Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585932 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 255 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-26 22:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 23:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 00:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 12:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-27 19:09 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:14 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 22:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 07:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-07 19:19 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-08 11:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 20:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-09 13:30 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 18:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:09 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 14:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 14:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 15:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 16:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 20:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 07:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 13:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 14:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 13:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 19:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 20:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 13:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 14:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 17:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 20:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 21:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 02:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-31 12:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 15:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-02 19:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:05 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:43 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 08:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-01 14:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-02 07:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 14:55 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 08:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:51 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 13:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 11:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 08:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 19:52 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 11:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:47 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 12:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 05:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 15:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 19:25 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 21:00 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 23:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 16:53 -0700
Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:58 -0700
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 08:20 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-16 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-04 18:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-05 09:47 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 08:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-05 21:41 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-31 21:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 08:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 09:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 23:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 23:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 07:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-27 21:49 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:51 -0700
Absolute time Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Absolute time whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-02 12:05 -0500
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 22:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <d3524c9d-e4e9-4caf-8c26-d857eec11e4an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586329 |
On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 22:35:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > 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. Or, at least, in the world of Tom's delusions everyone does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 07:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <3a35462a-9c4c-4e4b-9014-b5ca7a5ebc3dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586326 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:11:00 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:43:57 PM UTC-7, 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. You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. Lidar works by sending a burst of photons to a target and then measuring how long it takes for a signal to return. That gives the first distance. Then a fraction of a second later the gun does it again. That gives the second distance. The gun then computes the distance the target traveled between the two measurements. Knowing the speed of light, the gun can then compute the target's speed. Lidar guns MUST be used while stationary. Most police departments are phasing out hand-held radar guns and are replacing them with lidar guns. They still use vehicle mounted radar guns, however. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 08:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <31b247b9-7aa9-436a-88eb-0eae04cdb1c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586366 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:08:41 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > 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. > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 09:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <04131360-4658-47c7-ae5f-99b4b21d37c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586373 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:44:23 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:08:41 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > 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. > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Radar guns detect the difference in photon oscillation frequencies between the photons it emits and the photons that are returned. The difference is called the "beat frequency." There's a calculator for beat frequencies at this link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/radar.html#c4 Unfortunately, the illustration shows waves instead of photons. I neglected to mention in my previous comment that Lidar guns emit LASER light. So, they can be more accurately pointed at a target. A typical RADAR gun has a beam width of 12 degrees, so it is more difficult to pinpoint a target. Lidar is used to measure distances. You can fly over some landscape with lidar pointed at the ground and measure the distances to hills and valleys, giving you a 3D picture of the ground. Police Lidar guns have a "gun sight" that you look through to make sure you are pointing at the right target. When you pull the trigger, it does a distance measurement to the target, then about 1/10th of a second later it does another measurement. Knowing the speed of light, the gun then calculates the target's speed by dividing the difference in distance by the time between measurements. Here's a video that explains how lidar guns work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5CZ5kFdmQ Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 11:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <b5f543f9-6693-46ce-9ad8-3ed7dfc09e1an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586377 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:06:54 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > Radar guns... I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 12:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <497477a6-c955-46df-849e-a54f8991ec1an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586386 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:06:54 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > Radar guns... > > I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Your question makes no sense. A radar gun does NOT measure the rate of change of distance between gun and target. It measures the frequency difference between the photons it emits and the photons it receives back. That frequency difference results from the difference in SPEEDS between the gun and the target. HOWEVER, IN THEORY the 70 mph reading on the radar gun can be mathematically converted into a difference in distances. The gun will show 70 mph if the target is 100 feet from the gun or 500 feet from the gun, but mathematically if it is traveling at 70 mph, so you should be able to compute what distance it traveled DURING ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. There is just no way to relate that period of time to a distance between the gun and the target, since you do not know the time between measurements. The gun does not measure that. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 14:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <20d941d7-4da3-4871-acd0-0979d4fd3182n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586390 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 12:39:34 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > Radar guns... > > > > I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > Your question makes no sense. It does make sense, because you've given some examples of what a simple radar gun reads in certain circumstances, and in each of your examples the value you say is shown by the gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target... and yet you deny that this is what the value shown on a simple radar gun always equals. So, I'm asking you to tell me at least one circumstance in which the value that shows on a simple radar speed gun is *not* equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Do you know of any such circumstance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 07:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <8d435014-c587-43e4-9566-12cc4c9a92d3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586399 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 4:37:58 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 12:39:34 PM UTC-7, wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > > > > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > > > Radar guns... > > > > > > I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > Your question makes no sense. > It does make sense, because you've given some examples of what a simple radar gun reads in certain circumstances, and in each of your examples the value you say is shown by the gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target... and yet you deny that this is what the value shown on a simple radar gun always equals. So, I'm asking you to tell me at least one circumstance in which the value that shows on a simple radar speed gun is *not* equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Do you know of any such circumstance? You're just wasting your time and mine. I'm talking about how radar guns WORK, and you are talking about how radar guns can be MISINTERPRETED to work. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 07:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <094147ca-2b7f-4612-8008-783564c25da5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586410 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:30:18 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > > > > > Radar guns... > > > > > > > > I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > Your question makes no sense. > > > It does make sense, because you've given some examples of what a simple radar gun reads in certain circumstances, and in each of your examples the value you say is shown by the gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target... and yet you deny that this is what the value shown on a simple radar gun always equals. So, I'm asking you to tell me at least one circumstance in which the value that shows on a simple radar speed gun is *not* equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Do you know of any such circumstance? > > I'm talking about how radar guns WORK, and you are talking about how radar > guns can be MISINTERPRETED to work. We can never agree on how a radar speed gun does what it does if we don't agree on what it does. It's well known (and anyone can verify) that the value appearing on a simple radar speed gun is always equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. All the examples you gave confirm this. Note that this isn't an explanation of how the radar gun does what it does, it is simply a statement of what it does. Once we agree on what it does, we can talk about how it does it. So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 08:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <11253825-8ef5-4a7e-9e6f-0a741bad5cb8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586411 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:53:56 AM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote: > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 7:30:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > > > > > > > Radar guns... > > > > > > > > > > I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > > > Your question makes no sense. > > > > > It does make sense, because you've given some examples of what a simple radar gun reads in certain circumstances, and in each of your examples the value you say is shown by the gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target... and yet you deny that this is what the value shown on a simple radar gun always equals. So, I'm asking you to tell me at least one circumstance in which the value that shows on a simple radar speed gun is *not* equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Do you know of any such circumstance? > > > > I'm talking about how radar guns WORK, and you are talking about how radar > > guns can be MISINTERPRETED to work. > We can never agree on how a radar speed gun does what it does if we don't agree on what it does. It's well known (and anyone can verify) that the value appearing on a simple radar speed gun is always equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. All the examples you gave confirm this. Note that this isn't an explanation of how the radar gun does what it does, it is simply a statement of what it does. Once we agree on what it does, we can talk about how it does it. > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at a target approaching at 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, I'm certainly not going to argue with you any further about it. Yes, I suppose it can be viewed that way. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 09:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <2b1b9525-fe10-425b-9bb6-cb7a8d874578n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586415 |
El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 11:54:12 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > > > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at > a target approaching at 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. > 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!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 09:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <af03a491-06f0-4666-9ee1-0f51f201741dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586416 |
On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 18:14:42 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 4 de junio de 2022 a las 11:54:12 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > > > > > > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? > > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at > > a target approaching at 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. > > > 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 yo do not know that it's just a commonm sense prejudice? Refuted by your bunch of idiots with their inflation idiocy!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 10:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <334c0460-4e26-4876-bd12-b9eb3ae385cdn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586416 |
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: > > > > > > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? > > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at > > a target approaching at 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. > > > 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. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 11:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <9cb12ecf-725a-4437-9439-25387b38c8bcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586420 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:12:38 PM UTC-3, det...@outlook.com wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > > > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? > > > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at > > > a target approaching at 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. > > > > > 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. > > Ed The level of ignorance present in this thread is appalling. The OP was about questioning the perception of time. It derailed quickly about fucking radar guns and, later, what radio modulation (AM, FM, CW, SSB, etc). For the fucking morons questioning what radio transmissions are, I advise using (at least) Wikipedia. For the fucking morons questioning fundamentals on RADAR, I advise the same thing. RADAR: Radio Detection And Ranging. Since 1930s, it consists in sending MW BEEPS and measuring ECHOES, which turnaround delay is proportional to DISTANCE. Doppler RADAR: System developed when electronics allowed the measurement of the difference between the BEEP (pulse) frequency of the emitting BEEP and the received BEEP. That difference is proportional to the SPEED of the reflecting object PLUS the axial motion towards the antenna or moving away from the emitting antenna. 3D RADAR: A complex combination of basic RADAR subsystem (at least two antennae, for tracking) plus a DOPPLER subsystem. Only with the evolution of microelectronics and computer screens, 3D radars started to appear in early '60s. Today, this science is completely mastered, with multitarget, multibeam 3D composite radar systems (i.e., in AEGIS complex). Radio modulation, until late 1990s, involved a NON LINEAR control of AMPLITUDE, FREQUENCY or PHASE of a SINGLE RF CARRIER. A single source of radiowaves, with a SINGLE FREQUENCY, which is non-linearly modulated in any of its three fundamental parameters. STOP causing shame on others that read this thread, due to the HUGE AMOUNT of ignorance present, Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <df082395-8c07-4f1e-9f8c-c28bb950b714n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586420 |
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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 14:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <bc9dd699-8ed6-4ad8-83be-a8a41828d48bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586427 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 15:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <174522d8-28a5-48fa-8ce7-cecf3dee49ebn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586441 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 17:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <45503fc1-beeb-4a24-ab97-27b4176b187dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586445 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 09:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <d393f1cb-b9fc-4cf3-b2c9-5c94ae25bbdcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586415 |
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are talking about LIDAR guns, not radar guns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, I'm talking about radar speed guns (although the same statement applies to LIDAR speed guns). Again, a simple speed gun reads the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you think this is not true, go ahead and describe a situation in which you believe a simple radar speed gun reads something other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Radar guns... > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess you missed my question, so I ask again: Please describe the circumstances in which you believe that the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. > > > > > > > > > > Your question makes no sense. > > > > > > > It does make sense, because you've given some examples of what a simple radar gun reads in certain circumstances, and in each of your examples the value you say is shown by the gun equals the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target... and yet you deny that this is what the value shown on a simple radar gun always equals. So, I'm asking you to tell me at least one circumstance in which the value that shows on a simple radar speed gun is *not* equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. Do you know of any such circumstance? > > > > > > I'm talking about how radar guns WORK, and you are talking about how radar > > > guns can be MISINTERPRETED to work. > > We can never agree on how a radar speed gun does what it does if we don't agree on what it does. It's well known (and anyone can verify) that the value appearing on a simple radar speed gun is always equal to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. All the examples you gave confirm this. Note that this isn't an explanation of how the radar gun does what it does, it is simply a statement of what it does. Once we agree on what it does, we can talk about how it does it. > > > > So, I'm asking you (for the 4th time!) for at least one example of a circumstance in which the reading on a simple radar speed gun does *not* equal the rate of change of the distance between gun and target. If you don't know of any such circumstance, then do you agree that my statement is correct, i.e., that this is what a simple radar gun does? > > A radar gun displays "50 mph" when the gun is stationary and it is pointed at > a target approaching at 50 mph. Is 50 mph a "rate of change of the distance > between the gun and the target"? Yes, of course. > NO, OF COURSE NOT. Excuse me? Are you claiming that the distance between run and car is not changing at a rate of 50 miles per hour? What do you think is the rate of change of the distance in this situation? > Does the speed of the target "equal the rate of change of the distance between > gun and target"? No, it doesn't. For example, if that car maintains a constant speed and zooms past you, and you point the speed gun at the car as it is 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 account for the difference between the speed of an object and the rate of change of the distance. > Yes, I suppose it can be viewed that way. Yes, indeed it can. So, we're 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 of 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. Any remaining questions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <fe983e18-b24d-4133-a749-60bee5505f93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586415 |
On June 4, det...@outlook.com 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? > 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? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web