second Postulate. Given a source and an
> observer in relative motion, the propagation speed of light measured
> by the observer CANNOT depend on whether the source is considered
> to be in motion, or the observer is considered to be in motion. For
> such to be otherwise would represent a violation of the First Postulate.

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, but that’s not what reference frame means in physics.

You are asking, “But why can’t I read it to mean that?” The answer is
because it doesn’t mean that.

>
>>> 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.

If you complain that the factor of 2 hasn’t been explained, Ed, but you
aren’t capable of following the tiny bit of math needed to account for it,
how would you like it accounted for instead?

>
>>
>> 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.

Doing math does not require memorization. It is a quantitative language.
Physics is a quantitative science. If you are illiterate with quantitative
language, you will not be able to follow a quantitative science. Sorry,
hard fact.

>
> Ed
>

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

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

Nonsense, Ken. Stop making things up to justify your nonsense.

> It tun out that every observer using this procedure to measure local
> light speed will get will get c. Why? Because all local measurements will
> eliminate the effect of absolute motion.
>
>> 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
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-8, 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.
>
> His second POSTULATE is NOT A "COROLLARY." It is a POSTULATE.
> He states it as a POSTULATE.
>
> "Corollary" is defined as "a proposition that follows from (and is often
> appended to) one already proved."
> "Postulate" is defined as "suggest or assume the existence, fact, or
> truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
>
> Einstein's second POSTULATE is a POSTULATE, NOT a corollary. It is a
> statement that is assumed to be true as a basis for understanding
> time dilation and his theory of special relativity.

And a corollary is a statement that IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS in an obvious way
from the postulate.

There is no reason to complain that textbooks include both the postulate
and that which immediately follows from it, in their casting of the central
assumption.

Asking that books all have EXACTLY the same wording, and that it coincides
EXACTLY with Einstein’s statement, is just ridiculous.

>
> Ed
>

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

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> And a corollary is a statement that IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS in an obvious
> way from the postulate.
> There is no reason to complain that textbooks include both the postulate
> and that which immediately follows from it, in their casting of the
> central assumption.
> Asking that books all have EXACTLY the same wording, and that it
> coincides EXACTLY with Einstein’s statement, is just ridiculous.

intriguing. You ladies are hard to convince. It's NOT a "vaccine", but a
*genetic_synthetic_pathogen* (makes you sick). Calling it a "vaccine"
makes you stupid, and wrong.

DR DAVID MARTIN - THIS IS NOT A VACCINE - WATCH TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GIVING
YOU https://www.bitchute.com/video/or5kdfK3mKr8/

Proof From The WHO's Own Mouth These Injections ARE NOT DOCUMENTED AS
'Vaccines' https://www.bitchute.com/video/31OxSBo3EPLb/

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 14:44:25 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Sure, but that’s not what reference frame means in physics.
>
> You are asking, “But why can’t I read it to mean that?” The answer is
> because it doesn’t mean that.
> >
> >>> 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.
> If you complain that the factor of 2 hasn’t been explained, Ed, but you
> aren’t capable of following the tiny bit of math needed to account for it,
> how would you like it accounted for instead?
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> Doing math does not require memorization. It is a quantitative language.

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind you had to announce
false its oldest part, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 14:49:17 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-8, 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.
> >
> > His second POSTULATE is NOT A "COROLLARY." It is a POSTULATE.
> > He states it as a POSTULATE.
> >
> > "Corollary" is defined as "a proposition that follows from (and is often
> > appended to) one already proved."
> > "Postulate" is defined as "suggest or assume the existence, fact, or
> > truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
> >
> > Einstein's second POSTULATE is a POSTULATE, NOT a corollary. It is a
> > statement that is assumed to be true as a basis for understanding
> > time dilation and his theory of special relativity.
> And a corollary is a statement that IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS in an obvious way
> from the postulate.

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

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:49:17 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 measure hods are faulty? It’s much more
> >> likely that it’s your method (th this e outlier) that’s wrong, since it get a
> >> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree? , localt
> >
> > Idiot, physicists refused to measure the owls directly because it will
> > not get c. So (wavelength*frequency) is the only way.
> Nonsense, Ken. Stop making things up to justify your nonsense.

Phase difference in the lab over a short distance is not a valid way to measure owls.

> > It tun out that every observer using this procedure to measure local
> > light speed will get will get c. Why? Because all local measurements will
> > eliminate the effect of absolute motion.
> >
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Op 21-nov.-2021 om 16:43 schreef Ken Seto:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:49:17 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

>> Nonsense, Ken. Stop making things up to justify your nonsense.
>
> Phase difference in the lab over a short distance is not a valid way to measure owls.

The best way to measure owls:
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/95411/view/measuring-the-wing-of-an-owl

Dirk Vdm

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> Doing math does not require memorization. It is a quantitative
>> language.
>
> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind you had to announce false
> its oldest part, as it didn't want to fit your madness.

sure, Members and alumni

Notable members and alumni of Young Global Leaders include:[9]

Jacinda Ardern
Lera Auerbach
Sergei Brin
Anderson Cooper
Leonardo DiCaprio
Ólafur Elíasson
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Sebastian Kurz
Ashton Kutcher
Jack Ma
Emmanuel Macron
Larry Page
Michael Schumacher
Charlize Theron
Leo Tilman
Fasi Zaka
Ivanka Trump
Mark Zuckerberg
El Krebat
Sandeep P Parekh

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 6:25:24 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:11:48 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
> > 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."
> And that's an 'ok' statement. If you analyzed that statement purely from the language perspective, this is what we conclude:
> "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c"

No, actually you need to know the thinking at the time, in 1905.
In 1905 most physicists still believed in "Emission Theory," which
stated that the speed of the emitter ADDED TO to the speed of light.
Therefore, the faster the emitter is traveling, the faster the emitted
light will travel. That would seemingly explain how light can be
measured to travel at c inside both a stationary lab and a moving
lab. It simply moves that the same speed relative to the lab.

Einstein is saying that is NOT true. He is saying that light moves
at c, regardless of whether the EMITTER is moving or not.

You and others on this forum are saying that is NOT POSSIBLE
because it would violate the FIRST POSTULATE, since it would mean
that the light would hit the walls of the lab at c+v or c-v, and people
in the lab would DETECT that experiments work differently in a
moving lab than in a stationary lab.

Einstein stated that the SECOND postulate is "only apparently
irreconcilable with the" FIRST postulate. Once you understand his
theory, you will see the two postulates ARE reconcilable.

His theory is that light moves at a different rate PER SECOND inside
a moving lab than inside a "stationary" lab. We now call that
"VELOCITY TIME DILATION." That means that light moves at c inside
a moving lab AND inside a "stationary" lab, and all experiments work
the same way, because light is moving at the same rate PER SECOND.

But, in REALITY, EVERYTHING is happening SLOWER inside the moving
lab versus what is happening in the "stationary" lab. The difference is
just too small to notice. You need an atomic clock to measure the
difference.

> The above sentence means no matter the Observer, that Observer will measure the speed of light to be c.
> (more precisely, inertial Observers.). Therefore the speed being c for every Observer, means that this value is independent of the speed of the source. Then the rest of postulate 2 " independent of the motion of THE SOURCE." need not to be sad since it is implied from the previous part of the statement. It's just redundant to specify it and confuses people. All this from the language perspective. It has nothing to do with the physics. The language and logic of language implies that all observers will measure the speed of light to be C. Agree?

No. I DISAGREE. MANY EXPERIMENTS show that is NOT TRUE.
Some of them are described here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

An OBSERVER moving toward a light source will encounter the
light at c+v. Radar guns demonstrate that every day.

> > 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."
> And this is equivalent to what has been stated above. Simply stating "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c." means the speed is C independent of source or Observer.

NOPE! See above.

Ed

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:32:09 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 6:25:24 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:

> > If you analyzed that statement purely from the language perspective, this is what we conclude:
> > "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c"

<physics history sniped>

Didn't you read what I said? I said from solely the language perspective. The sentence
"he speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c" MEANS that whoever is measuring the speed of light in vacuum, will get c.

> [Einstein] He is saying that light moves
> at c, regardless of whether the EMITTER is moving or not.

And "moving at c" MEANS whoever is measuring the speed, hence The Observer.

> You and others on this forum are saying that is NOT POSSIBLE
> because it would violate the FIRST POSTULATE,

Don't lie and, I never said that. I am trying to keep it simple for you. I am merely saying that the sentence above means observers always measure it to be C. Do you agree that that sentence means that?

> > The above sentence means no matter the Observer, that Observer will measure the speed of light to be c.
>>...All this from the language perspective. It has nothing to do with the physics. The language and logic of
>> language implies that all observers will measure the speed of light to be C. Agree?

> No. I DISAGREE. MANY EXPERIMENTS show that is NOT TRUE.

Try to focus Ed. We are not discussing the physics part yet. Before we understand each other, we got to understand what the words mean. This is what I'm trying to convey to you. So do you agree or disagree that solely from a language perspective, that
"The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c" MEANS that whoever is observing the speed will get the value of C ?

> An OBSERVER moving toward a light source will encounter the
> light at c+v.

The sentence "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c" means an observer measuring a ray of light (or photon) will measure it to have a speed c. Agree?

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 9:32:09 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> In 1905 most physicists still believed in "Emission Theory," which
> stated that the speed of the emitter ADDED TO to the speed of light.

To the contrary, in 1905 most physicists believed in the ether theory, meaning the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electro-magnetism, which stated that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source, and that the speed of light is c in terms of the local ether’s system of reference. However, they also believed in Galilean relativity, which implies that if the speed of light is c in terms of the local ether frame, then it cannot be c in terms of other reference systems that are moving relative to the local ether frame. But they couldn’t find the ether, so relativity implies that the speed of light should be c in terms of every inertial system of reference, because there’s no way to single out just one frame and say “this is the ether frame”. But it seemed impossible for the same pulse of light to propagate at the speed c in terms of two relatively moving systems of reference. Einstein's triumph was to explain in his paper how it is possible.

> [Einstein’s] theory is that light moves at a different rate PER SECOND inside
> a moving lab than inside a "stationary" lab… That means that light moves at c
> inside a moving lab AND inside a "stationary" lab, and all experiments work
> the same way, because light is moving at the same rate PER SECOND.

Yes, but there is more to it than that. As Einstein explained very clearly in his paper, the relatively moving systems of reference differ not just by the “length of the second”, but also by the measure of spatial distance, and (crucially) by their synchronization. If you don’t have all three of these ingredients, the result is logically inconsistent.

> An OBSERVER moving toward a light source will encounter the
> light at c+v. Radar guns demonstrate that every day.

Radar guns just indicate the relative speed v between gun and target, because that's the rate of change of the distance between them, which governs the Doppler effect, given that light propagates at c in whatever reference frame you happen to be using. Special relativity doesn’t play a significant role in how radar guns work. Pre-relativistic electrodynamics predicts that radar speed guns work exactly as they do. The correction due to special relativity is much too small to be detectable by an ordinary radar gun.

If you are interested, you can apply the three ingredients that Einstein described in his paper, and determine the speed of light in terms of the target’s inertial reference system, and you'll find that it is c as well, consistent with the relativity principle. But it doesn’t work if you just apply one of those ingredients, such as time dilation by itself.

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 19:19:53 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:32:09 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 6:25:24 PM UTC-6, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > If you analyzed that statement purely from the language perspective, this is what we conclude:
> > > "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c"
> <physics history sniped>
>
> Didn't you read what I said? I said from solely the language perspective. The sentence
> "he speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c" MEANS that whoever is measuring the speed of light in vacuum, will get c.
>
>
> > [Einstein] He is saying that light moves
> > at c, regardless of whether the EMITTER is moving or not.
> And "moving at c" MEANS whoever is measuring the speed, hence The Observer.

> > You and others on this forum are saying that is NOT POSSIBLE
> > because it would violate the FIRST POSTULATE,
> Don't lie and, I never said that. I am trying to keep it simple for you. I am merely saying that the sentence above means observers always measure it to be C. Do you agree that that sentence means that?
> > > The above sentence means no matter the Observer, that Observer will measure the speed of light to be c.
> >>...All this from the language perspective. It has nothing to do with the physics. The language and logic of
> >> language implies that all observers will measure the speed of light to be C. Agree?
>
> > No. I DISAGREE. MANY EXPERIMENTS show that is NOT TRUE.
> Try to focus Ed. We are not discussing the physics part yet. Before we understand each other, we got to understand what the words mean. This is what I'm trying to convey to you. So do you agree or disagree that solely from a language perspective, that
> "The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c" MEANS that whoever is observing the speed will get the value of C ?

Rotchm, poor idiot, of course not. It only means that
those enligtened by your insane guru will get that
value.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:49:17 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 measure hods are faulty? It’s much more
>>>> likely that it’s your method (th this e outlier) that’s wrong, since it get a
>>>> different answer than every other method. Don’t you agree? , localt
>>>
>>> Idiot, physicists refused to measure the owls directly because it will
>>> not get c. So (wavelength*frequency) is the only way.
>> Nonsense, Ken. Stop making things up to justify your nonsense.
>
> Phase difference in the lab over a short distance is not a valid way to measure owls.

And that’s not what I’m talking about.

>
>>> It tun out that every observer using this procedure to measure local
>>> light speed will get will get c. Why? Because all local measurements will
>>> eliminate the effect of absolute motion.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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