Discussion:
Radar guns and the speed of light
Add Reply
Ed Lake
2021-11-10 17:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf

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

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

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

Discussion?
Michael Moroney
2021-11-10 17:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Discussion?
Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
wrong.
Ed Lake
2021-11-10 18:00:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Discussion?
Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
wrong.
Likewise, it is not possible with someone like you who won't (can't) understand
the actual science behind why your beliefs are wrong.

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

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-10 18:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Discussion?
Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe such as yourself, who
won't (can't) understand the actual science behind why your beliefs are
wrong.
Likewise, it is not possible with someone like you who won't (can't) understand
the actual science behind why your beliefs are wrong.
Sorry, Ed, but the fact here is that “actual science” is not what you’re
doing.

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

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

“Actual science” cannot be mimicked by unread amateurs. The attempt is
transparent, foolish, and a waste of others’ time.
Post by Ed Lake
So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns. The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-11-10 18:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.

Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
Ed Lake
2021-11-10 20:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
I know what the facts are. I OWN a radar gun. I've STUDIED how they
work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.

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

Ed
Michael Moroney
2021-11-10 21:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
I know what the facts are.
Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
I OWN a radar gun.
So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.
Post by Ed Lake
I've STUDIED how they
work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
And (mis)interpreted them to fit your "idée fixe".
Post by Ed Lake
What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.
What *you* BELIEVE are not "FACTS" as you claim. You cannot tell the
difference between your own beliefs and "FACTS". Your so-called "FACTS"
are what is nonsense.
Post by Ed Lake
Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies
You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.
Post by Ed Lake
between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.
From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
Post by Ed Lake
That difference in
oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
c and c+v.
Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-10 22:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
The Shit and stupid Mike tells us!!! Must be true!!!!
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-10 22:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
So, I'm trying to discuss the FACTS about radar guns.
Facts? That you post a claim here doesn't make your claim a "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
The FACTS
say that radar guns measure the difference between c and c+v by
measuring the change in photon oscillation frequency.
No, it is your belief, not a fact, that radar guns do that.
Learn the difference between what you believe and what facts are.
I know what the facts are.
Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
I OWN a radar gun.
So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.
Post by Ed Lake
I've STUDIED how they
work. I've studied the radar gun PATENTS.
And (mis)interpreted them to fit your "idée fixe".
Post by Ed Lake
What you BELIEVE is NONSENSE and cannot possibly work.
What *you* BELIEVE are not "FACTS" as you claim. You cannot tell the
difference between your own beliefs and "FACTS". Your so-called "FACTS"
are what is nonsense.
Post by Ed Lake
Radar guns measure the difference in oscillation frequencies
You mean the frequencies of the transmitted wave and the reflected wave.
Post by Ed Lake
between what the gun transmits and what it receives back.
From the Doppler effect. Sound does the same thing.
Post by Ed Lake
That difference in
oscillation frequencies is DIRECTLY RELATED TO the difference between
c and c+v.
Relativity tells us "c+v" is impossible. FAIL.
Moreover, direct experiments that have nothing to do with radar guns or
Doppler show that c+v does not happen. If you have one application that is
consistent with an interpretation of c+v and also consistent with an
interpretation of c, and a different application that is INCONSISTENT with
c+v and consistent with an interpretation of c, then the interpretation of
c+v is RULED OUT. Just trying to interpret radar guns as being consistent
with c+v is not enough. It has to be consistent with ALL applications,
including non-Doppler experiments that measure TIME OF FLIGHT of photons.

Moreover, it is clear that Ed cannot do the simple math that distinguishes
the VALUE of the frequency shift between what relativity predicts (which
has a square root) and what c+v predicts (which has no square root). The
QUANTITATIVE match to measurement that rules out c+v, not just qualitative
shifting up or shifting down, is what Ed cannot do.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
yuuyyu
2021-11-10 23:55:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Obviously, you do not. You have some sort of "idée fixe" belief about
how they work, and because your "idée fixe" belief is so thoroughly
burned into your mind, you cannot tell the difference between it and "fact".
Post by Ed Lake
I OWN a radar gun.
So? I do as well. Using it shows many of your so-called "FACTS" to be false.
but your name is *Kibo_Pari*, not "Michael". Michael is a slavic name.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-10 18:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Discussion?
Not possible with someone with a fixed idée fixe
such as stupid Mike, believing The Shit against plain and
obvious measurement results.
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-11-10 18:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this
link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the
... the idiot who came up with it never understood what the others
were talking about.
Post by Ed Lake
Discussion?
Discussion with a telephone pole?
Duh.

Dirk Vdm
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-10 18:33:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments
always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed
of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar
guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.
Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency
back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun
compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the
oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to
compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
Discussion?
The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-11-10 20:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments
always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed
of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar
guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.
Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency
back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun
compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the
oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to
compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
Discussion?
The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it. Plus, I talked with
police officers about their radar guns. Plus I examined PATENTS and read
every bit of information I could find about radar guns. The FACTS about how
radar guns work are clear, and what YOU BELIEVE cannot possibly work.

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

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

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-11-10 21:32:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments
always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed
of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar
guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.
Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency
back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun
compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the
oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to
compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
Discussion?
The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
And you ignore the experimental results that disagreed with your
predictions. This is a symptom of you not doing “actual science”.
Post by Ed Lake
Plus, I talked with
police officers about their radar guns.
Again, not “actual science”. Asking users of devices about the physics of
their design and operation is like asking Facebook users how the software
is built.
Post by Ed Lake
Plus I examined PATENTS and read
every bit of information I could find about radar guns.
Again, that is what an armchair “analyst” does, and that is not “actual
science”.
Post by Ed Lake
The FACTS about how
radar guns work are clear, and what YOU BELIEVE cannot possibly work.
I put all I learned about radar guns into a different paper.
And this ESPECIALLY is not “actual science”.

You are trying to pass off your modus operandi as “actual science” when it
is nothing of the sort.
Post by Ed Lake
https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
If you BELIEVE I'm wrong, state where I am wrong, don't just avoid a discussion
by rambling about your screwball BELIEFS.
I am stating a simple fact. You are trying to discuss physics from a
position of untrained ignorance and are making a lot of bad guesses and
improper inferences. You then expect people to correct you and thereby
provide you with an education … er, argument … about the correct physics.

No. The best response to someone who makes ignorant guesses is to recommend
materials that will teach you the basics, to help you get over your
ignorance. Those will involve a lot of work, no shortcuts, no streamlining,
and you would have to slog through it LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-10 22:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s
https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments
always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed
of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar
guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those
photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle
at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency.
Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency
back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun
compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the
oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to
compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v,
which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
Discussion?
The only discussion needed here is that your opinion about how radar guns
work, though fascinating, is irrelevant. Not to mention completely wrong,
clause by clause, mostly because you are using words you don’t know the
meaning of, and so you just guessed at what you think they mean.
Nope. I bought a radar gun and experimented with it.
And you ignore the experimental results that disagreed with your
predictions. This is a symptom of you not doing “actual science”.
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by
your moronic religion GPS clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Paparios
2021-11-10 20:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I just uploaded a new version of my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." It is at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v5.pdf
We've been arguing about this paper since May of 2017, but the arguments always get way off track. The key conflict is whether or not the speed of light is the same from ALL OBSERVERS. Obviously it is NOT. Radar guns demonstrate that FACT every day.
A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v. That gives the photons an APPARENT higher oscillation frequency. Atoms in the vehicle send photons with that higher oscillation frequency back to the radar gun. Those photons also travel at c. The radar gun compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it got back and is thus able to compute the speed of the oncoming vehicle.
The only way this is possible is if the photons hit the target at c+v, which is something the mathematicians in this forum usually claim is impossible.
Discussion?
You have the references which clearly explain how the radar guns work (Principles of modern Radar Vol3. Radar Applications, chapter 16 Police Radar). Since over 70 years, engineers know how a police radar works. "Police radars are required to measure only the speed of an approaching or receding
target vehicle. The police radar must only measure the difference between the transmitted frequency and the received frequency. This difference is the Doppler frequency shift, which is proportional to the radial component of the velocity of the ‘‘target’’ vehicle.

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

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

The use of photons for describing the "light" is irrelevant, since the only relevant factors are the frequency transmitted and the frequency received by the radar gun.
Dono.
2021-11-10 21:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip imbecilities<
As predicted, the cretin is back.
Paul Alsing
2021-11-11 00:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
... A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v...
OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c and it does not matter if the emitter of the light is moving forwards, backwards or sideways... it is always observed to be travelling at c. I know that you cannot comprehend this because it is not intuitive (and it is not intuitive to anyone), but then, you are ignorant of all things regarding relativity BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER STUDIED IT FROM SQUARE ONE! You cannot just jump into this at the university level and expect to understand it... making you the Poster Boy of the scientifically uninformed once again!
Maciej Wozniak
2021-11-11 06:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Alsing
... A radar gun emits photons that travel at the speed of light, c. Those photons oscillate at a specific frequency. They hit an oncoming vehicle at c+v...
OOPS, this is where your theory falls completely apart... EVERY observer measures the speed of light to be c
Even your idiot guru was unable to insist on that idiocy for
a long time and his GR shit had to reject it.

Loading...