Radar guns and the speed of light

[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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Ed Lake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ed Lake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This is a clear example of you guessing what a jargon term means, rather
than learning what it means. When you do this, you’re going to make a
mistake.

Guessing on a newsgroup and expecting that if your guess is wrong, someone
will educate you, is a bad strategy. All that happens is that the value of
what you say decreases every single time you misstep, until the only
response you get is “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

>
> 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, if you don’t know what terms like “closing speed” mean in physics, then
why would you take the stance that you have something of value to teach
others?

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:20:38 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, 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.

Actually, it doesn't. There are DOZENS of different definitions. Generally,
the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

> 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.

A photon is the transmission of energy from one atom to another.
That energy is in the form of oscillations of electric and magnetic
fields within the photon. The number of oscillations per second
represents the energy contained in the photon.

> 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.

Photons travel at the speed of light, c, which is relative to the
atom that emitted the photon. As Einstein's Second Postulate
says, regardless any motion of the emitter (the atom) light
will travel at c. That is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
RELATIVE to the emitting atom.

Yes, that means that light emitted by an atom in a comet will
travel at a different c than light emitted by an atom on Earth.
That is because a second is shorter on the comet than it is
on Earth. See my paper on "Variable Time and the Variable
Speed of Light": https://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf

>
> > 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 "APPARENT higher oscillation frequency" has nothing to do with
Time Dilation. It's all about energy. The photon has a specific amount
of energy, and when it hits an object traveling at v toward the light,
the moving object transfers KINETIC energy to the photon when the
photon is absorbed by an atom in the object. The amount of KINETIC
energy that is added is convertible to v.

> 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).

So, we agree. The moving target adds KINETIC energy to the photon.

> > Those photons also travel at c.
> In terms of what system of reference? See above.

In terms of the emitting source. 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).

Frequency is directly related to energy. The amount of energy in a photon
depends upon its oscillation frequency.

>
> > 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.

Total nonsense. The speed of light is Nature's reference system.
NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light. All motion by
other objects can be valued as a percentage of the speed of light.
That's why Einstein said that the aether becomes "superfluous."
You don't need it. You can use Nature's speed limit as measuring
stick for all other speeds.

A photon emitted by an emitter will hit an oncoming object at c+v,
and it will hit a receding object at c-v. The difference will be shown
by the energy of the photon. When the photon hits at c+v, Kinetic
energy is added to the photon. When the photon hits a c-v, Kinetic
energy is subtracted from the photon.

> 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?

There is no contradiction. You just fail to understand how Relativity
works. It uses Nature's maximum speed as a reference for all other
speeds.

>
> 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?

Science correctly predicts all behavior by radar guns. It is MATHEMATICIANS
who cannot accept how radar guns work.

Ed

[Coke Alva]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> > 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.
>
> 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.

does not matter, you count the difference, not the giga. Your giga is 5G.

What's the resolution on Hertz?

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:55:42 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:09:46 PM UTC-8, 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?

A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a SPEED.
That SPEED represents (c+v)-c for an approaching target or (c+v+v)-c
for a moving radar moving toward and approaching 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?

No. See above.

Ed

[Townes Olson]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:49:50 AM 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?
>
> A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a SPEED.

But the rate of change of distance is a speed, and this is the speed that a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun reads. For example, if you are driving at 30 mph and point the gun at someone ahead of you who is driving (same direction) at 60 mph, the gun will read 30 mph. That's the rate of change of the distance between the gun and the target. Likewise if the person ahead was driving straight toward you at 60 mph, the gun would read 90 mph. Again that is the rate of change of the distance between you. That is always what a simple radar gun displays.

So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun read anything other than the rate of change of the distance?

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

It happens when mathematicians use different equations instead of finding
out EXACTLY how something works. Science is about defining problems
and solutions. I use the scientific method.

The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that
describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis,
and 4) draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis until all tests produce
the same result.
Critical thinking is a key component of the scientific method. Without it,
you cannot use logic to come to conclusions.

If you conclude that a photon is BOTH a particle and a wave, then YOU
HAVE A PROBLEM. You need to perform experiments to define EXACTLY
how a photon works. That has been done many times. A photon is a
discrete quantity of energy in the form of a particle that always travels
at the speed of light. It's energy is in the form of oscillations of its
electric and magnetic fields. The faster the oscillation rate, the more
energy the photon contains.

(snip repetitious stuff)

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I explain all that on page 9 in my paper about "Relativity and Radar Guns."

BOTH guns will measure the speed of the walls as zero as if they were the
ground, and they will measure the speed of the truck by comparing the
photons from the SECOND GUN to the photons emitted by the FIRST GUN.
The raw photons from the SECOND GUN will be processed as if they came
from a target, and the speed will be shown as the target speed.

[Ed Lake]

The difference is 7,292 Hertz. I do not understand what you mean by
"Your giga is 5g."

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:03:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

No.

[Coke Alva]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> does not matter, you count the difference, not the giga. Your giga is
>> 5G.
>>
>> What's the resolution on Hertz?
>
> The difference is 7,292 Hertz. I do not understand what you mean by
> "Your giga is 5g."

giga is the region allocated 5G. The 26 GHz is sucked in by oxygen,
preventing you from breathing. What's the resolution in speed per Hertz,
or you don't know it yet??

[rotchm]

LOL!!!

Keep e'm coming Ned...!

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/12/21 11:31 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:03:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson
> wrote:
>> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-8, 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?
>>> A radar gun does not display any "rate of change." It displays a
>>> SPEED.
>> But the rate of change of distance is a speed, and this is the

>> speed that a simple (so called "stationary") radar gun reads.[...]

>> So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun
>> read anything other than the rate of change of the distance?
>
> No.

Finally! A correct statement about radar guns from Ed Lake.

So what do you think about your original claim (many moons ago) that
such a radar gun inside a closed truck, aimed from the front at the
inside of its back, would indicate the road speed of the truck, rather
than zero? Have you tried this with your radar gun?

So what do you think of your original claim (many moons ago) that such a
radar gun in a moving vehicle, pointed at a tree straight ahead, would
read zero, rather than the road speed of the vehicle? Have you tried
this with your radar gun?

Have you made any progress in understanding what the word "always" means
in the introduction to Einstein's 1905 paper? In particular, for the
propagation of light [#] does "the definite velocity c" apply to the
inertial frame in which the radar gun is at rest, as well as that of the
roadway and that of the target of the radar gun?

Hint: "always" does include all three frames I just mentioned.
And, of course, it includes both the initial emitted beam and
the reflected beam, independent of the radar gun's speed and
the target's speed (both relative to the roadway or anything
else).

[#] Unstated, but implicitly in vacuum.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/12/21 10:43 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> There are DOZENS of different definitions [of the word "photon"]. Generally,

> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

You are confusing popularizations of physics with physics. In different
popularizations, different meanings of words are used. In physics, the
word "photon" has a single meaning, and it is what Townes Olson said:
"an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism".

[This inherently includes the fact that photons do not
oscillate, and that individual photons do not "have"
a speed; but coherent beams of myriad photons do
oscillate (under the right conditions), and do have a
definite speed (which is c in vacuum, relative to any
locally inertial frame). I am speaking loosely here.]

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

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 dis.

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/12/2021 11:43 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:20:38 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, 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.
>
> Actually, it doesn't. There are DOZENS of different definitions. Generally,
> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

Yet those definitions don't include that bit about "oscillation". Maybe
the Laketon does, if you want to define it that way.

>
>> 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.
>
> A photon is the transmission of energy from one atom to another.
> That energy is in the form of oscillations of electric and magnetic
> fields within the photon.

That's not part of any definition of photon.

> The number of oscillations per second
> represents the energy contained in the photon.

Which is different in different reference frames. We see this as
redshift/blueshift (Doppler effect).

>
>> 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.

Ed, remember what I said just yesterday about making up your own
definition for words and phrases you don't understand? In this case,
you (try to) redefine "photon". Call them "fotons" or "Laketons" as
suggested.

>>> 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.
>
> Photons travel at the speed of light, c, which is relative to the
> atom that emitted the photon. As Einstein's Second Postulate
> says, regardless any motion of the emitter (the atom) light
> will travel at c. That is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
> RELATIVE to the emitting atom.

And relative to every other inertial frame as well.

>
> Yes, that means that light emitted by an atom in a comet will
> travel at a different c than light emitted by an atom on Earth.

Violation of Einstein's second postulate, as well as every attempt to
measure the speed of light from moving objects.

> That is because a second is shorter on the comet than it is
> on Earth.

Blithering gibberish.

> See my paper on "Variable Time and the Variable
> Speed of Light": https://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf

Manifestos are not evidence or proof of anything You can't use yourself
as a reference.

>
>>
>>> 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 "APPARENT higher oscillation frequency" has nothing to do with
> Time Dilation. It's all about energy. The photon has a specific amount
> of energy,

[you need to clarify, relative to which frame]

> and when it hits an object traveling at v toward the light,

You must mean at v relative to some frame of reference [which?].

> the moving object transfers KINETIC energy to the photon when the
> photon is absorbed by an atom in the object. The amount of KINETIC
> energy that is added is convertible to v.

Convertible? Who said the speeding car is a convertible?
But what you state is borderline correct if you make reference frames clear.

>>> 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).
>
> So, we agree. The moving target adds KINETIC energy to the photon.

If the reference frames are consistent. (remember, kinetic energy is
frame dependent so you have to keep frames straight).

>
>>> Those photons also travel at c.
>> In terms of what system of reference? See above.
>
> In terms of the emitting source. See above.

And every other inertial reference frame (SR Second Postulate).

>
>>
>>> 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).
>
> Frequency is directly related to energy.

For large assemblies of photons. (I need to find out how E=hf, or f=E/h
works for large assemblies of photons if an individual photon doesn't
have a frequency)

> The amount of energy in a photon
> depends upon its oscillation frequency.

Maybe that's true for Laketons, but photons don't oscillate.

>>> 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.
>
> Total nonsense. The speed of light is Nature's reference system.

And it's the same in every [inertial] reference frame. Einstein's Second
Postulate.

> NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light.

So why do you claim that your Laketons arrive at the speeding car at c+v?

> All motion by
> other objects can be valued as a percentage of the speed of light.

Nonsense. Motion is variable and depends on reference frames. I am
stationary with respect to Earth, but Earth orbits the sun at something
like 65,000 mph, so I move with respect to the sun at 65,000 mph. (and
with respect to the Milky Way center at...)

> That's why Einstein said that the aether becomes "superfluous."
> You don't need it. You can use Nature's speed limit as measuring
> stick for all other speeds.

No, he said that because all of what he said doesn't depend on
postulating any aether to do that.

>
> A photon emitted by an emitter will hit an oncoming object at c+v,

Violation of Second Postulate.

> and it will hit a receding object at c-v.

Violation of Second Postulate.

> The difference will be shown
> by the energy of the photon. When the photon hits at c+v, Kinetic
> energy is added to the photon. When the photon hits a c-v, Kinetic
> energy is subtracted from the photon.

No, the Doppler Effect is the result of the motion on the photon.

>
>> 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?
>
> There is no contradiction. You just fail to understand how Relativity
> works. It uses Nature's maximum speed as a reference for all other
> speeds.

But it contradicts oscillation frequencies being absolute.

>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Science correctly predicts all behavior by radar guns. It is MATHEMATICIANS
> who cannot accept how radar guns work.

Mathematics doesn't care about radar guns. Mathematics is abstract.
Science correctly predicts things you claim are wrong.

[Michael Moroney]

If the transmitter and receiver of radar guns are logically separate,
why can't you use the transmitter from just one gun?

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:20:38 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:45:14 AM UTC-8, 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.
>
> Actually, it doesn't. There are DOZENS of different definitions. Generally,
> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."

Actually, it is not the “best” definition by any useful standard, other
than the fact that it is understandable by you and uses plain language.

To point out why it isn’t as useful as you seem to think it is, it uses a
phrase of “quantum of…radiation” or “smallest discrete amount
of…radiation”, but I’m willing to bet you do not know what “quantum of
radiation” means, though it is understood by physicists and by those who
have read a lot of physics textbooks.

The best definition is not the one that can be stated concisely in the
plainest language possible. The best definition is one that conveys full
meaning. For something as subtle as photon, this requires pages, not just a
few words. I am willing to bet that you have never a read a definition of
photon that occupies multiple pages.

>
>> 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.
>
> A photon is the transmission of energy from one atom to another.
> That energy is in the form of oscillations of electric and magnetic
> fields within the photon.

And that is your guess as to what “photon” means, and it is completely
wrong. There are no fields “inside” photons, nor can there be, by the very
definition of “field”, which you obviously do not know.

> The number of oscillations per second
> represents the energy contained in the photon.
>

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/12/2021 12:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> It happens when mathematicians use

Nothing to do with mathematicians. We're discussing physics here, not
mathematics. (*)

> If you conclude that a photon is BOTH a particle and a wave, then YOU
> HAVE A PROBLEM.

No, the conclusion is that light acts like a particle (photon) in some
cases and like a wave in other cases.

Your mistake here is that you've already latched onto the photon model
as if it applies for ALL cases of light/EM radiation. The photon model
doesn't work for diffraction, for example.

> You need to perform experiments to define EXACTLY
> how a photon works.

No, you need to perform experiments to define exactly how LIGHT works.

> That has been done many times. A photon is a
> discrete quantity of energy in the form of a particle that always travels
> at the speed of light.

> It's energy is in the form of oscillations of its
> electric and magnetic fields.

That's your ASSUMPTION, and is not based on facts or any experiment.

When scientists perform experiments on light, they find that SOMETIMES
the [correct, not your] photon model works correctly, and other times
(Diffraction, Doppler effect, etc) the wave model works correctly.

(*) Now, if you're having mathematicians do the science experiments and
your mathematicians concluded that photons oscillate, that's your
problem right there. Mathematicians don't do science experiments. They
need to stick to mathematics, rather than confusing you.

[Townes Olson]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > So, with that clarification, have you ever seen a simple radar gun read anything
> other than the rate of change of the distance?
>
> No.

That's great, we're in agreement on how radar speed guns behave... but this presents a problem, because it means we can't use the behavior of radar speed guns to distinguish between our different ideas about the physics. We both make the same prediction for every experiment.

But this wasn't always the case. You previously had some very different beliefs about what a simple speed gun would read in various circumstances, based on your ideas about physics. So it was worthwhile for you to actually get a speed gun and find out that it doesn't behave the way you thought. Based on the standard scientific ideas, everyone else correctly predicted how your speed gun would behave, and based on your ideas you incorrectly predicted how it would behave. Once the experiment was performed, and the prediction based on the standard ideas was confirmed, and the prediction based on your ideas was falsified, it's interesting that this didn't lead you to suspect that perhaps the standard ideas are correct and yours are wrong.

In any case, since we all now agree on how radar speed guns behave, it just comes down to deciding whose ideas about the underlying physics are logical and rational, and whose are not. We can't use experiments with radar guns to give us any more guidance (now that it has falsified your original predictions). The strange thing is that you changed your predictions without changing your theory. I think you can do that only because there is no solid logical connection between your abstract theory and your predictions.

[Ed Lake]

Yes to both. The gun didn't work the way I thought it would. So, I did
some INVESTIGATIVE SCIENCE to find out why. It turns out that when
a radar gun is used in a moving vehicle, the photons returning from the
target hit the gun at c+v. I didn't expect that. I thought the gun would
compensate in some way and eliminate that factor.

>
> Have you made any progress in understanding what the word "always" means
> in the introduction to Einstein's 1905 paper? In particular, for the
> propagation of light [#] does "the definite velocity c" apply to the
> inertial frame in which the radar gun is at rest, as well as that of the
> roadway and that of the target of the radar gun?

Actually, neither. "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body,"
WHETHER THE EMITTING BODY IS INERTIAL OR PROPELLED. And the light
will hit the roadway or a target at c+v or c-v.

>
> Hint: "always" does include all three frames I just mentioned.
> And, of course, it includes both the initial emitted beam and
> the reflected beam, independent of the radar gun's speed and
> the target's speed (both relative to the roadway or anything
> else).
>
> [#] Unstated, but implicitly in vacuum.

No, "always" means it doesn't matter if the emitter is inertial or propelled.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I've found DOZENS of different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate
in college physics textbooks. I've never researched definitions of "photon."
I suspect there will be dozens of different definitions of that, too.
But, as I recall, it was difficult to find the word photon in some college
physics textbooks.

Picking a text book at random, I looked through "Physics for Scientists &
Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli. It doesn't use
the word photon until page 989, where it says, "Since all light ultimately comes from a radiating
source, this suggests that perhaps light is transmitted as tiny particles, or photons, as
they are now called, as well as via waves predicted by Maxwell’s electromagnetic
theory. The photon theory of light was a radical departure from classical ideas.
Einstein proposed a test of the quantum theory of light: quantitative measurements
on the photoelectric effect."

So, it says photons are particles "as well as waves." But, of course,
it doesn't explain how a light can be both a particle and a wave. That
would involve SCIENCE, not just mathematical physics.

The answer is: Photons have oscillating electric and magnetic fields
which cause them to have SOME wave-like properties.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Because when you are inside a moving truck and point a
radar gun at the front wall, photons from the gun will hit that
wall at c-v. Atoms in the wall will then emit photons back to
the radar gun with the lower oscillation rate that corresponds
to c-v.

When those photons hit the gun, they hit at c+v. That means
the gun will, in effect, compute c-v+v=c and will produce a
reading of zero.

By having a second gun, the first gun emits photons at c
and those photons hit the second gun at c+v or c-v. The
second gun assumes the photons are from a target and
computes the speed of the truck carrying the guns.

Simple. BUT you need two guns that transmit at the
exact same frequency. Otherwise the difference in
frequencies will be computed as the target speed. And
if the computed speed is over 200 mph or less than 10 mph,
the gun won't display it. It is assumed to be an error.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

If they are competent scientists, that would be insufficient. They would
NEED to find out WHY you need two models for a photon. Every photon
emitted by a radar gun is IDENTICAL to every other photon the gun emits.
If you use one mathematical model and it says the photon acts like a
particle and then you use another mathematical model that says a photon
acts like a wave, YOU NEED TO FIND AN EXPLANATION THAT INCLUDES
BOTH PROPERTIES -- even if you don't know who to turn that explanation
into a single mathematical model.,

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

As I explained in a response to someone else:

"The gun didn't work the way I thought it would. So, I did
some INVESTIGATIVE SCIENCE to find out why. It turns out that when
a radar gun is used in a moving vehicle, the photons returning from the
target hit the gun at c+v. I didn't expect that. I thought the gun would
compensate in some way and eliminate that factor."

In science, when things do not work the way you expect, you INVESTIGATE
to find out why. That's what I did. What it meant was that I could not use
a SINGLE radar gun to measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck,
I would have to use TWO radar guns which emit photons that oscillate at
the exact same frequency.

All other factors remain the same.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

One final comment before I sign off for today:

This has been a VERY interesting discussion. It CONFIRMS that
mathematicians simply DO NOT CARE how light works. If they
need one mathematical model for certain situations and another
mathematical model for other situations, that is FINE with them.

A SCIENTIST would find that TOTALLY unacceptable.
A physicist should also find that unacceptable.

Scientists and physicists should DEMAND to find out WHY
light has wave properties AND particle properties.

The answer, of course, is that a photon has oscillating electric
and magnetic fields. The photon is a PARTICLE. The oscillating
fields give it some wave like properties.

I'll be back tomorrow.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

No, sorry that description applies to engineering as well, and that is not
science.

As I’ve mentioned to you, science is not what you think it is. That’s to be
expected, as you’ve never formally studied what physics is.

> I use the scientific method.
>
> The basic steps of the scientific method are: 1) make an observation that
> describes a problem, 2) create a hypothesis, 3) test the hypothesis,
> and 4) draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis until all tests produce
> the same result.
> Critical thinking is a key component of the scientific method. Without it,
> you cannot use logic to come to conclusions.
>
> If you conclude that a photon is BOTH a particle and a wave, then YOU
> HAVE A PROBLEM.

No, you don’t. The hidden assumption is that there are two mutually
exclusive AND exhaustive categories: particles and waves. You have mentally
excluded the possibility that there is a third category. That is, that
particles and waves are not exhaustive at all.

As it turns out, there is a third category that has a jargon name: quantum
field. I know you don’t know what that means. It also turns out that
photons are neither particles nor waves, but are instead quantum fields
(or, more precisely, the quanta of a quantum field). So it’s not true that
a photon is both a particle and a wave; it is in fact true that it is
NEITHER, but that a quantum field has some behaviors that are like
particles and some behaviors that are like waves (which is fine without
them being particles or waves).

As it also turns out, electrons are also quantum fields.

> You need to perform experiments to define EXACTLY
> how a photon works. That has been done many times. A photon is a
> discrete quantity of energy in the form of a particle that always travels
> at the speed of light.

Nope. That’s incorrect. (Quoting Feynman won’t help you here. He had a
different understanding of “particle” than you do.)

> It's energy is in the form of oscillations of its
> electric and magnetic fields. The faster the oscillation rate, the more
> energy the photon contains.
>
> (snip repetitious stuff)
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

And so you are now ADJUSTING your prediction that a radar gun aimed from
the cab of a truck to the wall of the trailer would read the ground speed
of the truck. This did not happen, and so you have tried to find an
explanation for why your idea’s prediction did not match experiment — and
then you adjusted the prediction to match the actual observation.

This, in case you didn’t know, is a scientific no-no.

A real scientist would say, “My idea gave a prediction that was not
confirmed by experiment. This means my idea is wrong. I have to start
over.”

>
>>>
>>> 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
>

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 3:42:56 PM UTC-6, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> Scientists and physicists should DEMAND to find out WHY
> light has wave properties AND particle properties.
>
> The answer, of course, is that a photon has oscillating electric
> and magnetic fields. The photon is a PARTICLE. The oscillating
> fields give it some wave like properties.

No, that's wrong. Many people better versed than me in the subject
have tried to explain to you why your concepts are screwed up, so
I won't bother. Suffice to say that your vixra paper was very painful
to read. The "strong" version of the second postulate found in most
college textbooks is a simple lemma resulting from applying the
first postulate to Einstein's original "weak" statement of the second
postulate. Your paper got stupider and stupider the further along I
read through it.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, sorry, Ed, but you have this preconception about what you think science
SHOULD be, irrespective of what it actually IS. Science does not match your
expectations of it, that’s plain. But that’s because you don’t know what
science actually is or does.

> They would
> NEED to find out WHY you need two models for a photon. Every photon
> emitted by a radar gun is IDENTICAL to every other photon the gun emits.
> If you use one mathematical model and it says the photon acts like a
> particle and then you use another mathematical model that says a photon
> acts like a wave, YOU NEED TO FIND AN EXPLANATION THAT INCLUDES
> BOTH PROPERTIES -- even if you don't know who to turn that explanation
> into a single mathematical model.,

There is one, by the way. It’s the one that represents electromagnetism as
a quantum field, neither as a wave or as a particle. I’m aware you know
nothing of this, let alone what “quantum” or “field” or “quantum field”
mean.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 12:49:00 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 11/12/21 10:43 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> There are DOZENS of different definitions [of the word "photon"]. Generally,
>>> the BEST definitions are something like: "A photon is the smallest discrete
>>> amount or quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light."
>> You are confusing popularizations of physics with physics. In different
>> popularizations, different meanings of words are used. In physics, the
>> word "photon" has a single meaning, and it is what Townes Olson said:
>> "an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism".
>>
>> [This inherently includes the fact that photons do not
>> oscillate, and that individual photons do not "have"
>> a speed; but coherent beams of myriad photons do
>> oscillate (under the right conditions), and do have a
>> definite speed (which is c in vacuum, relative to any
>> locally inertial frame). I am speaking loosely here.]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> I've found DOZENS of different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate
> in college physics textbooks. I've never researched definitions of "photon."
> I suspect there will be dozens of different definitions of that, too.
> But, as I recall, it was difficult to find the word photon in some college
> physics textbooks.

Well, that’s because freshmen physics textbooks don’t touch on that subject
much. What a photon is, exactly, is an subtle thing that cannot be defined
simply for laypeople, unless they read a lot of non-photon content FIRST.
You have to learn what “field” means. You have to learn what “particle”
means. You have to learn what “quantum” means. You have to learn what
“quantum spin” means. You can’t learn a topic in physics by looking up an
encyclopedia article or by searching for the word in a PDF file or a web
page.

>
> Picking a text book at random, I looked through "Physics for Scientists &
> Engineers with Modern Physics" by Douglas C. Giancoli.

That is a first-year book. Photons aren’t really covered well until a third
year book.

> It doesn't use
> the word photon until page 989, where it says, "Since all light
> ultimately comes from a radiating
> source, this suggests that perhaps light is transmitted as tiny particles, or photons, as
> they are now called, as well as via waves predicted by Maxwell’s electromagnetic
> theory. The photon theory of light was a radical departure from classical ideas.
> Einstein proposed a test of the quantum theory of light: quantitative measurements
> on the photoelectric effect."
>
> So, it says photons are particles "as well as waves."

No, it says that light is transmitted as particles (photons) as well as
being transmitted as waves.

> But, of course,
> it doesn't explain how a light can be both a particle and a wave.

That’s right, it doesn’t. It’s a first year book. It’s not going to answer
such questions. Such questions don’t get answered until a more advanced
book.

> That
> would involve SCIENCE, not just mathematical physics.

Nonsense. All the books in physics use mathematics.

>
> The answer is: Photons have oscillating electric and magnetic fields
> which cause them to have SOME wave-like properties.

No, that’s wrong. That’s you making a guess to try to fill in a void where
you haven’t found a reference to answer it for you. So you made up an
answer for yourself.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> One final comment before I sign off for today:
>
> This has been a VERY interesting discussion. It CONFIRMS that
> mathematicians simply DO NOT CARE how light works. If they
> need one mathematical model for certain situations and another
> mathematical model for other situations, that is FINE with them.
>
> A SCIENTIST would find that TOTALLY unacceptable.
> A physicist should also find that unacceptable.

Sorry, Ed, but you have completely silly ideas of what should and should
not be acceptable to scientists.

>
> Scientists and physicists should DEMAND to find out WHY
> light has wave properties AND particle properties.

As I said, you have a pretty silly idea of what science should be about. I
get that YOU PERSONALLY want there to be ONE, single, clear explanation of
how something works.

You’ve obviously never taken a course in first year physics, where students
are DELIBERATELY given multiple examples of systems where there are
multiple explanations. Two unequal weights joined by a string over a
pulley, for example. The motion of the weights and the pulley is explained
first using forces and accelerations and Newton’s laws. Then it is again
explained using conservation of momentum and impulse. Then it is again
explained using conservation of energy. Then it is again explained using
the principle of least action. And so on and so on.

You as a student would be COMPLETELY frustrated and splutter, “But what
then is the RIGHT explanation??” And you would be incensed to hear the
physicist say that they’re all right. They all explain the behavior.

YOU would find that unacceptable, perhaps. And so you would lose the point
completely that the physicist is making, about how the same phenomenon can
be explained CORRECTLY using different models for what’s going on. That
would have been the whole point of that exercise, and you would have missed
it.

>
> The answer, of course, is that a photon has oscillating electric
> and magnetic fields. The photon is a PARTICLE. The oscillating
> fields give it some wave like properties.
>
> I'll be back tomorrow.
>
> Ed
>

[Townes Olson]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...

To be clear about this, if an emitter is moving at speed v along the road and it emits a pulse of light straight ahead, how fast do you think the pulse is moving in the road's system of reference? You say it moves at c relative to the emitter, so are you claiming it moves at c+v relative to the road?

> ...when a radar gun is used in a moving vehicle, the photons returning from the

> target hit the gun at c+v. I didn't expect that.

Hold on... are you saying that the returning light pulse is moving at speed c+v relative to the gun that is stationary on the ground? And that it is moving at c relative to the target? In other words, are you saying that the original pulse goes from the gun at speed c relative to the gun, and it hits the on-coming target at speed c+v relative to the target, and then the return pulse travels at c relative to the target and hits the gun at c+v?

> To measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck, I would have to use

> TWO radar guns which emit photons that oscillate at the exact same frequency.

That is just as wrong as your previous belief. The Doppler shift works in each direction individually, and the round trip Doppler is just the square of the one-way Doppler. In every case the Doppler shift in frequency is proportional to the rate of change of the distance. The Doppler effect is demonstrated countless times in countless ways every day.

> Light emitted by an atom in a comet will travel at a different c than
> light emitted by an atom on Earth. That is because a second is shorter

> on the comet than it is on Earth.

Again, relativistic time dilation is orders of magnitude too small to account for the fact that the speed of light is c in terms of both the inertial reference system of the comet and of the earth. The explanation for why light propagates at c in terms of both of those reference systems is given clearly in Einstein's 1905 paper (not to mention thousands of other places).

> So, we agree. The moving target adds KINETIC energy to the photon.

Indeed, the energy of a photon striking the target is greater than the energy of that photon emitted from the gun, in terms of their respective systems of reference. And when the reflected photon arrives back at the gun, the energy is increased by the square of that factor. To make a speed gun that works with individual photons (super low intensity source) you would need to work with the energy, but actual speed guns do not measure the energy of individual photons, they measure the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation comprised of a huge number of photons.

> The photon is a PARTICLE. The oscillating fields give it some wave like properties.

It is a particle, but not a classical particle (i.e., it does not have a single trajectory like what you have in mind), it is a quantum particle. I think you are forgetting the interference effects in the two-slit experiment for an individual photon, or electron. I think you were misled by a careless reading of Feynman, who says light is composed of particles, but goes on to say that it isn't really particles, and it isn't really waves, so we should perhaps call it wavicles, but for convenience he decided to call it particles, with the caveat that it is not what you (Ed) imagine as particles.

> The speed of light is Nature's reference system.

A speed isn't a reference system.

> All motion by other objects can be valued as a percentage of the speed of light.

That's just choosing a unit for speed, which is trivial, that isn't what is needed to determine the speed of an object relative to the sun or the earth or a car on the road, etc. Again, a speed is not a reference system, and a choice of units is not a reference system. Before you can talk about speeds, you have to be able to explain what you mean by the word. What scientists mean is the rate of change of position with time, and to quantify position and time involves a system of reference.

> There is no contradiction.

There actually is a contradiction, because internal oscillations of the particle you imagine are independent of the relative speed of a particle. If an object is oscillating at 100 Hz, it is oscillating at that frequency regardless of how it is moving relative to you. It does not subject to the Doppler effect, whereas the energy of light is subject to the Doppler effect, because it is extrinsic energy, not intrinsic.

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/12/2021 4:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:43:06 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/12/2021 12:20 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:20:58 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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 explain all that on page 9 in my paper about "Relativity and Radar Guns."
>>>
>>> BOTH guns will measure the speed of the walls as zero as if they were the
>>> ground, and they will measure the speed of the truck by comparing the
>>> photons from the SECOND GUN to the photons emitted by the FIRST GUN.
>>> The raw photons from the SECOND GUN will be processed as if they came
>>> from a target, and the speed will be shown as the target speed.
>> If the transmitter and receiver of radar guns are logically separate,
>> why can't you use the transmitter from just one gun?

Well you are really making up excuses why a radar gun in a moving truck
reads 0, but I'll play along...

> Because when you are inside a moving truck and point a
> radar gun

The radar gun is stationary in what frame?

> at the front wall,

The front wall is in what frame?

> photons from the gun will hit that
> wall at c-v.

And v is the velocity of what, relative to which frame?

> Atoms in the wall will then emit photons back to
> the radar gun

The gun is still in the same frame, I assume? You need to be clear on
what frames you are using.

> with the lower oscillation rate

Are you talking about your Laketons now? How do Laketons oscillate?
Science knows that a quantum disturbance in the electromagnetic field
(best model of photon) doesn't (can't) oscillate.

> that corresponds
> to c-v.

Again v is the velocity of what, and in which frame?

>
> When those photons hit the gun,

Is the gun still in the same frame?

> they hit at c+v.

v is a speed of what, and in what frame?

> That means
> the gun will, in effect, compute c-v+v=c

Actually no. Because of the fixed distance, something moving at a speed
c+v in one direction and c-v in the opposite direction moves at a
measured speed of sqrt(c^2-v^2) over the round trip. Or would, if
speeds added like that to the speed of light (c), which they don't, of
course.

> and will produce a
> reading of zero.

Incorrect conclusion due to misunderstanding of the physics involved.

>
> By having a second gun, the first gun emits photons at c
> and those photons hit the second gun at c+v or c-v.

What reference frame is the first gun in? What reference frame is the
second gun in? This speed v is the speed of what, and in what frame?

> The
> second gun assumes the photons are from a target and
> computes the speed of the truck carrying the guns.
>
> Simple.

But wrong.

> BUT you need two guns that transmit at the
> exact same frequency.

Why not one gun split into transmitter and receiver portions?

p.s. You don't explain the violation of the second postulate that c+v
and c-v would represent. And especially 'nothing moves faster than c'
yet you have c+v!

[Michael Moroney]

Your mistake here is assuming that the only possibilities are that of a
particle and that of a wave, and one model must be correct and the other
incorrect. A good scientist wouldn't assume that and would see that
there must be another possibility, what either Dirac or Eddington called
a "wavicle". Something that has some properties of particle and some
properties of waves.

> If you use one mathematical model and it says the photon acts like a
> particle and then you use another mathematical model that says a photon
> acts like a wave, YOU NEED TO FIND AN EXPLANATION THAT INCLUDES
> BOTH PROPERTIES -- even if you don't know who to turn that explanation
> into a single mathematical model.,

"Wavicle". Something which has properties of each.

[Michael Moroney]

On 11/12/2021 4:42 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> One final comment before I sign off for today:
>
> This has been a VERY interesting discussion. It CONFIRMS that
> mathematicians simply DO NOT CARE how light works. If they
> need one mathematical model for certain situations and another
> mathematical model for other situations, that is FINE with them.

You're right, mathematicians don't care, they don't deal with physics.

>
> A SCIENTIST would find that TOTALLY unacceptable. > A physicist should also find that unacceptable.

A physicist wouldn't care about the lack of caring of a mathematician.
A physicist would want an explanation which properly explains the
PHYSICS that matches waves sometimes and particles at other times.

>
> Scientists and physicists should DEMAND to find out WHY
> light has wave properties AND particle properties.

Mostly solved almost 100 years ago.

>
> The answer, of course, is that a photon has oscillating electric
> and magnetic fields. The photon is a PARTICLE.

Nope. You cannot explain diffraction, the Doppler effect etc. with
particles.

> The oscillating
> fields give it some wave like properties.

Meaningless handwaving. Explain the two slit experiment using
"oscillating particles".

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 4:17:27 PM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

But you can learn what different textbooks say about a subject. I just browsed
through five more textbooks (choosing the ones with the most editions), and
this is what I found:

----- start quotes --------

From “College Physics” 9th edition, by Hugh D. Young
Page 772
The picture
of light as an electromagnetic wave isn’t the whole story, however. Several
effects associated with the emission and absorption of light reveal that it also has
a particle aspect, in that the energy carried by light waves is packaged in discrete
bundles called photons or quanta. These apparently contradictory wave and particle
properties have been reconciled since 1930 with the development of quantum
electrodynamics, a comprehensive theory that includes both wave and particle
properties. The propagation of light is best described by a wave model, but
understanding emission and absorption by atoms and nuclei requires a particle
approach.

Page 932
What is light? The work of Maxwell, Hertz, and others established
firmly that light is an electromagnetic wave. Interference, diffraction,
and polarization phenomena show convincingly the wave
nature of light and other electromagnetic radiation.
But there are also many phenomena, particularly those involving the emission
and absorption of electromagnetic radiation, that show a completely different
aspect of the nature of light, in which it seems to behave as a stream of particles. In
such phenomena, the energy of light is emitted and absorbed in packages with a
definite size, called photons or quanta. The energy of a single photon is proportional
to the frequency of the radiation, and we say that the energy is quantized.

From “College Physics” 9th Edition, by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille

Page 762
In 1905, Einstein published a paper that formulated the theory of light quanta
(“particles”) and explained the photoelectric effect. He reached the conclusion
that light was composed of corpuscles, or discontinuous quanta of energy. These
corpuscles or quanta are now called photons to emphasize their particle-like nature.
According to Einstein’s theory, the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency
of the electromagnetic wave associated with it,

same page:
So in the final analysis, is light a wave or a particle? The answer is neither and
both: light has a number of physical properties, some associated with waves and
others with particles.

From “Fundamentals of Physics” 10th Edition, by Jearl Walker:
Page 1154

In 1905, Einstein proposed that electromagnetic radiation (or simply light) is
quantized and exists in elementary amounts (quanta) that we now call photons.
This proposal should seem strange to you because we have just spent several
chapters discussing the classical idea that light is a sinusoidal wave, with a
wavelength x, a frequency f, and a speed c such that f=c/x.

Furthermore, in Chapter 33 we discussed the classical light wave as being an
interdependent combination of electric and magnetic fields, each oscillating at
frequency f. How can this wave of oscillating fields consist of an elementary
amount of something—the light quantum? What is a photon?
The concept of a light quantum, or a photon, turns out to be far more subtle
and mysterious than Einstein imagined. Indeed, it is still very poorly understood.
In this book, we shall discuss only some of the basic aspects of the photon
concept, somewhat along the lines of Einstein’s proposal

From “Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics” - 6th edition, by Paul M Fishbane; Stephen Gasiorowicz; Stephen T Thornton

Page 1079
The propagation of light is governed by its wave properties, whereas the exchange
of energy between light and matter is governed by its particle properties.
This wave–particle duality is a general property of nature. For example, the propagation
of electrons (and other so-called particles) is also governed by wave properties,
whereas the exchange of energy between the electrons and other particles is
governed by particle properties.

From “Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics” - 6th edition, by Paul A. Tipler & Gene Mosca. (This textbook has a whole section on “Wave-Particle duality.”)

Page 1187:
We have seen that light, which we ordinarily think of as a wave, exhibits particle properties when it interacts with matter, as in the photoelectric effect or in Compton scattering. Electrons, which we usually think of as particles, exhibit the wave properties of interference and diffraction when they pass near the edges of obstacles. All carriers of momentum and energy (for example, electrons, atoms, or photons) exhibit both wave and particle characteristics. It might be tempting to say that an electron, for example, is both a wave and a particle, but what does this mean? In classical physics, the concepts of waves and particles are mutually exclusive. A classical particle behaves like a piece of shot; it can be localized and scattered, it exchanges energy suddenly at a point in space, and it obeys the laws of conservation of energy and momentum in collisions. It does not exhibit interference or diffraction. A classical wave, on the other hand, behaves like a sound or light wave; it exhibits diffraction and interference, and its energy is spread out continuously in space and time. A classical wave and a classical particle are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be both a classical particle and a classical wave at the same time.

After Thomas Young observed the two-slit interference pattern by using light in 1801, light was thought to be a classical wave. On the other hand, the electrons discovered by J. J. Thomson were thought to be classical particles. We now know that these classical concepts of waves and particles do not adequately describe the complete behavior of any phenomenon.

Everything propagates like a wave and exchanges energy like a particle.

---------- end quotes --------

Best quotes: "The concept of a light quantum, or a photon, turns out to be far more subtle and mysterious than Einstein imagined. Indeed, it is still very poorly understood.

and

"We now know that these classical concepts of waves and particles do not adequately describe the complete behavior of any phenomenon."

Oscillating photons appear to adequately describe how photons
can seem to be both particles and waves. The only question is:
Why do authors of physics textbooks refuse to view things that way?
It appears they are waiting for someone to make a declaration that
almost everyone else immediately accepts as the correct solution
to the "problem" of particle-wave duality.

No one wants to write a textbook that is immediately attacked and
thrown in the trash by people who are content and INSIST on leaving
the issue as "poorly understood."

Ed

[Townes Olson]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:45:36 AM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Oscillating photons appear to adequately describe how photons
> can seem to be both particles and waves. The only question is:
> Why do authors of physics textbooks refuse to view things that way?

You already know the answer to that question: Your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the two-slit experiment. Remember? In fact, they can't rationally account for any of the phenomena of electrodynamics. On the other hand, the scientific concept of a photon (and electric charges) in quantum electrodynamics correctly accounts for all the quantum phenomena of electromagnetism. It's ironic that you scold scientists for not being interested in your "oscillating photons", which are logically self-contradictory and fail to account for the phenomena, whereas *you* are not interested in quantum electrodynamics, which is logically sound and *does* account for the phenomena. So, it appears that you are the one (not scientists) who lacks interest in rationally understanding things as they really are.

Please note that when experts in a field say there are subtle aspects of the subject that are still not fully understood (which is true of every subject), you should not interpret this as meaning that they don't understand the subject any better than you do.

I think it would be better for you to address the illogical and self-contradictory aspects of your own beliefs that have been pointed out. Rather than confront those, you seem to prefer to engage in scriptural analysis, which is just journalism, not scientific reasoning. For example, on one hand you've agreed that relativistic time dilation is much too small to account for the Doppler shift in frequencies between relatively moving objects, but on the other hand you invoke the "different size of a second" when trying to account for the difference in frequencies and speeds. That is self-contradictory. How do you reconcile this?

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 7:12:45 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:43:18 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Photons travel at the speed c, which is relative to the atom that
> > emitted the photon.... regardless any motion of the emitter...
>
> To be clear about this, if an emitter is moving at speed v along the road and it emits a pulse of light straight ahead, how fast do you think the pulse is moving in the road's system of reference? You say it moves at c relative to the emitter, so are you claiming it moves at c+v relative to the road?

No. Neither one. When you have a moving object and a stationary object
you get into the subject of time dilation. A second is shorter for the moving
object, so c is not the same in the two "systems of reference," even though
both are 299,292,458 meters PER SECOND.

You can take any radar gun in a car traveling at 50 mph and point it at the
road ahead. It will read the TARGET as moving at 50 mph. Does that mean
that the light is moving at c+v? NO! Light moves at c. AND when that light
hits atoms in the ground, those atoms will emit return photons that travel
at c. BUT when those return photons hit the radar gun, they will hit at c+v
where v is the speed of the car. So, the gun shows 50 mph.

>
> > ...when a radar gun is used in a moving vehicle, the photons returning from the
> > target hit the gun at c+v. I didn't expect that.
> Hold on... are you saying that the returning light pulse is moving at speed c+v relative to the gun that is stationary on the ground?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Light pulses always move at c!

> And that it is moving at c relative to the target? In other words, are you saying that the original pulse goes from the gun at speed c relative to the gun, and it hits the on-coming target at speed c+v relative to the target, and then the return pulse travels at c relative to the target and hits the gun at c+v?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Light pulses always move at c!!!!! When those pulses hit
an ONCOMING MOVING TARGET they hit at the COMBINED SPEEDS, i.e., c+v.

>
> > To measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck, I would have to use
> > TWO radar guns which emit photons that oscillate at the exact same frequency.
> That is just as wrong as your previous belief. The Doppler shift works in each direction individually, and the round trip Doppler is just the square of the one-way Doppler.

NOT SO! The Doppler shift works in each direction individually, THEREFORE
the Doppler shift in one direction can negate the Doppler shift in the other direction.

> In every case the Doppler shift in frequency is proportional to the rate of change of the distance. The Doppler effect is demonstrated countless times in countless ways every day.

The point is: If you have TWO guns emitting photons at the exact same
frequency, the photons emitted from Gun-A will be interpreted by GUN-B
as coming from a TARGET. In the truck, the gun at the front of the truck
will hit the gun at the back of the truck at c+v, where v is the speed of the
truck. This is in accordance with Einstein's Second Postulate which says
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."

In plain English, this means that the gun that is pointing toward the rear
of the truck will NOT emit photons that travel at c-v. The photons will be
emitted at c. The gun that is pointed toward the front of the truck will
NOT emit photons that travel at c+v. The photons will travel at c.

Because the truck is moving, the traveling photons from the gun in the
rear will hit the gun in the front at c-v where v is the speed of the truck.
Likewise, the photons from the gun at the front of the truck will hit the
gun at the rear at c+v, where v is the speed of the truck.

> > So, we agree. The moving target adds KINETIC energy to the photon.
> Indeed, the energy of a photon striking the target is greater than the energy of that photon emitted from the gun, in terms of their respective systems of reference. And when the reflected photon arrives back at the gun, the energy is increased by the square of that factor. To make a speed gun that works with individual photons (super low intensity source) you would need to work with the energy, but actual speed guns do not measure the energy of individual photons, they measure the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation comprised of a huge number of photons.

WRONG!! A radar gun can theoretically work with a single emitted photon
and getting back a single return photon. NASA describes that process in
their web page here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_do_police_radars.htm

> > The photon is a PARTICLE. The oscillating fields give it some wave like properties.
> It is a particle, but not a classical particle (i.e., it does not have a single trajectory like what you have in mind), it is a quantum particle. I think you are forgetting the interference effects in the two-slit experiment for an individual photon, or electron. I think you were misled by a careless reading of Feynman, who says light is composed of particles, but goes on to say that it isn't really particles, and it isn't really waves, so we should perhaps call it wavicles, but for convenience he decided to call it particles, with the caveat that it is not what you (Ed) imagine as particles.

A photon is a particle, but it NOT A SOLID OBJECT It is a quantum of energy
that moves like a particle, but unlike a solid object it can be deflected by
energy fields around other objects.

> > The speed of light is Nature's reference system.
> A speed isn't a reference system.
> > All motion by other objects can be valued as a percentage of the speed of light.
> That's just choosing a unit for speed, which is trivial, that isn't what is needed to determine the speed of an object relative to the sun or the earth or a car on the road, etc. Again, a speed is not a reference system, and a choice of units is not a reference system. Before you can talk about speeds, you have to be able to explain what you mean by the word. What scientists mean is the rate of change of position with time, and to quantify position and time involves a system of reference.

Speed is rate of change of position with time. But when you COMPARE
speeds of different objects moving at different rates IN SPACE, then the only
VALID measurement is to compare the speeds as FRACTIONS of the
speed of light. The faster moving object is the one moving at the
greater percentage of the speed of light.

>
> > There is no contradiction.
>
> There actually is a contradiction, because internal oscillations of the particle you imagine are independent of the relative speed of a particle. If an object is oscillating at 100 Hz, it is oscillating at that frequency regardless of how it is moving relative to you. It does not subject to the Doppler effect, whereas the energy of light is subject to the Doppler effect, because it is extrinsic energy, not intrinsic.

If a photon is oscillating at 35,000,000,000 Hertz as it travels, its frequency
has nothing to do with me. BUT, if I am moving toward that oncoming photon
at 70 mph and the photon HITS me, it will hit with energy equivalent to
35,000,002,792 Hertz. Kinetic energy of my motion will add to the energy
of the original photon.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 11:44:50 AM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:

> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 8:45:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Oscillating photons appear to adequately describe how photons
> > can seem to be both particles and waves. The only question is:
> > Why do authors of physics textbooks refuse to view things that way?
> You already know the answer to that question: Your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the two-slit experiment. Remember? In fact, they can't rationally account for any of the phenomena of electrodynamics.

That's because no one has bothered to figure out how the oscillating
electric and magnetic fields of a photon interact with nearby objects -
such as the slits in the Double Slit experiment, or a card when the
photons appear to move into the shadow of the card.

The Double Slit "mystery" is like the particle-wave "mystery." People
seem content to leave them as "mysteries," rather than solve the
mysteries and encounter the wrath of people who do not like the
solution.

> On the other hand, the scientific concept of a photon (and electric charges) in quantum electrodynamics correctly accounts for all the quantum phenomena of electromagnetism. It's ironic that you scold scientists for not being interested in your "oscillating photons", which are logically self-contradictory and fail to account for the phenomena, whereas *you* are not interested in quantum electrodynamics, which is logically sound and *does* account for the phenomena. So, it appears that you are the one (not scientists) who lacks interest in rationally understanding things as they really are.
>
> Please note that when experts in a field say there are subtle aspects of the subject that are still not fully understood (which is true of every subject), you should not interpret this as meaning that they don't understand the subject any better than you do.

What it SEEMS to mean is that it is not fully understood and they do not
want to understand it, because they are busy writing textbooks.

>
> I think it would be better for you to address the illogical and self-contradictory aspects of your own beliefs that have been pointed out. Rather than confront those, you seem to prefer to engage in scriptural analysis, which is just journalism, not scientific reasoning. For example, on one hand you've agreed that relativistic time dilation is much too small to account for the Doppler shift in frequencies between relatively moving objects, but on the other hand you invoke the "different size of a second" when trying to account for the difference in frequencies and speeds. That is self-contradictory. How do you reconcile this?

I don't recall "invoking the 'different size of a second'" when discussing
differences between frequencies and speeds. The difference between
frequencies and speeds when talking about radar guns is about
combining photon energy with the kinetic energy of the moving target.

Ed

[Ernesto Gaddy]

Townes Olson wrote:

>> > To be clear about this, if an emitter is moving at speed v along the
>> > road and it emits a pulse of light straight ahead, how fast do you
>> > think the pulse is moving in the road's system of reference? You say
>> > it moves at c relative to the emitter,
>> > so are you claiming it moves at c+v relative to the road?
>>
>> No. Neither one.
>

> Neither one? Above you said photons travel at the speed c relative to
> the emitter. So I'm asking you to tell me, if the emitter is moving at
> speed v on the road, and emits a photon straight ahead, what is the
> speed of the photon relative to the road?

no, stupid. You add the speed read from the instrument panel.