Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories

[Ed Lake]

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

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

STUPID STUPID EdTard

Radar Guns Don't Need Relativity to work

Only Simple Doppler Physics

Learn Physics First as Everyone has Told You

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtlJoXxlSFE&list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j



DUMBASS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBS_Ukbe2Vk

[Ed Lake]

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

[Paparios]

I advise you to take an hour of your time and follow the following lecture, from
Walter Lewin:

8.03 - Lect 15 - Doppler Effect, Big Bang Cosmology, Neutron Stars & Black Holes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAMYLcj17I

[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

[Dono,]

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

Can't fix imbecile

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Dono wrote

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

Can't fix imbecile

LOL 😂

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

STUPID STUPID EdTard

Radar Guns Don't Need Relativity to work

Only Simple Doppler Physics

If Radar Guns needed Relativistic Physics, the guns would be measuring the Actual Blue shift or Red shift of the temperatures of the reflected photons, which would be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT at the very Small velocities cars travel at compared to c

[Steve BH]

Light is NOT always emitted as individual photons. Photons are NOT conserved. There isn't a given NUMBER of them. When photons get together they merge into each other and lose their individual identities (which the whole point of being a boson).

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.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 05/06/2018 om 00:04 schreef JanPB:

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

Dirk Vdm

[Ed Lake]

I've seen that video before. Professor Lewin is badly mistaken. According to Einstein, a source cannot emit light at a speed greater than c. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the light it emits will still travel at c.

An observer moving toward the emitter, however, will encounter the oncoming light as traveling at c+v, where v is the observer's speed toward the emitter.

At the 10:30 mark in the video, Prof. Lewin states, "There is no such thing as the velocity of the receiver and a separate velocity of the transmitter, because in Special Relativity the only thing that matters is the relative velocity between the two. It is an illegal question to even ask: Who is moving toward whom and who is moving away from whom? So, there is only one velocity in special relativity."

That is completely wrong. And saying it is an "illegal question to even ask" makes it worse than wrong. It makes it stupid.

Special Relativity is all about how light travels at c regardless of the speed of the emitter, yet light arrives at c+v or c-v for a moving receiver/observer of the light. So, you CAN easily tell who is moving away from whom, or who is moving toward whom.

Einstein's version of Special Relativity can be demonstrated with radar guns. A radar gun in police car traveling at 60 mph will measure the speed of a parked car to be ZERO (i.e., "no reading"), while a radar gun in the parked car will measure the speed of the oncoming police car to be 60 mph.

This happens because the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the emitter. So, no matter how fast the police car is moving (v), the photons emitted from a radar gun in the car will still travel at c, NOT at c+v. So, the moving radar gun will read the parked car as having a speed of zero no matter how fast the radar gun is moving toward it. The photons travel to the parked car at c and return at c.

A radar gun in the parked car, however, will measure the oncoming car as traveling at 60 mph because the photons that hit the oncoming car at c+v are absorbed and emitted back to the gun at the c+v oscillation rate. And the radar gun compares the oscillation rates of the photons it emits to the photons it receives back.

All the video does is show that even someone with very impressive credentials can be totally wrong.

Ed My new paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf

[Ed Lake]

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

[Dirk Van de moortel]

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

[Ed Lake]

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

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 05-jun-2018 om 16:50 schreef Ed Lake:

Utter, UTTER, *UTTER* idiot :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Ed Lake]

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

[Ed Lake]

I just noticed that I discussed Prof. Lewin's lecture in my May 21, 2017 comment on my web site: http://www.ed-lake.com/2017-05-May-archive.html#052117

I discussed his lectures in several posts during May and June of 2017. I considered his lectures to be WRONG back then, and I've seen nothing since then to change my mind.

Ed

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

EdTard shitted

I've seen that video before.

Professor Lewin is badly mistaken.

https://youtu.be/OVD_SQ6UGfs

LOL 😂 😆 😝

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:50:21 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> I've seen that video before. Professor Lewin is badly mistaken.

Nah, you are just an imbecile.

[Paparios]

El martes, 5 de junio de 2018, 10:50:21 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:00:56 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> >
> > I advise you to take an hour of your time and follow the following lecture, from
> > Walter Lewin:
> >
> > 8.03 - Lect 15 - Doppler Effect, Big Bang Cosmology, Neutron Stars & Black Holes
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAMYLcj17I
>
> I've seen that video before. Professor Lewin is badly mistaken. According to Einstein, a source cannot emit light at a speed greater than c. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the light it emits will still travel at c.
>

In what sense Dr. Lewin is mistaken? Did he say in any part of the video that
light travels faster than c?

If the light travel at c, how can the approaching receiver detects it arriving at c+v?

Actually, what Einstein derived is that the velocities (speeds) do not simply
add. If the observer in frame S measures an object moving along the x axis at
velocity u, then the observer in the frame S′ moving at velocity v in the x
direction with respect to S, will measure the object moving with velocity u′
given by

u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) or, viceversa

u=(u'+v)/1-u'v/c^2)) (for the observer in S)

When u and v are small with respect to c, then u'=u-v

But when u=c (the case of the radar), u'=c NOT u-v

> An observer moving toward the emitter, however, will encounter the oncoming light as traveling at c+v, where v is the observer's speed toward the emitter.
>

Wrong see above!

> At the 10:30 mark in the video, Prof. Lewin states, "There is no such thing as the velocity of the receiver and a separate velocity of the transmitter, because in Special Relativity the only thing that matters is the relative velocity between the two. It is an illegal question to even ask: Who is moving toward whom and who is moving away from whom? So, there is only one velocity in special relativity."
>
> That is completely wrong. And saying it is an "illegal question to even ask" makes it worse than wrong. It makes it stupid.
>

Lewin is totally correct. When we observe a star, and we measure its light
wavelength, we can not determine OUR absolute speed or the STAR absolute speed,
but only the RELATIVE speed between the star and the Sun.

> Special Relativity is all about how light travels at c regardless of the speed of the emitter, yet light arrives at c+v or c-v for a moving receiver/observer of the light. So, you CAN easily tell who is moving away from whom, or who is moving toward whom.
>

You missed the whole point. First it is true thyat you can say if the star is
approaching the sun or viceversa, but you can't determine what are the real
speed of the star or of the Sun. Secondly, light does not arrives at c+v or c-v,
but as the equation above show, it arrives at c.

> Einstein's version of Special Relativity can be demonstrated with radar guns. A radar gun in police car traveling at 60 mph will measure the speed of a parked car to be ZERO (i.e., "no reading"), while a radar gun in the parked car will measure the speed of the oncoming police car to be 60 mph.
>
> This happens because the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the emitter. So, no matter how fast the police car is moving (v), the photons emitted from a radar gun in the car will still travel at c, NOT at c+v. So, the moving radar gun will read the parked car as having a speed of zero no matter how fast the radar gun is moving toward it. The photons travel to the parked car at c and return at c.
>
> A radar gun in the parked car, however, will measure the oncoming car as traveling at 60 mph because the photons that hit the oncoming car at c+v are absorbed and emitted back to the gun at the c+v oscillation rate. And the radar gun compares the oscillation rates of the photons it emits to the photons it receives back.
>
> All the video does is show that even someone with very impressive credentials can be totally wrong.
>
> Ed My new paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf

This only shows that you do not understand these concepts!!

[Steve BH]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:50:21 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:

No. If you use an ordinary stationary radar gun in both scenarios (you are using it improperly, of course, in the moving car) you'll get the same result (60 mph) either way. As has been explained to you.

As also explained, this is due to the ordinary Doppler effect and doesn't even require a relativistic correction. To very good approximation, you hear the same change in the tone of a sound source when you move toward it at 5 mph, as when it moves toward YOU at 5 mph, and you stay still. It certainly isn't zero in one case! But the near-symmetry happens when motions are slow with regard to the speed of sound. That's true even with a medium (here, air). Clearly it would be true with your aether, too (of course, since there is no aether, or medium for light, the symmetry is exact).

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:30:58 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 5 de junio de 2018, 10:50:21 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió:
> > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:00:56 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I advise you to take an hour of your time and follow the following lecture, from
> > > Walter Lewin:
> > >
> > > 8.03 - Lect 15 - Doppler Effect, Big Bang Cosmology, Neutron Stars & Black Holes
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAMYLcj17I
> >
> > I've seen that video before. Professor Lewin is badly mistaken. According to Einstein, a source cannot emit light at a speed greater than c. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the light it emits will still travel at c.
> >
> In what sense Dr. Lewin is mistaken? Did he say in any part of the video that
> light travels faster than c?

He said, "It is a meaningless question in relativity to ask whether you are moving relative to me or whether I am moving relative to you, it doesn't matter. All that matters in Special Relativity is the relative motion. So, you can always think of yourself as standing still and make the source of electromagnetic radiation move to you or away from you, relative to you."

Special Relativity is all about how time moves slower for the FASTER BODY, which says it makes a BIG difference who is moving faster.

>
> If the light travel at c, how can the approaching receiver detects it arriving at c+v?

Your question makes no sense. If light travels at c, why WOULDN'T an observer moving at v toward the source of the light measure it as arriving at c+v?

>
> Actually, what Einstein derived is that the velocities (speeds) do not simply
> add. If the observer in frame S measures an object moving along the x axis at
> velocity u, then the observer in the frame S′ moving at velocity v in the x
> direction with respect to S, will measure the object moving with velocity u′
> given by
>
> u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) or, viceversa
>
> u=(u'+v)/1-u'v/c^2)) (for the observer in S)
>
> When u and v are small with respect to c, then u'=u-v
>
> But when u=c (the case of the radar), u'=c NOT u-v

That's mathematical gibberish to me. Are you incapable of explaining anything in ordinary English?

>
> > An observer moving toward the emitter, however, will encounter the oncoming light as traveling at c+v, where v is the observer's speed toward the emitter.
> >
>
> Wrong see above!

It is Right! See above! Also see my papers, particularly my latest: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf

>
> > At the 10:30 mark in the video, Prof. Lewin states, "There is no such thing as the velocity of the receiver and a separate velocity of the transmitter, because in Special Relativity the only thing that matters is the relative velocity between the two. It is an illegal question to even ask: Who is moving toward whom and who is moving away from whom? So, there is only one velocity in special relativity."
> >
> > That is completely wrong. And saying it is an "illegal question to even ask" makes it worse than wrong. It makes it stupid.
> >
>
> Lewin is totally correct. When we observe a star, and we measure its light
> wavelength, we can not determine OUR absolute speed or the STAR absolute speed,
> but only the RELATIVE speed between the star and the Sun.

That is only because you do not have enough information. However, if I'm a police officer in a patrol car parked next to the road and you pass me by at 90 mph, I CAN tell who is moving relative to whom.

>
> > Special Relativity is all about how light travels at c regardless of the speed of the emitter, yet light arrives at c+v or c-v for a moving receiver/observer of the light. So, you CAN easily tell who is moving away from whom, or who is moving toward whom.
> >
>
> You missed the whole point. First it is true thyat you can say if the star is
> approaching the sun or viceversa, but you can't determine what are the real
> speed of the star or of the Sun. Secondly, light does not arrives at c+v or c-v,
> but as the equation above show, it arrives at c.

You missed the whole point. You probably CAN tell which star is moving FASTEST. Secondly, light arrives at c+v and c-v as is demonstrated by radar guns EVERY DAY. To argue otherwise is just mindless reciting of mathematical dogma.

>
> > Einstein's version of Special Relativity can be demonstrated with radar guns. A radar gun in police car traveling at 60 mph will measure the speed of a parked car to be ZERO (i.e., "no reading"), while a radar gun in the parked car will measure the speed of the oncoming police car to be 60 mph.
> >
> > This happens because the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the emitter. So, no matter how fast the police car is moving (v), the photons emitted from a radar gun in the car will still travel at c, NOT at c+v. So, the moving radar gun will read the parked car as having a speed of zero no matter how fast the radar gun is moving toward it. The photons travel to the parked car at c and return at c.
> >
> > A radar gun in the parked car, however, will measure the oncoming car as traveling at 60 mph because the photons that hit the oncoming car at c+v are absorbed and emitted back to the gun at the c+v oscillation rate. And the radar gun compares the oscillation rates of the photons it emits to the photons it receives back.
> >
> > All the video does is show that even someone with very impressive credentials can be totally wrong.
> >
> > Ed My new paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
>
> This only shows that you do not understand these concepts!!

Your arguments show that you only understand the kind of mindless DOGMA that Prof. Lewin used to teach. You do not understand science or reality.

Ed

[Steve BH]

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).

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.

[Ed Lake]

You explain nothing. You just make CLAIMS.

I talked with a police officer who uses radar routinely. He says that if you are in a moving car and point the radar gun at a stationary object beside the road, the reading will be ZERO. And that makes perfect sense if you understand how a radar gun works. The gun cannot emit light faster than c, so if you are stationary or moving at 30 or 50 or 100 mph, you will still just emit light at c. And the light will be returned at c. So, the reading on the gun will be ZERO.

>
> As also explained, this is due to the ordinary Doppler effect and doesn't even require a relativistic correction. To very good approximation, you hear the same change in the tone of a sound source when you move toward it at 5 mph, as when it moves toward YOU at 5 mph, and you stay still. It certainly isn't zero in one case! But the near-symmetry happens when motions are slow with regard to the speed of sound. That's true even with a medium (here, air). Clearly it would be true with your aether, too (of course, since there is no aether, or medium for light, the symmetry is exact).

The Doppler effect for light is NOTHING like the Doppler effect for sound, and any teacher who claims they are the same is teaching CRAP.

When an emitter moves toward an observer, it doesn't make any difference how fast the emitter is moving, the light he emits will ALWAYS travel at c.

When an observer moves toward a source of light he will measure the light as arriving at c+v. When the observer is moving away from a source of light, he will ALWAYS measure the light as arriving a c-v. Radar guns PROVE THAT. So have other experiments. See my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

[Ed Lake]

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

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

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

https://youtu.be/gtQLIU4ze0g

[Paparios]

El martes, 5 de junio de 2018, 16:54:40 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:30:58 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 5 de junio de 2018, 10:50:21 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió:
> > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:00:56 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I advise you to take an hour of your time and follow the following lecture, from
> > > > Walter Lewin:
> > > >
> > > > 8.03 - Lect 15 - Doppler Effect, Big Bang Cosmology, Neutron Stars & Black Holes
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAMYLcj17I
> > >
> > > I've seen that video before. Professor Lewin is badly mistaken. According to Einstein, a source cannot emit light at a speed greater than c. No matter how fast the emitter is moving, the light it emits will still travel at c.
> > >
> > In what sense Dr. Lewin is mistaken? Did he say in any part of the video that
> > light travels faster than c?
>
> He said, "It is a meaningless question in relativity to ask whether you are moving relative to me or whether I am moving relative to you, it doesn't matter. All that matters in Special Relativity is the relative motion. So, you can always think of yourself as standing still and make the source of electromagnetic radiation move to you or away from you, relative to you."
>
> Special Relativity is all about how time moves slower for the FASTER BODY, which says it makes a BIG difference who is moving faster.
>

It is quite obvious you do not understand plain English!!!

For the n-th time: we do not know (since absolute speeds do not exist) what is
the speed of your chair, where you are writing your nonsense. Lewin says that
the only thing that matters (to you at least) is that your chair does not
move (change position) with respect to your room. Of course your chair, along
with your house along with the place where you live is moving with Earth
following Earth rotation and Earth translatory movement around the Sun, which
also is moving towards the star Vega and the whole Galaxy is approaching the
Andromeda Galaxy and so on and so forth. For that reason, "All that matters in
Special Relativity is the relative motion" is as correct as it gets!!

This has nothing to do with your nonsense of "Special Relativity is all about

how time moves slower for the FASTER BODY, which says it makes a BIG difference

who is moving faster." That sentence is not even wrong!!!

> >
> > If the light travel at c, how can the approaching receiver detects it arriving at c+v?
>
> Your question makes no sense. If light travels at c, why WOULDN'T an observer moving at v toward the source of the light measure it as arriving at c+v?
>

Because of the LAW OF COMPOSITION OF VELOCITIES, which says that for your loved
photons, they arrive exactly at c and not at c+v. Try to study the equation
below, which are clearly simple algebraic relations (or are you saying you never
learned how to replace a value on an equation and get the result?).

Replacing u'=c in the equation u=(u'+v)/(1-u'v/c^2)) gives u=c and not u=c+v as you assert!!!!!

> >
> > Actually, what Einstein derived is that the velocities (speeds) do not simply
> > add. If the observer in frame S measures an object moving along the x axis at
> > velocity u, then the observer in the frame S′ moving at velocity v in the x
> > direction with respect to S, will measure the object moving with velocity u′
> > given by
> >
> > u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c^2) or, viceversa
> >
> > u=(u'+v)/1-u'v/c^2)) (for the observer in S)
> >
> > When u and v are small with respect to c, then u'=u-v
> >
> > But when u=c (the case of the radar), u'=c NOT u-v
>
> That's mathematical gibberish to me. Are you incapable of explaining anything in ordinary English?
>

Are you so dumb to not understand a simple algebraic equation? Geee!!!

> >
> > > An observer moving toward the emitter, however, will encounter the oncoming light as traveling at c+v, where v is the observer's speed toward the emitter.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong see above!
>
> It is Right! See above! Also see my papers, particularly my latest: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
>
> >
> > > At the 10:30 mark in the video, Prof. Lewin states, "There is no such thing as the velocity of the receiver and a separate velocity of the transmitter, because in Special Relativity the only thing that matters is the relative velocity between the two. It is an illegal question to even ask: Who is moving toward whom and who is moving away from whom? So, there is only one velocity in special relativity."
> > >
> > > That is completely wrong. And saying it is an "illegal question to even ask" makes it worse than wrong. It makes it stupid.
> > >
> >
> > Lewin is totally correct. When we observe a star, and we measure its light
> > wavelength, we can not determine OUR absolute speed or the STAR absolute speed,
> > but only the RELATIVE speed between the star and the Sun.
>
> That is only because you do not have enough information. However, if I'm a police officer in a patrol car parked next to the road and you pass me by at 90 mph, I CAN tell who is moving relative to whom.
>

You think so, but of course, due to your ignorance, you miss to consider that
the patrol car and you are moving with Earthy, the Sun and the Galaxy. You would
be quite surprised but, depending on the orientation of the road, it may well be
that, with respect to the orbit of the Earth, the parked patrol car is moving
faster than the 90 mph car. So all your rantings about your absolutes are dead
wrong!!!!

> >
> > > Special Relativity is all about how light travels at c regardless of the speed of the emitter, yet light arrives at c+v or c-v for a moving receiver/observer of the light. So, you CAN easily tell who is moving away from whom, or who is moving toward whom.
> > >
> >
> > You missed the whole point. First it is true thyat you can say if the star is
> > approaching the sun or viceversa, but you can't determine what are the real
> > speed of the star or of the Sun. Secondly, light does not arrives at c+v or c-v,
> > but as the equation above show, it arrives at c.
>
> You missed the whole point. You probably CAN tell which star is moving FASTEST. Secondly, light arrives at c+v and c-v as is demonstrated by radar guns EVERY DAY. To argue otherwise is just mindless reciting of mathematical dogma.
>

Again total nonsense from start to finish!!!

> >
> > > Einstein's version of Special Relativity can be demonstrated with radar guns. A radar gun in police car traveling at 60 mph will measure the speed of a parked car to be ZERO (i.e., "no reading"), while a radar gun in the parked car will measure the speed of the oncoming police car to be 60 mph.
> > >
> > > This happens because the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of the emitter. So, no matter how fast the police car is moving (v), the photons emitted from a radar gun in the car will still travel at c, NOT at c+v. So, the moving radar gun will read the parked car as having a speed of zero no matter how fast the radar gun is moving toward it. The photons travel to the parked car at c and return at c.
> > >
> > > A radar gun in the parked car, however, will measure the oncoming car as traveling at 60 mph because the photons that hit the oncoming car at c+v are absorbed and emitted back to the gun at the c+v oscillation rate. And the radar gun compares the oscillation rates of the photons it emits to the photons it receives back.
> > >
> > > All the video does is show that even someone with very impressive credentials can be totally wrong.
> > >
> > > Ed My new paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf
> >
> > This only shows that you do not understand these concepts!!
>
> Your arguments show that you only understand the kind of mindless DOGMA that Prof. Lewin used to teach. You do not understand science or reality.
>
> Ed

Says the guy who does not even know how to replace numbers in a simple algebraic
equation...

[Steve BH]

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.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

> 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

[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 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

[Dirk Van de moortel]

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

[Paparios]

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

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Eduardo is "Tarded"

https://youtu.be/Leyn-oS5ASI