On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 12:52 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> > 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...

As I noted before, the "strong" version of P2 found in most textbooks is
a simple lemma resulting from applying P1 to Einstein's original "weak"
statement of P2.

Presentation of P2 in its "strong" form in most textbooks represents,
in my opinion, a pedagogically unsound practice. It's apparent
implausibility has resulted in many students rejecting SR from the very
start as being based on unsound premises.

| The problem with allowing these misconceptions to continue, especially
| the misconception about Einstein’s assumption about light, is more
| psychological than anything else. Baierlein explains: “At some point the
| student is going to be shown things that are implausible, and not within
| our traditional physical experience, but that happen to be physically correct.
| If you make two plausible assumptions and derive an implausible result, it’s
| easier for a student of accept than if you derive an implausible result from
| one plausible assumption and one implausible assumption.”
https://phys.org/news/2006-03-relativity.html

Case in point would be crackpots such as Ed.

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 10:36:57 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> | The problem with allowing these misconceptions to continue, especially
> | the misconception about Einstein’s assumption about light, is more
> | psychological than anything else. Baierlein explains: “At some point the
> | student is going to be shown things that are implausible, and not within
> | our traditional physical experience, but that happen to be physically correct.
> | If you make two plausible assumptions and derive an implausible result, it’s
> | easier for a student of accept than if you derive an implausible result from
> | one plausible assumption and one implausible assumption.”
> https://phys.org/news/2006-03-relativity.html

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> 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.

And why, Ed, would the truck’s speed be best referenced to the earth’s
surface? Is this reference frame special in any way compared to any of the
thousands of other inertial reference frames?

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

So is the frame of the trailer.
So is the frame of a bystander walking on the road.

> 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.

Again, why? The gun is inside the trailer, where there is no view of the
road. The road is no more valid as an external reference for the gun than a
passing cloud. Do you have any sound reasoning that articulates why the
ground is the proper reference here?

>
> 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).

Again, why is the GROUND the reference for the speed of the photons?

If it helps to see the issue here, does it matter at what latitude the
truck is driving? On the equator, the ground is moving in a circle at 1038
mph. At a point a hundred miles from the South Pole, the surface of the
earth is moving in a circle at 13 mph. Do you think the photon cares what
latitude the point of emission is?

>
> 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,

The gun is also an emitter moving relative to a boat on the water, relative
to a train passing by, relative to the clouds overhead, relative to the
moon. Why do you single out the surface of the earth as the reference the
gun is moving relative to?

> 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
>

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

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 14:40:02 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> And why, Ed, would the truck’s speed be best referenced to the earth’s
> surface? Is this reference frame special in any way compared to any of the
> thousands of other inertial reference frames?

Yes, poor idiot, it is. Earth's surface is the home of all
observers known so far.
Observers, you know. These ones allegedly able to
affect quantum particles just magically by looking at
them.

Of course, Earth's surface frame isn't an inertial one;
particularly since your idiot guru has redefined "inertial
frame" to have inertial frames better matching his
nonsensical postulates.

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

He just gave you the references to the experiments. Do you see that text
following the https? That’s a web URL and if you put your mouse cursor over
it and just click, it will open up a web page filled full of other text,
which are the references to a whole slew of experiments.

I assume, Ed, that if you ever eat out in a diner and order the meatloaf,
you don’t expect the waitress to cut the meat for you and to load your fork
for you.

> And if I find no such experiments, you will argue that I didn't
> look hard enough.
>
> You're just wasting my time.
>
> Ed
>

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

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

Well, that’s true. It’s also c relative to the emitter, which is moving at
v relative to the road.

If you think this is impossible, then you’ll have to explain why you chose
the road as the reference for the photon’s speed, rather than the emitter.
Now I know you said that you don’t choose the emitter because Einstein said
the speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the emitter, but this
still leaves the choice among thousands of reference frames to benchmark
the speed of light against, and for some reason you chose the surface of
the earth. Why THAT particular frame?

Note that the emitter has motion relative to the road, but it also has
motion relative to the moon, relative to a passing train, relative to a
jogger on the sidewalk, relative to a line through the centers of the sun
and the earth. But out of all of these, you say the motion of the emitter
relative to the ROAD is the one that counts. Why?

> 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.

This subtraction, notice, is something you surmise, though it is not
mentioned in ANY documentation about how radar guns work. Could you explain
why you think this one thing that has occurred to you as a POSSIBILITY is
in fact the correct (but undocumented) way that radar guns really work?

>
> 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.

I think you are confused about what “inertial” means in physics. In
physics, a car traveling at a constant 80 mph on a straight and flat road
with the engine on and engaged is in inertial motion.

Somehow you came to the conclusion that “inertial” means coasting or
unpropelled. That’s not what it means at all. Might I suggest you look in
some of the several freshman physics books you have to learn what
“inertial” motion means?

> When light
> is emitted, it is emitted as if the emitter was sitting on the nearest
> INERTIAL object,

Why do you think “nearest” has anything to do with it? And again, I’ll
mention that a jogger on the sidewalk, a car going at constant speed in the
opposite direction, a cloud drifting overhead, all these are in inertial
motion. But you chose the surface of the earth. Why?

> 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.

Yes, it is propelled, and being propelled or not has absolutely nothing to
do with whether the motion is inertial.

>
> (snip repetitious stuff)
>
> Ed
>

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

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 14:56:03 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, that’s true. It’s also c relative to the emitter, which is moving at
> v relative to the road.

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

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

At c relative to what?

> 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.

Well, as it turns out, it’s also right. Light DOES travel at c relative to
the emitter, which we know from experiment. It also travels at c relative
to the ground, which we know also from other experiments. I think a list of
experiments have been provided to you.

>
>> 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."

And why is “empty space” synonymous to you with “the nearest non-propelled
reference 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.

Well, let’s start with “inertial”, which you seem to think means in physics
some unpropelled reference body, like the surface of the earth. That’s
completely wrong and so there’s a source of disagreement. Would you like to
look it up in your freshman textbooks what inertial motion means?

> Arguing a dozen different things at the same time and twisting and
> distorting responses just makes it difficult to resolve any disagreement.
>
> Ed
>

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

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 15:11:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, as it turns out, it’s also right. Light DOES travel at c relative to
> the emitter, which we know from experiment.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic idiot. You know it from some obviously
right postulates, and you have waved some very important definitions to
make it happen. Of course, it hasn't anyway. Anyone can check GPS,
the real clocks keep measuring t'=t, like all serious clocks always did.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-8, 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.

The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
the atom PLUS the speed of light. It won't. It will just move at the
LOCAL speed of light.

Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation.
Therefore, when it emits a photon, that photon will travel slightly slower
than a photon emitted from a stationary atom.

This does not affect radar guns because it just means that the MOVING
gun uses a slightly different photon oscillation frequency than a stationary
radar gun. That happens anyway when a radar gun heats up. It is constantly
changing frequencies. But when it is fired, the return photons arrive a tiny
fraction of a second later, so there is no measurable affect from the change
in the GUN's oscillation frequencies. It can still reliably compare the oscillation
frequencies of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequencies of the
photons that are returned.

>
> > 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.

If I "run away" it is because I get tired of explaining the same things to you
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

> > 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.

True for bullets, but not true for photons.

>
> 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?

Nope. It is total nonsense. Each photon is packet (or quantum) of energy.
Its energy exists in the form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
If all the photons come from the same source, they all have the same energy..

The Doppler effect results from an oscillating photon hitting a moving
object, and the object's KINETIC energy adds to the energy of the photon.
Since the energy is in the form of oscillations per second, when the
photon hits an oncoming object, the on-coming object will add kinetic
energy (and more oscillations per second) to the photon. That addition
of energy is comparable to the "Doppler effect" associated with sound waves..

A photon with that added energy may then be emitted by an atom in the
object that absorbed it (because a stable atom cannot hold the extra energy).
A radar gun can then compare the energy in the photons it emitted to the
energy in the photons it received back and measure the speed of the
moving object.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-8, 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.
>
> The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
> a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
> the atom PLUS the speed of light.

Actually, that implication would only come with an additional assumption,
that velocities combine by addition. That hidden assumption is precisely
one of the things that is both incorrect and obstructive.

> It won't. It will just move at the
> LOCAL speed of light.
>
> Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation.
> Therefore, when it emits a photon, that photon will travel slightly slower
> than a photon emitted from a stationary atom.

This doesn’t follow at all. Even if the atom were “slowed down” as you seem
to think it is, why would that have ANYTHING to do with the speed of the
photon. As an example of this, let’s ask the same question about sound. If
I have an emitter (like a speaker) and I slow it down somehow (it doesn’t
matter how, it doesn’t have to be by time dilation, could be some viscous
substance) and let it run, then the speed of the sound emitted won’t change
at all, even though the speaker is slowed own.

>
> This does not affect radar guns because it just means that the MOVING
> gun uses a slightly different photon oscillation frequency than a stationary
> radar gun. That happens anyway when a radar gun heats up. It is constantly
> changing frequencies. But when it is fired, the return photons arrive a tiny
> fraction of a second later, so there is no measurable affect from the change
> in the GUN's oscillation frequencies. It can still reliably compare the oscillation
> frequencies of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequencies of the
> photons that are returned.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> If I "run away" it is because I get tired of explaining the same things to you
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

It could be, though, that the one who is wrong is you, and so that
repeating the mistake over and over again isn’t accomplishing anything. Is
that a possibility you will entertain?

>
>>> 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.
>
> True for bullets, but not true for photons.

And why not?

>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Nope. It is total nonsense. Each photon is packet (or quantum) of energy.
> Its energy exists in the form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> If all the photons come from the same source, they all have the same energy.
>
> The Doppler effect results from an oscillating photon hitting a moving
> object, and the object's KINETIC energy adds to the energy of the photon.
> Since the energy is in the form of oscillations per second, when the
> photon hits an oncoming object, the on-coming object will add kinetic
> energy (and more oscillations per second) to the photon. That addition
> of energy is comparable to the "Doppler effect" associated with sound waves.
>
> A photon with that added energy may then be emitted by an atom in the
> object that absorbed it (because a stable atom cannot hold the extra energy).
> A radar gun can then compare the energy in the photons it emitted to the
> energy in the photons it received back and measure the speed of the
> moving object.
>
> Ed
>

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

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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....

If it moves without being propelled by some force, it is inertial.
It does NOT have to move in a straight line. The earth and nearly all
objects in space rotate due to energy applied billions of years ago.
They require ENERGY to stop them. That's what makes them inertial.

A MOVING truck is NOT inertial. It requires energy to make it move.
And if energy is removed, the truck will also stop and become inertial.

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

It's the local inertial reference frame, whether you agree or not.

> > 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.

NO!!!!!!!!!!! That is NONSENSE added by mathematicians who
disagree with Einstein.

> 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. ?

Again, the road is part of the earth's surface and is therefore inertial.

> >
> > The emitting body is a radar gun in a moving truck.
> Inertially moving truck (assumed for the gedanken).

A moving truck is as PROPELLED SYSTEM, even when it is moving at
a constant speed. When the propulsion is removed, the truck will
slow down and once again become part of the spinning earth's
inertial system.

> > 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?

Because the ground is the inertial frame upon which the PROPELLED
truck is moving.

> > (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!

Because that is NOT how photons work. Photons do NOT move at the
speed of the emitter PLUS the speed of light. They move at c REGARDLESS
of the speed of the emitter. It's Einstein's Second Postulate.

> > That means the photons will hit the wall of the truck at c+v
> Which v? 0 mph, 50 mph, 1050 mph, 68050 mph,... ?

The speed of the truck, of course. 50 mph. No other speed has any
relevance. They merely affect the length of a second.

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

ABSOLUTE IDIOTIC NONSENSE!!!!! Einstein never said any such thing! He said
light moves at c independent of any motion by the emitter. Here's the
exact quote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
EMITTING body."

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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....
>
> If it moves without being propelled by some force, it is inertial.

No, Ed. That is not what “inertial” means. It does not mean that in
freshman textbooks, it does not mean that in relativity, it does not mean
that in physics at all.

This is a meaning that you erroneously inferred, possibly from crappy
internet websites.

As long as you persist in this notion of “inertial”, just about everything
you say about reference frames and relativity is going to be wrong.

> It does NOT have to move in a straight line. The earth and nearly all
> objects in space rotate due to energy applied billions of years ago.
> They require ENERGY to stop them. That's what makes them inertial.
>
> A MOVING truck is NOT inertial. It requires energy to make it move.
> And if energy is removed, the truck will also stop and become inertial.
>
>>
>> So of all of these, why is the earth's surface what you pick for your
>> reference frame?
>
> It's the local inertial reference frame, whether you agree or not.

Furthermore, there is nothing about being “near” that defines inertial
reference bodies.

If it helps to understand this, reference frames of all description,
inertial or not, extend over ALL SPACE. They have no boundaries. They have
no “place” that is disjoint from other reference frames. And so choosing
the earth’s surface as your “local” inertial reference frame, just because
it’s a nearby chunk of matter, is completely irrelevant to inertial
reference frames.

>
>>> 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.
>
> NO!!!!!!!!!!! That is NONSENSE added by mathematicians who
> disagree with Einstein.
>
>> 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. ?
>
> Again, the road is part of the earth's surface and is therefore inertial.
>
>>>
>>> The emitting body is a radar gun in a moving truck.
>> Inertially moving truck (assumed for the gedanken).
>
> A moving truck is as PROPELLED SYSTEM, even when it is moving at
> a constant speed. When the propulsion is removed, the truck will
> slow down and once again become part of the spinning earth's
> inertial system.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Because the ground is the inertial frame upon which the PROPELLED
> truck is moving.
>
>>> (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!
>
> Because that is NOT how photons work. Photons do NOT move at the
> speed of the emitter PLUS the speed of light. They move at c REGARDLESS
> of the speed of the emitter. It's Einstein's Second Postulate.
>
>>> That means the photons will hit the wall of the truck at c+v
>> Which v? 0 mph, 50 mph, 1050 mph, 68050 mph,... ?
>
> The speed of the truck, of course. 50 mph. No other speed has any
> relevance. They merely affect the length of a second.
>
>>
>> Also c+v is a violation of the second postulate. Remember, Einstein said
>> all observers observe light moving at c.
>
> ABSOLUTE IDIOTIC NONSENSE!!!!! Einstein never said any such thing! He said
> light moves at c independent of any motion by the emitter. Here's the
> exact quote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
> velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> EMITTING body."
>
> Ed
>

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

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:40:02 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
> And why, Ed, would the truck’s speed be best referenced to the earth’s
> surface? Is this reference frame special in any way compared to any of the
> thousands of other inertial reference frames?

No, it is just where the truck is LOCATED. How could anyone in their right
mind think that the truck somehow moves relative to a reference frame
on Alpha Centauri? Or Mars? It's on some specific spot on EARTH.

> > The earth's surface
> > is an INERTIAL system.
> So is the frame of the trailer.

NO!!!!! The frame of the trailer is a PROPELLED system. If the propulsion
is removed, the trailer will come to a stop in the nearest inertial system.

> So is the frame of a bystander walking on the road.

If he is walking, he is NOT inertial. He is PROPELLED. If he stops walking
then he will become part of the inertial system that is the earth.

> > 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.
> Again, why? The gun is inside the trailer, where there is no view of the
> road. The road is no more valid as an external reference for the gun than a
> passing cloud. Do you have any sound reasoning that articulates why the
> ground is the proper reference here?

Because if the truck ceases being PROPELLED, it will slow down and
become part of the INERTIAL system that is the earth.

> >
> > 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).
> Again, why is the GROUND the reference for the speed of the photons?

Because it is the INERTIAL system upon which the PROPELLED truck is
moving. And Einstein stated that "light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body." That "state of motion" is relative to the
nearest INERTIAL system, the earth.
>
> If it helps to see the issue here, does it matter at what latitude the
> truck is driving? On the equator, the ground is moving in a circle at 1038
> mph. At a point a hundred miles from the South Pole, the surface of the
> earth is moving in a circle at 13 mph. Do you think the photon cares what
> latitude the point of emission is?

Technically it does. Each of those locations has a different length for a
second. But it still moves at 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.

> >
> > 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,
> The gun is also an emitter moving relative to a boat on the water, relative
> to a train passing by, relative to the clouds overhead, relative to the
> moon. Why do you single out the surface of the earth as the reference the
> gun is moving relative to?

It is the INERTIAL SYSTEM upon which the truck is being PROPELLED.

Ed

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > 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.
> Well, that’s true. It’s also c relative to the emitter, which is moving at
> v relative to the road.

No, if a photon is moving at c relative to the road, it cannot also be moving
at c relative to some moving object on the road. That is just plain silly.

>
> If you think this is impossible, then you’ll have to explain why you chose
> the road as the reference for the photon’s speed, rather than the emitter.
> Now I know you said that you don’t choose the emitter because Einstein said
> the speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the emitter, but this
> still leaves the choice among thousands of reference frames to benchmark
> the speed of light against, and for some reason you chose the surface of
> the earth. Why THAT particular frame?
>
> Note that the emitter has motion relative to the road, but it also has
> motion relative to the moon, relative to a passing train, relative to a
> jogger on the sidewalk, relative to a line through the centers of the sun
> and the earth. But out of all of these, you say the motion of the emitter
> relative to the ROAD is the one that counts. Why?

Because when the propelled truck stops, it becomes part of the inertial
system that is 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.
> This subtraction, notice, is something you surmise, though it is not
> mentioned in ANY documentation about how radar guns work. Could you explain
> why you think this one thing that has occurred to you as a POSSIBILITY is
> in fact the correct (but undocumented) way that radar guns really work?

Because it is how the documentation says radar guns work. See my paper
on Relativity and Radar Guns: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

> >
> > 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.
> I think you are confused about what “inertial” means in physics. In
> physics, a car traveling at a constant 80 mph on a straight and flat road
> with the engine on and engaged is in inertial motion.

Only to mathematicians who cannot comprehend the difference between
a propelled system and an inertial system.

>
> Somehow you came to the conclusion that “inertial” means coasting or
> unpropelled. That’s not what it means at all. Might I suggest you look in
> some of the several freshman physics books you have to learn what
> “inertial” motion means?

Good idea, but those books have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second
Postulate, so they're likely to have a wrong description of inertia, too.

> > When light
> > is emitted, it is emitted as if the emitter was sitting on the nearest
> > INERTIAL object,
> Why do you think “nearest” has anything to do with it? And again, I’ll
> mention that a jogger on the sidewalk, a car going at constant speed in the
> opposite direction, a cloud drifting overhead, all these are in inertial
> motion. But you chose the surface of the earth. Why?

Because when the propulsion is removed, the object stops and becomes
part of the INERTIAL system that is the earth. It doesn't become part of
some cloud. Have you somehow failed to notice that?

Ed

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 10:50:20 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-8, 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.
> >
> > The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
> > a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
> > the atom PLUS the speed of light.
> Actually, that implication would only come with an additional assumption,
> that velocities combine by addition. That hidden assumption is precisely
> one of the things that is both incorrect and obstructive.
> > It won't. It will just move at the
> > LOCAL speed of light.
> >
> > Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation.
> > Therefore, when it emits a photon, that photon will travel slightly slower
> > than a photon emitted from a stationary atom.
> This doesn’t follow at all. Even if the atom were “slowed down” as you seem
> to think it is, why would that have ANYTHING to do with the speed of the
> photon.

The atom doesn't slow down. TIME slows down for the atom because of
its speed (velocity time dilation). When time slows down for the atom, and
it emits a photon at 299,792,458 meter PER SECOND, a second is longer,
which means the photon's speed is different.

Ed

Hmm. I just checked a physics text book, "Fundamentals of Physics" (Tenth Edition) by Jearl Walker,
and it must use the term "rotational inertia" two hundred times.

"College Physics" (9th edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille has this
on page 89: "The tendency of an object to continue in its original state of motion is
called inertia."

It also mentions "rotational inertia."

Ed

On 11/15/2021 11:55 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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....
>
> If it moves without being propelled by some force, it is inertial.

That's not the definition of inertial. Inertial means there is no NET
force on objects stationary in the frame, or 'the laws of Newtonian
mechanics hold good'. A truck trailer (not accelerating, and going in
a straight line) qualifies.

> It does NOT have to move in a straight line. The earth and nearly all
> objects in space rotate due to energy applied billions of years ago.
> They require ENERGY to stop them. That's what makes them inertial.

You are 100% oppositely wrong! The fact they rotate makes them NON
inertial. However they are so close to being inertial that for this
discussion they are inertial.

(Angular momentum, which you bring up, is conserved, with a 'moment of
inertia', but this is NOT the same as the linear lack of acceleration
which makes an inertial frame inertial. Linear inertia is not the same
as rotational moment of inertia. NO rotating frame is inertial!)

> A MOVING truck is NOT inertial.

It most certainly is, if assumed (for the gedanken) that the truck is
not accelerating or going around a curve. All inertial means is that
there is no net acceleration of the trailer body.

> It requires energy to make it move.

It requires energy to overcome friction, but that is irrelevant. No NET
force makes an object inertial. See Newton.

> And if energy is removed, the truck will also stop and become inertial.

Actually the act of slowing down makes it NON inertial while slowing.
When the truck stops it becomes inertial AGAIN. (Ever slam on the
brakes of a car? That's just lots of frictional force acting on you!)

As long as the driver applies power to maintain a constant speed, there
is no NET force on the truck so it is inertial.

I see in the time since you last ran away you haven't learned what
inertial means or Newton's Laws.

>> So of all of these, why is the earth's surface what you pick for your
>> reference frame?
>
> It's the local inertial reference frame, whether you agree or not.

It is one of infinitely many inertial frames. Why the surface of the
earth (almost inertial*) rather than some other truck passing by, or the
airplane overhead, or that bird, or the Sun or the moon or... ?
>
>>> 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.
>
> NO!!!!!!!!!!! That is NONSENSE added by mathematicians who
> disagree with Einstein.

Wrong. First, your 'mathematician' boogeymen aren't involved. Second, it
was Einstein who stated that in his second postulate, what observers
observe. Third, Einstein had that as a postulate because it was what
scientists realized that they were observing! Fourth, your version of
that isn't interesting, it applies to things like bullets ("bullets are
fired at v relative to the gun regardless of the velocity of the gun")
not light.
>
>> 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. ?
>
> Again, the road is part of the earth's surface and is therefore inertial.

As is the truck trailer, as is the earth's center, the sun, the other
truck, etc.(*) So why the earth's surface? Why not the others?
>
>>>
>>> The emitting body is a radar gun in a moving truck.
>> Inertially moving truck (assumed for the gedanken).
>
> A moving truck is as PROPELLED SYSTEM, even when it is moving at
> a constant speed.

Moving at a constant speed means it's inertial. No NET force. Go argue
with Newton if you disagree. I agree with Newton.

> When the propulsion is removed, the truck will
> slow down

because of friction, now there is a net force on it, so it decelerates
and becomes non-inertial.

> and once again become part of the spinning earth's
> inertial system.

Again. Once it stops, that is.

If the earth is spinning, it's not inertial, but as I said, it's close
enough to being inertial that it is not important. We can assume the
earth's surface is inertial for this discussion. So yes, once the truck
stops, it becomes inertial AGAIN.

>>> 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?
>
> Because the ground is the inertial frame upon which the PROPELLED
> truck is moving.

But the radar gun is in the inertial truck body, MOVING with the truck.

If there's a cop parked alongside the road running radar, HIS radar
gun's beam is emitted as if it's from the ground.
>
>>> (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!
>
> Because that is NOT how photons work.

Say what? They move as if they were emitted by the gun in the truck
because they WERE emitted by the gun in the truck!!!

> Photons do NOT move at the
> speed of the emitter PLUS the speed of light. They move at c REGARDLESS
> of the speed of the emitter. It's Einstein's Second Postulate.

Yes, and they move at c relative to you, to me, to the bird in the sky
and to every other (inertial) observer.

>>> That means the photons will hit the wall of the truck at c+v >> Which v? 0 mph, 50 mph, 1050 mph, 68050 mph,... ?
>
> The speed of the truck, of course. 50 mph. No other speed has any
> relevance.

Why do you say they aren't relevant? All those speeds are relative to
some inertial reference frame!

> They merely affect the length of a second.

Now you are going off in wackyland.

>> Also c+v is a violation of the second postulate. Remember, Einstein said
>> all observers observe light moving at c.
>
> ABSOLUTE IDIOTIC NONSENSE!!!!! Einstein never said any such thing!

El lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:42:09 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 10:50:20 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > This doesn’t follow at all. Even if the atom were “slowed down” as you seem
> > to think it is, why would that have ANYTHING to do with the speed of the
> > photon.

> The atom doesn't slow down. TIME slows down for the atom because of
> its speed (velocity time dilation). When time slows down for the atom, and
> it emits a photon at 299,792,458 meter PER SECOND, a second is longer,
> which means the photon's speed is different.
>
> Ed

You have it all wrong, as usual. Velocity time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks which are at rest relative to the moving object. The measurement is not done by the atom, which experiences no time dilation at all.

Op 10-nov.-2021 om 18:45 schreef Ed Lake:
> I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this
> link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
>
> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
> arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or
> not the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it
> is NOT. Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
>
> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c.
> Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an
> oncoming vehicle at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher
> oscillation frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that
> higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons
> also travel at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency
> of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons
> it got back and is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming
> vehicle.
>
> The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at
> c+v, which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually
> claim is impossible.
>
> Discussion?
>

You see Ed?
Discussion?
With all these telephone poles?
That really doesn't work, does it...

Dirk Vdm

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:40:02 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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.
>> And why, Ed, would the truck’s speed be best referenced to the earth’s
>> surface? Is this reference frame special in any way compared to any of the
>> thousands of other inertial reference frames?
>
> No, it is just where the truck is LOCATED. How could anyone in their right
> mind think that the truck somehow moves relative to a reference frame
> on Alpha Centauri? Or Mars? It's on some specific spot on EARTH.
>
>>> The earth's surface
>>> is an INERTIAL system.
>> So is the frame of the trailer.
>
> NO!!!!! The frame of the trailer is a PROPELLED system. If the propulsion
> is removed, the trailer will come to a stop in the nearest inertial system.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>> So is the frame of a bystander walking on the road.
>
> If he is walking, he is NOT inertial. He is PROPELLED. If he stops walking
> then he will become part of the inertial system that is the earth.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>>> 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.
>> Again, why? The gun is inside the trailer, where there is no view of the
>> road. The road is no more valid as an external reference for the gun than a
>> passing cloud. Do you have any sound reasoning that articulates why the
>> ground is the proper reference here?
>
> Because if the truck ceases being PROPELLED, it will slow down and
> become part of the INERTIAL system that is the earth.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>>>
>>> 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).
>> Again, why is the GROUND the reference for the speed of the photons?
>
> Because it is the INERTIAL system upon which the PROPELLED truck is
> moving. And Einstein stated that "light is always propagated in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> motion of the emitting body." That "state of motion" is relative to the
> nearest INERTIAL system, the earth.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>>
>> If it helps to see the issue here, does it matter at what latitude the
>> truck is driving? On the equator, the ground is moving in a circle at 1038
>> mph. At a point a hundred miles from the South Pole, the surface of the
>> earth is moving in a circle at 13 mph. Do you think the photon cares what
>> latitude the point of emission is?
>
> Technically it does. Each of those locations has a different length for a
> second. But it still moves at 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.

And how does a photon determine what latitude it is being emitted at?

>
>>>
>>> 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,
>> The gun is also an emitter moving relative to a boat on the water, relative
>> to a train passing by, relative to the clouds overhead, relative to the
>> moon. Why do you single out the surface of the earth as the reference the
>> gun is moving relative to?
>
> It is the INERTIAL SYSTEM upon which the truck is being PROPELLED.
>

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Well, that’s true. It’s also c relative to the emitter, which is moving at
>> v relative to the road.
>
> No, if a photon is moving at c relative to the road, it cannot also be moving
> at c relative to some moving object on the road. That is just plain silly.

Well, you say it’s silly. It certain defies common expectations. But the
issue is, the reason WHY you think it’s silly is a hidden assumption you
hold. The assumption you hold is this: if a photon is moving at c relative
to the road and there is an object moving at v relative to the road, then
the speed of the photon relative to the moving object is going to be c+v or
c-v. The assumption is that this is how velocities combine, because that’s
just common sense and what everyone has been brought up to know is true.

The problem is, this assumption is not true. It’s factually wrong.
Velocities don’t combine by addition or subtraction that way.

This will likely bother you.

You might ask, “But WHY DON’T velocities combine that way?” The answer is:
they just don’t. Experimental measurement proves that they don’t. The rule
for how velocities combine is known, but it’s different than this addition
or subtraction rule.

The next natural question you might raise is, “But if it’s wrong, why do so
many people think it’s true? Why does it seem to make so much sense?” The
answer is: because that wrong rule turns out to be close to true, but not
quite. And so people took the approximation to be truth, when it was just
an approximation. And it’s only an approximation for low speeds. If you
compare the approximation with measurement for things that are fast, say
1/2 the speed of light, the intuitive rule will be 25% wrong. And if one of
the speeds is c, it’s 100% wrong. It’s just that no one notices the
discrepancy at low speeds.

>
>>
>> If you think this is impossible, then you’ll have to explain why you chose
>> the road as the reference for the photon’s speed, rather than the emitter.
>> Now I know you said that you don’t choose the emitter because Einstein said
>> the speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the emitter, but this
>> still leaves the choice among thousands of reference frames to benchmark
>> the speed of light against, and for some reason you chose the surface of
>> the earth. Why THAT particular frame?
>>
>> Note that the emitter has motion relative to the road, but it also has
>> motion relative to the moon, relative to a passing train, relative to a
>> jogger on the sidewalk, relative to a line through the centers of the sun
>> and the earth. But out of all of these, you say the motion of the emitter
>> relative to the ROAD is the one that counts. Why?
>
> Because when the propelled truck stops, it becomes part of the inertial
> system that is the road.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>>> 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.
>> This subtraction, notice, is something you surmise, though it is not
>> mentioned in ANY documentation about how radar guns work. Could you explain
>> why you think this one thing that has occurred to you as a POSSIBILITY is
>> in fact the correct (but undocumented) way that radar guns really work?
>
> Because it is how the documentation says radar guns work.

No, there is no subtraction of a photon speed in any circuit or inner
calculation of a radar gun. Not one.

> See my paper
> on Relativity and Radar Guns: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>> I think you are confused about what “inertial” means in physics. In
>> physics, a car traveling at a constant 80 mph on a straight and flat road
>> with the engine on and engaged is in inertial motion.
>
> Only to mathematicians who cannot comprehend the difference between
> a propelled system and an inertial system.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>>
>> Somehow you came to the conclusion that “inertial” means coasting or
>> unpropelled. That’s not what it means at all. Might I suggest you look in
>> some of the several freshman physics books you have to learn what
>> “inertial” motion means?
>
> Good idea, but those books have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second
> Postulate, so they're likely to have a wrong description of inertia, too.

I’m sorry, Ed, but when you start saying that freshman textbooks are all
wrong about basic physics ideas like “inertial motion” and that an idea you
made up by yourself is the correct notion of these basic ideas, then you
have wandered into serious crackpot territory.

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

>
>>> When light
>>> is emitted, it is emitted as if the emitter was sitting on the nearest
>>> INERTIAL object,
>> Why do you think “nearest” has anything to do with it? And again, I’ll
>> mention that a jogger on the sidewalk, a car going at constant speed in the
>> opposite direction, a cloud drifting overhead, all these are in inertial
>> motion. But you chose the surface of the earth. Why?
>
> Because when the propulsion is removed, the object stops and becomes
> part of the INERTIAL system that is the earth. It doesn't become part of
> some cloud. Have you somehow failed to notice that?
>

Being in inertial motion has nothing to do with whether it is propelled or
not. A car with the engine running and engaged, traveling at 80 mph on a
straight and flat road, is in inertial motion. This is a freshman physics
concept.

Your invented notion of “inertial motion” or “inertial reference frame” is
based on what an object comes to rest relative to, once propulsion is
stopped.

This is similar to what Aristotle thought about an object’s “natural
state”, being at rest relative to the earth. But keep in mind this has been
recognized as being wrong ever since Galileo in the late 1500s and early
1600s.

It’s not wise to invent meanings for “inertial motion” based on your gut
feel for what you think it should mean.

> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 10:50:20 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-8, 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.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the statement is misleading. It implies that
>>> a photon emitted from a moving atom will move at the speed of
>>> the atom PLUS the speed of light.
>> Actually, that implication would only come with an additional assumption,
>> that velocities combine by addition. That hidden assumption is precisely
>> one of the things that is both incorrect and obstructive.
>>> It won't. It will just move at the
>>> LOCAL speed of light.
>>>
>>> Another problem is that a moving atom experiences time dilation.
>>> Therefore, when it emits a photon, that photon will travel slightly slower
>>> than a photon emitted from a stationary atom.
>> This doesn’t follow at all. Even if the atom were “slowed down” as you seem
>> to think it is, why would that have ANYTHING to do with the speed of the
>> photon.
>
> The atom doesn't slow down. TIME slows down for the atom because of
> its speed (velocity time dilation). When time slows down for the atom, and
> it emits a photon at 299,792,458 meter PER SECOND, a second is longer,
> which means the photon's speed is different.
>
> Ed
>

Why do you think the atom’s time has anything to do with the photon’s time?

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

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hmm. I just checked a physics text book, "Fundamentals of Physics"
> (Tenth Edition) by Jearl Walker,
> and it must use the term "rotational inertia" two hundred times.
>
> "College Physics" (9th edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille has this
> on page 89: "The tendency of an object to continue in its original state of motion is
> called inertia."
>
> It also mentions "rotational inertia."
>
> Ed
>

Yes. That is what “inertia” means. Now, what does “inertial motion” mean?
Look that up.
What does “inertial reference frame” mean? Look that up.

Don’t just stitch it together in your own head. You’ll make mistakes.

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

On 11/15/2021 12:10 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:40:02 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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.
>> And why, Ed, would the truck’s speed be best referenced to the earth’s
>> surface? Is this reference frame special in any way compared to any of the
>> thousands of other inertial reference frames?
>
> No, it is just where the truck is LOCATED. How could anyone in their right
> mind think that the truck somehow moves relative to a reference frame
> on Alpha Centauri? Or Mars? It's on some specific spot on EARTH.

Reference frames are infinite in extent, and include the entire
universe. I can rightfully state how Mars moves relative to earth, for
example.
>
>>> The earth's surface
>>> is an INERTIAL system.
>> So is the frame of the trailer.
>
> NO!!!!! The frame of the trailer is a PROPELLED system.

Irrelevant.

> If the propulsion
> is removed, the trailer will come to a stop

Irrelevant. All that is required to be inertial is zero NET force.

> in the nearest inertial system.

Why "nearest"? That's crap you made up.
>
>> So is the frame of a bystander walking on the road.
>
> If he is walking, he is NOT inertial. He is PROPELLED.

He is inertial if he is moving at constant speed (no net acceleration,
no net force).

>>> 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.

>> Again, why? The gun is inside the trailer, where there is no view of the
>> road. The road is no more valid as an external reference for the gun than a
>> passing cloud. Do you have any sound reasoning that articulates why the
>> ground is the proper reference here?
>
> Because if the truck ceases being PROPELLED, it will slow down

and the frictional force becomes unbalanced, so there is acceleration
(deceleration) on the truck so it BECOMES non-inertial

> and
> become part of the INERTIAL system that is the earth.

Inertial again, once it stops.

>>> 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).
>> Again, why is the GROUND the reference for the speed of the photons?
>
> Because it is the INERTIAL system upon which the PROPELLED truck is
> moving.

The truck body is also inertial.

> And Einstein stated that "light is always propagated in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> motion of the emitting body."

Meaning all observers observe the light moving at c.

> That "state of motion" is relative to the
> nearest INERTIAL system, the earth.

Why "nearest"? That's crap you made up. (btw the truck body is nearer)
>
>>
>> If it helps to see the issue here, does it matter at what latitude the
>> truck is driving? On the equator, the ground is moving in a circle at 1038
>> mph. At a point a hundred miles from the South Pole, the surface of the
>> earth is moving in a circle at 13 mph. Do you think the photon cares what
>> latitude the point of emission is?
>
> Technically it does. Each of those locations has a different length for a
> second. But it still moves at 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.

Crap you made up.

I assume this comes from time dilation, and you misunderstand time
dilation as well. No such thing as a "local" second, just the second.
>
>>>
>>> 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,
>> The gun is also an emitter moving relative to a boat on the water, relative
>> to a train passing by, relative to the clouds overhead, relative to the
>> moon. Why do you single out the surface of the earth as the reference the
>> gun is moving relative to?
>
> It is the INERTIAL SYSTEM upon which the truck is being PROPELLED.

And the truck is also inertial.