On 6/18/2022 1:24 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 11:02:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>>>> That's standard physics and chemistry as taught in every university with
>>>> physics and chemistry courses.
>>>>> I use sources that you can check. You spout stuff you apparently MADE UP.
>>>> I learned similar science in university.
>>> Yeah, that's the problem. You learned "similar science." What I'm discovering
>>> is that it appears that every author of a physics textbook writes HIS or HER
>>> understanding of physics.
>> And you write here your own understanding of physics. Your understanding
>> is just your own opinion, and since you apparently don't have a good
>> physics education, your opinion isn't exactly worth much.
> I don't give opinions. I cite EXPERIMENTS which CONFIRM what I say.
No, you cite experiments which, in your opinion, confirm what you say.
Scientists disagree with those opinions.
> Quantum Mechanics mathematicians IGNORE EXPERIMENTS and just
> believe in math as if it is holy gospel and cannot be challenged. That's
> not an opinion. It's an observation.
No, like all true science, experimental data is used to support or
>>> And it is rare to find two understandings that totally
>> However, the understandings of actual physicists agree on the speed of
> NONSENSE! They all agree that the speed of light is c, but they do not all
> agree that c is VARIABLE because the LENGTH OF A SECOND is variable.
It may be your opinion the length of a second is variable, but actual
scientists have defined a second to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain
frequency of a Cs atom. Variable length seconds make as little sense as
variable length meters or variable mass kilograms.
> Relativist physicists agree. Quantum Mechanics physicists generally disagree.
>>> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
>>> Text book authors NEVER seem to address that problem. Instead, they just
>>> explain physics the best way they can.
>> They don't have the same domains, so they don't conflict. Some day, we
>> hope, there will be a new theory which covers both domains and resolves
>> the apparent conflicts.
> If by that you mean that the Quantum Mechanics "domain" is the world of
> atoms and sub-atomic particles, and the "domain" of Relativity is the universe
> around us, then YOU ARE WRONG.
It is that in the opposing domain, the effects of QM or relativity are
so small they are absolutely unmeasurable. What is the QM wavelength of
a 100 mph pitched fastball? Or of the earth as it orbits the sun?
What is the gravitational attraction of a proton and an electron in a
hydrogen atom? Compare that to the electromagnetic interaction of them?
> Relativity's Time dilation involves atoms.
> And Quantum Mechanics mathematicians are trying to develop a theory that
> combines Relativity with QM.
Well, yes, as I said it is the holy grail of physics to come up with a
single theory that predicts both QM/QED/QCD effects and SR/GR effects.
>>> One KEY point of disagreement seems to be Einstein's Second Postulate, which
>>> Einstein stated as:
>> There is no disagreement among actual physicists. YOU have a
>> disagreement with them, that's all.
> If Einstein writes his Second Postulate one way, and physicists write it another
> way, then there is a DISAGREEMENT. It has nothing to do with me.
It's not a disagreement if both mean the same thing even if they say it
differently. It's also possible for different books to be wrong, but
such a book wouldn't be used or regarded well in the field.
>>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>> But a survey of college physics textbooks will show that nearly every textbook
>>> author creates HIS OWN version of that postulate, a version that fits with his
>>> BELIEFS about how light works. Here are just TEN of them:
>>> 1. All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
>>> 2. Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
>>> 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.
>>> 4. The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
>>> 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.
>>> 6. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.
>>> 7. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.
>>> 8. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion.
>>> 9. There exists an inertial frame in which light signals in vacuum always travel rectilinearly at constant speed c, in all directions, independently of the motion of the source.
>>> 10. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.
>> These all say the same thing, some better than others. Some don't
>> mention the observer's frame since the observer being stationary in the
>> frame of the observer is a tautology.
> It's NOT the same thing just using different words if the moving observer
> who is pretending to be stationary receives light from an outside source
> at c+v or c-v.
The second postulate states there is no such thing as light moving at
c+v or c-v. Why mention such a thing in the context of the second postulate?
>>> If versions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #10 were true, radar guns could not possibly work.
>> Doppler radar uses the Doppler effect (what a coincidence, right?) and
>> at the comparatively low speeds of automobile traffic, relativity isn't
>> even needed. Your opinion that it is, is irrelevant, especially since
>> it conflicts with the science the scientists and engineers who actually
>> designed radar guns used. They used Newtonian physics and standard emag
> If Relativity was just about Time Dilation, then you'd be right. Radar Guns do
> NOT use Time Dilation. And they do NOT use the "Doppler Effect."
It's called Doppler Radar for a reason.
> The "Doppler
> Effect" has to do with SOUND WAVES traveling through AIR.
It has to do with ANY wave. Sound, light, water, etc.
> Radar guns emit
> and receive PHOTONS. Radar guns measure the difference in the ENERGY of the
> INDIVIDUAL photons the gun emits and the ENERGY of the INDIVIDUAL photons
> the gun receives back.
That may be your opinion on how they work, but the engineers who
designed them do not share that opinion. They used ordinary emag theory
and the wave theory of light (microwaves) A Doppler radar gun sends a
continuous wave at a target. The target reflects the wave and the
reflected wave is Doppler shifted depending on its motion relative to
the gun. The gun receives this Doppler shifted wave, and compares its
frequency to the original frequency. The bigger the difference, the
faster the speeder. (Military radars which measure distance work
differently, they transmit "pings" like a sub's sonar and time the
Depending on the situation, light can also be modeled as individual
packets of energy/photons, but this applies to things like the
photoelectric effect which isn't relevant to Doppler radar.
> I've studied the PATENTS of the scientists who developed radar guns. To avoid
> the particle-wave duality problem, they write about radar guns emitting "radiations"
> and "Doppler signals."
Yes, they use the wave model of microwaves. "Doppler signals" only work
for waves. That phrase doesn't sound right, they should say "Doppler
shifted signal" or something.
> To avoid other problems, they do not use the word "photon,"
> since that word will be interpreted differently by different scientists.
Photons have one meaning. It's just that photons aren't very useful in
describing Doppler radar. Why mention a model you're not even using.