Radar guns and the speed of light

1332 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 12:45:14 PMNov 10
to
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf

We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.

A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.

The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v, which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.

Discussion?

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 12:55:39 PMNov 10
to
On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> Discussion?

Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
wrong.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 1:00:40 PMNov 10
to
Likewise, it is not possible with someone like you who won't (can't) understand
the actual science behind why your beliefs are wrong.

So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns. The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.

Ed

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 1:24:21 PMNov 10
to
Op 10-nov.-2021 om 18:45 schreef Ed Lake:
> I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
> Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this
> link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
>
> We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the

... the idiot who came up with it never understood what the others
were talking about.


> Discussion?

Discussion with a telephone pole?
Duh.

Dirk Vdm


Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 1:33:20 PMNov 10
to
The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 1:33:20 PMNov 10
to
Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:55:39 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> Discussion?
>>
>> Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
>> won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
>> wrong.
>
> Likewise, it is not possible with someone like you who won't (can't) understand
> the actual science behind why your beliefs are wrong.

Sorry, Ed, but the fact here is that “actual science” is not what you’re
doing.

You are unversed in “actual science”. You are neither educated or practiced
in “actual science”. Instead you are practiced at amateur sleuthing and
armchair “analysis”, which is nothing like “actual science”.

A good indicator of whether you are capable of “actual science” is whether
you have demonstrated an ability to comprehend “actual science” textbooks.
Since you have deflected by saying that you are uninterested in the
textbooks, don’t have the time to study the textbooks, or that the
textbooks are faulty because they are incomprehensible, this alone is
sufficient to make clear you are unequipped to do “actual science”.

“Actual science” cannot be mimicked by unread amateurs. The attempt is
transparent, foolish, and a waste of others’ time.

>
> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns. The FACTS
> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
>
> Ed
>



Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 1:34:13 PMNov 10
to
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 18:55:39 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 12:45 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > Discussion?
>
> Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe

such as stupid Mike, believing The Shit against plain and
obvious measurement results.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 1:37:09 PMNov 10
to
On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.

Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".

> The FACTS
> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.

No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.

Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 3:09:46 PMNov 10
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:33:20 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it. Plus, I talked with
police officers about their radar guns. Plus I examined PATENTS and read
every bit of information I could find about radar guns. The FACTS about how
radar guns work are clear, and what YOU BELIEVE cannot possibly work.

I put all I learned about radar guns into a different paper. It's at this link:
https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

If you BELIEVE I'm wrong, state where I am wrong, don't just avoid a discussion
by rambling about your screwball BELIEFS.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 3:14:36 PMNov 10
to
I know what the facts are. I OWN a radar gun. I've STUDIED how they
work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.

Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies between
what the gun transmits and what it receives back. That difference in
oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
c and c+v.

Ed

Paparios

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 3:58:35 PMNov 10
to
You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works. "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.

Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.

Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs, called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing the homodyne concept".

The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 4:32:08 PMNov 10
to
And you ignore the experimental results that disagreed with your
predictions. This is a symptom of you not doing “actual science”.

> Plus, I talked with
> police officers about their radar guns.

Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
is built.

> Plus I examined PATENTS and read
> every bit of information I could find about radar guns.

Again, that is what an armchair “analyst” does, and that is not “actual
science”.

> The FACTS about how
> radar guns work are clear, and what YOU BELIEVE cannot possibly work.
>
> I put all I learned about radar guns into a different paper.

And this ESPECIALLY is not “actual science”.

You are trying to pass off your modus operandi as “actual science” when it
is nothing of the sort.

> It's at this link:
> https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
>
> If you BELIEVE I'm wrong, state where I am wrong, don't just avoid a discussion
> by rambling about your screwball BELIEFS.

I am stating a simple fact. You are trying to discuss physics from a
position of untrained ignorance and are making a lot of bad guesses and
improper inferences. You then expect people to correct you and thereby
provide you with an education … er, argument … about the correct physics.

No. The best response to someone who makes ignorant guesses is to recommend
materials that will teach you the basics, to help you get over your
ignorance. Those will involve a lot of work, no shortcuts, no streamlining,
and you would have to slog through it LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

>
> Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 4:56:16 PMNov 10
to
On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.

>> Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".

>>> The FACTS
>>> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
>>> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.

>> No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
>>
>> Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
>
> I know what the facts are.

Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".

> I OWN a radar gun.

So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.

> I've STUDIED how they
> work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.

And (mis)interpreted them to fit your "idée fixe".

> What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.

What *you* BELIEVE are not "FACTS" as you claim. You cannot tell the
difference between your own beliefs and "FACTS". Your so-called "FACTS"
are what is nonsense.
>
> Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies

You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.

> between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.

From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.

> That difference in
> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
> c and c+v.

Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.

Dono.

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 4:57:22 PMNov 10
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>snip imbecilities<

As predicted, the cretin is back.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 5:14:19 PMNov 10
to
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 5:15:34 PMNov 10
to
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 22:56:16 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.

The Shit and stupid Mike tells us!!! Must be true!!!!

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 5:16:00 PMNov 10
to
Moreover, direct experiments that have nothing to do with radar guns or
Doppler show that c+v does not happen. If you have one application that is
consistent with an interpretation of c+v and also consistent with an
interpretation of c, and a different application that is INCONSISTENT with
c+v and consistent with an interpretation of c, then the interpretation of
c+v is RULED OUT. Just trying to interpret radar guns as being consistent
with c+v is not enough. It has to be consistent with ALL applications,
including non-Doppler experiments that measure TIME OF FLIGHT of photons.

Moreover, it is clear that Ed cannot do the simple math that distinguishes
the VALUE of the frequency shift between what relativity predicts (which
has a square root) and what c+v predicts (which has no square root). The
QUANTITATIVE match to measurement that rules out c+v, not just qualitative
shifting up or shifting down, is what Ed cannot do.

yuuyyu

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 6:55:55 PMNov 10
to
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
> how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
> burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and
> "fact".
>
>> I OWN a radar gun.
>
> So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be
> false.

but your name is *Kibo_Pari*, not "Michael". Michael is a slavic name.

Paul Alsing

unread,
Nov 10, 2021, 7:19:39 PMNov 10
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> ... A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v...

OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c and it does not matter if the emitter of the light is moving forwards, backwards or sideways... it is always observed to be travelling at c. I know that you cannot comprehend this because it is not intuitive (and it is not intuitive to anyone), but then, you are ignorant of all things regarding relativity BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER STUDIED IT FROM SQUARE ONE! You cannot just jump into this at the university level and expect to understand it... making you the Poster Boy of the scientifically uninformed once again!

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 1:43:32 AMNov 11
to
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 01:19:39 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > ... A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v...
>
> OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c

Even your idiot guru was unable to insist on that idiocy for
a long time and his GR shit had to reject it.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 1:44:25 AMNov 11
to

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:17:54 AMNov 11
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:58:35 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.
If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves. A radar gun emitting WAVES
cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
the ground and objects on the ground. There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
to the transmitted waves.

With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,
and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
same frequency.

Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.

Ed

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:22:23 AMNov 11
to
Op 11-nov.-2021 om 16:17 schreef Ed Lake:

[snip]

>
> The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to
> understanding how radar guns work.

No, sub-idiot. A PROPERLY WORKING BRAIN is.

Dirk Vdm

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:27:54 AMNov 11
to
NEVER. What "experimental results are you lying about????


> > Plus, I talked with
> > police officers about their radar guns.
> Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
> their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
> is built.

I didn't ask police officers about the PHYSICS of their radar guns.
I asked them what results they got when using the guns under
different conditions. That is how SCIENCE works.


> > Plus I examined PATENTS and read
> > every bit of information I could find about radar guns.
> Again, that is what an armchair “analyst” does, and that is not “actual
> science”.

You clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW SCIENCE IS DONE.
Science looks at how things work. You evidently do not care about how
things work. You ONLY understand and care about the mathematics.

In a talk Albert Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in
1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

Science is about uncovering the REALITY of how things work. It's not
about doing math.

Ed

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:35:50 AMNov 11
to
Op 11-nov.-2021 om 16:27 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake <> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Plus, I talked with
>>> police officers about their radar guns.
>> Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
>> their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
>> is built.
>
> I didn't ask police officers about the PHYSICS of their radar guns.
> I asked them what results they got when using the guns under
> different conditions. That is how SCIENCE works.

No, sub-moron. That is how your EXCUSE FOR A BRAIN works.

Dirk Vdm

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:42:00 AMNov 11
to
On 11/10/21 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> We've been arguing about [Lake's] paper since May of 2017, [...]

No. YOU'VE been "arguing" about it; those of us who actually understand
physics ignore it, because it is full of nonsense.

> The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same
> from ALL OBSERVERS.

Restrict that to observers using inertial coordinates, and it is true,
demonstrated by literally zillions of experiments.

> Obviously it is NOT.

Only to idiots like you who don't understand basic physics, and who
refuse to study it. Actual experiments show your claim to be false.

> Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.

No, they don't. You make false assertions about them, and claim your
assertions "demonstrate" facts not in evidence. That is fantasizing and
dreaming, not science.

> A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c.

No. Individual photons don't "have" a speed, and without specifying the
coordinates this is too ambiguous for any good use.

The MICROWAVE BEAM emitted by a radar gun travels in vacuum with speed c
RELATIVE TO THE INERTIAL FRAME IN WHICH THE RADAR GUN IS AT REST.

> Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency.

No. Photons don't "oscillate". But the MICROWAVE BEAM from a radar gun
does, because the radar gun emits a coherent beam of myriad microwave
photons.

Even though individual photons don't oscillate, a coherent beam of them
does. Even though individual photons don't "have" a speed, a coherent
beam of them does, and that speed in vacuum is always c relative to any
(locally) inertial frame.

> They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v.

This is the core of your confusion. You ASSERT this, but no experiment
shows it to be true. A major part of your confusion is your refusal to
specify the coordinates used -- you seem unaware of the necessity, which
merely reflects your profound ignorance of basic physics.

There's no point in continuing until you STUDY basic physics and
actually LEARN something about the subject (rather than just making
stuff up and pretending it is true).

Tom Roberts

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:45:46 AMNov 11
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:56:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2021 1:00 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
>
> >> Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
>
> >>> The FACTS
> >>> say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
> >>> measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
>
> >> No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
> >>
> >> Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
> >
> > I know what the facts are.

(snip)
> > Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies
> You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.
> > between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.

NO! That is STUPID! If radar guns emitted waves, the returning waves
from different parts of the target and from ground objects would be all
jumbled up and there would be no way to tell one wave from another.

> From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.

There is NO COMPARISON between sound waves and PHOTONS.
People use that comparison only when talking with someone who does
not have the time to learn and comprehend the actual science.

> > That difference in
> > oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
> > c and c+v.
> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.

Going faster than c is impossible. If light is traveling at c and hits an
on coming object traveling at v, the object will encounter the light hitting
at c+v. Some call it "the closing speed." Nothing is going faster than c.

My paper lists all sorts of experiments where this is done every day.
Radar guns are the prime example. My paper on Relativity and Radar Guns
explains everything in detail: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

Read it. You might learn something.

Ed

Paparios

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:48:07 AMNov 11
to
El jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2021 a las 12:17:54 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:58:35 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:

> > You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works. "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
> > target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
> >
> > Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
> >
> > Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs, called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing the homodyne concept".
> >
> > The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.

> The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.
> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves. A radar gun emitting WAVES
> cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
> bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
> the ground and objects on the ground. There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
> to the transmitted waves.
>
That is complete nonsense. All emitted waves (or photons) are reflected from the different objects the waves (photons) hit. The reflections energy varies with the reflected surface and the reflected waves (photons) are variables. The key factor in the radar gun is that the comparison is made between the transmitted frequency and the received frequencies. In the case of a stationary radar gun, the reflections from the ground, trees, houses, etc. will all be at the same frequency of the transmitter, so the detector will detect no-speed (using the Doppler formula). The reflections from the bumper, the windshield, etc . will all be moving towards (or away) the radar gun location and, therefore, will be detected at a received frequency different from the transmitted frequency.

All radar technology was developed without the use of photons. All radar technology use waves.
At the radar transmitter you have an electronic oscillator (which does not use photons). "An electronic oscillator is an electronic circuit that produces a periodic, oscillating electronic signal, often a sine wave or a square wave or a triangle wave. Oscillators convert direct current (DC) from a power supply to an alternating current (AC) signal".

> With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,
> and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
> same frequency.
>

Nonsense, again the photon bouncing from the ground, bumper, windshield, trees, houses, follow exactly their waves expressions. Radar were developed (and they still are developed) using waves and not photons!!!!

> Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
> if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.
>
> Ed

You clearly need to study more on this. See for example the book Radar Technology Encyclopedia (David K. Barton, Sergey A. Leonov Editors)

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:48:20 AMNov 11
to
Op 11-nov.-2021 om 16:45 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:56:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

[snip]


>>> Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies

>> You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.
>> between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.
>
> NO! That is STUPID!

YES! You ARE!

Dirk Vdm

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 10:53:10 AMNov 11
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 6:19:39 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > ... A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v...
>
> OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c and it does not matter if the emitter of the light is moving forwards, backwards or sideways... it is always observed to be travelling at c. I know that you cannot comprehend this because it is not intuitive (and it is not intuitive to anyone), but then, you are ignorant of all things regarding relativity BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER STUDIED IT FROM SQUARE ONE! You cannot just jump into this at the university level and expect to understand it... making you the Poster Boy of the scientifically uninformed once again!

You need to read my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. It's at
this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf

The paper shows how just about every college physics textbook contains
a DIFFERENT VERSION of Einstein's Second Postulate. The ones that
teach what you claim to be true are NONSENSE. EXPERIMENTS SHOW
THAT THEY ARE NONSENSE. Radar guns demonstrate countless times
every day that what YOU BELIEVE is just TOTAL NONSENSE.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 11:00:25 AMNov 11
to
I see you don’t believe that radar, which was invented in WWII, or that
sonar, which was invented in WWI, can possibly work without particle
carrier description. (Notice *sonar*. That’s sound. Nothing to do with
photons.) The inverse scattering problem, which is precisely about how to
reconstruct a scattering source from multiply scattered surfaces, has been
around as an active area of physics research since the middle 1800s.

What’s interesting to me is how you, in an attempt to justify a particular
explanation you believe in, will free to make up stuff about another
explanation. This just makes it obvious how little you’ve thought about it.


>
> With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate
> at the same frequency,
> and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
> same frequency.
>
> Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
> if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.
>
> Ed
>



Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 11:10:07 AMNov 11
to
Op 11-nov.-2021 om 16:53 schreef Ed Lake:
No, sub-mould. Radar guns demonstrate countless times
every day that YOU ARE A PRODUCER of TOTAL NONSENSE.

Dirk Vdm

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 11:12:28 AMNov 11
to
On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

>> The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.
>
> The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.

Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.

> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.

Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.

Each model has their strengths and weaknesses in different situations.

> A radar gun emitting WAVES
> cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
> bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
> the ground and objects on the ground.

Eh? They all add linearly to an overall return signal.

> There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
> to the transmitted waves.

That is the purpose of a bandpass filter (or DSP circuit). After
combining with (subtracting) the original transmission frequency there
will be signals typically in the audio range. Based on signal strength
and range of interest, the filter/DSP will select for a frequency and
reject the others. This gets converted to a speed displayed (or the
display is blanked if the circuitry determines there is no valid signal).
>
> With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,

Photons don't oscillate.

> and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
> same frequency.

Photons don't oscillate. But if they did, now you have a "scrambled"
return signal of all those photons oscillating at different frequencies.
>
> Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
> if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.

Nope. If you talk about science you have to use a model which describes
what's going on best for the situation. (For Doppler radar, the wave
model works better)

Plus you CANNOT make up garbage which was never part of the model and
add it in. "Oscillating photons", I'm talking about you.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 11:36:51 AMNov 11
to
Oh, like the claim that a radar gun pointed at the front of a trailer being
towed by a truck, while the radar gun is held by a rider in the truck, will
read the trailer’s road speed rather than zero. Your response was, oh, this
radar gun must be secretly DESIGNED to subtract the road speed of the gun.

>
>
>>> Plus, I talked with
>>> police officers about their radar guns.
>> Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
>> their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
>> is built.
>
> I didn't ask police officers about the PHYSICS of their radar guns.
> I asked them what results they got when using the guns under
> different conditions. That is how SCIENCE works.

No, that is not science. As I said, you are calling what you do “actual
science” when you don’t know what actual science is.

>
>
>>> Plus I examined PATENTS and read
>>> every bit of information I could find about radar guns.
>> Again, that is what an armchair “analyst” does, and that is not “actual
>> science”.
>
> You clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW SCIENCE IS DONE.
> Science looks at how things work.

Sorry, that is not at all a good description of how science is done. As I
said, your comic book understanding of what “actual science” is bears
little to no resemblance to what it actually is.

> You evidently do not care about how
> things work. You ONLY understand and care about the mathematics.

No, I care about the physics AND the mathematics. The mathematics, for
example, is essential to making quantitative statements, for comparison to
quantitative measurements. If you have an explanation that says “this will
make the frequency go down” but it gets the AMOUNT the frequency goes down
wrong, even by 5%, the explanation is WRONG. And without doing the math,
you can’t even ask the question. This is the part of “actual science” you
cannot do and so you detest it.

>
> In a talk Albert Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in
> 1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
> are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

Which is a pithy comment, one of many by charismatic physicists, that is
taken out of context and abused by layfolk.

>
> Science is about uncovering the REALITY of how things work. It's not
> about doing math.
>
> Ed
>



Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 11:41:44 AMNov 11
to
On 11/11/2021 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:56:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 3:14 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies

>> You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.

>>> between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.
>
> NO! That is STUPID! If radar guns emitted waves, the returning waves
> from different parts of the target and from ground objects would be all
> jumbled up and there would be no way to tell one wave from another.

Which is why there are filters and DSP circuitry to sort things out.
>
>> From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
>
> There is NO COMPARISON between sound waves and PHOTONS.

But there is a valid comparison between sound WAVES and electromagnetic
WAVES. There are many differences but many similarities. Including the
Doppler effect.

> People use that comparison only when talking with someone who does
> not have the time to learn and comprehend the actual science.

Sounds like yourself.
>
>>> That difference in
>>> oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
>>> c and c+v.
>> Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
>
> Going faster than c is impossible. If light is traveling at c and hits an
> on coming object traveling at v, the object will encounter the light hitting
> at c+v.

You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences.

> Some call it "the closing speed." Nothing is going faster than c.

Nope. Closing speed is adding (or subtracting) two different speeds as
observed by a third party observer and only valid to that observer. It
is correct to state someone standing along the road can observe the
microwave beam moving at c and the car moving at v and add those speeds
to get a speed c+v, but that's not involving anything happening at the
car itself. Nor is it the speed of anything.

The (inertially) moving car observes a microwave beam moving at c
relative to it.

> My paper

I don't care about "papers" written in ignorance. Archimedes Plutonium
has spewed out hundreds of Kindle "books" and is very proud of that
fact. But they just repeat his nonsense so they are all nonsense. Same
for your "paper".

> Read it. You might learn something.

Maybe about how the crank mind operates.
Message has been deleted

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 12:05:07 PMNov 11
to
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/10/21 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > We've been arguing about [Lake's] paper since May of 2017, [...]
>
> No. YOU'VE been "arguing" about it; those of us who actually understand
> physics ignore it, because it is full of nonsense.
> > The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same
> > from ALL OBSERVERS.
> Restrict that to observers using inertial coordinates, and it is true,
> demonstrated by literally zillions of experiments.

Then you should be able to name a few. Einstein's "thought experiment"
where a body is emitted from the sun at 1,000 kps, becomes inertial,
and an observer on that body measures the speed of light from the sun
to be passing at the same speed as the emitter on the sun measures it
is purely HYPOTHETICAL since no one can measure the ONE WAY speed
of a passing photon. And the PURPOSE of that "thought experiment" is
to show that TIME passes at a different rate per second for the body
moving at 1,000 kps than it does for someone on the sun.

>
> > Obviously it is NOT.
>
> Only to idiots like you who don't understand basic physics, and who
> refuse to study it. Actual experiments show your claim to be false.
> > Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.

Why do you refuse to name these experiments? Are they the same TWO
that I name in my paper? Alväger et al. and E. B. Aleksandrov et al.?
I explain how mathematicians use those experiments which actually
only confirm that EMITTERS always emit light at c.

> No, they don't. You make false assertions about them, and claim your
> assertions "demonstrate" facts not in evidence. That is fantasizing and
> dreaming, not science.

The FACTS are in evidence. They make it totally clear and undeniable that
light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the observer
toward or away from the emitter. Radar guns are the prime example.

> > A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c.
> No. Individual photons don't "have" a speed, and without specifying the
> coordinates this is too ambiguous for any good use.

What you are saying is that YOU CANNOT DO THE MATH. And if you cannot do
the math, then it's not a valid experiment.

PHOTONS travel at the speed of light. They are oscillating packets of ENERGY
being transferred from one atom to another. In air they travel a bit slower than
in a vacuum because they have to transfer from one atom to another in the
air as they pass through the air.

>
> The MICROWAVE BEAM emitted by a radar gun travels in vacuum with speed c
> RELATIVE TO THE INERTIAL FRAME IN WHICH THE RADAR GUN IS AT REST.

Radar guns do NOT emit beams. They emit a burst of INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS.
And the emitter does NOT have to be inertial. If the emitter is accelerating OR
is merely PROPELLED at a steady speed, the photons still travel at c.

> > Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency.
> No. Photons don't "oscillate". But the MICROWAVE BEAM from a radar gun
> does, because the radar gun emits a coherent beam of myriad microwave
> photons.

TOTAL NONSENSE! Experiments show that if you turn down the energy source
the emitter will emit FEWER individual photons. There are no waves. There are
not beams. There is just a burst of individual OSCILLATING photons.

>
> Even though individual photons don't oscillate, a coherent beam of them
> does. Even though individual photons don't "have" a speed, a coherent
> beam of them does, and that speed in vacuum is always c relative to any
> (locally) inertial frame.
> > They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v.
> This is the core of your confusion. You ASSERT this, but no experiment
> shows it to be true. A major part of your confusion is your refusal to
> specify the coordinates used -- you seem unaware of the necessity, which
> merely reflects your profound ignorance of basic physics.

No, it reflects you total reliance on mathematics. If you do not have all the
numbers you believe you need, you cannot do the math.

Radar guns emit oscillating photons at the speed of light. In a very tiny
fraction of a second, new oscillating photons are returned from the target. The
gun does not need to know its "coordinates" IF IT IS STATIONARY, because
all it is measuring is the difference in oscillating frequencies between
the photons it emitted and the photons it gets back. If the gun is moving
toward an oncoming vehicle, then it will measure c+v+v, and it will
display the COMBINED speed of the gun and the target - if it does not
have software to separate the two speeds.

LIDAR guns measure distances between the gun and the target. They do
not know any coordinates. LIDAR guns MUST be used only while stationary.
All they need is the TIME the photons were emitted and the TIME the
photons returned. Knowing those two times AND the SPEED OF LIGHT, the
gun can determine the distance to the target.

Perform one distance measurement and then another a 20th of a second later
and the gun will measure how FAR the target moved during that 20th of
a second, and how FAST the target must have been moving.

>
> There's no point in continuing until you STUDY basic physics and
> actually LEARN something about the subject (rather than just making
> stuff up and pretending it is true).

I agree there is no point in continuing if you cannot comprehend the
basic science and mechanics behind radar guns (and other experiments)
unless you have all the numbers you think you need to do the math.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 12:40:40 PMNov 11
to
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:48:07 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2021 a las 12:17:54 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:58:35 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works. "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
> > > target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.
> > >
> > > Fd = 2 (v_r Ft)/c, where Fd is the Doppler shift, v_r is the target radial velocity, Ft is the transmitted frequency and c is the speed of light.
> > >
> > > Once measured, the Doppler shift is scaled to speed in units of miles per hour (MPH). To meet this requirement, one of the simplest designs, called the homodyne radar, has been used for all police radar designs since the late 1940 time period. Figure 16-2 is a block diagram showing the homodyne concept".
> > >
> > > The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.
>
> > The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.
> > If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves. A radar gun emitting WAVES
> > cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
> > bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
> > the ground and objects on the ground. There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
> > to the transmitted waves.
> >
> That is complete nonsense. All emitted waves (or photons) are reflected from the different objects the waves (photons) hit. The reflections energy varies with the reflected surface and the reflected waves (photons) are variables. The key factor in the radar gun is that the comparison is made between the transmitted frequency and the received frequencies. In the case of a stationary radar gun, the reflections from the ground, trees, houses, etc. will all be at the same frequency of the transmitter, so the detector will detect no-speed (using the Doppler formula). The reflections from the bumper, the windshield, etc . will all be moving towards (or away) the radar gun location and, therefore, will be detected at a received frequency different from the transmitted frequency.

That is true IF you are talking about PHOTONS. If you are talking about
WAVES, then waves will hit the front bumper before hitting the windshield,
and waves will will hit objects on the ground at different times, depending
upon how far away from the gun they are. So, the returning WAVES will
be all scrambled depending upon the DISTANCE to the reflector.

With photons, the DISTANCE to the target does not matter. All oscillating
photons that hit any part of an oncoming vehicle will produce NEW photons
with same oscillation rate because ALL PARTS OF THE TARGET WERE
MOVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Likewise, all parts of the ground are moving
at the same speed, so they all return new photons oscillating at the same rate.
WAVES ARE CHANGED BY DISTANCE. Photons are changed by speed.

>
> All radar technology was developed without the use of photons. All radar technology use waves.

ALL RADAR TECHNOLOGY USES OSCILLATING PHOTONS, NOT WAVES.

> At the radar transmitter you have an electronic oscillator (which does not use photons). "An electronic oscillator is an electronic circuit that produces a periodic, oscillating electronic signal, often a sine wave or a square wave or a triangle wave. Oscillators convert direct current (DC) from a power supply to an alternating current (AC) signal".

At the radar transmitter you have electric energy (from batteries) which
heats ATOMS of a particular type. The heated ATOMS emit PHOTONS to
get rid of that extra energy they cannot hold. The oscillation frequency
of the photons depends upon the type of atoms that were heated.

> > With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,
> > and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
> > same frequency.
> >
> Nonsense, again the photon bouncing from the ground, bumper, windshield, trees, houses, follow exactly their waves expressions. Radar were developed (and they still are developed) using waves and not photons!!!!

Radar gun photons work best when hitting shiny metal surfaces which
reflect the photons as a mirror would. Bumpers and chrome are best
reflectors. Ground, trees and signs may absorb the photons.

Waves will reflect depending upon the distance to the target. Photons
hit a target at one oscillating frequency, and due to the speed of the
target, the target emits NEW photons at a different oscillating frequency.
The gun measures the difference in photon OSCILLATING frequencies.

> > Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
> > if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.
> >
> > Ed
> You clearly need to study more on this. See for example the book Radar Technology Encyclopedia (David K. Barton, Sergey A. Leonov Editors)

From page 468 of the book you mentioned:

"With the advent of quantum mechanics, electromagnetic
radiant energy is seen to be created, destroyed, and transported
in discrete quanta or PHOTONS rather than through a
continuous transfer of energy implied by electromagnetic
waves in the classical representation of electrodynamics.
Because the energy transported by large numbers of PHOTONS
is, on the average, equivalent to the energy transferred in a
classical electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic applications,
including radar and communications, Maxwell’s field equations
are accurate and extremely useful tools."

You should read the books you cite. Don't just assume they agree
with your BELIEFS.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 12:55:49 PMNov 11
to
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:00:25 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
Radar as used at WWII airports measured DISTANCES ONLY. The radar
operator might make a mark on the screen and then ten minutes later make
another mark so he can compute how far the target moved during those
ten minutes, but ground radar does not typically measure speeds. Today's
weather systems can take pictures every ten minutes or so and they play
the pictures back as a movie so you can see how the weather features move.

How many WWII movies have you seen where people are marking spots
on a huge sheet of glass or on a table as they manually track radar readings
and convert distances into speeds?

I was a weatherman in the Air Force. I used radar to track fog banks
and rainy weather patterns. That kind of radar ONLY shows distances.
It has no way to compute speeds. You have to compute the speeds for
yourself.

What’s interesting to me is how you, in an attempt to justify a particular
explanation you believe in, somehow feel free to make up stuff. This just
makes it obvious how little you’ve thought about it.

Ed

Paparios

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 1:45:28 PMNov 11
to
El jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2021 a las 14:40:40 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:48:07 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:

> > That is complete nonsense. All emitted waves (or photons) are reflected from the different objects the waves (photons) hit. The reflections energy varies with the reflected surface and the reflected waves (photons) are variables. The key factor in the radar gun is that the comparison is made between the transmitted frequency and the received frequencies. In the case of a stationary radar gun, the reflections from the ground, trees, houses, etc. will all be at the same frequency of the transmitter, so the detector will detect no-speed (using the Doppler formula). The reflections from the bumper, the windshield, etc . will all be moving towards (or away) the radar gun location and, therefore, will be detected at a received frequency different from the transmitted frequency.

> That is true IF you are talking about PHOTONS. If you are talking about
> WAVES, then waves will hit the front bumper before hitting the windshield,
> and waves will will hit objects on the ground at different times, depending
> upon how far away from the gun they are. So, the returning WAVES will
> be all scrambled depending upon the DISTANCE to the reflector.
>

That is completely wrong. Consider, for the time being, that the radar gun emits pulses of radio, with the pulse lasting for 10 microseconds. The reflected pulse will not be scrambled (like you say) but it will shaped like a bell, with the most of the energy concentrated in, say 15 microseconds. That spreading will not have any effect in the detection of the speed.

> With photons, the DISTANCE to the target does not matter. All oscillating
> photons that hit any part of an oncoming vehicle will produce NEW photons
> with same oscillation rate because ALL PARTS OF THE TARGET WERE
> MOVING AT THE SAME SPEED. Likewise, all parts of the ground are moving
> at the same speed, so they all return new photons oscillating at the same rate.
> WAVES ARE CHANGED BY DISTANCE. Photons are changed by speed.

But that is exactly the same effect. The number of reflected photons, will vary from the surfaces they hit and the reflection characteristics, the same way waves behave. This is basic physics.

> >
> > All radar technology was developed without the use of photons. All radar technology use waves.
> ALL RADAR TECHNOLOGY USES OSCILLATING PHOTONS, NOT WAVES.
> > At the radar transmitter you have an electronic oscillator (which does not use photons). "An electronic oscillator is an electronic circuit that produces a periodic, oscillating electronic signal, often a sine wave or a square wave or a triangle wave. Oscillators convert direct current (DC) from a power supply to an alternating current (AC) signal".

> At the radar transmitter you have electric energy (from batteries) which
> heats ATOMS of a particular type. The heated ATOMS emit PHOTONS to
> get rid of that extra energy they cannot hold. The oscillation frequency
> of the photons depends upon the type of atoms that were heated.

The electromagnetic energy, generated by the electronic oscillator as a sinusoidal wave, is sent to an antenna, which radiates the energy through electromagnetic waves (or photons). The large amount of radiated photons behave exactly like electromagnetic waves (see your quote below).
EXACTLY!!!! "Because the energy transported by large numbers of PHOTONS is, on the average, equivalent to the energy transferred in a classical electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic applications, including radar and communications, Maxwell’s field equations are accurate and extremely useful tools."

In other words, in large quantities, photons behave exactly like waves

> You should read the books you cite. Don't just assume they agree
> with your BELIEFS.

You found the quote above but you did not care to read it!!!!!

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 2:01:43 PMNov 11
to
But according to you, this distance measurement would be impossible with
waves, because some waves would come from the front of the object, some
from the back, some would careen off at an angle and bounce off a mountain
before getting to the receiver and would take longer to get back, and it
would be all jumbled up. Even getting a distance would be impossible, for
the reasons YOU cite. And yet, it’s not impossible at all, is it? So what
does that say about your objections?

> The radar
> operator might make a mark on the screen and then ten minutes later make
> another mark so he can compute how far the target moved during those
> ten minutes, but ground radar does not typically measure speeds. Today's
> weather systems can take pictures every ten minutes or so and they play
> the pictures back as a movie so you can see how the weather features move.
>
> How many WWII movies have you seen where people are marking spots
> on a huge sheet of glass or on a table as they manually track radar readings
> and convert distances into speeds?
>
> I was a weatherman in the Air Force. I used radar to track fog banks
> and rainy weather patterns. That kind of radar ONLY shows distances.
> It has no way to compute speeds. You have to compute the speeds for
> yourself.
>
> What’s interesting to me is how you, in an attempt to justify a particular
> explanation you believe in, somehow feel free to make up stuff. This just
> makes it obvious how little you’ve thought about it.
>
> Ed
>



Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 4:09:19 PMNov 11
to
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> >> The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.
> >
> > The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.
> Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.

Photons exist. So, they're not just a "model." Richard Feynman
stated how you can adjust an emitter so that it emits fewer and
fewer photons, and you can have a photomultiplier device that
counts the photons as they arrive and where each one hits.

> > If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.
> Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.

Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.
But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
people who think the model represents reality.

>
> Each model has their strengths and weaknesses in different situations.

No. One is reality, the other is a model.

> > A radar gun emitting WAVES
> > cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
> > bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
> > the ground and objects on the ground.
> Eh? They all add linearly to an overall return signal.

How? What does the wave look like? If it is like a sound wave, it
will hit the bumper first, then the windshield, and all the while it
is also hitting the ground at countless locations. If they all produce
"an overall return signal," how is that possible?

> > There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
> > to the transmitted waves.
> That is the purpose of a bandpass filter (or DSP circuit). After
> combining with (subtracting) the original transmission frequency there
> will be signals typically in the audio range. Based on signal strength
> and range of interest, the filter/DSP will select for a frequency and
> reject the others. This gets converted to a speed displayed (or the
> display is blanked if the circuitry determines there is no valid signal).

Radar guns emit photons that oscillate at a specific frequency that
is not emitted by anything else, for example 35 Gigahertz. The guns
receive photons in all ranges. It ignores those photons that are not
within a few thousand Hertz from 35 Ghz. It compares those remaining
photons to the photons it emitted. Those that oscillate at the same
frequency are from the ground or stationary objects. Those that oscillate
less than a few thousand Hz away from 35 Ghz are moving objects of
interest. If there is only one target, the gun shows the speed of that target.
If there are more than one target, the gun typically shows the speed of
the fastest moving target.

> >
> > With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,
> Photons don't oscillate.
> > and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
> > same frequency.
> Photons don't oscillate. But if they did, now you have a "scrambled"
> return signal of all those photons oscillating at different frequencies.

You CANNOT HAVE a scrambled return signal with photons. EACH PHOTON
IS A SIGNAL. NASA has an article which describes how you can emit a single
photon and get a single photon back and measure the speed of the target.

With WAVES you can have a scrambled signal because A SINGLE WAVE
MEANS NOTHING. All it tells you is the DISTANCE to something.
When you have TWO waves you have a "signal" that tells you the speed of a
target. When you have TEN waves you can have the speed of MANY
DIFFERENT TARGETS all scrambled together.

> >
> > Talking about waves might help some speeder understand why he got a ticket, but
> > if you want to talk about SCIENCE you have to talk about photons.
> Nope. If you talk about science you have to use a model which describes
> what's going on best for the situation. (For Doppler radar, the wave
> model works better)

That's the way to get WRONG answers. If you talk about science you should
use the objects that demonstrate the science - like radar guns -- not some
"model" that may or may not represent reality. REAL OBJECTS represent
reality best.

>
> Plus you CANNOT make up garbage which was never part of the model and
> add it in. "Oscillating photons", I'm talking about you.

If oscillating photons are not part of YOUR MODEL, then YOUR MODEL IS CRAP.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 4:22:13 PMNov 11
to
No, my response was that you need TWO radar guns that operate at
the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY, or you need an emitter that emits
photons at the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY as your radar gun.
That way, when the photons hit the MEASURING GUN they will hit
at c+v or c-v depending upon whether the MEASURING GUN is at the rear
of the truck or at the front.

I describe that proposed experiment in detail starting on page 8 of my
paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

(snip repetitious stuff)

Ed

Paparios

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 4:25:32 PMNov 11
to
El jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:09:19 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > >> The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.
> > >
> > > The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.
> > Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.

> Photons exist. So, they're not just a "model." Richard Feynman
> stated how you can adjust an emitter so that it emits fewer and
> fewer photons, and you can have a photomultiplier device that
> counts the photons as they arrive and where each one hits.

> > > If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.
> > Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.

> Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.
> But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
> people who think the model represents reality.
> >
> > Each model has their strengths and weaknesses in different situations.

> No. One is reality, the other is a model.

Both electromagnetic waves and photons are part of physical models, produced by our thoughts, which we can't be sure is what Nature really does. Of course both electromagnetic waves and photons models are very useful in explaining some observed phenomena.

"Radio waves are radiated by charged particles when they are accelerated. They are produced artificially by time-varying electric currents, consisting of electrons flowing back and forth in a specially-shaped metal conductor called an antenna. An electronic device called a radio transmitter applies oscillating electric current to the antenna, and the antenna radiates the power as radio waves. Radio waves are received by another antenna attached to a radio receiver. When radio waves strike the receiving antenna they push the electrons in the metal back and forth, creating tiny oscillating currents which are detected by the receiver.

From quantum mechanics, like other electromagnetic radiation such as light, radio waves can alternatively be regarded as streams of uncharged elementary particles called photons. In an antenna transmitting radio waves, the electrons in the antenna emit the energy in discrete packets called radio photons, while in a receiving antenna the electrons absorb the energy as radio photons. An antenna is a coherent emitter of photons, like a laser, so the radio photons are all in phase. However, from Planck's relation E=hv the energy of individual radio photons is extremely small, from 10^−22 to 10^−30 joules. It is so small that, except for certain molecular electron transition processes such as atoms in a maser emitting microwave photons, radio wave emission and absorption is usually regarded as a continuous classical process, governed by Maxwell's equations".


Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 4:39:10 PMNov 11
to
Okay, "closing speed" has a different meaning for you than for me.
To me, if I am traveling at 50 mph toward a car that is moving at
50 mph toward me, our "closing speed" is 100 mph. I can point my
radar gun at oncoming traffic as I drive along a street, and my gun
will add together my speed and the speed of the oncoming traffic.
If that isn't "closing speed," what is it?

If you are moving toward a star, the light from that star will be BLUE
shifted, meaning its light will have a higher frequency than what the star
actually emitted. If you are moving away from a star, the light from
that star will be RED shifted, meaning its light will have a lower
frequency than what the star actually emitted. The difference in
frequency is c+v and c-v.

>
> The (inertially) moving car observes a microwave beam moving at c
> relative to it.
>
> > My paper
>
> I don't care about "papers" written in ignorance. Archimedes Plutonium
> has spewed out hundreds of Kindle "books" and is very proud of that
> fact. But they just repeat his nonsense so they are all nonsense. Same
> for your "paper".
> > Read it. You might learn something.
> Maybe about how the crank mind operates.

Well, if you refuse to learn, there is no point in anyone trying to teach
you anything.

Ed

Paparios

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 4:47:03 PMNov 11
to
El jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:39:10 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:41:44 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> If you are moving toward a star, the light from that star will be BLUE
> shifted, meaning its light will have a higher frequency than what the star
> actually emitted. If you are moving away from a star, the light from
> that star will be RED shifted, meaning its light will have a lower
> frequency than what the star actually emitted. The difference in
> frequency is c+v and c-v.

How can c+v and c-v be "differences in frequency"?????

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 5:06:13 PMNov 11
to
On 11/11/2021 4:09 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>> The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.
>>>
>>> The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding how radar guns work.

>> Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>
> Photons exist. So, they're not just a "model."

Since we cannot know exactly what nature is really doing, all we have
are models that approximate what nature is doing to the best of our
abilities. We know that electromagnetic energy is quantized and
quantized energy transmission exists, and that makes a photon model a
very good one. Similarly, diffraction theory, two slit interference
patterns, the Doppler Effect, antenna theory, microwave waveguide
"plumbing" all show that the wave theory of electromagnetism is also a
very good model. But both are models since we cannot know exactly what
nature is really up to, and especially since wave and photon models
appear to contradict each other superficially. QED models things
better, with photons being quantized disturbances in the electromagnetic
field.

> Richard Feynman
> stated how you can adjust an emitter so that it emits fewer and
> fewer photons, and you can have a photomultiplier device that
> counts the photons as they arrive and where each one hits.

Nobody these days doubts electromagnetism is quantized.

>>> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.
>> Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>
> Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.

As is the photon model.

> But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
> people who think the model represents reality.

No, just because it causes YOU confusion doesn't mean that it causes
other people confusion or misleads them.
>
>>
>> Each model has their strengths and weaknesses in different situations.
>
> No. One is reality, the other is a model.

Both are models, neither is reality. We cannot know EXACTLY what nature
is up to, all we have are models.
>
>>> A radar gun emitting WAVES
>>> cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get return waves from the
>>> bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
>>> the ground and objects on the ground.

>> Eh? They all add linearly to an overall return signal.
>
> How? What does the wave look like?

Different sources of the reflection will constructively (or
destructively) combine, producing a signal of the Doppler-shifted
original frequency, but noisier than the original.

Some radar guns have an audio jack; you can LISTEN to the beat frequency
between the transmitted and (Doppler shifted) received frequencies.

> If it is like a sound wave, it
> will hit the bumper first, then the windshield, and all the while it
> is also hitting the ground at countless locations. If they all produce
> "an overall return signal," how is that possible?

They add linearly. Generally it will be the sum of reflections of all
these parts but destructive interference may send some of the signal off
angle. Not important regarding cars and police radars, unless your car
is a Stealth Bomber.
>
>>> There would be NO WAY to tell which waves to compare
>>> to the transmitted waves.
>> That is the purpose of a bandpass filter (or DSP circuit). After
>> combining with (subtracting) the original transmission frequency there
>> will be signals typically in the audio range. Based on signal strength
>> and range of interest, the filter/DSP will select for a frequency and
>> reject the others. This gets converted to a speed displayed (or the
>> display is blanked if the circuitry determines there is no valid signal).
>
> Radar guns emit photons that oscillate at a specific frequency

Photons don't oscillate.

> that
> is not emitted by anything else, for example 35 Gigahertz. The guns
> receive photons in all ranges. It ignores those photons that are not
> within a few thousand Hertz from 35 Ghz. It compares those remaining
> photons to the photons it emitted.

Photons don't even EXIST within the radar gun except beyond the antenna.
All the signals are electrical within the gun's electronics which do the
frequency comparison etc. of the original signal.

> Those that oscillate at the same
> frequency

Photons don't oscillate.

>>> With photons, all photons bouncing off the target vehicle will oscillate at the same frequency,
>> Photons don't oscillate.
>>> and all photons bouncing of the ground and objects on the ground will oscillate at the
>>> same frequency.
>> Photons don't oscillate. But if they did, now you have a "scrambled"
>> return signal of all those photons oscillating at different frequencies.
>
> You CANNOT HAVE a scrambled return signal with photons. EACH PHOTON
> IS A SIGNAL.

Photons don't even exist in the radar gun electronics which do all the work.

> NASA has an article which describes how you can emit a single
> photon and get a single photon back and measure the speed of the target.

Yes, compare the transmitted energy to the received energy and it's
doing a Doppler effect the hard way. (Photon energy proportional to
frequency)
>
> With WAVES you can have a scrambled signal because A SINGLE WAVE
> MEANS NOTHING. All it tells you is the DISTANCE to something.
> When you have TWO waves you have a "signal" that tells you the speed of a
> target. When you have TEN waves you can have the speed of MANY
> DIFFERENT TARGETS all scrambled together.

And that's why you have DSP circuitry or at least bandpass filters to
select the best signal.

>> Plus you CANNOT make up garbage which was never part of the model and
>> add it in. "Oscillating photons", I'm talking about you.
>
> If oscillating photons are not part of YOUR MODEL, then YOUR MODEL IS CRAP.

The photon model used by science doesn't use "oscillating" photons.
It's crap YOU made up, and you have no standing to tell scientists their
photon model is crap.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 5:14:18 PMNov 11
to
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 3:47:03 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:39:10 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:41:44 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > If you are moving toward a star, the light from that star will be BLUE
> > shifted, meaning its light will have a higher frequency than what the star
> > actually emitted. If you are moving away from a star, the light from
> > that star will be RED shifted, meaning its light will have a lower
> > frequency than what the star actually emitted. The difference in
> > frequency is c+v and c-v.
> How can c+v and c-v be "differences in frequency"?????

Good question, and this is my last answer for today:

A photon oscillating 35,000,000,000 times per second will hit an approaching
target traveling at 70 miles per hour AS IF it was oscillating 35,000,007,292
time per second. The extra 7,292 oscillations are from the KINETIC energy
the moving target adds to the photon. An atom in the car receives the photon
AS IF it was oscillating 35,000,007,292 time per second and the atom cannot
hold ANY excess energy, so it emits a NEW photon back toward the radar gun
that oscillates at 35,000,007,292 time per second.

Ed

Gregor Bicha

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 5:21:26 PMNov 11
to
Michael Moroney wrote:

>> If oscillating photons are not part of YOUR MODEL, then YOUR MODEL IS
>> CRAP.
>
> The photon model used by science doesn't use "oscillating" photons. It's
> crap YOU made up, and you have no standing to tell scientists their
> photon model is crap.

you too. Not knowing how em is quantized. You aint mentioning anything,
Kibo Pari.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 5:24:03 PMNov 11
to
I hope you know that making up your own definitions for words and
phrases you don't understand, then using your personal definition as if
it was the real one, is a red flag of a crackpot.

> To me, if I am traveling at 50 mph toward a car that is moving at
> 50 mph toward me, our "closing speed" is 100 mph. I can point my
> radar gun at oncoming traffic as I drive along a street, and my gun
> will add together my speed and the speed of the oncoming traffic.
> If that isn't "closing speed," what is it?

It is the ACTUAL speed of the car in the reference frame of YOUR car
(not the road). But as I recall, you don't understand reference frames.
>
> If you are moving toward a star, the light from that star will be BLUE
> shifted, meaning its light will have a higher frequency than what the star
> actually emitted. If you are moving away from a star, the light from
> that star will be RED shifted, meaning its light will have a lower
> frequency than what the star actually emitted. The difference in
> frequency is c+v and c-v.

c+v and c-v aren't even frequencies! They are speeds!

The blueshifted light will have a higher frequency AND SHORTER
WAVELENGTH than the original light. Remember frequency*wavelength =
speed for ALL waves. If the blueshifted light has a frequency 10%
higher, it will have a wavelength 10% smaller and their product will be
c (the 10% differences cancel exactly).
>
>>
>> The (inertially) moving car observes a microwave beam moving at c
>> relative to it.
>>
>>> My paper
>>
>> I don't care about "papers" written in ignorance. Archimedes Plutonium
>> has spewed out hundreds of Kindle "books" and is very proud of that
>> fact. But they just repeat his nonsense so they are all nonsense. Same
>> for your "paper".
>>> Read it. You might learn something.
>> Maybe about how the crank mind operates.
>
> Well, if you refuse to learn, there is no point in anyone trying to teach
> you anything.

No point for me to "learn" physics from someone who doesn't even
understand physics!

Gregor Bicha

unread,
Nov 11, 2021, 5:30:08 PMNov 11
to
Ed Lake wrote:

>> How can c+v and c-v be "differences in frequency"?????
>
> Good question, and this is my last answer for today:
> A photon oscillating 35,000,000,000 times per second will hit an
> approaching target traveling at 70 miles per hour AS IF it was
> oscillating 35,000,007,292 time per second. The extra 7,292
> oscillations are from the KINETIC energy the moving target adds to the
> photon. An atom in the car receives the photon AS IF it was oscillating
> 35,000,007,292 time per second and the atom cannot hold ANY excess
> energy, so it emits a NEW photon back toward the radar gun that
> oscillates at 35,000,007,292 time per second.

nonsense. You don't quantify like that. 34 teraHertz plus the minimum,
reveals you incompetent in physics. There is a need for homodyne setup.

Townes Olson

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 1:20:38 AMNov 12
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> A radar gun emits photons...

It would be better if you used a different word than "photon", because that word has a well established meaning. In physics, the word "photon" refers to an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism, and (for example) a photon does not oscillate, so when you say "these photons oscillate at such and such a frequency", you are referring to something different than what the word means. It's not just confusing, it's actually dishonest, because by using the word "photon" you are trying to smuggle the credibility that the scientific concept of a photon already possesses, even though you are using the word to refer to something completely different. It would be better and more honest for you to coin a new word for your concept, like "foton" or "Laketon". In order to communicate, your sentences can really only be parsed if we substitute the word foton for photon.

> that travel at the speed of light, c.

In terms of what reference system? As you know, everything has many different speeds (like the earth moving around the sun, etc.), so whenever you specify a speed you need to specify the reference system. Otherwise your statement is indefinite.

> Those [fotons] oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v.
> That gives the [fotons] an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.

Here you contradict yourself, because the speed at which an object encounters an oscillating foton would not cause the frequency of oscillation to be any different. Remember, relativistic time dilation is many orders of magnitude too small to account for the frequency shift that is observed depending on the relative speed between source and receiver. The way scientists explain the observed frequency shift of the radiation is by the Doppler effect, but that doesn't apply to an oscillating particle like your foton, it applies only to propagating variations of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the observed Doppler effect on frequency is consistent with the scientific concept of photons and electromagnetic radiation, but it is not consistent with your concept of what I'm calling a foton (to distinguish it from a photon and avoid conflating the two).

> Atoms in the vehicle send [fotons] with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun.

The only way for the atoms in the vehicle to do such a thing would be to sense the energy of the incident foton in the frame of the vehicle, and then send a return foton with the same energy in the frame. But this has nothing to do with the hypothesized oscillation of the foton, it depends purely on the direct extrinsic kinetic energy of movement, not on its internal energy of oscillation, which would be independent of its speed of motion. So you could dispense with the oscillation altogether, and just say the vehicle senses the energy of the incoming foton and sends a return foton with the same energy (both in terms of the vehicle's frame).

> Those photons also travel at c.

In terms of what system of reference? See above.

> The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it emitted to the
> oscillation frequency of the [fotons] it got back and is thus able to compute the
> speed of the oncoming vehicle.

In science, with actual photons, it is true that the ratio of transmitted to returned frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and vehicle, but with your fotons this doesn't work, unless you switch from frequency to energy.... but actual speed guns don't work with energy, they work with frequency (although in theory they *could* work with energy, it just wouldn't be practical).

> The only way this is possible is if the [fotons] hit the target at c+v...

Well, a pulse of light arrives at the vehicle at speed c+v in terms of a system of reference related to the gun's system of reference by a Galilean transformation, but it arrives at speed c in terms of the inertial system of reference of the vehicle. That's why it's so important for you to specify what system of reference you are talking about. But this is really a side issue. The main contradiction in your reasoning is that you think an oscillating particle would appear to exhibit a different frequency when encountering some object, depending on the object's speed. That is untrue, because such oscillation is intrinsic.

Do you see the contradiction, or should I explain it more fully?

It would also help if you could state which phenomena you've observed with your simple radar speed gun that you think is inconsistent with what science predicts for its behavior. Have you ever observed it to read anything other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 1:36:26 AMNov 12
to
Like your idiot guru.


> No point for me to "learn" physics from someone who doesn't even
> understand physics!

In the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic physics GPS clocks keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

Townes Olson

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 9:55:42 AMNov 12
to
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:09:46 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.

Have you ever seen a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun read anything other than the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

Do you agree that the difference between the transmitted and reflected frequencies is proportional to the rate of change of the distance between gun and target?

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 10:54:00 AMNov 12
to
35 GIGAhertz is a common oscillating frequency for photons emitted by
radar guns. Nothing else in Nature emits photons of that frequency, so
the returning photons can easily be separated from Nature's photons.

The "homodyne setup" is in the radar gun. It combines the photons it
emitted to the photons it gets back, which produces the BEAT frequency -
which would be 7,292 Hertz for a target traveling at 70 mph.

7,292 Hertz as a percentage of 35 GigaHertz is directly convertible to
70 mph as a percentage of 670,616,629 mph, the speed of light. You
just need to multiply 35 GHz by 2 first. I have a table of such calculations
on page 7 of my paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" at this link:
https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 11:20:57 AMNov 12
to
Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 10:17 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>> The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the
>>>> only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency
>>>> received by the radar gun.
>>>
>>> The FACT that PHOTONS are emitted and received is KEY to understanding
>>> how radar guns work.
>> Photons are a model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>
> Photons exist. So, they're not just a "model." Richard Feynman
> stated how you can adjust an emitter so that it emits fewer and
> fewer photons, and you can have a photomultiplier device that
> counts the photons as they arrive and where each one hits.
>
>>> If you just talk about frequencies, people will think about waves.
>> Waves are another model of how electromagnetic radiation works.
>
> Yes, waves are JUST A MODEL of how electromagnetic radiation works.
> But it seems to be a MODEL that misleads and causes confusion for
> people who think the model represents reality.

Ed, this is where you lose your grip. Photons and waves are both models.
They both describe real things in the world.

This exemplifies your lack of understanding of physics (and of science in
general), where you select one model for favor and denigrate others.
Physicists don’t do that. They recognize that there are different ways to
describe the same phenomena in nature, and their suitability often depends
on context. You are telling physicists, no, no, no, there should be one and
only one correct way to describe things and how they work. Physicists will
tell you, no, no, no, there are multiple ways to describe the same things
in nature. This happens over and over in physics.

>
>>
>> Each model has their strengths and weaknesses in different situations.
>
> No. One is reality, the other is a model.
>
>>> A radar gun emitting WAVES
>>> cannot possibly work. The return waves would be scrambled. You'd get
>>> return waves from the
>>> bumper mixed with return waves from the windshield and all mixed with return waves from
>>> the ground and objects on the ground.
>> Eh? They all add linearly to an overall return signal.
>
> How? What does the wave look like? If it is like a sound wave, it
> will hit the bumper first, then the windshield, and all the while it
> is also hitting the ground at countless locations. If they all produce
> "an overall return signal," how is that possible?

The superposition principle is covered in a first year physics book, and it
is assumed that anyone who reads further on more advanced topics like
relativity and quantum mechanics is already familiar with it.

Keep in mind, sonar does work, even though from the above it seems you
cannot image how that’s possible. You think that waves will always get
hopelessly scrambled, and you use this “argument” to claim that radio waves
cannot possibly be how radar guns work. And yet sonar works, with sound
waves, and sound waves do all the things you point out that you say make it
impossible to work.

One additional comment about what you think physics is. You’ve said that
physics is about figuring out how things work. Taking apart a toaster to
see how it works is not physics. Talking to users of toasters to see what
happens when they use toasters in different applications is not physics.
Likewise, taking apart a radar gun or studying documents about how they
work is not physics. Talking with police officers about what happens when
they use them is not physics. It would help if you would learn what physics
really is, rather than just trying to align physics with the kind of
“analysis” you like to do. What you do is not doing physics.
No, Ed. You are saying that unless the model adheres to your guesses as to
what it means, then it is crap. Frequency as applied to photons does not
refer to a wiggling back and forth or a spinning around some axis. I get
that it must be frustrating to run into a word you THINK you understand in
this context and discover people telling you that it’s wrong.

Getting angry at discovering you don’t understand something is fruitless.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 11:20:58 AMNov 12
to
And there’s no good argument for needing that. The receiver in the one gun
is a different device than the emitter in the same gun. Does the reflection
off the surface of the trailer have no effect, according to you? If not,
then your explanation of how the gun works doesn’t apply.

>
> I describe that proposed experiment in detail starting on page 8 of my
> paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
>
> (snip repetitious stuff)
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 12, 2021, 11:20:59 AMNov 12