Reality versus Math

[Ed Lake]

Yesterday, I put my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" on viXra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v4.pdf

The paper uses SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to show that mathematicians are arguing TOTAL NONSENSE when they claim that Time Dilation is reciprocal and/or "just an illusion."

I had submitted the paper to a journal which was about to publish it when they notified me that it would cost me $508 to publish. Buried deep in one of their web pages was a single sentence that said that authors must pay $127 per published page to offset printing costs. I'd failed to notice that, and I withdrew the paper. I'm not in a "publish or perish" situation, and my only interest is in trying to figure out how science got into a situation where experiments are ignored and NONSENSE mathematics is what is taught in schools.

Together with my paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf which is about Einstein's Second Postulate, it is clear that SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is being ignored in physics classes and they are instead teaching TOTAL NONSENSE.

I'm posting the links to the papers here in hopes someone might suggest a good way to get these papers read by the scientific community. What (non-pay) journal would be best for them?

Ed Lake

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 06-mei-2017 om 16:41 schreef Ed Lake:

Try the journal that published this:

http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Dirk Vdm

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Just title it
"Physics without mathematics"

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 9:51:09 AM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Just title it
> "Physics without mathematics"

Interestingly, I have a book in my personal library titled "Physics without Mathematics," by Clarence E. Bennett. I've had it for decades. It was copyrighted in 1949.

I also have a pdf copy of the book "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner. It fully supports what I've been saying.

Ed

[Python]

Le 06/05/2017 à 16:41, Ed Lake a écrit :
> Yesterday, I put my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" on viXra.org.

It is bullshit from start to end.

[Paparios]

You can try Springer journals.

Here is a list of them with impact factors

http://www.springer.com/gp/impact-factor-2015/if-physics

Probably the journal Physics in Perspective is the most related to your papers.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Gibbered

The Following REQUIRES Mathematics

https://goo.gl/photos/dKKZprgx7LDxooaF8

[Prijzen Sörözésekre]

Paparios wrote:

>> I'm posting the links to the papers here in hopes someone might suggest
>> a good way to get these papers read by the scientific community. What
>> (non-pay) journal would be best for them? Ed Lake
>

> You can try Springer journals.Here is a list of them with impact factors

> http://www.springer.com/gp/impact-factor-2015/if-physics
> Probably the journal Physics in Perspective is the most related to your
> papers.

It reveals you don't know what is going on in Physics. Sending something
through an university, you are expected to travel to a three days
international conference later on. Or you don't have international
conferences, taking place periodically, on your capitalist continent??

[Ed Lake]

Thanks very much. For some reason, that journal isn't on the list I created. I don't know why. I probably thought it was an "open access" journal. I see that "open access" (pay to publish) is just an option. I'll check it out.

Thanks again.

Ed

[Prijzen Sörözésekre]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> Probably the journal Physics in Perspective is the most related to your
>> papers.
>
> Thanks very much. For some reason, that journal isn't on the list I
> created. I don't know why. I probably thought it was an "open access"
> journal. I see that "open access" (pay to publish) is just an option.
> I'll check it out. Thanks again. Ed

You are battling windmills. Forget it. You have to be a nepot of another
nepot, working as a secretary, uber-secretary and crap like that. It's
capitalism, baby. The former universities no need professors anymore, nor
assistants, associated and so on. Those days are passee. You have no
chance. Your wish is like a time travel into the past. Unachievable. Just
forget it. And move on.

[Ed Lake]

Ah! I see. It's a Swiss journal. That is why I didn't put it on my list. But, I see now I should have included it - and probably a lot of journals from other countries.

Ed

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 7:41:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I'm posting the links to the papers here in hopes someone
> might suggest a good way to get these papers read by the
> scientific community. What (non-pay) journal would be best
> for them?

I think what you're seeking is to get your papers published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. (Note that 'Physics Essays' is not a reputable journal - in fact, it is highly disreputable - so you were wise to back away from them.)

The main difficulty you face is that your papers could not get through peer review at any reputable journal. In fact, a quick reading of your papers makes this so obvious that any editor of a reputable journal would not even bother sending them out for review. This is not because of your lack of qualifications, it's because your papers are filled with obvious errors and misconceptions, both in terms of the history and in terms of the physics.

Let's take just one example. You say LIDAR guns disprove special relativity. The problem is that LIDAR guns work by measuring the timing of reflected pulses, and then they compute the speed of the target object based on the premise that the speed of light has the invariant value c. (The reflected pulses arrive closer together because they travel less distance as the target object gets closer.) The speed computed from this premise turns out to be correct, so the successful operation of LIDAR guns obviously does not disprove the premise that the speed of light is c. To the contrary, it provides evidence in favor of that premise.

So, when you claim that LIDAR disproves special relativity, you are obviously mistaken. Any reputable journal would require you to remove that erroneous section from your paper. Unfortunately, the same goes for every other section, so there wouldn't be any paper left. This is the basic problem with getting your papers published in a reputable journal. I think posting them online is the best you can do, at least until you significantly improve your papers by removing all the errors.

[Kého Resované]

Ed Lake wrote:

> Ah! I see. It's a Swiss journal. That is why I didn't put it on my
> list. But, I see now I should have included it - and probably a lot of
> journals from other countries. Ed

How about the $RECYCLE.BIN, a hidden folder?

[Ed Lake]

I do NOT say or even imply that "LIDAR guns disprove special relativity." Your analysis is totally wrong. The paper does not say or even suggest that the speed of light is not c. It simply disproves the absurd notion that ALL OBSERVERS will measure light to travel at c, regardless of their own motion.

Ed

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 9:58:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I do NOT say or even imply that "LIDAR guns disprove special
> relativity."

Great. So when you say there is experimental evidence disproving special relativity, what evidence are you referring to?

> The paper does not say or even suggest that the speed
> of light is not c.

Excellent.

> It simply disproves the absurd notion that ALL OBSERVERS will
> measure light to travel at c, regardless of their own motion.

The problem is that if we perform the LIDAR calculation in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, including the coordinates in which the target is at rest, and apply the premise that the speed of light is c in terms of those coordinates, we get exactly the same answer. So this does not disprove the premise that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. To the contrary, it provides experimental support for that premise. So, any reputable journal would require you to remove that erroneous section... along with all the others.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:06:47 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 9:58:08 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I do NOT say or even imply that "LIDAR guns disprove special
> > relativity."
>
> Great. So when you say there is experimental evidence disproving special relativity, what evidence are you referring to?
>

Can't you read? I do NOT say or even imply that "there is experimental evidence disproving special relativity." You are posting NONSENSE.

> > The paper does not say or even suggest that the speed
> > of light is not c.
>
> Excellent.
>
> > It simply disproves the absurd notion that ALL OBSERVERS will
> > measure light to travel at c, regardless of their own motion.
>
> The problem is that if we perform the LIDAR calculation in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, including the coordinates in which the target is at rest, and apply the premise that the speed of light is c in terms of those coordinates, we get exactly the same answer. So this does not disprove the premise that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. To the contrary, it provides experimental support for that premise. So, any reputable journal would require you to remove that erroneous section... along with all the others.

The LIDAR gun doesn't have access to different coordinates or frames of reference. It only has IT'S frame of reference. You are complicating things with irrelevant information and mistaken beliefs.

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 11:29:16 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> The LIDAR gun doesn't have access to different coordinates or frames of
> reference. It only has IT'S frame of reference.

What if you put it in a car moving at 50 MPH? Suppose you had two of them,
both calibrated to read exactly the same on the ground, one in the car and
one on the ground, the former pointed at a tree ahead of you and the latter
pointed at the car. Do you believe they would give different readings?

> You are complicating things with irrelevant information and mistaken
> beliefs.
>
> Ed

Pot, kettle, black.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 10:29:16 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I do NOT say or even imply that "there is experimental
> evidence disproving special relativity."

You said "SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is being ignored in physics classes and they are instead teaching TOTAL NONSENSE." What experimental evidence is being ignored? Are you agreeing that there is no experimental evidence disproving special relativity?

> The LIDAR gun doesn't have access to different
> coordinates or frames of reference. It only has
> IT'S frame of reference.

Right, and no matter what state of motion it is in, we find that it accurately determines the speeds of other objects (in its own frame) by computing the speed based on the premise that the speed of light is c in the gun's rest frame coordinates. If you agree with this, then what is the disagreement? You keep saying students are being taught wrong things, but you evidently agree with everything they are being taught. The speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, and there is no experimental evidence contradicting this. Agreed?

[Ed Lake]

You make NO SENSE.

"What if you put it in a car moving at 50 MPH?"

"Put" WHAT "in" WHERE?

"Suppose you had two of them,..."
Two of WHAT?

.."both calibrated to read exactly the same on the ground ..."
Gibberish! What are you calibrating?

"... one in the car and one on the ground, .."
One WHAT in the car and one WHAT on the ground?

"..the former pointed at a tree ahead of you and the latter pointed at the car."
More GIBBERISH.

There are RADAR guns that work with a moving police car. There may be LIDAR guns that do the same thing. The gun is pointed at a speeding vehicle, and it sends out radio waves (or light pulses) toward the speeder, while another part of the gun does the same thing toward the ground moving under the police car. The gun is thus able to add or subtract the speed of the police car from the speed of the car at which the gun is aimed.

The problem with RADAR guns was that the radio waves covered too much territory and thus it was difficult to determine which car on a busy highway was being measured by the gun as the speeding car. LIDAR has a better focus and can be more easily pointed at a single car on a highway filled with vehicles.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 2:06:51 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 10:29:16 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I do NOT say or even imply that "there is experimental
> > evidence disproving special relativity."
>
> You said "SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is being ignored in physics classes and they are instead teaching TOTAL NONSENSE." What experimental evidence is being ignored? Are you agreeing that there is no experimental evidence disproving special relativity?
>
> > The LIDAR gun doesn't have access to different
> > coordinates or frames of reference. It only has
> > IT'S frame of reference.
>
> Right, and no matter what state of motion it is in, we find that it accurately determines the speeds of other objects (in its own frame) by computing the speed based on the premise that the speed of light is c in the gun's rest frame coordinates. If you agree with this, then what is the disagreement?

Why don't you read my paper? http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf

The disagreement is that there is NO REST FRAME. According to Einstein's 1905 paper, "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess NO PROPERTIES CORRESPONDING TO THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE REST. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

The speed of the moving car is measured relative to the lidar gun. If the lidar gun was moving, it would give different results. My paper includes an example of a police car traveling at 60 mph toward the speeder approaching at 90 mph, and the lidar gun shows the oncoming vehicle's speed as 150 mph.

> You keep saying students are being taught wrong things, but you evidently agree with everything they are being taught. The speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, and there is no experimental evidence contradicting this. Agreed?

Students are being taught CRAP.

The speed of light is measured as being EMITTED at c in every system of inertial coordinates. ALL experimental evidence confirms "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory." The disagreement is about how I in my space ship measure light emitted from your space ship. You measure the light you EMITTED as departing at c, regardless of your velocity. I measure the light as arriving at c + v, where v is MY velocity. YOUR speed did not add or subtract from the speed of light because you were the EMITTER and your speed cannot affect the actual speed of light being EMITTED.

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:00:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 11:29:16 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > The LIDAR gun doesn't have access to different coordinates or frames of
> > > reference. It only has IT'S frame of reference.
> >
> > What if you put it in a car moving at 50 MPH? Suppose you had two of them,
> > both calibrated to read exactly the same on the ground, one in the car and
> > one on the ground, the former pointed at a tree ahead of you and the latter
> > pointed at the car. Do you believe they would give different readings?
> >
> > > You are complicating things with irrelevant information and mistaken
> > > beliefs.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > Pot, kettle, black.
>
> You make NO SENSE.
>
> "What if you put it in a car moving at 50 MPH?"
> "Put" WHAT "in" WHERE?

"What if" is a phrase denoting a hypothetical situation. Are you English-
challenged?

"it" refers to the LIDAR gun, of course. Anyone with a good command of
English can make sense of what you can't seem to.

> "Suppose you had two of them,..."
>
> Two of WHAT?

LIDAR guns, of course. It's what YOU were talking about, after all.

> .."both calibrated to read exactly the same on the ground ..."
>
> Gibberish! What are you calibrating?

LIDAR guns, of course. It's what YOU were talking about, after all.

> "... one in the car and one on the ground, .."
>
> One WHAT in the car and one WHAT on the ground?

LIDAR guns, of course. It's what YOU were talking about, after all.

> "..the former pointed at a tree ahead of you and the latter pointed at
> the car."
>
> More GIBBERISH.

Only in the opinion of one who is rationally-challenged.

> There are RADAR guns that work with a moving police car. There may be
> LIDAR guns that do the same thing.

Is there any doubt?

> The gun is pointed at a speeding vehicle, and it sends out radio waves (or
> light pulses) toward the speeder, while another part of the gun does the
> same thing toward the ground moving under the police car. The gun is thus
> able to add or subtract the speed of the police car from the speed of the
> car at which the gun is aimed.
>
> The problem with RADAR guns was that the radio waves covered too much
> territory and thus it was difficult to determine which car on a busy
> highway was being measured by the gun as the speeding car. LIDAR has a
> better focus and can be more easily pointed at a single car on a highway
> filled with vehicles.
>
> Ed

Thank you for that completely irrelevant diatribe. So answer MY question:
"Do you believe they would give different readings?" if one LIDAR was
pointing at a car moving at 50 MPH and one was in the car pointing at a
tree beside the LIDAR on the ground?

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:11:50 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> The disagreement is that there is NO REST FRAME... NO PROPERTIES

> CORRESPONDING TO THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE REST

You're confusing the concept of absolute rest with the concept of a rest frame. Absolute rest refers to the idea that there is one unique frame of reference that is distinguished for the description of physical processes. According to special relativity this is not true. However, every particular object has a rest frame, meaning a frame in which it is at rest. So that can't be the disagreement.

> The speed of the moving car is measured relative to the lidar gun.

Yes, the speed of the car in terms of the rest frame of the LIDAR gun is determined.

> If the lidar gun was moving, it would give different results.

Well, the LIDAR gun always gives the speed of the target in terms of the rest frame of the LIDAR gun.

> My paper includes an example of a police car traveling at
> 60 mph toward the speeder approaching at 90 mph, and the
> lidar gun shows the oncoming vehicle's speed as 150 mph.

But that's incorrect, as has been shown by an abundance of experimental evidence. If, in terms of inertial coordinates of the rest frame of the ground, the LIDAR gun is moving at 60 mph directly toward the car, and the car is moving at 90 mph directly toward the LIDAR gun, then a perfectly precise LIDAR gun would read the speed of the car as 150/[1 + (60/c)(90/c)], which is

149.999999999998... miles per hour

No LIDAR gun is precise enough to measure the difference between this and 150 mph, so this is not a good test of special relativity. LIDAR guns rely on the first order Doppler effect, whereas unique relativistic effects show up at the second order, i.e., proportional to the square of v/c. But comparable tests have been conducted with very high speed objects, and the results confirm special relativity.

> ALL experimental evidence confirms "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory."

There is no such thing as "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory". Einstein's paper clearly states that the speed of light has the same value c in terms of all systems of inertial coordinates. You have badly misread the few sentences of his paper that you read. For example, when he says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source, he is saying exactly the opposite of what you think he is saying.

> The disagreement is about how I in my space ship measure
> light emitted from your space ship. You measure the light
> you EMITTED as departing at c, regardless of your velocity.

This is precisely the mistake that I just described. The precise statement of the light speed postulate in Einstein's paper is that the speed of light as measured in the "stationary" system is independent of the state of motion of the source. In other words, regardless of how the source is moving relative to the stationary system, the speed of the light is c in the stationary system. He then combines this principle with the relativity principle to conclude that the speed of light is also c in any moving system, and hence there is no absolute "stationary" system.

> I measure the light as arriving at c + v, where v is MY velocity.

No, not if you determine the speed in terms of the inertial coordinate system in which you are at rest. In terms of that system, the speed of c, in accord with what Einstein said.

[Ed Lake]

The question is: "Do you believe they [two LIDAR guns] would give different readings?" if one LIDAR was pointing at a car moving at 50 MPH and one was in the car pointing at a tree beside the LIDAR on the ground?"

Yes, of course. The LIDAR gun pointed at the moving car would give a reading of 50 mph, and the LIDAR gun pointed at the stationary tree next to the stationary LIDAR gun would give a reading of ZERO.

What is the purpose of such a silly question?

Unfortunately, I'm shutting down for today, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to read your answer.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

More Sewage from the Sewer

Learn Physics, Stop Gibbering

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro203puVhQsmCj9qhlFQ-As8e

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro22WeXM2QCKJm2NP_xHpGV89

[Gary Harnagel]

I disagree: the one in the car will measure 50 MPH, too.

> What is the purpose of such a silly question?

To demonstrate that you haven't a clue about how light behaves.

> Unfortunately, I'm shutting down for today, so I'll have to wait until
> tomorrow to read your answer.
>
> Ed

Get a couple of radar or LIDAR guns and do an experiment. Don't just
pontificate.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Kého Resované":

[x] You only know Microsoft Windows. [psf 2.8]

*PLONK*

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Poutnik]

Dne 06/05/2017 v 23:30 Ed Lake napsal(a):

>
> [...] the LIDAR gun pointed at the stationary tree next to the stationary LIDAR gun would give a reading of ZERO.

A LIDAR measures relative speed wrt itself,
not relative speed wrt Earth surface.

Specialized portable traffic police LIDAR guns
get data about the police car speed and subtracts this value,
so they display speed wrt to surface.

But this is irrelevant from physical point of view.


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Ed Lake]

Okay, you failed to mention that one of the lidar guns was in the moving car. I thought you were talking about two stationary guns, where one was pointed at the car going 50 mph and another was pointed at a tree nearby.

Now I see that you were talking about one stationary lidar gun pointed at the car going at 50 mph, and another lidar gun in the car going 50 mph that is pointed at a tree. Of course the gun in the car would show that the tree was moving at 50 mph.

What is your point? To show that everything is reciprocal? It is NOT, although in that situation the lidar gun would FALSELY show that the tree was moving at 50 mph. It is just the way the equipment works. It can be TRICKED into giving FALSE readings.

The question is HOW does the lidar gun work? What causes the lidar gun to measure the speed of an object? ANSWER: The lidar gun works by measuring the speed of light to be c + v, where v is the speed of the object moving in front of the lidar gun, OR the speed of the lidar gun AND the speed of an object moving in front of it.

Ed

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 18:33 Ed Lake napsal(a):

>
> Okay, you failed to mention that one of the lidar guns was in the moving car.

No, he did not, you may have not read his post carefully.

[Ed Lake]

The argument now is about this FALSE claim: "The precise statement of the light speed postulate in Einstein's paper is that the speed of light as measured in the "stationary" system is independent of the state of motion of the source."

FALSE. There is nothing about any "stationary system" in the second postulate. The second postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

"INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY" means that, if the body is stationary OR moving, it will still EMIT light at c. This MUST be so, because otherwise the movement of the EMITTING body PLUS the speed of light could EXCEED the natural maximum for the speed of light.

Tests show that no matter how fast an object is moving when it EMITS light, it will still emit light at c.

That in NO WAY affects what an observer will see. An observer traveling toward the source will measure the light arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity. If he is moving away from the source of light, the light will arrive at c - v. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how fast the light is actually moving through space, it is JUST MATHEMATICS.

I explain this in detail in my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf

Ed

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 07-mei-2017 om 18:33 schreef Ed Lake:

Perhaps that's how LAkeDAR works, but this is how LIDAR
works:
http://www.lidar-uk.com/how-lidar-works/

Dirk Vdm

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 18:49 Ed Lake napsal(a):
> [...] An observer traveling toward the source will measure the light arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity. [...]

What object from a source-detector pair is moving is arbitrary choice.
Speed of light does not depend on this choice.

The closing speed of object and light in frame where object moves
is different to c,
but the light speed stays equal to c.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,

as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Hole Wrote

"I measure the light as arriving at c + v, where v is MY velocity"

Measuring c + v means you have "Thermalized" the information you are constructed of and are Now a PUFF of PHOTONS

Gibbering That is "Stupid and WRONG" !!!!

The Link to your Vixra Page Does Not WORK, says "Error, File not Found 404"

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 9:49:17 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> The argument now is about this FALSE claim: "The precise
> statement of the light speed postulate in Einstein's paper
> is that the speed of light as measured in the "stationary"
> system is independent of the state of motion of the source."
> FALSE. There is nothing about any "stationary system" in the

> second postulate....

Ed, you need to read the paper. The formal statement of the two postulates is given at the beginning of Section 2, where the second postulate is:

"2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
system of coordinates with the determined
velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
a stationary or by a moving body."

Any editor or referee at any reputable journal (in fact, anyone who has ever read Einstein's paper) knows full well that this is the formal statement of Einstein's second postulate in the 1905 paper. The fact that you don't know this proves that you have never even read past the first section of the paper. You can't seriously believe that you are ready to write a paper to teach the world about Einstein's second postulate in his 1905 paper without having read beyond the first few pages of the paper. This is why your paper is filled with obviously false statements and misconceptions.

> Tests show that no matter how fast an object is moving
> when it EMITS light, it will still emit light at c.

Sure, the speed of the light is c in terms of the rest frame of the emitter, and it is also c in terms of the rest frame of the receiver. This is the whole point of special relativity as described in Einstein's paper (which you have never read).

> An observer traveling toward the source will measure the
> light arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity.

No, the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, both the emitter's rest frame and the receiver's rest frame and every other inertial coordinate system. Every high school student who hears this has the same reaction that you have now. He says "that can't possibly be right!"... but then he actually learns special relativity and discovers the reason that it actually is true (inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations).

[Ed Lake]

That link goes to a page where they use lidar to measure contours on a surface. It has NOTHING to do with using lidar to measure speed.

Here is a link to how lidar works when measuring speed: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question396.htm

A quote from that page:

"A laser speed gun measures the round-trip time for light to reach a car and reflect back. Light from a laser speed gun moves a lot faster than sound -- about 984,000,000 feet per second (300,000,000 meters), or roughly 1 foot (30 cm) per nanosecond. A laser speed gun shoots a very short burst of infrared laser light and then waits for it to reflect off the vehicle. The gun counts the number of nanoseconds it takes for the round trip, and by dividing by 2 it can calculate the distance to the car. If the gun takes 1,000 samples per second, it can compare the change in distance between samples and calculate the speed of the car. By taking several hundred samples over the course of a third of a second or so, the accuracy can be very high."

It calculates the speed of the car by comparing the change in distance between samples. To understand further, read my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf

Ed

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 18:33 Ed Lake napsal(a):

> [...]

> Now I see that you were talking about one stationary lidar gun pointed at the car going at 50 mph, and another lidar gun in the car going 50 mph that is pointed at a tree. Of course the gun in the car would show that the tree was moving at 50 mph.
>
> What is your point? To show that everything is reciprocal? It is NOT, although in that situation the lidar gun would FALSELY show that the tree was moving at 50 mph. It is just the way the equipment works. It can be TRICKED into giving FALSE readings.

[...]
>
This is based on pre-Galileo thoughts
when Earth had absolute rest status
and speed wrt Earth was absolute speed.

If a tree moves wrt a car or vice versa is arbitrary.

Speed and speed wrt Earth are different things.
Speed wrt Lidar gun is not false speed.
It just is not speed wrt Earth.

[Ed Lake]

Poutnic wrote: "What object from a source-detector pair is moving is arbitrary choice. Speed of light does not depend on this choice."

And that is the main point of disagreement here. You are talking about MATHEMATICS. I am talking about the REAL WORLD.

In the REAL WORLD, which object is moving is NOT ARBITRARY. In the real world there is "cause and effect." Objects move because something CAUSED them to move. Exploding gun powder causes the bullet to move. That is NOT arbitrary. An argument that the exploding gun powder causes the WORLD to move while the bullet remains stationary is an IDIOTIC argument.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Einstein and I are trying to explain how THE UNIVERSE WORKS. Mathematicians (and you) are trying to explain HOW MATHEMATICS WORKS.

We are talking about reality versus mathematics. They disagree.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:40:52 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake Gibbered some Stuff:

<Snip Gibberings>

I Love Math, It Makes People Cry !!!
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/i-love-maths-it-makes-people-cry-1.png

What is "Space" ?

Virtual Particles being Pulled out of the empty Vacuum indicates that the "Volume of the Vacuum" itself "IS" a product of Virtual Particles.

((4pi) / 3) * (((2 * 1 kg * G) / (c^2))^3) = 1.37223535e-80 meters^3

(1.37223535e-80 * (meters^3)) * (((4pi) / 3) * ((13.694584905 billion light years)^3)) = 0.125


(((4pi) / 3) * (((2 * 1.744673905e+53 kg * G) / (c^2))^3)) * (1.37223535e-80 * (meters^3)) = 1

(2 * 1.744673905e+53) kilograms = 3.48934781e+53 kilograms

vixra.org - vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf

I believe it is a Magnetic Field that has "Escaped its Bottle", Flipped inside out and no longer can be Force back into its Bottle. https://goo.gl/photos/NoTXyn3r8kQjv4eP9

1 / ((((8 * (pi^2)) / (10^7))^2) / G) = 1.07056229

(1-pi/(((4pi)^2/10^7)^2 /6.674297466e-11)) * 2pi = 1

6.674297466e-11 / gravitational constant = 1.00003258

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface#Schwarz_P_.28.22Primitive.22.29

Schwarz P ("Primitive")

Schwarz P surface
Schoen named this surface 'primitive' because it has two intertwined congruent labyrinths, each with the shape of an inflated tubular version of the simple cubic lattice. While the standard P surface has cubic symmetry the unit cell can be any rectangular box, producing a family of minimal surfaces with the same topology.

It can be approximated by the implicit surface

cos x + cos y + cos z = 0

(1 - (Pi/((4Pi)^2/10^7)^2) * 2Pi) * 6.674297466e-11 - 1 = 2pi


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1+-+(Pi%2F((4+Pi)%5E2%2F10%5E7)%5E2)+2+Pi)+6.674297466+10%5E-11+-+1


(2 * pi) / ((((1 - (π / ((((4 * π)^2) / (10^7))^2))) * 2 * π) * 6.674297466e-11) - 1) = -1.00000000017

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(2+*+pi)+%2F+((((1+-+(%CF%80+%2F+((((4+*+%CF%80)%5E2)+%2F+(10%5E7))%5E2)))+*+2+*+%CF%80)+*+6.674297466e-11)+-+1)

(tau - 1) / (1 - ((Pi / ((((4Pi)^2) / (10^7))^2)) * 2Pi)) = 6.6742975e-11

6.6742975e-11 / gravitational constant = 1.00003259



G/((2π - 1)/(1 - 50^7/π^2)) = 0.999967417


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((2+%CF%80+-+1)%2F(1+-+50%5E7%2F%CF%80%5E2))


(((2pi) - 1) / ((50.00023274^7) / (π^2))) = G

50 / 50.00023274 = 0.99999534522

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> A wise man guards words he says,
>> as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
>
> Einstein and I are trying to explain how THE UNIVERSE WORKS.
> Mathematicians (and you) are trying to explain HOW MATHEMATICS WORKS.
> We are talking about reality versus mathematics. They disagree.

Do you believe in Universe and the moon landing 2020??

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 07/05/2017 v 18:49 Ed Lake napsal(a):
>> [...] An observer traveling toward the source will measure the light
>> arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity. [...]
>
> What object from a source-detector pair is moving is arbitrary choice.
> Speed of light does not depend on this choice.

You cant. There are no human made mirrors on moon.

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 19:36 Ed Lake napsal(a):

> Poutnic wrote: "What object from a source-detector pair is moving is arbitrary choice. Speed of light does not depend on this choice."
>
> And that is the main point of disagreement here. You are talking about MATHEMATICS. I am talking about the REAL WORLD.
>
> In the REAL WORLD, which object is moving is NOT ARBITRARY. In the real world there is "cause and effect." Objects move because something CAUSED them to move. Exploding gun powder causes the bullet to move. That is NOT arbitrary. An argument that the exploding gun powder causes the WORLD to move while the bullet remains stationary is an IDIOTIC argument.

People overusing words you have used do not check properly,
if they by chance apply to themselves.

Speed and motion IS mathematics,
it is part of our models of the real world.

Exploding gunpowder gives about equal but opposite momentum
to both the gun and the bullet ( putting aside the gases ).
The gun may eventually to pass momentum to Earth.

The only difference is in speed value needed for that momentum.
What has what speed depend on our arbitrary choice
what has zero speed.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:40:52 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> Einstein and I are trying to explain how THE UNIVERSE WORKS. Mathematicians (and you) are trying to explain HOW MATHEMATICS WORKS.
>
> We are talking about reality versus mathematics. They disagree.
>
> Ed

I Love Math, It Makes People Cry !!!
http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/i-love-maths-it-makes-people-cry-1.png

(376.75 / 137) * 4 = 11

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 19:40 Ed Lake napsal(a):

> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:34:40 PM UTC-5, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 07/05/2017 v 18:33 Ed Lake napsal(a):
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Now I see that you were talking about one stationary lidar gun pointed at the car going at 50 mph, and another lidar gun in the car going 50 mph that is pointed at a tree. Of course the gun in the car would show that the tree was moving at 50 mph.
>>>
>>> What is your point? To show that everything is reciprocal? It is NOT, although in that situation the lidar gun would FALSELY show that the tree was moving at 50 mph. It is just the way the equipment works. It can be TRICKED into giving FALSE readings.
>> [...]
>>>
>> This is based on pre-Galileo thoughts
>> when Earth had absolute rest status
>> and speed wrt Earth was absolute speed.
>>
>> If a tree moves wrt a car or vice versa is arbitrary.
>>
>> Speed and speed wrt Earth are different things.
>> Speed wrt Lidar gun is not false speed.
>> It just is not speed wrt Earth.
>>

> Einstein and I are trying to explain how THE UNIVERSE WORKS. Mathematicians (and you) are trying to explain HOW MATHEMATICS WORKS.
>
> We are talking about reality versus mathematics. They disagree.

No, you just successfully lie to yourself.

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Poutnik wrote:
> Speed and motion IS mathematics, it is part of our models of the real
> world.

Prove it.

> Exploding gunpowder gives about equal but opposite momentum to both the

About equal only?? You must be landing on the moon in year 2020.

> gun and the bullet ( putting aside the gases ).

WHat can you have against gasese? I like gases.

> The gun may eventually to pass momentum to Earth.
> The only difference is in speed value needed for that momentum.

Momentum no need speed. It already includes one.

> What has what speed depend on our arbitrary choice what has zero speed.

I probably would disagree.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 07-mei-2017 om 19:27 schreef Ed Lake:

Everything it has to do with it.

>
> Here is a link to how lidar works when measuring speed:
> http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question396.htm
>
> A quote from that page:
>
> "A laser speed gun measures the round-trip time for light to reach a
> car and reflect back. Light from a laser speed gun moves a lot faster
> than sound -- about 984,000,000 feet per second (300,000,000 meters),
> or roughly 1 foot (30 cm) per nanosecond. A laser speed gun shoots a
> very short burst of infrared laser light and then waits for it to
> reflect off the vehicle. The gun counts the number of nanoseconds it
> takes for the round trip, and by dividing by 2 it can calculate the
> distance to the car. If the gun takes 1,000 samples per second, it
> can compare the change in distance between samples and calculate the
> speed of the car. By taking several hundred samples over the course
> of a third of a second or so, the accuracy can be very high."

and not a single trace of c+v, idiot.

>
> It calculates the speed of the car by comparing the change in
> distance between samples. To understand further, read my paper:
> http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf

Perhaps you should send them an email with your paper
attached, to explain them how their Lidar works.

Dirk Vdm

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 19:49 Bordamos Alamidade napsal(a):

This nymshifting troll
must be so bored and depressed in his real life...

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Poutnik wrote:

>>> Dne 07/05/2017 v 18:49 Ed Lake napsal(a):
>>>> [...] An observer traveling toward the source will measure the light
>>>> arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity. [...]
>>>
>>> What object from a source-detector pair is moving is arbitrary choice.
>>> Speed of light does not depend on this choice.
>>
>> You cant. There are no human made mirrors on moon.
>>
> This nymshifting troll must be so bored and depressed in his real
> life...

This is how the stupid czech is answering a polite question. By something
completely unrelated, but deep philosophical, nevertheless. (whomever your
"mymshifting" troll friend might be). I'm not interested. Go away, troll.
You have no competence in moon landings.

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Let's hear. I doubt it uses Relativity, applying corrections. There are no
correction in Relatrivity to be made.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 5:53:38 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:44:07 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The question is: "Do you believe they [two LIDAR guns] would give
> > > > different readings?" if one LIDAR was pointing at a car moving at
> > > > 50 MPH and one was in the car pointing at a tree beside the LIDAR
> > > > on the ground?"
> > >
> > > Yes, of course. The LIDAR gun pointed at the moving car would give a
> > > reading of 50 mph, and the LIDAR gun pointed at the stationary tree next
> > > to the stationary LIDAR gun would give a reading of ZERO.
> >
> > I disagree: the one in the car will measure 50 MPH, too.
> >
> > > What is the purpose of such a silly question?
> >
> > To demonstrate that you haven't a clue about how light behaves.
> >
> > > Unfortunately, I'm shutting down for today, so I'll have to wait until
> > > tomorrow to read your answer.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > Get a couple of radar or LIDAR guns and do an experiment. Don't just
> > pontificate.
>
> Okay, you failed to mention that one of the lidar guns was in the moving
> car.

NO, I MADE NO SUCH ERROR. you DIDN'T BOTHER CAREFULLY READING WHAT I WROTE.
Do you always blame your shortcomings on others?

> I thought you were talking about two stationary guns, where one was pointed
> at the car going 50 mph and another was pointed at a tree nearby.

So be more careful when you read.

> Now I see that you were talking about one stationary lidar gun pointed at
> the car going at 50 mph, and another lidar gun in the car going 50 mph
> that is pointed at a tree. Of course the gun in the car would show that
> the tree was moving at 50 mph.
>
> What is your point? To show that everything is reciprocal? It is NOT,
> although in that situation the lidar gun would FALSELY show that the
> tree was moving at 50 mph. It is just the way the equipment works. It
> can be TRICKED into giving FALSE readings.

No, the gun was not "tricked." And you have now demonstrated that you
are clueless about reality.

> The question is HOW does the lidar gun work? What causes the lidar gun
> to measure the speed of an object? ANSWER: The lidar gun works by
> measuring the speed of light to be c + v, where v is the speed of the
> object moving in front of the lidar gun, OR the speed of the lidar gun
> AND the speed of an object moving in front of it.
>
> Ed

And you also prove that you don't know how speed guns work. There is NO
measurement of speed in them. Do you always just make things up like this?

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

LOL !!!!

>
> > The question is HOW does the lidar gun work? What causes the lidar gun
> > to measure the speed of an object? ANSWER: The lidar gun works by
> > measuring the speed of light to be c + v, where v is the speed of the
> > object moving in front of the lidar gun, OR the speed of the lidar gun
> > AND the speed of an object moving in front of it.
> >
> > Ed
>
> And you also prove that you don't know how speed guns work. There is NO
> measurement of speed in them. Do you always just make things up like this?

[Ed Lake]

There is "no measurement of speed in them?" Is that English? The measurement of speed is shown on a display screen at the back of the lidar gun. Here are some pictures to show what is displayed:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-se-iI7cfUAQ/TYSfG9xRq3I/AAAAAAAAAbE/M72QRVP6_m0/s1600/LaserAlly-Callouts.jpg
http://www.pbelectronics.com/CIMG0137.JPG
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/01/08/10303965/stalker_lidar_x-series_xlr.png
http://www.sicurauto.it/upload/news_/19490/img/17805-trucam-fa-foto-e-vede-cinture2.jpg
http://www.fleetsafety.com/template/images/stalker/HUD.png

So, what are you going to argue now? That the measurement of speed is not "in" the lidar gun, but on the back of the gun? Or that it isn't a "measurement" of speed but a "reading" of speed?

Here is how a lidar gun works:

1. The gun emits laser pulses at a specific interval, say every 10 nanoseconds.
2. The pulses travel at c to the target.
3. The moving target encounters the pulses arriving at c + v, where v is the speed of the target. The pulses are therefore received with LESS THAN 10 nanoseconds between them.
4. The pulses are EMITTED back to the lidar gun at c BUT also at the less than 10 nanosecond rate.
5. The lidar gun receives the pulses and determines how fast the vehicle was traveling based upon the difference in times between outgoing and incoming pulses.

If you fantasize that a lidar gun works in a different way, please explain.

For more details, see my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

> Ed

Show your Work .....

SHOW THE MATH !!!!!

[Ed Lake]

Here's an explanation of how lidar guns work from web site:

--------------------
The laser gun has a “sight” where the officer can see the target vehicle and aim the device. When the trigger is pulled a thin beam of invisible infra-red light is emitted in distinct pulses. The beam gradually increases in size and at 1000 feet it is three to four feet in diameter. When the light beam hits a relatively perpendicular, reflective surface it bounces back toward the laser gun.

When the returning pulses of light are captured by the laser gun the electronics go to work and they have this kind of conversation:

OK, that first pulse took .0015 seconds to get out there and back, that means the target is 1000 feet away. The second pulse took .0014 seconds to get out there and back so now our target is 950 feet away. The third pulse went out and came back at .0013 seconds putting the target 900 feet from the laser gun. It took us one third second to gather these three measurements and that means the vehicle went 100 feet in one third second. Therefore the vehicle is going 49 miles per hour.

Source: https://www.motorists.org/blog/what-everyone-should-know-about-laser-guns/

Ed

[Kevin Aylward]

"Poutnik" wrote in message news:oenmkg$7nj$1...@dont-email.me...

Dne 07/05/2017 v 19:36 Ed Lake napsal(a):
> Poutnic wrote: "What object from a source-detector pair is moving is
> arbitrary choice. Speed of light does not depend on this choice."

>Speed and motion IS mathematics,

No it isn't. That is a nonsensical, meaningless statement.

Speed and motion are described by mathematics.

Motion is a property that a real physical object has. Mathematics has zero
physical properties. Mathematics is simply bookkeeping on numbers. Numbers
are virtual and do not physically exist, however, they do require physical
objects to be expressed.

>it is part of our models of the real world.

We model real, physical objects with numbers. The model may be in error, but
the object exists, whatever the model.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

[Gary Harnagel]

The gun CALCULATES the speed from the time it takes a pulse to travel to
the target and back by ASSUMING the speed of the pulse is c.

> Here are some pictures to show what is displayed:

> [Irrelevant bull plop deleted]

> So, what are you going to argue now? That the measurement of speed is
> not "in" the lidar gun, but on the back of the gun? Or that it isn't
> a "measurement" of speed but a "reading" of speed?

See above, clueless one.

> Here is how a lidar gun works:
>

> [Dishonest bull plop deleted]

>
> If you fantasize that a lidar gun works in a different way, please explain.

I did, crazy clueless guy.

The basic problem is that you disagree with actual experiments:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

Here, the speed of light reflected from a moving mirror is shown to be
independent of the motion of the mirror.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B

Here, the speed of light from a source with varying speed is shown to be
independent of the speed of the source.

Particle accelerators demonstrate daily that massive particles are limited
by c, and the velocity addition formula derived from the LT shows why that
is so.

> For more details, see my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf
>
> Ed

Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is
not original, and the part that is original is not good. -- Samuel Johnson

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 2:10:29 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> Here's an explanation of how lidar guns work from web site:
>
> --------------------
> The laser gun has a “sight” where the officer can see the target vehicle and aim the device. When the trigger is pulled a thin beam of invisible infra-red light is emitted in distinct pulses. The beam gradually increases in size and at 1000 feet it is three to four feet in diameter. When the light beam hits a relatively perpendicular, reflective surface it bounces back toward the laser
> gun.
>
> When the returning pulses of light are captured by the laser gun the
> electronics go to work and they have this kind of conversation:
>
> OK, that first pulse took .0015 seconds to get out there and back,
> that means the target is 1000 feet away. The second pulse took .0014
> seconds to get out there and back so now our target is 950 feet away.
> The third pulse went out and came back at .0013 seconds putting the
> target 900 feet from the laser gun. It took us one third second to
> gather these three measurements and that means the vehicle went 100
feet in one third second. Therefore the vehicle is going 49 miles per hour.
>
> Source: https://www.motorists.org/blog/what-everyone-should-know-about-laser-guns/
>
> Ed

And there is NOTHING in that reference that says ANYTHING about measuring
c + v. It measures the round trip time, divides it by two and multiplies
by c to get the distance. It does it again and gets a new distance. It
takes the differential distance and divides it by the differential time.

Do you often have reading comprehension problems?

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 22:01 Ed Lake napsal(a):

>
> There is "no measurement of speed in them?" Is that English? The measurement of speed is shown on a display screen at the back of the lidar gun. Here are some pictures to show what is displayed: [...]

What is measured and what is displayed are 2 different things.

Neither the kitchen scale measures mass, but force,
even if it is the mass what is displayed.

The LIDAR gun measures the time interval between returned pulses
and calculates the speed from this interval.

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 22:27 Kevin Aylward napsal(a):

> "Poutnik" wrote in message news:oenmkg$7nj$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Dne 07/05/2017 v 19:36 Ed Lake napsal(a):
>> Poutnic wrote: "What object from a source-detector pair is moving is
>> arbitrary choice. Speed of light does not depend on this choice."
>
>
>> Speed and motion IS mathematics,
>
> No it isn't. That is a nonsensical, meaningless statement.

You just have not found the meaning in that.
It was meant figurally.

>
> Speed and motion are described by mathematics.

Obviously.

>
> Motion is a property that a real physical object has.

Only if there is absolute rest.

> Mathematics has
> zero physical properties. Mathematics is simply bookkeeping on numbers.

No objection.

> Numbers are virtual and do not physically exist, however, they do
> require physical objects to be expressed.

No objection.

>
> We model real, physical objects with numbers. The model may be in error,
> but the object exists, whatever the model.

Did I say otherwise ?

With exception, even those objects are our models of real objects.
Even people and furniture around you are parts of your mental model
of the real world, based on input of your senses.

[Ed Lake]

Okay. I was wrong. Lidar guns do NOT measure the difference in the pulse rate. They measure the distance to the oncoming vehicle for every pulse. If the pulse takes 0.00010 seconds to get to the vehicle and back, they know how far away the vehicle is because they know the speed of light. If the next pulse takes 0.00009 seconds to travel to the vehicle and back, they know how far away the vehicle is at that point. The gun can then calculate how fast the vehicle must be traveling to cover the calculated distance in the time between measurements.

A lidar gun COULD work the way I described, but that is not HOW they work.

There's a video here that explains how lidar guns work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5CZ5kFdmQ

RADAR guns work the way I described. Here's one explanation: "They send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a phenomenon called the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward or away from the gun, the frequency of the reflected radio waves when they come back is different from the transmitted waves. From that difference, the radar speed gun can calculate the speed of the object from which the waves have been bounced."

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

A good explanation WITH THE MATH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAwW7_nYG0c
Another good source: http://radartest.com/how-radar-works.asp

So, I'll have to change my paper.

But, that's why I'm posting questions here. I do not expect any intelligent answers, but the research I need to do to ask the questions and respond to nonsense answers will help clarify the matter and help find any errors in my logic.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 3:39:17 PM UTC-5, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 07/05/2017 v 22:01 Ed Lake napsal(a):
>
> >
> > There is "no measurement of speed in them?" Is that English? The measurement of speed is shown on a display screen at the back of the lidar gun. Here are some pictures to show what is displayed: [...]
>
> What is measured and what is displayed are 2 different things.
>
> Neither the kitchen scale measures mass, but force,
> even if it is the mass what is displayed.
>
> The LIDAR gun measures the time interval between returned pulses
> and calculates the speed from this interval.

Yeah, that's why I thought,too. It COULD work that way, but it doesn't. See my previous comment. However, I think that is the way they did things when they did the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments.

Ed

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Poutnik wrote:

> Neither the kitchen scale measures mass, but force,
> even if it is the mass what is displayed.

Nevermind. I drove through your country, from an end to another, in no
more than 30 minutes.

> The LIDAR gun measures the time interval between returned pulses and
> calculates the speed from this interval.

No. Would imply neglecting the speed of EM in Air. Would be illegal. Quit
science, friend. Do you believe in moon landing anno 2020?

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

>>Speed and motion IS mathematics,
>
> No it isn't. That is a nonsensical, meaningless statement.

Absolutely correct. He has an excuse, you can transit his country in about
half an hour and so.

> Numbers are virtual and do not physically exist, however, they do
> require physical objects to be expressed.

Correct one more time.

>>it is part of our models of the real world.
>
> We model real, physical objects with numbers. The model may be in error,
> but the object exists, whatever the model.

nOT SURE, do you believe in moon landing year 2020? Would be possible,
technologically achievable?

[Bordamos Alamidade]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is
> not original, and the part that is original is not good.

Because you are attempting reading it upside-down. I am waiting for that
moon landing year 2020, as predicted decades ago.

[Paparios]

El domingo, 7 de mayo de 2017, 13:49:17 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió:

>
> The argument now is about this FALSE claim: "The precise statement of the light speed postulate in Einstein's paper is that the speed of light as measured in the "stationary" system is independent of the state of motion of the source."
>
> FALSE. There is nothing about any "stationary system" in the second postulate. The second postulate is: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> "INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY" means that, if the body is stationary OR moving, it will still EMIT light at c. This MUST be so, because otherwise the movement of the EMITTING body PLUS the speed of light could EXCEED the natural maximum for the speed of light.
>
> Tests show that no matter how fast an object is moving when it EMITS light, it will still emit light at c.
>
> That in NO WAY affects what an observer will see. An observer traveling toward the source will measure the light arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity. If he is moving away from the source of light, the light will arrive at c - v. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how fast the light is actually moving through space, it is JUST MATHEMATICS.
>
> I explain this in detail in my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf
>
> Ed

This thing about the limit of c for any speed is based on just common sense
and logic, as is so well explained by Landau and Lifshitz in the very first
page of their Classical Theory of Fields (see page 13 of
https://ia800307.us.archive.org/16/items/TheClassicalTheoryOfFields/LandauLifshitz-TheClassicalTheoryOfFields.pdf:

"However, experiment shows that instantaneous interactions do not exist in
nature. Thus a mechanics based on the assumption of instantaneous propagation
of interactions contains within itself a certain inaccuracy. In actuality,
if any change takes place in one of the interacting bodies, it will influence
the other bodies only after the lapse of a certain interval of time. It is
only after this time interval that processes caused by the initial change
begin to take place in the second body. Dividing the distance between the
two bodies by this time interval, we obtain the velocity of propagation of
the interaction.

We note that this velocity should, strictly speaking, be called the MAXIMUM
velocity of propagation of interaction. It determines only that interval
of time after which a change ocurring in one body begins to manifest it self
in another. It is clear that the existence of a maximum velocity of propagation
of interactions implies, at the same time, that motions of bodies with greater
velocity than this are in general impossible in nature. For if such a motion
could occur, then by means of it one could realize an interaction with a
velocity exceeding the maximum possible velocity of propagation of
interactions.

Interactions propagating from one particle to another are frequently called
"signals", sent out from the first particle and "informing" the second
particle of changes which the first has experienced. The velocity of
propagation of interaction is then referred to as the signal velocity".

It is clear from the above quote, that both emitting and receiving maximum
velocity of propagation of interactions should be the same in order to
maintain a logical relationship. Up until today, this maximum velocity of
propagation of interactions is c.

[Poutnik]

Dne 07/05/2017 v 22:53 Ed Lake napsal(a):

It does it this way,
or the equivalent way of subsequent differential ranging.

[Ed Lake]

Your link doesn't work. I got it from this link instead: http://www.elegio.it/mc2/LandauLifshitz_TheClassicalTheoryOfFields_text.pdf

Ed

[poly...@gmail.com]

If a LIDAR measures v+c from the target, it will measure time = (d/c)+(d/(v+c)), not 2d/c. To solve for the first one, t = (d/c)+(d/(v+c)) => t = (d(v+c) + dc)/(c(c+v)) = (dv + dc + dc)/(c^2 + cv) = (dv + 2dc)/(c^2 + cv) .... you now have to solve for both d and v.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 07-mei-2017 om 22:48 schreef Ed Lake:

> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 3:10:29 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:

[snip]

>
> Okay. I was wrong.

Good, now go find another hobby.

> Lidar guns do NOT measure the difference in the
> pulse rate. They measure the distance to the oncoming vehicle for
> every pulse. If the pulse takes 0.00010 seconds to get to the
> vehicle and back, they know how far away the vehicle is because they
> know the speed of light. If the next pulse takes 0.00009 seconds to
> travel to the vehicle and back, they know how far away the vehicle is
> at that point. The gun can then calculate how fast the vehicle must
> be traveling to cover the calculated distance in the time between
> measurements.
>

> A lidar gun COULD work the way I described,but that is not HOW they

> work.
>
> There's a video here that explains how lidar guns work:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5CZ5kFdmQ
>
> RADAR guns work the way I described. Here's one explanation: "They
> send out a radio signal in a narrow beam, then receive the same
> signal back after it bounces off the target object. Due to a
> phenomenon called the Doppler effect, if the object is moving toward
> or away from the gun, the frequency of the reflected radio waves when
> they come back is different from the transmitted waves. From that
> difference, the radar speed gun can calculate the speed of the object
> from which the waves have been bounced."
>
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_gun
>
> A good explanation WITH THE MATH:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAwW7_nYG0c Another good source:
> http://radartest.com/how-radar-works.asp
>
> So, I'll have to change my paper.

EVEVERYTHING is wrong in your paper.
Just throw it away.

>
> But, that's why I'm posting questions here. I do not expect any
> intelligent answers, but the research I need to do to ask the
> questions and respond to nonsense answers will help clarify the
> matter and help find any errors in my logic.

Yes, as in

http://www.superfrink.net/athenaeum/www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Dirk Vdm

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 9:49:17 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> The argument now is about this FALSE claim: "The precise
> statement of the light speed postulate in Einstein's paper
> is that the speed of light as measured in the "stationary"
> system is independent of the state of motion of the source."
> FALSE. There is nothing about any "stationary system" in the

> second postulate....

The formal statement of the two postulates is given at the beginning of Section 2 of the paper, where the second postulate is:

"2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
system of coordinates with the determined
velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
a stationary or by a moving body."

Any editor or referee at any reputable journal (in fact, anyone who has ever read Einstein's paper) knows full well that this is the formal statement of Einstein's second postulate in the 1905 paper. The fact that you don't know this proves that you have never even read past the first section of the paper. You can't seriously believe that you are ready to write a paper to teach the world about Einstein's second postulate in his 1905 paper without having read beyond the first few pages of the paper. This is why your paper is filled with obviously false statements and misconceptions.

> Tests show that no matter how fast an object is moving
> when it EMITS light, it will still emit light at c.

Sure, the speed of the light is c in terms of the rest frame of the emitter, and it is also c in terms of the rest frame of the receiver. This is the whole point of special relativity as described in Einstein's paper (which you have never read).

> An observer traveling toward the source will measure the
> light arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity.

No, the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, both the emitter's rest frame and the receiver's rest frame and every other inertial coordinate system. Every high school student who hears this has the same reaction that you have now. He says "that can't possibly be right!"... but then he actually learns special relativity and discovers the reason that it actually is true (inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations).

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:49:37 AM UTC-7, Bordamos Alamidade wrote:

> There are no human made mirrors on moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:10:29 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 9:49:17 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > The argument now is about this FALSE claim: "The precise
> > statement of the light speed postulate in Einstein's paper
> > is that the speed of light as measured in the "stationary"
> > system is independent of the state of motion of the source."
> > FALSE. There is nothing about any "stationary system" in the
> > second postulate....
>
> The formal statement of the two postulates is given at the beginning of Section 2 of the paper, where the second postulate is:
>
> "2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
> system of coordinates with the determined
> velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
> a stationary or by a moving body."

Are you being devious? You are only quoting PART of what it says. Einstein then gives the formula for determining the velocity of light. It is the "light path" divided by the "time interval." And then he adds, "where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § 1."

And back in § 1 he wrote: "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it 'the time of the stationary system'.”

So, "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." In other words, light will travel at c whether emitted by a stationary or moving body. HOWEVER, if you are NOT in a stationary system of coordinates, light MAY NOT be measured to travel at c.

>
> Any editor or referee at any reputable journal (in fact, anyone who has ever read Einstein's paper) knows full well that this is the formal statement of Einstein's second postulate in the 1905 paper. The fact that you don't know this proves that you have never even read past the first section of the paper. You can't seriously believe that you are ready to write a paper to teach the world about Einstein's second postulate in his 1905 paper without having read beyond the first few pages of the paper. This is why your paper is filled with obviously false statements and misconceptions.
>
> > Tests show that no matter how fast an object is moving
> > when it EMITS light, it will still emit light at c.
>
> Sure, the speed of the light is c in terms of the rest frame of the emitter, and it is also c in terms of the rest frame of the receiver. This is the whole point of special relativity as described in Einstein's paper (which you have never read).

NO, the EMITTER views the speed of light as c whether the emitter is moving or not. Other observers may NOT view the light as traveling at c.

>
> > An observer traveling toward the source will measure the
> > light arriving at c + v, where v is the OBSERVER'S velocity.
>
> No, the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, both the emitter's rest frame and the receiver's rest frame and every other inertial coordinate system. Every high school student who hears this has the same reaction that you have now. He says "that can't possibly be right!"... but then he actually learns special relativity and discovers the reason that it actually is true (inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations).

Yes, the student is INCORRECTLY taught how relativity works. That is my complaint. Einstein's theory of Relativity is REVOLUTIONARY in that he says TIME CAN MOVE AT A DIFFERENT RATE IN EVERY FRAME OF REFERENCE. An observer on a train who is moving will view time occurring at a different rate than an observer on the embankment outside of the train. He will have a different length of a second, therefore his speed of light PER SECOND will be different. But it will seem "normal" to him.

My other paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" explains how I can measure the same speed of light per second as you measure, but the speed of light will actually be different because the length of a second is longer for me than for you. The current version of that paper is version #4 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0234

The paper shows the experiments which PROVE that time differs for nearly every observer. AND the speed of light can be SHOWN to be different for nearly every observer IF they measure BOTH their local speed of light and their local length of a second and make the comparison. It's DONE EVERY DAY.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I just submitted some changes to my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to correct what I misstated about how LIDAR guns work. The changes are relatively minor, most of them in section VII, which begins on page 16 of the 20 page paper. The new version (version #3) will probably appear at this link http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256 later today.

Note that I am leaving all versions of my paper on the site. There were errors in version #1 that I noticed and corrected in version #2, and there was an error in version #2 that I noticed and corrected in version #3.

And now I'm go to wait to see if anyone can point out any errors in version #3. I know that many people here will consider the whole paper to be in error, but OPINIONS have no meaning to me. To be an "error," it has to be PROVEN that EXPERIMENTS show that what I wrote is wrong. The paper has a whole list of experiment which show that I (and Einstein) are right.

Ed

[Dono,]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:04:26 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>snip imbecilities<
> Ed

Thick skinned natural cretin.

[Dono,]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> I can measure the same speed of light per second as you measure, but the speed of light will actually be different because the length of a second is longer for me than for you.

Cretin, Ken Shito's brother

[poly...@gmail.com]

You also wrote in another thread:

"Why can't you understand that OPINIONS are of no concern to me? If you want to prove me wrong, you have to show me EXPERIMENTS which say I (and Einstein) are wrong.

My papers LIST EXPERIMENT AFTER EXPERIMENT which show that what I and Einstein wrote regarding "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and what you argue is the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which EXPERIMENT AFTER EXPERIMENT PROVES TO BE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. "

It is the different length of the second that makes the speed of light constant. If we accounted for the length of the second, light would not be constant (in the perspective of another observer that observed the first one moving, in relation to the first observer). However, it is not indicating that an emitter adds any kind of effect to the light's speed.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

That's Funny

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Stupid Donkey Ed,
Both the Emitter & Reciever will always utilize c as they are both constructed of mass.

You know... E=mc^2???
That is the constant that governs Energy exchanges between matter .... c

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:10:29 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The formal statement of the two postulates is given at the beginning of Section 2 of the paper, where the second postulate is:
> >
> > "2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
> > system of coordinates with the determined
> > velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
> > a stationary or by a moving body."
>

> Are you being devious? ...So, "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." In other words, light will travel at c [in the stationary system of coordinates] whether emitted by a stationary or moving body.

Devious? Your conclusion is just affirming what I said - and what you have strenuously denied. For an observer at rest in the "stationary" system, the speed of light emitted from some source is c in the observer's frame, regardless of the state of motion of the emitter in that stationary system, e.g., regardless of whether the emitter is approaching or receding from the observer. This does not say the speed is c in the rest frame of the emitter, although a few pages later Einstein shows that it actually is c in the "moving" frame of the emitter as well, and in every other frame.

> HOWEVER, if you are NOT in a stationary system of
> coordinates, light MAY NOT be measured to travel at c.

Not true. Read Einstein's paper. Focus on Section 3, beginning where he says "We have now to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed [in the second postulate], this is the case in the stationary system..."

> NO, the EMITTER views the speed of light as c whether the
> emitter is moving or not.

Correct, the speed of light is c in the rest frame of the emitter, i.e., the inertial coordinate system in which the emitter is at rest, regardless of the emitter's state of motion. (This is proven in Section 3 of Einstein's paper, it is not the second postulate, as you erroneously claim. See above.)

> Other observers may NOT view the light as traveling at c.

Not true. Read Einstein's paper, especially Section 3, as quoted above.

> Yes, the student is INCORRECTLY taught how relativity works.

You say this, but everything you bring forward in support of your claim is easily shown to be false. It appears that you have no idea "how relativity works", so you're not in any position to know if it is being taught correctly or not. (I actually agree that relativity is often badly taught, but not exactly for the reasons you think.)

> The paper shows the experiments which PROVE that time differs for nearly every observer. AND the speed of light can be SHOWN to be different for nearly every observer IF they measure BOTH their local speed of light and their local length of a second and make the comparison. It's DONE EVERY DAY.

Your paper consists entirely of elementary misconceptions and misinformation.

[Ed Lake]

The different length of a second does not make the speed of light constant. It causes the speed of light to APPEAR constant to everyone. You have to make the right kind of comparisons to show that it is NOT constant.

Movement by the emitter does not add to the speed of light because of some PHYSICAL NATURAL LIMIT to the speed of TIME (my theory) or to the speed of light (another possibility).

Movement by some outside observer would not affect the actual speed of light. If they measure light arriving at c + v, where v is their velocity, the speed of light is still c. Their movement didn't change anything. c + v is just mathematics.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I'm not going to argue opinion versus opinion anymore. It is pointless. I'm only going to discuss what the EXPERIMENTS say. The EXPERIMENTS say I am right. If you disagree, you have to explain why all the EXPERIMENTS are wrong.

Ed

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I'm not going to argue opinion versus opinion anymore.
> It is pointless. I'm only going to discuss what the
> EXPERIMENTS say.

You've made two types of claims, one historical (what did Einstein's 1905 paper say), and one physical (how does relativity actually work). The historical question isn't opinion or experiment, it is simply quoting what the paper actually says. We've seen that all your claims about what the paper says are wrong, by giving the verbatim quotes that directly contradict your claims.

> The EXPERIMENTS say I am right. If you disagree, you
> have to explain why all the EXPERIMENTS are wrong.

But this is where we started. You claimed that experimental evidence such as LIDAR guns prove you right, but when I point out that LIDAR guns work in accord with special relativity, you agreed that there is no experimental evidence against special relativity.

I suspect part of the problem is that you have made up your own language, re-defining words in bizarre ways of your own choosing. For example, when you say "special relativity" you don't mean what everyone else in the world means, you mean some notions of your own that you think deserve to be called special relativity. And when you refer to what everyone else calls special relativity, you call it something like "stupid mathematical nonsense theory". It really isn't helpful use words with home-grown definitions if you really want to communicate. Try using words with the definitions that everyone else uses, and we will be able to make better progress.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 5/8/17 2:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I'm not going to argue opinion versus opinion anymore. It is pointless. I'm only going to discuss what the EXPERIMENTS say. > The EXPERIMENTS say I am right. If you disagree, you have to explain
why all the EXPERIMENTS are wrong.

Well, I have to say it's been interesting to watch your shifting around.

A while back you said you had no interest in self-publishing or
publishing in a nonreputable outlet like vixra.org, and were only
interested in publishing in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Now you
have abandoned that and have decided to publish in vixra.org after all.

Then you said that the EVIDENCE of what your paper claimed was in the
writings of Einstein himself, which (you claimed) proved that Einstein
thought the same as you, regardless of the experimental results, and
that people were misinterpreting both Einstein and the experimental
results. After a bit, it was pointed out that you have skipped over the
parts of Einstein's writings that fly in the face of your claims, after
reading only the first few paragraphs that you understood. So now you
claim that you're not interested in what Einstein actually said but are
now only interested in experimental data.


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

[Larry Harson]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:41:18 PM UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> Yesterday, I put my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" on viXra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v4.pdf
>
> The paper uses SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to show that mathematicians are arguing TOTAL NONSENSE when they claim that Time Dilation is reciprocal and/or "just an illusion."
>
> I had submitted the paper to a journal which was about to publish it when they notified me that it would cost me $508 to publish. Buried deep in one of their web pages was a single sentence that said that authors must pay $127 per published page to offset printing costs. I'd failed to notice that, and I withdrew the paper. I'm not in a "publish or perish" situation, and my only interest is in trying to figure out how science got into a situation where experiments are ignored and NONSENSE mathematics is what is taught in schools.
>
> Together with my paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf which is about Einstein's Second Postulate, it is clear that SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is being ignored in physics classes and they are instead teaching TOTAL NONSENSE.
>
> I'm posting the links to the papers here in hopes someone might suggest a good way to get these papers read by the scientific community. What (non-pay) journal would be best for them?
>
> Ed Lake

Ed, I understand where you're coming from: like everyone else, you have a view of the world and you're convinced you're right. This is true of all us us to some degree, regardless of age, belief, competence etc.

However, the problem here is that your view conflicts with the view of individuals in their 20s fresh out of graduate school with a PhD under their belt. It also conflicts with the view of teachers of physics at universities that have made a career out of understanding and then passing on their knowledge of physics. So this raises a fundamental question:

How likely is it that you, an elderly man learning about relativity, can compete with people much younger, better informed, trained, and competent that you in fundamental physics?

I think it's great that you're involved in something that gives you a sense of purpose, but how about some realistic humility regarding your competence in these matters?

All the best,

Larry Harson

[Odd Bodkin]

On 5/8/17 3:14 PM, Larry Harson wrote:
> I think it's great that you're involved in something that gives you a sense of purpose, > but how about some realistic humility regarding your competence in
these matters?

Realistic humility serves no purpose to someone like Ed Lake.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I'm not going to argue opinion versus opinion anymore.
> > It is pointless. I'm only going to discuss what the
> > EXPERIMENTS say.
>
> You've made two types of claims, one historical (what did Einstein's 1905 paper say), and one physical (how does relativity actually work). The historical question isn't opinion or experiment, it is simply quoting what the paper actually says. We've seen that all your claims about what the paper says are wrong, by giving the verbatim quotes that directly contradict your claims.

NOT TRUE. I cite an exact quote that proves my point, and someone else cites another quote which they CLAIM disagrees with the first quote. But, it doesn't. They just interpret it that way. So, we argue over interpretations.

>
> > The EXPERIMENTS say I am right. If you disagree, you
> > have to explain why all the EXPERIMENTS are wrong.
>
> But this is where we started. You claimed that experimental evidence such as LIDAR guns prove you right, but when I point out that LIDAR guns work in accord with special relativity, you agreed that there is no experimental evidence against special relativity.

There is no experimental evidence against EINSTEIN'S special relativity. There IS experimental evidence against the mathematicians' INTERPRETATION of special relativity. That is what my papers are all about.

>
> I suspect part of the problem is that you have made up your own language, re-defining words in bizarre ways of your own choosing. For example, when you say "special relativity" you don't mean what everyone else in the world means, you mean some notions of your own that you think deserve to be called special relativity. And when you refer to what everyone else calls special relativity, you call it something like "stupid mathematical nonsense theory". It really isn't helpful use words with home-grown definitions if you really want to communicate. Try using words with the definitions that everyone else uses, and we will be able to make better progress.

I haven't memorized phrases learned in school. I use my own wording. There's nothing I can do about that.

As I see it, people who can do nothing but recite memorized phrasing do not really understand what they are talking about. It is just stuff they memorized, and when I ask questions it is like pushing a button and they spout the memorized phases.

It appears to much to ask of people here to talk in plain English.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I'm not trying to compete with anyone. I'm just trying to figure out why schools are teaching what countless experiments have shown to be TOTAL NONSENSE.

It occurred to me while I was on the treadmill at the gym this afternoon that all these debates began on Facebook a couple years ago. I argued there for a long time before coming to this group about three months ago. I only came here when I did some research and accidentally stumbled upon this group.

I just checked out one of the science Facebook groups to which I belong and saw that it has 83,105 members. I'm thinking maybe my time would be better spent there, since I'm getting nothing but INSULTS and OPINIONS here.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 5/8/17 3:21 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:

>> But this is where we started. You claimed that experimental evidence such as LIDAR guns
>> prove you right, but when I point out that LIDAR guns work in accord with special relativity, >> you agreed that there is no experimental evidence against special
relativity.
>
> There is no experimental evidence against EINSTEIN'S special relativity. There IS experimental
> evidence against the mathematicians' INTERPRETATION of special relativity. That is what my papers
> are all about.

There is not a lick of experimental evidence that indicates that the
incoming speed of light to an observer is different than c/n, where n is
the index of refraction at the observer. (n=1 for vacuum.)

You misunderstood how LIDAR works, and you've misunderstood the other
experimental results as well.

>
>>
>> I suspect part of the problem is that you have made up your own language, re-defining words in bizarre
>> ways of your own choosing. For example, when you say "special relativity" you don't mean what everyone
>> else in the world means, you mean some notions of your own that you think deserve to be called special
>> relativity. And when you refer to what everyone else calls special relativity, you call it something
>> like "stupid mathematical nonsense theory". It really isn't helpful use words with home-grown definitions
>> if you really want to communicate. Try using words with the definitions that everyone else uses, and
>> we will be able to make better progress.
>
> I haven't memorized phrases learned in school. I use my own wording. There's nothing I can do about that.
>
> As I see it, people who can do nothing but recite memorized phrasing do not really understand what they
> are talking about. It is just stuff they memorized, and when I ask questions it is like pushing a button
> and they spout the memorized phases.
>
> It appears to much to ask of people here to talk in plain English.

Ed, if you are intending to communicate with people in a particular area
of study, it behooves you to use terminology the way the people do in
that area of study. If you do not do that, it indicates that you either
have no intention of effectively communicating with them or that you
have no interest in learning the meaning of words as they use them in
that area of study.

You have a good number of excuses to avoid learning things.

>
> Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 5/8/17 3:31 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> I just checked out one of the science Facebook groups to which I belong and saw that it has 83,105 members.
> I'm thinking maybe my time would be better spent there, since I'm getting nothing but INSULTS and OPINIONS here.

I'm pretty sure, Ed, that what matters to you is being noticed.

Some people drop trou on subway trains to do that. But if you want to go
online to the choicest venue to be noticed, then by all means head off
to facebook.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> I cite an exact quote that proves my point, and someone
> else cites another quote which they CLAIM disagrees with
> the first quote. But, it doesn't.

In this case it was more black and white. You screamed at me (in all caps) that Einstein's second postulate did not refer to any "stationary" system. I posted the quote of Einstein's second postulate which explicitly refers to the "stationary" system. Also, after you recognized this you gave a synopsis that agreed that the speed is c in the stationary system, even if the source is moving in the stationary system, which contradicts your whole concept of "Einstein's Emitter Theory".

> They just interpret it that way. So, we argue over interpretations.

But this is crucial. You were grossly misinterpreting the words in Einstein's paper (the few that you actually read). This is responsible for your conception of "Einstein's Emitter Theory", which is utterly contrary to Einstein's actual theory.

> There is no experimental evidence against EINSTEIN'S special relativity.

This just highlights the importance of realizing that your notion of "Einstein's Emitter Theory" is utterly wrong. There is an abundance of experimental evidence against the notions that you have labeled "Einstein's special relativity", but there is no experimental evidence against the actual theory of special relativity. In the actual theory, the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

> There IS experimental evidence against the mathematicians'
> INTERPRETATION of special relativity. That is what my papers
> are all about.

Let's agree to use the term "special relativity" to refer to the theory in which the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, and such systems are related by Lorentz transformations, as shown at the end of Section 5 of Einstein's 1905 paper. And let's agree to use the term "Ed Lake's theory" to refer to whatever you think is the correct theory of how relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are related. Now, special relativity is very well defined and in agreement with all experimental evidence, but we need you to tell us Ed Lake's theory. How does it differ from special relativity?

> I haven't memorized phrases learned in school. I use my
> own wording. There's nothing I can do about that.

If you want to communicate, I think you should at least make an effort to use words with their established meanings.

> It appears to much to ask of people here to talk in plain English.

I don't think that's too much to ask. I've tried to talk in plain English to you.

You say you want to just talk about the experimental evidence, so please tell me one piece of experimental evidence against the fact that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. (Hint: There isn't any.)

[Larry Harson]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:41:18 PM UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> Yesterday, I put my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" on viXra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v4.pdf
>
> The paper uses SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to show that mathematicians are arguing TOTAL NONSENSE when they claim that Time Dilation is reciprocal and/or "just an illusion."
>
> I had submitted the paper to a journal which was about to publish it when they notified me that it would cost me $508 to publish. Buried deep in one of their web pages was a single sentence that said that authors must pay $127 per published page to offset printing costs. I'd failed to notice that, and I withdrew the paper. I'm not in a "publish or perish" situation, and my only interest is in trying to figure out how science got into a situation where experiments are ignored and NONSENSE mathematics is what is taught in schools.
>
> Together with my paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf which is about Einstein's Second Postulate, it is clear that SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is being ignored in physics classes and they are instead teaching TOTAL NONSENSE.
>
> I'm posting the links to the papers here in hopes someone might suggest a good way to get these papers read by the scientific community. What (non-pay) journal would be best for them?
>
> Ed Lake

OK, Ed; I've had a look at your new paper, and there's a few points I'm concerned about right at the start:

1. Abstract: "Yet, many physicists insist on viewing Time Dilation as nothing more than an “illusion,” a solution to a mathematical problem which has no meaning without the problem.

Do you have any references for this claim of yours?

I agree with Einstein in defining time as something a clock measures, and is real by definition if it's something that gives the same value by different observers carrying out the same measurement of a physically identical clock. If reading the time off a clock is real, then so is time dilation from experiments.

2. Page 2: "In 1905 Albert Einstein discovered that Time Dilation (the slowing of time) was the solution to serious mathematical problems related to Relativity and simultaneity that had been plaguing other scientists for many years. source: Einstein's 1905 paper."

Time dilation wasn't a solution to a serious mathematical problem. Understanding why experiments couldn't verify the idea of light travelling in a universal ether was the main problem at the time. Einstein wrote in reference (1) of yours:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."

Einstein's problem was reconciling the speed of light being constant for all observers from an emitting object with the "common sense" idea of simultaneous events being simultaneous for all moving observers. Once this prejudice concerning simultaneity was removed by his young, flexible mind, the mathematics of the Lorentz transformations of Special Relativity inevitably followed. Time dilation inevitably followed, and wasn't a "solution" to a serious mathematical problem as you claim.

Given the serious misunderstandings right at the start of the paper, I don't consider the rest to be worth reading.

Larry Harson

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:16:54 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I cite an exact quote that proves my point, and someone
> > else cites another quote which they CLAIM disagrees with
> > the first quote. But, it doesn't.
>
> In this case it was more black and white. You screamed at me (in all caps) that Einstein's second postulate did not refer to any "stationary" system. I posted the quote of Einstein's second postulate which explicitly refers to the "stationary" system. Also, after you recognized this you gave a synopsis that agreed that the speed is c in the stationary system, even if the source is moving in the stationary system, which contradicts your whole concept of "Einstein's Emitter Theory".

We're not communicating. I'm saying one thing and you claim I said things I never said because you spin things to fit your beliefs.

>
> > They just interpret it that way. So, we argue over interpretations.
>
> But this is crucial. You were grossly misinterpreting the words in Einstein's paper (the few that you actually read). This is responsible for your conception of "Einstein's Emitter Theory", which is utterly contrary to Einstein's actual theory.

Yes, I understand that is what YOU BELIEVE. I say the paper fully supports the "Einstein Emitter Only Theory." So, we have an opinion versus opinion argument which is a total waste of time.

>
> > There is no experimental evidence against EINSTEIN'S special relativity.
>
> This just highlights the importance of realizing that your notion of "Einstein's Emitter Theory" is utterly wrong. There is an abundance of experimental evidence against the notions that you have labeled "Einstein's special relativity", but there is no experimental evidence against the actual theory of special relativity. In the actual theory, the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

Yes, I understand that is your BELIEF, but it has nothing to do with reality.

>
> > There IS experimental evidence against the mathematicians'
> > INTERPRETATION of special relativity. That is what my papers
> > are all about.
>
> Let's agree to use the term "special relativity" to refer to the theory in which the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, and such systems are related by Lorentz transformations, as shown at the end of Section 5 of Einstein's 1905 paper. And let's agree to use the term "Ed Lake's theory" to refer to whatever you think is the correct theory of how relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates are related. Now, special relativity is very well defined and in agreement with all experimental evidence, but we need you to tell us Ed Lake's theory. How does it differ from special relativity?

My theory does NOT differ from special relativity. It differs from you MISinterpretation of special relativity.

>
> > I haven't memorized phrases learned in school. I use my
> > own wording. There's nothing I can do about that.
>
> If you want to communicate, I think you should at least make an effort to use words with their established meanings.

It's not the meanings of words that is the problem here. It is CONCEPTS. Einstein introduced the concept that TIME is different for you than for me. He makes it clear in his 1905 paper that TIME is different depending upon your north-south location, because the earth is moving faster the closer you get to the equator. At the equator it is moving at about 1,040 mph. In New York it is moving at about 500 mph. And at the North and South poles, it is just turning in a circle and not moving laterally. Special Relativity says that TIME runs slower in Miami than in New York because the faster you move, the slower time passes for you. Mathematicians cannot accept that and argue Einstein was wrong. And they spin everything else he wrote to argue that Einstein didn't really mean what he wrote.

>
> > It appears to much to ask of people here to talk in plain English.
>
> I don't think that's too much to ask. I've tried to talk in plain English to you.
>
> You say you want to just talk about the experimental evidence, so please tell me one piece of experimental evidence against the fact that the speed of light is c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. (Hint: There isn't any.)

The speed of light Is MEASURED the same in "every system of inertial coordinates." BUT it is NOT the same. It is MEASURED the same because of Relativity and Einstein's First Postulate: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

However, due to TIME being different in "all the frames of reference for which the equations hold good," the MEASURED data in one frame is actually different from what is MEASURED in another frame. YOU HAVE TO COMPARE TIMES IN THE TWO FRAMES TO SEE THAT THE MEASUREMENTS ARE ACTUALLY DIFFERENT.

If I emit light at c in my frame of reference, that light will NOT be c in your frame of reference UNLESS you are absolutely stationary relative to me. If you are moving at a different rate, which would be the case if you are in New York and I am in Miami, then the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different for you than for me. And, therefore, 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND has a different value for you than for me.

So, we will both get 299,792,458 meters per second for the speed of light when we measure it, but because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is different for you than for me, we are actually measuring DIFFERENT speeds of light. That is what RELATIVITY is all about.

My paper on Time Dilation lists the experiments which show that TIME is different in different locations:

1. The TAI problem with atomic clocks in different locations.
2. The Hafele-Keating experiment.
3. GPS satellite time differences (which is also about gravity).
4. The NIST experiment (which is about gravity, not speed).

You just need to try to understand what these experiments show. They show that if TIME is different in those different locations, then the measured speed of light PER SECOND in those different locations is also different.

My paper about Time Dilation is version #4 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0234

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake, out of decency, wrote:
> The speed of light Is MEASURED the same in "every system of inertial coordinates."
> BUT it is NOT the same.

Each time you will pretend to support physicists against (alleged)
mathematicians, one could remind you what kind of stupid sentences,
such as this one above, you've written... Read it carefully again.

> It is MEASURED the same because of Relativity and Einstein's First Postulate:
> "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
> reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

This is utterly meaningless. How could a postulate be the /cause/ of a
measurement?

You are definitely out of your mind, Mr Lake.

By the way, Mr Lake, your "paper" is still not present on Arxiv...

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-5, Larry Harson wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:41:18 PM UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Yesterday, I put my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" on viXra.org. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v4.pdf
> >
> > The paper uses SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE to show that mathematicians are arguing TOTAL NONSENSE when they claim that Time Dilation is reciprocal and/or "just an illusion."
> >
> > I had submitted the paper to a journal which was about to publish it when they notified me that it would cost me $508 to publish. Buried deep in one of their web pages was a single sentence that said that authors must pay $127 per published page to offset printing costs. I'd failed to notice that, and I withdrew the paper. I'm not in a "publish or perish" situation, and my only interest is in trying to figure out how science got into a situation where experiments are ignored and NONSENSE mathematics is what is taught in schools.
> >
> > Together with my paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf which is about Einstein's Second Postulate, it is clear that SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE is being ignored in physics classes and they are instead teaching TOTAL NONSENSE.
> >
> > I'm posting the links to the papers here in hopes someone might suggest a good way to get these papers read by the scientific community. What (non-pay) journal would be best for them?
> >
> > Ed Lake
>
> OK, Ed; I've had a look at your new paper, and there's a few points I'm concerned about right at the start:
>
> 1. Abstract: "Yet, many physicists insist on viewing Time Dilation as nothing more than an “illusion,” a solution to a mathematical problem which has no meaning without the problem.
>
> Do you have any references for this claim of yours?

Which claim? The claim that many physicists insist on "viewing Time Dilation as nothing more than an 'illusion'"? The paper provides references for that.

The "claim" that physicists view Time Dilation as "a solution to a mathematical problem which has no meaning without the problem"? That is what an "illusion" is. If you do not have the illusion, you do not have the problem.

>
> I agree with Einstein in defining time as something a clock measures, and is real by definition if it's something that gives the same value by different observers carrying out the same measurement of a physically identical clock. If reading the time off a clock is real, then so is time dilation from experiments.
>
> 2. Page 2: "In 1905 Albert Einstein discovered that Time Dilation (the slowing of time) was the solution to serious mathematical problems related to Relativity and simultaneity that had been plaguing other scientists for many years. source: Einstein's 1905 paper."
>
> Time dilation wasn't a solution to a serious mathematical problem. Understanding why experiments couldn't verify the idea of light travelling in a universal ether was the main problem at the time. Einstein wrote in reference (1) of yours:
>
> "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
> any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
> phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
> corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."

As I read Einstein's 1905 paper (AND Einstein's book explaining Special Relativity) the problem was SIMULTANEITY. Did two events happen at the same time? That is a MATHEMATICAL problem, since measuring the TIME of observed events involves the mathematics of time and distance. The issues about "ether" are just baggage which physicists carry along into arguments.

>
> Einstein's problem was reconciling the speed of light being constant for all observers from an emitting object with the "common sense" idea of simultaneous events being simultaneous for all moving observers. Once this prejudice concerning simultaneity was removed by his young, flexible mind, the mathematics of the Lorentz transformations of Special Relativity inevitably followed. Time dilation inevitably followed, and wasn't a "solution" to a serious mathematical problem as you claim.
>
> Given the serious misunderstandings right at the start of the paper, I don't consider the rest to be worth reading.

Your "serious misunderstandings" shouldn't stop you from continuing to read. There may be explanations further in the paper that will clarify things for you.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

The first postulate is that the laws are the same in all frames of reference. So, using those law to get c will give you 299,792,458 meters per second in every frame of reference.

HOWEVER, it is NOT a "law" that the length of a second must be the same everywhere. And the length of a second is NOT the same everywhere. Therefore, c can be different everywhere even though it is measured to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND everywhere.

I don't understand why you cannot understand that.

>
> By the way, Mr Lake, your "paper" is still not present on Arxiv...

My paper was rejected by Arxiv. Hasn't that been made clear? They didn't give any reason. That is why I put it on Vixra. It is version #3 at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake, Reality "IS" Math

(1.295580095e+26 meters) / ((0.5 * G) / (c^2)) = 3.4893478e+53 kilograms = mass of universe

(1.295580095e+26 meters) / (1 Light year) = 1.36945849e+10 age of universe in light years



Black Hole.

https://goo.gl/photos/NbhBz8znqB2517LNA

http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vD.pdf

c^2 Pascals is why c will always measuredt to be c

((c / (G / 2)) * ((4 * pi) / (10^7)))^2 =
1.27449551e+26 meters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
> My paper was rejected by Arxiv.

Good.

I thought you had an endorser.

[Ed Lake]

I have an endorser. I have a scientist from the Max Planck Institute who endorsed the paper. But, it was still rejected. The scientist informed me that Arxiv tends to reject any paper that challenges current thinking. He provided me papers from a LAWSUIT filed against Arxiv for doing that, and a link to a web site where scientists are organizing to fight Arxiv and its policies. Here is that link: http://www.archivefreedom.org/

The scientist said there are Nobel Laureates fighting against arxiv's policies, so I am in good company.

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake, lost in space, wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 10:38:11 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> My paper was rejected by Arxiv.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>> I thought you had an endorser.
>
> I have an endorser.

Who is she or he?

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 10:27:34 AM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ed Lake, Reality "IS" Math

According to Einstein, "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."

I use that quote in my Second Postulate paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

But, I suppose you'll argue that Einstein didn't really mean that. It is from his 1921 talk to the Prussian Academy of Sciences.

Ed