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?

On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> Discussion?

Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
wrong.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:55:39 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > Discussion?
>
> Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
> won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
> wrong.

Likewise, it is not possible with someone like you who won't (can't) understand
the actual science behind why your beliefs are wrong.

So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns. The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.

Ed

Op 10-nov.-2021 om 18:45 schreef Ed Lake:
> 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

.... the idiot who came up with it never understood what the others
were talking about.

> Discussion?

Discussion with a telephone pole?
Duh.

Dirk Vdm

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

The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:55:39 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> Discussion?
>>
>> Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
>> won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
>> wrong.
>
> Likewise, it is not possible with someone like you who won't (can't) understand
> the actual science behind why your beliefs are wrong.

Sorry, Ed, but the fact here is that “actual science” is not what you’re
doing.

You are unversed in “actual science”. You are neither educated or practiced
in “actual science”. Instead you are practiced at amateur sleuthing and
armchair “analysis”, which is nothing like “actual science”.

A good indicator of whether you are capable of “actual science” is whether
you have demonstrated an ability to comprehend “actual science” textbooks.
Since you have deflected by saying that you are uninterested in the
textbooks, don’t have the time to study the textbooks, or that the
textbooks are faulty because they are incomprehensible, this alone is
sufficient to make clear you are unequipped to do “actual science”.

“Actual science” cannot be mimicked by unread amateurs. The attempt is
transparent, foolish, and a waste of others’ time.

>
> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns. The FACTS
> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
>
> Ed
>

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

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 18:55:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > Discussion?
>
> Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe

such as stupid Mike, believing The Shit against plain and
obvious measurement results.

On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.

Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".

> The FACTS
> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.

No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.

Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> >
> The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
> work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
> clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
> meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.

Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it. Plus, I talked with
police officers about their radar guns. Plus I examined PATENTS and read
every bit of information I could find about radar guns. The FACTS about how
radar guns work are clear, and what YOU BELIEVE cannot possibly work.

I put all I learned about radar guns into a different paper. It's at this link:
https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

If you BELIEVE I'm wrong, state where I am wrong, don't just avoid a discussion
by rambling about your screwball BELIEFS.

Ed

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
> Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
> > The FACTS
> > say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> > measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
> No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
>
> Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.

I know what the facts are. I OWN a radar gun. I've STUDIED how they
work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.

Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies between
what the gun transmits and what it receives back. That difference in
oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
c and c+v.

Ed

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.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>> The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
>> work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
>> clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
>> meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
>
> Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.

And you ignore the experimental results that disagreed with your
predictions. This is a symptom of you not doing “actual science”.

> Plus, I talked with
> police officers about their radar guns.

Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
is built.

> Plus I examined PATENTS and read
> every bit of information I could find about radar guns.

Again, that is what an armchair “analyst” does, and that is not “actual
science”.

> The FACTS about how
> radar guns work are clear, and what YOU BELIEVE cannot possibly work.
>
> I put all I learned about radar guns into a different paper.

And this ESPECIALLY is not “actual science”.

You are trying to pass off your modus operandi as “actual science” when it
is nothing of the sort.

> It's at this link:
> https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
>
> If you BELIEVE I'm wrong, state where I am wrong, don't just avoid a discussion
> by rambling about your screwball BELIEFS.

I am stating a simple fact. You are trying to discuss physics from a
position of untrained ignorance and are making a lot of bad guesses and
improper inferences. You then expect people to correct you and thereby
provide you with an education … er, argument … about the correct physics.

No. The best response to someone who makes ignorant guesses is to recommend
materials that will teach you the basics, to help you get over your
ignorance. Those will involve a lot of work, no shortcuts, no streamlining,
and you would have to slog through it LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

>
> Ed
>

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

On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.

>> Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".

>>> The FACTS
>>> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
>>> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.

>> No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
>>
>> Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
>
> I know what the facts are.

Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".

> I OWN a radar gun.

So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.

> I've STUDIED how they
> work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.

And (mis)interpreted them to fit your "idée fixe".

> What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.

What *you* BELIEVE are not "FACTS" as you claim. You cannot tell the
difference between your own beliefs and "FACTS". Your so-called "FACTS"
are what is nonsense.
>
> Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies

You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.

> between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.

From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.

> That difference in
> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
> c and c+v.

Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>snip imbecilities<

As predicted, the cretin is back.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 22:32:08 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
> >> work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
> >> clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
> >> meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
> >
> > Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
> And you ignore the experimental results that disagreed with your
> predictions. This is a symptom of you not doing “actual science”.

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.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 22:56:16 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.

The Shit and stupid Mike tells us!!! Must be true!!!!
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.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
>
>>> Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
>
>>>> The FACTS
>>>> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
>>>> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
>
>>> No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
>>>
>>> Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
>>
>> I know what the facts are.
>
> Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
> how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
> burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".
>
>> I OWN a radar gun.
>
> So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.
>
>> I've STUDIED how they
>> work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
>
> And (mis)interpreted them to fit your "idée fixe".
>
>> What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.
>
> What *you* BELIEVE are not "FACTS" as you claim. You cannot tell the
> difference between your own beliefs and "FACTS". Your so-called "FACTS"
> are what is nonsense.
>>
>> Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies
>
> You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.
>
>> between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.
>
> From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
>
>> That difference in
>> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
>> c and c+v.
>
> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
>

Moreover, direct experiments that have nothing to do with radar guns or
Doppler show that c+v does not happen. If you have one application that is
consistent with an interpretation of c+v and also consistent with an
interpretation of c, and a different application that is INCONSISTENT with
c+v and consistent with an interpretation of c, then the interpretation of
c+v is RULED OUT. Just trying to interpret radar guns as being consistent
with c+v is not enough. It has to be consistent with ALL applications,
including non-Doppler experiments that measure TIME OF FLIGHT of photons.

Moreover, it is clear that Ed cannot do the simple math that distinguishes
the VALUE of the frequency shift between what relativity predicts (which
has a square root) and what c+v predicts (which has no square root). The
QUANTITATIVE match to measurement that rules out c+v, not just qualitative
shifting up or shifting down, is what Ed cannot do.

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

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
> how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
> burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and
> "fact".
>
>> I OWN a radar gun.
>
> So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be
> false.

but your name is *Kibo_Pari*, not "Michael". Michael is a slavic name.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> ... 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...

OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c and it does not matter if the emitter of the light is moving forwards, backwards or sideways... it is always observed to be travelling at c. I know that you cannot comprehend this because it is not intuitive (and it is not intuitive to anyone), but then, you are ignorant of all things regarding relativity BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER STUDIED IT FROM SQUARE ONE! You cannot just jump into this at the university level and expect to understand it... making you the Poster Boy of the scientifically uninformed once again!

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 01:19:39 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > ... 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...
>
> OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c

Even your idiot guru was unable to insist on that idiocy for
a long time and his GR shit had to reject it.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 23:16:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
> >
> >>> Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
> >
> >>>> The FACTS
> >>>> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> >>>> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
> >
> >>> No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
> >>>
> >>> Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
> >>
> >> I know what the facts are.
> >
> > Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
> > how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
> > burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".
> >
> >> I OWN a radar gun.
> >
> > So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.
> >
> >> I've STUDIED how they
> >> work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
> >
> > And (mis)interpreted them to fit your "idée fixe".
> >
> >> What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.
> >
> > What *you* BELIEVE are not "FACTS" as you claim. You cannot tell the
> > difference between your own beliefs and "FACTS". Your so-called "FACTS"
> > are what is nonsense.
> >>
> >> Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies
> >
> > You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave..
> >
> >> between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.
> >
> > From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
> >
> >> That difference in
> >> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
> >> c and c+v.
> >
> > Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
> >
> Moreover, direct experiments that have nothing to do with radar guns or
> Doppler show that c+v does not happen.

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.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:58:35 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:45:14 UTC-3, 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 FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.
If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves. A radar gun emitting WAVES
cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
the ground and objects on the ground. There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
to the transmitted waves.

With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,
and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
same frequency.

Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.

Ed

Op 11-nov.-2021 om 16:17 schreef Ed Lake:

[snip]

>
> The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to
> understanding how radar guns work.

No, sub-idiot. A PROPERLY WORKING BRAIN is.

Dirk Vdm

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
> >> work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
> >> clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
> >> meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
> >
> > Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
> And you ignore the experimental results that disagreed with your
> predictions. This is a symptom of you not doing “actual science”.

NEVER. What "experimental results are you lying about????

> > Plus, I talked with
> > police officers about their radar guns.
> Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
> their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
> is built.

I didn't ask police officers about the PHYSICS of their radar guns.
I asked them what results they got when using the guns under
different conditions. That is how SCIENCE works.

> > Plus I examined PATENTS and read
> > every bit of information I could find about radar guns.
> Again, that is what an armchair “analyst” does, and that is not “actual
> science”.

You clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW SCIENCE IS DONE.
Science looks at how things work. You evidently do not care about how
things work. You ONLY understand and care about the mathematics.

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

Science is about uncovering the REALITY of how things work. It's not
about doing math.

Ed

Op 11-nov.-2021 om 16:27 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake <> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Plus, I talked with
>>> police officers about their radar guns.
>> Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
>> their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
>> is built.
>
> I didn't ask police officers about the PHYSICS of their radar guns.
> I asked them what results they got when using the guns under
> different conditions. That is how SCIENCE works.

No, sub-moron. That is how your EXCUSE FOR A BRAIN works.

Dirk Vdm