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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 13:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6ee9816b-2727-46d3-86c2-69e2b3a98b72n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586426 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <8cac954c-0c87-4d3e-9a27-6ed7df2b15een@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586434 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 12:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <382c5902-f7a2-4e68-ab21-0f21276710c7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586377 |
On June 3, det...@outlook.com wrote: > 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. Big hole in your analysis, Ed - The speed of light emitted by the gun is known. But the light speed reflected from the target is c + v, remember? And v is UNKNOWN, that's the point! Hence the gun cannot calculate the target's speed. I'm surprised that an uberlogician like yourself would err this way - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 13:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <bd39c42e-619d-4ae5-b640-3a35146148cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586388 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 2:09:00 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On June 3, wrote: > > 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. > Big hole in your analysis, Ed - > > The speed of light emitted by the gun is known. But the light speed > reflected from the target is c + v, remember? NONSENSE! The speed of light is c, and can NEVER be c+v. You only get c+v when you have light traveling at c and hitting an object that is moving toward the light at v. When that happens, the photon's wave frequency seems SHORTER to the receiving atom that absorbs the photon. Energy is thereby added to the NEW photon that is emitted by that atom back to the radar gun. > > And v is UNKNOWN, that's the point! Hence the gun cannot calculate > the target's speed. The gun CALCULATES v by comparing the oscillation rates of the photons it emitted to the oscillation rates of the photons it received back from the target. A calculator for that is at this link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/radar.html#c4 > > I'm surprised that an uberlogician like yourself would err this way - You're just misunderstanding something. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-01 14:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <31ded8a1-68aa-4a0b-88d8-ba8d954ae22en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586234 |
On May 31, det...@outlook.com wrote: >>> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if >>> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps >>> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because >>> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. > >> A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60. >> A police radar trap sits at that point. >> The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car >> is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the >> police car as moving. >> Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming >> eastbound at 90 mph. It's driving westward (opposite) the train, >> 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60. >> Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which >> is REALLY moving, and which is stationary >> And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle? >> That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed >> 180 mph? > > If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since > it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph. Correct. To precise, police car's speed is irrelevant, only the speed of the radar gun matters. > A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the > Camaro to be 90 mph. Does not compute. Review: i) Camaro zooms east at 90 mph. Cop is parked, obviously stationary. ii) Camaro, same as case (i). But the cop is driving westward at 90 mph. Everything in the universe is in motion, relative to the Big Bang point. That's what determines their true velocity. That's the point of Einsteins's paper, which you read, right? In (ii), they are moving the same speed THROUGH SPACE, in opposite directions. In fact, we can ignore the earth completely! What's pertinent is their speed through space. They accelerated identically, to the same speed. Therefore their closing speed must be 180. How can the gun read the same?!? > And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound > lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the > westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph. It reads the closing speed of the guns. But how is it different than case (ii)? Looks like you need to re-thread your head, Ed - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 07:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <8be95bde-a2b0-49b9-8a1f-608e728687een@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586271 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:19:01 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On May 31, wrote: > >>> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if > >>> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps > >>> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because > >>> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed. > > > >> A Camaro travels east on Route 80, at 90 mph, approaching exit 60. > >> A police radar trap sits at that point. > >> The car is actually moving, because he had to accelerate. The police car > >> is obviously stationary. Relative motion is absurd, it's absurd to regard the > >> police car as moving. > >> Now the trick: the police car is atop a very long flatbed train, zooming > >> eastbound at 90 mph. It's driving westward (opposite) the train, > >> 90 mph. Hence the cop is STATIONARY, relative to exit 60. > >> Now look at the police car vs. Camaro. If relative motion is bunk, which > >> is REALLY moving, and which is stationary > >> And what does the radar gun read? Different than the parked vehicle? > >> That is, if the police car travels 90 mph westward, isn't their closing speed > >> 180 mph? > > > > If I understand you correctly, the police car is technically "stationary" since > > it is not moving relative to the earth, and the Camaro is moving at 90 mph. > Correct. > To precise, police car's speed is irrelevant, only the speed > of the radar gun matters. > > A radar gun in the police car would definitely measure the speed of the > > Camaro to be 90 mph. > Does not compute. > > Review: > i) Camaro zooms east at 90 mph. Cop is parked, obviously stationary. > ii) Camaro, same as case (i). But the cop is driving westward at 90 mph. No, the cop is racing to remain "stationary." His radar gun doesn't "know" about the train or how the cop car is moving aboard the train. All the gun "knows" is that it is "stationary" relative to the ground. > > Everything in the universe is in motion, relative to the Big > Bang point. That's what determines their true velocity. But no one knows what that "true velocity" is. The radar gun certainly doesn't. > That's the point of Einsteins's paper, which you read, right? Yes. But his paper is about the speed of light and time dilation. Radar guns do not measure the speed of light. They measure differences in the oscillation frequencies of photons. > > In (ii), they are moving the same speed THROUGH SPACE, > in opposite directions. In fact, we can ignore the earth completely! > What's pertinent is their speed through space. They accelerated > identically, to the same speed. Therefore their closing speed must be 180. The closing speed for the train and the Camaro is 180, but the cop car is moving at 90 mph aboard the train, so the closing speed between the cop car and the Camaro is 90 mph. > > How can the gun read the same?!? The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE TO THE GROUND. If the gun was moving, then the photons would oscillate at a higher frequency that represents the guns' motion relative to the ground. > > And, if I am going 40 mph on the eastbound > > lane and point the gun at an oncoming car traveling at 40 mph in the > > westbound lane, the gun will show a combined speed of 80 mph. > It reads the closing speed of the guns. > But how is it different than case (ii)? In your thought experiment, the cop car is STATIONARY relative to the ground. That is all the gun knows. It has no way of knowing that it is on a train going one way and in a car going the other way for a net speed of zero. It just knows it's STATIONARY relative to the ground. And because it is STATIONARY relative to the ground, the gun emits photons that oscillate at a frequency that matches the frequency that would be emitted by a gun actually ON the ground. The photons travel at c to the Camaro. The Camaro is moving at speed v. The photons, therefore, hit the Camaro at c+v (the "closing speed"). Atoms in some reflective surface on the car ABSORB the photons AS IF they oscillated at the c+v frequency, NOT their actual frequency. The atoms in the reflective surface then emit NEW photons that oscillate at the HIGHER frequency back toward the radar gun. The radar gun receives the NEW photons and compares their oscillation frequency to the oscillation frequency the gun uses. and it computes the difference in frequencies. That difference represents v, the speed of the Camaro. The gun then displays the speed of the Camaro. NASA has a web page where they explain how a radar gun can emit ONE photon and measure the speed of a target. Here's the link: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm I suspect this strongly conflicts with your mistaken beliefs. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 14:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <OsGdnXVDipcEiAT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586306 |
On 6/2/22 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE > TO THE GROUND. NONSENSE! The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. The radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in which it is at rest. That is the ONLY frame that it "knows" anything about. [We are discussing a simple, single-beam radar gun.] > And because it is STATIONARY relative to the ground, the gun emits > photons that oscillate at a frequency that matches the frequency that > would be emitted by a gun actually ON the ground. The photons don't oscillate. But for this physical situation the radar wave emitted by the gun is indeed the same frequency of a similar gun resting on the ground (measured in the inertial frame of the ground). > The photons travel at c to the Camaro. The Camaro is moving at speed v. > The photons, therefore, hit the Camaro at c+v (the "closing speed"). That is an unusual way to think of this, because "closing speed" is a purely mathematical artifact with no physical meaning (e.g. there is no possible way to measure it, one can only calculate it by subtracting two measurable speeds). [Let me ignore the effect of the air, which is negligible here.] Relative to the inertial rest frame of the Camaro, the incoming radar wave moves with speed c, as does the reflected wave. But since the Camaro is moving relative to the source of the incoming radar wave, in the Camaro rest frame the incoming wave has a higher frequency than it has in the radar gun's frame (Doppler shift); in the Camaro frame the incoming and reflected radar waves have the same frequency. But in the radar gun's frame the reflected wave has a higher frequency than the gun's emitted wave (also Doppler shift), and that difference is used by the gun to determine the Camaro's speed RELATIVE TO THE GUN'S REST FRAME. > Atoms > in some reflective surface on the car ABSORB the photons [...] No, they don't. The wave is REFLECTED, not absorbed. Light reflecting from a metallic mirror does not involve absorption -- internet articles that claim so are WRONG. See my initial post in the thread "What Happens When Light is Reflected?" -- the light is reflected by the conduction electrons, not the atoms. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-02 21:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <abdec0c8-e5e2-4055-9511-c7a5141a67d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586327 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 3:55:13 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/2/22 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE > > TO THE GROUND. > NONSENSE! The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. The > radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in > which it is at rest. That is the ONLY frame that it "knows" anything about. > > [We are discussing a simple, single-beam radar gun.] > > And because it is STATIONARY relative to the ground, the gun emits > > photons that oscillate at a frequency that matches the frequency that > > would be emitted by a gun actually ON the ground. > The photons don't oscillate. But for this physical situation the radar > wave emitted by the gun is indeed the same frequency of a similar gun > resting on the ground (measured in the inertial frame of the ground). > The gun emits light at certain frequency F1 and the receiver receives frequency F2 The speed of the receiver is calculated as follows:; Receiver speed wrt the gun = wavelength at the gun (F1-F2) Conversely we can say that: Speed of the gun wrt the receiver = wavelength at the gun(F2-F1) > > > The photons travel at c to the Camaro. The Camaro is moving at speed v. > > The photons, therefore, hit the Camaro at c+v (the "closing speed"). > That is an unusual way to think of this, because "closing speed" is a > purely mathematical artifact with no physical meaning (e.g. there is no > possible way to measure it, one can only calculate it by subtracting two > measurable speeds). > > [Let me ignore the effect of the air, which is > negligible here.] > > Relative to the inertial rest frame of the Camaro, the incoming radar > wave moves with speed c, as does the reflected wave. But since the > Camaro is moving relative to the source of the incoming radar wave, in > the Camaro rest frame the incoming wave has a higher frequency than it > has in the radar gun's frame (Doppler shift); in the Camaro frame the > incoming and reflected radar waves have the same frequency. But in the > radar gun's frame the reflected wave has a higher frequency than the > gun's emitted wave (also Doppler shift), and that difference is used by > the gun to determine the Camaro's speed RELATIVE TO THE GUN'S REST FRAME. > > > Atoms > > in some reflective surface on the car ABSORB the photons [...] > > No, they don't. The wave is REFLECTED, not absorbed. Light reflecting > from a metallic mirror does not involve absorption -- internet articles > that claim so are WRONG. See my initial post in the thread "What Happens > When Light is Reflected?" -- the light is reflected by the conduction > electrons, not the atoms. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 07:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6ec87904-25a4-43f6-b53b-21095d7c080fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586327 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:55:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/2/22 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE > > TO THE GROUND. > NONSENSE! The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. The > radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in > which it is at rest. That is the ONLY frame that it "knows" anything about. Okay, but that "inertial frame" is the ground. > > [We are discussing a simple, single-beam radar gun.] > > And because it is STATIONARY relative to the ground, the gun emits > > photons that oscillate at a frequency that matches the frequency that > > would be emitted by a gun actually ON the ground. > The photons don't oscillate. But for this physical situation the radar > wave emitted by the gun is indeed the same frequency of a similar gun > resting on the ground (measured in the inertial frame of the ground). Photons do indeed oscillate. Simple experiments will show that a radar gun does NOT emit waves. The oscillations are of the electric and magnetic fields of the photon. Those oscillations have wave-like properties. > > The photons travel at c to the Camaro. The Camaro is moving at speed v. > > The photons, therefore, hit the Camaro at c+v (the "closing speed"). > That is an unusual way to think of this, because "closing speed" is a > purely mathematical artifact with no physical meaning (e.g. there is no > possible way to measure it, one can only calculate it by subtracting two > measurable speeds). Nope. Radar guns measure differences in oscillation frequencies as I explained in my previous post. > > [Let me ignore the effect of the air, which is > negligible here.] > > Relative to the inertial rest frame of the Camaro, the incoming radar > wave moves with speed c, as does the reflected wave. But since the > Camaro is moving relative to the source of the incoming radar wave, in > the Camaro rest frame the incoming wave has a higher frequency than it > has in the radar gun's frame (Doppler shift); in the Camaro frame the > incoming and reflected radar waves have the same frequency. But in the > radar gun's frame the reflected wave has a higher frequency than the > gun's emitted wave (also Doppler shift), and that difference is used by > the gun to determine the Camaro's speed RELATIVE TO THE GUN'S REST FRAME. Yes, that is how radar guns are often described as working. But it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. It assumes that the return wave will reflect off just one part of the car. In reality, the wave would reflect off the bumper, then off the front of the car, off the windshield, and meanwhile waves are also bouncing off the ground, off of street signs, etc. There would be dozens of INTERMINGLED waves returning to the gun. The gun would have to way of separating one wave from another. With oscillating photons, every returning photon from the car oscillates at the same rate. And every photon returning from stationary objects oscillates at a different rate. So, the gun can easily measure the target's speed correctly. > > > Atoms > > in some reflective surface on the car ABSORB the photons [...] > > No, they don't. The wave is REFLECTED, not absorbed. Light reflecting > from a metallic mirror does not involve absorption -- internet articles > that claim so are WRONG. See my initial post in the thread "What Happens > When Light is Reflected?" -- the light is reflected by the conduction > electrons, not the atoms. Totally WRONG. as usual. Photons are exchanges of energy moving from one atom to another. An atom is heated and emits a photon to get rid of that excess energy. The photon travels to a reflective surface on the target vehicle where it is absorbed by an atom. That atom cannot hold the extra energy, so it emits a NEW photon back in the direction from which the original photon came. The radar gun receives that photon and compares its oscillation frequency to the oscillation frequency of the photon it emitted and that gives the gun the speed of the target. I provided a NASA description of how a radar gun can use a single photon to measure the speed of a target. Here it is again; https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm The idea that radar guns emit "waves" is just plain STUPID and can be disproved in many ways. The idea that photons cannot oscillate is disproved by radar guns. Your problem may be the terminology. Technically, photons do not oscillate, they have electric and magnetic fields which oscillate. But since a photon consists entirely of an oscillating electric field and an oscillating magnetic field, it is not incorrect to say that a photon oscillates. I have a radar gun. I've extensively experimented with them and researched them. If I point my radar gun at the blade tips of a rotating fan, the gun shows 41 mph. If I point the gun at the middle of the fan blades, the gun shows about 30 mph. If I point the gun at the base of the fan blades, the gun shows about 22 mph. How can that be done with waves? The operator's manual for my TS-3 radar gun says that the "beam width" is 12 degrees. How can you have a beam width of 12 degrees if a gun emits waves? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 08:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <dac0e84f-4737-4c05-af98-c0ed9f058bc1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586367 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:49:03 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote: My previous post contains some key questions. I'll ask them again here: If I point my radar gun at the blade tips of a rotating fan, the gun shows 41 mph. If I point the gun at the middle of the fan blades, the gun shows about 30 mph. If I point the gun at the base of the fan blades, the gun shows about 22 mph. How can that be done with waves? The operator's manual for my TS-3 radar gun says that the "beam width" is 12 degrees. How can you have a beam width of 12 degrees if a gun emits waves? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629A4731.5AF4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586370 |
What day is it, is it Friday already? Boy, i don't know where time goes... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 10:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <G92dnW5eENeDswf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #586367 |
On 6/3/22 9:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:55:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 6/2/22 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE >>> TO THE GROUND. >> NONSENSE! The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. The >> radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in >> which it is at rest. That is the ONLY frame that it "knows" anything about. > > Okay, but that "inertial frame" is the ground. NOT AT ALL. The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. Repeating falsehoods does not make them true. The radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in which it is at rest. > [... confusion about how radar guns actually work] The operator of the radar gun must ensure that the reflected waves come from the target vehicle, and not extraneous reflectors. The gun displays the speed corresponding to the largest Doppler shift within its beam, which combined with the operator's aiming of the beam automatically does the separation you claim cannot be done. > With oscillating photons, every returning photon from the car oscillates at the > same rate. And every photon returning from stationary objects oscillates at a > different rate. So, the gun can easily measure the target's speed correctly. Replace your incorrect "photon" with "radar wave", and this is correct. > If I point my radar gun at the blade tips of a rotating fan, the gun shows 41 mph. > If I point the gun at the middle of the fan blades, the gun shows about 30 mph. > If I point the gun at the base of the fan blades, the gun shows about 22 mph. > > How can that be done with waves? In the obvious way: the wave emitted by the gun has a rather narrow divergence, so you can point it accurately at a target. > The operator's manual for my TS-3 radar gun says that the "beam width" is 12 degrees. > How can you have a beam width of 12 degrees if a gun emits waves? By limiting the beam divergence. It is straightforward microwave engineering to design a radar antenna that emits a beam with such a narrow divergence. Such design tools model the radar beam as a wave, not photons. You merely display your personal ignorance. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 09:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <7417807a-3824-49c1-82ac-91eafaace574n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586375 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/3/22 9:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 2:55:13 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 6/2/22 9:20 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> The gun emits photons that represent the LOCATION of the gun RELATIVE > >>> TO THE GROUND. > >> NONSENSE! The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. The > >> radar gun inherently measures speed relative to the inertial frame in > >> which it is at rest. That is the ONLY frame that it "knows" anything about. > > > > Okay, but that "inertial frame" is the ground. > NOT AT ALL. The radar gun "knows" NOTHING AT ALL about the ground. > Repeating falsehoods does not make them true. The radar gun inherently > measures speed relative to the inertial frame in which it is at rest. According to Relativity, time ticks at a given rate on the surface of the earth. That rate incorporates the fact that the earth is spinning on it axis, it is orbiting the sun, and the sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy, etc. And that rate also determines the properties of atoms at that location, their mass, frequencies, etc. Altitude also affects the properties of those atoms. It is considered an "inertial frame," even though it is not moving in a straight line. A "stationary" radar gun at that point on the surface of the earth will have atoms that reflect that location's speed and and gravity. Atoms in a MOVING object will have slightly different properties. The difference is directly rated to the difference in speed between the moving object and the "stationary" object. (In reality, it is a difference in speed between two different moving objects. We just consider the earth to be "stationary," since we are measuring speeds relative to the earth.) > > [... confusion about how radar guns actually work] > The operator of the radar gun must ensure that the reflected waves come > from the target vehicle, and not extraneous reflectors. The gun displays > the speed corresponding to the largest Doppler shift within its beam, > which combined with the operator's aiming of the beam automatically does > the separation you claim cannot be done. Right. It cannot be done because the "beam" width is 12 degrees. That means that at 500 feet, the "beam" will be 105 feet wide. At 200 feet it will be 42 feet wide. If the gun is pointed at an oncoming truck, the front of the truck will be about 10 feet in front of the trailer. Both will reflect "waves." And there is no way to separate waves from the tractor and waves from the trailer. If you can't tell one wave from another, you cannot use waves to measure speeds. > > With oscillating photons, every returning photon from the car oscillates at the > > same rate. And every photon returning from stationary objects oscillates at a > > different rate. So, the gun can easily measure the target's speed correctly. > Replace your incorrect "photon" with "radar wave", and this is correct. > > If I point my radar gun at the blade tips of a rotating fan, the gun shows 41 mph. > > If I point the gun at the middle of the fan blades, the gun shows about 30 mph. > > If I point the gun at the base of the fan blades, the gun shows about 22 mph. > > > > How can that be done with waves? > In the obvious way: the wave emitted by the gun has a rather narrow > divergence, so you can point it accurately at a target. A BEAM has a divergence. A BEAM of photons has a divergence. What is a "beam of waves"? How can it have a divergence if the primary property of a wave is to spread out IN ALL DIRECTIONS from the source? Can you have sound waves that are confined into a narrow beam? NO! So, how are light waves different from sound waves? > > The operator's manual for my TS-3 radar gun says that the "beam width" is 12 degrees. > > How can you have a beam width of 12 degrees if a gun emits waves? > By limiting the beam divergence. It is straightforward microwave > engineering to design a radar antenna that emits a beam with such a > narrow divergence. Such design tools model the radar beam as a wave, not > photons. You merely display your personal ignorance. No, you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. You cannot focus sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves into a beam? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <6e97fc4e-1293-42c5-bcb6-530a39d2344bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586379 |
On June 3, det...@outlook.com wrote: > you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM > and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. > You cannot focus sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves > into a beam? Right. Message these guys, let them know you're onto their fraud - https://www.fierceelectronics.com/components/choosing-ultrasonic-sensor-for-proximity-or-distance-measurement-part-2-optimizing -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 12:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5fae9069-9a61-4ce0-b724-fda23554296an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586387 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On June 3, wrote: > > you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM > > and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. > > You cannot focus sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves > > into a beam? > Right. > Message these guys, let them know you're onto their fraud - > > https://www.fierceelectronics.com/components/choosing-ultrasonic-sensor-for-proximity-or-distance-measurement-part-2-optimizing That article is about transducers. Transducers convert one form of energy into another. So, if you focus sound waves into a "beam," there is no "beam," there are just lower amplitudes of sound the farther you are from the focus point "beam." Transducers seem very different from how sound works normally.. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-04 12:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62aef606-c058-41c2-b0c2-6e1111aecfa4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586391 |
On June 3, det...@outlook.com wrote: >>> you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM >>> and a WAVE. >>> You cannot focus sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves >>> into a beam? > >> https://www.fierceelectronics.com/components/choosing-ultrasonic-sensor-for-proximity-or-distance-measurement-part-2-optimizing > > That article is about transducers. > So, if you focus sound waves into a "beam," there is no "beam," there are > just lower amplitudes of sound the farther you are from the focus point "beam." oh There are no beams, just waves with varying amplitudes, as a function of angle. A fine distinction indeed. "Lifeguard, help, I'm drowning!" "You're mistaken, sir, there's no such thing as drowning, only varying amplitudes of oxygen flow into the lungs." -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 13:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <bc7bd534-f30d-4371-a14d-7cfc242ca982n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586379 |
El viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 a las 12:59:22 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 6/3/22 9:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > The operator of the radar gun must ensure that the reflected waves come > > from the target vehicle, and not extraneous reflectors. The gun displays > > the speed corresponding to the largest Doppler shift within its beam, > > which combined with the operator's aiming of the beam automatically does > > the separation you claim cannot be done. > Right. It cannot be done because the "beam" width is 12 degrees. That means > that at 500 feet, the "beam" will be 105 feet wide. At 200 feet it will be 42 feet > wide. If the gun is pointed at an oncoming truck, the front of the truck will be > about 10 feet in front of the trailer. Both will reflect "waves." And there is no way > to separate waves from the tractor and waves from the trailer. If you can't > tell one wave from another, you cannot use waves to measure speeds. The radar detector receives all of those reflected signals and they vary in strength. Therefore, the radar detector will receive some small signals at low frequency (from static objects like poles or houses) and strong signals at the frequency of the moving vehicle. No radar looks to separate waves from the tractor from waves from the trailer (that is pure nonsense). > > > How can that be done with waves? > > In the obvious way: the wave emitted by the gun has a rather narrow > > divergence, so you can point it accurately at a target. > A BEAM has a divergence. A BEAM of photons has a divergence. > What is a "beam of waves"? How can it have a divergence if the > primary property of a wave is to spread out IN ALL DIRECTIONS from the > source? Can you have sound waves that are confined into a narrow beam? > NO! So, how are light waves different from sound waves? There are in every radar gun things called antennas. The radar gun transmitter/receiver antenna has a narrow directivity (of 12 degrees intead of 360 degrees). > > > The operator's manual for my TS-3 radar gun says that the "beam width" is 12 degrees. > > > How can you have a beam width of 12 degrees if a gun emits waves? > > By limiting the beam divergence. It is straightforward microwave > > engineering to design a radar antenna that emits a beam with such a > > narrow divergence. Such design tools model the radar beam as a wave, not > > photons. You merely display your personal ignorance. > No, you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM > and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. You cannot focus > sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves into a beam? > Nonsense. Read, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 13:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <96064b6a-cc13-401b-b44d-575e7b5eda63n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586392 |
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 3:01:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 a las 12:59:22 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 6/3/22 9:49 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > The operator of the radar gun must ensure that the reflected waves come > > > from the target vehicle, and not extraneous reflectors. The gun displays > > > the speed corresponding to the largest Doppler shift within its beam, > > > which combined with the operator's aiming of the beam automatically does > > > the separation you claim cannot be done. > > > Right. It cannot be done because the "beam" width is 12 degrees. That means > > that at 500 feet, the "beam" will be 105 feet wide. At 200 feet it will be 42 feet > > wide. If the gun is pointed at an oncoming truck, the front of the truck will be > > about 10 feet in front of the trailer. Both will reflect "waves." And there is no way > > to separate waves from the tractor and waves from the trailer. If you can't > > tell one wave from another, you cannot use waves to measure speeds. > The radar detector receives all of those reflected signals and they vary in strength. Therefore, the radar detector will receive some small signals at low frequency (from static objects like poles or houses) and strong signals at the frequency of the moving vehicle. No radar looks to separate waves from the tractor from waves from the trailer (that is pure nonsense). If you are measuring speeds by how fast waves return, waves will return FASTER from the front of a truck than from the trailer 10 or 15 feet behind the front. That says that radar guns DO NOT MEASURE WAVES that way. They measure the oscillation frequencies of photons, which will be the same from all parts of a truck that is approaching at 70 mph. > > > > How can that be done with waves? > > > In the obvious way: the wave emitted by the gun has a rather narrow > > > divergence, so you can point it accurately at a target. > > > A BEAM has a divergence. A BEAM of photons has a divergence. > > What is a "beam of waves"? How can it have a divergence if the > > primary property of a wave is to spread out IN ALL DIRECTIONS from the > > source? Can you have sound waves that are confined into a narrow beam? > > NO! So, how are light waves different from sound waves? > There are in every radar gun things called antennas. The radar gun transmitter/receiver antenna has a narrow directivity (of 12 degrees intead of 360 degrees). Actually, the antenna and the cone that narrows the outgoing beam of photons are two different things. > > > > The operator's manual for my TS-3 radar gun says that the "beam width" is 12 degrees. > > > > How can you have a beam width of 12 degrees if a gun emits waves? > > > By limiting the beam divergence. It is straightforward microwave > > > engineering to design a radar antenna that emits a beam with such a > > > narrow divergence. Such design tools model the radar beam as a wave, not > > > photons. You merely display your personal ignorance. > > > No, you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM > > and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. You cannot focus > > sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves into a beam? > > > Nonsense. Read, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon Why not just discuss a loudspeaker? The gun who talks into the loudspeaker can hear the amplified sound coming out, and so can everyone in the area. All the loudspeaker did was protect the user by directing the loudest sound away from his ears. Suppose you have a guy with a shrouded flashlight at one point on a square shining the light at the opposite point on the square. People at the other two points on the square would not be able to see ANY light from the flashlight. Now suppose you have a guy with a loudspeaker at one point of a square yelling at someone at the opposite corner of the square. EVERYONE would be able to hear what is being said. The guy at the opposite corner might hear things a bit louder, but not very much louder. Sound waves work very different from beams of photons. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 14:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <52f6ea8b-6022-4352-adb5-11d4a4ab2018n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586395 |
El viernes, 3 de junio de 2022 a las 16:47:19 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 3:01:27 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > The radar detector receives all of those reflected signals and they vary in strength. Therefore, the radar detector will receive some small signals at low frequency (from static objects like poles or houses) and strong signals at the frequency of the moving vehicle. No radar looks to separate waves from the tractor from waves from the trailer (that is pure nonsense). > If you are measuring speeds by how fast waves return, waves will return FASTER > from the front of a truck than from the trailer 10 or 15 feet behind the front. > That says that radar guns DO NOT MEASURE WAVES that way. They measure > the oscillation frequencies of photons, which will be the same from all parts of > a truck that is approaching at 70 mph. 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. 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". > > > NO! So, how are light waves different from sound waves? > > There are in every radar gun things called antennas. The radar gun transmitter/receiver antenna has a narrow directivity (of 12 degrees intead of 360 degrees). > Actually, the antenna and the cone that narrows the outgoing beam of photons > are two different things. Nonsense, learn how a RF antenna works (read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern). See the figures in the section "Typical Patterns" > > > > By limiting the beam divergence. It is straightforward microwave > > > > engineering to design a radar antenna that emits a beam with such a > > > > narrow divergence. Such design tools model the radar beam as a wave, not > > > > photons. You merely display your personal ignorance. > > > > > No, you display your ignorance in not knowing the difference between a BEAM > > > and a WAVE. You can easily focus PHOTONS into a beam. You cannot focus > > > sound waves into a beam. So, how do you focus light waves into a beam? > > > Sure you can. Just see the diagram of a car lights (in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp). See the figure at the section Reflector Lamps. Every light wave can be focussed into a beam (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber for an extrem example). > > Nonsense. Read, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon > Why not just discuss a loudspeaker? The gun who talks into the loudspeaker > can hear the amplified sound coming out, and so can everyone in the area. > All the loudspeaker did was protect the user by directing the loudest sound > away from his ears. > A loudspeaker is built on purpose to cover a large area of a room. Of course you have several types of speakers. The woofer at around 20 Hz has a very wide sound covering. The mid range speakers have narrover coverings at 1 kHz. The twitters have a more directive pattern at 10 kHz. > Suppose you have a guy with a shrouded flashlight at one point on a square shining the > light at the opposite point on the square. People at the other two points on the > square would not be able to see ANY light from the flashlight. > Depends on the type of flashlight. For instance a laser light will have a very narrow beam (which is invisible) and you only see the red point on the target (as everyone in the room would also see). You have a very narrow knowledge on these subjects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-03 23:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <68494654-cce1-4eb1-bf09-f2891bbe74cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586398 |
On Friday, 3 June 2022 at 23:27:31 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > Nonsense. Radar guns measure the frequency difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency, according to the formula: Radar guns measure the speed, poor halfbrain. They USE what you say to determine it. There is a variety of situations where they do it correctly and a variety of situations where they don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web