Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460238 > unrolled thread

Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-04 07:40 -0700
    Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:27 -0700
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:30 -0700
        Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 19:24 -0700
    Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-04 14:02 -0700
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-04 15:00 -0700
        Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 07:50 -0700
          Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:16 +0200
          Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 09:38 -0700
          Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-05 10:23 -0700
          Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-05 10:30 -0700
            Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 13:54 -0700
              Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-05 15:38 -0700
          Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 13:53 -0700
            Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 14:07 -0700
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 19:41 -0700
        Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 08:16 -0700
          Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 08:37 -0700
            Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 09:39 -0700
            Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:00 -0700
              Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 14:11 -0700
                Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 14:18 -0700
                Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:03 -0700
                  Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-05 18:51 -0700
    Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 15:04 -0700
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-06-05 08:34 +0200
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-05 07:57 -0700
        Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-06-05 17:14 +0200
    Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-06-04 16:25 -0700
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-04 19:20 -0700
    Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2018-06-06 10:21 -0700
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:16 +0200
      Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-06-20 06:36 -0700
        Re: Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-06-21 15:36 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#460460

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 4:00:25 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:37:50 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:41:57 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 2:02:42 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In the paper I explain in detail how Einstein's theories say that MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL, and I explain how that FACT can be easily demonstrated by using ordinary police radar guns.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Radar guns also confirm that an oncoming car will encounter photons from the radar gun arriving at c+v, which contradicts what many college physics textbooks say.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I imagine almost everyone here will be in total disagreement with the paper, but if anyone can EXPLAIN where or how it is wrong, I'd be very interested (as long as the explanation isn't just a dogmatic rant arguing that IN MATHEMATICS motion IS reciprocal).  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > 
> > > > > The paper also explains how the Doppler shift for light is totally different from the Doppler shift for sound.  That is because light is emitted in the form of individual photons, not as waves.  Sound travels as waves.  Light does NOT. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ed
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Light is NOT always emitted as individual photons. 
> > > 
> > > Yes, it is.  When is it not?
> > > 
> > > > Photons are NOT conserved. 
> > > 
> > > What does that mean?
> > > 
> > > > There isn't a given NUMBER of them. 
> > > 
> > > Yes, there is.  There are billions of them in a radar pulse, but it is a number.
> > > 
> > > Einstein wrote this in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity: "in the propagation of a light ray emitted from a point source, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever-increasing volumes of space, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta localized at points of space that move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as complete units."
> > > 
> > > Notice: "a finite number of energy quanta localized at points in space."
> > > 
> > > > When photons get together they merge into each other and lose their individual identities (which the whole point of being a boson). 
> > > 
> > > Photons moving through space do NOT merge into each other.  There is no basis for claiming such a thing.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > In an antenna, electrons move in packets and emit simultaneously, rather like you using your hands to push out a wave in a pool. Are you doing anything with individual water molecules, there? Not really.
> > > 
> > > In an antenna, electrons emit individual photons oscillating at a specific frequency.  The photons are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions, but they are emitted in "packets" or pulses.  The pulses can then be made to vary in amplitude (AM radio) or frequency of pulses (FM radio).  
> > > 
> > > Ed
> > 
> > Photons are not conserved?????  When we receive photons from galaxy MACS0647-JD, photons which were emitted 13.3 billion years ago, all evidence says those photons oscillate at the same frequency as when they were emitted.  They have the same energy as when emitted.  So, how was their energy not conserved?
> > 
> > Ed
> 
> Actually, no it isn't. The "astronomical redshift" of those photons results from space containing them expanding while they are on their way. Their energy falls when this happens. Where the energy goes is a matter of some debate (it probably decreases the graviational potential the objects embedded in space-time), but it's certainly no longer in the photons, even if it still remains in the "system" (universe). 

An interesting BELIEF or THEORY, but there are NO FACTS to support it.  The FACTS say otherwise.

> 
> Hey, you tell me: do you think the Bang Bang happened at a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin?  Then how come we get ~ mm microwave CMBR photons from it, as though it did? Each one has been stretched by a factor of 1300 and it has lost all but 1/1300 of its energy.

If you want to find the answer to that, there are a lot of physics books which explain the CMPR.  

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460463

Stupid Braying Ed Donkey crossed the line with his VILE INSULT of Professor Lewin 

https://youtu.be/gtQLIU4ze0g

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460480

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 2:11:46 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 4:00:25 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:37:50 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:41:57 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 2:02:42 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > > > > I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In the paper I explain in detail how Einstein's theories say that MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL, and I explain how that FACT can be easily demonstrated by using ordinary police radar guns.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Radar guns also confirm that an oncoming car will encounter photons from the radar gun arriving at c+v, which contradicts what many college physics textbooks say.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I imagine almost everyone here will be in total disagreement with the paper, but if anyone can EXPLAIN where or how it is wrong, I'd be very interested (as long as the explanation isn't just a dogmatic rant arguing that IN MATHEMATICS motion IS reciprocal).  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The paper also explains how the Doppler shift for light is totally different from the Doppler shift for sound.  That is because light is emitted in the form of individual photons, not as waves.  Sound travels as waves.  Light does NOT. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Light is NOT always emitted as individual photons. 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, it is.  When is it not?
> > > > 
> > > > > Photons are NOT conserved. 
> > > > 
> > > > What does that mean?
> > > > 
> > > > > There isn't a given NUMBER of them. 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, there is.  There are billions of them in a radar pulse, but it is a number.
> > > > 
> > > > Einstein wrote this in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity: "in the propagation of a light ray emitted from a point source, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever-increasing volumes of space, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta localized at points of space that move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as complete units."
> > > > 
> > > > Notice: "a finite number of energy quanta localized at points in space."
> > > > 
> > > > > When photons get together they merge into each other and lose their individual identities (which the whole point of being a boson). 
> > > > 
> > > > Photons moving through space do NOT merge into each other.  There is no basis for claiming such a thing.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In an antenna, electrons move in packets and emit simultaneously, rather like you using your hands to push out a wave in a pool. Are you doing anything with individual water molecules, there? Not really.
> > > > 
> > > > In an antenna, electrons emit individual photons oscillating at a specific frequency.  The photons are emitted RANDOMLY in all directions, but they are emitted in "packets" or pulses.  The pulses can then be made to vary in amplitude (AM radio) or frequency of pulses (FM radio).  
> > > > 
> > > > Ed
> > > 
> > > Photons are not conserved?????  When we receive photons from galaxy MACS0647-JD, photons which were emitted 13.3 billion years ago, all evidence says those photons oscillate at the same frequency as when they were emitted.  They have the same energy as when emitted.  So, how was their energy not conserved?
> > > 
> > > Ed
> > 
> > Actually, no it isn't. The "astronomical redshift" of those photons results from space containing them expanding while they are on their way. Their energy falls when this happens. Where the energy goes is a matter of some debate (it probably decreases the graviational potential the objects embedded in space-time), but it's certainly no longer in the photons, even if it still remains in the "system" (universe). 
> 
> An interesting BELIEF or THEORY, but there are NO FACTS to support it.  The FACTS say otherwise.
> 
> > 
> > Hey, you tell me: do you think the Bang Bang happened at a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin?  Then how come we get ~ mm microwave CMBR photons from it, as though it did? Each one has been stretched by a factor of 1300 and it has lost all but 1/1300 of its energy.
> 
> If you want to find the answer to that, there are a lot of physics books which explain the CMPR.  
> 
> Ed


Yes they do. And they explain it by pointing out that these photons have lost their energy by simply traveling through expanding space. So, you lose, there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460482

> If you want to find the answer to that, there are a lot of physics books which explain the CMPR.   
> 
> Ed 


Yes they do. And they explain it by pointing out that these photons have lost their energy by simply traveling through expanding space. So, you lose, there. 

(2/pi^2)/(13.72353766 billion light years*(70406.7962 m/s/Mpc*s)^2/m*c) = 1 s / m

1 / (70406.7962 ((m / s) / Mpc)) = 1.388805e+10 years

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460322

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf

Again: why do you waste your time on this?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460372

Op 05/06/2018 om 00:04 schreef JanPB:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>> I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> 
> Again: why do you waste your time on this?
> 
> --
> Jan
> 

The idea is that you waste yours on it :-)

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460402

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:04:22 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> 
> Again: why do you waste your time on this?
> 
> --
> Jan

As I've said before: I find this all to be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING.  Colleges are teaching ABSOLUTE NONSENSE and no one seems to care.

I care.

However, I realize I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink.  So, all I can do is explain what Einstein said - using simpler terms than Einstein - and if no one accepts it, that's not my fault.  

I'm looking for FACTS and EVIDENCE that I am wrong, but all the people here can do is spew mathematical equations and argue that the majority is always right or the person with the most impressive credentials is always right.  They cannot argue the FACTS.  Their main argument is always: I need to read what they read, take the college courses they took, and then I will believe as the same dogma they believe.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460407

Op 05-jun-2018 om 16:57 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:04:22 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
>> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's
>>> Theories."  Here's the link:
>>> http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
>> 
>> Again: why do you waste your time on this?
>> 
>> -- Jan
> 
> As I've said before: I find this all to be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING.
> Colleges are teaching ABSOLUTE NONSENSE and no one seems to care.
> 
> I care.
> 
> However, I realize I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him
> drink.

Perhaps you need to learn to drink first.
That is, *before* you try to make horses do it.


>  So, all I can do is explain what Einstein said - using
> simpler terms than Einstein - and if no one accepts it, that's not my
> fault.

Of course not. It is everybody else's fault, right?


> 
> I'm looking for FACTS and EVIDENCE that I am wrong,

Alas, you don't even recognise such facts when THEY BITE
YOUR NOSE.


> but all the
> people here can do is spew mathematical equations and argue that the
> majority is always right or the person with the most impressive
> credentials is always right.  They cannot argue the FACTS.  Their
> main argument is always: I need to read what they read, take the
> college courses they took, and then I will believe as the same dogma
> they believe.
> 
> Ed
> 

Yeah, right ;-)

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460337

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> 
> In the paper I explain in detail how Einstein's theories say that MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL, and I explain how that FACT can be easily demonstrated by using ordinary police radar guns.  
> 
> Radar guns also confirm that an oncoming car will encounter photons from the radar gun arriving at c+v, which contradicts what many college physics textbooks say.
> 
> I imagine almost everyone here will be in total disagreement with the paper, but if anyone can EXPLAIN where or how it is wrong, I'd be very interested (as long as the explanation isn't just a dogmatic rant arguing that IN MATHEMATICS motion IS reciprocal).  
> 
> Ed

Can't fix imbecile

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460356

Dono wrote 

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:40:04 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: 

Can't fix imbecile 

LOL 😂

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460522

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> 
> In the paper I explain in detail how Einstein's theories say that MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL, and I explain how that FACT can be easily demonstrated by using ordinary police radar guns.  
> 
> Radar guns also confirm that an oncoming car will encounter photons from the radar gun arriving at c+v, which contradicts what many college physics textbooks say.
> 
> I imagine almost everyone here will be in total disagreement with the paper, but if anyone can EXPLAIN where or how it is wrong, I'd be very interested (as long as the explanation isn't just a dogmatic rant arguing that IN MATHEMATICS motion IS reciprocal).  
> 
> Ed

I just found an interesting article titled "What is a Ray of Light Made Of?"  It's at this link: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150731-what-is-a-ray-of-light-made-of

It describes our conflict better than any other article I've seen.

It begins with this:

-- start quote ---

    Light is what allows us to understand the world we live in. Our language reflects this: after groping in the dark, we see the light and understanding dawns.

    Yet light is one of those things that we don't tend to understand. If you were to zoom in on a ray of light, what would you see? Sure, light travels incredibly fast, but what is it that's doing the travelling? Many of us would struggle to explain.

    It doesn't have to be that way. Light certainly has puzzled the greatest minds for centuries, but landmark discoveries made over the last 150 years have robbed light of its mystery. We actually know, more or less, what it is.

-- end quote ---

Later, the article says,

--- start quote ---

    Einstein realised that the photoelectric effect was easier to understand by thinking of light in terms of Planck's quanta.

    He suggested that light is carried in tiny quantum packets. Each quantum packs a discrete energy punch that relates to the wavelength: the shorter the wavelength, the denser the energy punch. This would explain why violet light packets, with a relatively short wavelength, carried more energy than red light packets, with a relatively longer one.

    It also explained why simply increasing the brightness of the light made less of an impact.

    A brighter light source delivers more light packets to the metal, but it doesn't change the amount of energy each light packet contains. Crudely speaking, a single violet light packet could transfer more energy to a single electron than any number of red light packets.

    Einstein called these energy packets photons, and these are now recognised as a fundamental particle. Visible light is carried by photons, and so are all the other kinds of electromagnetic radiation like X-rays, microwaves and radio waves. In other words, light is a particle.

    At this point physicists decided to end the debate over whether light behaved as a wave or a particle. Both models were so convincing that neither could be rejected.

    To the confusion of many non-physicists, the scientists decided that light behaved as both a wave and a particle at the same time. In other words, light is a paradox.

--- end quote ---

I like that last part: LIGHT IS A PARADOX.

The problem is: if you believe light actually travels as waves, you are WRONG.  But people who believe that way have endless support for their beliefs.  And it means the people on this forum will just argue that the author of the article is LYING in order to simplify things for the ignorant layman, and only mathematicians understand reality.  That belief still remains as the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics. http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html  

It seems the wave versus photon "paradox" might be resolved by examining the workings of radar guns, but it would mean that mathematicians would have to memorize new equations.  And they do not want to do that.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460580

Op 06/06/2018 om 19:21 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 9:40:04 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
>> I just finished a new paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's
>> Theories."  Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
>> 
>> In the paper I explain in detail how Einstein's theories say that
>> MOTION IS NOT RECIPROCAL, and I explain how that FACT can be easily
>> demonstrated by using ordinary police radar guns.
>> 
>> Radar guns also confirm that an oncoming car will encounter photons
>> from the radar gun arriving at c+v, which contradicts what many
>> college physics textbooks say.
>> 
>> I imagine almost everyone here will be in total disagreement with
>> the paper, but if anyone can EXPLAIN where or how it is wrong, I'd
>> be very interested (as long as the explanation isn't just a
>> dogmatic rant arguing that IN MATHEMATICS motion IS reciprocal).
>> 
>> Ed
> 
> I just found an interesting article 

You mean *fascinating*, right?

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#461816

El miércoles, 6 de junio de 2018, 13:21:17 (UTC-4), Ed Lake  escribió:

I see, in your web page, that you are still struggling with the use of tuning
forks in radar guns.

You may get some help from the following articles:

https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt3/ch3d1.html
https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt3/ch3d4.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462089

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:36:59 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 6 de junio de 2018, 13:21:17 (UTC-4), Ed Lake  escribió:
> 
> I see, in your web page, that you are still struggling with the use of tuning
> forks in radar guns.
> 
> You may get some help from the following articles:
> 
> https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt3/ch3d1.html
> https://copradar.com/chapts/chapt3/ch3d4.html

Eduardo is "Tarded"

https://youtu.be/Leyn-oS5ASI

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web