On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 09:42:18 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> > That is not only inaccurate, it is totally FALSE. A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to
> > a target by computing how long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return
> > while traveling 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light.
> >
> > A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
> > the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
> > knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
> > must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.
> >
> > ...The gun ... compares the
> > oscillation rate of the photon it emitted to the oscillation rate of the photon it got
> > back
> There is no essential difference between determining speed by measuring
> changes in the separation between two outgoing and incoming pulses,
> versus measuring changes in the separation between outgoing and
> incoming wave crests.

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.

> The instrumentation differs, but the same Doppler math applies to both.

And speaking of math, it's always good to remind you had to
announce basic (Euclidean) math false, as it didn't want
to cooperate with your madness.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Whose common sense?
> > >>>
> > >>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> > >>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> > >>>
> > >> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
> > >> people think.
> > >
> > > Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> > > they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> > > obey.
> > >
> > Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> > think.
>
> Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
> "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
> inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.

And how would you know what 'a day' is,
given that all accurate time you have access to
(on the net, as time signals, on an iPhone etc.)
is UTC, hence cesium clock seconds.

The elapsed time between one noon and the next is
24 * 60 * 60 * 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
excepting only days that have a leap second,

Jan

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

1) UTC doesn't keep your ingenious differently local Cs second,
samely as GPS and TAI. No serious timekeeping system
is relying on it. If it was applied, a clock on a mountain
couldn't be synchronized with a clock in a valley...
Common sense was warning your idiot guru.

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

>
> The elapsed time between one noon and the next is
> 24 * 60 * 60 * 9,192,631,770 of those periods,

No.

> excepting only days that have a leap second,

Even if they were the only exceptions - it would be
enough. Time is not what you say it is.Or rather
- it really is what clocks indicate, your idiot guru
wasn't mistaken about that. it's just that the
clocks he invoked were gedanken, i.e. fabricated.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>
>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
>>>> think.
>>>
>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
>>> obey.
>>>
>> Maciej, you are a kꙩꙩk, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
>> think.
>
> Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> and your fellow idiots?

I’ll repeat that you do not think like “regular people” and you certainly
do not represent regular people. You know as well as any that you are an
irregular person.

Regular people know the difference between casual usage and technical usage
of terms. Regular people understand that meaning depends on context, and
that jargon has a purpose. Regular people usually even know what industry
and technical standards are for, and what they indicate.

You, Woz, generally don’t know what you’re talking about, and wish against
hope that it all should resolve down to something even you can understand.

> Do regular often think
> "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
> inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.
>
>
>

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

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:33:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
>>>>>> people think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
>>>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
>>>>> obey.
>>>>>
>>>> Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
>>>> think.
>>>
>>> Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
>>> does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
>>> "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
>>> and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
>>> "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
>>> inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.
>> And how would you know what 'a day' is,
>> given that all accurate time you have access to
>> (on the net, as time signals, on an iPhone etc.)
>> is UTC, hence cesium clock seconds.
>
> 1) UTC doesn't keep your ingenious differently local Cs second,
> samely as GPS and TAI. No serious timekeeping system
> is relying on it. If it was applied, a clock on a mountain
> couldn't be synchronized with a clock in a valley...
> Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
>
> 2)Somehow, the humanity was able to count days before
> your caesium clocks, and even in these dark ages not
> knowing the light of the relativity.

Of course they were. Only rough reckoning was needed back then. Of course,
for thousands of years, surveying by cubits was also sufficient. If you
would prefer that technology revert back to the 1800s, there may be an
Amish community near you.

> Of course, it required
> some "thinking", making it a process completely
> uncomprehendable for physics and physicists.
>
>
>>
>> The elapsed time between one noon and the next is
>> 24 * 60 * 60 * 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
>
> No.
>
>> excepting only days that have a leap second,
>
> Even if they were the only exceptions - it would be
> enough. Time is not what you say it is.Or rather
> - it really is what clocks indicate, your idiot guru
> wasn't mistaken about that. it's just that the
> clocks he invoked were gedanken, i.e. fabricated.
>
>
>

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

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

Nah, that’s just a delusion on your part. Who has attempted to force you
into anything?

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

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:38:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
> >>>> think.
> >>>
> >>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> >>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> >>> obey.
> >>>
> >> Maciej, you are a kꙩꙩk, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> >> think.
> >
> > Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> > does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> > "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> > and your fellow idiots?
> I’ll repeat that you do not think like “regular people”

Sure. Neither you do, poor halfbrain. The difference is - I
know how they think for real and you're living in a world of
Popper's delusions.

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:38:06 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:33:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Whose common sense?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> >>>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
> >>>>>> people think.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> >>>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> >>>>> obey.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> >>>> think.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> >>> does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> >>> "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> >>> and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
> >>> "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
> >>> inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.
> >> And how would you know what 'a day' is,
> >> given that all accurate time you have access to
> >> (on the net, as time signals, on an iPhone etc.)
> >> is UTC, hence cesium clock seconds.
> >
> > 1) UTC doesn't keep your ingenious differently local Cs second,
> > samely as GPS and TAI. No serious timekeeping system
> > is relying on it. If it was applied, a clock on a mountain
> > couldn't be synchronized with a clock in a valley...
> > Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
> >
> > 2)Somehow, the humanity was able to count days before
> > your caesium clocks, and even in these dark ages not
> > knowing the light of the relativity.
> Of course they were.
QED.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:33:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney:
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Whose common sense?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> > > > >>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
> > > > >> people think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> > > > > they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> > > > > obey.
> > > > >
> > > > Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> > > > think.
> > >
> > > Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> > > does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> > > "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> > > and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
> > > "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
> > > inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.
> > And how would you know what 'a day' is,
> > given that all accurate time you have access to
> > (on the net, as time signals, on an iPhone etc.)
> > is UTC, hence cesium clock seconds.
>
> 1) UTC doesn't keep your ingenious differently local Cs second,
> samely as GPS and TAI. No serious timekeeping system
> is relying on it. If it was applied, a clock on a mountain
> couldn't be synchronized with a clock in a valley...
> Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
>
> 2)Somehow, the humanity was able to count days before
> your caesium clocks, and even in these dark ages not
> knowing the light of the relativity. Of course, it required
> some "thinking", making it a process completely
> uncomprehendable for physics and physicists.
>
>
> >
> > The elapsed time between one noon and the next is
> > 24 * 60 * 60 * 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
>
> No.

Then please explain to us what your idea of 'a day' is.
No great precision needed, a microsecond will do,

Jan

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

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 14:59:35 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:33:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> Whose common sense?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
> > > > > >>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most
> > > > > >> people think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
> > > > > > they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
> > > > > > obey.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Maciej, you are a k??k, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
> > > > > think.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> > > > does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> > > > "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> > > > and your fellow idiots? Do regular often think
> > > > "we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks] such that
> > > > inertia and space are isotropic"? And so on.
> > > And how would you know what 'a day' is,
> > > given that all accurate time you have access to
> > > (on the net, as time signals, on an iPhone etc.)
> > > is UTC, hence cesium clock seconds.
> >
> > 1) UTC doesn't keep your ingenious differently local Cs second,
> > samely as GPS and TAI. No serious timekeeping system
> > is relying on it. If it was applied, a clock on a mountain
> > couldn't be synchronized with a clock in a valley...
> > Common sense was warning your idiot guru.
> >
> > 2)Somehow, the humanity was able to count days before
> > your caesium clocks, and even in these dark ages not
> > knowing the light of the relativity. Of course, it required
> > some "thinking", making it a process completely
> > uncomprehendable for physics and physicists.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The elapsed time between one noon and the next is
> > > 24 * 60 * 60 * 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
> >
> > No.
> Then please explain to us what your idea of 'a day' is.
> No great precision needed, a microsecond will do,

Day is a matter of a convention So is time. An obvious
and typical property of a coordinate.
As for microseconds, they generally are 1/24/3600/1000000
of a day. But outside mathematics there is no rule without
an exception, so, exceptions happen. Thinking is a complicated
activity; in your precious exact science you only have a crippled
and drastically simplified version, you know.

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:56:35 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to a target by computing how
> long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return…
> A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
> the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
> knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
> must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.

Right, but when you carry out the calculation you described above, you find that the round-trip time and the distance drop out, and all that matters is the time interval between consecutive transmissions and the time interval between consecutive receptions. Those are the reciprocals of the frequencies, so this is just a disguised way of saying all that matters are the frequencies of transmission and reception… the same as radar.

To be clear and precise, let t denote the interval between consecutive transmissions, and let T denote the interval between consecutive receptions. The LIDAR gun computes the rate of change of distance to the target using the Doppler formula v = c(T-t)/(T+t). So the LIDAR gun is actually doing the same thing as a radar gun, just in a slightly disguised way, because a radar gun uses v = c(f-F)/(f+F). These are equivalent, because f=1/t and F=1/T.

> It can emit ONE photon that oscillates…

Not so, a single photon has a certain energy proportional to the frequency of the source, but it does not exhibit a frequency. Multiple photons are necessary for electromagnetic radiation to exhibit a frequency via the interference patterns and sequential phases. One could, in principle, make a speed gun that measures the energy of a single photon, but that would not be practical, and no actual speed guns work that way. Speed guns (LIDAR and radar) all measure time intervals/frequencies and use the Doppler effect to infer the relative speed.

As an analyst, I'm sure you are aware that the Doppler effect doesn’t apply to intrinsic oscillations of a single entity (like spinning bullets or imaginary "oscillating photons"), it only works for spatially and temporally sequential entities (sequences of photons, pulses, bullets, wavecrests, etc.). Also, remember that the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that is not involved at all.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> > The elapsed time between one noon and the next is 24 * 60 * 60 *
>> > 9,192,631,770 of those periods,
>>
>> No.
>
> Then please explain to us what your idea of 'a day' is.
> No great precision needed, a microsecond will do, Jan

this relativist don't understand days, thinking days are constant to
atomic oscillations. Good laugh.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:47:44 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:56:35 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to a target by computing how
> > long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return…
> > A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
> > the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
> > knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
> > must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.
> Right, but when you carry out the calculation you described above, you find that the round-trip time and the distance drop out, and all that matters is the time interval between consecutive transmissions and the time interval between consecutive receptions. Those are the reciprocals of the frequencies, so this is just a disguised way of saying all that matters are the frequencies of transmission and reception… the same as radar.

No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns. LIDAR guns ONLY
measure the time between EMISSION of a pulse and the RECEPTION of
the return pulse. Since the emitted and returned signals travel at the
speed of light, that provides ONE MEASURED DISTANCE to the the target.
The gun then repeats that process to get a SECOND DISTANCE. When it has
TWO MEASURED DISTANCES AND THE TIME BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS
the gun has all it needs to compute the speed of the target. Doesn't it?
>
> To be clear and precise, let t denote the interval between consecutive transmissions, and let T denote the interval between consecutive receptions. The LIDAR gun computes the rate of change of distance to the target using the Doppler formula v = c(T-t)/(T+t). So the LIDAR gun is actually doing the same thing as a radar gun, just in a slightly disguised way, because a radar gun uses v = c(f-F)/(f+F). These are equivalent, because f=1/t and F=1/T.

The Doppler Effect is NOT USED used by LIDAR guns.

>
> > It can emit ONE photon that oscillates…
>
> Not so, a single photon has a certain energy proportional to the frequency of the source, but it does not exhibit a frequency.

The energy a photon has is in the form of electromagnetic oscillations.
A photon has NO MASS. The source has no relevant "frequency."

> Multiple photons are necessary for electromagnetic radiation to exhibit a frequency via the interference patterns and sequential phases. One could, in principle, make a speed gun that measures the energy of a single photon, but that would not be practical, and no actual speed guns work that way. Speed guns (LIDAR and radar) all measure time intervals/frequencies and use the Doppler effect to infer the relative speed.
>
> As an analyst, I'm sure you are aware that the Doppler effect doesn’t apply to intrinsic oscillations of a single entity (like spinning bullets or imaginary "oscillating photons"), it only works for spatially and temporally sequential entities (sequences of photons, pulses, bullets, wavecrests, etc.). Also, remember that the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that is not involved at all.

All you are doing is demonstrating OBFUSCATION, which is defined as
"the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible" - as
in "when confronted with sharp questions he resorts to obfuscation."

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:

> No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns. LIDAR guns ONLY measure
> the time between EMISSION of a pulse and the RECEPTION of the return
> pulse. Since the emitted and returned signals travel at the speed of
> light, that provides ONE MEASURED DISTANCE to the the target. The gun
> then repeats that process to get a SECOND DISTANCE. When it has TWO
> MEASURED DISTANCES AND THE TIME BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS the gun has all it
> needs to compute the speed of the target. Doesn't it?

It doesn't. It only takes 2 times, hence distance to the target, which
may be equal.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:52:51 AM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:47:44 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

> No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns.

You misunderstand. LIDAR guns measure time intervals, just like radar guns measure time intervals.
Lidar guns measure time intervals directly. Time values. Radar guns measure time intervals via frequencies. But it is still basically a Time measurement. This is what Olsen has been trying to tell you.

> LIDAR guns ONLY measure the time between EMISSION of a pulse and the RECEPTION of
> the return pulse.

Yes... As we have been telling you.

> Since the emitted and returned signals travel at the
> speed of light, that provides ONE MEASURED DISTANCE to the the target.

Yes that can be used to measure the distance. But this distance Is irrelevant and not needed.
And lidar guns do not compute this distance.

> The gun then repeats that process to get a SECOND DISTANCE.

No, as we have been telling you, the distances are not needed. If you do the simple math, all distances cancel out. They are not needed. Only the time measurements are involved. Only the time measurements are needed to calculate the speed of the target. Do you agree that only the time measurements suffice to compute the speed?

rotchm wrote:

>> No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns.
>
> You misunderstand. LIDAR guns measure time intervals, just like radar
> guns measure time intervals.
> Lidar guns measure time intervals directly. Time values. Radar guns
> measure time intervals via frequencies. But it is still basically a Time
> measurement. This is what Olsen has been trying to tell you.

that won't give you the speed, you fucking moron.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:52:51 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns. LIDAR guns ONLY
> measure the time between EMISSION of a pulse and the RECEPTION of
> the return pulse. Since the emitted and returned signals travel at the
> speed of light, that provides ONE MEASURED DISTANCE to the the target.
> The gun then repeats that process to get a SECOND DISTANCE. When it has
> TWO MEASURED DISTANCES AND THE TIME BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS
> the gun has all it needs to compute the speed of the target. Doesn't it?

Yes. In fact, it has *more* than what it needs. You’ve mentioned three different intervals of time there. One is the round trip time of the first pulse. The next is the round-trip time of the second pulse. And the third is the time between (the starts of the) measurements. You are correct that this gives us all we need to determine the relative speed of the target. But…

I’m asking you to take a closer look at exactly how we use those three time intervals to compute the relative speed. As an analyst, you simply must be able to label those intervals so that we can talk about them easily. Let’s call the two round-trip time intervals T1 and T2, and lets call the time between the (starts of) the measurements t. Knowing the values of T1, T2, and t, let’s see exactly how we compute the relative speed.

If you carry out the actual calculation that you described, you find that the speed v depends only on t and t+T2-T1. Now, t is just the time between transmissions, and the quantity t+T2-T1 is nothing but the time between the receptions. So it turns out we don’t really need the individual values of T1 and T2 (the round trip times), all we need are the time interval between consecutive transmissions, and the time interval between consecutive receptions. The round trip time and the distance don’t matter.

Also, those time intervals are nothing but the reciprocals of the frequencies. The Doppler formula applies to both, so the method of determining speed is essentially the same for both LIDAR and radar. I gave you the identical formulas.

> All you are doing is demonstrating OBFUSCATION…

To the contrary, I’m trying mightily to explain as clearly as possible. If there is something in the explanation that you think is wrong or unclear, please point it out.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:52:51 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns. LIDAR guns ONLY
> > measure the time between EMISSION of a pulse and the RECEPTION of
> > the return pulse. Since the emitted and returned signals travel at the
> > speed of light, that provides ONE MEASURED DISTANCE to the the target.
> > The gun then repeats that process to get a SECOND DISTANCE. When it has
> > TWO MEASURED DISTANCES AND THE TIME BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS
> > the gun has all it needs to compute the speed of the target. Doesn't it?
> Yes. In fact, it has *more* than what it needs. You’ve mentioned three different intervals of time there. One is the round trip time of the first pulse. The next is the round-trip time of the second pulse. And the third is the time between (the starts of the) measurements. You are correct that this gives us all we need to determine the relative speed of the target. But…
>
> I’m asking you to take a closer look at exactly how we use those three time intervals to compute the relative speed. As an analyst, you simply must be able to label those intervals so that we can talk about them easily. Let’s call the two round-trip time intervals T1 and T2, and lets call the time between the (starts of) the measurements t. Knowing the values of T1, T2, and t, let’s see exactly how we compute the relative speed.
>
> If you carry out the actual calculation that you described, you find that the speed v depends only on t and t+T2-T1. Now, t is just the time between transmissions, and the quantity t+T2-T1 is nothing but the time between the receptions. So it turns out we don’t really need the individual values of T1 and T2 (the round trip times), all we need are the time interval between consecutive transmissions, and the time interval between consecutive receptions. The round trip time and the distance don’t matter.
>
> Also, those time intervals are nothing but the reciprocals of the frequencies. The Doppler formula applies to both, so the method of determining speed is essentially the same for both LIDAR and radar. I gave you the identical formulas.
>
> > All you are doing is demonstrating OBFUSCATION…
>
> To the contrary, I’m trying mightily to explain as clearly as possible. If there is something in the explanation that you think is wrong or unclear, please point it out.

What I am explaining is HOW LIDAR GUNS WORK. What you are doing via
OBFUSCATION is explaining how the same results could be obtained in
a different way more in keeping with your methodology. Who cares??

Ed

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:59 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> What I am explaining is HOW LIDAR GUNS WORK.

Not true. You mistakenly claim that LIDAR speed guns don’t use the Doppler effect, and I’ve explained to you that, in fact, they do. The principle of operation is the same for radar and LIDAR speed guns, the only difference being in the frequencies and forms of the electromagnetic signals they use. Time intervals are just the reciprocals of frequencies, regardless of whether you are talking about pulses or bullets or photons or wavecrests or whatever. I’ve shown you the exact Doppler formulas that are used in LIDAR and radar speed guns.

> What you are doing is explaining how the same results could be obtained in
>a different way more in keeping with your methodology.

No, both LIDAR and radar guns carry out their measurements in the way I described. Both send sequences of transmissions (photons, pulses, wavecrests) with known periods and frequencies (reciprocals of each other), and compute the rate of change of distance to the target using the two-way Doppler formula. This isn't controversial.

> Who cares??

*You* seem to care. You sure spend a lot of time talking about it. You are trying to understand how radar works, and you have concocted a bunch of (frankly) goofy fantasies, and I’m trying to help you understand how things actually work.

I’ve already thoroughly explained what is illogical with your ideas, and you never offer any refutation. Then I’ve given you the correct explanation and invited you to point out anything that you think is wrong or unclear. You never do. So the conclusion of the discussion is: your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, and the standard scientific explanation stands.

On November, tjrob137 wrote:
>> That paper is titled:
>> "Faster west than east: The GPS invalidates Special Relativity"
>
> That is most definitely NOT true.
> Lake displays his personal ignorance by quoting such papers. RichD
> displays his by uncritically copying such nonsense.

Have you been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome?

--
Rich

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:40:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > What I am explaining is HOW LIDAR GUNS WORK.
> Not true. You mistakenly claim that LIDAR speed guns don’t use the Doppler effect, and I’ve explained to you that, in fact, they do. The principle of operation is the same for radar and LIDAR speed guns, the only difference being in the frequencies and forms of the electromagnetic signals they use. Time intervals are just the reciprocals of frequencies, regardless of whether you are talking about pulses or bullets or photons or wavecrests or whatever. I’ve shown you the exact Doppler formulas that are used in LIDAR and radar speed guns.
>
> > What you are doing is explaining how the same results could be obtained in
> >a different way more in keeping with your methodology.
> No, both LIDAR and radar guns carry out their measurements in the way I described. Both send sequences of transmissions (photons, pulses, wavecrests) with known periods and frequencies (reciprocals of each other), and compute the rate of change of distance to the target using the two-way Doppler formula. This isn't controversial.
>
> > Who cares??
>
> *You* seem to care. You sure spend a lot of time talking about it. You are trying to understand how radar works, and you have concocted a bunch of (frankly) goofy fantasies, and I’m trying to help you understand how things actually work.
>
> I’ve already thoroughly explained what is illogical with your ideas, and you never offer any refutation. Then I’ve given you the correct explanation and invited you to point out anything that you think is wrong or unclear. You never do. So the conclusion of the discussion is: your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, and the standard scientific explanation stands.

There can be no resolution to this argument because we are not
discussing the same thing. I am discussing REALITY and you are
discussing MATHEMATICS.

You want me to find an error in your MATHEMATICS when there is
no error in your mathematics. The problem is that YOUR MATHEMATICS
DO NOT REPRESENT REALITY.

IN REALITY, radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of
time. If your MATHEMATICS do not view things that way, then your
mathematics do not represent reality.

As Einstein stated in a talk he gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences
in 1921, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

The best way to discuss this would be with WORDS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
Unfortunately, there's no good way to use illustrations on this forum,
and you seem incapable of discussing anything except mathematics.

So, there is no point in continuing.

Ed

On 11/25/2021 10:52 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 8:47:44 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:56:35 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> A LIDAR gun measures the DISTANCE to a target by computing how
>>> long it took for a photon to travel to the target AND return…
>>> A fraction of a second later, the LIDAR gun does the same thing again. Then it compares
>>> the distance measured the first time to the distance measured the second time, and
>>> knowing the time between emitting photons, the gun can compute how fast the target
>>> must have been moving in order to produce the change in distances.
>> Right, but when you carry out the calculation you described above, you find that the round-trip time and the distance drop out, and all that matters is the time interval between consecutive transmissions and the time interval between consecutive receptions. Those are the reciprocals of the frequencies, so this is just a disguised way of saying all that matters are the frequencies of transmission and reception… the same as radar.
>
> No, frequencies are NOT measured by LIDAR guns. LIDAR guns ONLY
> measure the time between EMISSION of a pulse and the RECEPTION of
> the return pulse. Since the emitted and returned signals travel at the
> speed of light, that provides ONE MEASURED DISTANCE to the the target.
> The gun then repeats that process to get a SECOND DISTANCE. When it has
> TWO MEASURED DISTANCES AND THE TIME BETWEEN MEASUREMENTS
> the gun has all it needs to compute the speed of the target. Doesn't it?
>
>>
>> To be clear and precise, let t denote the interval between consecutive transmissions, and let T denote the interval between consecutive receptions. The LIDAR gun computes the rate of change of distance to the target using the Doppler formula v = c(T-t)/(T+t). So the LIDAR gun is actually doing the same thing as a radar gun, just in a slightly disguised way, because a radar gun uses v = c(f-F)/(f+F). These are equivalent, because f=1/t and F=1/T.
>
> The Doppler Effect is NOT USED used by LIDAR guns.

The frequency is 1/T so an increase of the time corresponds to a
decrease of frequency and vice versa, and it corresponds exactly to the
Doppler Effect (of the pulse frequency).
>
>>
>>> It can emit ONE photon that oscillates…
>>
>> Not so, a single photon has a certain energy proportional to the frequency of the source, but it does not exhibit a frequency.
>
> The energy a photon has is in the form of electromagnetic oscillations.

Meaning the photon has some sort of photons of its own? Absurd!

> A photon has NO MASS. The source has no relevant "frequency."

The source frequency is the frequency of the electromagnetic source of
the radiated energy. Could be current (electrons) in a dipole antenna
for example. Think of electrons sloshing back and forth for that case.
>
>> Multiple photons are necessary for electromagnetic radiation to exhibit a frequency via the interference patterns and sequential phases. One could, in principle, make a speed gun that measures the energy of a single photon, but that would not be practical, and no actual speed guns work that way. Speed guns (LIDAR and radar) all measure time intervals/frequencies and use the Doppler effect to infer the relative speed.
>>
>> As an analyst, I'm sure you are aware that the Doppler effect doesn’t apply to intrinsic oscillations of a single entity (like spinning bullets or imaginary "oscillating photons"), it only works for spatially and temporally sequential entities (sequences of photons, pulses, bullets, wavecrests, etc.). Also, remember that the difference in frequencies is proportional to v/c, whereas the differences in the “rates of time” due to relativistic time dilation are proportional to half the *square* of v/c. Those are vastly different, the latter not even detectable by a radar gun, so that is not involved at all.
>
> All you are doing is demonstrating OBFUSCATION, which is defined as
> "the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible" - as
> in "when confronted with sharp questions he resorts to obfuscation."

Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean that scientists,
electrical engineers etc. don't understand it!
>
> Ed
>

On 11/25/2021 2:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/24/2021 12:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:49:50 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 November 2021 at 16:25:32 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Whose common sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Common, stupid Mike. Nothing you could possible
>>>>> comprehend, being one of those having none.
>>>>>
>>>> Wozniak would prefer to think that the way he thinks is the way most people
>>>> think.
>>>
>>> Your idiot gurus, on the other hand, prefer to think the way
>>> they announce us to be FORCED to is the way most people
>>> obey.
>>>
>> Maciej, you are a kꙩꙩk, so your "common sense" is not how regular people
>> think.
>
> Oh, really, stupid Mike? When a regular thinks "a second" -
> does he usually mean "1/24/60/60 of a day" like me, or
> "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" like you
> and your fellow idiots?

I, like most "regular" people, consider a second a defined period of
time. I can think in my mind or say "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi" etc.
and be maybe 10% close. More accurate than that I will use a suitable
timepiece. Most people don't bother with the detail of it being defined
as "9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs radiation" even though technical
people, when pressed, may come up with that definition.

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

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 11:29:21 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Radar guns measure changes in distance during a period of time.

Yes! That’s right... and so do LIDAR guns. And they both do this by using the Doppler effect, comparing the period or frequency of transmission with the period or frequency of the return signals. (Periods and frequencies are just reciprocals of each other, so that is not a significant difference.)

> So, there is no point in continuing.

Well, now that you’ve agreed that radar and LIDAR speed guns both determine the rate of change of the distance using the Doppler effect with sequences of pulses or photons, and that individual photons do not oscillate, and that the operation of these devices has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation, and that the speed of light (in vacuum) is c in terms of every inertia-based system of reference, then everything is settled and there is indeed no need for further clarification. In summary, your former beliefs are thoroughly debunked and the standard scientific explanations stands. Excellent!