Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light

[Ed Lake]

My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf

It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.

Ed

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 10-aug.-2022 om 16:20 schreef Ed Lake:

> My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
>
> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.

Let me be the first to declare disagreement by default, i.e. without
even having had a look at it.

Dirk vdm

[Chang Salucci]

Ed Lake wrote:

> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment.
> And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly everyone here will see
> things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements,
> instead of just declaring them.

in speeds of light there can only be ONE step. Not "step by steps".

anyway, since the gay actor, no party/politician puppet, cocaine zelenske
wants Crimea, a Rusian territory, as a military base (actually wanted
already from 2014) I guess the Russians have choices, other then to regain
Odessa, formally also a Romanian territory, then kick out the nazi
uKranoids from the Black Sea. Then re_part the fictitious uKraine among
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Russia,

Zelensky makes prediction on conflict's end
https://www.rt.com/russia/560594-zelensky-crimea-ukraine-liberation/

Last month, Ukrainian deputy defense minister Vladimir Gavrilov claimed
that Kiev is going to use Western-supplied weapons to destroy the Russian
Black Sea Fleet, which is based in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol,
and take the peninsula back. Such an operation is going to be carried out
“sooner or later,” he told the UK media.

Other Ukrainian officials also came up with threats against Crimea
recently, one of them being Zelensky’s top aide Alexey Arestovich, who
said that Kiev could strike the 19-kilometer-long Kerch Bridge connecting
Crimea to Russia’s Krasnodar Region as soon as it gains technical
capability to do so.

[Jody De santis]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 10-aug.-2022 om 16:20 schreef Ed Lake:

>> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment.
>> And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly everyone here will
>> see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any
>> disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
>
> Let me be the first to declare disagreement by default, i.e. without
> even having had a look at it.

but you don't understand the cocaine zelenske is cocaine. You like want
the proofs, but you don't want the proofs. The entire parliaments standing
up, in standing ovation, to the images of the cocaine zelenske, ordering
stuff and money from them. What a fucking shame. This alone puts down the
entire capitalist western europe. What a shame, what a disgrace, what a
fucking idiots put in charge to destroy own countries and shit on the face
of their own people.

NaZilensky's Downward Spiral Continues
http://www.bitchute.com/video/qL340CZKLGnP/

[Ken Seto]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
>

> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume local speed of light is constantme nearly everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> urge)
> Ed
The local speed of sodium light is constant as follows:
c=(measure wavelength of local sodium source....589 nm)(measured frequency of local sodium source)

The incoming speed of a moving sodium light c', from the local collecting telescope, become a local source and get OWLS c'=c. as above.
'
The true incoming speed of OWLS of a moving sodium source, c", is varying and is calculated calculated as follows:
c"=(the wavelength of the sodium source 589 nm)(measured incoming frequency of the moving sodium source)

[Cole Battaglia]

Ken Seto wrote:

> The local speed of sodium light is constant as follows:
> c=(measure wavelength of local sodium source....589 nm)(measured
> frequency of local sodium source)

the wavelength and frequency are the same thing, idiot, which can
substitute. What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.

[Volney]

I agree 100%. It is completely, totally, absolutely wrong, and I didn't
need to take a look, either.

[whodat]

When the title is erroneous there is no need to do more.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-08-10 17:23:58 +0000, Volney said:

> On 8/10/2022 11:28 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 10-aug.-2022 om 16:20 schreef Ed Lake:
>>> My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at
>>> this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
>>>

>>> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment.Â
>>> And it is all in plain English.   I assume nearly everyone here will

>>> see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any
>>> disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
>>
>> Let me be the first to declare disagreement by default, i.e. without
>> even having had a look at it.
>>
> I agree 100%. It is completely, totally, absolutely wrong, and I didn't
> need to take a look, either.

I did have a brief and cursory look. The thing that struck me is that
it contains no literature references apart from one to Einstein (1905).
Does he imagine that science is advanced by geniuses sitting in their
armchairs and thinking, without trying to build their ideas on those of
their predecessors?


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Wes Altamura]

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> you are a sack of shit, not knowing what you are talking about.
>> here's you khazar "of his word", a stinking liar. If not a fire, then
>> that ship sank because of things sent from capitalist romania, a
>> shithole.
>
> Watch what you say! It wasn't "that ship", it was the Moskva, flagship
> of the 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 Black Sea Fleet!
> It was another careless 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 smoker, lighting off some huge 卐
> Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 missile, right? Just like all the careless 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐
> smokers at those ammo dumps now in HIMARS range

this indolent imbecile truly can't understand what he is saying. What
"uKrainian" missile, same breath saying "himars". I guess you nazi nato
guys will be served. Oil, gas, food, moon landing etc etc. The cocaine
zelenske will fuck your asses, deplorably, not giving a shit about you and
your relatives.

NaZilensky's Downward Spiral Continues

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qL340CZKLGnP/

[Gary Harnagel]

Maybe I can help you out a bit.

"If you know the distance from the emitter & detector to the mirror, the speed of light is simply the time it takes for
a tiny burst of photons to make the round trip"

Perhaps you meant to say, "the speed of light is round-trip distance divided by the time it takes for
a tiny burst of photons to make the round trip"

"Such experiments do not measure the speed of photons of light, they compare the energy difference between
outgoing and returning photons. And that change in energy is often erroneously interpreted as a change in speed."

Actually, that's the Doppler effect, and it's one way to measure the relative speed between a transmitter and a
target. It does NOT measure the speed of light.

"Adding to the confusion is the fact that many physicists insist that light consists of waves, not 'particles'.”

You used the phrase, "a tiny burst of photons" earlier. In fact, most experiments use a short pulse of light containing
BAZILLIONS of photons. Thus whether light is considered to be waves or photons is not very important: it is a pulse
which can be modeled by Fourier analysis or as a Gaussian distribution.

Anyway, you have many naive assertions in your paper. For example, you claim, "the length of a second will vary for
an object that is moving versus a stationary object." That's murky because an object is stationary to one but
moving to another. The length of a second only appears to vary for someone else that YOU are observing, never for you.
And that someone else thinks that YOUR second is varying, not his.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2:13:07 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> >
> > My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
> >
> > It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly
> > everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> >
> > Ed
> Maybe I can help you out a bit.
>
> "If you know the distance from the emitter & detector to the mirror, the speed of light is simply the time it takes for
> a tiny burst of photons to make the round trip"
>
> Perhaps you meant to say, "the speed of light is round-trip distance divided by the time it takes for
> a tiny burst of photons to make the round trip"

Both say the same thing. You just describe the math, while I describe what is being measured.

>
> "Such experiments do not measure the speed of photons of light, they compare the energy difference between
> outgoing and returning photons. And that change in energy is often erroneously interpreted as a change in speed."
>
> Actually, that's the Doppler effect, and it's one way to measure the relative speed between a transmitter and a
> target. It does NOT measure the speed of light.

Right. That's what "Such experiments do not measure the speed of photons of light" means.

>
> "Adding to the confusion is the fact that many physicists insist that light consists of waves, not 'particles'.”
>
> You used the phrase, "a tiny burst of photons" earlier. In fact, most experiments use a short pulse of light containing
> BAZILLIONS of photons. Thus whether light is considered to be waves or photons is not very important: it is a pulse
> which can be modeled by Fourier analysis or as a Gaussian distribution.

It is VERY important to understand that light consists of PHOTONS which have
oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The word "pulse" is meaningless. What
is meaningful is that you can theoretically use a radar gun to measure the speed
of an oncoming vehicle using ONE photon. You do not need a "burst" and you do
not need a "pulse."

>
> Anyway, you have many naive assertions in your paper. For example, you claim, "the length of a second will vary for
> an object that is moving versus a stationary object." That's murky because an object is stationary to one but
> moving to another. The length of a second only appears to vary for someone else that YOU are observing, never for you.
> And that someone else thinks that YOUR second is varying, not his.

You need to read the paper again. One of the purposes of the paper is to show
that your BELIEFS are nonsense. If I am stationary and you are zipping back and
forth, we KNOW who is moving and whose seconds are longer. YOU.

Time ticks SLOWER for the person who is moving the FASTEST. That says you can
TELL who is moving fastest. You can also use radar guns and the Doppler Effect
to determine who is moving FASTEST. So, if you are a scientist who cannot tell if
he is moving or if someone else is moving, then you are someone who needs to
find another line of work.

Ed

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 10-aug.-2022 om 19:23 schreef Volney:

Saving time and disgust - the most important and trivial advantage
of prejudice: if it originates from a bull's bottom, you can shove
it aside for what it is without the need to even have a sniff.

Dirk Vdm

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 12:57:11 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Time ticks SLOWER for the person who is moving the FASTEST.

You have posted this maximum idiocy a lot of times , thanks for the laughs

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2:13:07 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > >
> > > My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
> > >
> > > It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly
> > > everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > Maybe I can help you out a bit.
> >
> > "If you know the distance from the emitter & detector to the mirror, the speed of light is simply the time it takes for
> > a tiny burst of photons to make the round trip"
> >
> > Perhaps you meant to say, "the speed of light is round-trip distance divided by the time it takes for
> > a tiny burst of photons to make the round trip"
>
> Both say the same thing. You just describe the math, while I describe what is being measured.

No, Ed, they don't say the "same thing." I said c = 2D/T and YOU said c = T.

> > "Such experiments do not measure the speed of photons of light, they compare the energy difference between
> > outgoing and returning photons. And that change in energy is often erroneously interpreted as a change in speed."
> >
> > Actually, that's the Doppler effect, and it's one way to measure the relative speed between a transmitter and a
> > target. It does NOT measure the speed of light.
>
> Right. That's what "Such experiments do not measure the speed of photons of light" means.

The problem is that I know of NO physicist that thinks the Doppler effect measures the speed of light,

> > "Adding to the confusion is the fact that many physicists insist that light consists of waves, not 'particles'.”
> >
> > You used the phrase, "a tiny burst of photons" earlier. In fact, most experiments use a short pulse of light containing
> > BAZILLIONS of photons. Thus whether light is considered to be waves or photons is not very important: it is a pulse
> > which can be modeled by Fourier analysis or as a Gaussian distribution.
>
> It is VERY important to understand that light consists of PHOTONS which have
> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

That's ONE model of light. That's the one that considers light to be WAVES. The other model is the photon, which is
a different animal described by quantum mechanics.

> The word "pulse" is meaningless.

Dead wrong, Ed. "Pulse" is what experimental physicists use.

> What is meaningful is that you can theoretically use a radar gun to measure the speed
> of an oncoming vehicle using ONE photon.

Dead wrong again, Ed. Most radar guns use TWO pulses to measure the speed of the target. The speed
is calculated from knowing the speed of light and the distances to the target for the two pulses.
Alternatively, the gun could use the Doppler effect.

ALL radar guns are simply far, far, far too insensitive to use one photon per pulse.

> You do not need a "burst" and you do not need a "pulse."

Correct, but ONLY if the gun uses the Doppler effect. You are mixing two incompatible techniques.

> > Anyway, you have many naive assertions in your paper. For example, you claim, "the length of a second will vary for
> > an object that is moving versus a stationary object." That's murky because an object is stationary to one but
> > moving to another. The length of a second only appears to vary for someone else that YOU are observing, never for you.
> > And that someone else thinks that YOUR second is varying, not his.
>
> You need to read the paper again.

No thank you. Once is more than enough!

> One of the purposes of the paper is to show that your BELIEFS are nonsense.

You failed miserably at that! :-)

> If I am stationary

Really, Ed? How do you KNOW that you're stationary? Do you believe the earth
is flat and sits at the dead center of the cosmos?

> and you are zipping back and forth,

But I'm not zipping back and forth, Ed. Let's say I'm in space. The sun is 93 million
miles below me and I look up and see Sirius always above me. So I AM STATIONARY
and YOU go zipping past me at 30 km/second.

> we KNOW who is moving and whose seconds are longer. YOU.

So I KNOW that YOU are moving. Your naivety is STUNNING!

> Time ticks SLOWER for the person who is moving the FASTEST.

I'm is space and you're on the earth. Ignoring gravitational time dilation, whose clock
is ticking slower? You claim I'm moving at 30 km/sec and I claim that YOU are. I
know I;m right because I'm stationary with respect to the distant stars (at least MUCH
closer to stationary than you are).

> That says you can TELL who is moving fastest.

This is a devastating demonstration of your naivety, Ed. See above.

> You can also use radar guns and the Doppler Effect to determine who is moving FASTEST.

Dead wrong again, Ed. The Doppler effect only measures the relative velocity between the
gun and the target.

> So, if you are a scientist who cannot tell if he is moving or if someone else is moving, then
> you are someone who needs to find another line of work.
>
> Ed

Ed, Ed, Ed! I hope you realize, now that I have explained to you about the relativity of motion,
that you are dead wrong and you owe me a big apology.

[whodat]

If you had direct experience with a Nazi then you might understand
what that was all about. As matters stand, you're simply using the
term in order to try to garner some attention. Well that works by
demonstrating just how stupid you actually are.

[J. J. Lodder]

Freud contains more explanation than any physics text for this.
He suffers from a pathological desire to take down the Father figure
that's bothering him.
Some creationists have the same problem,
they still struggle with the original Darwin.

As for Einstein 1905,
I doubt that there are many working physicists today
who have actually read some it, let alone in full.
Special relativity is so completely matter of course
to them nowadays that there isn't any need to go back to the source.

That's for historians, and philosophers of science,

Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 11:12:04 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> As for Einstein 1905,
> I doubt that there are many working physicists today
> who have actually read some it, let alone in full.

So do I. Anyway, it was just self denying mumble
of insane crazie, too dumb to stick to valid in that time
definitions.

[Dick's DriveIn]

He West can't stop Putin.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:18:46 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2:13:07 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
> > > >
> > > > It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly
> > > > everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > >
> > > Maybe I can help you out a bit.

(snip repetitious arguments)

> > It is VERY important to understand that light consists of PHOTONS which have
> > oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> That's ONE model of light. That's the one that considers light to be WAVES. The other model is the photon, which is
> a different animal described by quantum mechanics.

Wow! We're not talking the same language! You need to read Section II of my paper.
It's titled "What is Light?" It begins on page 2.

> > What is meaningful is that you can theoretically use a radar gun to measure the speed
> > of an oncoming vehicle using ONE photon.
> Dead wrong again, Ed. Most radar guns use TWO pulses to measure the speed of the target. The speed
> is calculated from knowing the speed of light and the distances to the target for the two pulses.
> Alternatively, the gun could use the Doppler effect.

LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could theoretically consist
of ONE PHOTON.

> > If I am stationary
>
> Really, Ed? How do you KNOW that you're stationary? Do you believe the earth
> is flat and sits at the dead center of the cosmos?

"Stationary" in this context means I am not accelerating and I am not changing altitudes.

> > and you are zipping back and forth,
> But I'm not zipping back and forth, Ed.

Then we have nothing to discuss. You refuse to understand the question.

Ed

[whodat]

On 8/11/2022 8:46 AM, Dick's DriveIn wrote:
> He West can't stop Putin.

I found Baghdad Bob!

[whodat]

On 8/11/2022 4:32 AM, Rico Maria wrote:

> whodat wrote:
>
>>>> Watch what you say! It wasn't "that ship", it was the Moskva, flagship
>>>> of the 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 Black Sea Fleet!
>>>> It was another careless 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 smoker, lighting off some huge 卐
>>>> Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐 missile, right? Just like all the careless 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ian卐
>>>> smokers at those ammo dumps now in HIMARS range
>>>
>>> this indolent imbecile truly can't understand what he is saying. What

>>> NaZilensky's Downward Spiral Continues
>>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/qL340CZKLGnP/
>>
>> If you had direct experience with a Nazi then you might understand what
>> that was all about. As matters stand, you're simply using the term in
>> order to try to garner some attention. Well that works by demonstrating
>> just how stupid you actually are.
>

> it was him, morony, using that nazi shit, you irrelevant, blind, sondre
> bitch. Can't you fucking read.


Just how stupid are you?

>
> it's also easy to watch which *_nazi_nato_* shithole "supporting" nazi
> uKraine, is starting the WW3 easiest, in bombing Crimea. Take a look at
> the *proofs*, you uneducated sack of shit.
>
> keep a screenshot every day
> https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:31.0/centery:45.3/zoom:8
>
> US HIMARS on the move in Romania
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/NLoEc3GZRwsU/
>
> Ukrainian military just loves using schools as their bases
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/OPmWLcSzB3Gc/

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:18:46 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2:13:07 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly
> > > > > everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I can help you out a bit.
>
> (snip repetitious arguments)
>
> > > It is VERY important to understand that light consists of PHOTONS which have
> > > oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

I would snip that, too, as a "repetitious argument" - but it demonstrates that you don't
understand that you're mixing two different models of light. You claim it's made up
of photons and that photons are particles. Then you turn around and claim it's made
up of electric and magnetic fields.

> > That's ONE model of light. That's the one that considers light to be WAVES. The other
> > model is the photon, which is a different animal described by quantum mechanics.
>
> Wow! We're not talking the same language! You need to read Section II of my paper.
> It's titled "What is Light?" It begins on page 2.

I read it, Ed. Don't pretend that I haven't. I studied that model in college. After all, I have
a B.S. in electronic engineering. I also have an M.S. in physics, so I know that you're
understanding of light lacks depth.

> > > What is meaningful is that you can theoretically use a radar gun to measure the speed
> > > of an oncoming vehicle using ONE photon.
> >
> > Dead wrong again, Ed. Most radar guns use TWO pulses to measure the speed of the target.
> > The speed is calculated from knowing the speed of light and the distances to the target for
> > the two pulses. Alternatively, the gun could use the Doppler effect.
>
> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could theoretically consist
> of ONE PHOTON.

Still dead wrong, Ed. No radar gun is sensitive enough to detect even a million photons. Do you
have even an inkling of how many photons are in a nanojoule pulse?

https://www.radargunsales.com/science-behind-radar-guns/

"The radar gun will emit a burst of radio waves at a set frequency, which then strikes the moving
car and bounces back to the gun. The gun then measures the frequencies of the returning waves."

See that, Ed? A "burst of radio WAVES"

> > > If I am stationary
> >
> > Really, Ed? How do you KNOW that you're stationary? Do you believe the earth
> > is flat and sits at the dead center of the cosmos?
>
> "Stationary" in this context means I am not accelerating and I am not changing altitudes

And neither am I accelerating out in space with the sun 93 million miles below me and
Sirius 8.3 light years above me.

> > > and you are zipping back and forth,
> >
> > But I'm not zipping back and forth, Ed.
>
> Then we have nothing to discuss. You refuse to understand the question.
>
> Ed

It's progress that you now understand the second postulate. A year ago, you didn't.
Everyone was trying to tell you that it didn't mean that a receiver receives light at c ± v,
but you were adamant that it did.

But now you demonstrate that you don't understand the first postulate of relativity. Now
you're being just as adamant that stationary means some preferred frame of reference. It doesn't.
Stationary is an arbitrary concept. I'm just trying to help you continue your path to understanding.
Unfortunately, your modus operandi is to run off in a huff and close your eyes. REAL "Independent
Researchers" don't do that.

So have you apologized for disrespecting everyone who told that the second postulate didn't mean
c ± v, like what you were vociferously and pompously claiming? You need a BIG dose of humility, Ed.
People here have tried to help your understanding of relativity, but most have given up because
after FINALLY coming around about the second postulate, you're being just as belligerent about the
first, not to mention that you don't have anywhere near a firm grasp on the technology involved in
measurement.

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-11 13:55:56 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could
> theoretically consist of ONE PHOTON.

A typical police radar gun does not use pulses. It uses continuous
radiation so that it can compare received radiation to radiation it
emits at the same time. It does not display any speed until it has
received a stable frequency for at least a second or two.

Mikko

[Ken Seto]

Moron, I am not Japanese.
Wavelength and frequency are not the same thing. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Whatever country you are from must be full of idiots like you.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:18:46 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:57:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2:13:07 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment. And it is all in plain English. I assume nearly
> > > > > > everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I can help you out a bit.
> >
> > (snip repetitious arguments)
> >
> > > > It is VERY important to understand that light consists of PHOTONS which have
> > > > oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> I would snip that, too, as a "repetitious argument" - but it demonstrates that you don't
> understand that you're mixing two different models of light. You claim it's made up
> of photons and that photons are particles. Then you turn around and claim it's made
> up of electric and magnetic fields.
> > > That's ONE model of light. That's the one that considers light to be WAVES. The other
> > > model is the photon, which is a different animal described by quantum mechanics.
> >
> > Wow! We're not talking the same language! You need to read Section II of my paper.
> > It's titled "What is Light?" It begins on page 2.
> I read it, Ed. Don't pretend that I haven't. I studied that model in college. After all, I have
> a B.S. in electronic engineering. I also have an M.S. in physics, so I know that you're
> understanding of light lacks depth.

Can't you UNDERSTAND? You are talking about MATHEMATICAL MODELS. Resolving
the wave model versus the particle model has been a problem for many decades.
Mathematicians DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT! It's called the "particle-wave duality"
problem.

I'm not looking at mathematical models. I'm looking at what FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS
say.

> > > > What is meaningful is that you can theoretically use a radar gun to measure the speed
> > > > of an oncoming vehicle using ONE photon.
> > >
> > > Dead wrong again, Ed. Most radar guns use TWO pulses to measure the speed of the target.
> > > The speed is calculated from knowing the speed of light and the distances to the target for
> > > the two pulses. Alternatively, the gun could use the Doppler effect.
> >
> > LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could theoretically consist
> > of ONE PHOTON.
> Still dead wrong, Ed. No radar gun is sensitive enough to detect even a million photons. Do you
> have even an inkling of how many photons are in a nanojoule pulse?

I have a radar gun and I've performed hundreds of experiments with it. When you point the
gun at a target some distance away, BILLIONS of photons are emitted, millions may hit the
target, but the target will send photons IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Only a TINY fraction will return
to the 2-inch receiver on the gun. The gun has to sort through trillions of photons coming
from OTHER sources to find the FEW photons of the specific frequency it needs.

>
> https://www.radargunsales.com/science-behind-radar-guns/
>
> "The radar gun will emit a burst of radio waves at a set frequency, which then strikes the moving
> car and bounces back to the gun. The gun then measures the frequencies of the returning waves."

Yes, that description is TOTAL NONSENSE. But it is how radar guns have been described
for decades. It's because the "particle-wave duality" issue has never been resolved. The
wave model is better than the particle model for describing how radar guns work, but NEITHER
model is correct. In REALITY, photons emit PARTICLES, but those PARTICLES (called "photons")
have wave-like properties. There is just no mathematical model that represents reality.

Yeah, I was wrong about c+v, but I was trying to figure things out. So, I have no
reason to apologize. I was just arguing with people who CANNOT EXPLAIN
anything except as mathematical models. So, it took me a long time to figure
out how things work IN REALITY.

Ed

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Yeah, I was wrong about c+v, but I was trying to figure things out.

After all these years, you can't figure things out???

> So, I have no
> reason to apologize. I was just arguing with people who CANNOT EXPLAIN

Nope. You cannot understand.

> anything except as mathematical models. So, it took me a long time to figure
> out how things work IN REALITY.

You still don't.

[Ed Lake]

Nonsense. That could not possible work. A radar gun emits
photons for as long as you hold the trigger. And it receives back photons
at the same time. And it displays the highest calculated speed it
detected while the trigger was being pulled. If the speed of the target
changes, the gun shows the new speed. I just verified that by pointing
my radar gun at the blades of a fan. While holding the trigger, the speed
showed by the gun changed as I pointed the gun at different parts of the
fan blades.

While you hold the trigger, the gun warms up and the frequency of its
photons increases. The only way you can get an accurate reading is to
measure the frequency of a photon as you emit it and compare that
to the frequency to photons you receive back an instant later. There
will NEVER BE a "stable" frequency. The quicker you make the measurement
the better.

Ed

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

There are multiple technologies used in radar guns. Mikko describes
guns that measure the beat frequency generated when mixing the
outgoing continuous beam with the reflected beam. The beat frequency
will be 2vf/c. The frequency f doesn't have to be especially accurate
to get a speed determination good enough to write a ticket.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:48:10 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow! We're not talking the same language! You need to read Section II of my paper.
> > > It's titled "What is Light?" It begins on page 2.
> >
> > I read it, Ed. Don't pretend that I haven't. I studied that model in college. After all, I have
> > a B.S. in electronic engineering. I also have an M.S. in physics, so I know that you're
> > understanding of light lacks depth.
>
> Can't you UNDERSTAND? You are talking about MATHEMATICAL MODELS.

Can't YOU understand that your "light is electric field/magnetic field" IS a MATHEMATICAL
model? It comes from Maxwell's MATHEMATICAL equations. Apparently, you're ignorant
of them.

https://www.maxwells-equations.com/

> Resolving the wave model versus the particle model has been a problem for many decades.

Not really.

> Mathematicians DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT! It's called the "particle-wave duality"
> problem.
>
> I'm not looking at mathematical models. I'm looking at what FACTS AND EXPERIMENTS
> say.

Experiments don't say "light is electric field/magnetic field." Maxwell;s THEORY says that,
based upon the MATHEMATICAL model.

It's a good theory in some ways, but not in others. Experiment says light behaves like waves
in some cases and like particles in other cases. Quantum mechanics is a MATHEMATICAL
theory that explains light in terms of quantum objects, not classical particles.

> > > LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could theoretically consist
> > > of ONE PHOTON.
> >
> > Still dead wrong, Ed. No radar gun is sensitive enough to detect even a million photons. Do you
> > have even an inkling of how many photons are in a nanojoule pulse?
>
> I have a radar gun and I've performed hundreds of experiments with it. When you point the
> gun at a target some distance away, BILLIONS of photons are emitted, millions may hit the
> target, but the target will send photons IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Only a TINY fraction will return
> to the 2-inch receiver on the gun. The gun has to sort through trillions of photons coming
> from OTHER sources to find the FEW photons of the specific frequency it needs.

And where did you read that "radar guns emit photons"? Here's what I posted:

> > https://www.radargunsales.com/science-behind-radar-guns/
> >
> > "The radar gun will emit a burst of radio waves at a set frequency, which then strikes the moving
> > car and bounces back to the gun. The gun then measures the frequencies of the returning waves."

> Yes, that description is TOTAL NONSENSE.

And YOU have "performed hundreds of experiments" with a radar gun and now you're more of an expert
than those who design and make them. Ri-i-i-i-ight.

> But it is how radar guns have been described for decades. It's because the "particle-wave duality"
> issue has never been resolved.

The most accurate MODEL of em radiation is quantum mechanical, so the "particle-wave duality" HAS
been resolved. Just because you read "QED" you think you understand photons. You obviously don't:

> The wave model is better than the particle model for describing how radar guns work,

So why don't you use it instead of making a bastardized wave model and calling it a particle model?

? but NEITHER model is correct. In REALITY,

There's where you go off into la-la land:

> photons emit PARTICLES,

WHAT?!!!

> but those PARTICLES (called "photons") have wave-like properties.

Or maybe they are waves that have particle-like properties :-)

> There is just no mathematical model that represents reality.

Actually, we don't know what "reality" is. And that "we" includes YOU.

> > It's progress that you now understand the second postulate. A year ago, you didn't.
> > Everyone was trying to tell you that it didn't mean that a receiver receives light at c ± v,
> > but you were adamant that it did.
> >
> > But now you demonstrate that you don't understand the first postulate of relativity. Now
> > you're being just as adamant that stationary means some preferred frame of reference. It doesn't.
> > Stationary is an arbitrary concept. I'm just trying to help you continue your path to understanding.
> > Unfortunately, your modus operandi is to run off in a huff and close your eyes. REAL "Independent
> > Researchers" don't do that.
> >
> > So have you apologized for disrespecting everyone who told that the second postulate didn't mean
> > c ± v, like what you were vociferously and pompously claiming? You need a BIG dose of humility, Ed.
> > People here have tried to help your understanding of relativity, but most have given up because
> > after FINALLY coming around about the second postulate, you're being just as belligerent about the
> > first, not to mention that you don't have anywhere near a firm grasp on the technology involved in
> > measurement.
>
> Yeah, I was wrong about c+v, but I was trying to figure things out.

Aren't we all? But YOU stepped on a lot of toes while you were doing that, and the people that owned
those toes were instrumental in changing your mind. If it weren't for them, you'd still be smugly
claiming c±v.

> So, I have no reason to apologize.

That claim implies that you may be sociopathic.

Sociopath: "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and
behavior and a lack of conscience."

> I was just arguing with people who CANNOT EXPLAIN anything except as mathematical models.

Mathematical models is all we have, Ed. Your error is believing that YOU know reality. You BELIEVED
you knew it when you were babbling c±v, and you castigated everyone who disagreed with you.

You still don't understand special relativity because you don't understand the first postulate, just like you
didn't understand the second postulate before.

> So, it took me a long time to figure out how things work IN REALITY.
>
> Ed

You STILL haven't figured it out, Ed. Physics deals with mathematical models. You must learn to live
with that fact instead of excoriating mathematics. Mathematics is built up from basic things that I'm
sure you agree with, like 1 + 1 = 2.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:48:10 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-6, wrote:

(snip repetitious crap)

> You STILL haven't figured it out, Ed. Physics deals with mathematical models. You must learn to live
> with that fact instead of excoriating mathematics. Mathematics is built up from basic things that I'm
> sure you agree with, like 1 + 1 = 2.

You still do not understand that MATHEMATICAL MODELS CAN BE WRONG!!!!

They had a mathematical model that said the earth was the center of the universe.
It was proved wrong when it was realized that the earth orbited the sun.
So they created a mathematical model that had the sun as the center of the universe.
And that was proved wrong, too.

Having TWO DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL MODELS for how light works, and
sometimes using one model and sometimes using the other MEANS YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!
In SCIENCE they work to SOLVE PROBLEMS. Mathematicians evidently prefer
to LIVE WITH THE PROBLEM.

Experiments show how light works. You can work it out logically. Light consists of PHOTONS,
which are "particles." But experiments show those particles have a WAVE-LIKE property.
So, it's just a matter of visualizing what a photon must look like and how it must work.
And if there is no mathematical model for that, then the question is: WHY NOT?

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:46:50 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >

> (snip repetitious crap)

This is crappy behavior, Ed.

> > You STILL haven't figured it out, Ed. Physics deals with mathematical models. You must learn to live
> > with that fact instead of excoriating mathematics. Mathematics is built up from basic things that I'm
> > sure you agree with, like 1 + 1 = 2.

> You still do not understand that MATHEMATICAL MODELS CAN BE WRONG!!!!

They're ALL "wrong," Ed. So is your "reality." You still don't understand either physics or what you're talking about.

> They had a mathematical model that said the earth was the center of the universe.

Oh, really? What "mathematics" was that based on, Ed? It was actually built on EXPERIMENTAL evidence.
The problem was that the evidence was naive. It was the very same evidence that you were espousing
here that you are STATIONARY. So your false assertion is pure baloney.

> It was proved wrong when it was realized that the earth orbited the sun.
> So they created a mathematical model that had the sun as the center of the universe.
> And that was proved wrong, too.

Yep, just like your mathematical model that the speed of light at the receiver was c±v. Now you accept
that your mathematical model was wrong. Now you have a new mathematical model that you are
stationary, and it's wrong, too.

> Having TWO DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL MODELS for how light works, and
> sometimes using one model and sometimes using the other MEANS YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!

Baloney, Ed. QED is a single mathematical model that explains why light behaves like waves and
particles.

> In SCIENCE they work to SOLVE PROBLEMS. Mathematicians evidently prefer
> to LIVE WITH THE PROBLEM.

Stop disparaging "mathematicians, Ed. It erodes your argument because you understand neither
mathematics nor physics.

> Experiments show how light works.

Yes!

> You can work it out logically.

NO!

> Light consists of PHOTONS, which are "particles."

That's QED, a mathematical theory.

> But experiments show those particles have a WAVE-LIKE property.

Or waves have particle-like behavior.

> So, it's just a matter of visualizing what a photon must look like and how it must work.

Nope. Visualizations are models of reality, not reality itself.

> And if there is no mathematical model for that, then the question is: WHY NOT?
>
> Ed

What do you keep telling this lie, Ed? It's been explained to you ad infinitum that QED, quantum
field theory (QFT) is ONE theory, a mathematical model that explains it. Little side note: although
it is the theory that describes reality better than any other theory, including relativity, it's still
probably wrong, too :-O

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-11 17:03:13 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:26:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-08-11 13:55:56 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could
>>> theoretically consist of ONE PHOTON.
>> A typical police radar gun does not use pulses. It uses continuous
>> radiation so that it can compare received radiation to radiation it
>> emits at the same time. It does not display any speed until it has
>> received a stable frequency for at least a second or two.
>>
>> Mikko
>
> Nonsense. That could not possible work.

Those who test radar guns for police use say that they work. Those
who make them say that typical ones work as I described above.

> A radar gun emits photons for as long as you hold the trigger.

And tries to receive them and to show a speed.

> And it receives back photons at the same time.

As I said. And compares the received ones to those sent at the same time.
Although it does not detect individual photons, only their average effect.

> And it displays the highest calculated speed it detected while the trigger
> was being pulled.

If you pull long enough.

> If the speed of the target changes, the gun shows the new speed.

If you still keep pulling.

> I just verified that by pointing my radar gun at the blades of a fan.
> While holding the trigger, the speed showed by the gun changed as I
> pointed the gun at different parts of the fan blades.

Yes. So it obviously works. Why did you say it could not?

> While you hold the trigger, the gun warms up and the frequency of its
> photons increases.

Possibly. Or decreases. However, during the flight of photon from the
radar gun to target and back (one microsecond if the distance to the
target is 150 m) the electronics don't warm up so much that it would
matter. The accuracy requirement of a police radar (three digits or
perhaps four) is so slow that a small change in frequency does not
matter.

> The only way you can get an accurate reading is to measure the
> frequency of a photon as you emit it and compare that to the
> frequency to photons you receive back an instant later. There will
> NEVER BE a "stable" frequency. The quicker you make the measurement
> the better.

A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.
It simply assumes that the frequency is close enough to the design.
One of acceptance conditions of radar guns and all RF emitting
devices is that the emitted frequency never deviates too far from
the nominal frequency.

It does not measute the received frequency, either. It only measures
the difference of the received and emitted frequencies and infers
the speed from that difference.

Mikko

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:46:50 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >

(snip repetition and personal attacks)

> What do you keep telling this lie, Ed? It's been explained to you ad infinitum that QED, quantum
> field theory (QFT) is ONE theory, a mathematical model that explains it. Little side note: although
> it is the theory that describes reality better than any other theory, including relativity, it's still
> probably wrong, too :-O

QED stands for Quantum ElectroDynamics. It is a THEORY, NOT A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
As a THEORY, it contains MANY mathematical models.

"quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles
with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with
matter but also those of charged particles with one another."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-electrodynamics-physics

"Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum
entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical
concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

"WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: possession by physical entities (such as light and electrons) of
both wavelike and particle-like characteristics. On the basis of experimental evidence,
German physicist Albert Einstein first showed (1905) that light, which had been considered
a form of electromagnetic waves, must also be thought of as particle-like, localized in
packets of discrete energy. The observations of the Compton effect (1922) by American
physicist Arthur Holly Compton could be explained only if light had a wave-particle duality."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-particle-duality

"A photon is a tiny particle made up of electromagnetic waves. They have no mass and no
charge. You can think of them as a tiny packet of light energy.

"A photon is an example of a quantum, a discrete packet of energy or matter. Strangely,
photons have properties of both particles and waves. They have momentum and they
behave as a concentrated unit, like particles. But they have a specific frequency and
wavelength, like a wave. Einstein himself was mystified by this wave-particle duality,
saying, 'It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the
other... We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully
explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.'"

"The scientific definition of a photon is a particle representing a quantum of light, or other
electromagnetic radiation, that carries energy proportional to its frequency."

Source: https://study.com/learn/lesson/photon-energy-wavelength.html

Instead of having endless arguments about wave-particle duality, why not just
create a drawing of a photon and explain how it can have "wave-like properties"
AND "particle-like properties"? I do that in my paper on page 3.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:48:11 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-08-11 17:03:13 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:26:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 2022-08-11 13:55:56 +0000, Ed Lake said:
> >>
> >>> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could
> >>> theoretically consist of ONE PHOTON.

{snip)

> A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.

WRONG. A radar gun captures a photon while it is transmitting and
compares that photon to what it gets back.

> It simply assumes that the frequency is close enough to the design.
> One of acceptance conditions of radar guns and all RF emitting
> devices is that the emitted frequency never deviates too far from
> the nominal frequency.
>
> It does not measute the received frequency, either. It only measures
> the difference of the received and emitted frequencies and infers
> the speed from that difference.

The only reason it can do that is because it measures the
frequency difference between what it emitted and what it received
back a tiny fraction of a second later. During that tiny fraction of a
second, the gun didn't have time to warm up enough to change
frequency.

It is very unlikely that any two radar guns emit photons at exactly the
same frequency. A typical radar gun may emit photons that THEORETICALLY
oscillate 35 BILLION times per second, but in reality the photons are
unlikely to oscillate at that EXACT frequency. If the gun emits photons
that oscillate 35,000,000,012 times per second, it compares the returned
photons to that rate. The difference in rates still determines the speed
of the target. In one case an emission frequency of 35,000,000,000 gets a
return frequency of 35,000,007,292 and in another case an emission frequency
of 35,000,000,012 gets a return frequency of 35,000,007,304. In both
cases the beat frequency is 7,292 which converts to 70 mph.

Ed

[whodat]

On 8/12/2022 10:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:46:50 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>
> (snip repetition and personal attacks)
>
>> What do you keep telling this lie, Ed? It's been explained to you ad infinitum that QED, quantum
>> field theory (QFT) is ONE theory, a mathematical model that explains it. Little side note: although
>> it is the theory that describes reality better than any other theory, including relativity, it's still
>> probably wrong, too :-O
>
> QED stands for Quantum ElectroDynamics. It is a THEORY, NOT A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
> As a THEORY, it contains MANY mathematical models.

That all depends. In the usual context it means something
quite different, that is, if one is an properly educated
person. Limitations are often demonstrated through the
language used, as is the case here.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/qed

[Volney]

On 8/12/2022 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:48:11 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-08-11 17:03:13 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:26:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-11 13:55:56 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>>>
>>>>> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could
>>>>> theoretically consist of ONE PHOTON.
> {snip)
>
>> A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.
>
> WRONG. A radar gun captures a photon while it is transmitting and
> compares that photon to what it gets back.

THAT is wrong. Radar guns don't measure individual photons. They can't,
that falls far below the noise level.

What happens is the electromagnetic effects of the received signal on
the antenna convert it to an Electrical AC signal in a wire/circuit
board trace/electronic component. At this point there are NO LONGER any
photons (or waves) involved, it is an AC electronic signal corresponding
to what was received. Bandpass filters and the overall horn design
eliminate all but "close" frequencies. These are routed to a detector
circuit where they are combined with another AC signal, the transmitted
AC frequency. (note that it is also NOT photons or waves, it hasn't had
a chance to become either yet). The detector calculates the difference
frequency, and this frequency has a direct relationship to the relative
speed difference. This conversion is done and displayed as a speed.

> It is very unlikely that any two radar guns emit photons at exactly the
> same frequency. A typical radar gun may emit photons that THEORETICALLY
> oscillate 35 BILLION times per second,

No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.

> but in reality the photons are
> unlikely to oscillate at that EXACT frequency.

Because they don't oscillate at all.

Ed, you need to stop presenting your BELIEF that photons oscillate as if
it was scientific theory. NO theory has oscillating photons in it.

> If the gun emits photons
> that oscillate 35,000,000,012 times per second,

Photons don't oscillate. You need to point out that your BELIEFS are
just that, your BELIEFS, and not science theory.

> it compares the returned
> photons to that rate.

It compares the resulting AC signal (no longer photons or waves) by
subtracting the frequencies.

> The difference in rates still determines the speed
> of the target. In one case an emission frequency of 35,000,000,000 gets a
> return frequency of 35,000,007,292 and in another case an emission frequency
> of 35,000,000,012 gets a return frequency of 35,000,007,304. In both
> cases the beat frequency is 7,292 which converts to 70 mph.

At least you got this part right!

[Volney]

Which if funny, since doing so replaces the Darwin father figure with a
much bigger father figure!

>
> As for Einstein 1905,
> I doubt that there are many working physicists today
> who have actually read some it, let alone in full.
> Special relativity is so completely matter of course
> to them nowadays that there isn't any need to go back to the source.

Yes, it's 100+ year old settled science. Kind of like examining
Mendeleev to investigate whether the concept of a periodic table is valid.

>
> That's for historians, and philosophers of science,
>

Also as part of education, so they understand why things are the way
they are. Newton, Kepler etc. also need to be understood.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:23:06 AM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> (snip repetition and personal attacks)

Really, Ed? Here's what you snipped:

BEGIN

> So, it took me a long time to figure out how things work IN REALITY.
>

END

If you take anything in that exchange as a "personal attack" you have a very thin skin and have
a problem accepting valid criticism.

> > What do you keep telling this lie, Ed? It's been explained to you ad infinitum that QED, quantum
> > field theory (QFT) is ONE theory, a mathematical model that explains it. Little side note: although
> > it is the theory that describes reality better than any other theory, including relativity, it's still
> > probably wrong, too :-O

> QED stands for Quantum ElectroDynamics. It is a THEORY, NOT A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
> As a THEORY, it contains MANY mathematical models.
>
> "quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory of the interactions of charged particles
> with the electromagnetic field. It describes mathematically not only all interactions of light with
> matter but also those of charged particles with one another."
>
> Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-electrodynamics-physics

It's irrelevant how many models it contains, Ed? Can't a model be composed of models?

> "Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum
> entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical
> concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects."
>
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
>
> "WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: possession by physical entities (such as light and electrons) of
> both wavelike and particle-like characteristics. On the basis of experimental evidence,
> German physicist Albert Einstein first showed (1905) that light, which had been considered
> a form of electromagnetic waves, must also be thought of as particle-like, localized in
> packets of discrete energy. The observations of the Compton effect (1922) by American
> physicist Arthur Holly Compton could be explained only if light had a wave-particle duality."
>
> Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-particle-duality
>
> "A photon is a tiny particle made up of electromagnetic waves. They have no mass and no
> charge. You can think of them as a tiny packet of light energy.

Well, that's incorrect. Electromagnetic waves are composed of photons, not vice versa.

> "A photon is an example of a quantum, a discrete packet of energy or matter. Strangely,
> photons have properties of both particles and waves. They have momentum and they
> behave as a concentrated unit, like particles. But they have a specific frequency and
> wavelength, like a wave. Einstein himself was mystified by this wave-particle duality,
> saying, 'It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the
> other... We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully
> explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.'"
>
> "The scientific definition of a photon is a particle representing a quantum of light, or other
> electromagnetic radiation, that carries energy proportional to its frequency."
>
> Source: https://study.com/learn/lesson/photon-energy-wavelength.html
>
> Instead of having endless arguments about wave-particle duality, why not just
> create a drawing of a photon and explain how it can have "wave-like properties"
> AND "particle-like properties"? I do that in my paper on page 3.
>
> Ed

No, Ed, you didn't. You got it wrong. The only waves that describe a photon are probability waves.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_probability.html

[Volney]

On 8/10/2022 1:44 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-08-10 17:23:58 +0000, Volney said:
>
>> On 8/10/2022 11:28 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Op 10-aug.-2022 om 16:20 schreef Ed Lake:
>>>> My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line
>>>> at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by
>>>> experiment.  And it is all in plain English.   I assume nearly
>>>> everyone here will see things differently, but I'm hoping you will
>>>> discuss any disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
>>>
>>> Let me be the first to declare disagreement by default, i.e. without
>>> even having had a look at it.
>>>
>> I agree 100%. It is completely, totally, absolutely wrong, and I
>> didn't need to take a look, either.
>
> I did have a brief and cursory look. The thing that struck me is that it
> contains no literature references apart from one to Einstein (1905).
> Does he imagine that science is advanced by geniuses sitting in their
> armchairs and thinking, without trying to build their ideas on those of
> their predecessors?
>
>

That is a *very* common characteristic of cranks. They think they can
sit in their armchair and think about something and come up with the
answer without any verification whatsoever. Like Galileo's priests, they
saw no need to look through the telescope since they already "knew"
there was nothing to see. Imagine if Michelson and Morley just sat at
their chairs and declared the outcome of their experiment since, after
all, they knew the speed of the earth in its orbit.

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 12:37:52 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:48:11 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 2022-08-11 17:03:13 +0000, Ed Lake said:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:26:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-08-11 13:55:56 +0000, Ed Lake said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could
> >>>>> theoretically consist of ONE PHOTON.
> > {snip)
> >
> >> A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.
> >
> > WRONG. A radar gun captures a photon while it is transmitting and
> > compares that photon to what it gets back.
> THAT is wrong. Radar guns don't measure individual photons. They can't,
> that falls far below the noise level.

In theory a radar gun can measure the speed of a target using just one photon.
NASA has a web page about that. It's here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm
In practice, however, it's a bunch of photons. There is no "noise level" involved,
since radar guns use a oscillation frequency range that isn't used by anything else.

>
> What happens is the electromagnetic effects of the received signal on
> the antenna convert it to an Electrical AC signal in a wire/circuit
> board trace/electronic component. At this point there are NO LONGER any
> photons (or waves) involved, it is an AC electronic signal corresponding
> to what was received. Bandpass filters and the overall horn design
> eliminate all but "close" frequencies. These are routed to a detector
> circuit where they are combined with another AC signal, the transmitted
> AC frequency. (note that it is also NOT photons or waves, it hasn't had
> a chance to become either yet). The detector calculates the difference
> frequency, and this frequency has a direct relationship to the relative
> speed difference. This conversion is done and displayed as a speed.

I think you are talking about how RADIOS work, not radar guns.

> > It is very unlikely that any two radar guns emit photons at exactly the
> > same frequency. A typical radar gun may emit photons that THEORETICALLY
> > oscillate 35 BILLION times per second,
> No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
> frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.

Nonsense. You are DEFINITELY talking about RADIOS, not radar guns.
And you are mistaking "modulation" for frequency. Radio transmitters emit
zillions of photons in a continuous stream, but they modify the stream
so that the photons are sent in bunches of different sizes. AM radio is
Amplitude Modulation radio, which means they vary the number of photons
in the bunches. FM radio is Frequency Modulation radio, which means they
modify the oscillation frequencies of the photons they transmit to cause
different sounds and signals. The rule is that you cannot vary the oscillation
frequency of individual photons by more than 75 kHz away from the
"station frequency."

> > but in reality the photons are
> > unlikely to oscillate at that EXACT frequency.
> Because they don't oscillate at all.
>
> Ed, you need to stop presenting your BELIEF that photons oscillate as if
> it was scientific theory. NO theory has oscillating photons in it.
> > If the gun emits photons
> > that oscillate 35,000,000,012 times per second,
> Photons don't oscillate. You need to point out that your BELIEFS are
> just that, your BELIEFS, and not science theory.

I wasn't presenting any "theory." I was just trying to make sense out of
all the bad information that's out there. When I did, I thought I'd share
my findings with anyone who might be interested.

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:42:33 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> I wasn't presenting any "theory." I was just trying to make sense out of
> all the bad information that's out there. When I did, I thought I'd share
> my findings with anyone who might be interested.
>
> Ed

Unfortunately, you swallowed some bad information and shared THAT.

[Volney]

On 8/11/2022 3:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:48:10 AM UTC-6, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:55:57 AM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> (snip repetitious crap)
>
>> You STILL haven't figured it out, Ed. Physics deals with mathematical models. You must learn to live
>> with that fact instead of excoriating mathematics. Mathematics is built up from basic things that I'm
>> sure you agree with, like 1 + 1 = 2.
>
> You still do not understand that MATHEMATICAL MODELS CAN BE WRONG!!!!

ALL models are wrong! Some are less wrong than others. A purpose of
science is to find less wrong models and use them.

>
> They had a mathematical model that said the earth was the center of the universe.

That wasn't mathematical, that was based on observations and limited
understanding.

> It was proved wrong when it was realized that the earth orbited the sun.

In part by mathematics.

> So they created a mathematical model that had the sun as the center of the universe.

No, also a model based on observations and (less) limited understanding.

It CONTAINED mathematics, of course, but ALL physics does!

Since you are so frightened by 🧟‍♂️mathematicians🧛🏻‍♂️ hiding under
your bed, why hang out in a physics group since physics is just LOADED
with math!

> And that was proved wrong, too.

Yes, scientists are always looking for better models, since they are ALL
wrong.

>
> Having TWO DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL MODELS for how light works, and
> sometimes using one model and sometimes using the other MEANS YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!

No, it means that that model sometimes has light behaving like particles
and sometimes like waves.

A more modern BETTER model, such as QED/QFT resolves this, but using
older models is often simpler.

> In SCIENCE they work to SOLVE PROBLEMS.

By creating better (but never perfect) models.

> Mathematicians evidently prefer
> to LIVE WITH THE PROBLEM.

What problem? Mathematicians are interested in abstract concepts like
numbers, not physics.

>
> Experiments show how light works.

Yes, and experiments disagree with many of your beliefs.

> You can work it out logically.

No, science requires you to do observations and experiments to validate
or refute hypotheses. "Logically" the earth is flat and the center of
the universe. It's not.

> Light consists of PHOTONS,

Or appears to. Sometimes. That's part of what one model says.

> which are "particles."

More modern theories describe them as quantum disturbances in
electromagnetic fields, not as "particles".

> But experiments show those particles have a WAVE-LIKE property.
> So, it's just a matter of visualizing what a photon must look like and how it must work.

No, it's a matter of performing experiments and making observations to
see how things work.

> And if there is no mathematical model for that, then the question is: WHY NOT?

The QED/QFT models, the best description of light we have, is just
LOADED with math!

(don't look now! There's a 🧟‍♂️mathematician💀 behind you!)

[Volney]

On 8/12/2022 3:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 12:37:52 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:48:11 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2022-08-11 17:03:13 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10:26:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-08-11 13:55:56 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LIDAR guns use two pulses. Radar guns use ONE pulse, which could
>>>>>>> theoretically consist of ONE PHOTON.
>>> {snip)
>>>
>>>> A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.
>>>
>>> WRONG. A radar gun captures a photon while it is transmitting and
>>> compares that photon to what it gets back.
>> THAT is wrong. Radar guns don't measure individual photons. They can't,
>> that falls far below the noise level.
>
> In theory a radar gun can measure the speed of a target using just one photon.

> NASA has a web page about that. It's here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm

There's that infamous NASA public relations page again, the one where
you claim the author is some sort of rocket surgeon or something.

> In practice, however, it's a bunch of photons. There is no "noise level" involved,
> since radar guns use a oscillation frequency range that isn't used by anything else.

Sheesh! Your knowledge of electronics is ZERO if you claim that! There
is internally generated thermal noise in the electronics, shot noise,
perhaps part of the CMBR! (guess how that was discovered!) There is NO
WAY a single 30 GHz photon could be picked out of the noise crowd.
(remember, microwave is toward the low end of the electromagnetic energy
spectrum. Microwaves make up for it in the sheer number of photons
involved, which makes them more wavelike than visible light or X rays.

>
>>
>> What happens is the electromagnetic effects of the received signal on
>> the antenna convert it to an Electrical AC signal in a wire/circuit
>> board trace/electronic component. At this point there are NO LONGER any
>> photons (or waves) involved, it is an AC electronic signal corresponding
>> to what was received. Bandpass filters and the overall horn design
>> eliminate all but "close" frequencies. These are routed to a detector
>> circuit where they are combined with another AC signal, the transmitted
>> AC frequency. (note that it is also NOT photons or waves, it hasn't had
>> a chance to become either yet). The detector calculates the difference
>> frequency, and this frequency has a direct relationship to the relative
>> speed difference. This conversion is done and displayed as a speed.
>
> I think you are talking about how RADIOS work, not radar guns.

Radar guns ARE radios, both transmitters and receivers!

I'm VERY surprised you never noticed that, or mentioned silliness like
how radio transmitters send streams of photons everywhere and a receiver
detects radio photons or bla bla bla.

A radar gun transmits on one frequency an unmodulated radio signal in
the microwave range, that is just a pure carrier wave. It is tuned to
receive in a narrow band at the same frequency. It is not tunable to
different "stations", but the detector detects the difference
frequencies. It is VERY MUCH like an AM (better yet SSB or DSB)
receiver, or the IF stage of nearly all radios. Very old police radars
even had an audio jack where you could listen to the difference
frequency (in the audio range, higher the frequency the faster the
speeder). I bet if someone was insane enough to try, they could create a
metal-lined speaker cone, point such a radar at it and listen to the
music played on the speaker on such a radar gun! *such foolishness
needs more thought*

(this is GUARANTEED to get some sort of "Ridiculous!!!" response from
Ed, but it's because he won't/can't think this through)

>
>>> It is very unlikely that any two radar guns emit photons at exactly the
>>> same frequency. A typical radar gun may emit photons that THEORETICALLY
>>> oscillate 35 BILLION times per second,
>> No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
>> frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.
>
> Nonsense. You are DEFINITELY talking about RADIOS, not radar guns.

Of course I am talking about radios because radar guns ARE a form of
radio! A transmitter and (specialized) receiver in one package.

> And you are mistaking "modulation" for frequency. Radio transmitters emit
> zillions of photons in a continuous stream, but they modify the stream
> so that the photons are sent in bunches of different sizes. AM radio is
> Amplitude Modulation radio, which means they vary the number of photons
> in the bunches. FM radio is Frequency Modulation radio, which means they
> modify the oscillation frequencies of the photons they transmit to cause
> different sounds and signals. The rule is that you cannot vary the oscillation
> frequency of individual photons by more than 75 kHz away from the
> "station frequency."

The microwave radio transmitter transmits an unmodulated signal. The
receiver operates more like an SSB (single sideband) reeiver, not AM or
FM. I bet you have absolutely ZERO knowledge what the fuck that is, you
probably never even HEARD of that. (I was a ham radio operator for a
while). Anyway a SSB receiver creates the difference frequency between a
local oscillator and the received radio signal, this is in the audio
range and you can listen to the speaker's voice. Very touchy tuning, if
not nearly exact the voice sounds like it was fed through one of those
electronic voice changing gadgets, more than a teeny bit off the voice
isn't intelligible at all. If you tune to an unmodulated carrier, you'll
hear a constant tone at the difference frequency between the transmitted
and local oscillator frequenceies.

>
>>> but in reality the photons are
>>> unlikely to oscillate at that EXACT frequency.
>> Because they don't oscillate at all.
>>
>> Ed, you need to stop presenting your BELIEF that photons oscillate as if
>> it was scientific theory. NO theory has oscillating photons in it.

>>> If the gun emits photons
>>> that oscillate 35,000,000,012 times per second,

>> Photons don't oscillate. You need to point out that your BELIEFS are
>> just that, your BELIEFS, and not science theory.
>
> I wasn't presenting any "theory."

So you admit "oscillating photons" are just your BELIEF and not part of
any scientific theory? Good, but why do you present your BELIEF as if it
was already considered factual? Why do you stick to it despite being
corrected by many people, including physicists?

> I was just trying to make sense out of
> all the bad information that's out there.

Well you failed at making sense of the information. BTW what information
do you consider "bad", and why do you believe it's "bad"?

> When I did, I thought I'd share
> my findings with anyone who might be interested.

Sharing your bad findings as if factual/correct is a rather bad thing to do.

[Volney]

On 8/11/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-4, Cole Battaglia wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> The local speed of sodium light is constant as follows:
>>> c=(measure wavelength of local sodium source....589 nm)(measured
>>> frequency of local sodium source)
>> the wavelength and frequency are the same thing, idiot, which can
>> substitute. What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.
>
> Moron, I am not Japanese.

But you certainly are a moron.

> Wavelength and frequency are not the same thing.

Of course not. They are almost like inverses, since if you measure both
the wavelength and frequency of light (measured in the same frame) and
multiply them together, you always get c.

> Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Don't insult your betters like that, Stupid Ken!

(and it's pretty bad that a nymshifting troll, working for enough watery
borscht to keep from starving is your better!)

> Whatever country you are from must be full of idiots like you.

It probably lives in 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐 or some other third world shithole.
Definitely working for 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐.

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-12 17:37:53 +0000, Volney said:

> On 8/12/2022 11:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

>> It is very unlikely that any two radar guns emit photons at exactly the
>> same frequency. A typical radar gun may emit photons that THEORETICALLY
>> oscillate 35 BILLION times per second,
>
> No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
> frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.

Newton proposed a theory where light is a stream of small particles.
In that theory the particles do oscillate. Otherwise Newton could not
explain Newton's rings. Other interference effects were not known.

Mikko

[J. J. Lodder]

Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
> frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.

A common error. Interference is NOT a collective effect.
Individual photons interfere, with themselves,
so the must have a frequency.

You can also verify that by feeding monochromatic light
through a spectroscope, photon by photon,

Jan

[Ken Seto]

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 1:39:22 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/11/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-4, Cole Battaglia wrote:
> >> Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>> The local speed of sodium light is constant as follows:
> >>> c=(measure wavelength of local sodium source....589 nm)(measured
> >>> frequency of local sodium source)
> >> the wavelength and frequency are the same thing, idiot, which can
> >> substitute. What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.
> >
> > Moron, I am not Japanese.
> But you certainly are a moron.

ROTFLOL.....your name is moron_y and you call me a moron?

> > Wavelength and frequency are not the same thing.
> Of course not. They are almost like inverses, since if you measure both
> the wavelength and frequency of light (measured in the same frame) and
> multiply them together, you always get c.

No moron, this is circular.....you have to assume c to begin with.

> > Gee you are so fucking stupid.

> Don't insult your betters like that, Stupid Ken! your name is More

Like your name is Moron_y and that's why you are a moron? I don't think so.

[Ed Lake]

WHICH EXPERIMENTS disagree with what I've written?

Ed

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-13 14:50:30 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> WHICH EXPERIMENTS disagree with what I've written?

That would be a long story. One example: double stars, expecially
those with a short period. You have said that a Doppler shift is
observed when the observer moves but not when the light source
moves. So why is observed that the spectral lines periodically
split and merge? de Sitter used this phenomenon when presented
his argument mentioned in your "Radar Guns and Einstein’s Theories".

Mikko

[Stan Fultoni]

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 2:48:56 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Individual photons interfere, with themselves, so the must have a frequency.

The probability density function for the position of an individual photon from a given source striking a screen in a 2-slit experiment (for example) does indeed depend on the frequency of the source, but this does not imply that an individual photon "has a frequency", much less that it exhibits a frequency. It doesn't. The interference effect arises because the probability amplitude of the photon landing at a particular event is the sum of the probability amplitudes for the available paths (the path integral), that are in superposition until a photon actually "clicks" at a detector. We cannot -- even in principle -- infer the frequency of the source from the landing position of a single photon. It would take a large number of photons to establish the interference pattern with resolution sufficient to infer the frequency of the source... and this is still the frequency of the source, not of an individual photon. Remember, the elapsed proper time for a single path (with any appreciable probability) of a photon "in flight" is zero, so its quantum phase angle does not advance. You can find simplified explanations of this in many sources, such as Feynman's "QED".

Of course, an individual photon has *energy*, and we could -- in principle -- measure the energy of an individual ariving photon, and from this we could infer the frequency of the source from the relation E = h nu, but this (again) is, properly speaking, the frequency of the source, or, more loosely, of an aggregate of photons from some monochromatic source, but not of an individual photon.

Naturally, one could *define* the word "photon" as the aggregate of the superimposed interactions that contribute to the path integral giving the probability density distribution, but this is really just smuggling in the operational effect of an aggregate of photons and identifying that with a single representative photon. The point is that what we are actually observing is the temporal frequency of the source.

> You can also verify that by feeding monochromatic light
> through a spectroscope, photon by photon,

Like the 2-slit experiment, a photon interacting with a spectrograph grating, and landing somewhere on a screen or scope, doesn't uniquely correspond to a single frequency, since the grating is just selecting phases (of the source) at a certain interval. We can easily get the same landing site for an individual photon from sources of different frequencies (at multiples). (Of course, those photons will have different energies.) There is a probability density for the landing position of a single photon based on the frequency of the source, but to discern this pattern with adequate resolution to unique identify the frequency of the source requires many photons. And, again, this is resolving the frequency of the source. A photon is really just an interaction between two entities with mass, meaning entities that have non-zero proper time and hence can exhibit frequencies. There is no such thing as a "free" photon, even though we sometimes speak in terms of that idealized abstraction.

[Alsor]

Theory is first.

Perimeter of circle:
L = 2pi R,

try to disprove this empirically. :)

The same applies to the fantastic Lorentz discovery:
r' = c't = ct' = ck(t-cv/c^2)

which immediately gives the light speed - for local observer conditions:

c_loc(f) = c/(1 + v/c cosf(f))

and this is correct, indisputable result for the one way light speed!

This is still Lorentz, of course.

Further Einstein proposed: c = const, as convention, because this is sufficient, and mach simpler for local measurements.

The end of Story.

[Ed Lake]

Quoting from my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories":

"The two stars in the double star system orbit each other, which means that when one star
is moving toward the earth, the other is moving away from the earth. According to Isaac
Newton and Swiss theoretical physicist Walther Ritz, the light from the star moving toward
the earth should travel at c+v, where v is the speed of the star toward earth, and the light
from the star moving away from the earth should travel at c-v. That became known as
“Emission Theory.” De Sitter’s observations showed that “Emission Theory” was not true.
The light travels at 299,792 kilometers per second (kps) (rounded to 300,000 kps) from
both stars. If “Emission Theory” were true, that would also mean that, while the slow-moving
light from the receding star is traveling to the earth, the faster-moving light from the oncoming
star would pass by the slower-moving light, and an observer on earth would see the same star
in different locations. That doesn’t happen.

"Einstein agreed. He decided there must be a maximum speed limit in our universe that prevents
light from traveling faster than 299,792 kps. And all light must be emitted at 299,792 kps in all
directions. That means that, no matter how fast the emitter is traveling, or in what direction,
the light that the source emits will travel at 299,792 kilometers per second, as a second is
measured at the emission location."

De Sitter's observations showed that the speed of an emitter does not add or subtract from
the speed of the light that is emitted. Period.

Ed

[Alsor]

Pression to disprove fundamental geometry/math is very impressive, especially in 20th century, but still fruitless.

[Volney]

Just about all the ones which you listed as "agreeing" with your beliefs.

Earlier you posted a list of experiments which you claimed supported
your beliefs.

In each of them you make a leap of faith claiming they agree with or
prove your beliefs of oscillating photons or light arriving at c+v,
without explaining how, when the actual physics according to SR/GR has a
completely different conclusion.

[Volney]

On 8/13/2022 8:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 1:39:22 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/11/2022 11:44 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-4, Cole Battaglia wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The local speed of sodium light is constant as follows:
>>>>> c=(measure wavelength of local sodium source....589 nm)(measured
>>>>> frequency of local sodium source)
>>>> the wavelength and frequency are the same thing, idiot, which can
>>>> substitute. What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.
>>>
>>> Moron, I am not Japanese.
>> But you certainly are a moron.
> ROTFLOL.....your name is moron_y and you call me a moron?

Moron is a title earned by actions, not by misspelling a name. Yes, you
most certainly have earned the description of moron, you certainly act
like one!

>
>>> Wavelength and frequency are not the same thing.
>> Of course not. They are almost like inverses, since if you measure both
>> the wavelength and frequency of light (measured in the same frame) and
>> multiply them together, you always get c.
>
> No moron, this is circular.....you have to assume c to begin with.

No, you don't. Any time you know two of the three for a wave:
(Wavelength, speed, frequency) you can derive the third without
assumptions. If we know the wavelength and frequency of light waves, we
can easily determine its speed, which happens to be c.

>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>> Don't insult your betters like that, Stupid Ken! your name is More
>
> Like your name is Moron_y and that's why you are a moron? I don't think so.

Yes, Stupid Ken, you are moron because you always act like a moron.
There's a tiny chance you are an actor acting this entire time, but I
really doubt it. So you really are a moron.

[Tadd Muraro]

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-4, Cole Battaglia wrote:
>> Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>> > The local speed of sodium light is constant as follows: c=(measure
>> > wavelength of local sodium source....589 nm)(measured frequency of
>> > local sodium source)
>> the wavelength and frequency are the same thing, idiot, which can
>> substitute. What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.
>
> Moron, I am not Japanese.

> Wavelength and frequency are not the same thing. Gee you are so fucking
> stupid.

> Whatever country you are from must be full of idiots like you.

of course they are, you uneducated and unskilled thief. Ie what you read
from an oscilloscope is both the wavelength or frequency, whereas in a
measurement project a one would suffice. You fucking unskilled idiot.

[Tadd Muraro]

Volney wrote:

>> Wavelength and frequency are not the same thing.
>
> Of course not. They are almost like inverses, since if you measure both
> the wavelength and frequency of light (measured in the same frame) and
> multiply them together, you always get c.

yet another unskilled imbecile contradicting himself. These uneducated
morons are not knowing what they are doing.

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-13 18:50:13 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 11:43:31 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-08-13 14:50:30 +0000, Ed Lake said:>> > WHICH EXPERIMENTS
>> disagree with what I've written?
>> That would be a long story. One example: double stars, expecially>
>> those with a short period. You have said that a Doppler shift is>
>> observed when the observer moves but not when the light source> moves.
>> So why is observed that the spectral lines periodically> split and
>> merge? de Sitter used this phenomenon when presented> his argument
>> mentioned in your "Radar Guns and Einstein’s Theories".>> Mikko
>
> Quoting from my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories":
>
> "The two stars in the double star system orbit each other, which means

> that when one staris moving toward the earth, the other is moving away
> from the earth. According to IsaacNewton and Swiss theoretical
> physicist Walther Ritz, the light from the star moving towardthe earth

> should travel at c+v, where v is the speed of the star toward earth,

> and the lightfrom the star moving away from the earth should travel at

> c-v. That became known as“Emission Theory.” De Sitter’s observations

> showed that “Emission Theory” was not true.The light travels at 299,792
> kilometers per second (kps) (rounded to 300,000 kps) fromboth stars. If

> “Emission Theory” were true, that would also mean that, while the

> slow-movinglight from the receding star is traveling to the earth, the
> faster-moving light from the oncomingstar would pass by the

> slower-moving light, and an observer on earth would see the same starin
> different locations. That doesn’t happen.
>
> "Einstein agreed. He decided there must be a maximum speed limit in our

> universe that preventslight from traveling faster than 299,792 kps. And
> all light must be emitted at 299,792 kps in alldirections. That means

> that, no matter how fast the emitter is traveling, or in what

> direction,the light that the source emits will travel at 299,792
> kilometers per second, as a second ismeasured at the emission location."

>
> De Sitter's observations showed that the speed of an emitter does not
> add or subtract from
> the speed of the light that is emitted. Period.

The article omits important details. How did se Sitter and other
astronomers know that those stars were double stars? How did they
know how much the component stars moved towards and away during
each period? Their ability to kwnow those things contradicts your
beliefs.

Mikko

[Ed Lake]

You make NO SENSE! De Sitter was an ASTRONOMER in addition to being
a mathematician. Astronomers STUDY stars and planets. They can SEE
that some stars orbit each other. They call them "Double Stars." And they
can see HOW they orbit. They can tell when one star passes in front of the
other as seen from earth.

And because they can SEE these things, and they can MEASURE these things,
they KNOW that the motion of those stars does NOT change the speed of the
light they omit. If it did, you would see all kinds of strange effects. There are
no such effects. That CONFIRMS what I wrote in my paper.

How can you NOT understand that?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

In other words, YOU CANNOT NAME *ANY* SUCH EXPERIMENT.
That is what I figured.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Oops. Actually, they call them "Binary Star Systems," not "Double Stars."
About 80 percent of the stars we see in the night sky are "Binary Star Systems."
https://www.space.com/22509-binary-stars.html

Ed

[Mikko]

You are right, the word "binary" is better. At least for some authors
"double star" only means that two stars are seen close to each other,
so some double stars are binaries and some are not. Conversely, some
binaries, called spectroscopic binaries, are not double stars because
stars are so close to each other that even with the best telescopes they
cannot be seen as separate stars. de Sitter's article mentioned above
was about these spectroscopic binaries.

With these clarifications, can you explain how de Sitter and other
astronomers could know that these stars were binaries and how they
knew that they moved towards and away from earth so fast that the
effect of motion as predicted by emission theories would be sufficient
to be observable?

Mikko

[Ed Lake]

They knew how orbits work. They OBSERVED things through TELESCOPES.
It takes Mercury 88 earth days to orbit the sun at a distance of 42 million miles.
Mercury travels at 105,947 miles per hour in orbit.
It takes the Earth 365 days to orbit the sun at a distance of 94 million miles.
The Earth travels at 67,000 miles per hour in its orbit.
It takes Mars 687 earth days to orbit the sun at a distance of 131 million miles.
Mars travels at 53,686 miles per hour in its orbit.

The closer the orbiter is to the object being orbited, the faster it has to travel
to maintain its orbit. The larger the object being orbited is, the faster the orbiter
has to travel. You can compute the mass of objects by measuring their orbits.

Kepler first computed orbits in 1687. De Sitter lived more than 200 years later.

If you know the orbital speeds of a binary star system, you know how fast
a star is going when it is moving away from you AND how fast its going when
it is coming toward you.

If a binary star emits photons at c+v when moving toward the earth and at c-v
when moving away from the earth, you'd see two versions of each star, because
it would take much longer for light to reach you when the star is moving away
versus when it is coming toward you.

Ed

[Tadd Muraro]

Ed Lake wrote:

> If a binary star emits photons at c+v when moving toward the earth and
> at c-v when moving away from the earth, you'd see two versions of each
> star, because it would take much longer for light to reach you when the
> star is moving away versus when it is coming toward you.

which matter / atoms emits photons at speeds other then c? Take it in your
kitchen and perform a measurement on it, with your instrument. You have to
put it in a table, indicating those with plus and those with minus. Use
your instrument or apparatus, and let me see.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/13/22 12:14 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> The probability density function for the position of an individual
> photon from a given source striking a screen in a 2-slit experiment
> (for example) does indeed depend on the frequency of the source, but
> this does not imply that an individual photon "has a frequency", much
> less that it exhibits a frequency. It doesn't. The interference
> effect arises because the probability amplitude of the photon landing
> at a particular event is the sum of the probability amplitudes for
> the available paths (the path integral), that are in superposition
> until a photon actually "clicks" at a detector. We cannot -- even in
> principle -- infer the frequency of the source from the landing
> position of a single photon. It would take a large number of photons
> to establish the interference pattern with resolution sufficient to
> infer the frequency of the source... and this is still the frequency
> of the source, not of an individual photon. Remember, the elapsed
> proper time for a single path (with any appreciable probability) of a
> photon "in flight" is zero, so its quantum phase angle does not
> advance. You can find simplified explanations of this in many
> sources, such as Feynman's "QED".

Well said!

Yes, a monochromatic EM source has a frequency; individual photons do
not. Of course the frequency of any source has a distribution, and
cannot be sharp (no variation in frequency at all); some lines emitted
by atoms can be extremely narrow.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/13/22 4:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
>> frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.

Hmmmm. The only "science theory" that includes photons is QED (and
extensions such as the standard model). In QED, the frequency you
measure for a (monochromatic) light beam is a property of the source of
the photons, not a property of the photons themselves.

> A common error. Interference is NOT a collective effect.
> Individual photons interfere, with themselves,
> so the must have a frequency.

It's no error. Yes, individual photons interfere with themselves, but
that does not require them to possess a frequency -- all they need is
the ability to interfere with themselves (DUH!).

Photons are defined in QED, and in QED the self-interference is among
the many different possible paths the photon could take between its
emission and detection events. Indeed, when one observes the
interference pattern from a light beam containing zillions of photons,
that is the result of each photon interfering with itself, not with its
neighbors. We know that because performing a single-photon calculation
in QED gives excellent agreement with the observed interference pattern
for a light beam.

It OUGHT to be obvious that to measure the frequency of something that
moves, it must be observed twice (or more). But a given photon can only
be observed once, because observation destroys it.

> You can also verify that by feeding monochromatic light
> through a spectroscope, photon by photon,

All that does is permit you to measure the frequency and linewidth OF
THE SOURCE.

Tom Roberts

[Volney]

Do I have to go back and list every single one of the experiments you
listed to satisfy you?
Really?
Why isn't it sufficient to say "every single one of the experiments you
claim support your beliefs actually refute your beliefs"?

[Volney]

On 8/14/2022 10:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/13/22 12:14 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>> The probability density function for the position of an individual
>> photon from a given source striking a screen in a 2-slit experiment
>> (for example) does indeed depend on the frequency of the source, but
>> this does not imply that an individual photon "has a frequency", much
>> less that it exhibits a frequency. It doesn't. The interference
>> effect arises because the probability amplitude of the photon landing
>> at a particular event is the sum of the probability amplitudes for
>> the available paths (the path integral), that are in superposition
>> until a photon actually "clicks" at a detector. We cannot -- even in
>> principle -- infer the frequency of the source from the landing
>> position of a single photon. It would take a large number of photons
>> to establish the interference pattern with resolution sufficient to
>> infer the frequency of the source... and this is still the frequency
>> of the source, not of an individual photon. Remember, the elapsed
>> proper time for a single path (with any appreciable probability) of a
>> photon "in flight" is zero, so its quantum phase angle does not
>> advance. You can find simplified explanations of this in many
>> sources, such as Feynman's "QED".
>
> Well said!
>
> Yes, a monochromatic EM source has a frequency; individual photons do
> not.

If an individual photon has a specific energy E, determined by whatever
produced it, and if E=hf, why can't we say the frequency f = E/h?

[Volney]

On 8/12/2022 11:23 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:46:50 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:18:56 PM UTC-5, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>

> (snip repetition and personal attacks)
>
>> What do you keep telling this lie, Ed? It's been explained to you ad infinitum that QED, quantum
>> field theory (QFT) is ONE theory, a mathematical model that explains it. Little side note: although
>> it is the theory that describes reality better than any other theory, including relativity, it's still
>> probably wrong, too :-O
>
> QED stands for Quantum ElectroDynamics. It is a THEORY, NOT A MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
> As a THEORY, it contains MANY mathematical models.

All physics models have math in them. If you are so frightened by
mathematicians hiding under your bed, you need a different hobby, as
mathematics-laden physics simply isn't for you.

> Instead of having endless arguments about wave-particle duality, why not just
> create a drawing of a photon and explain how it can have "wave-like properties"
> AND "particle-like properties"?

"Create a drawing"? That makes zero sense. (hey, where's John Sefton?)

> I do that in my paper on page 3.

Since it makes no sense, of course you do so.

[Stan Fultoni]

An individual photon has *energy*, and we could -- in principle -- measure the energy of an individual arriving photon, and from this we could infer the frequency of the source from the relation E = h nu, but this (again) is, properly speaking, the frequency of the source, or, more loosely, of an aggregate of photons from some monochromatic source, but not of an individual photon.

Naturally, one could *define* the word "photon" as the aggregate of the superpositioned interactions that contribute to the path integral giving the probability density distribution, but this is really just smuggling in the operational effect of an aggregate of photons and identifying that with a single representative photon. The point is that what we are actually observing is the temporal frequency of the source.

> You can also verify that by feeding monochromatic light
> through a spectroscope, photon by photon,

A photon interacting with a spectrograph grating is essentially just the reverse of the two slit experiment, and landing somewhere on a screen or scope doesn't uniquely correspond to a single frequency, since the grating is just selecting phases (of the source) at a certain interval. We can easily get the same landing site for an individual photon from sources of different frequencies (at multiples). (Of course, those photons will have different energies.) There is a probability density for the landing position of a single photon based on the frequency of the source, but to discern this pattern with adequate resolution to unique identify the frequency of the source requires many photons. And, again, this is resolving the frequency of the source. A photon is really just an interaction between two entities with mass, meaning entities that have non-zero proper time and hence can exhibit frequencies. There is no such thing as a "free" photon, even though we sometimes speak in terms of that idealized abstraction.

[J. J. Lodder]

Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/14/2022 10:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 8/13/22 12:14 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> >> The probability density function for the position of an individual
> >> photon from a given source striking a screen in a 2-slit experiment
> >> (for example) does indeed depend on the frequency of the source, but
> >> this does not imply that an individual photon "has a frequency", much
> >> less that it exhibits a frequency. It doesn't. The interference
> >> effect arises because the probability amplitude of the photon landing
> >> at a particular event is the sum of the probability amplitudes for
> >> the available paths (the path integral), that are in superposition
> >> until a photon actually "clicks" at a detector. We cannot -- even in
> >> principle -- infer the frequency of the source from the landing
> >> position of a single photon. It would take a large number of photons
> >> to establish the interference pattern with resolution sufficient to
> >> infer the frequency of the source... and this is still the frequency
> >> of the source, not of an individual photon. Remember, the elapsed
> >> proper time for a single path (with any appreciable probability) of a
> >> photon "in flight" is zero, so its quantum phase angle does not
> >> advance. You can find simplified explanations of this in many
> >> sources, such as Feynman's "QED".

Your posting didn't make it to my server, so I can't reply.
Since you are burning straw men mostly that doesn't really matter.

> > Well said!
> >
> > Yes, a monochromatic EM source has a frequency; individual photons do
> > not.
>
> If an individual photon has a specific energy E, determined by whatever
> produced it, and if E=hf, why can't we say the frequency f = E/h?

Since \hbar equals one there is nothing more to say,

Jan

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-12 15:59:12 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:48:11 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:

>> A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.
>
> WRONG. A radar gun captures a photon while it is transmitting and
> compares that photon to what it gets back.

No. A radar gun does not capture transmitted photons. It needn't
because it already knows its emission frequency as accurately as
it needs.

Mikko

[Mikko]

Of course. But the question was how did they know.

> They OBSERVED things through TELESCOPES.

de Sitter clearly said that he was talking about stars that look like
a single star in any telescope.

Mikko

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-11 19:46:49 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> Having TWO DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL MODELS for how light works, and
> sometimes using one model and sometimes using the other MEANS YOU HAVE
> A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a solved problem. The solution is Quantum Field Theory.

Mikko

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 12:14:00 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 10:07 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 3:54:45 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/13/2022 10:50 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/11/2022 3:46 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Experiments show how light works.
> >>>> Yes, and experiments disagree with many of your beliefs.
> >>>
> >>> WHICH EXPERIMENTS disagree with what I've written?
> >>>
> >> Just about all the ones which you listed as "agreeing" with your beliefs.
> >>
> >> Earlier you posted a list of experiments which you claimed supported
> >> your beliefs.
> >>
> >> In each of them you make a leap of faith claiming they agree with or
> >> prove your beliefs of oscillating photons or light arriving at c+v,
> >> without explaining how, when the actual physics according to SR/GR has a
> >> completely different conclusion.
> >
> > In other words, YOU CANNOT NAME *ANY* SUCH EXPERIMENT.
> > That is what I figured.
> >
> Do I have to go back and list every single one of the experiments you
> listed to satisfy you?

Can't you understand anything?? I asked you to name ONE such experiment.

> Really?
> Why isn't it sufficient to say "every single one of the experiments you
> claim support your beliefs actually refute your beliefs"?

Because that is a MORONIC opinion vs opinion argument.

You want me to say there are no such experiments, so you can say there are
many such experiments, and then we start over again with me saying there
are no such experiments and you saying there are many such experiments.
And we do that over and over forever.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

NO, IT DOESN'T. The transmission frequency changes as the gun
warms up or cools off. By capturing a photon to compare to a returned
photon there isn't enough time for a frequency change due to temperature
or some other cause.

It is a virtual certainty that no two radar guns emit photons with the EXACT
same oscillation frequency.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

You need to learn about binary stars. Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/binary.html
A quote:

"In 1804 Herschel had so many measurements of visual binaries that he concluded
that a pair of stars known as Castor were orbiting one another. This was an important
discovery, because it was the first time observational evidence clearly showed two
objects in orbit around each other outside of the influence of our own Sun and Solar System."

Ed

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:02:57 AM UTC-5, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You want me to say there are no such experiments, so you can say there are
> many such experiments, and then we start over again with me saying there
> are no such experiments and you saying there are many such experiments.
> And we do that over and over forever.

As a general rule, hardened crackpots such as yourself do not accept the
results of experiments conducted after 1931. So here is a pre-1931
experiment for you to explain in terms of your beliefs:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experimental_Demonstration_of_the_Constancy_of_Velocity_of_the_Light_emitted_by_a_Moving_Source

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-15 14:09:36 +0000, Ed Lake said:

>> No. A radar gun does not capture transmitted photons. It needn't
>> because it already knows its emission frequency as accurately as
>> it needs.
>
> NO, IT DOESN'T. The transmission frequency changes as the gun
> warms up or cools off. By capturing a photon to compare to a returned
> photon there isn't enough time for a frequency change due to temperature
> or some other cause.

It is not possible to capture a photon. Arriving photons are destroyed
as soon as they hit the antenna. A radar gun generates a beat signal
by mixing emitted and received signals and measures the frequency of
that beat.

Mikko

[Tadd Muraro]

Mikko wrote:

>> NO, IT DOESN'T. The transmission frequency changes as the gun warms up
>> or cools off. By capturing a photon to compare to a returned photon
>> there isn't enough time for a frequency change due to temperature or
>> some other cause.
>
> It is not possible to capture a photon. Arriving photons are destroyed
> as soon as they hit the antenna. A radar gun generates a beat signal by
> mixing emitted and received signals and measures the frequency of that
> beat.

that's a homodyne setup. There are other setups.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:34:13 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-08-15 14:09:36 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> >> No. A radar gun does not capture transmitted photons. It needn't
> >> because it already knows its emission frequency as accurately as
> >> it needs.
> >
> > NO, IT DOESN'T. The transmission frequency changes as the gun
> > warms up or cools off. By capturing a photon to compare to a returned
> > photon there isn't enough time for a frequency change due to temperature
> > or some other cause.
> It is not possible to capture a photon. Arriving photons are destroyed
> as soon as they hit the antenna.

A photon is energy being transmitted from one atom to another. Energy
cannot be destroyed. It can only be held or transferred.

> A radar gun generates a beat signal
> by mixing emitted and received signals and measures the frequency of
> that beat.

So, we agree? The beat frequency is the frequency difference between
an emitted photon and a returned photons. Which means you should have
written:

A radar gun MEASURES a beat signal by mixing emitted and received
signals and measuring the difference as the "beat frequency."

Ed

[Mikko]

Thank's but I already know.

> Here's a good article on the subject:
> http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/binary.html

It is not good enough. It describes two types of double stars but not
the kind that de Sitter discussed.

> "In 1804 Herschel had so many measurements of visual binaries that he

> concludedthat a pair of stars known as Castor were orbiting one
> another. This was an importantdiscovery, because it was the first time
> observational evidence clearly showed twoobjects in orbit around each

> other outside of the influence of our own Sun and Solar System."

Castor is not that kind of binary de Sitter was discussiong. Castor and
many others look like two stars in a good enough telescope but de Sitter
did not talk about them.

Mikko

[Tadd Muraro]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> It is not possible to capture a photon. Arriving photons are destroyed
>> as soon as they hit the antenna.
>
> A photon is energy being transmitted from one atom to another. Energy
> cannot be destroyed. It can only be held or transferred.

that's given to an electron, along the antenna. Use your capitalist
intellect.

[Ed Lake]

Why do you keep making BOGUS CLAIMS without supporting evidence???

"De Sitter made a study of double stars and found no cases where the stars'
computed orbits appeared non-Keplerian. Since the total flight-time difference
between "fast" and "slow" lightsignals would be expected to scale linearly with
distance in simple emission theory, and the study would (statistically) have
included stars with a reasonable spread of distances and orbital speeds and
orientations, de Sitter concluded that the effect should have been seen if the
model was correct, and its absence meant that the emission theory was almost
certainly wrong."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment

Ed

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-15 15:00:24 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:44:32 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:

>> Castor is not that kind of binary de Sitter was discussiong. Castor and
>> many others look like two stars in a good enough telescope but de Sitter
>> did not talk about them.

> Why do you keep making BOGUS CLAIMS without supporting evidence???

What bogus claims? The claim above is supported by

Willem de Sitter, A Proof of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light,
Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1913),
pp 1297–1298.

Haven't you read it? At least there is a refernce to it in your "Radar
Guns and Einstein’s Theories". At the end of that article de Sitter says:

"Now the observed velocities of spectroscopic doubles, i. e. the
equation (2), are as a matter of fact satisfactorily represented
by a Keplerian motion. Moreover in many cases the orbit derived
from the radial velocities is confirmed by visual observations
(as for δ Equulei, ζ Herculis, etc.) or by eclipse-observations
(as in Algol-variables). We can thus not avoid the conclusion
that a=0, i.e. the velocity of light is independent of the motion
of the source. Ritz's theory would force us to assume that the
motion of the double stars is governed not by Newton's law, but
by a much more complicated law, depending on the star's distance
from the earth, which is evidently absurd."

Note the words "spectroscopic doubles". These stars are known to
be binary because of periodic variation of the frequency of their
light. In addition, the frequency variation allows determination of
speed of their motion towards and away from us. This refutes your
false claim that the motion of the light source does not affect
the frequency of observed light, as expressed e.g. in your
"Stationary Points in Space", where you say:

"The sixth implication is that, because all light is emitted
from stationary pointsin space, there can be no “red-shifting”
or “blue-shifting”due to the emitter’s speedaway from or toward
an observer on Earth."

Observations of binaries show that your sixth implication is wrong.

Mikko

[Ed Lake]

No, it just means that the CAUSE of the "spectroscopic" effect is not
defined. It MUST be caused by the earth in its orbit moving toward
or away from the binary star. It cannot be caused by the binary
star moving toward or away from a STATIONARY EARTH because
the earth is NEVER stationary.

Ed

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-15 16:41:30 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> No, it just means that the CAUSE of the "spectroscopic" effect is not
> defined. It MUST be caused by the earth in its orbit moving toward
> or away from the binary star. It cannot be caused by the binary
> star moving toward or away from a STATIONARY EARTH because
> the earth is NEVER stationary.

That is obviously false. When one of the stars is seen redshifted
the other is observed blueshifted. This cannot be caused by Earths
motion as Earth cannot both away and towards the binary at the
same time. In addition, the period of Earths motion is one year
but the periods of compact binaries are often much shorter, for
example the period of β Aurigae is 3.96 days, which is not the
period of any motion of Earth.

Mikko

[Ken Seto]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:52:06 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/13/22 4:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> No science theory theorizes photons oscillate, they don't. The
> >> frequency is a mass effect of zillions of photons.
> Hmmmm. The only "science theory" that includes photons is QED (and
> extensions such as the standard model). In QED, the frequency you
> measure for a (monochromatic) light beam is a property of the source of
> the photons, not a property of the photons themselves.
> > A common error. Interference is NOT a collective effect.
> > Individual photons interfere, with themselves,
> > so the must have a frequency.
> It's no error. Yes, individual photons interfere with themselves, but
> that does not require them to possess a frequency -- all they need is
> the ability to interfere with themselves (DUH!).
>
> Photons are defined in QED, and in QED the self-interference is among
> the many different possible paths the photon could take between its
> emission and detection events. Indeed, when one observes the
> interference pattern from a light beam containing zillions of photons,
> that is the result of each photon interfering with itself, not with its
> neighbors. We know that because performing a single-photon calculation
> in QED gives excellent agreement with the observed interference pattern
> for a light beam.

Potons ae wave-packets.....they are generated by the absolute motion of the source in the light conducting aether called the E-Matrix. That's why they have frequency. See page 33 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Volney]

On 8/15/2022 10:09 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 4:08:26 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-08-12 15:59:12 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:48:11 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>>> A typical police radar gun does not measure the frequency of its emission.
>>>
>>> WRONG. A radar gun captures a photon while it is transmitting and
>>> compares that photon to what it gets back.
>>
>> No. A radar gun does not capture transmitted photons. It needn't
>> because it already knows its emission frequency as accurately as
>> it needs.
>
> NO, IT DOESN'T. The transmission frequency changes as the gun
> warms up or cools off. By capturing a photon to compare to a returned
> photon there isn't enough time for a frequency change due to temperature
> or some other cause.

The radar gun uses a signal from the transmission oscillator in the
detector. THAT REFERENCE SIGNAL NEVER BECOMES PHOTONS.

>
> It is a virtual certainty that no two radar guns emit photons with the EXACT
> same oscillation frequency.

Irrelevant, since there is only one radar gun involved.
Since the change in frequency (from what is being transmitted to
received is what's important, the exact frequency doesn't matter. Nor
does the transmitter drift enough between transmitting a signal and
receiving it back to matter.

[Volney]

On 8/15/2022 10:41 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:34:13 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-08-15 14:09:36 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>>> No. A radar gun does not capture transmitted photons. It needn't
>>>> because it already knows its emission frequency as accurately as
>>>> it needs.
>>>
>>> NO, IT DOESN'T. The transmission frequency changes as the gun
>>> warms up or cools off. By capturing a photon to compare to a returned
>>> photon there isn't enough time for a frequency change due to temperature
>>> or some other cause.
>> It is not possible to capture a photon. Arriving photons are destroyed
>> as soon as they hit the antenna.
>
> A photon is energy being transmitted from one atom to another. Energy
> cannot be destroyed. It can only be held or transferred.

And when the energy is transferred, the photon is destroyed. It no
longer exists, but its energy exists in whatever it transferred its
energy to. In a radar gun, that would be an antenna connected to a
receiver circuit.

>
>> A radar gun generates a beat signal
>> by mixing emitted and received signals and measures the frequency of
>> that beat.
>
> So, we agree? The beat frequency is the frequency difference between
> an emitted photon and a returned photons. Which means you should have
> written:
>
> A radar gun MEASURES a beat signal by mixing emitted and received
> signals and measuring the difference as the "beat frequency."

"Generates" the beat signal would be more correct, since the detector
circuit creates it internally from the two signals fed to it. "Measures"
implies the beat frequency already exists. It doesn't exist until the
detector creates it.

The gun then measures the speed by converting the beat frequency
directly into a speed (after filtering/selecting for the desired signal,
such as selecting the highest valid signal in a range (= fastest speeder).

[Volney]

No, it is quite accurate.

>
> You want me to say there are no such experiments, so you can say there are
> many such experiments, and then we start over again with me saying there
> are no such experiments and you saying there are many such experiments.
> And we do that over and over forever.
>
> Ed

If I select one, then that becomes you say there are no such
experiments, I say there is this experiment and you say there are no
experiments and I say, no there is this experiment and you say there are
no experiments over and over.

Regardless, <picks one at random> the atmospheric muon time dilation.
You keep claiming things like the length of the second for a muon is
different from the length of the second for an earth observer.
Neither of the two references you give
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation) say
anything like the length of a second changing.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 12:14:45 PM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-08-15 16:41:30 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > No, it just means that the CAUSE of the "spectroscopic" effect is not
> > defined. It MUST be caused by the earth in its orbit moving toward
> > or away from the binary star. It cannot be caused by the binary
> > star moving toward or away from a STATIONARY EARTH because
> > the earth is NEVER stationary.
> That is obviously false. When one of the stars is seen redshifted
> the other is observed blueshifted. This cannot be caused by Earths
> motion as Earth cannot both away and towards the binary at the
> same time.

"Redshifted" means the energy frequency is slower than "normal"
and "blueshifted" mean the energy frequency is faster than "normal."
If the earth is moving toward a binary star, light from both stars
will hit the earth faster than "normal," but the star that is moving
toward the earth will be more "blueshifted" than normal, and the
star that is moving away from the earth will be less "blueshifted"
than normal - which is usually called "REDSHIFTED."

> In addition, the period of Earths motion is one year
> but the periods of compact binaries are often much shorter, for
> example the period of β Aurigae is 3.96 days, which is not the
> period of any motion of Earth.

So what? The period of the earth's motion is ONE HALF OF A YEAR,
because the earth is orbiting the sun. That means it will be moving
toward a binary star AT VARIOUS SPEEDS for half a year and away
from that binary star AT VARIOUS SPEEDS for another half a year.

During that time, light from BOTH rotating stars is hitting the
MOVING Earth. Star-A is approaching and Star-B is receding for
2 days, and then they switch and Star-B is approaching and Star-A
is receding for 2 days.

Ed

[Volney]

Assertion is not a valid explanation, Stupid Ken.

[Ed Lake]

The first link says multiple times that "the muon's clock is time dilated - or
running slow."

The second link starts with this "Time dilation as predicted by special relativity
is often verified by means of particle lifetime experiments. According to special
relativity, the rate of a clock C traveling between two synchronized laboratory
clocks A and B, as seen by a laboratory observer, is slowed relative to the
laboratory clock rates. Since any periodic process can be considered a clock,
the lifetimes of unstable particles such as muons must also be affected, so
that moving muons should have a longer lifetime than resting ones."

If time slows down that means the length of a second gets longer.

Ed

[J. J. Lodder]

Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/11/2022 5:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-08-10 17:23:58 +0000, Volney said:
> >>
> >>> On 8/10/2022 11:28 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>> Op 10-aug.-2022 om 16:20 schreef Ed Lake:
> >>>>> My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on-line at
> >>>>> this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It analyzes the speed of light step by step, experiment by experiment.Â
> >>>>> And it is all in plain English.  I assume nearly everyone here will
> >>>>> see things differently, but I'm hoping you will discuss any
> >>>>> disagreements, instead of just declaring them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me be the first to declare disagreement by default, i.e. without
> >>>> even having had a look at it.
> >>>>
> >>> I agree 100%. It is completely, totally, absolutely wrong, and I didn't
> >>> need to take a look, either.
> >>
> >> I did have a brief and cursory look. The thing that struck me is that
> >> it contains no literature references apart from one to Einstein (1905).
> >> Does he imagine that science is advanced by geniuses sitting in their
> >> armchairs and thinking, without trying to build their ideas on those of
> >> their predecessors?
> >
> > Freud contains more explanation than any physics text for this.
> > He suffers from a pathological desire to take down the Father figure
> > that's bothering him.
> > Some creationists have the same problem,
> > they still struggle with the original Darwin.
>
> Which if funny, since doing so replaces the Darwin father figure with a
> much bigger father figure!

Not funny at all, they are bloody serious about it.
(and they want to convert you to)

> > As for Einstein 1905,
> > I doubt that there are many working physicists today
> > who have actually read some it, let alone in full.
> > Special relativity is so completely matter of course
> > to them nowadays that there isn't any need to go back to the source.
>
> Yes, it's 100+ year old settled science. Kind of like examining
> Mendeleev to investigate whether the concept of a periodic table is valid.
> >
> > That's for historians, and philosophers of science,
> >
> Also as part of education, so they understand why things are the way
> they are. Newton, Kepler etc. also need to be understood.

Not really. The Principia are very hard to understand,
without very expert guidance. Like Chandrasekhar's, for example
<https://philpapers.org/rec/CHANPF>

Note that it took Chandrasekhar
(one of the greatest mathematician/scientists of the 20th century)
ten years of studying to fully understand Newton in the original.

There really is no point in trying to redo that.
(if you would be capable of it)
Digests of digests of digests will have to do,

Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/15/22 12:19 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 10:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 8/13/22 12:14 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>> The probability density function for the position of an
>>> individual photon from a given source striking a screen in a
>>> 2-slit experiment (for example) does indeed depend on the
>>> frequency of the source, but this does not imply that an
>>> individual photon "has a frequency", much less that it exhibits a
>>> frequency. It doesn't. The interference effect arises because
>>> the probability amplitude of the photon landing at a particular
>>> event is the sum of the probability amplitudes for the available
>>> paths (the path integral), that are in superposition until a
>>> photon actually "clicks" at a detector. We cannot -- even in
>>> principle -- infer the frequency of the source from the landing
>>> position of a single photon. It would take a large number of
>>> photons to establish the interference pattern with resolution
>>> sufficient to infer the frequency of the source... and this is
>>> still the frequency of the source, not of an individual photon.
>>> Remember, the elapsed proper time for a single path (with any
>>> appreciable probability) of a photon "in flight" is zero, so its
>>> quantum phase angle does not advance. You can find simplified
>>> explanations of this in many sources, such as Feynman's "QED".
>>

>> Well said!
>>
>> Yes, a monochromatic EM source has a frequency; individual photons
>> do not.
>
> If an individual photon has a specific energy E, determined by
> whatever produced it, and if E=hf, why can't we say the frequency f =
> E/h?

You can say whatever you want, and make mathematical inferences using
whatever math you want -- that does not mean they are correct. In
particular: YOU DID NOT MEASURE THE FREQUENCY OF THE PHOTON. Moreover,
the energy of the photon is not sharp, and your inference could be quite
wrong, depending on the properties OF THE SOURCE (and the random nature
of probability distributions).

Remember the dictum: only talk about measurements and observations.

All else is subject to interpretation and may be wrong because the
English words you use do not necessarily correspond to physical
phenomena, or even to the mathematical quantities in the theory. That
happens in an attempt to claim "the frequency of the photon is E/h".

Tom Roberts

[Tadd Muraro]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/15/22 12:19 AM, Volney wrote:
>>> Yes, a monochromatic EM source has a frequency; individual photons
>>> do not.
>>
>> If an individual photon has a specific energy E, determined by whatever
>> produced it, and if E=hf, why can't we say the frequency f =
>> E/h?
>
> You can say whatever you want, and make mathematical inferences using
> whatever math you want -- that does not mean they are correct. In
> particular: YOU DID NOT MEASURE THE FREQUENCY OF THE PHOTON. Moreover,
> the energy of the photon is not sharp, and your inference could be quite
> wrong, depending on the properties OF THE SOURCE (and the random nature
> of probability distributions).

he is just stupid. Would win a noble prize able to measure the frequency
of a single photon.