Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Relativity and Radar Guns

814 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 19, 2020, 10:27:57 AM10/19/20
to
I just uploaded a new paper titled "Relativity and Radar Guns" which addresses all the issues that Pentcho Valev endlessly rants about, and it explains in great detail how radar guns measure vehicle speeds relative to the speed of light. Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 19, 2020, 1:12:54 PM10/19/20
to
On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:27:57 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I just uploaded a new paper titled "Relativity and Radar Guns" which addresses all the issues that Pentcho Valev endlessly rants about, and it explains in great detail how radar guns measure vehicle speeds relative to the speed of light. Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf

No one cares, Ed. You simply do not have a basic education in physics and until or unless you get one you are doomed to abject failure.

Brody Roccanello

unread,
Oct 19, 2020, 3:56:34 PM10/19/20
to
Don't worry, if the vaccines and the afferent "healthcare" works as Dr.
Bill and his belinda gates said, there will not possible to say "a large
number of people" in modern capitalist america. At least for a period of
time. That terminology will disappear from the narratives.

Ufonaut

unread,
Oct 20, 2020, 2:51:44 AM10/20/20
to
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 12:27:57 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> I just uploaded a new paper titled "Relativity and Radar Guns" which addresses all the issues that Pentcho Valev endlessly rants about, and it explains in great detail how radar guns measure vehicle speeds relative to the speed of light. Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf

I asked you this on your previous thread. However, since you repeat "c + v" so often in your paper, I'm still after your answer :)

So let's put it this way :

Let's say the cop has the radar gun, and he is firing it at Fred who is towards him in the van.

The cop presses the trigger, and the photons move away from him at speed c.

What precisely does that "speed c" mean ?

It means that, given that the cop has a 1 metre ruler, that has two (previously synchronised) clocks (one at each end of the ruler), then if we record the time that the photon passed the first clock (call it tA) and the time that the photon passed the second clock (call it tB), then we will find that :

tB - tA = 1 / 299792458 seconds.

Obviously, the equivalent is true for ANY speed; we're just interested in c here, since c is 299792458 metres per second.

OK, the photon hits Fred. Great.

YOU say that the photons hit Fred at speed c + v (as the van is approaching). Well, yes, in a way .... that is what we call "Closing Speed". Don't get the wrong impression - EVERYBODY here agrees with THAT c + v.
For example, let's say the van was approaching at 42 metres per second. That means that closing speed is 299792500 metres per second - ie. 1 metre every 1 / 299792500 seconds.

It's just that that's not what we're talking about.

When we say "light is moving at c", we implicitly mean "light is moving at c RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME".

To put it another way, when we say "light travels at c" for the van, what we mean is that Fred ALSO has his ruler, with (previously synchronised) clocks at each end.

So, Fred has his ruler, with his clocks (synchronised with eachother) at each end, just like the cop has.

So, the question I want to ask you is : as the cop's photon passes along Fred's ruler, what will Fred find the time difference be between the clocks ?

Will he find it to be the 1 / 299792500 seconds expected for velocity c+ v?

NO ! And the point I really want to make is : EVEN YOU AGREE WITH THIS.

From our previous discussions, I remember you said that you ACCEPT Time Dilation, but reject (or are not sure about) Length Contraction. Fine, let's just run with that then, and imagine Time Dilation happening (but Length Contraction not ...... to every one else, I know I know, but one step at a time ;) )

So the 1 metre ruler is the same, but Fred's clocks are subject to time dilation relative to the cop's. That means that their readings MUST be taken into account - Fred's result CANNOT be that 1 / 299792500 seconds .

That means that, for Fred - ie, for the Van's frame - the speed of light is NOT c + v, even by your own statements.

Agree?

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 20, 2020, 1:00:53 PM10/20/20
to
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:51:44 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
No, of course not. In Fred's frame, light is coming at him at c and he is traveling toward that light at v. There is NO measurement of distances. A typical radar gun does NOT measure distances. It has NO CAPABILITY to do so. It just compares the speed of the target to the speed of light which is 670,616,629 miles per hour. The speed of light is programmed into the gun. It's the same everywhere. The speed of the target (Fred's car) is a tiny fraction of the speed of light, which is also known as "The Doppler Effect." It is also the difference between c and c+v. The gun emits photons that travel at c and have an oscillation frequency of 35 GHz. The photons hit atoms in Fred's vehicle at c+v. The v is kinetic energy from Fred's car hitting the oncoming photons. Atoms in Fred's car absorb the oncoming photons as if they had both their original energy and that added kinetic energy. Those atoms then emit NEW photons back to the radar gun. The NEW photons have more energy than the original photons emitted by the gun. The gun compares the energy of the photons it emitted to the energy of the photons that returned, and the difference is a percentage of the speed of light. That percentage is directly convertible to Fred's speed, 70 mph, for example.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2020, 2:50:53 PM10/20/20
to
How do guns measure the speed of light?

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 20, 2020, 3:17:46 PM10/20/20
to
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:50:53 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Radar guns do NOT measure the speed of light. It is the same everywhere, so it is programmed into the gun. I stated that in my comment.

Ufonaut

unread,
Oct 20, 2020, 9:49:59 PM10/20/20
to
On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 3:00:53 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 1:51:44 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> > So the 1 metre ruler is the same, but Fred's clocks are subject to time dilation relative to the cop's. That means that their readings MUST be taken into account - Fred's result CANNOT be that 1 / 299792500 seconds .
> >
> > That means that, for Fred - ie, for the Van's frame - the speed of light is NOT c + v, even by your own statements.
> >
> > Agree?
> No, of course not. In Fred's frame, light is coming at him at c and he is traveling toward that light at v.

OK, we have a different definition of "frame" then.

Einstein in OTEOMB described it thus :
=======
Let us in “stationary” space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two sys- tems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks, and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all respects alike.
Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted .....
========

So, each frame - each "system of coordinates" - is measured using identical measuring rods and identical clocks, spreading out from its origin.

We can imagine that the at the start of the day, the van was parked ... ie, the "Earth" frame and the "Van" frame were coincident (so basically the same). Then, at some time, Fred got in and started driving .... "A constant velocity was imparted" to Fred and the van.

Agree ?

So we have TWO frames :
- The Earth frame (and, since the cop is standing by the road, that's his frame as well), and
- Fred's frame (which also includes the van)

And that's the point - in Fred's frame, Fred is NOT moving. Fred is carrying his coordinates with him - he can consider himself to be at the origin of his coordinates - his rods and clocks are "issuing from a point" that is him.

It's just the principle of relativity, like Galileo's ship. In a sealed room, you cannot tell whether you are moving or not.

OK, I know you don't agree with some of this (though Einstein's setup above is perfectly clear), but let's go back to what we had in an earlier discussion, and drop Earth out of it.

You are in a Space ship out in the vacuum (*) of space, with engines off (just being inertial :) ), observing some light - let's say you're watching two stars collide. Cool.

(*) This being a gedanken about SR, we can ignore as negligible anything outside of SR - ie, we say pure vacuum with no gravity or acceleration :)

So, couple of questions to help pinpoint where we agree and disagree :

Q1) How would you measure the speed at which that light is passing you ? For example, I have already given one suggestion - get a ruler, with synchronised clocks on each end. Will you go with that, or something else ?

And what speed-of-light will you find from that measurement you perform ? What factors would affect that result ? (eg, velocities ? relative to what ?)

I'll give my answer that the measurement will be c regardless, but what do you say?

Q2 ) Let's say I'm in my spaceship (again engines off, just inertial) directly between you and the star, and there is relative velocity of v between you and me (let's say the distance between us is decreasing). I perform exactly the same measurement as you of the speed that that same light is passing me.
So what speed-of-light do you say that I will find from my measurement ?


shuba

unread,
Oct 20, 2020, 10:02:47 PM10/20/20
to
Mister Ed wrote:

> addresses all the issues that Pentcho Valev
> endlessly rants about

Very impressive undertaking!


---Tim Shuba---

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 21, 2020, 12:10:36 PM10/21/20
to
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:49:59 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
I answer all your questions about measuring the speed of light in my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf I go through Einstein's thought experiments one by by, simplifying them.

When you are moving away from the source of light, you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c, because you are moving and that slows down time. So, even though the light is actually traveling at a faster speed than what you measure, by your clocks it is moving at the same speed as light you emit. In my paper, that is Einstein's Thought Experiment #5, which I explain in Section X.

If we have a conflict, it is over "frames." You seem to think that a frame represents "reality" even though it clearly doesn't. Most of Einstein's thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to see which "frame" shows reality. In the truck experiment, the "frame" inside the truck is an illusion. The truck is NOT stationary. You can see that from outside the truck, or if you open a door and look outside.

The only question is: Is it possible to measure the truck's speed inside the truck "frame"? If you believe it is impossible because it is a "frame" and "frames" are inviolate, then I say you are wrong. The radar gun experiment will measure the speed of the truck from inside the truck. And the invention I propose in my paper can measure the speed of the International Space Station (ISS) from inside the ISS. That is because, while the truck may appear to be stationary when you are inside it, light is emitted at local c whether the emitter is moving or not. And an observer or receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the truck.

Ufonaut

unread,
Oct 21, 2020, 11:27:37 PM10/21/20
to
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 2:10:36 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:49:59 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:

> > So what speed-of-light do you say that I will find from my measurement ?
> I answer all your questions about measuring the speed of light in my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf I go through Einstein's thought experiments one by by, simplifying them.
>
> When you are moving away from the source of light, you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c, because you are moving and that slows down time. So, even though the light is actually traveling at a faster speed than what you measure, by your clocks it is moving at the same speed as light you emit. In my paper, that is Einstein's Thought Experiment #5, which I explain in Section X.

OK, let's switch to considering the "moving away" for now, and come back to "approaching" later.

But hold on - you say above "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c", but in your Thought Experiment #5 you say "an observer on the ejected object (or moving reference body) that is traveling at 1,000 kps is seeing the light travel past him at 299,000 kps or c-v, where v is the velocity of the moving body"

So when someone is moving away from the source of light, are you saying they measure the speed of that light to be passing them at c, or at c-v ?

>
> If we have a conflict, it is over "frames." You seem to think that a frame represents "reality" even though it clearly doesn't.

Not quite.

A frame is the system of coordinates against which we measure reality - basically "reality" does its thing, and our frame is the backdrop by which measure it. When we perform a measurement, we are basically seeing how "Reality" looks and behaves to us - looks and behaves in our frame.

That basically means that those measurements are the ONLY "reality" that we - and our frame - can ever experience.

That renders any other definition of "reality" moot. Is there some other "what is really happening" that we cannot measure ? If it can't be measured, then by definition it doesn't have any effect (otherwise we'd be able to measure that effect), and therefore under Occam's razor we discard it as it may as well not exist.

For example, let's look at Thought Experiment #5. I disagree with your paper's c-v conclusion, but instead go with what you said above - that the observer will "measure the speed of light that is passing [him from the sun] to be c". This is in agreement with my original post, that time dilation has to be factored in (and I would also say length contraction as well, but for a later discussion).

You go on to say "But, what happens when the observer on the object reference body emits light in the same direction? There is only one correct answer in the three possibilities:".

Except there is a 4th possibility. If the observer moving away from the sun DOES measure the light from the sun to be c=300,000 kps as you say above (due to the time dilation, etc), THEN his light could be emitted at 300,000 kps as well - and therefore by definition at the same speed as the light from the sun - ie, each photon that he emits would travel side-by-side with the photons from the sun.

That means for that observer all his measurements of light - both from the sun, and that he emits - travel at 300,000 kps. That is the reality that he measures, and it is entirely consistent.

So do you believe that there is a "reality" beyond what we can measure in our frames - and if so, what basis do you have for that belief ?

> Most of Einstein's thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to see which "frame" shows reality.

No - Einsteins thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to show that both views are consistent with SR/GR - ie, that BOTH are equally "real".

>
> The only question is: Is it possible to measure the truck's speed inside the truck "frame"? If you believe it is impossible because it is a "frame" and "frames" are inviolate, then I say you are wrong. The radar gun experiment will measure the speed of the truck from inside the truck. And the invention I propose in my paper can measure the speed of the International Space Station (ISS) from inside the ISS. That is because, while the truck may appear to be stationary when you are inside it, light is emitted at local c whether the emitter is moving or not. And an observer or receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the truck.

"c-v" ? I guess that depends on whether time dilation in the "moving" truck will result in "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c" or not ;-)

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Oct 22, 2020, 3:02:05 AM10/22/20
to
Den 20.10.2020 19:00, skrev Ed Lake:

> In Fred's frame, light is coming at him at c and he is traveling toward that light at v.

Would you please define what you mean by "Fred's frame"?
It is obviously not Fred's rest frame, so what is it?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Brain Estupinan

unread,
Oct 22, 2020, 5:47:49 AM10/22/20
to
Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 20.10.2020 19:00, skrev Ed Lake:
>
>> In Fred's frame, light is coming at him at c and he is traveling toward
>> that light at v.
>
> Would you please define what you mean by "Fred's frame"?
> It is obviously not Fred's rest frame, so what is it?

He is Fred's supervisor. Tertiary so to speak.

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 22, 2020, 3:51:17 PM10/22/20
to
On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 10:27:37 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 2:10:36 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:49:59 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
>
> > > So what speed-of-light do you say that I will find from my measurement ?
> > I answer all your questions about measuring the speed of light in my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf I go through Einstein's thought experiments one by by, simplifying them.
> >
> > When you are moving away from the source of light, you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c, because you are moving and that slows down time. So, even though the light is actually traveling at a faster speed than what you measure, by your clocks it is moving at the same speed as light you emit. In my paper, that is Einstein's Thought Experiment #5, which I explain in Section X.
> OK, let's switch to considering the "moving away" for now, and come back to "approaching" later.
>
> But hold on - you say above "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c", but in your Thought Experiment #5 you say "an observer on the ejected object (or moving reference body) that is traveling at 1,000 kps is seeing the light travel past him at 299,000 kps or c-v, where v is the velocity of the moving body"
>
> So when someone is moving away from the source of light, are you saying they measure the speed of that light to be passing them at c, or at c-v ?

If you are talking about rocket ships, light from a sun and time dilation, according to Einstein's thought experiment, the person moving away from the sun will see the light from the sun pass at c because the person is moving at 1000 kps and time is slowing down for him. It slows down at a rate that is equal to the difference in the speed of light. The light is traveling at c as it was measured at the sun, but the guy in the rocket ship sees it traveling at c as time is measured on his ship. His c is different from the c at the sun. To put it another way, the guy on the ship sees the light pass at 300,000 kilometers PER SECOND because a SECOND IS LONGER FOR HIM than it was at the sun. An outside stationary observer would see the light pass the gun in the rocket at 299,000 kps.

Time dilation is not a factor when using radar guns. Time dilation discussions just confuse the issue.

> >
> > If we have a conflict, it is over "frames." You seem to think that a frame represents "reality" even though it clearly doesn't.
> Not quite.
>
> A frame is the system of coordinates against which we measure reality - basically "reality" does its thing, and our frame is the backdrop by which measure it. When we perform a measurement, we are basically seeing how "Reality" looks and behaves to us - looks and behaves in our frame.
>
> That basically means that those measurements are the ONLY "reality" that we - and our frame - can ever experience.

Not so. My paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" shows that the speed of the truck can be measured inside the Truck's "frame." It doesn't violate any rules (or the First Postulate) because you can measure speeds relative to the speed of light outside of the truck's frame, too.

>
> That renders any other definition of "reality" moot. Is there some other "what is really happening" that we cannot measure ? If it can't be measured, then by definition it doesn't have any effect (otherwise we'd be able to measure that effect), and therefore under Occam's razor we discard it as it may as well not exist.
>
> For example, let's look at Thought Experiment #5. I disagree with your paper's c-v conclusion, but instead go with what you said above - that the observer will "measure the speed of light that is passing [him from the sun] to be c". This is in agreement with my original post, that time dilation has to be factored in (and I would also say length contraction as well, but for a later discussion).
>
> You go on to say "But, what happens when the observer on the object reference body emits light in the same direction? There is only one correct answer in the three possibilities:".
>
> Except there is a 4th possibility. If the observer moving away from the sun DOES measure the light from the sun to be c=300,000 kps as you say above (due to the time dilation, etc), THEN his light could be emitted at 300,000 kps as well - and therefore by definition at the same speed as the light from the sun - ie, each photon that he emits would travel side-by-side with the photons from the sun.
>
> That means for that observer all his measurements of light - both from the sun, and that he emits - travel at 300,000 kps. That is the reality that he measures, and it is entirely consistent.

But his seconds are longer, so he is not really measuring the same way that light is measured at the sun.

>
> So do you believe that there is a "reality" beyond what we can measure in our frames - and if so, what basis do you have for that belief ?
> > Most of Einstein's thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to see which "frame" shows reality.
> No - Einsteins thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to show that both views are consistent with SR/GR - ie, that BOTH are equally "real".

Nonsense. When you understand what is going on, only one is "real," the other is an ILLUSION. And you can explain WHY it is an illusion.

> >
> > The only question is: Is it possible to measure the truck's speed inside the truck "frame"? If you believe it is impossible because it is a "frame" and "frames" are inviolate, then I say you are wrong. The radar gun experiment will measure the speed of the truck from inside the truck. And the invention I propose in my paper can measure the speed of the International Space Station (ISS) from inside the ISS. That is because, while the truck may appear to be stationary when you are inside it, light is emitted at local c whether the emitter is moving or not. And an observer or receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the truck.
> "c-v" ? I guess that depends on whether time dilation in the "moving" truck will result in "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c" or not ;-)

No. If you read the paper, there are two radar guns on the truck, and they are facing each other from opposite ends of the truck. If the truck is moving at 40 mph, the gun that is facing the front of the truck will measure the truck's speed as 40 mph, and the gun that is facing the rear of the truck will measure the truck's speed as MINUS 40 mph.

Here's the link to the paper once again: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf

Michael Moroney

unread,
Oct 22, 2020, 5:52:50 PM10/22/20
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>> > Most of Einstein's thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to
>> > see which "frame" shows reality.

>> No - Einsteins thought experiments involve looking from one frame into another to show
>> that both views are consistent with SR/GR - ie, that BOTH are equally "real".

>Nonsense. When you understand what is going on, only one is "real," the other
>is an ILLUSION. And you can explain WHY it is an illusion.

Violation of the first postulate.

>> "c-v" ? I guess that depends on whether time dilation in the "moving" truck will result
>> in "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c" or not ;-)

>No. If you read the paper, there are two radar guns on the truck, and they
>are facing each other from opposite ends of the truck. If the truck is moving
>at 40 mph, the gun that is facing the front of the truck will measure the truck's speed
>as 40 mph, and the gun that is facing the rear of the truck will measure the truck's speed
>as MINUS 40 mph.

Why do you make the ground/road frame special? (which is a violation of 1st postulate) ?
If the road was east/west at the equator and considering the rotational speed of the
earth (~1000 mph there), why wouldn't it measure 1040 mph or 960 mph?
And if you consider earth's orbital speed around the sun (~65,000 mph), wouldn't you
start seeing numbers like 66,040 mph or 65,960 mph at certain times of the day?
And if you consider the speed of the solar system around the galactic center...

Ufonaut

unread,
Oct 22, 2020, 10:24:08 PM10/22/20
to
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:51:17 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 10:27:37 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 2:10:36 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:49:59 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> >
> > > > So what speed-of-light do you say that I will find from my measurement ?
> > > I answer all your questions about measuring the speed of light in my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." It's at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf I go through Einstein's thought experiments one by by, simplifying them.
> > >
> > > When you are moving away from the source of light, you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c, because you are moving and that slows down time. So, even though the light is actually traveling at a faster speed than what you measure, by your clocks it is moving at the same speed as light you emit. In my paper, that is Einstein's Thought Experiment #5, which I explain in Section X.
> > OK, let's switch to considering the "moving away" for now, and come back to "approaching" later.
> >
> > But hold on - you say above "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c", but in your Thought Experiment #5 you say "an observer on the ejected object (or moving reference body) that is traveling at 1,000 kps is seeing the light travel past him at 299,000 kps or c-v, where v is the velocity of the moving body"
> >
> > So when someone is moving away from the source of light, are you saying they measure the speed of that light to be passing them at c, or at c-v ?
> If you are talking about rocket ships,

I am talking about an observer moving away from a source of light - of photons. To me, it makes no difference whether :
- the source of the photons is a sun, and the observer is in a rocket-ship moving away
OR
- the source of the photons is a cop's radar gun, and the observer is in a van moving away

Do you think it makes a difference ? If so, why ?

> light from a sun and time dilation, according to Einstein's thought experiment, the person moving away from the sun will see the light from the sun pass at c because the person is moving at 1000 kps and time is slowing down for him. It slows down at a rate that is equal to the difference in the speed of light. The light is traveling at c as it was measured at the sun, but the guy in the rocket ship sees it traveling at c as time is measured on his ship. His c is different from the c at the sun. To put it another way, the guy on the ship sees the light pass at 300,000 kilometers PER SECOND because a SECOND IS LONGER FOR HIM than it was at the sun. An outside stationary observer would see the light pass the gun in the rocket at 299,000 kps.

All of which I agree with - and was in fact the point of my original post (again, with the proviso of length contraction that we'll discuss later)

>
> Time dilation is not a factor when using radar guns. Time dilation discussions just confuse the issue.

On the contrary, to me the issue is CONSISTENCY, and that is crucial for any model - including yours. Further, it impacts the expected result of your experiments inside the van. It HAS to be taken into account.

Fred in the van measures the speed of the photons passing him - are you saying that he will measure a different speed than the observer in the rocket ship (assuming van and rocket are both travelling at the same velocity v away from their respective sources) ?

> > >
> > > If we have a conflict, it is over "frames." You seem to think that a frame represents "reality" even though it clearly doesn't.
> > Not quite.
> >
> > A frame is the system of coordinates against which we measure reality - basically "reality" does its thing, and our frame is the backdrop by which measure it. When we perform a measurement, we are basically seeing how "Reality" looks and behaves to us - looks and behaves in our frame.
> >
> > That basically means that those measurements are the ONLY "reality" that we - and our frame - can ever experience.
> Not so. My paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" shows that the speed of the truck can be measured inside the Truck's "frame." It doesn't violate any rules (or the First Postulate) because you can measure speeds relative to the speed of light outside of the truck's frame, too.

Part of what I am trying to determine is what "rules" you believe in, and if you apply them consistently.

For example, you repeatedly stress "the local speed of light", which is (approx) 300,000kps on the earth's surface. This must mean by definition that you believe that all photons travel at (approx) 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface.

Except you don't.

For example, you say "if Gun-A was the only gun being used, photons transmitted by Gun-A would hit the front wall at c-v. Atoms in the wall would then emit new photons back toward Gun-A. Those photons would be received by Gun-A at c+v. Gun-A would compute the speed of the wall as c-v+v=c and show a speed of zero for the front wall".

Let's break this down. You have photons emitted from Gun-A and travel at c="the local speed of light" (ie 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface) - Note: NOT c+v - so the "v" speed of the emitter is NOT a factor. Those photons hit the front wall at c-v and get reflected. After being reflected, they are again travelling at c="the local speed of light" (ie 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface) backwards - back towards Gun-A. Gun-A receives them, and measures their speed as c+v - so the "v" speed of the receiver IS a factor.

All well and good, ..... EXCEPT ......

You also say "the photons from Gun-B hit the receiver in Gun-A at c+v, instead of at c-v as would be the case for the photons returning from the front wall. "

HOLD ON - you just said a few sentences earlier about the photons reflected from the wall : "Those photons would be received by Gun-A at c+v", but NOW you have them "hit the receiver in Gun-A ... at c-v" ???? That's a massive contradiction - and what would that "c-v" do to how "Gun-A would compute the speed of the wall" ?

But OK, you have the photons reflected from the wall - the LIGHT - are NOT travelling at c="the local speed of light" (ie 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface). Another contradiction - Light travels at the speed of light (local or otherwise ! ) by definition.

So I see a lot of contradictions - you are not following your own rules.

> > > The only question is: Is it possible to measure the truck's speed inside the truck "frame"? If you believe it is impossible because it is a "frame" and "frames" are inviolate, then I say you are wrong. The radar gun experiment will measure the speed of the truck from inside the truck. And the invention I propose in my paper can measure the speed of the International Space Station (ISS) from inside the ISS. That is because, while the truck may appear to be stationary when you are inside it, light is emitted at local c whether the emitter is moving or not. And an observer or receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the truck.
> > "c-v" ? I guess that depends on whether time dilation in the "moving" truck will result in "you measure the speed of light that is passing you to be c" or not ;-)
> No. If you read the paper, there are two radar guns on the truck, and they are facing each other from opposite ends of the truck. If the truck is moving at 40 mph, the gun that is facing the front of the truck will measure the truck's speed as 40 mph, and the gun that is facing the rear of the truck will measure the truck's speed as MINUS 40 mph.
>
> Here's the link to the paper once again: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf

First do you believe that photons - LIGHT - always travel at what you term "the local speed of light" ? If not, then what on earth does that phrase "the local speed of light" that you repeat so often, even mean to you ?

This also comes up in your Thought Experiment #5, where your chosen solution is that the observer's emitted light "it travels at a different velocity than the light emitted by the sun".

So for each frame (the Sun, and the observer on the ejected object), there is light that is NOT travelling at your "local speed of light".

What gives?

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 23, 2020, 11:24:23 AM10/23/20
to
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:51:17 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 10:27:37 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 2:10:36 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:49:59 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> > >

> > > So when someone is moving away from the source of light, are you saying they measure the speed of that light to be passing them at c, or at c-v ?
> > If you are talking about rocket ships,
> I am talking about an observer moving away from a source of light - of photons. To me, it makes no difference whether :
> - the source of the photons is a sun, and the observer is in a rocket-ship moving away
> OR
> - the source of the photons is a cop's radar gun, and the observer is in a van moving away
>
> Do you think it makes a difference ? If so, why ?

It makes a difference because the rocket ship is moving at 1,000 kps, which is 2,236,936 miles per hour, and a radar gun cannot measure speeds above 200 mph,
It makes a difference because when moving at 1,000 kps, time dilation is a measurable factor.
It makes a difference because the sun-rocket ship thought experiment is a TIME DILATION thought experiment. Radar gun discussions do not involve TIME DILATION.

> > Time dilation is not a factor when using radar guns. Time dilation discussions just confuse the issue.
> On the contrary, to me the issue is CONSISTENCY, and that is crucial for any model - including yours. Further, it impacts the expected result of your experiments inside the van. It HAS to be taken into account.
>
> Fred in the van measures the speed of the photons passing him - are you saying that he will measure a different speed than the observer in the rocket ship (assuming van and rocket are both travelling at the same velocity v away from their respective sources) ?

What I'm saying is that when talking about a rocket ship speeding away from the sun, you are talking about a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT that cannot be done in reality. No one has the ability to measure the speed of a photon as it passes by outside the window of a rocket ship.

Also, time dilation is not an issue with radar guns. It is the ONLY issue when talking about rockets ships and the sun.

> > > That basically means that those measurements are the ONLY "reality" that we - and our frame - can ever experience.
> > Not so. My paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" shows that the speed of the truck can be measured inside the Truck's "frame." It doesn't violate any rules (or the First Postulate) because you can measure speeds relative to the speed of light outside of the truck's frame, too.
> Part of what I am trying to determine is what "rules" you believe in, and if you apply them consistently.
>
> For example, you repeatedly stress "the local speed of light", which is (approx) 300,000kps on the earth's surface. This must mean by definition that you believe that all photons travel at (approx) 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface.

No. Photons emitted from the top of a mountain travel faster than photons emitted from the bottom of a mountain due to gravitational time dilation.
Light travels at 186,282 miles PER SECOND in both locations, but A SECOND IS SHORTER ATOP THE MOUNTAIN due to gravitational time dilation.

>
> Except you don't.
>
> For example, you say "if Gun-A was the only gun being used, photons transmitted by Gun-A would hit the front wall at c-v. Atoms in the wall would then emit new photons back toward Gun-A. Those photons would be received by Gun-A at c+v. Gun-A would compute the speed of the wall as c-v+v=c and show a speed of zero for the front wall".
>
> Let's break this down. You have photons emitted from Gun-A and travel at c="the local speed of light" (ie 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface) - Note: NOT c+v - so the "v" speed of the emitter is NOT a factor. Those photons hit the front wall at c-v and get reflected. After being reflected, they are again travelling at c="the local speed of light" (ie 300,000kps relative to the earth's surface) backwards - back towards Gun-A. Gun-A receives them, and measures their speed as c+v - so the "v" speed of the receiver IS a factor.
>
> All well and good, ..... EXCEPT ......
>
> You also say "the photons from Gun-B hit the receiver in Gun-A at c+v, instead of at c-v as would be the case for the photons returning from the front wall. "
>
> HOLD ON - you just said a few sentences earlier about the photons reflected from the wall : "Those photons would be received by Gun-A at c+v", but NOW you have them "hit the receiver in Gun-A ... at c-v" ???? That's a massive contradiction - and what would that "c-v" do to how "Gun-A would compute the speed of the wall" ?

The photons that hit the front wall at c-v get returned with a lower frequency. When those photons hit Gun-A at c+v, the gun effectively measure c+v-v=c, or NO speed for the front wall.
The photons from Gun-B hit Gun-A in an unaltered form, c+v.

That paragraph in my paper needs to be revised. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The new paragraph says,

"The photons from Gun-B are emitted at the speed of light, c, toward Gun-A. Because the guns are identical, and because the emitted photons from Gun-B have the same oscillation frequency as photons emitted from Gun-A (a requirement for the experiment), the photons from Gun-B hit the receiver in Gun-A in an unaltered form, not going through the c-v modification, as would be the case for the photons returning from the front wall. Those photons coming from Gun-B are compared to the photons Gun-A emits, and a speed of 40 mph is calculated and displayed. "

I'll submit a new version the paper today. It will also correct some other minor mistakes at the same time.

The first version link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf The second version should appear at https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v2.pdf

> First do you believe that photons - LIGHT - always travel at what you term "the local speed of light" ? If not, then what on earth does that phrase "the local speed of light" that you repeat so often, even mean to you ?
>
> This also comes up in your Thought Experiment #5, where your chosen solution is that the observer's emitted light "it travels at a different velocity than the light emitted by the sun".
>
> So for each frame (the Sun, and the observer on the ejected object), there is light that is NOT travelling at your "local speed of light".
>
> What gives?

Light travels at 186,282 miles PER SECOND, but a second has different lengths in different locations. It is different virtually everywhere. So, light is always measured as traveling at 186,282, PER SECOND, which means the speed of light is the SAME everywhere, but the length of a second is different virtually everywhere, so the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT virtually everywhere.

It all depends upon what you are talking about. There is no easy way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light, so we cannot compare the speed of light coming from a star to the speed of light emitted in a laboratory on earth. If we could, it's a virtual certainty that the speeds would be different.
Message has been deleted

Ufonaut

unread,
Oct 23, 2020, 10:57:31 PM10/23/20
to
Let's take the last bit first :

On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:24:23 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Light travels at 186,282 miles PER SECOND, but a second has different lengths in different locations. It is different virtually everywhere. So, light is always measured as traveling at 186,282, PER SECOND, which means the speed of light is the SAME everywhere

EXACTLY my point. It is that same 186,282 miles per second standing on the street. It is that same 186,282 miles per second "moving" in the van. It is that same 186,282 miles per second stationary relative to the sun. It is that same 186,282 miles per second "moving" in the rocketship

It is that same 186,282 miles per second, whenever and wherever you measure it.

> , but the length of a second is different virtually everywhere, so the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT virtually everywhere.
>
> It all depends upon what you are talking about. There is no easy way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light, so we cannot compare the speed of light coming from a star to the speed of light emitted in a laboratory on earth. If we could, it's a virtual certainty that the speeds would be different.

And this is the crux of the issue.

Is there a way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light ? Sure - you can do what I did earlier - get a one-metre stick and put synchronised clocks at each end. Alternatively, you could multiply frequency * wavelength, and you'd get the same result.

But there is a big BUT - that gets you the one-way speed of light IN YOUR FRAME. As we agree above, that will always give you 186,282 miles per second.

Now, you say "There is no easy way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light" - I presume you mean OUTSIDE of your frame - yes? Well I disagree; I say that there is NO WAY - PERIOD !! - for you to measure the one-way speed of light outside your frame.

So this is our disagreement. You think that there is some actual, "real" ONE WAY speed of light outside of your frame. I say that is meaningless. As I said before, our measurements - and therefore our frames - are how "reality" presents itself to us. There is nothing else.

Which, I guess, brings us back to your radar-gun experiment in the truck. Can that work - can that detect the "real" local speed of light?

What is interesting is that, although you admit to the existence of time dilation in some areas (eg rocket ships), you say :

> Also, time dilation is not an issue with radar guns.

Again, I disagree. Radar guns calculate speeds by measuring frequencies, that it both emits and receives. Frequencies are counts PER SECOND. That means frequency measurements are - by definition - a TIME-based measurement.

So are you declaring that time dilation is not an issue with for a TIME-based measurement equipment and experiment ???

What would happen if a radar-gun does get time dilated - say by being inside a "moving" rocket ship (or truck) ? So its "SECOND" is different from the "SECOND" of the cop on the street. What would that do to the frequency that it emits ? How would that affect what frequency it measures for an incoming beam?

You might say that the time dilation is very small for a truck moving at 50kps - but the point is : SO IS THE FREQUENCY DIFFERENCE that your radar-gun's speed calculation depends on !

What if it all cancels out ??? (hint: it does) Then what would remain of your experiment ? And therefore what remains of claiming a "reality" beyond what we measure in our frame ?


> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> > On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:51:17 AM UTC+10, wrote:

> That paragraph in my paper needs to be revised. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Glad to help :-) However, I do want to highlight two sentences that you say :

"When those photons hit Gun-A at c+v" and "The photons from Gun-B hit Gun-A in an unaltered form, c+v. "

So just to be clear - leaving frequency aside for the moment, do we agree that the photons that have been reflected from the wall, and the photons that are being emitted from Gun-B, are both travelling at the SAME speed - ie, whilst in transit, they are travelling side-by-side - yes?

Also: Imagine a cop standing on the street with his Radar-Gun-C, that he fires just as Gun-A on the truck passes him (and also fires simultaneously). Would you say that the photons from Gun-C and Gun-A also both travel at the same speed-of-light - ie. that while in transit that they also also stay side-by-side ?

yeuro...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 24, 2020, 10:40:34 AM10/24/20
to
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 7:57:31 PM UTC-7, Ufonaut wrote:
> > Also, time dilation is not an issue with radar guns.
>
> Again, I disagree... are you declaring that time dilation is not an issue?
> You might say that the time dilation is very small for a truck moving
> at 50kps - but the point is : SO IS THE FREQUENCY DIFFERENCE that
> your radar-gun's speed calculation depends on !

The factor for time dilation (and length contraction) differs from 1 only in the second order, and depends only on speed, not direction, whereas the factor between c+-v and c (from which radar guns infer the speed) differs from 1 in the first order and its sign depends on the direction. In this regime the fact that a pulse of light propagates at c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates is almost entirely due to the skew of simultaneity between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems, which (as required) is first order and depends on direction. Radar guns don't distinguish appreciably between Galilean relativity and special relativity, and would work essentially the same way for any minimally viable model of light propagation, which all have the same first-order Doppler effect.

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 24, 2020, 11:48:50 AM10/24/20
to
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 9:57:31 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> Let's take the last bit first :
> On Saturday, October 24, 2020 at 1:24:23 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> > Light travels at 186,282 miles PER SECOND, but a second has different lengths in different locations. It is different virtually everywhere. So, light is always measured as traveling at 186,282, PER SECOND, which means the speed of light is the SAME everywhere
> EXACTLY my point. It is that same 186,282 miles per second standing on the street. It is that same 186,282 miles per second "moving" in the van. It is that same 186,282 miles per second stationary relative to the sun. It is that same 186,282 miles per second "moving" in the rocketship
>
> It is that same 186,282 miles per second, whenever and wherever you measure it.
> > , but the length of a second is different virtually everywhere, so the speed of light is actually DIFFERENT virtually everywhere.
> >
> > It all depends upon what you are talking about. There is no easy way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light, so we cannot compare the speed of light coming from a star to the speed of light emitted in a laboratory on earth. If we could, it's a virtual certainty that the speeds would be different.
> And this is the crux of the issue.
>
> Is there a way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light ? Sure - you can do what I did earlier - get a one-metre stick and put synchronised clocks at each end. Alternatively, you could multiply frequency * wavelength, and you'd get the same result.

The problem is synchronizing the clocks. If they are synchronized when side by side, and you move one clock to the other end of the measured test range, moving the clock will cause velocity time dilation, and the two clocks will no longer be synchronized. Einstein states that very clearly on page 10 of his 1905 paper:

"If at the points A
and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system,
are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the
line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize,
but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at
B by 1
2 tv2/c2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time
occupied in the journey from A to B."

>
> But there is a big BUT - that gets you the one-way speed of light IN YOUR FRAME. As we agree above, that will always give you 186,282 miles per second.
>
> Now, you say "There is no easy way to measure the ONE WAY speed of light" - I presume you mean OUTSIDE of your frame - yes? Well I disagree; I say that there is NO WAY - PERIOD !! - for you to measure the one-way speed of light outside your frame.
>
> So this is our disagreement. You think that there is some actual, "real" ONE WAY speed of light outside of your frame. I say that is meaningless. As I said before, our measurements - and therefore our frames - are how "reality" presents itself to us. There is nothing else.

Correct, that IS our disagreement. "Frames" are just mathematical constructions. They do not necessarily represent reality. They represent a MATHEMATICAL PATTERN. And there may be many mathematical PATTERNS which give the same result. ONLY EXPERIMENTS can tell which pattern represents REALITY.

>
> Which, I guess, brings us back to your radar-gun experiment in the truck. Can that work - can that detect the "real" local speed of light?

Radar guns do NOT detect the local speed of light. They USE the local speed of light. It is in the form of a number that is programmed into the gun.

>
> What is interesting is that, although you admit to the existence of time dilation in some areas (eg rocket ships), you say :
> > Also, time dilation is not an issue with radar guns.
> Again, I disagree. Radar guns calculate speeds by measuring frequencies, that it both emits and receives. Frequencies are counts PER SECOND. That means frequency measurements are - by definition - a TIME-based measurement.
>
> So are you declaring that time dilation is not an issue with for a TIME-based measurement equipment and experiment ???

Correct. While time dilation may be taking place, it is too small to be an issue when measuring earth-bound traffic speeds.

>
> What would happen if a radar-gun does get time dilated - say by being inside a "moving" rocket ship (or truck) ? So its "SECOND" is different from the "SECOND" of the cop on the street. What would that do to the frequency that it emits ? How would that affect what frequency it measures for an incoming beam?

In theory, when moving at very high speeds, the speed of the light you emit gets slower and slower, the faster you go. An a stationary observer (or slower moving observer) will see that in the form of red-shifting.

>
> You might say that the time dilation is very small for a truck moving at 50kps - but the point is : SO IS THE FREQUENCY DIFFERENCE that your radar-gun's speed calculation depends on !

But the frequency difference is actually VERY LARGE. The Doppler shift for a 70 mph target measured by a 35 GigaHertz gun is 7292 Hertz (oscillations per second).
1 second for someone moving at 70 mph is 1.0000000450623 seconds for someone standing still. Relate that to 7292 Hertz and you get a tiny fraction of a Hertz.

>
> What if it all cancels out ??? (hint: it does) Then what would remain of your experiment ? And therefore what remains of claiming a "reality" beyond what we measure in our frame ?
> > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 5:51:17 AM UTC+10, wrote:
>
> > That paragraph in my paper needs to be revised. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
> Glad to help :-) However, I do want to highlight two sentences that you say :
>
> "When those photons hit Gun-A at c+v" and "The photons from Gun-B hit Gun-A in an unaltered form, c+v. "
>
> So just to be clear - leaving frequency aside for the moment, do we agree that the photons that have been reflected from the wall, and the photons that are being emitted from Gun-B, are both travelling at the SAME speed - ie, whilst in transit, they are travelling side-by-side - yes?

Theoretically they are side by side. In reality, the gun is about 6 feet from the wall, so they wouldn't really be side by side.

>
> Also: Imagine a cop standing on the street with his Radar-Gun-C, that he fires just as Gun-A on the truck passes him (and also fires simultaneously). Would you say that the photons from Gun-C and Gun-A also both travel at the same speed-of-light - ie. that while in transit that they also also stay side-by-side ?

Yes, I suppose so. Light always travels at c. Whether two photons are actually side by side is EXTREMELY unlikely.

But, I can see where you are going. The difference is that the truck is moving away from the oncoming photons. Inside the truck the photons from Gun-A will hit the front wall at c-v. The photons from Gun-C will either hit some distant stationary object or will just continue off into space. So the photons were only side by side for a tiny fraction of a second. And the experiment proved nothing.

Ed Lake

unread,
Oct 24, 2020, 12:23:46 PM10/24/20
to
On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 9:27:57 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> I just uploaded a new paper titled "Relativity and Radar Guns" which addresses all the issues that Pentcho Valev endlessly rants about, and it explains in great detail how radar guns measure vehicle speeds relative to the speed of light. Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v1.pdf

Some actual errors in the paper were pointed out to me. I made the corrections and uploaded a new version of the paper to this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v2.pdf

Example: In v1 I wrote: "Figure 3 shows 6 transmitted waves which appear to be about 10 feet apart. In reality, the waves would be less than a billionth of an inch apart. "
In v2 I changed that to: "Figure 3 shows 6 transmitted waves which appear to be about 10 feet apart. In reality, the waves would be less than one centimeter apart."

Another example: In v1 on page 2, I wrote: "In Figure 2 below, if the amount or strength of red light was increased, the waves would get higher (the distance between crest and trough would increase), and the waves would get smaller if the light was dimmed. "

In v2 I changed that to: "In Figure 2 below, if the amount or strength of red light was increased, the waves would get higher (the vertical distance between crest and trough would increase), and the waves would get smaller if the light was dimmed. "

kenseto

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 9:07:38 AM11/26/20
to
c’=c[(frequency at the truck wall)/(frequency at the gun)]
Speed of the truck= v = (c-c’)

kenseto

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 9:26:42 AM11/26/20
to
Alternatively:
Speed of the truck = v = c[(f_g - f_r)/2]/f_g] -
f_g=frequency at the gun
f_r=frequency of return beam

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 10:52:11 AM11/26/20
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:07:38 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
A simple question: If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?

Answer: The wall continues to move, therefore the photons from the light hit the
wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.

How can anyone disagree with that?

My papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 12:56:30 PM11/26/20
to
Relative to what?

>Answer: The wall continues to move,

Relative to what?

> therefore the photons from the light hit the
>wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.

Relative to what?

>How can anyone disagree with that?

Because actual scientists use the predictions of actual theories (and not
misinterpretations of them) rather than throwing up their hands and saying
'How can anyone disagree with what my common sense tells me?'

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 1:54:26 PM11/26/20
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ed Lake writes:
>
> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:07:38 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> >A simple question: If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
> >does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
> >continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?
> Relative to what?

The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun. The photons are
traveling at c, and the wall is moving away from the photons at v.

> >Answer: The wall continues to move,
> Relative to what?

The wall is moving relative to the photons that are coming toward it. The wall
is moving away from the photons, but the photons are faster, so they catch up.

> > therefore the photons from the light hit the
> >wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.
> Relative to what?

Your question makes no sense. If the wall is moving away from the oncoming
photons, obviously the wall is moving relative to the approaching photons.

> >How can anyone disagree with that?
> Because actual scientists use the predictions of actual theories (and not
> misinterpretations of them) rather than throwing up their hands and saying
> 'How can anyone disagree with what my common sense tells me?'

It's not "common sense." It is KNOWN FACTS about how fast light travels
and how fast a truck travels, and how one motion relates to the other.

If some theory predicts otherwise, that theory needs to be reconsidered
because IT DISAGREES WITH KNOWN FACTS.

Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 2:21:19 PM11/26/20
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ed Lake writes:
>>
>> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:07:38 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>
>> >A simple question: If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
>> >does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
>> >continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?

>> Relative to what?

>The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun. The photons are
>traveling at c,

and the wall is moving away from the photons at v.

Moving at v relative to what?

>> >Answer: The wall continues to move,

>> Relative to what?

>The wall is moving relative to the photons that are coming toward it.

>The wall
>is moving away from the photons,

Relative to what?

> but the photons are faster, so they catch up.

>> > therefore the photons from the light hit the
>> >wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.

>> Relative to what?

>Your question makes no sense.

Because you have no clue how relative motion works.

> If the wall is moving away from the oncoming
>photons,

Relative to what?

> obviously the wall is moving relative to the approaching photons.

Of course you are implicitly using the frame of the road as your reference
frame. The truck moves at v in this frame only.

Justify your use of the road frame as the stationary frame of the gun inside
the moving truck, rather than the truck frame (or the center of earth frame,
or the sun's frame, or the galactic center frame, or...)

And yes, you are implicitly using the road frame as your reference frame,
despite your protestations you are using "relative to the speed of light"
(which makes no sense, speeds are always relative to some reference frame).

>> >How can anyone disagree with that?
>> Because actual scientists use the predictions of actual theories (and not
>> misinterpretations of them) rather than throwing up their hands and saying
>> 'How can anyone disagree with what my common sense tells me?'

>It's not "common sense." It is KNOWN FACTS about how fast light travels
>and how fast a truck travels, and how one motion relates to the other.

>If some theory predicts otherwise, that theory needs to be reconsidered
>because IT DISAGREES WITH KNOWN FACTS.

The known facts are that light moves at c relative to ALL reference frames, so
the photons hit the truck wall at c, leave the wall at c and arrive at the gun
at c. This is even more obvious once you realize the radar gun and truck wall
are all stationary relative to the truck!

Of course you won't accept this because you have some sort of mental blockage
(idee fixe) which prevents you of understanding what Einstein said about such
situations.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 4:46:11 PM11/26/20
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:21:19 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ed Lake writes:
>
> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Ed Lake writes:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:07:38 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >> >A simple question: If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
> >> >does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
> >> >continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?
>
> >> Relative to what?
>
> >The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun. The photons are
> >traveling at c,
>
> and the wall is moving away from the photons at v.
> Moving at v relative to what?

Relative to the photons, of course!!! The photons are traveling at c
and the wall is traveling at v relative to zero for light, i.e., (c-c)+v.

> >> >Answer: The wall continues to move,
>
> >> Relative to what?
>
> >The wall is moving relative to the photons that are coming toward it.
>
> >The wall
> >is moving away from the photons,
> Relative to what?

Explained above. TRY to understand it. You might learn something interesting.

> > but the photons are faster, so they catch up.
>
> >> > therefore the photons from the light hit the
> >> >wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.
>
> >> Relative to what?
>
> >Your question makes no sense.
> Because you have no clue how relative motion works.

According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the speed of light. You evidently
have no clue how relative motion works - other than one object moving relative
to another object, which is "common sense," but WRONG according to Einstein
and his Theory of Special Relativity.

> > If the wall is moving away from the oncoming
> >photons,
> Relative to what?

Relative to the photons, of course. How can you not understand that???????
I stated "the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons."

Photons travel at c, the maximum speed in the universe. All other speeds
are relative to the speed of light ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN. That is why
he said the "luminiferous aether" becomes "superfluous." When you have
a "MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SPEED," all other speeds are relative to that speed,
i.e., they are a fraction of the maximum possible speed.

> > obviously the wall is moving relative to the approaching photons.
> Of course you are implicitly using the frame of the road as your reference
> frame. The truck moves at v in this frame only.
>
> Justify your use of the road frame as the stationary frame of the gun inside
> the moving truck, rather than the truck frame (or the center of earth frame,
> or the sun's frame, or the galactic center frame, or...)

It's not about "frames." "Frames" are how mathematicians view things.
"Frames" are the CAUSE of your misunderstandings. You fantasize that
the interior of the truck is a different "frame" than the exterior, so you
believe THE INTERIOR CAN BE STATIONARY WHILE THE EXTERIOR IS MOVING.
That is IDIOTIC! It is something only a mathematician would dumb enough to believe.

>
> And yes, you are implicitly using the road frame as your reference frame,
> despite your protestations you are using "relative to the speed of light"
> (which makes no sense, speeds are always relative to some reference frame).
> >> >How can anyone disagree with that?
> >> Because actual scientists use the predictions of actual theories (and not
> >> misinterpretations of them) rather than throwing up their hands and saying
> >> 'How can anyone disagree with what my common sense tells me?'
>
> >It's not "common sense." It is KNOWN FACTS about how fast light travels
> >and how fast a truck travels, and how one motion relates to the other.
>
> >If some theory predicts otherwise, that theory needs to be reconsidered
> >because IT DISAGREES WITH KNOWN FACTS.
> The known facts are that light moves at c relative to ALL reference frames, so
> the photons hit the truck wall at c, leave the wall at c and arrive at the gun
> at c. This is even more obvious once you realize the radar gun and truck wall
> are all stationary relative to the truck!

THE TRUCK IS MOVING AT 40 MILES PER HOUR!!!!!! IT IS NOT STATIONARY!!!!
You are arguing that the INTERIOR IS STATIONARY WHILE THE EXTERIOR IS
MOVING!!! Can't you see how ABSURD that is???

>
> Of course you won't accept this because you have some sort of mental blockage
> (idee fixe) which prevents you of understanding what Einstein said about such
> situations.

What Einstein said was that inside a moving "frame" traveling at v, photons moving
away from the observer in a moving vehicle will hit the front wall at c-v and the back
wall at c+v. Light then travels from the front wall back to the observer at c+v and
from the rear wall back to the observer at c-v, so the observer inside
the moving frame sees both walls light up at the same time, but an observer
outside the frame will see the rear wall light up first, then the front wall.

It is one of Einstein's thought experiments. I describe it in detail starting on page
20 of my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments." Here's the link:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf

Ed

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 5:07:01 PM11/26/20
to
On 11/26/20 9:52 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
> does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
> continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?

RELATIVE TO THE GROUND, presumably the truck keeps moving. RELATIVE TO
THE TRUCK the wall was never moving at all. RELATIVE TO YOU the wall was
never moving at all.

> Answer: The wall continues to move, therefore the photons from the light hit the
> wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.

IN THE FRAME OF THE GROUND the LIGHT hits the wall at c-v (this is a
closing speed in the ground frame). In the frame of the truck (presumed
to not accelerate), the LIGHT hits the wall at c (neglecting the index
of refraction of the air).

You CLEARLY do not know what photons actually are.

> How can anyone disagree with that?

When stated COMPLETELY, as I did above, no knowledgeable person
disagrees. But YOU DO NOT STATE IT COMPLETELY -- you omit essential
information.

Whenever you state a speed, you MUST also state the coordinates used to
measure/specify it. Without doing that such a statement is USELESS.

In our everyday lives we don't need to do that,
because there usually is a clear and obvious reference
for such speeds, often the local surface of the earth.

> The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun.

You CLEARLY do not know what "relative to" means in physics. In physics,
"relative to A" implies that A is a set of coordinates, or is an object
for which one is using its rest frame (coordinates). But photons have no
rest frame, so "relative to photons" is MEANINGLESS.

Since you don't know what photons actually are, you
just write nonsense and confuse yourself (and any
naive readers). Hint: photons don't have a definite
speed (relative to any coordinates whatsoever).

When you don't know the meanings of the words you attempt to use, all
you do is write nonsense. You are prolific at that, but it is all
USELESS. And almost all of what you write is flat-out wrong, including
all of the above.

Tom Roberts

Paul Alsing

unread,
Nov 26, 2020, 11:38:08 PM11/26/20
to
Ed, you dim bulb, you are just proving that you don't know the first thing about "relativity". Things just can't be added and/or subtracted when they are traveling near the speed of light. That's what relativity is all about! If it was easy then anyone could do it, but it is not, and you are clueless.

The motion of light and the speed of the truck can only be added together using the Lorenz transformations, and that's a fact!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#:~:text=In%20physics%2C%20the%20Lorentz%20transformations,the%20negative%20of%20this%20velocity.

The problem is that this is WAY over your head, now and forever, since you DON'T KNOW ANY ACTUAL PHYSICS! Just like it is over the heads of many other people on this forum, because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS, EITHER!

Dono.

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 12:31:38 AM11/27/20
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:46:11 PM UTC-8, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

You went away as a cretin and you returned. As an imbecile.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 1:45:39 AM11/27/20
to
On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 05:38:08 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:

> The motion of light and the speed of the truck can only be added together using the Lorenz transformations, and that's a fact!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#:~:text=In%20physics%2C%20the%20Lorentz%20transformations,the%20negative%20of%20this%20velocity.
>
> The problem is that this is WAY over your head, now and forever, since you DON'T KNOW ANY ACTUAL PHYSICS! Just like it is over the heads of many other people on this forum, because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS, EITHER!

No, Al, it's not any fact, it's nothing more than your assumption (shared
with your fellow idiots, of course). The problem is that this is WAY over
your head, now and forever, since you DON'T KNOW ANY ACTUAL FACTS!
Just like it is over the heads of many other people on this forum,
because THEY DON'T KNOW ANY FACTS, EITHER!

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 3:05:07 AM11/27/20
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:21:19 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ed Lake writes:
>>
>> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> Ed Lake writes:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:07:38 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >A simple question: If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
>> >> >does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
>> >> >continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?
>>
>> >> Relative to what?
>>
>> >The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun. The photons are
>> >traveling at c,
>>
>> and the wall is moving away from the photons at v.

>> Moving at v relative to what?

>Relative to the photons, of course!!! The photons are traveling at c

Photons don't have a reference frame.

>and the wall is traveling at v relative to zero for light, i.e., (c-c)+v.

Once again, why do you use the road as your 0 reference? [by stating the wall
is moving at v, which is the road speed]

>> >> >Answer: The wall continues to move,
>>
>> >> Relative to what?
>>
>> >The wall is moving relative to the photons that are coming toward it.
>>
>> >The wall
>> >is moving away from the photons,

>> Relative to what?

>Explained above. TRY to understand it. You might learn something interesting.

Once again, why are you using the road as the 0 reference frame so that the
wall is moving away from the photons? Justify your answer.
Since this all takes place inside the truck body, why not use the truck as your
0 speed reference?

>> > but the photons are faster, so they catch up.
>>
>> >> > therefore the photons from the light hit the
>> >> >wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.
>>
>> >> Relative to what?
>>
>> >Your question makes no sense.

>> Because you have no clue how relative motion works.

>According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the speed of light.

Give me a reference to where Einstein said that. You can't, because he never,
ever said that. He said motion is relative. Period. End of sentence. As in end
of sentence.

> You evidently
>have no clue how relative motion works - other than one object moving relative
>to another object, which is "common sense," but WRONG according to Einstein
>and his Theory of Special Relativity.

Nope. You are blaming Einstein for your own incorrect beliefs.

>> > If the wall is moving away from the oncoming
>> >photons,

>> Relative to what?

>Relative to the photons, of course. How can you not understand that???????

No, I asked why do you say the wall is "moving away"?

>I stated "the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons."

Why are you using the road as your reference implicitly (by stating the wall is
moving away) ?

>Photons travel at c, the maximum speed in the universe. All other speeds
>are relative to the speed of light ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN.

Again, give me a reference where Einstein stated that. You can't. You made
that up and accuse Einstein of your own stupidity.

> That is why
>he said the "luminiferous aether" becomes "superfluous."

Nope. He said that because his works have no need for a reference frame
in which light moves at c. He stated light moves at c for everyone.

> When you have
>a "MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SPEED," all other speeds are relative to that speed,
>i.e., they are a fraction of the maximum possible speed.

Nope. That's crap you made up when you misinterpret a statement like "the
electrons in the beam are moving [relative to the lab] at 67% of the speed
of light [relative to the lab, or to anything else]". All that means is the
electrons are moving at ~200,000 km/s [relative to the lab].

>> > obviously the wall is moving relative to the approaching photons.

>> Of course you are implicitly using the frame of the road as your reference
>> frame. The truck moves at v in this frame only.
>>
>> Justify your use of the road frame as the stationary frame of the gun inside
>> the moving truck, rather than the truck frame (or the center of earth frame,
>> or the sun's frame, or the galactic center frame, or...)

>It's not about "frames." "Frames" are how mathematicians view things.

No, frames are creations of physicists, not mathematicians. Mathematicians
work in the abstract and have no need for frames.

>"Frames" are the CAUSE of your misunderstandings. You fantasize that
>the interior of the truck is a different "frame" than the exterior, so you
>believe THE INTERIOR CAN BE STATIONARY WHILE THE EXTERIOR IS MOVING.

Every frame consists of the entire universe. Including both the inside and
outside of the truck. You must think of frames with specific boundaries which
somehow affect things, which is WRONG.

>That is IDIOTIC!

Of course your misuse of frames is idiotic. That's why physicists don't use
your definition.

> It is something only a mathematician would dumb enough to believe.

Mathematicians don't care about frames.

>> And yes, you are implicitly using the road frame as your reference frame,
>> despite your protestations you are using "relative to the speed of light"
>> (which makes no sense, speeds are always relative to some reference frame).

>> >> >How can anyone disagree with that?
>> >> Because actual scientists use the predictions of actual theories (and not
>> >> misinterpretations of them) rather than throwing up their hands and saying
>> >> 'How can anyone disagree with what my common sense tells me?'
>>
>> >It's not "common sense." It is KNOWN FACTS about how fast light travels
>> >and how fast a truck travels, and how one motion relates to the other.
>>
>> >If some theory predicts otherwise, that theory needs to be reconsidered
>> >because IT DISAGREES WITH KNOWN FACTS.

>> The known facts are that light moves at c relative to ALL reference frames, so
>> the photons hit the truck wall at c, leave the wall at c and arrive at the gun
>> at c. This is even more obvious once you realize the radar gun and truck wall
>> are all stationary relative to the truck!

>THE TRUCK IS MOVING AT 40 MILES PER HOUR!!!!!!

Relative to the road. (Important!)

> IT IS NOT STATIONARY!!!!

Not stationary relative to the road. It IS stationary relative to the truck
driver, stationary relative to the radar gun inside the truck, stationary
relative to the car behind it which is exactly keeping up with it, and
stationary relative to another car driving at 40 mph on a parallel road.

>You are arguing that the INTERIOR IS STATIONARY WHILE THE EXTERIOR IS
>MOVING!!! Can't you see how ABSURD that is???

Now you blame me for your own absurd belief. Since frames consist of the
entire universe, the exterior of the truck is obviously stationary in the
frame in which the interior is stationary (unless the truck is falling apart,
of course).


>> Of course you won't accept this because you have some sort of mental blockage
>> (idee fixe) which prevents you of understanding what Einstein said about such
>> situations.

>What Einstein said was that inside a moving "frame"

There is no "inside" of a frame! A frame is essentially a VIEWPOINT of an
observer and consists of the entire universe.

> traveling at v, photons moving
>away from the observer in a moving vehicle will hit the front wall at c-v

Again, don't blame Einstein for your misunderstandings. He is not here to slap
you on the face and yell at you 'how can you be so stupid!'

>It is one of Einstein's thought experiments.

You completely misunderstand him.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 11:42:55 AM11/27/20
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 4:07:01 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/26/20 9:52 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
> > does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
> > continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?
> RELATIVE TO THE GROUND, presumably the truck keeps moving. RELATIVE TO
> THE TRUCK the wall was never moving at all. RELATIVE TO YOU the wall was
> never moving at all.
> > Answer: The wall continues to move, therefore the photons from the light hit the
> > wall at c-v because the wall is moving away from the oncoming photons.
> IN THE FRAME OF THE GROUND the LIGHT hits the wall at c-v (this is a
> closing speed in the ground frame). In the frame of the truck (presumed
> to not accelerate), the LIGHT hits the wall at c (neglecting the index
> of refraction of the air).

Okay, Tom, let's discuss the ABSURDITY of your beliefs.

You believe the interior of a moving truck is stationary while the exterior is moving.
Why do you believe such nonsense? Because mathematically the distance between
objects inside the truck do not change, therefore the inside of the truck is stationary.
It's a belief based upon MATHEMATICS that is absolute NONSENSE in the real world.

It's NOT physics. Physics is defined as "the branch of science concerned with the
nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics,
distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light
and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms."

In physics, the interior of the truck moves at the same speed as the exterior.
Mathematically, however, you can argue that the interior of the truck is stationary
because everything INSIDE the truck is stationary to everything else INSIDE the truck.
What is the point of such an argument if it is CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY WRONG???

>
> You CLEARLY do not know what photons actually are.

When you make a declaration of OPINION like that, you should explain what
you BELIEVE photons actually are.

> > How can anyone disagree with that?
> When stated COMPLETELY, as I did above, no knowledgeable person
> disagrees. But YOU DO NOT STATE IT COMPLETELY -- you omit essential
> information.
>
> Whenever you state a speed, you MUST also state the coordinates used to
> measure/specify it. Without doing that such a statement is USELESS.

But you just demonstrated that you get NONSENSE if you use coordinates
that have nothing to do with the speed of light.

>
> In our everyday lives we don't need to do that,
> because there usually is a clear and obvious reference
> for such speeds, often the local surface of the earth.

Right. In everyday life we usually measure speeds relative to the ground,
so you are FALSELY ASSUMING that is what I am doing.

>
> > The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun.
>
> You CLEARLY do not know what "relative to" means in physics. In physics,
> "relative to A" implies that A is a set of coordinates, or is an object
> for which one is using its rest frame (coordinates). But photons have no
> rest frame, so "relative to photons" is MEANINGLESS.

That is NOT PHYSICS. It is MATHEMATICS. In physics, photons travel
at the maximum speed allowed in the universe. That maximum speed is a
UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. All other speeds are therefore relative to that
UNIVERSAL CONSTANT.

When you talk about object A moving relative to object B, you are talking
MATHEMATICS, not physics. In physics, we know of NOTHING that is
truly stationary. When measuring speeds, we only have a UNIVERSAL
CONSTANT - the speed of light - to measure other speeds by.

>
> Since you don't know what photons actually are, you
> just write nonsense and confuse yourself (and any
> naive readers). Hint: photons don't have a definite
> speed (relative to any coordinates whatsoever).

Photons have a definite speed of 299,792,458 meters per second
RELATIVE TO THE ATOM THAT EMITTED THE PHOTON.

>
> When you don't know the meanings of the words you attempt to use, all
> you do is write nonsense. You are prolific at that, but it is all
> USELESS. And almost all of what you write is flat-out wrong, including
> all of the above.

If I'm wrong, then EXPLAIN where I'm wrong. YOU CAN'T, because your
explanations are MATHEMATICAL explanations, which are WRONG
but you believe are HOLY GOSPEL. So, we have no basis for a discussion.
That is why you (and others on this forum) can only hurl insults and
make declarations. You are incapable of an intelligent discussion.

You argue that because I do not BELIEVE as you BELIEVE, I am wrong.
And you want to convert me to your BELIEFS. When I am able to recite
the same DOGMA that you recite, then we will be in agreement.

In the real world, as Einstein supposedly said, "You do not really understand
something until you can explain it to your grandmother and get her to
understand, too."

When communicating, it is the job of the explainer to make things clear to
the listener. It is not the job of the listener to understand every bit of nonsense
that you can spout.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 11:50:09 AM11/27/20
to
On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 10:38:08 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
Who or what is "traveling near the speed of light." Do you think a truck
moving at 40 mph is moving "near the speed of light"????????

You are getting into the area of TIME DILATION. Time dilation is not a factor
when measuring the speed of a truck from inside a truck using radar guns.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 12:21:29 PM11/27/20
to
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 2:05:07 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ed Lake writes:
>
> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 1:21:19 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Ed Lake writes:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 11:56:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> Ed Lake writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 8:07:38 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >A simple question: If I am inside a moving semi-truck and I shine a light at the front wall,
> >> >> >does the wall (and the truck) suddenly stop when I turn on the light, or does the wall
> >> >> >continue to move while the photons travel to the wall?
> >>
> >> >> Relative to what?
> >>
> >> >The wall is moving relative to the photons emitted by the gun. The photons are
> >> >traveling at c,
> >>
> >> and the wall is moving away from the photons at v.
>
> >> Moving at v relative to what?
>
> >Relative to the photons, of course!!! The photons are traveling at c
> Photons don't have a reference frame.

Photons ARE a reference frame. They travel at c, the UNIVERSAL CONSTANT.
That "universal constant" is a reference frame just as the imaginary "aether"
was before Einstein made the "aether" superfluous.

(snip repetitive stuff)

> >According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the speed of light.
> Give me a reference to where Einstein said that. You can't, because he never,
> ever said that. He said motion is relative. Period. End of sentence. As in end
> of sentence.

It is the basis for Special Relativity. It is what Special Relativity is all about.
If you have never read his 1905 paper, you should. He states as his "second
postulate": "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

If light always travels at c, then all other motion can be compared to that speed.
Einstein states that this way:

"These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s
theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place."

In other words, you do not need some "absolutely stationary space" (like the
luminiferous ether) to measure motion against, you can use c.

(snip more repetitive crap)

> >It's not about "frames." "Frames" are how mathematicians view things.
> No, frames are creations of physicists, not mathematicians. Mathematicians
> work in the abstract and have no need for frames.

Physicists work in the real world. Mathematicians create "frames" so they
can do math. The frames ARE "abstract." Definition of ABSTRACT:
"existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

(snip more repetitive crap)

> There is no "inside" of a frame! A frame is essentially a VIEWPOINT of an
> observer and consists of the entire universe.

So, the inside of a truck is the "entire universe" because it is all an observer
can see? Only a mathematician would believe such nonsense.

Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 12:49:24 PM11/27/20
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 2:05:07 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ed Lake writes:
>> >> and the wall is moving away from the photons at v.

>> >> Moving at v relative to what?

>> >Relative to the photons, of course!!! The photons are traveling at c
>> Photons don't have a reference frame.

>Photons ARE a reference frame. They travel at c, the UNIVERSAL CONSTANT.

Because it IS a universal constant, comparing anything to light results in a
speed of c. So it can't be a reference since an answer of always c doesn't
help. Also the math regarding reference frames has lots of things like
division of 0/0, infinities etc. so the math of normal speeds can't be used.
(Since you consider "mathematicians" some sort of bogeyman, I'm sure you'll
just dismiss this somehow)

>That "universal constant" is a reference frame just as the imaginary "aether"
>was before Einstein made the "aether" superfluous.

Nope.

>(snip repetitive stuff)

>> >According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the speed of light.
>> Give me a reference to where Einstein said that. You can't, because he never,
>> ever said that. He said motion is relative. Period. End of sentence. As in end
>> of sentence.

>It is the basis for Special Relativity.

No, it is not. The two postulates are the basis of SR.

> It is what Special Relativity is all about.

Nope. Neither of the two postulates state "all motion is relative to the speed
of light".

>If you have never read his 1905 paper, you should. He states as his "second
>postulate": "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
>velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Yes. But he did not write "all motion is relative to the speed of light".

>If light always travels at c, then all other motion can be compared to that speed.

No, that is crap YOU made up, not Einstein.

>Einstein states that this way:

>"These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
>consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's
>theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will
>prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
>require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor
>assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
>processes take place."

>In other words, you do not need some "absolutely stationary space" (like the
>luminiferous ether) to measure motion against,

So why do you do just that?

> you can use c.

He never stated that. YOU came up with that.

>(snip more repetitive crap)

>> >It's not about "frames." "Frames" are how mathematicians view things.
>> No, frames are creations of physicists, not mathematicians. Mathematicians
>> work in the abstract and have no need for frames.

>Physicists work in the real world. Mathematicians create "frames" so they
>can do math. The frames ARE "abstract." Definition of ABSTRACT:
>"existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete
>existence."

Frames are abstract, but are created by PHYSICISTS to help them understand what
is going on in some PHYSICS problem, and to simplify the math involved. (Yes
there is math, physics is 90% math, APPLIED math, not the abstract math of
mathematicians. Mathematicians have no need for frames since they are doing
math, not physics.

>(snip more repetitive crap)

>> There is no "inside" of a frame! A frame is essentially a VIEWPOINT of an
>> observer and consists of the entire universe.

>So, the inside of a truck is the "entire universe" because it is all an observer
>can see?

I just said a frame consists of the entire universe and has no inside and no
outside. Why did you respond by mentioning some "inside" of the truck frame?
Why do you think the inside of a truck is the entire universe?

> Only a mathematician would believe such nonsense.

Only you would believe your nonsense.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 1:15:20 PM11/27/20
to
On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 18:49:24 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Frames are abstract, but are created by PHYSICISTS to help them understand what
> is going on in some PHYSICS problem, and to simplify the math involved. (Yes
> there is math, physics is 90% math, APPLIED math

Stupid Mike, APPLIED math is Euclidean geometry, announced
false by your idiot gurus because it didn't want to fit their
dark, twisted mysticism.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 1:22:43 PM11/27/20
to
Why do you just post repetitive crap?

Here's something new. I just found an interesting comment by Nikola Tesla:

"“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they
wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure
which has no relation to reality.”

Source: http://www.teslasociety.ch/info/mechanic/Tesla_Juli_1934_6MB.pdf

Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 2:05:22 PM11/27/20
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

[]


>Why do you just post repetitive crap?

Why do you consider what physics states to be 'repetitive crap'? Do you expect
physics to change over a period of several minutes and therefore my responses
to change accordingly?

Why do you post your misunderstandings of physics and claim it is the truth?
Why are you working on a manifesto of incorrect physics?

Why didn't you answer my comments instead of dismissing the whole post as
'repetitive crap'?

>Here's something new. I just found an interesting comment by Nikola Tesla:

I'm not interested in quotes supporting your fears of some "mathematician"
boogeyman.

Python

unread,
Nov 27, 2020, 2:30:07 PM11/27/20
to
No mysticism, Maciej, you're sooo ignorant of basic math. Pathetic.

Funny part: recently I had to solve a classification real world problem
(text data processing). Guess what? I ended up using non-euclidean
geometry