Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > >
> > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> >
> >
> > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> >
> >
> > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
>
> Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> I just commented on his arguments about it.
>
> Ed

Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > >
> > >
> > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> > >
> > >
> > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> >
> > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> > I just commented on his arguments about it.
> >
> > Ed
> Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > >
> > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> > > I just commented on his arguments about it.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!

Actually, StirrMaker would be better.

13 years of posting history for the man. Always looking for trouble.

On May 29, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.

OK Ed, I got one for ya.

A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60.
A police radar trap sits at that point.

The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car
is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the
police car as moving.

Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming
eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train,
90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60.

Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which
is REALLY moving, and which is stationary?

And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle?
That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed
180 mph?

--
Rich

Paparios wrote:
>
> El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > >
> > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> > > I just commented on his arguments about it.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!

Well, which one of yous two fucked up????

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On May 29, wrote:
> > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> OK Ed, I got one for ya.
>
> A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60.
> A police radar trap sits at that point.
>
> The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car
> is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the
> police car as moving.
>
> Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming
> eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train,
> 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60.
>
> Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which
> is REALLY moving, and which is stationary?
>
> And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle?
> That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed
> 180 mph?

If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since
it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph.

A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the
Camaro to be 90 mph.

It would be more interesting to have the police car driving eastward at
90 mph and the Camaro on the train going westward. Photons from the
radar gun would also hit the train, and most radar guns show the highest
speed measured. So, it would show the speed of the train to be 180 mph.

I have a radar gun, and that is definitely how my gun would work. When
I am stationary and point it at an oncoming car going 40 mph, the gun
shows 40 mph, of course. And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound
lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the
westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph. If I
had a more sophisticated gun, it would show the target speed as 40 mph
and the gun's speed as 40 mph.

I think every physics class should do some experiments with radar guns.
They definitely do not work the way most people think they work. And the
way they do work is fascinating.

Ed

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> > > > I just commented on his arguments about it.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!
>
> Actually, StirrMaker would be better.
>
> 13 years of posting history for the man. Always looking for trouble.

sez Mr. High and Mighty on his horse, who puts himself on top of the
totem pole because he believes he is...The Chosen One.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paparios wrote:
> >
> > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> > > > I just commented on his arguments about it.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> >
> > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!
> Well, which one of yous two fucked up????

YOU are the only one who made a mistake. Your OTHER mistake was misunderstanding
the comment on the web site. The comment is:

"Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent
official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and
will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies."

All he is saying is that if anyone sees any errors, they should contact HIM, not his
university. If he has any "opinion," that opinion is that everything he wrote is scientifically
correct.

Ed

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> > On May 29, wrote:
> > > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> > > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> > > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> > > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> > OK Ed, I got one for ya.
> >
> > A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60.
> > A police radar trap sits at that point.
> >
> > The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car
> > is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the
> > police car as moving.
> >
> > Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming
> > eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train,
> > 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60.
> >
> > Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which
> > is REALLY moving, and which is stationary?
> >
> > And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle?
> > That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed
> > 180 mph?
> If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since
> it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph.
>
> A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the
> Camaro to be 90 mph.
>
> It would be more interesting to have the police car driving eastward at
> 90 mph and the Camaro on the train going westward. Photons from the
> radar gun would also hit the train, and most radar guns show the highest
> speed measured. So, it would show the speed of the train to be 180 mph.
>
> I have a radar gun, and that is definitely how my gun would work. When
> I am stationary and point it at an oncoming car going 40 mph, the gun
> shows 40 mph, of course. And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound
> lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the
> westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph. If I
> had a more sophisticated gun, it would show the target speed as 40 mph
> and the gun's speed as 40 mph.
>
> I think every physics class should do some experiments with radar guns.
> They definitely do not work the way most people think they work. And the
> way they do work is fascinating.
>
> Ed

If I am going 40 mph and point my radar gun at the ground ahead, the
gun will show a speed of 40 mph. Lots of people (including SOME radar
gun manufacturers) say that is the speed of THE GROUND. It isn't. It is
the speed of THE RADAR GUN.

That can be demonstrated by having two radar guns, one stationary
and one moving. Both point the guns at the ground. The moving gun
will show 40 mph. The stationary gun will show nothing.

Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds.
How they do it is fascinating, but it is too complicated for the average
person, so radar gun manufacturers sometimes explain things so
that the average person will understand - even though the explanation
is wrong.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paparios wrote:
> > >
> > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > > > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > > > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > > > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > > > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > > > > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > > > > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > > > > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > > > > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > > > > > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
> > > > > I just commented on his arguments about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > > Oh, you're saying Paparios fucked up.
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > Perhaps this is the right moment to change your Starmaker alias to Shitmaker!!!!
> > Well, which one of yous two fucked up????
>
> YOU are the only one who made a mistake. Your OTHER mistake was misunderstanding
> the comment on the web site. The comment is:
>
> "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent
> official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and
> will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies."
>
> All he is saying is that if anyone sees any errors, they should contact HIM, not his
> university. If he has any "opinion," that opinion is that everything he wrote is scientifically
> correct.

the definition of the word opinion is: "not necessarily" "based on fact"
or knowledge.

So, it is not correct since correct means fact. And opinion means; not
necessarily based on fact.

He admits that his opinions are 'his own' and no one else. Meaning, it
is NOT scientifically
correct. It is not a scientific fact.

Didn't I tell you before to go jump in a lake?

I don't allow misinformation to be posted here. This is Usenet. My job
to clean up the misinformation.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Ed Lake wrote:
....
> If I am going 40 mph and point my radar gun at the ground ahead, the
> gun will show a speed of 40 mph. Lots of people (including SOME radar
> gun manufacturers) say that is the speed of THE GROUND. It isn't. It is
> the speed of THE RADAR GUN.
>
> That can be demonstrated by having two radar guns, one stationary
> and one moving. Both point the guns at the ground. The moving gun
> will show 40 mph. The stationary gun will show nothing.
>
> Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds.
> How they do it is fascinating, but it is too complicated for the average
> person, so radar gun manufacturers sometimes explain things so
> that the average person will understand - even though the explanation
> is wrong.

Well... Fascinating that a self-proclamed "analyst" in the XXIth century
is still missing the main point of physics estasblished almost four
centuries ago.

El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:08:00 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:51:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Paparios wrote:
> > > >
> > > > El martes, 31 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:27:07 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ed Lake wrote:

> > YOU are the only one who made a mistake. Your OTHER mistake was misunderstanding
> > the comment on the web site. The comment is:
> >
> > "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent
> > official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and
> > will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies."
> >
> > All he is saying is that if anyone sees any errors, they should contact HIM, not his
> > university. If he has any "opinion," that opinion is that everything he wrote is scientifically
> > correct.
>
>
> the definition of the word opinion is: "not necessarily" "based on fact"
> or knowledge.
> So, it is not correct since correct means fact. And opinion means; not
> necessarily based on fact.
>
>
> He admits that his opinions are 'his own' and no one else. Meaning, it
> is NOT scientifically
> correct. It is not a scientific fact.
>
> Didn't I tell you before to go jump in a lake?
>
> I don't allow misinformation to be posted here. This is Usenet. My job
> to clean up the misinformation.
> --

As always, the Shitmaker explaining nothing.

On 5/31/2022 2:06 PM, RichD wrote:
> On May 29, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
>> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
>> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
>> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
>
> OK Ed, I got one for ya.
>
> A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60.
> A police radar trap sits at that point.
>
> The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car
> is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the
> police car as moving.
>
> Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming
> eastbound at 90 mph. The car is driving westward (opposite) the train,
> 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60.
>
> Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which
> is REALLY moving, and which is stationary?
>
> And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle?
> That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed
> 180 mph?

These "complicated" scenarios always have a flaw. In your case there are
two. #1 as stated "hence the cop is stationary relative to exist 60."

Not as you've stated the problem.

#2 What sort of police radar is in use? There's more than one and I'll
leave it to you to find out what is in current use.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:17:42 AM UTC-4, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Once upon the time, a cretin wrote a paper that had an assertion about time
> which was bought by generations of followers who worshiped him:
>
> "Time is what my clock shows", wrote the imbecile. And from that, he
> developed a fairy tail about time and length, which plagiarized a prior paper
> from Lorentz, which dismissed the expression of time as non-linear undesired
> result of his pursuit of length contraction due to inertial motion.
>
> But actually, I never read about any scientific attempt to define time, in the
> following 100 years. This is because time is an auxiliary variable to describe
> motion, and only has any value as a relative interval or duration. Not an
> absolute mark with physical meaning.
>
> Do the following experiment:
>
> Sit and do nothing, except the mental effort trying to capture the pass of
> time. If possible, do it in a quiet room with nothing moving. You can have
> a clock, either analog or digital.
>
> Do the following:
>
> I) Mark a timestamp, and just allow things happens. You can move or
> be still.
>
> Do you feel the pass of time? Check the elapsed timestamp. Did it feel
> real?
> Now try to focus on the pass of time for one hour (set an alarm).
> Once the alarm goes off, what did you experienced? Did you feel the pass
> of time? Really? By the second or by the minute?
>
> Think about what time was for you in these experiments.
>
> II) Now repeat I) but looking at the clock all the time, sensing (but not counting)
> every second as you observe the clock.
>
> Once a time duration of the experiment (as measured by your clock), think
> about time and if you felt that it was passing.
>
> Did the pass of time had ANY MEANING to you?
>
> Probably not. Then ask yourself WHAT THE FUCK TIME IS.
>
> For some cretins, time is the fourth dimension of the aberration called
> spacetime.
>
> According to these cretins, you HAVE BEEN TRAVELING in the fourth dimension, moving but not moving.
>
> Does it make any sense to you? Of course not.
>
> But more than 50,000 cretins made a living with this shit in the last 100 years.
>
> You don't feel an IMBECILE yet? Well, keep thinking until you really start
> to be mad about this shit.
>
> Then, when you're mad enough, you become A NORMAL PERSON.
>
> It is worth the effort to BE AWAKE.

The only time exist is absolute time (AT). The rate of passage of AT is constant everywhere. Unfortunately we don't have a clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. A clock second at the rest frame of the clock will represent a specific amount of absolute time....that's why we have the LT to predict this specific amount of absolute time to a clock moving wrt the observer Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t).
The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS wrt the ground clock as follows:
1. redefine the GPS second to have 4.1617 more periods of the Cs 133 radiations than the ground clock second.
2.This means that: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the ground will contain the same amount of absolute time as 9,192,631,774.1617 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the GPS.
3. This makes the GPS and the ground clock are in synch in terms of absolute time.

..

Le 01/06/2022 à 16:51, Ken Seto a écrit :

> in terms of absolute time.

Absolute time does not exist.

Absolute simultaneity does not exist.

Even worse, and this is where we have to pull out the tissues, the notion
of an “absolute present time plan” is fake news.

Fake news taught by hundreds of relativist theorists who think they
figured out they were smart, and who aren't smart at all. Arrogant towards
the "cranks" yes.

But smart, no.

R.H.

On May 31, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>>> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
>>> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
>>> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
>>> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
>
>> A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60.
>> A police radar trap sits at that point.
>> The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car
>> is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the
>> police car as moving.
>> Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming
>> eastbound at 90 mph. It's driving westward (opposite) the train,
>> 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60.
>> Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which
>> is REALLY moving, and which is stationary
>> And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle?
>> That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed
>> 180 mph?
>
> If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since
> it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph.

Correct.
To precise, police car's speed is irrelevant, only the speed
of the radar gun matters.

> A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the
> Camaro to be 90 mph.

Does not compute.

Review:
i) Camaro zooms east at 90 mph. Cop is parked, obviously stationary.
ii) Camaro, same as case (i). But the cop is driving westward at 90 mph.

Everything in the universe is in motion, relative to the Big
Bang point. That's what determines their true velocity.
That's the point of Einsteins's paper, which you read, right?

In (ii), they are moving the same speed THROUGH SPACE,
in opposite directions. In fact, we can ignore the earth completely!
What's pertinent is their speed through space. They accelerated
identically, to the same speed. Therefore their closing speed must be 180.

How can the gun read the same?!?

> And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound
> lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the
> westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph.

It reads the closing speed of the guns.
But how is it different than case (ii)?

Looks like you need to re-thread your head, Ed -

--
Rich

On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:19:01 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On May 31, wrote:
> >>> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> >>> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> >>> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> >>> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> >
> >> A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60.
> >> A police radar trap sits at that point.
> >> The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car
> >> is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the
> >> police car as moving.
> >> Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming
> >> eastbound at 90 mph. It's driving westward (opposite) the train,
> >> 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60.
> >> Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which
> >> is REALLY moving, and which is stationary
> >> And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle?
> >> That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed
> >> 180 mph?
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since
> > it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph.
> Correct.
> To precise, police car's speed is irrelevant, only the speed
> of the radar gun matters.
> > A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the
> > Camaro to be 90 mph.
> Does not compute.
>
> Review:
> i) Camaro zooms east at 90 mph. Cop is parked, obviously stationary.
> ii) Camaro, same as case (i). But the cop is driving westward at 90 mph.

No, the cop is racing to remain "stationary." His radar gun doesn't "know"
about the train or how the cop car is moving aboard the train. All the gun
"knows" is that it is "stationary" relative to the ground.

>
> Everything in the universe is in motion, relative to the Big
> Bang point. That's what determines their true velocity.

But no one knows what that "true velocity" is. The radar gun certainly
doesn't.

> That's the point of Einsteins's paper, which you read, right?

Yes. But his paper is about the speed of light and time dilation. Radar guns
do not measure the speed of light. They measure differences in the oscillation
frequencies of photons.

>
> In (ii), they are moving the same speed THROUGH SPACE,
> in opposite directions. In fact, we can ignore the earth completely!
> What's pertinent is their speed through space. They accelerated
> identically, to the same speed. Therefore their closing speed must be 180.

The closing speed for the train and the Camaro is 180, but the cop car
is moving at 90 mph aboard the train, so the closing speed between the
cop car and the Camaro is 90 mph.

>
> How can the gun read the same?!?

The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE
TO THE GROUND. If the gun was moving, then the photons would oscillate
at a higher frequency that represents the guns' motion relative to the ground.

> > And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound
> > lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the
> > westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph.
> It reads the closing speed of the guns.
> But how is it different than case (ii)?

In your thought experiment, the cop car is STATIONARY relative to the
ground. That is all the gun knows. It has no way of knowing that it is
on a train going one way and in a car going the other way for a net speed
of zero. It just knows it's STATIONARY relative to the ground.

And because it is STATIONARY relative to the ground, the gun emits
photons that oscillate at a frequency that matches the frequency that
would be emitted by a gun actually ON the ground.

The photons travel at c to the Camaro. The Camaro is moving at speed v.
The photons, therefore, hit the Camaro at c+v (the "closing speed"). Atoms
in some reflective surface on the car ABSORB the photons AS IF they
oscillated at the c+v frequency, NOT their actual frequency.

The atoms in the reflective surface then emit NEW photons that oscillate
at the HIGHER frequency back toward the radar gun.

The radar gun receives the NEW photons and compares their oscillation
frequency to the oscillation frequency the gun uses. and it computes the
difference in frequencies. That difference represents v, the speed of the
Camaro. The gun then displays the speed of the Camaro.

NASA has a web page where they explain how a radar gun can emit ONE
photon and measure the speed of a target. Here's the link:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm

I suspect this strongly conflicts with your mistaken beliefs.

Ed

On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/06/2022 à 16:51, Ken Seto a écrit :
>
> > in terms of absolute time.
> Absolute time does not exist.
> Absolute simultaneity does not exist.
t.
Assertions are not valid argument.
>
> Even worse, and this is where we have to pull out the tissues, the notion
> of an “absolute present time plan” is fake news.
>
> Fake news taught by hundreds of relativist theorists who think they
> figured out they were smart, and who aren't smart at all. Arrogant towards
> the "cranks" yes.
>
> But smart, no.
>
>
> R.H.

On 6/2/2022 9:56 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 01/06/2022 à 16:51, Ken Seto a écrit :
>>
>>> in terms of absolute time.
>> Absolute time does not exist.
>> Absolute simultaneity does not exist.
> t.
> Assertions are not valid argument.

While you're right, Ken, there's much more to the statements he's made
than meets the eye. What sort of valid arguments can be made that
something does not exist? This is not a trick question.

>> Even worse, and this is where we have to pull out the tissues, the notion
>> of an “absolute present time plan” is fake news.
>>
>> Fake news taught by hundreds of relativist theorists who think they
>> figured out they were smart, and who aren't smart at all. Arrogant towards
>> the "cranks" yes.
>>
>> But smart, no.
>>
>>
>> R.H.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:43:57 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds.

A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. A "moving radar" device determines the speed of the gun relative to the ground by measuring the rate of change of the distance between the gun and some object(s) at rest on the ground. There is nothing magical or mysterious about this.

On 6/2/22 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE
> TO THE GROUND.

NONSENSE! The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. The
radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in
which it is at rest. That is the ONLY frame that it "knows" anything about.

[We are discussing a simple, single-beam radar gun.]

> And because it is STATIONARY relative to the ground, the gun emits
> photons that oscillate at a frequency that matches the frequency that
> would be emitted by a gun actually ON the ground.

The photons don't oscillate. But for this physical situation the radar
wave emitted by the gun is indeed the same frequency of a similar gun
resting on the ground (measured in the inertial frame of the ground).

> The photons travel at c to the Camaro. The Camaro is moving at speed v.
> The photons, therefore, hit the Camaro at c+v (the "closing speed").

That is an unusual way to think of this, because "closing speed" is a
purely mathematical artifact with no physical meaning (e.g. there is no
possible way to measure it, one can only calculate it by subtracting two
measurable speeds).

[Let me ignore the effect of the air, which is
negligible here.]

Relative to the inertial rest frame of the Camaro, the incoming radar
wave moves with speed c, as does the reflected wave. But since the
Camaro is moving relative to the source of the incoming radar wave, in
the Camaro rest frame the incoming wave has a higher frequency than it
has in the radar gun's frame (Doppler shift); in the Camaro frame the
incoming and reflected radar waves have the same frequency. But in the
radar gun's frame the reflected wave has a higher frequency than the
gun's emitted wave (also Doppler shift), and that difference is used by
the gun to determine the Camaro's speed RELATIVE TO THE GUN'S REST FRAME.

> Atoms
> in some reflective surface on the car ABSORB the photons [...]

No, they don't. The wave is REFLECTED, not absorbed. Light reflecting
from a metallic mirror does not involve absorption -- internet articles
that claim so are WRONG. See my initial post in the thread "What Happens
When Light is Reflected?" -- the light is reflected by the conduction
electrons, not the atoms.

Tom Roberts

On 6/2/22 2:10 PM, Al Coe wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:43:57 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com
> wrote:
>> Most radar guns have the capability of measuring their own speeds.
>>
>
> A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the
> distance between gun and target.

Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST
specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of
course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative to
the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of the
radar beam.

> A "moving radar" device determines the speed of the gun relative to
> the ground by measuring the rate of change of the distance between
> the gun and some object(s) at rest on the ground. There is nothing
> magical or mysterious about this.

Right. You can easily tell the difference:
A) a simple, single-beam radar gun (aka "stationary") is
usually hand held ("an oversized pistol"), and has a
single readout for speed relative to its rest frame.
B) a dual-beam radar gun (aka "moving") is never hand-held,
it is usually a box mounted on or under the dashboard of
a police car. They typically have 3 readouts: target
relative to car, car relative to ground, and target
relative to ground (some have a single selectable readout).

Ed Lake has displayed huge confusion between these two types of radar
guns, as well as a comprehensive lack of understanding about very basic
physics.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of the
> > distance between gun and target.
>
> Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST
> specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of
> course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative to
> the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of the
> radar beam.

Be careful. First, the relevant quantity here is not the target's speed in terms of some coordinate system, it is (as stated above) the rate of change of distance, which is not synonymous with speed. You can see this if you consider a car moving transversely at high speed in terms of your co-moving inertial coordinates. Pointing a speed gun at that car will not read it's speed in the gun's coordinate system, it will read essentially zero, because that is the rate of change of the distance at that moment. This is the extreme "cosine effect".

Second, even along a one-dimensional line, the device could, in principle, measure the round-trip time of the pulses or wave crests and establish both the distance and its rate of change, without constructing a coordinate system.

Third, even if we establish a system of coordinates in terms of which to evaluate the rate of change of distance, in this situation it is completely insignificant whether we evaluate this rate of change of distance in terms of the gun's co-moving inertial coordinates or the target's co-moving inertial coordinates. Radar guns exploit just the first-order Doppler effect, and the relativistic effects are negligibly small.

On 6/2/22 5:55 PM, Al Coe wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of
>>> the distance between gun and target.
>>
>> Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST
>> specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of
>> course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative
>> to the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of
>> the radar beam.
>
> Be careful. [...]

I WAS careful: I said "along the line-of-sight of the radar beam". Your
paragraph is just a long-winded repetition of that.

> Second, even along a one-dimensional line, the device could, in
> principle, measure the round-trip time of the pulses or wave crests
> and establish both the distance and its rate of change, without
> constructing a coordinate system.

A radar gun CLEARLY never "constructs a coordinate system". But the
equations used to convert the Doppler shift to a speed were derived
using the inertial rest frame of the gun, and inherently reference that
frame.

IOW: the gun can only detect reflected waves that intersect its own
worldline, and the geometrical projection it performs to measure them
uses its own 4-velocity; it is using its own proper time to measure the
Doppler shift. So it is CLEARLY making a measurement relative to
its own (instantaneously co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame.

[In practice, those parenthetical qualifications are irrelevant.]

> Third, even if we establish a system of coordinates in terms of
> which to evaluate the rate of change of distance, in this situation
> it is completely insignificant whether we evaluate this rate of
> change of distance in terms of the gun's co-moving inertial
> coordinates or the target's co-moving inertial coordinates. Radar
> guns exploit just the first-order Doppler effect, and the
> relativistic effects are negligibly small.

An analyst can evaluate it using any coordinates whatsoever [#], but
THE RADAR GUN CANNOT -- it can only use its own (instantaneously
co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. Because that is how it is
constructed.

[#] Because, of course, every physical measurement is
inherently invariant under changes of coordinates.

You have obfuscated this beyond recognition, and never responded to my
original point, so let me repeat this very important requirement:

Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you
MUST specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured.

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 7:03:23 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/2/22 5:55 PM, Al Coe wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:35:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>> A simple radar speed gun always just shows the rate of change of
> >>> the distance between gun and target.
> >>
> >> Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you MUST
> >> specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured. Here, of
> >> course, speed (aka rate of change of distance) is measured relative
> >> to the radar gun's inertial rest frame, along the line-of-sight of
> >> the radar beam.
> >
> > Be careful. [...]
>
> I WAS careful: I said "along the line-of-sight of the radar beam". Your
> paragraph is just a long-winded repetition of that.
> > Second, even along a one-dimensional line, the device could, in
> > principle, measure the round-trip time of the pulses or wave crests
> > and establish both the distance and its rate of change, without
> > constructing a coordinate system.
> A radar gun CLEARLY never "constructs a coordinate system". But the
> equations used to convert the Doppler shift to a speed were derived
> using the inertial rest frame of the gun, and inherently reference that
> frame.
>
> IOW: the gun can only detect reflected waves that intersect its own
> worldline, and the geometrical projection it performs to measure them
> uses its own 4-velocity; it is using its own proper time to measure the
> Doppler shift. So it is CLEARLY making a measurement relative to
> its own (instantaneously co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame.
>
> [In practice, those parenthetical qualifications are irrelevant.]
> > Third, even if we establish a system of coordinates in terms of
> > which to evaluate the rate of change of distance, in this situation
> > it is completely insignificant whether we evaluate this rate of
> > change of distance in terms of the gun's co-moving inertial
> > coordinates or the target's co-moving inertial coordinates. Radar
> > guns exploit just the first-order Doppler effect, and the
> > relativistic effects are negligibly small.
> An analyst can evaluate it using any coordinates whatsoever [#], but
> THE RADAR GUN CANNOT -- it can only use its own (instantaneously
> co-moving) (locally) inertial rest frame. Because that is how it is
> constructed.
>
> [#] Because, of course, every physical measurement is
> inherently invariant under changes of coordinates.
>
> You have obfuscated this beyond recognition, and never responded to my
> original point, so let me repeat this very important requirement:
> Whenever you mention distance, time, velocity, or speed, you
> MUST specify the coordinates relative to which it is measured.
> Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts,

Can there ever be a coordinate system in which the speed of an object is greater than c?