On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:14:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > Your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects
> > > as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.
> >
> > That's because no one has bothered to figure out how...
>
> Your reply doesn't change the fact that your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.

Yes they can. Oscillating photons consist of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
The atoms in the two slits have similar fields surrounding them. It seems clear that
the fields affect each other, just the way polarizing lenses affect light. In fact,
I wrote a paper about how the slits are similar to polarizing lenses. But I withdrew
the paper when it became clear that there was more to it.

> This, along with the illogical features, answers your question about why no one is interested in your concept of "oscillating photons". Remember, you momentarily thought you could explain the quantum effects, but quickly realized that you can't. In contrast, quantum electrodynamics explains things perfectly. That's why people are interested in QED and not in your "oscillating photons".

QED explains SOME things perfectly. But NOT HOW photons can appear
to be BOTH particles and waves. Oscillating photons explains that.

> > I don't recall "invoking the 'different size of a second'" when discussing
> > differences between frequencies and speeds.
> You don't? Just 30 minutes ago, to excuse yourself from answering my simple question about the speed of the light relative to the road, you wrote:
>
> > When you have a moving object and a stationary object you get into the subject
> > of time dilation. A second is shorter for the moving object, so c is not the same
> > in the two "systems of reference,"
> That's what I'm pointing out doesn't make sense, because relativistic time dilation is far too small to account for the difference between c and c+v, and likewise to account for the corresponding differences in frequencies due to the Doppler effect.

When I wrote that I do not want to get into the subject of time dilation
when discussing radar guns, that doesn't mean I am "invoking" the
subject. YOU "invoked" the subject. I merely said I didn't want to get
into that subject.

This discussion is getting tedious.

Ed

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 12:29:43 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects as
> > illustrated by the two-slit experiment.
>
> Yes they can... I wrote a paper about [it]... But I withdrew the paper when it became
> clear that there was more to it.

You contradict yourself. First you say you can explain it, then you admit you can't.

> QED explains SOME things perfectly. But NOT HOW photons can appear
> to be BOTH particles and waves.

That's not true at all. The whole point of QED is to explain how light exhibits both particle-like and wave-like attributes, and it does this perfectly. This was explained in detail here in your previous thread.

> When I wrote that I do not want to get into the subject of time dilation that
> doesn't mean I am "invoking" [time dilation]... This discussion is getting tedious.

Again, you contradict yourself. Each time I ask you to reconcile two contradictory assertions, such as when you say an entity is moving both at speed c and at speed c+v, you say "That's because of time dilation", and then I point out that time dilation is far too small to account for that difference, and you say "I never said it was because of time dilation". And then I post the verbatim quote of you saying it was because of time dilation, and you say "This discussion is getting tedious".

That's how you avoid ever reconciling your self-contradictory assertions. I keep asking you to answer a simple question: If an emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and it emits a pulse of light at speed c relative to the emitter, what is the speed of the pulse relative to the road? Why can you not answer this simple question?

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:54:45 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> > > emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...
> >
> > To be clear about this, if an emitter is moving at speed v along the road and it
> > emits a pulse of light straight ahead, how fast do you think the pulse is moving
> > in the road's system of reference? You say it moves at c relative to the emitter,
> > so are you claiming it moves at c+v relative to the road?
>
> No. Neither one.

Neither one? You said above that photons move at the speed c relative to the emitter. So I'm asking you to tell me, if the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and emits a photon straight ahead, what is the speed of the photon relative to the road?

> When you have a moving object and a stationary object
> you get into the subject of time dilation.

Relativistic time dilation is far too small to account for the differences between c and c+v, and it even has the wrong sign for one direction, so you can't logically invoke time dilation to answer the question. Please tell me the speed of the photon relative to the road.

> Light pulses always move at c!

Relative to what system of reference? You said above that they move at speed c relative to the emitter, so if the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, what is the speed of the light relative to the road?

> The Doppler shift in one direction can negate the Doppler shift in the other direction.

No, the Doppler shift depends only on the rate of change of the distance between source and receiver, so you cannot have red shift from A to B while you have blue shift from B to A. The rate of change of distance between A and B is the same. This is demonstrated in countless ways every day. For example, the light from binary star components shows alternating red and blue shift as the orbiting star is moving toward and away from earth, and likewise we see annual red and blue shift of star frequencies as the earth is moving toward and away from distant single stars. In every case, the Doppler effect depends only on the rate of change of the distance.

> In the truck, the gun at the front of the truck will hit the gun at the back of
> the truck at c+v, where v is the speed of the truck.

But that makes no sense, because the truck is moving at 67000 mph in orbit around the sun, and it's moving at 1000 mph rotating on the earth's equator, and it's moving at various other speeds relative to various other reference systems, so what speed do you believe it would read? Fortunately, science doesn't have that problem, because the Doppler effect doesn't depend on any of those various speeds, it depends only on the rate of change of distance between them, which is zero.

> A radar gun can theoretically work with a single emitted photon and getting
> back a single return photon. NASA describes that process in their web page
> here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm

No, a radar gun doesn't work, even theoretically, with a single photon. That public outreach web page (touting mathematical reasoning!), hosted on the NASA server (which does not stand for National Aeronautics and Quantum Electrodynamics Administration), was written by a retired assistant in the meteorology department who is an amateur educator for K-12 children, and who has given a slightly garbled account of a radar gun in terms of energy, and then asserting by E = h nu that energy is proportional to frequency (which is true only because light does not consist of "oscillating particles"), and hey presto, we can assert that the frequencies will exhibit the noted ratios. Duh. He fails to mention that a single photon would not exhibit that frequency, but the K-12 students he's aiming at probably don't care.

> A photon ... moves like a particle...

No, the concept of a photon in quantum electrodynamics does not "move like a particle". You clearly don't have the slightest conception of what the word "photon" means in QED. Remember the interference in the quantum version of the two-slit experiment? That cannot be explained by anything that "moves like a particle".

> Speed is rate of change of position with time.

Yes! And the quantification of positions and times is called a system of reference. So I ask yet again, if an emitter is moving at speed v relative to the road, and it emits light forward at speed c relative to the emitter, what's the speed of the light relative to the road?

> If a photon is oscillating at 35,000,000,000 Hertz as it travels, its frequency
> has nothing to do with me. BUT, if I am moving toward that oncoming photon
> at 70 mph and the photon HITS me, it will hit with energy equivalent to
> 35,000,002,792 Hertz. Kinetic energy of my motion will add to the energy
> of the original photon.

But you missed the point. We already agreed that the energy of the light pulse relative to the on-coming target is greater than the energy of the pulse relative to the emitter (this would be true for a non-oscillating particle too), but you have not connected this with the oscillation frequency. According to your conception, there is no rational basis for asserting that the frequency of oscillation of the particle relative to the on-coming target is different than the frequency relative to the emitter.

Let me be clear: If, as in modern science, the pulse of light consists of a sequence of phases propagating from emitter to target, then the frequency of those cycling phases is greater relative to the target due to the Doppler effect. However, there is no Doppler effect for an oscillating particle. So, scientists can explain the frequency shift based on their conception of light, but you cannot explain it based on your conception of light. That's the criticism I'm trying to convey to you.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
....
> 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.

“Nie doceniamy tego, jakie mnóstwo naciągaczy i pomyleńców zaludniło
obszary stanowiące przejście pomiędzy nauką współczesną a szpitalami
psychiatrycznymi.“ -- Stanisław Lem (Głos Pana)

On 11/11/21 11:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 11/10/21 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same
>>> from ALL OBSERVERS.
>> Restrict that to observers using inertial coordinates, and it is true,
>> demonstrated by literally zillions of experiments.
>
> Then you should be able to name a few.

Read the metrology literature leading up to the redefinition of the
meter in 1983 -- there are hundreds of measurements. If the (vacuum)
speed of light were not the same in every (locally) inertial frame
occupied by laboratories on earth, that redefinition would never have
happened (also, physics would look completely different without SR).

In the context of Special Relativity, the annual Doppler effect is so
fundamental to astronomy that all data are corrected for it before
publication. It shows that the wavelength and frequency of
electromagnetic radiation from distant objects are Doppler shifted by
reciprocal factors -- that directly implies that the (vacuum) speed of
the light is c relative to the locally inertial frame in which the earth
is at rest during the measurement. This is true for all such frames
throughout the year.

Yes, these are so fundamental that it is challenging to find references.
Fish don't discuss the water, and today physicists don't discuss such
difficult-to-test aspects of SR -- modern tests of SR are at the
part-per-trillion level for other phenomena directly dependent on the
validity of local Lorentz invariance (which is the essence of SR). See
references in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

> Why do you refuse to name these experiments?

I don't "refuse to name them", it is YOU who refuses to look them up and
read them:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

> The FACTS are in evidence. They make it totally clear and undeniable that
> light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the observer
> toward or away from the emitter. Radar guns are the prime example.

That is no "fact", it is YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY.

For that to be a fact, someone would have to have measured the speed of
the radar signal relative to its target. Nobody has ever done that,
because it is such a very difficult experiment.

>>> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c.
>> No. Individual photons don't "have" a speed, and without specifying the
>> coordinates this is too ambiguous for any good use.
>
> What you are saying is that YOU CANNOT DO THE MATH.

Not at all! I have taken a university course on QED and done the math.

What I am saying is that YOU ARE PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT:
* YOU do not know what "photon" actually means.
* YOU do not understand the importance of specifying coordinates
in statements like that.

> Radar guns do NOT emit beams.

Sure thy do. That's what the microwave emissions of a radar gun are
called. THIS IS HOW THESE WORDS ARE USED. But your ignorance is so
profound and so complete that you don't understand that.

> [...]

There's no point in continuing until you actually STUDY physics and
LEARN something about the subject. Attempting to discuss physics with
you is like discussing rainbows with a person who has been blind since
birth. But that person is unable to see -- YOU have no such excuse.

Tom Roberts

On 11/13/2021 12:54 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
Ed, let's take a real life example. The truck is moving down the road
at 50 mph. Radar gun attached to rear wall of trailer. The road
happens to be aligned with earth's rotation, so the road is moving
relative to the center of the earth at 1000 mph. The truck moves in the
direction of the earth's rotation, so it moves at 1050 mph relative to
the earth's center. The earth's center moves at 67,000 mph around the
sun, and it happens to be the right time of day such that the rotational
speed adds to the orbital speed. So the truck is moving at 68,050 mph
relative to the sun.

So what is the "v" that should be used for the front wall of the trailer
which receives the photon at c+v, if the gun is fired from the rear of
the trailer? Justify your answer.

1) 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
2) 1050 mph (speed of truck relative to center of earth)
3) 1000 mph (speed of road relative to earth's center)
4) 68,050 mph (speed of truck relative to the sun)
5) 68,000 mph (speed of road relative to sun)
6) 67,000 mph (speed of earth's center relative to sun)
7) 0 mph (speed of front wall of trailer relative to the rear wall)
8) Something else because I need to mention that the sun moves around
the galactic center, which moves...
9) Something else entirely.

On Saturday, 13 November 2021 at 23:15:04 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
>
> “Nie doceniamy tego, jakie mnóstwo naciągaczy i pomyleńców zaludniło
> obszary stanowiące przejście pomiędzy nauką współczesną a szpitalami
> psychiatrycznymi.“ -- Stanisław Lem (Głos Pana)

And your idiot guru with his "common sense is a collection
of prejudices" was amongst the most important ones and most
responsible for the phenomenon ones.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:45:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> Oscillating photons appear to adequately describe how photons
>>> can seem to be both particles and waves. The only question is:
>>> Why do authors of physics textbooks refuse to view things that way?
>> You already know the answer to that question: Your "oscillating photons"
>> can't account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the
>> two-slit experiment. Remember? In fact, they can't rationally account
>> for any of the phenomena of electrodynamics.
>
> That's because no one has bothered to figure out how the oscillating
> electric and magnetic fields of a photon interact with nearby objects -
> such as the slits in the Double Slit experiment, or a card when the
> photons appear to move into the shadow of the card.

Several comments:
1. If by “no one” you mean you, then I agree that you have not bothered to
try to figure out how oscillating fields interact with nearby objects. Nor
are you really equipped to.
2. It is flatly untrue that none has figured out how photons moved into the
shadow of the card. This is in fact exactly what QED does in detail.
3. It is certainly clear from what happens when you cover up one of the
slits in a double slit experiment that the interference pattern is NOT due
to interaction of any attributes of the photon interacting with the edges
of the slit. If it were, then the pattern would persist regardless of the
number of slits. But this is not what actually happens.

>
> The Double Slit "mystery" is like the particle-wave "mystery." People
> seem content to leave them as "mysteries," rather than solve the
> mysteries and encounter the wrath of people who do not like the
> solution.

It is not nearly as much of a mystery as you make it out to be. Even
Feynman announces it as an non-understandable mystery, and then he proceeds
to explain it. I imagined you stopped reading after the first part.

>
>> On the other hand, the scientific concept of a photon (and electric
>> charges) in quantum electrodynamics correctly accounts for all the
>> quantum phenomena of electromagnetism. It's ironic that you scold
>> scientists for not being interested in your "oscillating photons", which
>> are logically self-contradictory and fail to account for the phenomena,
>> whereas *you* are not interested in quantum electrodynamics, which is
>> logically sound and *does* account for the phenomena. So, it appears
>> that you are the one (not scientists) who lacks interest in rationally
>> understanding things as they really are.
>>
>> Please note that when experts in a field say there are subtle aspects of
>> the subject that are still not fully understood (which is true of every
>> subject), you should not interpret this as meaning that they don't
>> understand the subject any better than you do.
>
> What it SEEMS to mean is that it is not fully understood and they do not
> want to understand it, because they are busy writing textbooks.

Don’t be daft. The number of people doing research on this subject
outweighs the number writing textbooks by 500 to 1.

I’ll repeat. The double slit experiment and the behavior of photons is VERY
well understood. It is not at all understood by you, and the details are
not presented in any of the first year textbooks you have read, but those
are irrelevant to it being understood.

>
>>
>> I think it would be better for you to address the illogical and
>> self-contradictory aspects of your own beliefs that have been pointed
>> out. Rather than confront those, you seem to prefer to engage in
>> scriptural analysis, which is just journalism, not scientific reasoning.
>> For example, on one hand you've agreed that relativistic time dilation
>> is much too small to account for the Doppler shift in frequencies
>> between relatively moving objects, but on the other hand you invoke the
>> "different size of a second" when trying to account for the difference
>> in frequencies and speeds. That is self-contradictory. How do you reconcile this?
>
> I don't recall "invoking the 'different size of a second'" when discussing
> differences between frequencies and speeds. The difference between
> frequencies and speeds when talking about radar guns is about
> combining photon energy with the kinetic energy of the moving target.
>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> I've found DOZENS of different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate
>>> in college physics textbooks. I've never researched definitions of "photon."
>>> I suspect there will be dozens of different definitions of that, too.
>>> But, as I recall, it was difficult to find the word photon in some college
>>> physics textbooks.
>> Well, that’s because freshmen physics textbooks don’t touch on that subject
>> much. What a photon is, exactly, is an subtle thing that cannot be defined
>> simply for laypeople, unless they read a lot of non-photon content FIRST.
>> You have to learn what “field” means. You have to learn what “particle”
>> means. You have to learn what “quantum” means. You have to learn what
>> “quantum spin” means. You can’t learn a topic in physics by looking up an
>> encyclopedia article or by searching for the word in a PDF file or a web
>> page.
>
> But you can learn what different textbooks say about a subject. I just browsed
> through five more textbooks (choosing the ones with the most editions), and
> this is what I found:

Oh good, yet’s look.

>
> ----- start quotes --------
>
> From “College Physics” 9th edition, by Hugh D. Young
> Page 772
> The picture
> of light as an electromagnetic wave isn’t the whole story, however. Several
> effects associated with the emission and absorption of light reveal that it also has
> a particle aspect, in that the energy carried by light waves is packaged in discrete
> bundles called photons or quanta. These apparently contradictory wave and particle
> properties have been reconciled since 1930 with the development of quantum
> electrodynamics, a comprehensive theory that includes both wave and particle
> properties. The propagation of light is best described by a wave model, but
> understanding emission and absorption by atoms and nuclei requires a particle
> approach.

Yes, now notice several things. “Quanta” and “photons” are not defined or
described in any detail here other than “discrete bundles”, which tells you
nothing. Also notice that it says that “apparently contradictory…properties
have been RECONCILED since 1930.” It also does not say that the photons are
either particles or waves, but that the PROPAGATION of light is best
described by a wave model but that emission and absorption requires a
particle model. Not just one or the other.

This is repeated again on the later page….

>
> Page 932
> What is light? The work of Maxwell, Hertz, and others established
> firmly that light is an electromagnetic wave. Interference, diffraction,
> and polarization phenomena show convincingly the wave
> nature of light and other electromagnetic radiation.
> But there are also many phenomena, particularly those involving the emission
> and absorption of electromagnetic radiation, that show a completely different
> aspect of the nature of light, in which it seems to behave as a stream of particles. In
> such phenomena, the energy of light is emitted and absorbed in packages with a
> definite size, called photons or quanta. The energy of a single photon is proportional
> to the frequency of the radiation, and we say that the energy is quantized.
>
> From “College Physics” 9th Edition, by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
>
> Page 762
> In 1905, Einstein published a paper that formulated the theory of light quanta
> (“particles”) and explained the photoelectric effect. He reached the conclusion
> that light was composed of corpuscles, or discontinuous quanta of energy. These
> corpuscles or quanta are now called photons to emphasize their particle-like nature.
> According to Einstein’s theory, the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency
> of the electromagnetic wave associated with it,
>
> same page:
> So in the final analysis, is light a wave or a particle? The answer is neither and
> both: light has a number of physical properties, some associated with waves and
> others with particles.

Yes, notice “the answer is NEITHER and BOTH”. You on the other hand say
that you do not accept this answer, even though it is true. Just because
you do not understand how it is possible does not make it untrue or
inconceivable. It just means that this presentation doesn’t resolve it or
answer it for you.

>
> From “Fundamentals of Physics” 10th Edition, by Jearl Walker:
> Page 1154
>
> In 1905, Einstein proposed that electromagnetic radiation (or simply light) is
> quantized and exists in elementary amounts (quanta) that we now call photons.
> This proposal should seem strange to you because we have just spent several
> chapters discussing the classical idea that light is a sinusoidal wave, with a
> wavelength x, a frequency f, and a speed c such that f=c/x.
>
> Furthermore, in Chapter 33 we discussed the classical light wave as being an
> interdependent combination of electric and magnetic fields, each oscillating at
> frequency f. How can this wave of oscillating fields consist of an elementary
> amount of something—the light quantum? What is a photon?
> The concept of a light quantum, or a photon, turns out to be far more subtle
> and mysterious than Einstein imagined.
> Indeed, it is still very poorly understood.
> In this book, we shall discuss only some of the basic aspects of the photon
> concept, somewhat along the lines of Einstein’s proposal

So notice several things. It says that the photon is NOW KNOWN to be much
different than the particle that Einstein imagined in 1905. This is not a
surprise, as there’s been more than a century’s work on understanding
photons since then. There are also a few unanswered questions about
photons, but it is simply not true that they are veiled completely in
mystery. (Jearl’s comment that they are very poorly understood is actually
incorrect.) Also notice that Jearl says directly that he’s NOT going to
describe all the things that have been learned in the century since
Einstein and is only going to leave things IN THIS BOOK at the level that
was understood a century ago. For better and more modern descriptions,
you’d need a more advanced book than this one.

>
> From “Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics” - 6th
> edition, by Paul M Fishbane; Stephen Gasiorowicz; Stephen T Thornton
>
> Page 1079
> The propagation of light is governed by its wave properties, whereas the exchange
> of energy between light and matter is governed by its particle properties.
> This wave–particle duality is a general property of nature. For example, the propagation
> of electrons (and other so-called particles) is also governed by wave properties,
> whereas the exchange of energy between the electrons and other particles is
> governed by particle properties.

Yes, again, just like the others say, SOME properties of light are better
described by a wave model and SOME properties of light are better described
as a particle model. Not just one or the other. The fact that you insist
that it needs to be one or the other is irrelevant. I get that YOU
PERSONALLY are unhappy with there not being one, single, comprehensive
description of something, but that doesn’t mean that physicists should be.
As I’ve mentioned to you, basic physics courses teach freshmen that several
different models describe the same phenomenon, and that’s a GOOD thing.

>
> From “Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics” - 6th
> edition, by Paul A. Tipler & Gene Mosca. (This textbook has a whole
> section on “Wave-Particle duality.”)
>
> Page 1187:
> We have seen that light, which we ordinarily think of as a wave, exhibits
> particle properties when it interacts with matter, as in the
> photoelectric effect or in Compton scattering. Electrons, which we
> usually think of as particles, exhibit the wave properties of
> interference and diffraction when they pass near the edges of obstacles.
> All carriers of momentum and energy (for example, electrons, atoms, or
> photons) exhibit both wave and particle characteristics. It might be
> tempting to say that an electron, for example, is both a wave and a
> particle, but what does this mean? In classical physics, the concepts of
> waves and particles are mutually exclusive. A classical particle behaves
> like a piece of shot; it can be localized and scattered, it exchanges
> energy suddenly at a point in space, and it obeys the laws of
> conservation of energy and momentum in collisions. It does not exhibit
> interference or diffraction. A classical wave, on the other hand, behaves
> like a sound or light wave; it exhibits diffraction and interference, and
> its energy is spread out continuously in space and time. A classical wave
> and a classical particle are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be both a
> classical particle and a classical wave at the same time.
>
> After Thomas Young observed the two-slit interference pattern by using
> light in 1801, light was thought to be a classical wave. On the other
> hand, the electrons discovered by J. J. Thomson were thought to be
> classical particles. We now know that these classical concepts of waves
> and particles do not adequately describe the complete behavior of any phenomenon.
>
> Everything propagates like a wave and exchanges energy like a particle.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:14:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>>> Your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects
>>>> as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.
>>>
>>> That's because no one has bothered to figure out how...
>>
>> Your reply doesn't change the fact that your "oscillating photons" can't
>> account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.
>
> Yes they can. Oscillating photons consist of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> The atoms in the two slits have similar fields surrounding them. It seems clear that
> the fields affect each other, just the way polarizing lenses affect light. In fact,
> I wrote a paper about how the slits are similar to polarizing lenses. But I withdrew
> the paper when it became clear that there was more to it.

Which means you don’t have an explanation.

While you’re at it, you should seek to understand what happens when one of
the slits is covered up. See Feynman’s book, The Character of Physical Law.

>
>> This, along with the illogical features, answers your question about why
>> no one is interested in your concept of "oscillating photons". Remember,
>> you momentarily thought you could explain the quantum effects, but
>> quickly realized that you can't. In contrast, quantum electrodynamics
>> explains things perfectly. That's why people are interested in QED and
>> not in your "oscillating photons".
>
> QED explains SOME things perfectly. But NOT HOW photons can appear
> to be BOTH particles and waves. Oscillating photons explains that.

No, on the contrary, QED explains the field quantum nature of photons and
why that produces both particle and wave behaviors.

It’s just that you’ve read nothing that explains QED to you.

So you made something up, thinking there was nothing in place yet.

>
>>> I don't recall "invoking the 'different size of a second'" when discussing
>>> differences between frequencies and speeds.
>> You don't? Just 30 minutes ago, to excuse yourself from answering my
>> simple question about the speed of the light relative to the road, you wrote:
>>
>>> When you have a moving object and a stationary object you get into the subject
>>> of time dilation. A second is shorter for the moving object, so c is not the same
>>> in the two "systems of reference,"
>> That's what I'm pointing out doesn't make sense, because relativistic
>> time dilation is far too small to account for the difference between c
>> and c+v, and likewise to account for the corresponding differences in
>> frequencies due to the Doppler effect.
>
> When I wrote that I do not want to get into the subject of time dilation
> when discussing radar guns, that doesn't mean I am "invoking" the
> subject. YOU "invoked" the subject. I merely said I didn't want to get
> into that subject.
>
> This discussion is getting tedious.
>
> Ed
>

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

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:12:28 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> So what is the "v" that should be used for the front wall of the trailer
> which receives the photon at c+v, if the gun is fired from the rear of
> the trailer? Justify your answer.
>
> 1) 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
> 2) 1050 mph (speed of truck relative to center of earth)
> 3) 1000 mph (speed of road relative to earth's center)
> 4) 68,050 mph (speed of truck relative to the sun)
> 5) 68,000 mph (speed of road relative to sun)
> 6) 67,000 mph (speed of earth's center relative to sun)
> 7) 0 mph (speed of front wall of trailer relative to the rear wall)
> 8) Something else because I need to mention that the sun moves around
> the galactic center, which moves...
> 9) Something else entirely.
LOL, good one, couldn't stop laughing

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:12:28 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 12:54 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Ed, let's take a real life example. The truck is moving down the road
> at 50 mph. Radar gun attached to rear wall of trailer. The road
> happens to be aligned with earth's rotation, so the road is moving
> relative to the center of the earth at 1000 mph. The truck moves in the
> direction of the earth's rotation, so it moves at 1050 mph relative to
> the earth's center. The earth's center moves at 67,000 mph around the
> sun, and it happens to be the right time of day such that the rotational
> speed adds to the orbital speed. So the truck is moving at 68,050 mph
> relative to the sun.
>
> So what is the "v" that should be used for the front wall of the trailer
> which receives the photon at c+v, if the gun is fired from the rear of
> the trailer? Justify your answer.
>
> 1) 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
> 2) 1050 mph (speed of truck relative to center of earth)
> 3) 1000 mph (speed of road relative to earth's center)
> 4) 68,050 mph (speed of truck relative to the sun)
> 5) 68,000 mph (speed of road relative to sun)
> 6) 67,000 mph (speed of earth's center relative to sun)
> 7) 0 mph (speed of front wall of trailer relative to the rear wall)
> 8) Something else because I need to mention that the sun moves around
> the galactic center, which moves...
> 9) Something else entirely.

Best answer: #1 - 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)

It's not a perfect answer, since the road is actually part of the earth's
surface at that location, which the correct answer. The earth's surface
is an INERTIAL system. According to Einstein's Second Postulate,
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body." The motion that is used is that of the gun relative
to the surface of the earth --- and the road.

The emitting body is a radar gun in a moving truck. The Second
Postulate says that the photons from the gun will move as if they
were emitted from the ground (i.e., "independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body" - the gun in the truck).

That means the photons will hit the wall of the truck at c+v just as
they would if the gun was fired at the moving truck from the ground.

What about the spin of the earth, the earth's motion around the sun, etc.?
They ALL affect what c is in an inertial system like the surface of
the earth, and you are using c as it is at that location. But the gun
is an emitter moving relative to the surface of the earth, so its photons
will move "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
across the surface of the earth.

Does that answer your question?

Ed

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:32:24 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/11/21 11:05 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 11/10/21 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same
> >>> from ALL OBSERVERS.
> >> Restrict that to observers using inertial coordinates, and it is true,
> >> demonstrated by literally zillions of experiments.
> >
> > Then you should be able to name a few.
>
> Read the metrology literature leading up to the redefinition of the
> meter in 1983 -- there are hundreds of measurements. If the (vacuum)
> speed of light were not the same in every (locally) inertial frame
> occupied by laboratories on earth, that redefinition would never have
> happened (also, physics would look completely different without SR).

So, you admit that you cannot name any such experiments. You want ME
to find them.

>
> In the context of Special Relativity, the annual Doppler effect is so
> fundamental to astronomy that all data are corrected for it before
> publication. It shows that the wavelength and frequency of
> electromagnetic radiation from distant objects are Doppler shifted by
> reciprocal factors -- that directly implies that the (vacuum) speed of
> the light is c relative to the locally inertial frame in which the earth
> is at rest during the measurement. This is true for all such frames
> throughout the year.
>
> Yes, these are so fundamental that it is challenging to find references.
> Fish don't discuss the water, and today physicists don't discuss such
> difficult-to-test aspects of SR -- modern tests of SR are at the
> part-per-trillion level for other phenomena directly dependent on the
> validity of local Lorentz invariance (which is the essence of SR). See
> references in:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation
>
> > Why do you refuse to name these experiments?
>
> I don't "refuse to name them", it is YOU who refuses to look them up and
> read them:
> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

In other words, you REFUSE to name the experiments. You want ME to
look them up. And if I find no such experiments, you will argue that I didn't
look hard enough.

You're just wasting my time.

Ed

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:54:45 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...

If the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and emits a photon straight ahead, what is the speed of the photon relative to the road?

> When you have a moving object and a stationary object you get into the subject
> of time dilation.

Relativistic time dilation is much too small to account for the difference between c and c+-v, and it even has the wrong sign for one direction, so you can't logically invoke time dilation to answer the question.

> The Doppler shift in one direction can negate the Doppler shift in the other direction.

No, the Doppler shift depends only on the rate of change of the distance between source and receiver, so you can't have red shift from A to B while you have blue shift from B to A. The rate of change of distance between A and B is the same. This is demonstrated in countless ways every day. For example, the light from binary star components shows alternating red and blue shift as the orbiting star is moving toward and away from earth, and likewise we see annual red and blue shift of star frequencies as the earth is moving toward and away from distant single stars. In every case, the Doppler effect depends only on the rate of change of the distance.

> In the truck, the gun at the front of the truck will hit the gun at the back of
> the truck at c+v, where v is the speed of the truck.

But we've covered this before, remember? Whenever you make that claim, I point out the ambiguity due to the fact that the "speed of the truck" has many different values relative to different reference systems, e.g., 67000 mph in orbit around the sun, 1000 mph rotating on the earth's equator, and so on. At that point you always switch to claiming that the speed of light is c uniquely relative to the earth (switching from an emission theory to what amounts to a fully dragged ether theory). This contradicts your claim above that light moves at c relative to the emitter, regardless of how the emitter is moving. That's why I keep asking you to tell me the speed of the pulse (from a moving emitter) relative to the road. The reason you cant' answer is because, on some level, you realize your statements are self-contradictory.

Fortunately, science doesn't have that problem, because the Doppler effect depends unambiguously on the rate of change of distance between emitter and receiver, which in this scenario is zero.

> A radar gun can theoretically work with a single emitted photon and getting
> back a single return photon. NASA describes that process in their web page
> here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm

No, a radar gun would not (and could not) work, even theoretically, with a single photon. That public outreach web page (touting mathematical reasoning!), hosted on the NASA server (which does not stand for National Quantum Electrodynamics and Relativity Administration), was written by a retired manager in the astro-meteorology department who is an amateur educator for K-12 children, and who has given a slightly garbled account of a radar gun in terms of energy, and then simply asserts by E = h nu that energy is proportional to frequency (which is true only because light does *not* consist of "oscillating particles"), and hey presto, we can assert that the frequencies will exhibit the noted ratios. Duh. He fails to mention that a single photon does not exhibit that frequency, but the K-12 students he's aiming at don't care.

> A photon ... moves like a particle...

Not at all, the concept of a photon in quantum electrodynamics does not "move like a particle". You clearly don't have the slightest conception of what the word "photon" means in QED. Remember the interference in the quantum version of the two-slit experiment? That cannot be explained by anything that "moves like a particle".

> Speed is rate of change of position with time.

Yes! And the quantification of positions and times is called a system of reference. So I ask yet again, if an emitter is moving at speed v relative to the road, and it emits light forward at speed c relative to the emitter, what's the speed of the light relative to the road?

> If a photon is oscillating at 35,000,000,000 Hertz as it travels, its frequency
> has nothing to do with me. BUT, if I am moving toward that oncoming photon
> at 70 mph and the photon HITS me, it will hit with energy equivalent to
> 35,000,002,792 Hertz. Kinetic energy of my motion will add to the energy
> of the original photon.

You missed the point. We already agreed that the energy of the light pulse relative to the on-coming target is greater than the energy of the pulse relative to the emitter (this would be true for a non-oscillating particle too), but you have not connected this with the oscillation frequency. According to your conception, there is no rational basis for asserting that the frequency of oscillation of the particle relative to the on-coming target is different than the frequency relative to the emitter.

To explain in more detail: Consider a classical machine gun that shoots 10 bullets/sec, with a rifled barrel such that each bullet spins at 800 rev/sec. So the stream of bullets has two different frequencies, 10 Hz and 800 Hz. Now, suppose you are approaching the gun at high speed. The frequency of bullets striking you will be (say) 13 Hz because of the Doppler effect, but the spin rate of the bullets striking you will still be 800 Hz. That's because the Doppler effect applies to extrinsic frequencies of cyclic entities that are spatially and temporally distributed (like sequences of particles or wave crests, etc), but it does not affect intrinsic frequencies such as the spin or oscillation frequencies of individual entities.

With electromagnetic radiation we find that the frequencies in terms of relatively moving reference systems are related precisely in accord with the Doppler formula, so those frequencies are clearly of the extrinsic type, not intrinsic oscillations. This debunks your beliefs about "oscillating photons".

Your beliefs are also debunked by the fact that "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.

> Yes they can... I wrote a paper about [it]... But I withdrew the paper when it became
> clear that there was more to it.

You contradict yourself. First you say you can explain it, then you admit you can't.

> QED explains SOME things perfectly. But NOT HOW photons can appear
> to be BOTH particles and waves.

That's not true at all. The whole point of QED is to explain how light exhibits both particle-like and wave-like attributes, and it does this perfectly. This was explained in detail here in your previous thread.

> When I wrote that I do not want to get into the subject of time dilation that
> doesn't mean I am "invoking" [time dilation]... This discussion is getting tedious.

Again, you contradict yourself. Each time I ask you to reconcile two contradictory assertions about speeds relative to different reference systems, you say "That's because of time dilation", and then I point out that time dilation is far too small to account for that difference, and you say "I never said it was because of time dilation". And then I post the verbatim quote of you saying it was because of time dilation, and you say "This discussion is getting tedious" and you run away.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-8, crank Ed Lake spouted a cretinism:

> Best answer: #1 - 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
LOL, keep up the entertainment, clown.

Dono. wrote:

> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:12:28 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney
> wrote:
>
>> So what is the "v" that should be used for the front wall of the
>> trailer which receives the photon at c+v, if the gun is fired from the
>> rear of the trailer? Justify your answer.
>>
>> 1) 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
>> 2) 1050 mph (speed of truck relative to center of earth)
>> 3) 1000 mph (speed of road relative to earth's center)
>> 4) 68,050 mph (speed of truck relative to the sun)
>> 5) 68,000 mph (speed of road relative to sun)
>> 6) 67,000 mph (speed of earth's center relative to sun)
>> 7) 0 mph (speed of front wall of trailer relative to the rear wall)
>> 8) Something else because I need to mention that the sun moves around
>> the galactic center, which moves...
>> 9) Something else entirely.
> LOL, good one, couldn't stop laughing

which indicates you both are stupid.

Ed Lake wrote:

> Best answer: #1 - 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
> It's not a perfect answer, since the road is actually part of the
> earth's surface at that location, which the correct answer. The earth's
> surface is an INERTIAL system. According to Einstein's Second
> Postulate,
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." The
> motion that is used is that of the gun relative to the surface of the
> earth --- and the road.

you still don't know the resolution involved, diagram or table, Speed/
Hertz?? What kind of expert in gun_radar are you?

Ed Lake wrote:

> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:32:24 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> I don't "refuse to name them", it is YOU who refuses to look them up
>> and read them:
>> https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> In other words, you REFUSE to name the experiments. You want ME to look
> them up. And if I find no such experiments, you will argue that I
> didn't look hard enough. You're just wasting my time.

depopulator fraud fraudci, not an italian, admits the former 2 vaccines
are fraud, and the *booster* shall be the primary you shall have!!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/0erGhgxv0LgI/
Fauci Admits Vaccines Did Not Work as Advertised and that Vaccinated Are
in Great Danger Today

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:54:45 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> > emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...
>
> If the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and emits a photon straight ahead, what is the speed of the photon relative to the road?

The photon moves at c relative to the road.
When the photon hits a sign beside the road, it hits it at c.
The sign then emits a photon back to the radar gun.
That new photon also travels at c, relative to the road.
When the photon hits the moving gun, it hits it at c+v
where v is the speed of the gun.
The gun then subtracts c from c+v and displays v as
the target speed.

I've performed that experiment dozens of times.

The key to understanding all this seems to be that the road and
the sign are INERTIAL objects. The gun is NOT inertial, it is being
propelled to move faster than the local inertial objects. When light
is emitted, it is emitted as if the emitter was sitting on the nearest
INERTIAL object, even when it is actually inside a PROPELLED object
like the moving truck. When the radar gun RECEIVES a photon, it
is an "observer" not an emitter. It receives the photons at the
observers speed PLUS the speed of the photon.

The motion of the emitter (the radar gun inside the moving truck)
does NOT add to the speed of the photons that are emitted.

The motion of the truck will add to the speed of the photons that
were emitted by the radar gun WHEN those photons hit the truck.

Mathematicians seem unable to understand that a moving truck
in a PROPELLED system, even if it is moving at a constant speed.
(snip repetitious stuff)

Ed

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> > > emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...
> >
> > If the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and emits a photon straight
> > ahead, what is the speed of the photon relative to the road?
>
> The photon moves at c relative to the road.

So, in the two quotes above you say the photon travels at speed c relative to the emitter, and you say it travels at c relative to the road. So you are saying (just as Einstein said) that the same pulse of light travels at the speed c relative to two different systems of reference. Likewise the pulse is moving at speed c relative to the target's system of reference, as Einstein also said. And this conclusively debunks all your beliefs. Agreed?

> (snip repetitious stuff)

Your behavior is disgraceful. What you snipped was a careful and detailed explanation of all your misconceptions. Have you no interest in learning what is wrong with your ideas, and actually understanding the subject?

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 3:24:47 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> > > > emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...
> > >
> > > If the emitter is moving at speed v on the road, and emits a photon straight
> > > ahead, what is the speed of the photon relative to the road?
> >
> > The photon moves at c relative to the road.
> So, in the two quotes above you say the photon travels at speed c relative to the emitter, and you say it travels at c relative to the road.

No, I'm saying that a photon travels at c regardless of any motion by the emitter.
I shouldn't have said a photon moves relative to the atom that emits it.
I'd have to dig back to find out in what context I said that. It's wrong.

> So you are saying (just as Einstein said) that the same pulse of light travels at the speed c relative to two different systems of reference.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying (just as Einstein said), "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body."

> Likewise the pulse is moving at speed c relative to the target's system of reference, as Einstein also said. And this conclusively debunks all your beliefs. Agreed?

No, a photon does NOT move at speed c relative to a MOVING target,
and Einstein never said such a thing. IT IS WRONG.

>
> > (snip repetitious stuff)
>
> Your behavior is disgraceful. What you snipped was a careful and detailed explanation of all your misconceptions. Have you no interest in learning what is wrong with your ideas, and actually understanding the subject?

Repetitious crap is repetitious crap.

The best way to discuss a topic is to pick a SINGLE disagreement and
find out exactly what the disagreement is - and who is right.
Arguing a dozen different things at the same time and twisting and
distorting responses just makes it difficult to resolve any disagreement.

Ed

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I shouldn't have said a photon moves relative to the atom that emits it.

But this is the problem: You've been saying this, and then denying it, and then saying it again, back and forth, for years. (If you really had a single self-consistent grasp of the subject, this wouldn't keep happening.) Ironically, what you said was actually correct, i.e., light does indeed propagate (in vacuum) at speed c relative to the emitter's inertial reference system. Furthermore, the same pulse of light propagates at c relative to the road's inertial reference system, and relative to every other inertial reference frame. At various times you have even agreed with this (when you've been pressed), and you've tried to explain it by just second-order time dilation, i.e., the different definitions of a second in each reference system, but it's been explained why that doesn't hold water, and why the explanation is actually the relativity of inertial simultaneity. At this point, you always make some excuse and run away.

> A photon does NOT move at speed c relative to a MOVING target...

You are mistaken, in the sense that a pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every inertial reference system, including the target's inertial reference system. This has been explained to you in detail many times, and you just cover your ears and make loud whooping sounds as you run away.

> The best way to discuss a topic is to pick a SINGLE disagreement and
> find out exactly what the disagreement is - and who is right.

A central point is this: Your concept of an "oscillating photon" is inconsistent with the observed changes in frequency in terms of relatively moving systems of reference. To understand why, consider a classical machine gun that shoots 10 bullets/sec, with a rifled barrel such that each bullet spins at 800 rev/sec. The stream of bullets is characterized by two different frequencies, 10 Hz and 800 Hz. Now, suppose you are approaching the gun at high speed. The frequency of bullets striking you will be (say) 13 Hz because of the Doppler effect, but the spin rate of the bullets striking you will still be 800 Hz.

This is because the Doppler effect applies to extrinsic frequencies of cyclic entities that are spatially and temporally distributed (like sequences of particles or wave crests, etc), but it does not apply to intrinsic frequencies of individual entities such as spin or oscillation. With electromagnetic radiation we find that the frequencies in terms of relatively moving reference systems are related precisely in accord with the Doppler formula, so those frequencies are clearly of the extrinsic type, not intrinsic oscillations. This debunks your beliefs about "oscillating photons". Agreed?

On 11/14/2021 12:52 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:12:28 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 12:54 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> Ed, let's take a real life example. The truck is moving down the road
>> at 50 mph. Radar gun attached to rear wall of trailer. The road
>> happens to be aligned with earth's rotation, so the road is moving
>> relative to the center of the earth at 1000 mph. The truck moves in the
>> direction of the earth's rotation, so it moves at 1050 mph relative to
>> the earth's center. The earth's center moves at 67,000 mph around the
>> sun, and it happens to be the right time of day such that the rotational
>> speed adds to the orbital speed. So the truck is moving at 68,050 mph
>> relative to the sun.
>>
>> So what is the "v" that should be used for the front wall of the trailer
>> which receives the photon at c+v, if the gun is fired from the rear of
>> the trailer? Justify your answer.
>>
>> 1) 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
>> 2) 1050 mph (speed of truck relative to center of earth)
>> 3) 1000 mph (speed of road relative to earth's center)
>> 4) 68,050 mph (speed of truck relative to the sun)
>> 5) 68,000 mph (speed of road relative to sun)
>> 6) 67,000 mph (speed of earth's center relative to sun)
>> 7) 0 mph (speed of front wall of trailer relative to the rear wall)
>> 8) Something else because I need to mention that the sun moves around
>> the galactic center, which moves...
>> 9) Something else entirely.
>
> Best answer: #1 - 50 mph (speed of truck relative to road)
>
> It's not a perfect answer, since the road is actually part of the earth's
> surface at that location, which the correct answer.

What makes the earth's surface special?

> The earth's surface
> is an INERTIAL system.

Almost inertial. As is the truck body, the earth center, the sun etc.
But do note the earth's surface/road move around its axis as the earth
rotates, so it's not truly inertial. Same for the earth in its orbit,
while it is more inertial than its rotating surface, but it's not truly
inertial. Same for the sun in its own orbit....

So of all of these, why is the earth's surface what you pick for your
reference frame?

> According to Einstein's Second Postulate,
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body."

And the motion of the observer. But do go on...

> The motion that is used is that of the gun relative
> to the surface of the earth --- and the road.

Why? What makes the road special, and not the earth's center, the sun,
the truck body, another truck coming the other way, etc. ?
>
> The emitting body is a radar gun in a moving truck.

Inertially moving truck (assumed for the gedanken).

> The Second
> Postulate says that the photons from the gun will move as if they
> were emitted from the ground

Say what? Why the ground, not some other frame?

> (i.e., "independent of the state of motion
> of the emitting body" - the gun in the truck).

So why not use a more logical example -- the photons from the gun will
move as if they were emitted from the gun in the truck!

> That means the photons will hit the wall of the truck at c+v

Which v? 0 mph, 50 mph, 1050 mph, 68050 mph,... ?

Also c+v is a violation of the second postulate. Remember, Einstein said
all observers observe light moving at c.

> just as
> they would if the gun was fired at the moving truck from the ground.

And as if from the truck, the center of the earth, the sun etc. ?

So are you saying multiple readings must be valid? 0 mph, 50 mph, 1050
mph, 68050 mph, ... ?
>
> What about the spin of the earth, the earth's motion around the sun, etc.?
> They ALL affect what c is in an inertial system like the surface of
> the earth, and you are using c as it is at that location. But the gun
> is an emitter moving relative to the surface of the earth,

It is also moving relative to the center of the earth, the sun, the
center of the galaxy etc...

> so its photons
> will move "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
> across the surface of the earth.

And across space...
>
> Does that answer your question?

No. You need to justify why you think the surface of the earth is
special when I pointed out several other equally valid possibilities.

You probably don't realize it, but you are implicitly assuming that the
surface of the earth is some sort of absolute reference frame. It isn't.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-8, cretin Ed Lake persevered in his idiocy:
> When the photon hits the moving gun, it hits it at c+v
> where v is the speed of the gun.
No. Cretin.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:13:40 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:32:24 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:

> > I don't "refuse to name them", it is YOU who refuses to look them up and
> > read them:
> > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> In other words, you REFUSE to name the experiments. You want ME to
> look them up. And if I find no such experiments, you will argue that I didn't
> look hard enough.

He's given you a WHOLE WEBPAGE filled with such experiments.
What MORE do you want?