Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457913 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 482 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 13:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-14 15:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-05-15 09:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 00:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 06:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 06:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-14 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-14 16:14 -0700
Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-14 17:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 05:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-15 10:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 10:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:43 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 14:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-15 19:46 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 20:07 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-16 20:38 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-16 17:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-16 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 14:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:34 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 17:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 09:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-17 18:02 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:47 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 11:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-17 12:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-18 20:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-19 12:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments alsor@interia.pl - 2018-05-15 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 20:10 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 21:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 12:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 16:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 07:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 22:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-15 17:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-16 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 17:45 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 16:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 08:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-18 09:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 12:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 20:31 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 15:11 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 18:24 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:22 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-17 05:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 14:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-17 19:33 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:49 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 09:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 23:07 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-16 12:17 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-16 10:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 11:02 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-18 18:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 13:00 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 12:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 17:13 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 18:05 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 08:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 10:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 11:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:41 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 13:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:12 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:54 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 14:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:19 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 12:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-21 18:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 00:10 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-30 10:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-30 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:19 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:37 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:31 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:27 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:34 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 05:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:26 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 07:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 15:03 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:25 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:36 +0100
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 13:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-17 14:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 07:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 15:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-18 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 09:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 12:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:47 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 11:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 14:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 13:58 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 18:23 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:02 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 11:49 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 06:23 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 15:24 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 17:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 10:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-20 20:13 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 10:55 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 13:48 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:35 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-21 23:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-20 14:59 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 14:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 16:33 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-19 14:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-19 17:56 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 09:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 14:16 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 12:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-20 22:43 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:24 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 21:51 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-19 23:58 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-20 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 15:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 08:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 12:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-21 21:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 08:17 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:50 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:11 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 11:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 12:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-23 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 17:07 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 20:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:09 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:42 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-25 14:58 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 13:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 14:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 15:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 09:55 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 19:29 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 10:34 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 12:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 06:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 07:38 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 08:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:52 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:05 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 11:04 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:43 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 18:42 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 08:09 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-27 23:01 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-27 13:03 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 13:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 21:06 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 14:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 14:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 21:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 07:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 09:45 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 10:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:28 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 12:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:56 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 21:08 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-28 22:01 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 15:21 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-28 16:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 13:33 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-28 13:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:00 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 14:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-26 22:44 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:38 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 21:40 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-26 02:43 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 19:13 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:09 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:36 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-23 20:37 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 07:03 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 07:59 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:15 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:53 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 14:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:06 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 07:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-25 17:10 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 09:36 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 11:14 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:15 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:20 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:25 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-24 09:49 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:00 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:03 -0400
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-23 21:26 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-21 13:40 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 13:51 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-21 23:03 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments dancouriann@gmail.com - 2018-05-21 14:37 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 15:20 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-21 15:46 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 19:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:10 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-05-22 07:16 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 07:30 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 16:37 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:08 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 08:12 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:44 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:27 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-22 12:18 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 14:22 -0700
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:30 +0000
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:08 +0200
Re: Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-22 11:31 +0200
Page 16 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 25 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <%xFMC.306294$pC1.147654@fx07.am4> |
| In reply to | #458679 |
Den 21.05.2018 17.37, skrev Ed Lake: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 3:55:50 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 20.05.2018 21.39, skrev Ed Lake: >>> >>> What I said was that I'd pick one of >>> the experiments and explain it in detail to show exactly what it did and >>> how it did NOT show that the speed of light in invariant. Those >>> experiments do not create the conditions where the speed of light would >>> be shown to be variable. >> >> BTW, have you picked one of the experiments and explained it in detail >> to show exactly what it did and how it did NOT show that the speed of >> light in invariant? :-D >> >> The fact is obviously that you haven't read any of the papers, >> you are only stating your unfounded opinion of what you believe >> they contain. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> https://paulba.no/ > > I haven't had the time to work on that project. Don't worry, nobody is expecting you to "work on that project". We all know that you are an mathematical illiterate and as such are unable to read scientific papers. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bf3849e-e3bc-419a-9b17-5153f809ca9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458548 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:30:07 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > We're talking about LIGHT, not about SOUND. Light travels as PHOTONS > NOT AS WAVES. As mentioned before, we don't have time to teach you quantum electrodynamics, but in summary light propagates with both wave-like and particle-like properties. The quantum wave function of an electromagnetic disturbance propagates as a unitary wave, and a "photon" is a mathematical term in the expansion of this wave, corresponding to the quantization of the wave function. Photons are *not* tiny ballistic particles, and don't even have distinct identities as part of the unitarily evolving wave function. And none of this has anything to do with how a radar gun works, because a radar gun does not rely on quantization of the wave function. Far from it. A radar gun (and LIDAR gun) functions entirely in the regime of classical Maxwellian electrodynamics. Also, a radar gun is not a meaningful test of special relativity either, because we get virtually identical answers whether we use Galilean relativity (with either a ballistic theory or a wave theory) or Einsteinian relativity. > > Ed, frequency is the reciprocal of the time interval between successive cycles of a wave or any periodic sequence of entities (pigeons, bullets, pulses...). Every determination of frequency is, by definition, a determination of a time interval, the period of the cycle. > > Frequency cannot be reciprocal if one object is moving faster than the other. Ed, again you misunderstand. The word recipriocal here is used in the arthemtic sense that 1/3 is the reciprocal of 3. Likewise frequency is the reciprocal of period, because if you have 3 seconds per cycle you have 1/3 cycles per second. (This has nothing to do with the concept of reciprocal motion. Sheesh.) > > > Radar guns ASSUME that the gun is stationary. > > > > No they do not. A radar gun simply determines the relative speed between itself and the target object. There is no assumption of anything being "stationary". > > No, but there is a limit to the speed of light. Ed, please read the exchange above. You say radar guns assume the gun is stationary. I explain that they do not. You agree, and then add "but there is a limit to the speed of light". What the... ? > I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at > 90 mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph > relative to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR > in a moving police car. But that's insane, Ed. Are you perhaps thinking of a device that makes two radar Doppler measurements, one of the target car and one of a tree, and subtracts the two? It's crazy to mix up various devices and refer to all of them indiscriminately as radar guns. To avoid confusion, let us define "radar gun" as a device that emits electromagnetic waves (with a certain frequency in the radar range of the spectrum) to a target object and analyzes the change in frequency of the reflected waves to determine the speed of the target relative to the gun. For this kind of device, if the gun measures 90 mph, that is relative to the frame of reference of the gun. Then we can define a "moving radar gun" as one that performs this kind of relative speed measurement on both the target car and a tree, and subtracts the two, to give the speed of the target relative to the tree. > > > There is no way to build the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun. > > > > That sentence makes no sense, and has no relevance to anything that has been said here. > > It makes sense if you hadn't cropped away what I was responding to. Not true. Your sentence would make sense only if someone had been talking about building the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun (whatever that means), but no one was, so your sentence makes no sense. > We're not talking about SOUND, we're talking about LIGHT. But the Doppler effect applies to sound (and bullets and pigeons and...) just as well as it does to light. Before you can reasonably discuss the Doppler effect, you need to know what it is. > If a radar gun emits light at c when stationary, at what speed will > the light be emitted when the radar gun is moving as velocity v, will > it be c+v? Or will it be c? It will be c in terms of every inertial frame. Light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every inertial frame, i.e., every system of inertial coordinates. Inertial coordinates are constructed in such a way as to make this true. >> Every reputable source explains how LIDAR uses Doppler for speed >> measurement. > > And yet you provide no sources. Because there are none that support > your BELIEFS. Try this link (which took 0.3 seconds to find on google): http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/doppler-spin.cfm There you will read: "Law enforcement uses Radar and LIDAR guns to measure our speed on the highway, but these devices make use of the same principle scientists use to measure how fast celestial objects move – the linear Doppler effect." > A moving radar gun CANNOT emit light at c+v. It emits light at c > whether moving or not. Therefore it CANNOT measure the speed of a > tree as moving at 60 mph. Ed, that's insane. The Doppler effect simply gives a change in frequency due to the changing distance between gun and target. If you bounce a radar wave of a certain frequency off a tree (moving towards it as 60 mph) and look at the reflected wave, it will be shifted by an amount corresponding to 60 mph. This is a simple high school homework exercise. > Lidar ONLY measures distances. They use it to make contour maps. Lidar > has NOTHING to do with the Doppler shift. It is only about differences > in distances between two measurements. Ed, the Doppler effect is about how the distance is changing, so with a Lidar gun you measure the distance repeatedly and figure out how fast the distance is changing. Now, the received pulses in the Lidar will come back at a higher frequency (like pigeons) than the transmitted pulses, and we use the Doppler formula (just like radar) to compute the speed. I gave you the exact detailed explanation of this last year. Have you forgotten? > There's no point in further discussion if we cannot agree on those FACTS. > If you dispute those FACTS, cite your sources and we'll study them together. Well, see the above link. Ed, you are completely confused about every aspect of this subject. And, again, this radar/lidar subject is irrelevant to understanding special relativity. Doppler was well understood long before special relativity was discovered. The relativistic correction to the classical Galilean Doppler formula is so small for cars that you could never detect it without fantastically precise interferometery. If you want to understand how radar and lidar guns work, fine, you can read my explanations and any other good source, But if you want to understand special relativity, you need to focus on w+v divided by 1+wv/c^2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9690ff3b-8a2d-4f38-8d57-bc1a13ebde85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458568 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:30:07 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > We're talking about LIGHT, not about SOUND. Light travels as PHOTONS > > NOT AS WAVES. > > As mentioned before, we don't have time to teach you quantum electrodynamics, but in summary light propagates with both wave-like and particle-like properties. The quantum wave function of an electromagnetic disturbance propagates as a unitary wave, and a "photon" is a mathematical term in the expansion of this wave, corresponding to the quantization of the wave function. Photons are *not* tiny ballistic particles, and don't even have distinct identities as part of the unitarily evolving wave function. Nonsense. Sigh. Okay, here's the quote from Feynman: -- start Feynman quote --- "Newton thought that light was made up of particles—he called them “corpuscles”—and he was right (but the reasoning that he used to come to that decision was erroneous). We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud — there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon—and if the light is all one color, all the “raindrops” are the same size. "The human eye is a very good instrument: it takes only about five or six photons to activate a nerve cell and send a message to the brain. If we were evolved a little further so we could see ten times more sensitively, we wouldn’t have to have this discussion—we would all have seen very dim light of one color as a series of intermittent little flashes of equal intensity. -- end Feynman quote -- So, "We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud — there are just fewer of them." > > And none of this has anything to do with how a radar gun works, because a radar gun does not rely on quantization of the wave function. Far from it. A radar gun (and LIDAR gun) functions entirely in the regime of classical Maxwellian electrodynamics. Also, a radar gun is not a meaningful test of special relativity either, because we get virtually identical answers whether we use Galilean relativity (with either a ballistic theory or a wave theory) or Einsteinian relativity. A radar gun is a PERFECT example of Einstein's theory of light. > > > > Ed, frequency is the reciprocal of the time interval between successive cycles of a wave or any periodic sequence of entities (pigeons, bullets, pulses...). Every determination of frequency is, by definition, a determination of a time interval, the period of the cycle. > > > > Frequency cannot be reciprocal if one object is moving faster than the other. > > Ed, again you misunderstand. The word recipriocal here is used in the arthemtic sense that 1/3 is the reciprocal of 3. Likewise frequency is the reciprocal of period, because if you have 3 seconds per cycle you have 1/3 cycles per second. (This has nothing to do with the concept of reciprocal motion. Sheesh.) > > > > > Radar guns ASSUME that the gun is stationary. > > > > > > No they do not. A radar gun simply determines the relative speed between itself and the target object. There is no assumption of anything being "stationary". > > > > No, but there is a limit to the speed of light. > > Ed, please read the exchange above. You say radar guns assume the gun is stationary. I explain that they do not. You agree, and then add "but there is a limit to the speed of light". What the... ? We need to discuss how radar guns work. > > > I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at > > 90 mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph > > relative to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR > > in a moving police car. > > But that's insane, Ed. Are you perhaps thinking of a device that makes two radar Doppler measurements, one of the target car and one of a tree, and subtracts the two? It's crazy to mix up various devices and refer to all of them indiscriminately as radar guns. If you think it is insane, then you do not understand Relativity. We need to discuss how radar guns work. > > To avoid confusion, let us define "radar gun" as a device that emits electromagnetic waves (with a certain frequency in the radar range of the spectrum) to a target object and analyzes the change in frequency of the reflected waves to determine the speed of the target relative to the gun. I cannot assume that, because IT IS WRONG. A radar gun emits PHOTONS. The oscillating photons hit a target at c+v and the Doppler effect causes the target to send back photons with a shorter oscillation period. The difference in the rate of oscillation determines the speed of the vehicle. > For this kind of device, if the gun measures 90 mph, that is relative to the frame of reference of the gun. Then we can define a "moving radar gun" as one that performs this kind of relative speed measurement on both the target car and a tree, and subtracts the two, to give the speed of the target relative to the tree. As soon as you talk about "frame of reference of the gun" you are talking CRAP. The "frame of reference of the gun" has nothing to do with anything. It is about the speed of the gun relative to the earth. PERIOD. > > > > > There is no way to build the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun. > > > > > > That sentence makes no sense, and has no relevance to anything that has been said here. > > > > It makes sense if you hadn't cropped away what I was responding to. > > Not true. Your sentence would make sense only if someone had been talking about building the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun (whatever that means), but no one was, so your sentence makes no sense. When you talk about frames of reference you are talking about "building the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun." > > > We're not talking about SOUND, we're talking about LIGHT. > > But the Doppler effect applies to sound (and bullets and pigeons and...) just as well as it does to light. Before you can reasonably discuss the Doppler effect, you need to know what it is. Right. You need to understand how the Doppler effect works with LIGHT and how it is DIFFERENT from how the Doppler effect works with sound. > > > If a radar gun emits light at c when stationary, at what speed will > > the light be emitted when the radar gun is moving as velocity v, will > > it be c+v? Or will it be c? > > It will be c in terms of every inertial frame. Light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every inertial frame, i.e., every system of inertial coordinates. Inertial coordinates are constructed in such a way as to make this true. Yes, but as stated before, that has nothing to do with anything regarding a radar gun. A radar gun works in the same frame of reference as the earth. > > >> Every reputable source explains how LIDAR uses Doppler for speed > >> measurement. > > > > And yet you provide no sources. Because there are none that support > > your BELIEFS. > > Try this link (which took 0.3 seconds to find on google): > > http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/doppler-spin.cfm > > There you will read: "Law enforcement uses Radar and LIDAR guns to measure our speed on the highway, but these devices make use of the same principle scientists use to measure how fast celestial objects move – the linear Doppler effect." Yes, but that one mention of lidar is the ONLY mention of lidar in the entire article. It makes a BOGUS claim and then says nothing more on the subject. That site also says, "The linear Doppler effect occurs whenever the source of a wave and the observer of that wave have some relative linear motion to each other. It's also important to note that there are slight differences when the source is moving toward the observer and when the observer is moving toward the source." Note the last sentence. A better source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR_traffic_enforcement It does not contain the word "Doppler." It says, "Light travels approximately 30 cm per ns so each pulse has a length of about nine metres. At a target distance of 300 metres the light pulses take 2,000 ns to complete the round trip. The time interval between pulses is no less than one million ns, providing time to make a distance estimation from each pulse. Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, thereby estimating vehicle speed." In short, lidar determines the distance to the target by sending and getting back one pulse, and then doing the same for a second pulse, and then computing the distance traveled by the target between pulses. > > > A moving radar gun CANNOT emit light at c+v. It emits light at c > > whether moving or not. Therefore it CANNOT measure the speed of a > > tree as moving at 60 mph. > > Ed, that's insane. The Doppler effect simply gives a change in frequency due to the changing distance between gun and target." NONSENSE!!!! The Doppler effect gives a change in frequency of photon oscillations due to the receipt of light at c+v by the target. > If you bounce a radar wave of a certain frequency off a tree (moving towards it as 60 mph) and look at the reflected wave, it will be shifted by an amount corresponding to 60 mph. This is a simple high school homework exercise. NOT SO! That requires sending a photon to the tree at c+v where v is the speed of the vehicle. That is not possible! > > > Lidar ONLY measures distances. They use it to make contour maps. Lidar > > has NOTHING to do with the Doppler shift. It is only about differences > > in distances between two measurements. > > Ed, the Doppler effect is about how the distance is changing, so with a Lidar gun you measure the distance repeatedly and figure out how fast the distance is changing. No, the Doppler effect is about how an OBSERVER encounters oncoming light. It has NOTHING to do with lidar. > Now, the received pulses in the Lidar will come back at a higher frequency (like pigeons) than the transmitted pulses, and we use the Doppler formula (just like radar) to compute the speed. Not so! Lidar has nothing to do with frequencies. It just measures distances and times between readings. > I gave you the exact detailed explanation of this last year. Have you forgotten? If it was the same thing you're saying now, I probably ignored it BECAUSE IT WAS WRONG. > > > There's no point in further discussion if we cannot agree on those FACTS. > > If you dispute those FACTS, cite your sources and we'll study them together. > > Well, see the above link. Ed, you are completely confused about every aspect of this subject. And, again, this radar/lidar subject is irrelevant to understanding special relativity. Doppler was well understood long before special relativity was discovered. The relativistic correction to the classical Galilean Doppler formula is so small for cars that you could never detect it without fantastically precise interferometery. If you want to understand how radar and lidar guns work, fine, you can read my explanations and any other good source, But if you want to understand special relativity, you need to focus on w+v divided by 1+wv/c^2. If you want to understand special relativity you need to focus on how light is emitted from a moving object versus a stationary object (or a slower moving object). Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f171d1e5-aae2-480b-a76f-9782109ceee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458596 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:48:54 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > Nonsense. Sigh. Okay, here's the quote from Feynman: We know that > light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive > instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it... But Ed, you just quoted the beginning of the story, because the quantized "clicks" don't occur in deterministic patterns that would arise from classical particles following real trajectories through space, they occur in probabilistic patterns that are governed by the Schrodinger's WAVE equation. Now, one way of interpreting this - the way Feynman liked - is that "a photon" actually follows *all possible paths* from emitter to receiver, and each path contributes some complex amplitude to the total wave amplitude at the possible receptions points, and the discrete "clicks" occur with probabilities given by this sum... which is just the result of the wave equation. So, you still get all the wave behavior of light - diffraction, interference patterns, Doppler, etc. Understand? > A radar gun is a PERFECT example of Einstein's theory of light. No, a radar gun would work exactly the same way in Galilean relativity as in Einstein's special relativity, except for differences that are too small to be detected. The effects of special relativity show up only at relativistic speeds, such as if you were driving at half the speed of light. > We need to discuss how radar guns work. I've explained it to you. The gun transmits an electromagnetic wave (yes, consisting of photons, which doesn't change the explanation) of a certain frequency in the radar range, and then detects the reflected wave and uses the Doppler formula to infer the relative speed of the target from how much the reflected frequency is different from the transmitted frequency. > I cannot assume that, because IT IS WRONG. A radar gun emits PHOTONS. Yes, but it emits photons in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation, so the pattern of photons exhibits the wavelike attributes satisfying Maxwell's equations for electrodynamic waves. > The oscillating photons hit a target at c+v Ed, that is pure fantasy. We've already agreed that light propagates at c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, including the rest frame of the target. This means that if someone in the target car uses standard rulers and clocks (at rest in the car) to measure the speed if the radar signal, it will have the speed c. > As soon as you talk about "frame of reference of the gun" you are > talking CRAP. The "frame of reference of the gun" has nothing to do > with anything. Well, if we want to know the speed of the radar signal in terms of the frame of reference of the gun, then we need to talk about the frame of reference of the gun. And likewise if we want to know the speed of the radar signal in terms of the frame of reference of the target, then we need to talk about the frame of reference of the target. How can you possibly disagree with this? > It is about the speed of the gun relative to the earth. PERIOD. I have no idea what you are talking about here. The purpose I to determine the speed of the target in the frame of the road, right? But a radar gun can only determine speeds relative to itself, so to determine the speed of the target relative to the road, we can determine gun-target speed and gun-road speed, and subtract to give target-road speed. > When you talk about frames of reference you are talking about "building > the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun." What? Are you saying that frames of reference are nonsense? How can you talk about relativity (Galilean or Einsteinian) without talking about frames of reference? Surely we need at least one frame of reference in order to make statements about positions and speeds, etc. > Right. You need to understand how the Doppler effect works with LIGHT > and how it is DIFFERENT from how the Doppler effect works with sound. The only difference is that the speed of sound is much less than the speed of light, so the quantity v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2 is virtually equal to v+w. > > Light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every inertial > > frame, i.e., every system of inertial coordinates. > > Yes, but as stated before, that has nothing to do with anything > regarding a radar gun. That's very strange. You posed it as the crucial question for how radar guns work, and I answered it, and now you say it has nothing to do with how radar guns work. > A radar gun works in the same frame of reference as the earth. Do you mean a radar gun only works if it is at rest on the surface of the earth? That would be ridiculous. But if that's not what you mean, then what does your sentence mean? Remember, we're not talking about multiple readings from the target and from the road and subtracting, we're just talking about a single Doppler reading from the target. This gives the relative speed between gun and target, having nothing to do with the ground. > Yes, but that one mention of lidar is the ONLY mention of lidar in the > entire article. It makes a BOGUS claim and then says nothing more on > the subject. You asked for a reference, stating the obvious fact that radar and LIDAR guns both use Doppler for speed determinations. I gave one. You call it bogus. So references don't help. Try googling "LIDAR SPEED guns relativity Doppler". > That site also says, "The linear Doppler effect occurs whenever the > source of a wave and the observer of that wave have some relative > linear motion to each other. Right, this confirms that the gun determines just relative motion between gun and target (contrary to what you claim). > It's also important to note that there are slight differences when the > source is moving toward the observer and when the observer is moving > toward the source." Note the last sentence. Yes, but this is talking about sound waves, where there IS a difference between source motion and receiver motion, relative to the air. But later in the articles it talks about light and notes that the difference disappears and all that matters is relative motion. Sheesh, Ed. Why do you make this so difficult? Are you determined to never understand? > Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than > half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, > thereby estimating vehicle speed." Yes, that's the Doppler effect, Ed! > The Doppler effect gives a change in frequency of photon oscillations > due to the receipt of light at c+v by the target. Photons do not oscillate, and light has speed c in the rest frame of the target, so both of your clauses are incorrect. The Doppler effect is purely and trivially due to the changing distance. > > If you bounce a radar wave of a certain frequency off a tree > > (moving towards it as 60 mph) and look at the reflected wave, it > > will be shifted by an amount corresponding to 60 mph. This is a > > simple high school homework exercise. > > NOT SO! That requires sending a photon to the tree at c+v where v is > the speed of the vehicle. That is not possible! What the %$#@ are you talking about? The radar signal propagates at c, in both directions, and the reflected frequency is higher than the transmitted frequency between each wave crest (or pulse or photon or pigeon) travels less distance, because we are getting closer together. It doesn't matter which one is "moving". This is simple logic, confirmed by countless observations. > No, the Doppler effect is about how an OBSERVER encounters oncoming > light. It has NOTHING to do with lidar. Ed, that is simply not true. This was explained to you in great detail last year. > Not so! Lidar has nothing to do with frequencies. It just measures > distances and times between readings. Ed, this was explained in detail last year. Lidar needs to determine how fast the distance is changing, and this entails evaluating the differences between the time intervals between two transmitted pulses and the received reflections, which represents a measurement of frequency. There is no other way to evaluate relative speeds, other than Doppler. > If you want to understand special relativity you need to focus on > how light is emitted from a moving object versus a stationary object > (or a slower moving object). What is a stationary object?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 08:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <013ab60b-a6c8-4c53-91b1-512f616551e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458618 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:48:54 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > Nonsense. Sigh. Okay, here's the quote from Feynman: We know that > > light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive > > instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it... > > But Ed, you just quoted the beginning of the story, because the quantized "clicks" don't occur in deterministic patterns that would arise from classical particles following real trajectories through space, they occur in probabilistic patterns that are governed by the Schrodinger's WAVE equation. Now, one way of interpreting this - the way Feynman liked - is that "a photon" actually follows *all possible paths* from emitter to receiver, and each path contributes some complex amplitude to the total wave amplitude at the possible receptions points, and the discrete "clicks" occur with probabilities given by this sum... which is just the result of the wave equation. So, you still get all the wave behavior of light - diffraction, interference patterns, Doppler, etc. Understand? What I understand is that you understand nothing except mathematical dogma. To view light as traveling as waves is MATHEMATICAL DOGMA. Light travels as photons. > > > A radar gun is a PERFECT example of Einstein's theory of light. > > No, a radar gun would work exactly the same way in Galilean relativity as in Einstein's special relativity, except for differences that are too small to be detected. The effects of special relativity show up only at relativistic speeds, such as if you were driving at half the speed of light. That is just your opinion. If a moving radar gun measures a tree as traveling at 60 mph that is Galilean relativity. If it measures the tree as traveling at zero mph, that is Einstein relativity. I'm going to research that today - if I can find the time. > > > We need to discuss how radar guns work. > > I've explained it to you. The gun transmits an electromagnetic wave (yes, consisting of photons, which doesn't change the explanation) of a certain frequency in the radar range, and then detects the reflected wave and uses the Doppler formula to infer the relative speed of the target from how much the reflected frequency is different from the transmitted frequency. Okay, we agree on that. Now we just have to agree that the frequency of the photon/wave changes because the outgoing photon/wave encountered the target at c+v. > > > I cannot assume that, because IT IS WRONG. A radar gun emits PHOTONS. > > Yes, but it emits photons in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation, so the pattern of photons exhibits the wavelike attributes satisfying Maxwell's equations for electrodynamic waves. That is MATHEMATICAL DOGMA and doesn't mean anything to me. > > > The oscillating photons hit a target at c+v > > Ed, that is pure fantasy. We've already agreed that light propagates at c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, including the rest frame of the target. This means that if someone in the target car uses standard rulers and clocks (at rest in the car) to measure the speed if the radar signal, it will have the speed c. That is MATHEMATICAL DOGMA. In reality, there are no "frames of reference" involved. It is all about what two different REFERENCE BODIES observe. Check Section II on page 2 of my paper to learn the difference: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v1.pdf > > > As soon as you talk about "frame of reference of the gun" you are > > talking CRAP. The "frame of reference of the gun" has nothing to do > > with anything. > > Well, if we want to know the speed of the radar signal in terms of the frame of reference of the gun, then we need to talk about the frame of reference of the gun. And likewise if we want to know the speed of the radar signal in terms of the frame of reference of the target, then we need to talk about the frame of reference of the target. How can you possibly disagree with this? Because it is JUST MATHEMATICAL DOGMA. It has nothing to do with reality. It assumes the moving target is stationary, which is just PLAIN STUPID. That is why you do not understand relativity. You do not understand the difference between reference bodies and frames of reference. > > > It is about the speed of the gun relative to the earth. PERIOD. > > I have no idea what you are talking about here. The purpose I to determine the speed of the target in the frame of the road, right? NO! NO! NO! NO! The purpose is to determine the relative movement between the stationary radar gun and the moving target. Frames of reference are irrelevant and just confuse the situation. > But a radar gun can only determine speeds relative to itself, so to determine the speed of the target relative to the road, we can determine gun-target speed and gun-road speed, and subtract to give target-road speed. But that is NOT what is done. All the gun can measure is the difference between stationary and the speed of the target. PERIOD. > > > When you talk about frames of reference you are talking about "building > > the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun." > > What? Are you saying that frames of reference are nonsense? How can you talk about relativity (Galilean or Einsteinian) without talking about frames of reference? Surely we need at least one frame of reference in order to make statements about positions and speeds, etc. I said NOTHING about frames of reference being nonsense. They are essential to understanding relativity. YOU just do not understand the difference between "reference bodies" and "frames of reference." You do not need "frames of reference" when talking about radar guns. > > > Right. You need to understand how the Doppler effect works with LIGHT > > and how it is DIFFERENT from how the Doppler effect works with sound. > > The only difference is that the speed of sound is much less than the speed of light, so the quantity v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2 is virtually equal to v+w. No, the difference is that sound moves as WAVES and light moves as PHOTONS. > > > > Light propagates in vacuum at the speed c in terms of every inertial > > > frame, i.e., every system of inertial coordinates. > > > > Yes, but as stated before, that has nothing to do with anything > > regarding a radar gun. > > That's very strange. You posed it as the crucial question for how radar guns work, and I answered it, and now you say it has nothing to do with how radar guns work. Right, because you are talking frames of reference, not reference bodies. > > > A radar gun works in the same frame of reference as the earth. > > Do you mean a radar gun only works if it is at rest on the surface of the earth? That would be ridiculous. But if that's not what you mean, then what does your sentence mean? I shouldn't have used the term "frame of reference." It just confuses things. What I was trying to say is that a radar gun does not use "frames of reference," it uses the earth as a reference body and the speeding car as another reference body. In my paper the radar gun would be held by the observer atop the boxcar on the embankment and the speeder is the observer on the moving train. When you start talking about "frames of reference" everyone has to go INSIDE their separate laboratories where they cannot see one another. > Remember, we're not talking about multiple readings from the target and from the road and subtracting, we're just talking about a single Doppler reading from the target. This gives the relative speed between gun and target, having nothing to do with the ground. Correct. We are talking about a single Doppler adjusted photon from the target compared to the original photon as emitted from the radar gun. No one is measuring any relationship to the ground. > > > Yes, but that one mention of lidar is the ONLY mention of lidar in the > > entire article. It makes a BOGUS claim and then says nothing more on > > the subject. > > You asked for a reference, stating the obvious fact that radar and LIDAR guns both use Doppler for speed determinations. I gave one. You call it bogus. So references don't help. Try googling "LIDAR SPEED guns relativity Doppler". Ah! I suspected that is what you did. So you got a page that uses the BOTH the word lidar AND Doppler. I only looked up lidar (specifically, I looked up How does a lidar gun work). So, now you say "references don't help"?????? I say if you have conflicting references, find out which is CORRECT. A little research found a page which says, "If you have read the article entitled How Radar Works, then you know how normal radar works. A normal radar set sends out a radio pulse and waits for the reflection. Then it measures the Doppler shift in the signal and uses the shift to determine the speed. "Laser (or lidar, for light detection and ranging) speed guns use a more direct method that relies on the reflection time of light rather than Doppler shift." Source: https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question396.htm Further research shows that there IS a type of lidar gun that does use the Doppler shift. But I don't have the time right now to figure out the differences between the two types of lidar guns. > > > That site also says, "The linear Doppler effect occurs whenever the > > source of a wave and the observer of that wave have some relative > > linear motion to each other. > > Right, this confirms that the gun determines just relative motion between gun and target (contrary to what you claim). It doesn't determine "the relative motion between gun and target." It determines "the relative motion of the target to the gun." Or, more accurately, it determines "the relative motion of the target to the stationary location of the gun." > > > It's also important to note that there are slight differences when the > > source is moving toward the observer and when the observer is moving > > toward the source." Note the last sentence. > > Yes, but this is talking about sound waves, where there IS a difference between source motion and receiver motion, relative to the air. But later in the articles it talks about light and notes that the difference disappears and all that matters is relative motion. Sheesh, Ed. Why do you make this so difficult? Are you determined to never understand? > > > > Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than > > half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, > > thereby estimating vehicle speed." > > Yes, that's the Doppler effect, Ed! NO IT IS NOT! It SAYS it is about the "change in distance." The Doppler effect is about the change in PHOTON OSCILLATION FREQUENCY. > > > > The Doppler effect gives a change in frequency of photon oscillations > > due to the receipt of light at c+v by the target. > > Photons do not oscillate, and light has speed c in the rest frame of the target, so both of your clauses are incorrect. Photons oscillate and the fact that "light has speed c in the rest frame of the target" is irrelevant. > > The Doppler effect is purely and trivially due to the changing distance. NONSENSE. The Doppler effect is purely due to a change in frequency. > > > > If you bounce a radar wave of a certain frequency off a tree > > > (moving towards it as 60 mph) and look at the reflected wave, it > > > will be shifted by an amount corresponding to 60 mph. This is a > > > simple high school homework exercise. > > > > NOT SO! That requires sending a photon to the tree at c+v where v is > > the speed of the vehicle. That is not possible! > > What the %$#@ are you talking about? The radar signal propagates at c, in both directions, and the reflected frequency is higher than the transmitted frequency between each wave crest (or pulse or photon or pigeon) travels less distance, because we are getting closer together. It doesn't matter which one is "moving". This is simple logic, confirmed by countless observations. In order for a moving radar gun to measure a stationary tree as moving at 60 mph, the speed of light from the radar gun would have to be added to the speed of the gun to get c+v. Then the return signal at c would be subtracted from c+v to get v or 60 mph for the tree. That is NOT POSSIBLE because the speed of the emitter cannot be added to the speed of light. > > > > > No, the Doppler effect is about how an OBSERVER encounters oncoming > > light. It has NOTHING to do with lidar. > > Ed, that is simply not true. This was explained to you in great detail last year. > > > Not so! Lidar has nothing to do with frequencies. It just measures > > distances and times between readings. > > Ed, this was explained in detail last year. Lidar needs to determine how fast the distance is changing, and this entails evaluating the differences between the time intervals between two transmitted pulses and the received reflections, which represents a measurement of frequency. There is no other way to evaluate relative speeds, other than Doppler. Nonsense. If you said it last year, then it was also nonsense last year. > > > If you want to understand special relativity you need to focus on > > how light is emitted from a moving object versus a stationary object > > (or a slower moving object). > > What is a stationary object? When talking about radar guns, a "stationary object" is an object that is not moving relative to the surface of the earth. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27004624-f5c1-4f07-ac67-fd5564e0477f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458675 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 8:16:51 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > To view light as traveling as waves is MATHEMATICAL DOGMA. Light > travels as photons. Light travels as photons, but the photons are transmitted in a wave pattern that exhibits a certain frequency. (An individual photon is just a single "click", it doesn't oscillate or exhibit any frequency itself. The wave is comprised of a huge number of photons, like molecules of water making up an ocean wave. Do you deny that ocean waves exist because water actually consists of protons and electrons?) Radar uses a magnetron to generate a wave of photons, and the wave has a frequency much lower than that of visible light. The wavelength ranges up to about 1 meter. This means that the wave crests are separated by about a meter. You can trace the motions of the wave crests, propagating at speed c, from the emitter to the target and back to emitter (which also serves as an antenna), and the return frequency of the wave crests is different due to the changing distance between source and target. > That is just your opinion. If a moving radar gun measures a tree as > traveling at 60 mph that is Galilean relativity. If it measures the > tree as traveling at zero mph, that is Einstein relativity. Please be careful with terminology. When you say "moving radar gun" do you mean a simple radar gun that happens to be moving (relative to the ground), or do you mean a device that makes two separate radar measurements, one of the target and one of the tree, and subtracts the two? If you are just talking about a simple radar gun that happens to be moving at 60 mph relative to the ground, then it obviously measures the relative speed of the tree as 60 mph. This is true both in Galilean and Einsteinian relativity. > Now we just have to agree that the frequency of the photon/wave > changes because the outgoing photon/wave encountered the target > at c+v. Again, please be careful with terminology. When you say the signal "encountered the target at c+v", what precisely do you mean? There are different possible interpretations, some of which are true and some of which are false. For example, you have agreed that physics for someone inside the uniformly moving target car is indistinguishable from physics inside a car at rest on the ground. They have their own rulers and clocks, and everything looks normal inside the car. Now, if they determine the speed of the incident radar signal in terms of their rulers and clocks, it will be c. On the other hand, the police car sitting at rest on the ground can also determine the speed of the radar signal in terms of its rulers and clocks, and it too will be c. So the speed of the signal is not c+v in terms of either of those systems of rulers and clocks. Of course, the target car has speed v in terms of the police car's rulers and clocks, so it is true that, in terms of the rulers and clocks at rest with the police car, the distance between the signal (a wave crest) and the target car is decreasing at a rate of c+v meters per second. So, if this is what you mean when you say "the signal encounters the target car at c+v", then that is true. However, this does not contradict the fact that the distance between the signal and the target car in terms of the rulers and clocks at rest with that car is just c meters per second. Indeed, the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. > In reality, there are no "frames of reference" involved. It is all > about what two different REFERENCE BODIES observe. Well, if you are using the term "reference bodies" as Einstein did, it is synonymous with "frames of reference". If you are using it to just signify a single object with no well-defined temporal or spatial measures, then it is completely inadequate to even enable you to talk about positions or speeds or any of the other aspects that we are discussing. It is self-evidently false to say that there are no frames of reference involved in describing and analyzing physical phenomena. > Because it is JUST MATHEMATICAL DOGMA. It has nothing to do with reality. > It assumes the moving target is stationary, which is just PLAIN STUPID. Why is it more stupid than assuming the road or the earth is stationary? The laws of physics are exactly the same in every frame of reference, which is lucky for us, because the earth is constantly changing its state of motion, so if relativity wasn't true we would have constantly changing physics. > > The purpose I to determine the speed of the target in the frame of > > the road, right? > > NO! NO! NO! NO! The purpose is to determine the relative movement > between the stationary radar gun and the moving target. Huh? When you say "stationary" you mean relative to the road, right? But if so, then you are agreeing with my statement, right? The police give tickets based on speed relative to the road. So why do you say no no no with exclamation marks? > Frames of reference are irrelevant and just confuse the situation. Ed, a "frame of reference" is just a term that means "what you need to define distances, times, and speeds". If you eliminate frames of reference, you have no way of quantifying speeds at all, so you have nothing. > > But a radar gun can only determine speeds relative to itself, so to > > determine the speed of the target relative to the road, we can determine > > gun-target speed and gun-road speed, and subtract to give target-road > > speed. > > But that is NOT what is done. Yes, that is exactly what is done. How else could the speed relative to the road possibly be determined? This is essentially the definition of that speed. > All the gun can measure is the difference between stationary and the > speed of the target. PERIOD. What does "between stationary" mean? Are you now claiming that a single Doppler radar measurement of the target car gives the speed of the car relative to the tree, even if the gun is moving relative to the tree? Surely you can't believe that! > I said NOTHING about frames of reference being nonsense. They are > essential to understanding relativity. Wait a minute... you just finished saying that considering different frames of reference was PLAIN STUPID, and similar remarks... now you retract all those statements? > > The only difference is that the speed of sound is much less than the speed of light, so the quantity v+w divided by 1+vw/c^2 is virtually equal to v+w. > > No, the difference is that sound moves as WAVES and light moves as PHOTONS. No, as explained above, electromagnetic waves propagate as.. well... waves. Radar devices generate electromagnetic waves using a magnetron, and these waves have a definite frequency and wavelength. The fact that the waves are built up from an enormous number of featureless "photons" is irrelevant. Radar guns do not operate on the quantum level, they operate on the level of classical electromagnetism. > We are talking about a single Doppler adjusted photon from the target > compared to the original photon as emitted from the radar gun. No, an individual photon has no frequency. (It has energy, which is related to the frequency of the associated wave, but the photon itself does not oscillate or have any frequency. How could it? It's just a single "click".) > No one is measuring any relationship to the ground. That's false. The police don't give tickets for speeds relative to the cop car, they give tickets for speeds relative to the road. > So, now you say "references don't help"?????? I say if you have > conflicting references, find out which is CORRECT. A little research > found a page which says... But Ed, the witless "how stuff works" web page is the very reference that is debunked in the reputable articles on the subject. Your googling skills are letting you down. If you want to learn how LIDAR guns use Doppler in the context of relativity, search on those key words. > It doesn't determine "the relative motion between gun and target." > It determines "the relative motion of the target to the gun." Or, > more accurately, it determines "the relative motion of the target > to the stationary location of the gun." If you think about things logically, you'll see that what you are saying makes no sense at all. If the gun is stationary on the ground, then it will give the speed of the target relative to the ground, but if the gun is not stationary on the ground, it will not give the speed of the target relative to the ground. In all cases, the gun gives the speed of the target relative to the gun. (Remember, we're talking about single-target guns, not devices that make measurements of target and tree, and subtract them.) Do you really disagree with this?? > > > Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than > > > half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, > > > thereby estimating vehicle speed." > > > > Yes, that's the Doppler effect, Ed! > > NO IT IS NOT! It SAYS it is about the "change in distance." Yes, the Doppler effect is due to the changing distance between emitter and receiver. > The Doppler effect is about the change in PHOTON OSCILLATION FREQUENCY. Photons do not oscillate. The frequency of a radar signal is of the wave, which is comprised of an enormous number of photons. The wave has a frequency, and the electric and magnetic fields oscillate, but individual photons do not oscillate and have no frequency. > Photons oscillate... Why do you believe this? Are you claiming that this is true according to quantum electrodynamics as it is taught in schools? Or are you claiming this as an Ed Lake discovery that no one else understands? (According to standard quantum electrodynamics, a photon propagates along a null interval, and it's wave function does not advance at all along this interval, so it clearly does not oscillate.) > The fact that "light has speed c in the rest frame of the target" > is irrelevant. Is it? I thought that fact was on your list of the dumbest ideas, and you argued that it was obviously false and crap and etc. Now you agree that it is a fact after all? > > The Doppler effect is purely and trivially due to the changing distance. > > NONSENSE. The Doppler effect is purely due to a change in frequency. Well, the Doppler shift IS a change in frequency, but it is due to the changing distance between emitter and receiver. > In order for a moving radar gun to measure a stationary tree as > moving at 60 mph, the speed of light from the radar gun would have > to be added to the speed of the gun to get c+v. No it wouldn't. Think about it logically: The signal produced by the magnetron is propagating at c, but each successive wave crest (or pulse or photon or pigeon) travels a lesser distance because the distance between gun and tree is getting smaller. It doesn't matter which one is moving relative to the ground. This results in the wave crests arriving back more frequently than they were emitted. The change in period is related to the relative speed by the Doppler formula. > Then the return signal at c would be subtracted from c+v to get v or > 60 mph for the tree. That is NOT POSSIBLE because the speed of the > emitter cannot be added to the speed of light. Ed, you are profoundly confused. Radar guns work exactly as I described. You even agreed with this up above... but now you backslide into this nonsense. Maybe the only thing that will help you is to buy or borrow a simple radar gun (NOT a "moving radar gun" device that compares target with background), and get in your car and point it at a building or tree. You will find that it reads the speed of your car. Or you could apply rational thought as follows: "Why would they need to invent a "moving radar gun" that compares target Doppler with background Doppler and subtracts the two if the target Doppler alone gave the speed relative to the ground?" > > What is a stationary object? > > When talking about radar guns, a "stationary object" is an object that > is not moving relative to the surface of the earth. Good, so this clarifies that if the gun is moving on the road, it is not "stationary", and therefore will not give the target speed relative to the road.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 23:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pe01a4$psc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458675 |
On 5/21/2018 11:16 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >> But a radar gun can only determine speeds relative to itself, so to determine the speed of the target relative to the road, we can determine gun-target speed and gun-road speed, and subtract to give target-road speed. > > But that is NOT what is done. All the gun can measure is the difference between stationary and the speed of the target. PERIOD. Stationary relative to the gun, not necessarily stationary relative to the ground. That's what Dan said. > >> >>> When you talk about frames of reference you are talking about "building >>> the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun." I don't think you know what a reference frame is. It is just a set of coordinates set up in a certain way (usually with something of interest stationary in it). >> >> What? Are you saying that frames of reference are nonsense? How can you talk about relativity (Galilean or Einsteinian) without talking about frames of reference? Surely we need at least one frame of reference in order to make statements about positions and speeds, etc. > > I said NOTHING about frames of reference being nonsense. They are essential to understanding relativity. YOU just do not understand the difference between "reference bodies" and "frames of reference." You do not need "frames of reference" when talking about radar guns. Wherever you see "reference body" you can produce the appropriate reference frame. The relevant reference frame is the one in which the reference body is stationary and at the origin. In fact you NEED this reference frame if you are going to discuss either motion or velocity since a reference body is essentially just a single point. If you are discussing velocity or motion you need the coordinates set up by using the reference frame. Modern physics uses reference frames for those reasons. This is not a real problem. Wherever Einstein uses the phrase "reference body" it is perfectly valid to substitute a reference frame in which the reference body is stationary and at the origin. Einstein did this implicitly. >>> Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than >>> half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, >>> thereby estimating vehicle speed." >> >> Yes, that's the Doppler effect, Ed! > > NO IT IS NOT! It SAYS it is about the "change in distance." The Doppler effect is about the change in PHOTON OSCILLATION FREQUENCY. Photons do not oscillate. A water wave is made of a large collection of water molecules. The water molecules do not oscillate, however the water wave oscillates, with a certain frequency and wavelength. Air consists of a large number of molecules of oxygen, nitrogen etc. These molecules do not oscillate. However, a large number of these molecules will form waves with a certain frequency and wavelength. This is sound. Similarly, individual photons do not oscillate, however a large number of photons will together produce an electromagnetic wave with a particular frequency and wavelength. A radar gun is not a quantum device. That photons exist does not affect how radar guns operate. They operate completely using classical electrodynamics. People were using radio before quantum mechanics and the photon were even discovered. They did this completely using classical electrodynamics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c5a9508-4544-4fb1-b311-feb0f296c793@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458778 |
On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 8:03:34 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 5/21/2018 11:16 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 5:25:17 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > >> But a radar gun can only determine speeds relative to itself, so to determine the speed of the target relative to the road, we can determine gun-target speed and gun-road speed, and subtract to give target-road speed. > > > > But that is NOT what is done. All the gun can measure is the difference between stationary and the speed of the target. PERIOD. > > Stationary relative to the gun, not necessarily stationary relative to > the ground. That's what Dan said. > > > >> > >>> When you talk about frames of reference you are talking about "building > >>> the mechanics of the universe into a radar gun." > > I don't think you know what a reference frame is. It is just a set of > coordinates set up in a certain way (usually with something of interest > stationary in it). > > >> > >> What? Are you saying that frames of reference are nonsense? How can you talk about relativity (Galilean or Einsteinian) without talking about frames of reference? Surely we need at least one frame of reference in order to make statements about positions and speeds, etc. > > > > I said NOTHING about frames of reference being nonsense. They are essential to understanding relativity. YOU just do not understand the difference between "reference bodies" and "frames of reference." You do not need "frames of reference" when talking about radar guns. > > Wherever you see "reference body" you can produce the appropriate > reference frame. The relevant reference frame is the one in which the > reference body is stationary and at the origin. In fact you NEED this > reference frame if you are going to discuss either motion or velocity > since a reference body is essentially just a single point. If you are > discussing velocity or motion you need the coordinates set up by using > the reference frame. > > Modern physics uses reference frames for those reasons. This is not a > real problem. Wherever Einstein uses the phrase "reference body" it is > perfectly valid to substitute a reference frame in which the reference > body is stationary and at the origin. Einstein did this implicitly. > > >>> Up to several hundred pulse readings are taken over a period less than > >>> half a second and used to estimate the change in distance over time, > >>> thereby estimating vehicle speed." > >> > >> Yes, that's the Doppler effect, Ed! > > > > NO IT IS NOT! It SAYS it is about the "change in distance." The Doppler effect is about the change in PHOTON OSCILLATION FREQUENCY. > > Photons do not oscillate. > > A water wave is made of a large collection of water molecules. The water > molecules do not oscillate, however the water wave oscillates, with a > certain frequency and wavelength. Air consists of a large number of > molecules of oxygen, nitrogen etc. These molecules do not oscillate. > However, a large number of these molecules will form waves with a > certain frequency and wavelength. This is sound. Similarly, individual > photons do not oscillate, however a large number of photons will > together produce an electromagnetic wave with a particular frequency and > wavelength. > > A radar gun is not a quantum device. That photons exist does not affect > how radar guns operate. They operate completely using classical > electrodynamics. People were using radio before quantum mechanics and > the photon were even discovered. They did this completely using > classical electrodynamics. Single photons most certainly oscillate. https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2016127 If they didn't have a frequency, you would have no way to judge their energy E = hf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04d6a6a5-f165-4ba7-a3f8-c212462c8a35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458782 |
Steve BH wrote Single photons most certainly oscillate. https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2016127 If they didn't have a frequency, you would have no way to judge their energy E = hf. If Space Time is Quantized, a quantized medium, it may be Space Time that is oscillating not the a Photon Just as particle accelerator or Rail Gun. https://photos.app.goo.gl/lJWeJ6Lj1YDl1rfD2 Maybe the photon energy would be better classified solely by it Volume of a Displaced Pressure 510998 (electron volts / pascal) = 8.18709049e-14 m^3 510998 ((eV / pascals) / (m^3)) = 8.1870905e-14 ((hbar / s) / pascals) = 1.0545718e-34 m^3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff50b651-0de3-49c7-a8f3-3290f468a30e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458820 |
Steve BH wrote Single photons most certainly oscillate. https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2016127 If they didn't have a frequency, you would have no way to judge their energy E = hf. If Space Time is Quantized, a quantized medium, it may be Space Time that is oscillating not the a Photon Just as particle accelerator or Rail Gun. https://photos.app.goo.gl/lJWeJ6Lj1YDl1rfD2 Maybe the photon energy would be better classified solely by it Volume of a Displaced Pressure 510998 (electron volts / pascal) = 8.18709049e-14 m^3 510998 ((eV / pascals) / (m^3)) = 8.1870905e-14 ((hbar / s) / pascals) = 1.0545718e-34 m^3 (((hbar / s) / pascals) * ((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2)))) / (((4 * pi) / 3) * ((13.88800 billion light years)^3)) = 5.1429013 pascals
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <69CdnRfjFf8zTpzGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458548 |
On 5/20/18 12:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 > mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative > to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR in a moving > police car. This is just plain wrong. When it is moving, by what MAGIC does the radar gun know how fast it is moving (relative to the ground)? In fact, a radar gun measures the speed of an object RELATIVE TO ITSELF (the inertial frame in which it is at rest). (Some radar guns have a second antenna or other ability to measure the gun's speed relative to the ground. This is then NOT a radar gun, it TWO of them plus software to combine the two readings.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4be76138-e356-46e0-97bf-8cb5c13fbe3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458588 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:59:48 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/20/18 12:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 > > mph we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative > > to the ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR in a moving > > police car. > > This is just plain wrong. When it is moving, by what MAGIC does the > radar gun know how fast it is moving (relative to the ground)? No, the radar gun emits photons at c when stationary. When moving, it also emits photons at c NOT at c+v. Therefore the observer will encounter the photons arriving at c and will experience NO Doppler effect. It will return photons at the same oscillating frequency at which they were originally transmitted > > In fact, a radar gun measures the speed of an object RELATIVE TO ITSELF > (the inertial frame in which it is at rest). Only when the gun is ACTUALLY stationary. Fantasies about "inertial frames" are misleading. It implies that in an "inertial frame" where the gun is moving and some object is stationary, the gun will measure the speed of the object to be other than zero. That is WRONG. > > (Some radar guns have a second antenna or other ability > to measure the gun's speed relative to the ground. This > is then NOT a radar gun, it TWO of them plus software > to combine the two readings.) > > Tom Roberts It is still important to understand what those readings mean individually and when combined. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 11:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1ICdnfBlHorq15nGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #458607 |
On 5/20/18 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 2:59:48 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 5/20/18 12:30 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I'm saying that if a radar gun measures the target car moving at 90 mph >>> we can conclude that the target car is moving at 90 mph relative to the >>> ground whether the gun is at rest on the ground OR in a moving police >>> car. >> >> This is just plain wrong. When it is moving, by what MAGIC does the radar >> gun know how fast it is moving (relative to the ground)? > > No, the radar gun emits photons at c when stationary. It emits a RADAR BEAM at c RELATIVE TO ITSELF. "stationary" has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. You repeatedly confuse yourself by attempting to discuss things you know nothing about, such as photons -- they are IRRELEVANT here, this is a RADAR BEAM. Also you fantasize about "stationary" -- which is meaningless -- NOTHING on earth can ever be said to be "stationary" in the sense you mean. But once one recognizes the importance of inertial frames, then "stationary relative to that frame" becomes important. Though we usually say "at rest relative to that frame". > When moving, it also > emits photons at c NOT at c+v. Yes, RELATIVE TO ITSELF (i.e. relative to the inertial frame in which it is at rest). > Therefore the observer I repeat: you keep confusing yourself by attempting to discuss things you know nothing about. In this case: THERE IS NO "OBSERVER", there is ONLY the radar gun and a reflector (automobile). You seem to FANTASIZE that there is an "observer" on the car that is reflecting the beam. Just LOOK at all the cars out there -- NONE of them have any such "observer" capable of measuring either the frequency or speed of a radar beam. The moving car reflects the radar beam, and when the reflected beam arrives back at the radar gun, the frequency of the received beam depends on the SPEED OF THE REFLECTOR RELATIVE TO THE RADAR GUN. The ground has NOTHING to do with it. The speed of the earth relative to the sun has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The speed of the sun relative to the galaxy has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.... All that matters to the radar gun is the speed of the reflector RELATIVE TO THE GUN. Just THINK about it: the radar gun "knows" nothing at all about its own speed relative to ANYTHING. Its measurement cannot possibly depend on something it does not know (does not measure). >> In fact, a radar gun measures the speed of an object RELATIVE TO ITSELF >> (the inertial frame in which it is at rest). > > Only when the gun is ACTUALLY stationary. No. Your "actually" is just plain wrong, because THERE IS NO "ACTUALLY STATIONARY". Certainly the ground is not "actually stationary" in any sense. The speed of the earth relative to the sun has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The speed of the sun relative to the galaxy has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.... In fact, both physical studies and common experience show that there is only relative motion. Sitting in a uniformly moving car, you observe the trees moving past -- they ARE moving relative to you. And neither they nor you is "actually stationary" in any useful sense. This is why one must ALWAYS state the reference when one mentions motion. You GREATLY confuse yourself by not understanding this basic FACT. > Fantasies about "inertial frames" > are misleading. They are not "fantasies", they have been found to be relevant. Your fantasy that the are "misleading" is YOUR problem, caused by your PROFOUND IGNORANCE of very basic physics. > It implies that in an "inertial frame" where the gun is > moving and some object is stationary, the gun will measure the speed of the > object to be other than zero. That is WRONG. Again, you attempt to discuss irrelevancies. The gun measures what it measures, and that is the speed of the reflector RELATIVE TO ITSELF. Your mention of some other inertial frame here is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. If the reflector is moving relative to the radar gun, the gun will measure it to have nonzero speed. Period. This does not depend on whether YOU fantasize that the gun is "stationary", or that the reflector is "stationary", because THERE IS NO "STATIONARY". The speed of the earth relative to the sun has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The speed of the sun relative to the galaxy has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.... All the matters TO THE GUN is the speed of the reflector RELATIVE TO THE GUN, because that is all it can measure (know). This is proven daily by police that use radar guns -- a gun in a car traveling down the highway at 60 MPH will measure a tree to have a speed of 60 MPH. For this last I assume a basic radar gun, not one with the ability to measure two objects and subtract their speeds. > It is still important to understand what those readings mean individually and > when combined. Yes. We have been discussing ONLY the single reading, and no combination. You still don't understand it, and you keep making stuff up and pretending it is true (e.g. "actually stationary"). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe219o$dj5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458842 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 5/20/18 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> No, the radar gun emits photons at c when stationary. > > It emits a RADAR BEAM at c RELATIVE TO ITSELF. "stationary" has NOTHING > TO DO WITH IT. Proper radar is not emitting photons. This must be a confusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 16:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdq1ms$n9d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458413 |
On 5/19/2018 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:10:35 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > Yes. You misunderstand how a radar gun works. > > You claim, "the reflected pulses arrive back at the emitter at a higher frequency than they were emitted." > > There are NO PULSES in radar guns. They send out a stream of radio photons. The radar guns send out a continuous radio wave. This will be a sine wave of an electric/magnetic field. For such a continuous wave, instead of "pulses" you specify the time between two consecutive peaks of the sine wave. Since the car moves slightly between the arrival of two peaks and is slightly closer by the time the second peak reaches the car, the distance (wavelength) between it and the previous peak is decreased, thus the frequency increases. Just like a train horn. > I can't find any source that says what happens if the radar gun is moving and the car is stationary. That's because you didn't look. Because if you did, you'd find that there is no difference. A radar gun in a moving police car "clocking" the speed of a road sign would display the speed of the police car, since the sign is moving at the police car's speed (in the opposite direction) as far as the radar gun, which uses itself as a point of reference. > When police use a moving radar gun to measure the speed of a moving car, it is a DIFFERENT kind of gun, since the gun has to know the speed of the gun in order to add it to the speed of the car being chased. They use a system with two radar guns. One is attached to the police car and measures the speed of the target. The other is typically aimed at the road ahead of the police car, and measures the speed of the police car by actually measuring the "speed" of the road relative to the police car. The gun aimed at traffic will measure the sum (if target is approaching) or difference (if target is moving in the same direction) of the speeds of the police car and the target. Electronic circuitry subtracts the speeds measured by the two radar guns, and that is the speed of the target (relative to the road/earth) and displays that as the target's speed to the police officer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57ec1e28-4b3c-4f85-8e36-74f24076ef3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458446 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:33:34 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 5/19/2018 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:10:35 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yes. You misunderstand how a radar gun works. > > > > You claim, "the reflected pulses arrive back at the emitter at a higher frequency than they were emitted." > > > > There are NO PULSES in radar guns. They send out a stream of radio photons. > > The radar guns send out a continuous radio wave. There is no such thing as a "continuous radio wave." All forms of light, including radio and microwave, are emitted in the form of INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS. I can quote from Ricard Feynman, but I'm running out of time for today. > This will be a sine > wave of an electric/magnetic field. For such a continuous wave, instead > of "pulses" you specify the time between two consecutive peaks of the > sine wave. Since the car moves slightly between the arrival of two peaks > and is slightly closer by the time the second peak reaches the car, the > distance (wavelength) between it and the previous peak is decreased, > thus the frequency increases. Just like a train horn. > > > I can't find any source that says what happens if the radar gun is moving and the car is stationary. > > That's because you didn't look. Because if you did, you'd find that > there is no difference. So, you can't find anything either and just state your BELIEFS??? > A radar gun in a moving police car "clocking" > the speed of a road sign would display the speed of the police car, > since the sign is moving at the police car's speed (in the opposite > direction) as far as the radar gun, which uses itself as a point of > reference. > > > When police use a moving radar gun to measure the speed of a moving car, it is a DIFFERENT kind of gun, since the gun has to know the speed of the gun in order to add it to the speed of the car being chased. > > They use a system with two radar guns. One is attached to the police car > and measures the speed of the target. The other is typically aimed at > the road ahead of the police car, and measures the speed of the police > car by actually measuring the "speed" of the road relative to the police > car. The gun aimed at traffic will measure the sum (if target is > approaching) or difference (if target is moving in the same direction) > of the speeds of the police car and the target. Electronic circuitry > subtracts the speeds measured by the two radar guns, and that is the > speed of the target (relative to the road/earth) and displays that as > the target's speed to the police officer. That's not what the sources say. The sources say the speed of the police car is NOT USED. The comparison is made between the signals that bounce back from the ground and the signals that bounce back from the speeding car. That totally contradicts your BELIEFS. It says that if you are in a police car and you point your radar gun at a tree, the tree will register at ZERO velocity. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdq63t$1k3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458462 |
Ed Lake wrote: >> > There are NO PULSES in radar guns. They send out a stream of radio >> > photons. >> >> The radar guns send out a continuous radio wave. > > There is no such thing as a "continuous radio wave." All forms of > light, including radio and microwave, are emitted in the form of > INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS. > I can quote from Ricard Feynman, but I'm running out of time for today. That's another distinct model, you fool. You can't mismatch models the way you do. Choose a model and stick with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 17:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdq6ig$jnn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458462 |
On 5/19/2018 5:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:33:34 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 5/19/2018 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:10:35 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Yes. You misunderstand how a radar gun works. >>> >>> You claim, "the reflected pulses arrive back at the emitter at a higher frequency than they were emitted." >>> >>> There are NO PULSES in radar guns. They send out a stream of radio photons. >> >> The radar guns send out a continuous radio wave. > > There is no such thing as a "continuous radio wave." All forms of light, including radio and microwave, are emitted in the form of INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS. Irrelevant. That's like stating that a gallon of water can't be considered a continuous fluid because it is made of individual water molecules. (Do you realize how small a radar photon is and how many are emitted per second by a radar gun?) The difference between a "continuous radio wave" and a zillion photons is unmeasureable. > I can quote from Ricard Feynman, but I'm running out of time for today. I can tell YOU of a Feynman quote about how a theory that doesn't match reality is wrong, and your beliefs don't match reality. > >> This will be a sine >> wave of an electric/magnetic field. For such a continuous wave, instead >> of "pulses" you specify the time between two consecutive peaks of the >> sine wave. Since the car moves slightly between the arrival of two peaks >> and is slightly closer by the time the second peak reaches the car, the >> distance (wavelength) between it and the previous peak is decreased, >> thus the frequency increases. Just like a train horn. >> >>> I can't find any source that says what happens if the radar gun is moving and the car is stationary. >> >> That's because you didn't look. Because if you did, you'd find that >> there is no difference. > > So, you can't find anything either and just state your BELIEFS??? Not BELIEFS. I worked on a design spec for a car mounted police radar gun system many years ago. You are trying to snow the wrong person. > >> A radar gun in a moving police car "clocking" >> the speed of a road sign would display the speed of the police car, >> since the sign is moving at the police car's speed (in the opposite >> direction) as far as the radar gun, which uses itself as a point of >> reference. >> >>> When police use a moving radar gun to measure the speed of a moving car, it is a DIFFERENT kind of gun, since the gun has to know the speed of the gun in order to add it to the speed of the car being chased. >> >> They use a system with two radar guns. One is attached to the police car >> and measures the speed of the target. The other is typically aimed at >> the road ahead of the police car, and measures the speed of the police >> car by actually measuring the "speed" of the road relative to the police >> car. The gun aimed at traffic will measure the sum (if target is >> approaching) or difference (if target is moving in the same direction) >> of the speeds of the police car and the target. Electronic circuitry >> subtracts the speeds measured by the two radar guns, and that is the >> speed of the target (relative to the road/earth) and displays that as >> the target's speed to the police officer. > > That's not what the sources say. What "sources"? > The sources say the speed of the police car is NOT USED. The police officer is interested in the speed of the target relative to the road/earth. By "the speed of the police car is NOT USED" the speed of the police car is not displayed by the radar system, is not written on any traffic ticket issued etc. The speed displayed by the radar system is the speed of the target relative to the road, period. As I wrote, this is done by one radar system measuring the speed of the target relative to the (moving) police car, the second radar system measures the speed of the road/surroundings relative to the police car, and SUBTRACTS the police car's (actually the measured speeds of the road/surroundings) to produce the displayed speed. Specifically, if the police car is tailing the subject car, matching its speed, the radar aimed at the target will measure a speed of ZERO since it is a relative speed (between police car and target) The second radar system will measure the speed of the police cruiser by measuring the relative speed of the road. The system SUBTRACTS the two speeds (subtracts since the radar will measure the road as approaching the cruiser) from the other speed (ZERO), which is the same as adding the cruiser's speed to the radar gun's measured speed (ZERO)_ to produce the target's road speed. This is EXACTLY equivalent to the police officer pacing behind the target so that he neither falls behind nor gets closer, looking at his speedometer reading 80, and concluding the target is going 80. > The comparison is made between the signals that bounce back from the ground and the signals that bounce back from the speeding car. Yes, the two radar systems measure two different relative speeds and SUBTRACT them to cancel out the unnecessary speed of the cruiser. > > That totally contradicts your BELIEFS. A police radar system design spec is not a "BELIEF". It is based on the actual science used. > It says that if you are in a police car and you point your radar gun at a tree, the tree will register at ZERO velocity. A proper mobile radar system (measuring two speeds simultaneously) WILL display a 0 speed for the tree. HOWEVER, a hand held radar unit that was not intended for mobile use WILL display the speed of the police car as the "speed" of the tree. Before you counter that that's absurd, THAT'S HOW RELATIVE MOTION WORKS! This has been known since Galileo! Someone else suggested that you take a college course in physics. I agree since you obviously don't understand relative motion at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09fdad9f-7777-466e-bc28-020caafe1c3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458474 |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > On 5/19/2018 5:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:33:34 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >> On 5/19/2018 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:10:35 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Yes. You misunderstand how a radar gun works. > >>> > >>> You claim, "the reflected pulses arrive back at the emitter at a higher frequency than they were emitted." > >>> > >>> There are NO PULSES in radar guns. They send out a stream of radio photons. > >> > >> The radar guns send out a continuous radio wave. > > > > There is no such thing as a "continuous radio wave." All forms of light, including radio and microwave, are emitted in the form of INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS. > > Irrelevant. That's like stating that a gallon of water can't be > considered a continuous fluid because it is made of individual water > molecules. (Do you realize how small a radar photon is and how many are > emitted per second by a radar gun?) The difference between a "continuous > radio wave" and a zillion photons is unmeasureable. That's not the point. The point is that light is emitted as individual photons, so you cannot argue about a "continuous radio wave." They don't exist. And the fact that there may be a zillion photons doesn't mean anything unless you are talking about what tiny FRACTION of those "zillion photons" actually reach a target. In many situations you send out a zillion photons and you get back just a few. You have to work with the few that you get back. > > I can quote from Ricard Feynman, but I'm running out of time for today. > > I can tell YOU of a Feynman quote about how a theory that doesn't match > reality is wrong, and your beliefs don't match reality. That is your opinion. > > > >> This will be a sine > >> wave of an electric/magnetic field. For such a continuous wave, instead > >> of "pulses" you specify the time between two consecutive peaks of the > >> sine wave. Since the car moves slightly between the arrival of two peaks > >> and is slightly closer by the time the second peak reaches the car, the > >> distance (wavelength) between it and the previous peak is decreased, > >> thus the frequency increases. Just like a train horn. > >> > >>> I can't find any source that says what happens if the radar gun is moving and the car is stationary. > >> > >> That's because you didn't look. Because if you did, you'd find that > >> there is no difference. > > > > So, you can't find anything either and just state your BELIEFS??? > > Not BELIEFS. I worked on a design spec for a car mounted police radar > gun system many years ago. You are trying to snow the wrong person. It is still just BELIEFS if you cannot provide some source we can discuss. > > > >> A radar gun in a moving police car "clocking" > >> the speed of a road sign would display the speed of the police car, > >> since the sign is moving at the police car's speed (in the opposite > >> direction) as far as the radar gun, which uses itself as a point of > >> reference. > >> > >>> When police use a moving radar gun to measure the speed of a moving car, it is a DIFFERENT kind of gun, since the gun has to know the speed of the gun in order to add it to the speed of the car being chased. > >> > >> They use a system with two radar guns. One is attached to the police car > >> and measures the speed of the target. The other is typically aimed at > >> the road ahead of the police car, and measures the speed of the police > >> car by actually measuring the "speed" of the road relative to the police > >> car. The gun aimed at traffic will measure the sum (if target is > >> approaching) or difference (if target is moving in the same direction) > >> of the speeds of the police car and the target. Electronic circuitry > >> subtracts the speeds measured by the two radar guns, and that is the > >> speed of the target (relative to the road/earth) and displays that as > >> the target's speed to the police officer. > > > > That's not what the sources say. > > What "sources"? https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-a-police-radar-from-a-moving-police-vehicle-traveling-in-the-opposite-direction-as-the-speeder > > > The sources say the speed of the police car is NOT USED. > > The police officer is interested in the speed of the target relative to > the road/earth. By "the speed of the police car is NOT USED" the speed > of the police car is not displayed by the radar system, is not written > on any traffic ticket issued etc. The speed displayed by the radar > system is the speed of the target relative to the road, period. > > As I wrote, this is done by one radar system measuring the speed of the > target relative to the (moving) police car, the second radar system > measures the speed of the road/surroundings relative to the police car, > and SUBTRACTS the police car's (actually the measured speeds of the > road/surroundings) to produce the displayed speed. > > Specifically, if the police car is tailing the subject car, matching its > speed, the radar aimed at the target will measure a speed of ZERO since > it is a relative speed (between police car and target) The second radar > system will measure the speed of the police cruiser by measuring the > relative speed of the road. The system SUBTRACTS the two speeds > (subtracts since the radar will measure the road as approaching the > cruiser) from the other speed (ZERO), which is the same as adding the > cruiser's speed to the radar gun's measured speed (ZERO)_ to produce the > target's road speed. This is EXACTLY equivalent to the police officer > pacing behind the target so that he neither falls behind nor gets > closer, looking at his speedometer reading 80, and concluding the target > is going 80. Then why use radar at all? In that situation the police officer can use his speed in court. It would probably be better evidence in court. The question is really about a radar gun on a moving police car being pointed at a sign next to the road. If the police car is going 60 mph, what does the radar gun show as the speed of the sign? > > > The comparison is made between the signals that bounce back from the ground and the signals that bounce back from the speeding car. > > Yes, the two radar systems measure two different relative speeds and > SUBTRACT them to cancel out the unnecessary speed of the cruiser. What are the speeds? ground = zero and car = 90 mph, or ground = 100 and car = minus 10 mph? > > > > That totally contradicts your BELIEFS. > > A police radar system design spec is not a "BELIEF". It is based on the > actual science used. Yes, but what is the science? That is what we are arguing about. > > > It says that if you are in a police car and you point your radar gun at a tree, the tree will register at ZERO velocity. > > A proper mobile radar system (measuring two speeds simultaneously) WILL > display a 0 speed for the tree. HOWEVER, a hand held radar unit that was > not intended for mobile use WILL display the speed of the police car as > the "speed" of the tree. Before you counter that that's absurd, THAT'S > HOW RELATIVE MOTION WORKS! This has been known since Galileo! Yes, but Einstein said Galileo was wrong. You are saying the light from the radar gun travels at c+v where v is the speed of the cop car, and it returns at c so that c+v-c equals the speed of the cop car. Light cannot travel at c+v. > > Someone else suggested that you take a college course in physics. I > agree since you obviously don't understand relative motion at all. The discussion is not about relative motion. It is about the speed of light and how it cannot be added to the speed of the emitter. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 14:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdse3b$9cs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #458539 |
On 5/20/2018 12:51 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 4:56:34 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >> On 5/19/2018 5:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:33:34 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: >>>> On 5/19/2018 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 4:10:35 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Yes. You misunderstand how a radar gun works. >>>>> >>>>> You claim, "the reflected pulses arrive back at the emitter at a higher frequency than they were emitted." >>>>> >>>>> There are NO PULSES in radar guns. They send out a stream of radio photons. >>>> >>>> The radar guns send out a continuous radio wave. >>> >>> There is no such thing as a "continuous radio wave." All forms of light, including radio and microwave, are emitted in the form of INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS. >> >> Irrelevant. That's like stating that a gallon of water can't be >> considered a continuous fluid because it is made of individual water >> molecules. (Do you realize how small a radar photon is and how many are >> emitted per second by a radar gun?) The difference between a "continuous >> radio wave" and a zillion photons is unmeasureable. > > That's not the point. The point is that light is emitted as individual photons, so you cannot argue about a "continuous radio wave." They don't exist. And the fact that there may be a zillion photons doesn't mean anything unless you are talking about what tiny FRACTION of those "zillion photons" actually reach a target. In many situations you send out a zillion photons and you get back just a few. You have to work with the few that you get back. Again, do you realize how small radar photons are? Hint: E=hf. Even from the return signal from an object, there are still a zillion photons involved, and treating it as a continuous wave is still accurate, with the difference unmeasureable. Just like I can consider my gallon jug of water as a continuous fluid for most purposes without having to worry about the fact it really is a large number of water molecules. > >>> I can quote from Ricard Feynman, but I'm running out of time for today. >> >> I can tell YOU of a Feynman quote about how a theory that doesn't match >> reality is wrong, and your beliefs don't match reality. > > That is your opinion. No, your beliefs don't match reality, they don't agree with experiment. Feynman would tell you that your beliefs are wrong. Period. Here is the quote. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." > >>> >>>> This will be a sine >>>> wave of an electric/magnetic field. For such a continuous wave, instead >>>> of "pulses" you specify the time between two consecutive peaks of the >>>> sine wave. Since the car moves slightly between the arrival of two peaks >>>> and is slightly closer by the time the second peak reaches the car, the >>>> distance (wavelength) between it and the previous peak is decreased, >>>> thus the frequency increases. Just like a train horn. >>>> >>>>> I can't find any source that says what happens if the radar gun is moving and the car is stationary. >>>> >>>> That's because you didn't look. Because if you did, you'd find that >>>> there is no difference. >>> >>> So, you can't find anything either and just state your BELIEFS??? >> >> Not BELIEFS. I worked on a design spec for a car mounted police radar >> gun system many years ago. You are trying to snow the wrong person. > > It is still just BELIEFS if you cannot provide some source we can discuss. It's all over the net, for one. > >>> >>>> A radar gun in a moving police car "clocking" >>>> the speed of a road sign would display the speed of the police car, >>>> since the sign is moving at the police car's speed (in the opposite >>>> direction) as far as the radar gun, which uses itself as a point of >>>> reference. >>>> >>>>> When police use a moving radar gun to measure the speed of a moving car, it is a DIFFERENT kind of gun, since the gun has to know the speed of the gun in order to add it to the speed of the car being chased. >>>> >>>> They use a system with two radar guns. One is attached to the police car >>>> and measures the speed of the target. The other is typically aimed at >>>> the road ahead of the police car, and measures the speed of the police >>>> car by actually measuring the "speed" of the road relative to the police >>>> car. The gun aimed at traffic will measure the sum (if target is >>>> approaching) or difference (if target is moving in the same direction) >>>> of the speeds of the police car and the target. Electronic circuitry >>>> subtracts the speeds measured by the two radar guns, and that is the >>>> speed of the target (relative to the road/earth) and displays that as >>>> the target's speed to the police officer. >>> >>> That's not what the sources say. >> >> What "sources"? > > https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-a-police-radar-from-a-moving-police-vehicle-traveling-in-the-opposite-direction-as-the-speeder The VERY FIRST sentence in that is: "Radar guns measure the /relative/ velocity between the radar gun and the target." (emphasis theirs) It only gets worse for you from there. I can only conclude that you simply did not understand that article. >> >>> The sources say the speed of the police car is NOT USED. >> >> The police officer is interested in the speed of the target relative to >> the road/earth. By "the speed of the police car is NOT USED" the speed >> of the police car is not displayed by the radar system, is not written >> on any traffic ticket issued etc. The speed displayed by the radar >> system is the speed of the target relative to the road, period. >> >> As I wrote, this is done by one radar system measuring the speed of the >> target relative to the (moving) police car, the second radar system >> measures the speed of the road/surroundings relative to the police car, >> and SUBTRACTS the police car's (actually the measured speeds of the >> road/surroundings) to produce the displayed speed. >> >> Specifically, if the police car is tailing the subject car, matching its >> speed, the radar aimed at the target will measure a speed of ZERO since >> it is a relative speed (between police car and target) The second radar >> system will measure the speed of the police cruiser by measuring the >> relative speed of the road. The system SUBTRACTS the two speeds >> (subtracts since the radar will measure the road as approaching the >> cruiser) from the other speed (ZERO), which is the same as adding the >> cruiser's speed to the radar gun's measured speed (ZERO)_ to produce the >> target's road speed. This is EXACTLY equivalent to the police officer >> pacing behind the target so that he neither falls behind nor gets >> closer, looking at his speedometer reading 80, and concluding the target >> is going 80. > > Then why use radar at all? In that situation the police officer can use his speed in court. It would probably be better evidence in court. The police would typically use BOTH in that case. I've been on the wrong end of a radar gun, and the officer will typically testify "Your Honor, Mr. XXX drove by me at a high rate of speed which I estimated at 82 miles per hour. I have this certification from the Police Academy for estimating vehicle speeds visually. I then followed the subject and paced his vehicle. My calibrated odometer read 80 miles per hour. My XXX brand Mobile Radar Speed Unit displayed a speed of 80 miles an hour. I stopped the subject and wrote a citation for speeding." Judge: (thinking to himself, 3 different measures of the speed.) "Guilty." > > The question is really about a radar gun on a moving police car being pointed at a sign next to the road. If the police car is going 60 mph, what does the radar gun show as the speed of the sign? > >> >>> The comparison is made between the signals that bounce back from the ground and the signals that bounce back from the speeding car. >> >> Yes, the two radar systems measure two different relative speeds and >> SUBTRACT them to cancel out the unnecessary speed of the cruiser. > > What are the speeds? ground = zero and car = 90 mph, or ground = 100 and car = minus 10 mph? The second, RELATIVE speeds. The gun calculates the target road speed. > >>> >>> That totally contradicts your BELIEFS. >> >> A police radar system design spec is not a "BELIEF". It is based on the >> actual science used. > > Yes, but what is the science? That is what we are arguing about. Relative motion. Known since Galileo. Perhaps you have heard of him. > >> >>> It says that if you are in a police car and you point your radar gun at a tree, the tree will register at ZERO velocity. >> >> A proper mobile radar system (measuring two speeds simultaneously) WILL >> display a 0 speed for the tree. HOWEVER, a hand held radar unit that was >> not intended for mobile use WILL display the speed of the police car as >> the "speed" of the tree. Before you counter that that's absurd, THAT'S >> HOW RELATIVE MOTION WORKS! This has been known since Galileo! > > Yes, but Einstein said Galileo was wrong. You are saying the light from the radar gun travels at c+v where v is the speed of the cop car, and it returns at c so that c+v-c equals the speed of the cop car. Light cannot travel at c+v. I NEVER claimed any signal moved at c+v! > >> >> Someone else suggested that you take a college course in physics. I >> agree since you obviously don't understand relative motion at all. > > The discussion is not about relative motion. It is about the speed of light and how it cannot be added to the speed of the emitter. This subset (your recent replies to me and mine) are about relative motion, which you do not understand. Yes the overall thread is about speed of light, but relative motion and the Doppler Effect works for light, sound (think sonar), even carrier pigeons released periodically and their arrival rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web