Ed Lake wrote:

>> How can c+v and c-v be "differences in frequency"?????
>
> Good question, and this is my last answer for today:
> A photon oscillating 35,000,000,000 times per second will hit an
> approaching target traveling at 70 miles per hour AS IF it was
> oscillating 35,000,007,292 time per second. The extra 7,292
> oscillations are from the KINETIC energy the moving target adds to the
> photon. An atom in the car receives the photon AS IF it was oscillating
> 35,000,007,292 time per second and the atom cannot hold ANY excess
> energy, so it emits a NEW photon back toward the radar gun that
> oscillates at 35,000,007,292 time per second.

nonsense. You don't quantify like that. 34 teraHertz plus the minimum,
reveals you incompetent in physics. There is a need for homodyne setup.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> A radar gun emits photons...

It would be better if you used a different word than "photon", because that word has a well established meaning. In physics, the word "photon" refers to an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism, and (for example) a photon does not oscillate, so when you say "these photons oscillate at such and such a frequency", you are referring to something different than what the word means. It's not just confusing, it's actually dishonest, because by using the word "photon" you are trying to smuggle the credibility that the scientific concept of a photon already possesses, even though you are using the word to refer to something completely different. It would be better and more honest for you to coin a new word for your concept, like "foton" or "Laketon". In order to communicate, your sentences can really only be parsed if we substitute the word foton for photon.

> that travel at the speed of light, c.

In terms of what reference system? As you know, everything has many different speeds (like the earth moving around the sun, etc.), so whenever you specify a speed you need to specify the reference system. Otherwise your statement is indefinite.

> Those [fotons] oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v.
> That gives the [fotons] an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.

Here you contradict yourself, because the speed at which an object encounters an oscillating foton would not cause the frequency of oscillation to be any different. Remember, relativistic time dilation is many orders of magnitude too small to account for the frequency shift that is observed depending on the relative speed between source and receiver. The way scientists explain the observed frequency shift of the radiation is by the Doppler effect, but that doesn't apply to an oscillating particle like your foton, it applies only to propagating variations of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the observed Doppler effect on frequency is consistent with the scientific concept of photons and electromagnetic radiation, but it is not consistent with your concept of what I'm calling a foton (to distinguish it from a photon and avoid conflating the two).

> Atoms in the vehicle send [fotons] with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun.

The only way for the atoms in the vehicle to do such a thing would be to sense the energy of the incident foton in the frame of the vehicle, and then send a return foton with the same energy in the frame. But this has nothing to do with the hypothesized oscillation of the foton, it depends purely on the direct extrinsic kinetic energy of movement, not on its internal energy of oscillation, which would be independent of its speed of motion. So you could dispense with the oscillation altogether, and just say the vehicle senses the energy of the incoming foton and sends a return foton with the same energy (both in terms of the vehicle's frame).

> Those photons also travel at c.

In terms of what system of reference? See above.

> The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it emitted to the
> oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it got back and is thus able to compute the
> speed of the oncoming vehicle.

In science, with actual photons, it is true that the ratio of transmitted to returned frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and vehicle, but with your fotons this doesn't work, unless you switch from frequency to energy.... but actual speed guns don't work with energy, they work with frequency (although in theory they *could* work with energy, it just wouldn't be practical).

> The only way this is possible is if the [fotons] hit the target at c+v...

Well, a pulse of light arrives at the vehicle at speed c+v in terms of a system of reference related to the gun's system of reference by a Galilean transformation, but it arrives at speed c in terms of the inertial system of reference of the vehicle. That's why it's so important for you to specify what system of reference you are talking about. But this is really a side issue. The main contradiction in your reasoning is that you think an oscillating particle would appear to exhibit a different frequency when encountering some object, depending on the object's speed. That is untrue, because such oscillation is intrinsic.

Do you see the contradiction, or should I explain it more fully?

It would also help if you could state which phenomena you've observed with your simple radar speed gun that you think is inconsistent with what science predicts for its behavior. Have you ever observed it to read anything other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 23:24:03 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 4:39 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:41:44 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/11/2021 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:56:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney 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:
> >>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> NO! That is STUPID! If radar guns emitted waves, the returning waves
> >>> from different parts of the target and from ground objects would be all
> >>> jumbled up and there would be no way to tell one wave from another.
> >> Which is why there are filters and DSP circuitry to sort things out.
> >>>
> >>>> From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO COMPARISON between sound waves and PHOTONS.
> >> But there is a valid comparison between sound WAVES and electromagnetic
> >> WAVES. There are many differences but many similarities. Including the
> >> Doppler effect.
> >>> People use that comparison only when talking with someone who does
> >>> not have the time to learn and comprehend the actual science.
> >> Sounds like yourself.
> >>>
> >>>>> That difference in
> >>>>> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
> >>>>> c and c+v.
> >>>> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
> >>>
> >>> Going faster than c is impossible. If light is traveling at c and hits an
> >>> on coming object traveling at v, the object will encounter the light hitting
> >>> at c+v.
> >> You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences.
> >>> Some call it "the closing speed." Nothing is going faster than c.
> >> Nope. Closing speed is adding (or subtracting) two different speeds as
> >> observed by a third party observer and only valid to that observer. It
> >> is correct to state someone standing along the road can observe the
> >> microwave beam moving at c and the car moving at v and add those speeds
> >> to get a speed c+v, but that's not involving anything happening at the
> >> car itself. Nor is it the speed of anything.
> >
> > Okay, "closing speed" has a different meaning for you than for me.
> I hope you know that making up your own definitions for words and
> phrases you don't understand, then using your personal definition as if
> it was the real one, is a red flag of a crackpot.

Like your idiot guru.

> No point for me to "learn" physics from someone who doesn't even
> understand physics!

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

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:09:46 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.

Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun read anything other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

Do you agree that the difference between the transmitted and reflected frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 4:30:08 PM UTC-6, Gregor Bicha wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> >> How can c+v and c-v be "differences in frequency"?????
> >
> > Good question, and this is my last answer for today:
> > A photon oscillating 35,000,000,000 times per second will hit an
> > approaching target traveling at 70 miles per hour AS IF it was
> > oscillating 35,000,007,292 time per second. The extra 7,292
> > oscillations are from the KINETIC energy the moving target adds to the
> > photon. An atom in the car receives the photon AS IF it was oscillating
> > 35,000,007,292 time per second and the atom cannot hold ANY excess
> > energy, so it emits a NEW photon back toward the radar gun that
> > oscillates at 35,000,007,292 time per second.
> nonsense. You don't quantify like that. 34 teraHertz plus the minimum,
> reveals you incompetent in physics. There is a need for homodyne setup.

35 GIGAhertz is a common oscillating frequency for photons emitted by
radar guns. Nothing else in Nature emits photons of that frequency, so
the returning photons can easily be separated from Nature's photons.

The "homodyne setup" is in the radar gun. It combines the photons it
emitted to the photons it gets back, which produces the BEAT frequency -
which would be 7,292 Hertz for a target traveling at 70 mph.

7,292 Hertz as a percentage of 35 GigaHertz is directly convertible to
70 mph as a percentage of 670,616,629 mph, the speed of light. You
just need to multiply 35 GHz by 2 first. I have a table of such calculations
on page 7 of my paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" at this link:
https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>> Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>
> Photons exist. So, they're not just a "model." Richard Feynman
> stated how you can adjust an emitter so that it emits fewer and
> fewer photons, and you can have a photomultiplier device that
> counts the photons as they arrive and where each one hits.
>
>>> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.
>> Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>
> Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.
> But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
> people who think the model represents reality.

Ed, this is where you lose your grip. Photons and waves are both models.
They both describe real things in the world.

This exemplifies your lack of understanding of physics (and of science in
general), where you select one model for favor and denigrate others.
Physicists don’t do that. They recognize that there are different ways to
describe the same phenomena in nature, and their suitability often depends
on context. You are telling physicists, no, no, no, there should be one and
only one correct way to describe things and how they work. Physicists will
tell you, no, no, no, there are multiple ways to describe the same things
in nature. This happens over and over in physics.

>
>>
>> Each model has their strengths and weaknesses in different situations.
>
> No. One is reality, the other is a model.
>
>>> 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.
>> Eh? They all add linearly to an overall return signal.
>
> How? What does the wave look like? If it is like a sound wave, it
> will hit the bumper first, then the windshield, and all the while it
> is also hitting the ground at countless locations. If they all produce
> "an overall return signal," how is that possible?

The superposition principle is covered in a first year physics book, and it
is assumed that anyone who reads further on more advanced topics like
relativity and quantum mechanics is already familiar with it.

Keep in mind, sonar does work, even though from the above it seems you
cannot image how that’s possible. You think that waves will always get
hopelessly scrambled, and you use this “argument” to claim that radio waves
cannot possibly be how radar guns work. And yet sonar works, with sound
waves, and sound waves do all the things you point out that you say make it
impossible to work.

One additional comment about what you think physics is. You’ve said that
physics is about figuring out how things work. Taking apart a toaster to
see how it works is not physics. Talking to users of toasters to see what
happens when they use toasters in different applications is not physics.
Likewise, taking apart a radar gun or studying documents about how they
work is not physics. Talking with police officers about what happens when
they use them is not physics. It would help if you would learn what physics
really is, rather than just trying to align physics with the kind of
“analysis” you like to do. What you do is not doing physics.

>
>>> There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
>>> to the transmitted waves.
>> That is the purpose of a bandpass filter (or DSP circuit). After
>> combining with (subtracting) the original transmission frequency there
>> will be signals typically in the audio range. Based on signal strength
>> and range of interest, the filter/DSP will select for a frequency and
>> reject the others. This gets converted to a speed displayed (or the
>> display is blanked if the circuitry determines there is no valid signal).
>
> Radar guns emit photons that oscillate at a specific frequency that
> is not emitted by anything else, for example 35 Gigahertz. The guns
> receive photons in all ranges. It ignores those photons that are not
> within a few thousand Hertz from 35 Ghz. It compares those remaining
> photons to the photons it emitted. Those that oscillate at the same
> frequency are from the ground or stationary objects. Those that oscillate
> less than a few thousand Hz away from 35 Ghz are moving objects of
> interest. If there is only one target, the gun shows the speed of that target.
> If there are more than one target, the gun typically shows the speed of
> the fastest moving target.
>
>>>
>>> With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will
>>> oscillate at the same frequency,
>> Photons don't oscillate.
>>> and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
>>> same frequency.
>> Photons don't oscillate. But if they did, now you have a "scrambled"
>> return signal of all those photons oscillating at different frequencies.
>
> You CANNOT HAVE a scrambled return signal with photons. EACH PHOTON
> IS A SIGNAL. NASA has an article which describes how you can emit a single
> photon and get a single photon back and measure the speed of the target.
>
> With WAVES you can have a scrambled signal because A SINGLE WAVE
> MEANS NOTHING. All it tells you is the DISTANCE to something.
> When you have TWO waves you have a "signal" that tells you the speed of a
> target. When you have TEN waves you can have the speed of MANY
> DIFFERENT TARGETS all scrambled together.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Nope. If you talk about science you have to use a model which describes
>> what's going on best for the situation. (For Doppler radar, the wave
>> model works better)
>
> That's the way to get WRONG answers. If you talk about science you should
> use the objects that demonstrate the science - like radar guns -- not some
> "model" that may or may not represent reality. REAL OBJECTS represent
> reality best.
>
>>
>> Plus you CANNOT make up garbage which was never part of the model and
>> add it in. "Oscillating photons", I'm talking about you.
>
> If oscillating photons are not part of YOUR MODEL, then YOUR MODEL IS CRAP.

No, Ed. You are saying that unless the model adheres to your guesses as to
what it means, then it is crap. Frequency as applied to photons does not
refer to a wiggling back and forth or a spinning around some axis. I get
that it must be frustrating to run into a word you THINK you understand in
this context and discover people telling you that it’s wrong.

Getting angry at discovering you don’t understand something is fruitless.

>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:36:51 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> 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????
>> Oh, like the claim that a radar gun pointed at the front of a trailer being
>> towed by a truck, while the radar gun is held by a rider in the truck, will
>> read the trailer’s road speed rather than zero. Your response was, oh, this
>> radar gun must be secretly DESIGNED to subtract the road speed of the gun.
>
> No, my response was that you need TWO radar guns that operate at
> the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY, or you need an emitter that emits
> photons at the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY as your radar gun.
> That way, when the photons hit the MEASURING GUN they will hit
> at c+v or c-v depending upon whether the MEASURING GUN is at the rear
> of the truck or at the front.

And there’s no good argument for needing that. The receiver in the one gun
is a different device than the emitter in the same gun. Does the reflection
off the surface of the trailer have no effect, according to you? If not,
then your explanation of how the gun works doesn’t apply.

>
> I describe that proposed experiment in detail starting on page 8 of my
> paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
>
> (snip repetitious stuff)
>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:41:44 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:56:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney 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:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> NO! That is STUPID! If radar guns emitted waves, the returning waves
>>> from different parts of the target and from ground objects would be all
>>> jumbled up and there would be no way to tell one wave from another.
>> Which is why there are filters and DSP circuitry to sort things out.
>>>
>>>> From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
>>>
>>> There is NO COMPARISON between sound waves and PHOTONS.
>> But there is a valid comparison between sound WAVES and electromagnetic
>> WAVES. There are many differences but many similarities. Including the
>> Doppler effect.
>>> People use that comparison only when talking with someone who does
>>> not have the time to learn and comprehend the actual science.
>> Sounds like yourself.
>>>
>>>>> That difference in
>>>>> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
>>>>> c and c+v.
>>>> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
>>>
>>> Going faster than c is impossible. If light is traveling at c and hits an
>>> on coming object traveling at v, the object will encounter the light hitting
>>> at c+v.
>> You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences.
>>> Some call it "the closing speed." Nothing is going faster than c.
>> Nope. Closing speed is adding (or subtracting) two different speeds as
>> observed by a third party observer and only valid to that observer. It
>> is correct to state someone standing along the road can observe the
>> microwave beam moving at c and the car moving at v and add those speeds
>> to get a speed c+v, but that's not involving anything happening at the
>> car itself. Nor is it the speed of anything.
>
> Okay, "closing speed" has a different meaning for you than for me.
> To me, if I am traveling at 50 mph toward a car that is moving at
> 50 mph toward me, our "closing speed" is 100 mph. I can point my
> radar gun at oncoming traffic as I drive along a street, and my gun
> will add together my speed and the speed of the oncoming traffic.
> If that isn't "closing speed," what is it?

This is a clear example of you guessing what a jargon term means, rather
than learning what it means. When you do this, you’re going to make a
mistake.

Guessing on a newsgroup and expecting that if your guess is wrong, someone
will educate you, is a bad strategy. All that happens is that the value of
what you say decreases every single time you misstep, until the only
response you get is “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

>
> If you are moving toward a star, the light from that star will be BLUE
> shifted, meaning its light will have a higher frequency than what the star
> actually emitted. If you are moving away from a star, the light from
> that star will be RED shifted, meaning its light will have a lower
> frequency than what the star actually emitted. The difference in
> frequency is c+v and c-v.
>
>>
>> The (inertially) moving car observes a microwave beam moving at c
>> relative to it.
>>
>>> My paper
>>
>> I don't care about "papers" written in ignorance. Archimedes Plutonium
>> has spewed out hundreds of Kindle "books" and is very proud of that
>> fact. But they just repeat his nonsense so they are all nonsense. Same
>> for your "paper".
>>> Read it. You might learn something.
>> Maybe about how the crank mind operates.
>
> Well, if you refuse to learn, there is no point in anyone trying to teach
> you anything.

Ed, if you don’t know what terms like “closing speed” mean in physics, then
why would you take the stance that you have something of value to teach
others?

>
> Ed
>

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

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:20:38 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > A radar gun emits photons...
>
> It would be better if you used a different word than "photon", because that word has a well established meaning.

Actually, it doesn't. There are DOZENS of different definitions. Generally,
the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

> In physics, the word "photon" refers to an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism, and (for example) a photon does not oscillate, so when you say "these photons oscillate at such and such a frequency", you are referring to something different than what the word means.

A photon is the transmission of energy from one atom to another.
That energy is in the form of oscillations of electric and magnetic
fields within the photon. The number of oscillations per second
represents the energy contained in the photon.

> It's not just confusing, it's actually dishonest, because by using the word "photon" you are trying to smuggle the credibility that the scientific concept of a photon already possesses, even though you are using the word to refer to something completely different. It would be better and more honest for you to coin a new word for your concept, like "foton" or "Laketon". In order to communicate, your sentences can really only be parsed if we substitute the word foton for photon.
> > that travel at the speed of light, c.
> In terms of what reference system? As you know, everything has many different speeds (like the earth moving around the sun, etc.), so whenever you specify a speed you need to specify the reference system. Otherwise your statement is indefinite.

Photons travel at the speed of light, c, which is relative to the
atom that emitted the photon. As Einstein's Second Postulate
says, regardless any motion of the emitter (the atom) light
will travel at c. That is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
RELATIVE to the emitting atom.

Yes, that means that light emitted by an atom in a comet will
travel at a different c than light emitted by an atom on Earth.
That is because a second is shorter on the comet than it is
on Earth. See my paper on "Variable Time and the Variable
Speed of Light": https://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf

>
> > Those [fotons] oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v.
> > That gives the [fotons] an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.
>
> Here you contradict yourself, because the speed at which an object encounters an oscillating foton would not cause the frequency of oscillation to be any different. Remember, relativistic time dilation is many orders of magnitude too small to account for the frequency shift that is observed depending on the relative speed between source and receiver.

The "APPARENT higher oscillation frequency" has nothing to do with
Time Dilation. It's all about energy. The photon has a specific amount
of energy, and when it hits an object traveling at v toward the light,
the moving object transfers KINETIC energy to the photon when the
photon is absorbed by an atom in the object. The amount of KINETIC
energy that is added is convertible to v.

> The way scientists explain the observed frequency shift of the radiation is by the Doppler effect, but that doesn't apply to an oscillating particle like your foton, it applies only to propagating variations of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the observed Doppler effect on frequency is consistent with the scientific concept of photons and electromagnetic radiation, but it is not consistent with your concept of what I'm calling a foton (to distinguish it from a photon and avoid conflating the two).
>
> > Atoms in the vehicle send [fotons] with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun.
>
> The only way for the atoms in the vehicle to do such a thing would be to sense the energy of the incident foton in the frame of the vehicle, and then send a return foton with the same energy in the frame. But this has nothing to do with the hypothesized oscillation of the foton, it depends purely on the direct extrinsic kinetic energy of movement, not on its internal energy of oscillation, which would be independent of its speed of motion. So you could dispense with the oscillation altogether, and just say the vehicle senses the energy of the incoming foton and sends a return foton with the same energy (both in terms of the vehicle's frame).

So, we agree. The moving target adds KINETIC energy to the photon.

> > Those photons also travel at c.
> In terms of what system of reference? See above.

In terms of the emitting source. See above.

>
> > The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it emitted to the
> > oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it got back and is thus able to compute the
> > speed of the oncoming vehicle.
>
> In science, with actual photons, it is true that the ratio of transmitted to returned frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and vehicle, but with your fotons this doesn't work, unless you switch from frequency to energy.... but actual speed guns don't work with energy, they work with frequency (although in theory they *could* work with energy, it just wouldn't be practical).

Frequency is directly related to energy. The amount of energy in a photon
depends upon its oscillation frequency.

>
> > The only way this is possible is if the [fotons] hit the target at c+v....
>
> Well, a pulse of light arrives at the vehicle at speed c+v in terms of a system of reference related to the gun's system of reference by a Galilean transformation, but it arrives at speed c in terms of the inertial system of reference of the vehicle.

Total nonsense. The speed of light is Nature's reference system.
NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light. All motion by
other objects can be valued as a percentage of the speed of light.
That's why Einstein said that the aether becomes "superfluous."
You don't need it. You can use Nature's speed limit as measuring
stick for all other speeds.

A photon emitted by an emitter will hit an oncoming object at c+v,
and it will hit a receding object at c-v. The difference will be shown
by the energy of the photon. When the photon hits at c+v, Kinetic
energy is added to the photon. When the photon hits a c-v, Kinetic
energy is subtracted from the photon.

> That's why it's so important for you to specify what system of reference you are talking about. But this is really a side issue. The main contradiction in your reasoning is that you think an oscillating particle would appear to exhibit a different frequency when encountering some object, depending on the object's speed. That is untrue, because such oscillation is intrinsic.
>
> Do you see the contradiction, or should I explain it more fully?

There is no contradiction. You just fail to understand how Relativity
works. It uses Nature's maximum speed as a reference for all other
speeds.

>
> It would also help if you could state which phenomena you've observed with your simple radar speed gun that you think is inconsistent with what science predicts for its behavior. Have you ever observed it to read anything other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

Science correctly predicts all behavior by radar guns. It is MATHEMATICIANS
who cannot accept how radar guns work.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:

>> > oscillating 35,000,007,292 time per second and the atom cannot hold
>> > ANY excess energy, so it emits a NEW photon back toward the radar gun
>> > that oscillates at 35,000,007,292 time per second.
>> nonsense. You don't quantify like that. 34 teraHertz plus the minimum,
>> reveals you incompetent in physics. There is a need for homodyne setup.
>
> 35 GIGAhertz is a common oscillating frequency for photons emitted by
> radar guns. Nothing else in Nature emits photons of that frequency, so
> the returning photons can easily be separated from Nature's photons.

does not matter, you count the difference, not the giga. Your giga is 5G.

What's the resolution on Hertz?

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:55:42 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:09:46 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
> Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun read anything other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a SPEED.
That SPEED represents (c+v)-c for an approaching target or (c+v+v)-c
for a moving radar moving toward and approaching target.

>
> Do you agree that the difference between the transmitted and reflected frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

No. See above.

Ed

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
> > Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun read anything other
> > than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?
>
> A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a SPEED.

But the rate of change of distance is a speed, and this is the speed that a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun reads. For example, if you are driving at 30 mph and point the gun at someone ahead of you who is driving (same direction) at 60 mph, the gun will read 30 mph. That's the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target. Likewise if the person ahead was driving straight toward you at 60 mph, the gun would read 90 mph. Again that is the rate of change of the distance between you. That is always what a simple radar gun displays.

So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun read anything other than the rate of change of the distance?

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >> Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
> >
> > Photons exist. So, they're not just a "model." Richard Feynman
> > stated how you can adjust an emitter so that it emits fewer and
> > fewer photons, and you can have a photomultiplier device that
> > counts the photons as they arrive and where each one hits.
> >
> >>> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.
> >> Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
> >
> > Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.
> > But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
> > people who think the model represents reality.
> Ed, this is where you lose your grip. Photons and waves are both models.
> They both describe real things in the world.
>
> This exemplifies your lack of understanding of physics (and of science in
> general), where you select one model for favor and denigrate others.
> Physicists don’t do that. They recognize that there are different ways to
> describe the same phenomena in nature, and their suitability often depends
> on context. You are telling physicists, no, no, no, there should be one and
> only one correct way to describe things and how they work. Physicists will
> tell you, no, no, no, there are multiple ways to describe the same things
> in nature. This happens over and over in physics.

It happens when mathematicians use different equations instead of finding
out EXACTLY how something works. Science is about defining problems
and solutions. I use the scientific method.

The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that
describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis,
and 4) draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis until all tests produce
the same result.
Critical thinking is a key component of the scientific method. Without it,
you cannot use logic to come to conclusions.

If you conclude that a photon is BOTH a particle and a wave, then YOU
HAVE A PROBLEM. You need to perform experiments to define EXACTLY
how a photon works. That has been done many times. A photon is a
discrete quantity of energy in the form of a particle that always travels
at the speed of light. It's energy is in the form of oscillations of its
electric and magnetic fields. The faster the oscillation rate, the more
energy the photon contains.

(snip repetitious stuff)

Ed

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:58 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:36:51 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> 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????
> >> Oh, like the claim that a radar gun pointed at the front of a trailer being
> >> towed by a truck, while the radar gun is held by a rider in the truck, will
> >> read the trailer’s road speed rather than zero. Your response was, oh, this
> >> radar gun must be secretly DESIGNED to subtract the road speed of the gun.
> >
> > No, my response was that you need TWO radar guns that operate at
> > the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY, or you need an emitter that emits
> > photons at the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY as your radar gun.
> > That way, when the photons hit the MEASURING GUN they will hit
> > at c+v or c-v depending upon whether the MEASURING GUN is at the rear
> > of the truck or at the front.
> And there’s no good argument for needing that. The receiver in the one gun
> is a different device than the emitter in the same gun. Does the reflection
> off the surface of the trailer have no effect, according to you? If not,
> then your explanation of how the gun works doesn’t apply.

I explain all that on page 9 in my paper about "Relativity and Radar Guns."

BOTH guns will measure the speed of the walls as zero as if they were the
ground, and they will measure the speed of the truck by comparing the
photons from the SECOND GUN to the photons emitted by the FIRST GUN.
The raw photons from the SECOND GUN will be processed as if they came
from a target, and the speed will be shown as the target speed.

> >
> > I describe that proposed experiment in detail starting on page 8 of my
> > paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
> >
> > (snip repetitious stuff)

Ed

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-6, Coke Alva wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> >> > oscillating 35,000,007,292 time per second and the atom cannot hold
> >> > ANY excess energy, so it emits a NEW photon back toward the radar gun
> >> > that oscillates at 35,000,007,292 time per second.
> >> nonsense. You don't quantify like that. 34 teraHertz plus the minimum,
> >> reveals you incompetent in physics. There is a need for homodyne setup.
> >
> > 35 GIGAhertz is a common oscillating frequency for photons emitted by
> > radar guns. Nothing else in Nature emits photons of that frequency, so
> > the returning photons can easily be separated from Nature's photons.
> does not matter, you count the difference, not the giga. Your giga is 5G.
>
> What's the resolution on Hertz?

The difference is 7,292 Hertz. I do not understand what you mean by
"Your giga is 5g."

Ed

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:03:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
> > > Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun read anything other
> > > than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?
> >
> > A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a SPEED.
> But the rate of change of distance is a speed, and this is the speed that a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun reads. For example, if you are driving at 30 mph and point the gun at someone ahead of you who is driving (same direction) at 60 mph, the gun will read 30 mph. That's the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target. Likewise if the person ahead was driving straight toward you at 60 mph, the gun would read 90 mph. Again that is the rate of change of the distance between you. That is always what a simple radar gun displays.
>
> So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun read anything other than the rate of change of the distance?

No.

Ed Lake wrote:

>> does not matter, you count the difference, not the giga. Your giga is
>> 5G.
>>
>> What's the resolution on Hertz?
>
> The difference is 7,292 Hertz. I do not understand what you mean by
> "Your giga is 5g."

giga is the region allocated 5G. The 26 GHz is sucked in by oxygen,
preventing you from breathing. What's the resolution in speed per Hertz,
or you don't know it yet??

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:29:52 PM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-6, Coke Alva wrote:

> The difference is 7,292 Hertz. I do not understand what you mean by
> "Your giga is 5g."

LOL!!!

Keep e'm coming Ned...!

On 11/12/21 11:31 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:03:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson
> wrote:
>> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>>>> I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
>>>> Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun
>>>> read anything other than the rate of change of the distance
>>>> between gun and target?
>>> A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a
>>> SPEED.
>> But the rate of change of distance is a speed, and this is the
>> speed that a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun reads.[...]
>> So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun
>> read anything other than the rate of change of the distance?
>
> No.

Finally! A correct statement about radar guns from Ed Lake.

So what do you think about your original claim (many moons ago) that
such a radar gun inside a closed truck, aimed from the front at the
inside of its back, would indicate the road speed of the truck, rather
than zero? Have you tried this with your radar gun?

So what do you think of your original claim (many moons ago) that such a
radar gun in a moving vehicle, pointed at a tree straight ahead, would
read zero, rather than the road speed of the vehicle? Have you tried
this with your radar gun?

Have you made any progress in understanding what the word "always" means
in the introduction to Einstein's 1905 paper? In particular, for the
propagation of light [#] does "the definite velocity c" apply to the
inertial frame in which the radar gun is at rest, as well as that of the
roadway and that of the target of the radar gun?

Hint: "always" does include all three frames I just mentioned.
And, of course, it includes both the initial emitted beam and
the reflected beam, independent of the radar gun's speed and
the target's speed (both relative to the roadway or anything
else).

[#] Unstated, but implicitly in vacuum.

Tom Roberts

On 11/12/21 10:43 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> There are DOZENS of different definitions [of the word "photon"]. Generally,
> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

You are confusing popularizations of physics with physics. In different
popularizations, different meanings of words are used. In physics, the
word "photon" has a single meaning, and it is what Townes Olson said:
"an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism".

[This inherently includes the fact that photons do not
oscillate, and that individual photons do not "have"
a speed; but coherent beams of myriad photons do
oscillate (under the right conditions), and do have a
definite speed (which is c in vacuum, relative to any
locally inertial frame). I am speaking loosely here.]

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 19:32:57 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/12/21 11:31 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:03:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> >>>>> I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
> >>>> Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun
> >>>> read anything other than the rate of change of the distance
> >>>> between gun and target?
> >>> A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a
> >>> SPEED.
> >> But the rate of change of distance is a speed, and this is the
> >> speed that a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun reads.[...]
> >> So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun
> >> read anything other than the rate of change of the distance?
> >
> > No.
> Finally! A correct statement about radar guns from Ed Lake.
>
> So what do you think about your original claim (many moons ago) that
> such a radar gun inside a closed truck, aimed from the front at the
> inside of its back, would indicate the road speed of the truck, rather
> than zero? Have you tried this with your radar gun?
>
> So what do you think of your original claim (many moons ago) that such a
> radar gun in a moving vehicle, pointed at a tree straight ahead, would
> read zero, rather than the road speed of the vehicle? Have you tried
> this with your radar gun?
>
> Have you made any progress in understanding what the word "always" means
> in the introduction to Einstein's 1905 paper? In particular, for the
> propagation of light [#] does "the definite velocity c" apply to the
> inertial frame in which the radar gun is at rest, as well as that of the
> roadway and that of the target of the radar gun?
>
> Hint: "always" does include all three frames I just mentioned.
> And, of course, it includes both the initial emitted beam and
> the reflected beam, independent of the radar gun's speed and
> the target's speed (both relative to the roadway or anything
> else).

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 dis.

On 11/12/2021 11:43 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:20:38 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> A radar gun emits photons...
>>
>> It would be better if you used a different word than "photon", because that word has a well established meaning.
>
> Actually, it doesn't. There are DOZENS of different definitions. Generally,
> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

Yet those definitions don't include that bit about "oscillation". Maybe
the Laketon does, if you want to define it that way.
>
>> In physics, the word "photon" refers to an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism, and (for example) a photon does not oscillate, so when you say "these photons oscillate at such and such a frequency", you are referring to something different than what the word means.
>
> A photon is the transmission of energy from one atom to another.
> That energy is in the form of oscillations of electric and magnetic
> fields within the photon.

That's not part of any definition of photon.

> The number of oscillations per second
> represents the energy contained in the photon.

Which is different in different reference frames. We see this as
redshift/blueshift (Doppler effect).
>
>> It's not just confusing, it's actually dishonest, because by using the word "photon" you are trying to smuggle the credibility that the scientific concept of a photon already possesses, even though you are using the word to refer to something completely different. It would be better and more honest for you to coin a new word for your concept, like "foton" or "Laketon". In order to communicate, your sentences can really only be parsed if we substitute the word foton for photon.

Ed, remember what I said just yesterday about making up your own
definition for words and phrases you don't understand? In this case,
you (try to) redefine "photon". Call them "fotons" or "Laketons" as
suggested.

>>> that travel at the speed of light, c.
>> In terms of what reference system? As you know, everything has many different speeds (like the earth moving around the sun, etc.), so whenever you specify a speed you need to specify the reference system. Otherwise your statement is indefinite.
>
> Photons travel at the speed of light, c, which is relative to the
> atom that emitted the photon. As Einstein's Second Postulate
> says, regardless any motion of the emitter (the atom) light
> will travel at c. That is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
> RELATIVE to the emitting atom.

And relative to every other inertial frame as well.
>
> Yes, that means that light emitted by an atom in a comet will
> travel at a different c than light emitted by an atom on Earth.

Violation of Einstein's second postulate, as well as every attempt to
measure the speed of light from moving objects.

> That is because a second is shorter on the comet than it is
> on Earth.

Blithering gibberish.

> See my paper on "Variable Time and the Variable
> Speed of Light": https://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf

Manifestos are not evidence or proof of anything You can't use yourself
as a reference.
>
>>
>>> Those [fotons] oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v.
>>> That gives the [fotons] an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.
>>
>> Here you contradict yourself, because the speed at which an object encounters an oscillating foton would not cause the frequency of oscillation to be any different. Remember, relativistic time dilation is many orders of magnitude too small to account for the frequency shift that is observed depending on the relative speed between source and receiver.
>
> The "APPARENT higher oscillation frequency" has nothing to do with
> Time Dilation. It's all about energy. The photon has a specific amount
> of energy,

[you need to clarify, relative to which frame]

> and when it hits an object traveling at v toward the light,

You must mean at v relative to some frame of reference [which?].

> the moving object transfers KINETIC energy to the photon when the
> photon is absorbed by an atom in the object. The amount of KINETIC
> energy that is added is convertible to v.

Convertible? Who said the speeding car is a convertible?
But what you state is borderline correct if you make reference frames clear.

>>> Atoms in the vehicle send [fotons] with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun.
>>
>> The only way for the atoms in the vehicle to do such a thing would be to sense the energy of the incident foton in the frame of the vehicle, and then send a return foton with the same energy in the frame. But this has nothing to do with the hypothesized oscillation of the foton, it depends purely on the direct extrinsic kinetic energy of movement, not on its internal energy of oscillation, which would be independent of its speed of motion. So you could dispense with the oscillation altogether, and just say the vehicle senses the energy of the incoming foton and sends a return foton with the same energy (both in terms of the vehicle's frame).
>
> So, we agree. The moving target adds KINETIC energy to the photon.

If the reference frames are consistent. (remember, kinetic energy is
frame dependent so you have to keep frames straight).
>
>>> Those photons also travel at c.
>> In terms of what system of reference? See above.
>
> In terms of the emitting source. See above.

And every other inertial reference frame (SR Second Postulate).
>
>>
>>> The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it emitted to the
>>> oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it got back and is thus able to compute the
>>> speed of the oncoming vehicle.
>>
>> In science, with actual photons, it is true that the ratio of transmitted to returned frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and vehicle, but with your fotons this doesn't work, unless you switch from frequency to energy.... but actual speed guns don't work with energy, they work with frequency (although in theory they *could* work with energy, it just wouldn't be practical).
>
> Frequency is directly related to energy.

For large assemblies of photons. (I need to find out how E=hf, or f=E/h
works for large assemblies of photons if an individual photon doesn't
have a frequency)

> The amount of energy in a photon
> depends upon its oscillation frequency.

Maybe that's true for Laketons, but photons don't oscillate.

>>> The only way this is possible is if the [fotons] hit the target at c+v...
>>
>> Well, a pulse of light arrives at the vehicle at speed c+v in terms of a system of reference related to the gun's system of reference by a Galilean transformation, but it arrives at speed c in terms of the inertial system of reference of the vehicle.
>
> Total nonsense. The speed of light is Nature's reference system.

And it's the same in every [inertial] reference frame. Einstein's Second
Postulate.

> NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light.

So why do you claim that your Laketons arrive at the speeding car at c+v?

> All motion by
> other objects can be valued as a percentage of the speed of light.

Nonsense. Motion is variable and depends on reference frames. I am
stationary with respect to Earth, but Earth orbits the sun at something
like 65,000 mph, so I move with respect to the sun at 65,000 mph. (and
with respect to the Milky Way center at...)

> That's why Einstein said that the aether becomes "superfluous."
> You don't need it. You can use Nature's speed limit as measuring
> stick for all other speeds.

No, he said that because all of what he said doesn't depend on
postulating any aether to do that.
>
> A photon emitted by an emitter will hit an oncoming object at c+v,

Violation of Second Postulate.

> and it will hit a receding object at c-v.

Violation of Second Postulate.

> The difference will be shown
> by the energy of the photon. When the photon hits at c+v, Kinetic
> energy is added to the photon. When the photon hits a c-v, Kinetic
> energy is subtracted from the photon.

No, the Doppler Effect is the result of the motion on the photon.
>
>> That's why it's so important for you to specify what system of reference you are talking about. But this is really a side issue. The main contradiction in your reasoning is that you think an oscillating particle would appear to exhibit a different frequency when encountering some object, depending on the object's speed. That is untrue, because such oscillation is intrinsic.
>>
>> Do you see the contradiction, or should I explain it more fully?
>
> There is no contradiction. You just fail to understand how Relativity
> works. It uses Nature's maximum speed as a reference for all other
> speeds.

On 11/12/2021 12:20 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:58 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:

>>> No, my response was that you need TWO radar guns that operate at
>>> the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY, or you need an emitter that emits
>>> photons at the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY as your radar gun.
>>> That way, when the photons hit the MEASURING GUN they will hit
>>> at c+v or c-v depending upon whether the MEASURING GUN is at the rear
>>> of the truck or at the front.
>> And there’s no good argument for needing that. The receiver in the one gun
>> is a different device than the emitter in the same gun. Does the reflection
>> off the surface of the trailer have no effect, according to you? If not,
>> then your explanation of how the gun works doesn’t apply.
>
> I explain all that on page 9 in my paper about "Relativity and Radar Guns."
>
> BOTH guns will measure the speed of the walls as zero as if they were the
> ground, and they will measure the speed of the truck by comparing the
> photons from the SECOND GUN to the photons emitted by the FIRST GUN.
> The raw photons from the SECOND GUN will be processed as if they came
> from a target, and the speed will be shown as the target speed.

If the transmitter and receiver of radar guns are logically separate,
why can't you use the transmitter from just one gun?

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:20:38 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> A radar gun emits photons...
>>
>> It would be better if you used a different word than "photon", because
>> that word has a well established meaning.
>
> Actually, it doesn't. There are DOZENS of different definitions. Generally,
> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

Actually, it is not the “best” definition by any useful standard, other
than the fact that it is understandable by you and uses plain language.

To point out why it isn’t as useful as you seem to think it is, it uses a
phrase of “quantum of…radiation” or “smallest discrete amount
of…radiation”, but I’m willing to bet you do not know what “quantum of
radiation” means, though it is understood by physicists and by those who
have read a lot of physics textbooks.

The best definition is not the one that can be stated concisely in the
plainest language possible. The best definition is one that conveys full
meaning. For something as subtle as photon, this requires pages, not just a
few words. I am willing to bet that you have never a read a definition of
photon that occupies multiple pages.

>
>> In physics, the word "photon" refers to an excitation of the quantum
>> field of electromagnetism, and (for example) a photon does not
>> oscillate, so when you say "these photons oscillate at such and such a
>> frequency", you are referring to something different than what the word means.
>
> A photon is the transmission of energy from one atom to another.
> That energy is in the form of oscillations of electric and magnetic
> fields within the photon.

And that is your guess as to what “photon” means, and it is completely
wrong. There are no fields “inside” photons, nor can there be, by the very
definition of “field”, which you obviously do not know.

> The number of oscillations per second
> represents the energy contained in the photon.
>

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

On 11/12/2021 12:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:

>>> Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>>> But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
>>> people who think the model represents reality.

>> Ed, this is where you lose your grip. Photons and waves are both models.
>> They both describe real things in the world.
>>
>> This exemplifies your lack of understanding of physics (and of science in
>> general), where you select one model for favor and denigrate others.
>> Physicists don’t do that. They recognize that there are different ways to
>> describe the same phenomena in nature, and their suitability often depends
>> on context. You are telling physicists, no, no, no, there should be one and
>> only one correct way to describe things and how they work. Physicists will
>> tell you, no, no, no, there are multiple ways to describe the same things
>> in nature. This happens over and over in physics.
>
> It happens when mathematicians use

Nothing to do with mathematicians. We're discussing physics here, not
mathematics. (*)

> If you conclude that a photon is BOTH a particle and a wave, then YOU
> HAVE A PROBLEM.

No, the conclusion is that light acts like a particle (photon) in some
cases and like a wave in other cases.

Your mistake here is that you've already latched onto the photon model
as if it applies for ALL cases of light/EM radiation. The photon model
doesn't work for diffraction, for example.

> You need to perform experiments to define EXACTLY
> how a photon works.

No, you need to perform experiments to define exactly how LIGHT works.

> That has been done many times. A photon is a
> discrete quantity of energy in the form of a particle that always travels
> at the speed of light.

> It's energy is in the form of oscillations of its
> electric and magnetic fields.

That's your ASSUMPTION, and is not based on facts or any experiment.

When scientists perform experiments on light, they find that SOMETIMES
the [correct, not your] photon model works correctly, and other times
(Diffraction, Doppler effect, etc) the wave model works correctly.

(*) Now, if you're having mathematicians do the science experiments and
your mathematicians concluded that photons oscillate, that's your
problem right there. Mathematicians don't do science experiments. They
need to stick to mathematics, rather than confusing you.