On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/4/22 9:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > [to Paparios] what you consider to be a "wave" and what I consider
> > to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree.
> Right. You have no understanding of what a wave really is, you only
> fantasize that you do. Physicists, however, have an excellent
> definition: waves are phenomena that obey a wave equation [#].

Yes, unless it obeys a particle equation. I assume you are familiar with
"wave particle duality." If not, here is how Wikipedia defines it:

"Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every
particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave."

What it means is that in Quantum Mechanics they do NOT CARE what is
actually happening with light. They just use whichever EQUATION fits.
>
> [This applies to sound, ocean, gravity, salinity,
> electromagnetic, and many other types of waves.]

(snip wasted space)

> > In reality, experiments hows that light travels as individual
> > PHOTONS, [...]
>
> You display your personal lack of understanding of basic physics, and a
> complete failure to grasp what science in general is doing. We are NOT
> attempting to determine "what light actually is", we are MODELING HOW IT
> BEHAVES.

Idiot Quantum Mechanics mathematicians may do that, but IN SCIENCE,
EXPERIMENTS are performed to determine "what light actually is."
Mathematical models may be created to describe some action, but when
the model fails, scientists go back to the drawing board and try again to
figure out exactly what light actually is.

> For light and related electromagnetic phenomena we have two
> excellent models, valid in different (but overlapping) domains:
> a) Classical electrodynamics (aka Maxwell's equations), in
> which light is modeled as a wave in the (classical)
> electromagnetic field.
> b) QED, in which light is modeled as a collection of photons,
> which are excitations of the (quantum) electromagnetic field.
>
> Note this is not an "either/or" situation, the two models are valid in
> different domains, to different accuracies. Radar guns are within the
> domains of both models. Since (a) is VASTLY easier to apply than (b),
> radar-gun designers all use Maxwell's equations to model their designs.
> Indeed it is infeasible to use QED for such designs, as that would
> involve N equations, where N is on the order of Avogadro's number.
>
> [#] A wave equation has the form:
> d^2/dt^2 F - c^2 Del^2 F = S
> where F represents the intensity of the phenomenon, c
> is a constant characteristic of the wave, and S is the
> source of the wave; the first term is a second-order
> partial derivative, and Del^2 is the 3-D Laplacian.

I'm totally familiar with all of that. What you seem to fail to understand
is all the experiments which have been performed to determine "what
light actually is."

We KNOW from experiments that light consists of PARTICLES we call
"PHOTONS." Richard Feynman famously said and wrote,

---- start Feynman quotes ----
"We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive
instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets
dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them.. Thus
light is something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon—
and if the light is all one color, all the ‘raindrops’ are the same size.”[1]

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very
important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you
who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light
behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.
You might say that it’s just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles,
but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to
detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is
made of particles."[2]
----- end Feynman quotes ---

The quotes are from Richard P. Feynman's book, "QED: The Strange Theory of
Light and Matter," Princeton University Press (1985), pages 14 and 15.

Other experiments also show that if you send one photon at a time through
the "Double Slit Experiment," you STILL get the wave pattern on the other side.

That says there is something about an individual photon that can create such
a pattern. We also KNOW that individual photons have electric fields which
can be aligned by a polarizing lens.

We also know that a photon has no mass. And we know that a photon's
energy depends upon the atom that created it, and upon the speed and
altitude of that atom.

All you do when you talk about light as "waves" is demonstrate that you
DO NOT CARE what light actually is or how a photon works, all you care
about is being able to do the MATHEMATICS.

Definition of "scientist":
"A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and
evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding
and knowledge."

Definition of "mathematician":
"an expert in or student of mathematics."

Ed

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:25:25 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On June 4, wrote:
> > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is
> > pointed at a target approaching at 50 mph.
> What does it read, when the target is stationary, and the
> gun approaches at 50 mph?

It computes MINUS 50, but it doesn't usually show the minus sign. If you
have a more sophisticated radar gun, it will show a "Patrol speed" of 50 mph.

And when the gun is stationary and the target is moving, it shows a "Target
speed" of 50 mph.

> > Is 50 mph a "rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target"?
> > NO, OF COURSE NOT. It is the SPEED of the target.
> > Does the speed of the target "equal the rate of change of the distance between
> > gun and target"? If you are mindlessly obsessed with looking at things that way,
> Mindless indeed.
>
> Now if I open the EdLake Dictionary of Physics, and look
> up "speed", or "speed of the target", what definition does it provide?

Whatever definition it provides, it isn't about what a RADAR GUN measures.
Those terms are too general. AIRCRAFT RADAR measures "speed of the target"
different from a police radar gun. It does things your way.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
> > INFINITE???? How far is that?
>
> If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
> You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
>
> Ed

Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
indication that it is a fact.

I warned you guys i don't allow misinformation here.

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

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > The reading on a simple radar speed gun always equals the rate of change of
> > the distance between gun and target.
>
> Does the speed of the target "equal the rate of change of the distance between
> gun and target"?

Not in general. For example, if you point a speed gun at a car as it's moving transversely to you at 50 mph, the rate of change of distance at that moment is zero, and that is what the speed gun reads in that condition. This is just a result of the cosine effect (for an angle of 90 degrees in this case), which accounts for the difference between the speed of an object and the rate of change of the distance. Do you understand this?

> Yes, I suppose it can be viewed that way.

Great, so we are in agreement that in every circumstance -- without exception -- the value showing on a simple radar speed gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target.

Now that we've agreed on what the device does, we can talk about how it does it. This is very simple: It measures the difference between the frequencies of the transmitted and returned signal, which depends directly on the rate of change of the distance in accordance with the elementary Doppler effect. Agreed?

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
> > > INFINITE???? How far is that?
> >
> > If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
> > You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
> >
> > Ed
> Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
> indication that it is a fact.

You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?

In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.

Ed

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 13:12:38 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:14:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 11:54:12 UTC-4, escribió:
>
> > > > Is 50 mph a "rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target"?
> > > > NO, OF COURSE NOT. It is the SPEED of the target.
> > > >
> > > Oh my God. So you do not know that speed v = Δx/Δt ? Δx=distance change; Δt=time measured interval. Therefore, Δx/Δt is rate of change of the distance between gun and target!!!!
>
> > Oh my God!!! So, you do not know that radar guns do NOT measure distance changes??
> > They ONLY measure oscillation frequency changes between the photons the gun emits and
> > the photons it receives back! YOU can convert that to a distance change if you want,
> > but it is NOT what the gun measured! The gun ONLY converts the frequency change into
> > target speed.
> >
> Sure, the radar detector uses the equation v = (c/2)Δf/fc to infer the target relative speed with respect to the radar emitter, where Δf is the frequency diference between the emitted and received wave frequencies.
>
> Of course that frequency difference (Doppler effect) relates to the distance change between the emitter and the target. If both the emitter and the target are moving, then that frequency difference will give the wrong speed.. The correct speed of the target is only obtained when the emitter is at rest (like stationary on the ground).

Miguelito, it´s a shame what you wrote, being an EE.

Mig-31 multi-target radar works at more than Mach 3, and was the first phased array radar by 1977, which shocked US and NATO.

The system, even flying at Mach 3, could detect, select and engage up to 8 targets by then, at a distance of 90 Km.

Today, the avionics is much more advanced and detection at such range can be done by IR sensors, which feed the AA missiles
(Fire and Forget mode).

Also, the radar system can engage mobile and FIXED targets simultaneously (AA and AS missiles). The NATO terror, as multiband
systems CAN SEE stealth planes like F-35 OVER THE HORIZON, and engage.

Illustrate yourself a little:

https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-ground-breaking-mig-31-fighter-interceptor-aircraft-modified/

Russia’s ‘Ground-Breaking’ MiG-31 Fighter-Interceptor Aircraft To Be Heavily Modified Amid Tensions With NATO

The MiG-31 Foxhound has made several world records. It reached an absolute maximum altitude of 37,650 meters in 1977, and set a time-to-height record of 35,000 meters in 4 minutes, 11.78 seconds, both of which were set by the famous MiG test pilot Alexander Fedotov.
......
The MiG-31 is equipped with four long-range Vympel R-33E air-to-air missiles. The R-33 can be launched in inertial navigation mode to shoot at the target from a long distance.

For initial acquisition and mid-course updates, it can be directed in semi-active radar homing (SARH) mode. The Cold War-era warplane was designed to take out huge, fast targets like the American SR-71 Blackbird, B-1 Lancer bomber, and B-52 Stratofortress.

The aircraft is also equipped with four short-range R-60MK missiles and two Bisnovat R-40TD1 medium-range missiles. A six-barrel 30mm internal cannon (Ghs-6-23M) is installed above the starboard main landing gear bay of the aircraft. The cannon contain 800 rounds of ammunition and can fire at a rate of over 10,000 rounds a minute.

MiG-31BM can accommodate the AA-12 Adder missile and various Russian air-to-ground missiles (AGMs) such as the AS-17 Krypton anti-radiation missile (ARM).

The N007 Zaslon phased array radar aboard the MiG-31 is the world’s first electronically scanned radar. It’s also known as the SBI-16 Zaslon (Flash Dance), and it’s controlled by a weapons system officer (WSO) from the back cockpit. Early warning radar (EWR) and aerial warning and control systems can send signals to it (AWACS).

Zaslon can scan a distance of 200 kilometers. The radar can track 10 targets and engage four of them at once in the aircraft’s immediate vicinity (behind and below the aircraft).

According to one count, there are 252 MiG-31s in the inventory of the Russian Air Force. Moscow began modernizing its Foxhound fleet to the MiG-31BM and BSM variant starting in 2010 with plans to have 100 upgraded by 2020.

The 35-year-old MiG-31 is expected to serve until 2030. Moscow says that the MiG-41 or PAK-DP, a dedicated “Mach 4” interceptor, will be developed to replace the Foxhound in the air defense role.

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Does the speed of the target...

Since you are an expert on radar speed guns, I'm hoping you can answer this question: Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show?

Note to others: Yes, I know it's an easy question, but please let Ed answer. He's the expert.

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
> > > > INFINITE???? How far is that?
> > >
> > > If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
> > > You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
> > indication that it is a fact.
>
> You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
> I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
> Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
> wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
> big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
> side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?
>
> In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
> infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.
>
> Ed

"fact" means proved to be true.

It was never proven!

It's not a fact, Jack!

You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely.

"fact" means proved to be true.

not even likely.

I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true."

dats science fiction.

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

On 6/4/2022 10:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:27:31 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

>> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_speed_gun
>>
>> "Radar speed guns, like other types of radar, consist of a radio transmitter and receiver. They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the transmitted waves. When the object is approaching the radar, the frequency of the return waves is higher than the transmitted waves; when the object is moving away, the frequency is lower. From that difference, the radar speed gun can calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced".
>
> That is a MUDDLED description. It doesn't say what a radio "signal" is. I would say
> that "signal" is called a PHOTON. And when it talks about "waves," it would be correct
> if those "waves" were actually oscillating electromagnetic fields in a photon.
>
> LIGHT CONSISTS OF PHOTONS. When you do not talk about PHOTONS and instead
> talk about signals and beams and waves, all you do is MISLEAD the reader and YOURSELF.
>

Ed, when stating your opinion on what is happening, you should make it
clear it is your opinion and not factual. People will be less arrogant
when telling you your opinion is incorrect rather than you are
presenting incorrect "facts".

>> Nonsense. Radar guns measure the frequency difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency, according to the formula:
>>
>> v = (c/2)Δf/fc
>>
>> where c is the speed of light, fc is the emitted frequency of the radio waves, and Δf is the difference in frequency between the radio waves that are emitted and those received back by the gun.
>
> I agree with everything you say, but what you consider to be a "wave" and what I
> consider to be a "wave" is where we totally disagree.
>
Here you have an opinion about the nature of a wave, just make it clear
it's an opinion. Also your opinions should be open to correction by
people more knowledgeable than yourself on the topic.

El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 17:33:32 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 13:12:38 UTC-4, det...@outlook..com escribió:
> > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:14:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 11:54:12 UTC-4, escribió:
> >
> > > > > Is 50 mph a "rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target"?
> > > > > NO, OF COURSE NOT. It is the SPEED of the target.
> > > > >
> > > > Oh my God. So you do not know that speed v = Δx/Δt ? Δx=distance change; Δt=time measured interval. Therefore, Δx/Δt is rate of change of the distance between gun and target!!!!
> >
> > > Oh my God!!! So, you do not know that radar guns do NOT measure distance changes??
> > > They ONLY measure oscillation frequency changes between the photons the gun emits and
> > > the photons it receives back! YOU can convert that to a distance change if you want,
> > > but it is NOT what the gun measured! The gun ONLY converts the frequency change into
> > > target speed.
> > >
> > Sure, the radar detector uses the equation v = (c/2)Δf/fc to infer the target relative speed with respect to the radar emitter, where Δf is the frequency diference between the emitted and received wave frequencies.
> >
> > Of course that frequency difference (Doppler effect) relates to the distance change between the emitter and the target. If both the emitter and the target are moving, then that frequency difference will give the wrong speed. The correct speed of the target is only obtained when the emitter is at rest (like stationary on the ground).
> Miguelito, it´s a shame what you wrote, being an EE.
>
> Mig-31 multi-target radar works at more than Mach 3, and was the first phased array radar by 1977, which shocked US and NATO.
>
Which part of police radar guns did you miss?

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:49:27 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 17:33:32 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 13:12:38 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:14:42 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 11:54:12 UTC-4, escribió:
> > >
> > > > > > Is 50 mph a "rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target"?
> > > > > > NO, OF COURSE NOT. It is the SPEED of the target.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Oh my God. So you do not know that speed v = Δx/Δt ? Δx=distance change; Δt=time measured interval. Therefore, Δx/Δt is rate of change of the distance between gun and target!!!!
> > >
> > > > Oh my God!!! So, you do not know that radar guns do NOT measure distance changes??
> > > > They ONLY measure oscillation frequency changes between the photons the gun emits and
> > > > the photons it receives back! YOU can convert that to a distance change if you want,
> > > > but it is NOT what the gun measured! The gun ONLY converts the frequency change into
> > > > target speed.
> > > >
> > > Sure, the radar detector uses the equation v = (c/2)Δf/fc to infer the target relative speed with respect to the radar emitter, where Δf is the frequency diference between the emitted and received wave frequencies.
> > >
> > > Of course that frequency difference (Doppler effect) relates to the distance change between the emitter and the target. If both the emitter and the target are moving, then that frequency difference will give the wrong speed. The correct speed of the target is only obtained when the emitter is at rest (like stationary on the ground).
> > Miguelito, it´s a shame what you wrote, being an EE.
> >
> > Mig-31 multi-target radar works at more than Mach 3, and was the first phased array radar by 1977, which shocked US and NATO.
> >
> Which part of police radar guns did you miss?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Continuous-wave_radar

Unmodulated continuous-wave. Change of wavelength caused by motion of the source
This kind of radar can cost less than $10 (2021).

Limitations
Unmodulated continuous wave radar cannot measure distance.
Signal amplitude provides the only way to determine which object corresponds with which speed measurement when there is more than one moving object near the receiver, but amplitude information is not useful without range measurement to evaluate target size. Moving objects include birds flying near objects in front of the antenna. Reflections from small objects directly in front of the receiver can be overwhelmed by reflections entering antenna side-lobes from large object located to the side, above, or behind the radar, such as trees with wind blowing through the leaves, tall grass, sea surface, freight trains, busses, trucks, and aircraft.

Continuous-wave radar without frequency modulation (FM) only detects moving targets, as stationary targets (along the line of sight) will not cause a Doppler shift. Reflected signals from stationary and slow-moving objects are masked by the transmit signal, which overwhelms reflections from slow-moving objects during normal operation.

Modulated continuous-wave
Frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar (FM-CW) – also called continuous-wave frequency-modulated (CWFM) radar[6] – is a short-range measuring radar set capable of determining distance. This increases reliability by providing distance measurement along with speed measurement, which is essential when there is more than one source of reflection arriving at the radar antenna.

On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
>>>>> INFINITE???? How far is that?
>>>>
>>>> If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
>>>> You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>> Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
>>> indication that it is a fact.
>>
>> You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
>> I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
>> Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
>> wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
>> big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
>> side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?
>>
>> In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
>> infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.

What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe
in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in
Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well
described.

>> Ed
>
> "fact" means proved to be true.
>
> It was never proven!
>
> It's not a fact, Jack!

I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again)
more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more
unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true
ones.

Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation.

> You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely.
>
>
> "fact" means proved to be true.
>
>
> not even likely.
>
>
> I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true."
>
>
> dats science fiction.
>
>
>

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
> >>>>> INFINITE???? How far is that?
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
> >>>> You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>> Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
> >>> indication that it is a fact.
> >>
> >> You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
> >> I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
> >> Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
> >> wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
> >> big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
> >> side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?
> >>
> >> In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
> >> infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.
> What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe
> in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in
> Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well
> described.
> >> Ed
> >
> > "fact" means proved to be true.
> >
> > It was never proven!
> >
> > It's not a fact, Jack!
> I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again)
> more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more
> unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true
> ones.
>
> Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation.
> > You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely.
> >
> >
> > "fact" means proved to be true.
> >
> >
> > not even likely.
> >
> >
> > I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true."
> >
> >
> > dats science fiction.
> >
> >
> >

You forgot, conveniently, 1.6 billion Muslims. The third monotheistic religion.

On 6/4/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
>> On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
>>>>>>> INFINITE???? How far is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
>>>>>> You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>> Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
>>>>> indication that it is a fact.
>>>>
>>>> You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
>>>> I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
>>>> Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
>>>> wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
>>>> big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
>>>> side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?
>>>>
>>>> In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
>>>> infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.
>> What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe
>> in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in
>> Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well
>> described.
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> "fact" means proved to be true.
>>>
>>> It was never proven!
>>>
>>> It's not a fact, Jack!
>> I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again)
>> more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more
>> unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true
>> ones.
>>
>> Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation.
>>> You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely.
>>>
>>>
>>> "fact" means proved to be true.
>>>
>>>
>>> not even likely.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true."
>>>
>>>
>>> dats science fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> You forgot, conveniently, 1.6 billion Muslims. The third monotheistic religion.

No "convenience" to it, just isn't much in my thoughts. Wikipedia says
there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world. Islam is one of
the largest. Pewresearch says Islam is second largest. I don't "owe" any
of them specific mention in my postings. Your comment has been
respectfully answered.

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 11:00:13 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> On 6/4/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> >> On 6/4/2022 5:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
> >>>>>>> INFINITE???? How far is that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
> >>>>>> You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>> Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
> >>>>> indication that it is a fact.
> >>>>
> >>>> You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
> >>>> I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
> >>>> Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
> >>>> wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
> >>>> big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
> >>>> side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?
> >>>>
> >>>> In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
> >>>> infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.
> >> What follows from your thesis is that there's no reason to not believe
> >> in the Judeo-Christian God. There's also no reason not the believe in
> >> Zoroasterism, or Hinduism or any number 0of other belief systems well
> >> described.
> >>>> Ed
> >>>
> >>> "fact" means proved to be true.
> >>>
> >>> It was never proven!
> >>>
> >>> It's not a fact, Jack!
> >> I hasten to point out that there are probably (there's that word again)
> >> more unproven and perhaps (there's another that word again) more
> >> unproven and unprovable "facts" than there are demonstrated to be true
> >> ones.
> >>
> >> Yes, Starmaker, you are right, science is not about speculation.
> >>> You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "fact" means proved to be true.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> not even likely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> dats science fiction.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > You forgot, conveniently, 1.6 billion Muslims. The third monotheistic religion.
> No "convenience" to it, just isn't much in my thoughts. Wikipedia says
> there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world. Islam is one of
> the largest. Pewresearch says Islam is second largest. I don't "owe" any
> of them specific mention in my postings. Your comment has been
> respectfully answered.

Yes you did.

Anyway, the Universe is not a religious conception, but a cosmological one.

Each religion is full of different dimensions: Earth, Heaven and Hell are more related to monotheism, and the last two
dimensions seem to be infinite, IMHO.

Other religions seem to propose much more dimensions (realms?), but I don't know of any metrics of time and length
that are related to them, in any case that I've heard of.

Infinite lengths and time duration are "forbidden" in the atheist modern science and their arrogant mathematician priests,
who can't accept that they don't know shit about the universe.

So, the majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists are comfortable with a universe of 46 bly radius and 14 by age.

But don't dare to ask any of them what lies after that radius or what existed before the last 14 billion years. Ethernal question
with no answers, in particular about the "birth and flow of time".

On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 00:35:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Ed, when stating your opinion on what is happening, you should make it
> clear it is your opinion and not factual. People will be less arrogant
> when telling you your opinion is incorrect rather than you are
> presenting incorrect "facts".

Mike, follow your own advice.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:32:06 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 00:35:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
> > Ed, when stating your opinion on what is happening, you should make it
> > clear it is your opinion and not factual. People will be less arrogant
> > when telling you your opinion is incorrect rather than you are
> > presenting incorrect "facts".
> Mike, follow your own advice.

Where is Bodkin? Maybe he morphed into Ed.

I think that him, as a master deceiver, maybe is enjoying such cover.
After all, he knows Ed's thoughts very well. He could be playing with you all.

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:37:13 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:19:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Does the speed of the target...
>
> Since you are an expert on radar speed guns, I'm hoping you can answer this question: Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show?
>
> Note to others: Yes, I know it's an easy question, but please let Ed answer. He's the expert.

Both guns show a speed of ZERO for the other vehicle. That is because
they are traveling at right angles to one another. With radar guns there is
a "cosine effect." There's a calculator for it here: https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt2/ch2d1.html

If the target is going 70 mph and the angle to the target is 10 degrees, the gun will show a speed of 68.9 mph.
If the angle is 20 degrees, the gun will show 65.8 mph.
If the angle is 50 degrees, the gun will show 45 mph.
If the angle is 70 degrees, the gun will show 23.9 mph.
If the angle is 80 degrees, the gun will show 12.2 mph.

Does that answer your question?

Ed

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 5:12:03 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:16:47 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > the fact that the universe around us is very likely INFINITE.
> > > > > INFINITE???? How far is that?
> > > >
> > > > If you are unfamiliar with the word, look it up in a dictionary.
> > > > You will see that your question displays MASSIVE ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > Well, you wrote in the same sentence the word..."fact". I didn't see any
> > > indication that it is a fact.
> >
> > You need to learn to read more carefully. I didn't say it was a "fact."
> > I said it is a fact that it is "VERY LIKELY INFINITE." Why is that a "fact"?
> > Because if the universe wasn't infinite, we should be able to see the
> > wall or whatever it is that surrounds everything. It would certainly be
> > big enough. Then, of course, you have to wonder what is on the other
> > side of that wall? Or is the wall infinite in depth?
> >
> > In sum, there is absolutely no reason to believe the universe is NOT
> > infinite. PLUS, a finite universe seems illogical and impossible.
> >
> > Ed
> "fact" means proved to be true.

Okay.
> It was never proven!

No one said it was.

> It's not a fact, Jack!
No one said it was.

> You shoulda wrote...very, very, very, very, very likely.

It's very likely.

> not even likely.

It appears you just want to argue OPINIONS.

> I don't accept people saying in science..."Well, it could be true."

If there is no reason to believe it is false, and there is good reason to
believe it is true, then it could be true.

Which is more likely, that we live in an infinite universe or that we live
in a finite universe? I'd say it is vastly more likely that we live in an INFINITE
universe. And I find it just plain CRAZY that Quantum Mechanics mathematicians
cannot cope with that.

Ed

On 6/3/22 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> According to Relativity, time ticks at a given rate on the surface of the
> earth.

Hmmm. You did not mention that relativity also implies that time ticks
at EXACTLY THAT SAME RATE everywhere else in the universe, when measured
in locally-inertial frames. This, of course, destroys your claims.

> [...] Atoms in a MOVING object will have slightly different properties.

No, they don't. Atomic properties, measured in their locally-inertial
rest frames, are the same throughout the universe. We know this because
of the tremendous success modern theoretical physics has in modeling the
myriad observations and measurements of the cosmos.

You are utterly incompetent to discuss "what relativity says", because
you simply do not understand relativity. You have concocted a mishmash
of vague notions that you fantasize is relativity -- it isn't, it is
just your own fantasies, and they DON'T correspond to the world we inhabit.

As you have repeatedly shown yourself to be incapable of learning
anything, I will stop trying to explain basic physics to you.

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:47:12 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/3/22 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > According to Relativity, time ticks at a given rate on the surface of the
> > earth.
>
> Hmmm. You did not mention that relativity also implies that time ticks
> at EXACTLY THAT SAME RATE everywhere else in the universe, when measured
> in locally-inertial frames. This, of course, destroys your claims.

Time dilation has no measurable effect on how a radar gun works.
My claims stand.

>
> > [...] Atoms in a MOVING object will have slightly different properties.
>
> No, they don't. Atomic properties, measured in their locally-inertial
> rest frames, are the same throughout the universe. We know this because
> of the tremendous success modern theoretical physics has in modeling the
> myriad observations and measurements of the cosmos.

You clearly do not understand Relativity. "Atomic properties" are MEASURED
to be the same in all "locally-inertial rest frames," BUT if that measurement
involves the speed of light PER SECOND, c, then the "atomic properties" will
be DIFFERENT when the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different due to a difference
in speed or gravity.

You should read Section 10 of Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies." The section is titled "Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron."
It is about how an electron gains energy when it is moved. That energy is W. And
Einstein writes: "Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than
that of light have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence."
> You are utterly incompetent to discuss "what relativity says", because
> you simply do not understand relativity. You have concocted a mishmash
> of vague notions that you fantasize is relativity -- it isn't, it is
> just your own fantasies, and they DON'T correspond to the world we inhabit.

I wouldn't say YOU are "incompetent to discuss what relativity says," since that
would be a personal attack, but you clearly do not understand what Relativity says.
> As you have repeatedly shown yourself to be incapable of learning
> anything, I will stop trying to explain basic physics to you.

All you are demonstrating is that you do not wish to discuss any topic intelligently,
all you want to do is state your OPINIONS and make personal attacks.

Ed

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:27:49 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one
> > going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant
> > velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check
> the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show?
>
> Both guns show a speed of ZERO for the other vehicle. That is because
> they are traveling at right angles to one another.

No, each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. Remember, when applying the cosine effect, the relevant angle is *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of the radar beam and the direction of the target in terms of the rest frame of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, because in terms of the rest frame of one car the other car (after passing at the intersection) is moving directly away at 50 mph. So the cosine factor is just cos(0)=1, so each gun reads 50 mph.

A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple radar speed gun always shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. In this case the rate of change of distance between the two cars is trivially 50 mph.

Let me give you a chance to redeem yourself with a less trivial example. Suppose the eastbound car is driving at 20 mph and the northbound car is driving at 30 mph, and the eastbound car passes through the intersection five seconds before the northbound car does. Then, five seconds after the northbound car passes through the intersection, they both take a reading of the other car. What will their speed guns show?

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:27:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Two vehicles pass each other at an intersection (they nearly collide), one
> > > going North at 40 mph and the other going east at 30 mph. (Both have constant
> > > velocities). Some time later (they can still see each other), they each check
> > the others' speed using a simple speed gun. What speeds do the guns show?
> >
> > Both guns show a speed of ZERO for the other vehicle. That is because
> > they are traveling at right angles to one another.
> No, each speed gun reads 50 mph in this case. Remember, when applying the cosine effect, the relevant angle is *not* the angle between the velocity vectors of the gun and target in terms of some arbitrary reference system, it is the angle between the direction of the radar beam and the direction of the target in terms of the rest frame of the gun. In this example, that angle is zero, because in terms of the rest frame of one car the other car (after passing at the intersection) is moving directly away at 50 mph. So the cosine factor is just cos(0)=1, so each gun reads 50 mph.
>
> A simpler way of answering the question is to remember that a simple radar speed gun always shows the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. In this case the rate of change of distance between the two cars is trivially 50 mph.
>
> Let me give you a chance to redeem yourself with a less trivial example. Suppose the eastbound car is driving at 20 mph and the northbound car is driving at 30 mph, and the eastbound car passes through the intersection five seconds before the northbound car does. Then, five seconds after the northbound car passes through the intersection, they both take a reading of the other car. What will their speed guns show?

Sorry, but I don't have time to do the calculations. I mistakenly assumed
that you wanted the 90 degree angle measurement in your original question.
Now I see you are asking me to calculate the angles between the two vehicles
when one has driven for x seconds away from the intersection at y speed while
the other has driven for w seconds away from the intersection and z speed.
I've got better things to do. And I should have just ignored you question.

Ed

On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 16:47:12 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/3/22 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > According to Relativity, time ticks at a given rate on the surface of the
> > earth.
>
> Hmmm. You did not mention that relativity also implies that time ticks
> at EXACTLY THAT SAME RATE everywhere else in the universe, when measured
> in locally-inertial frames. This, of course, destroys your claims.
>
> > [...] Atoms in a MOVING object will have slightly different properties.
>
> No, they don't. Atomic properties, measured in their locally-inertial
> rest frames, are the same throughout the universe. We know this because
> of the tremendous success modern theoretical physics has in modeling the
> myriad observations and measurements of the cosmos.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your insane religion TAI and GPS keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks alwways did.
"Atomic locally inertial rest frame", BTW? Tom, poor idiot,
such frame would violate Heisenberg's nonsense...

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:04:45 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't have time to do the calculations... Now I see you are asking me
> to calculate the angles...

Not at all. It doesn't take any "calculations" of angles, etc. Anyone who understands radar speed guns at all can answer that question instantly, because the distance between the cars is obviously increasing at a rate of 50 miles per hour. I thought you were an expert on this subject, and yet you can't correctly answer even the simplest question. What gives?

> I've got better things to do. And I should have just ignored you question..

If you want to be regarded as an expert on how radar speed guns work, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject?

> Time dilation has no measurable effect on how a radar gun works...
> ...involves the speed of light PER SECOND, c, then the "atomic properties"
> will be DIFFERENT when the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different due to a difference
> in speed or gravity.

Wait. First you say time dilation has no measurable effect on radar speed guns (basically true), but then in the very next sentence you say when things are measured at different speeds (or different gravity) the "length of the second" is
different... which is time dilation. What gives? Is time dilation relevant, or is it not?

If you want to be regarded as an expert on special relativity, shouldn't you be willing and able to answer (correctly) simple questions about the subject?