Wow. This thread is really something.

At this point I wish someone would do the experiments with the specific radar gun and post the video results. I'm not sure there is much else to otherwise discuss. It would be very interesting after all this. Anyone.....??

I'd love to hear @Rob at Radenso weigh in

Hard pass.

We are all radar detector enthusiasts here. We come here to discuss those and learn as well. The people here are more than willing to help someone out and teach when they can. Surely you agree that it's admirable that Py has gone out of his way to try and explain numerous times or for Vortex to go on a drive and get you video footage that may help. It appears this is getting nowhere, I guess is what I'm getting at. Maybe this isn't the right place for you to get your answers.

On the contrary, this is an amazing place to get answers. I wanted to know if the Falcon HR works the same way as my TS-3, and Vortex produced a video showing that it does. Where else could that have happened?

I came here looking to buy a Stalker II SDR. There was an ad on this forum for one, and my Google search found it. It turned out that the gun had been sold months ago, but the ad hadn't been taken down.

Then I learned that there may be another Stalker II SDR for sale, and/or that one or more people may have one and be willing to demonstrate how it works. I need to know how it works before I buy one. I need to know that it works the way an executive at Applied Concepts told me it works. They make the Stalker II SDR, but it would cost me $1,700 to buy one new, and I cannot afford that.

If you know of some other place where I am more likely to find someone who owns a Stalker II SDR and who is willing to demonstrate is and sell it for a reasonable price, please tell me where that place is. I've been trying to find someone who will demonstrate a Stalker II SDR for me for about THREE YEARS.

By not constructing a proper faraday cage, all you have managed to do is cause the metal screen to re-radiate the photons.

I'll just record a video of the SDR on Sunday for you and we'll call it an end.

That would be meaningful. But if you are right, all it really means is that an executive at Applied Concepts lied to me about how the Stalker II SDR works. It changes nothing else.

The argument would then shift to how ALL radar guns measure "patrol speed." But I wouldn't argue that here.

Loonshot: A neglected project, widely dismissed, its champion written off as unhinged.

I’ve always appreciated authors who explain their points simply, right up front. So here’s the argument in brief:

1. The most important breakthroughs come from loonshots, widely dismissed ideas whose champions are often written off as crazy.

2. Large groups of people are needed to translate those breakthroughs into technologies that win wars, products that save lives, or strategies that change industries.

3. Applying the science of phase transitions to the behavior of teams, companies, or any group with a mission provides practical rules for nurturing loonshots faster and better.

The two engineers repeated the experiment successfully several more times, and a few days later, on September 27, they sent a letter to their superiors describing a new way to detect enemy ships. A line of US ships carrying receivers and transmitters could immediately detect “the passage of an enemy vessel … irrespective of fog, darkness or smoke screen.”

This was the earliest known proposal for the use of radar in battle. One military historian would later write that the technology changed the face of warfare “more than any single development since the airplane.”

The Navy ignored it.

[Vannevar] Bush’s new organization, eventually called the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), would create the opportunity Bush sought for scientists, engineers, and inventors at universities and private labs to explore the bizarre. It would be a national department of loonshots, seeding and sheltering promising but fragile ideas across the country. The group would develop the unproven technologies the military was unwilling to fund.  It would be led by a damn professor.

The military and its supporters, as expected, objected. They told Bush his new group “was an end run, a grab by which a small company of scientists and engineers, acting outside established channels, got hold of the authority and money for the program of developing new weapons.”

Bush’s answer: “That, in fact, is exactly what it was.”

What is "dogma" when I say "light sometimes acts like a wave and sometimes acts like a particle"?

I've tried to explain, but you just ask the same question again and again. So, I'll try again. Here is the dogma:

"Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

That dogma has only the ability to describe an object as being either a particle or a wave. It is unable to fully describe the object.

It is dogma, because QM mathematicians are satisfied with that. It allows them to do all the math they need. Ask them a question and they’ll just recite dogma: “Light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes acts like a wave.”

To a scientist (or any normal human being) that is an unsatisfactory explanation. A scientist doesn’t just want to do the math, he wants to understand. And to help him understand he needs to be able to visualize a photon. Experiments help with the visualization.

Experiments show that light consists of individual packets of energy. We call them “photons.” We know this because we can emit laser light at a photomultiplier and the light will hit like individual particles. Each particle will have the same amount of energy. It makes the same sound when hitting the photomultiplier. Lower the intensity of the light, and fewer photons hit the photomultiplier, but each photon still hits with the same amount of energy.

This also says the word “particle” is clearly misleading and inadequate. Historically, it means a solid object, like golf ball or a bullet, only smaller. There is no wave-like property in a golf ball or a “particle.”

A photon, therefore, is like a particle, in that it is “a packet of energy.” But it is unlike a particle because he has a wave-like property. Experiments show that wave-like property exists in the form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

So, a photon is not a wave. And it is not solid like a particle. It is able to travel at “the speed of light” because, unlike "normal particles," it has virtually no mass. A photon is just an oscillating packet of energy. The frequency of its oscillations determine its energy.

And a photon is very small. It can move though solid glass almost as if the glass wasn’t there. It can move through air and water. It moves through these substances because those substances contain no atoms or molecules of the types that absorb typical photons.

When a radar gun emits a burst of trillions of photons toward a metal screen, most of those photons will go straight through the holes in a screen. A small percentage (determined by the size of the wires relative to the size of the holes) will hit the wires and be absorbed and then re-emitted in random directions. The photons that went though then hit a target, and a tiny percentage are re-emitted back through the screen and back to the radar gun.

If the target is moving toward the gun, the photons hit with greater force (the kinetic energy of the moving target). That extra energy is added to the new photons that are emitted by the target and sent back to the gun. (Those photons oscillate faster.)

When the radar gun receives the new photons, it compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons it received back, and it computes the difference (the “beat” frequency) which is directly convertible into the speed of the target.

In sum: Light does NOT consist of waves NOR solid particles, light consists of photons with oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

Waves as depicted in textbooks and radar gun instruction manuals are idiotic misrepresentations of how radar guns work based upon the mindless dogma taught in schools. Such waves could not pass through a window screen. But a radar gun can easily measure target speeds through a window screen because it emits photons, not waves nor solid particles.

Understand?

“I don’t know what I think until I write it down.”

—JOAN DIDION

I’ve wanted to write a book my entire life. Partially because (as you will soon learn) I have difficulty taking what’s inside my head and saying it out loud. For someone whose job is essentially speaking, this creates a deep anxiety and sometimes a paralysis that keeps me from expressing what I’m really thinking. Whereas the act of writing allows my brain to function in a different way. I can write and not be afraid of what I’m going to say.

There has been no further discussion of the Stalker II SDR radar gun or science in a couple days.  Of course, the forum has 22,094 members and there are 87,716 discussion threads, but when I looked over the active threads, the only one that briefly caught my interest was a thread about a German driver being fined 1,500 Euros for giving the finger to a traffic camera. 

You're imagining the wrong type of waves.

If I'm "imagining the wrong type of waves," would you please tell me what kind of waves you believe radar guns emit?

Sorry I don't mean to ignore you. There's an emergency in the upper echelons of this forum and I'm completely spent dealing with it.

I'll get back to this soon as there is quite a bit here that's completely wrong.

          A lady emerged from the smoke and debris—though her improper fashions indicated she was unworthy of the title. She was wearing pinstripe breeches tucked neatly into boots that stopped just above the knee. More disturbing than the fact this “lady” was wearing trousers were the sticks of dynamite strapped around her thighs. The boots also had several sheaths for throwing knives. The bodice she was wearing was a black leather device, which not only served to lift the petite woman’s bosom up but also provided a secure surface for the baldric she wore across it. All this was accented with an impressive, fur coat that flowed around her like a cape.
          The stillness she engendered in the moment seemed odd to Wellington. Her gaze fixed on him, and there was no relief in her expression. She looked to be sizing him up.
         Her pistols finally lowered as she spoke. Wellington’s ears had cleared enough that her voice was discernable. “You Books?” she asked, sheathing her weapons.
        Wellington coughed and spluttered before managing a choked, “Yes.”
      “Jolly good then—I’d hate to have come all this way for nothing.”

It’s easy to think of spacecraft like the Voyagers as being alive, imparting to them feelings and other human attributes. They are so far away, and it is so cold and dark. They must be lonely. Some of them, like the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, are so cute with their long necks and bulging eyes! They must be plucky, intrepid, courageous, and a dozen other grand adjectives of exploration, in order to survive and thrive for so long. They are out there, working tirelessly, making discoveries and braving dangerous environments with no rest, no vacation, and no pay. We’ve got robots exploring the solar system for us!

“Don’t anthropomorphize the spacecraft,” Voyager imaging team member Torrence Johnson recalls Project Manager John Casani saying. “They don’t like it.” 

I have an mdr (the moving version). Pretty much the same. What question you got ?

It's my understanding that the MDR is totally different for my purposes. The SDR is "stationary only." It supposedly "doesn't work" when moving. I need to know what readings it gives when it IS moving. If the gun is in a car traveling at 30 mph and is pointed at an oncoming car traveling at 50 mph, what does the gun show? If the gun is then pointed at a highway sign, what does the gun show?

My TS-3 will show 80 mph if it is in a car going 30 and is pointed at an oncoming car going 50.

The MDR is built to be used in moving vehicles. It shows the speed of the gun ("patrol speed") AND the speed of the target.
The SDR only shows one speed.

No. The MDR II has modes. Moving and stationary. It can be toggled via a button or the OBD cable does it automatically. When in stationary mode, I’m pretty sure it acts as if it is an SDR.

When in stationary mode and moving, I recall it calculates your speed as the target speed when you point it at a stationary object, a sign.

I haven’t tested the second case, but would assume it acts the same as your gun based on relativity.

Just curious, Are you a lawyer fighting a ticket for someone?

For that scenario, it depends, if You are in moving mode, You wouldn’t see the truck because it is traveling the same relative to you. If a car then blew by at 60, you would see that based on 10mph differential.

If you are in stationary, I would assume it could be 0 or 50.

0 if are close to the truck as most of the deflections back will make you look stationary relative to the truck. Possibly 50, if you are further and picking up more ground deflections.

I’m curious as to the digging tho as it’s being used outside the scope of what an SDR was designed for.

Radar guns operate on the principle of Doppler shift, in which the frequency of the reflected signal changes in proportion to relative velocity between the source and target(s). Radar guns that support moving mode have additional processing to look for returns from the ground (stationary) in addition to moving targets, and are able to calculate the difference in Doppler shift from multiple returned signals to obtain the target speed. Some also use phase to provide directional information (i.e. target approaching or receding).

Many radar guns (moving and stationary) can be obtained inexpensively on eBay. No need to limit your search to a Stalker SDR/MDR.

Do you even know what photons are?

That right there is enough to show a severely flawed understanding of the most basic fundamentals of radar guns....

You don't accept claims and opinions and results from experiments if they don't conform to what you want.

You lack the most basic understanding of all this. Your papers are a joke.

My claim is that your entire understanding of this is flawed. You don't even understand doppler effect. You dismiss all the experiments regarding light.

You don't even know the property of light (and everything) that in referring to.

You remind me of a conspiracy theorist but you don't qualify for that since you don't think some organization is trying to do this on purpose....

I mean you're so far off from reality here that no one can take you seriously. And don't blame that on me. That's 100% on you.

And then he bizarrely began to argue that a radar gun would not be able to emit photons if it was inside a Faraday Cage!  He suggested I make or buy enough screen to totally enclose the gun and they try it to see if it works.

That's the same kind of crap I got when I was arguing with a scientist who didn't believe the results of experiments he'd performed.  He claimed that the gun wouldn't work if it was fired through a screen made from copper.  But he refused to explain why it wouldn't work or what would happen.   Now it's a Faraday Cage?!  A Faraday Cage is a protection against static electricity.  What does that have to do with photons from a radar gun!?  If photons can't get through a Faraday Cage, that would mean the gun would disappear if you put it in such a cage.  You couldn't see it (or anything else inside the cage) because no photons can get out of the cage to allow you to see it.      

I could go on and on, but I'll just jump to the final confrontation.  I showed them a drawing of a radar gun emitting waves and asked him how such waves can get through a screen.  Here's the drawing I used:



His response was:

You're imagining the wrong type of waves.

If I'm "imagining the wrong type of waves," would you please tell me what kind of waves you believe radar guns emit?

I researched radar guns, and virtually every web site shows radar gun waves virtually the same way. See the images below.

I am simply interested in how those waves (or your kind of waves) get through a window screen. Could you explain it?

The email required that I go through some steps to verify that I am who they believe I am.  The fact that I received their email wasn't enough.  Nor was the fact that they had my home phone number.  They wanted me to go through an elaborate verification procedure they had concocted.  But I couldn't follow the steps in their procedure because the steps required that I give them two phone numbers.  I only have one phone number that I use, and that is my home phone number.  My cell phone is just something I carry for emergencies.  I think it is what is known as a "disposable phone" or a "burner phone," even though I've had mine for many years.

In doing as he chooses without regard to the rules that restrict the behavior of others, Trump has made himself a hero to some, a pariah to others. Whether one adores Trump or is aghast, his public conduct should prompt us all to think about what qualities we want in our political leaders and why there is so much opportunity for someone like Trump to garner tens of millions of votes. We should ask ourselves why so many Americans are excited at the prospect of someone whose public statements show utter disregard for the checks and balances that buttress our system of self-government — a system that has made America, flaws and all, a beacon to the world for more than two centuries.

Many of the things Trump says he would do if elected are not within the limited powers we grant presidents. Presidents cannot unilaterally spend taxpayer money, cannot impose tariffs on foreign goods, and cannot dictate to corporations where they will invest. They also cannot expect soldiers to follow illegal orders, as Trump has said he would demand, from the use of torture—prohibited by our Constitution and the treaties that are the law of the land—to the killing of innocent civilians, notably the children of terrorists he describes as Islamic

In 1983, after shopping at Bulgari, the high-end jewelry store on Manhattan’s posh Fifth Avenue, Donald Trump had a $50,000 necklace mailed to him at an out-of-state address. On another day, he bought jewelry that cost $15,000. It, too, was mailed out of state, sent to the Connecticut home of his mentor and lawyer, the notorious Roy Cohn.

Both boxes were empty.

Mailing empty boxes is a way to evade sales taxes on jewelry, furs, and other expensive items easily shipped through the mail. Under New York law, as in most other states, a visitor who buys goods and has them shipped to her home state does not have to pay New York sales tax. In theory, the buyers then owe an equivalent tax to their home state, known as a use tax, but that levy is only lightly enforced. It was almost never enforced in 1983.

It was a felony to do that sort of thing, but Trump got away with it.  I assume that's another reason he has so many admirers.

July 29, 2020 - Last night I watched a movie that I'd recorded on my DVR from the TCM (Turner Classic Movies) channel.  The  movie was "Insignificance," from 1985.  I couldn't recall ever hearing of the movie before, and I knew absolutely nothing about it, except that it was supposed to be about Marilyn Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe DiMaggio and Senator Joe McCarthy (played by Tony Curtis).  That was enough to make me curious.  So, a week or so ago, I set my DVR, and I recorded it on Monday night.

The movie begins with Marilyn Monroe (played by Theresa Russell) doing the dress blowing scene from "The Seven Year Itch."  The image below is from the actual movie with the real Marilyn Monroe. 

The scene in "Insignificance" is seen mostly from the point of view of the movie crewmen under the grating using blowers to lift her skirt.  The rest of the movie takes place over the next 12 hours or so, and Marilyn wears the same dress throughout the movie.

It was definitely an odd movie, but the reason I am mentioning it here is because at about the 32 minute mark, after leaving the movie set, Marilyn Monroe pays an unannounced visit to Albert Einstein, who is in a hotel room nearby for some unexplained reason.  Marilyn asks Albert Einstein if she can explain "specific" Relativity to him, so he can tell her whether she understands it or not.   She calls it "Specific Relativity" to separate it from "General Relativity," which makes a certain amount of sense.



Most of the explanation is totally valid.  She begins by explaining how, if she was standing atop a train and threw a book, the book would travel at the speed of the train plus her throwing speed.  However, if she drops a book while inside a moving train, the book will fall straight down, just as it would if she dropped it in Einstein's hotel room.  And she demonstrates that by dropping a book.   Then she begins to explain how the movement of a light source (a flashlight) does not change the speed of light that is emitted, unlike what happens with objects, where the speed of a train affects the speed of a ball thrown ahead of or behind the train.


 
Then things get a bit off track.  Marilyn talks about how if she and Einstein were one light second apart holding up identical clocks, she would see his clock as being 1 second behind her clock, and he would see her clock as being one second behind his clock, since it takes one second for light from the clock to reach the observer.

That's true, of course, but it's not part of Special Relativity.  It doesn't involve time dilation, it just involves how long it takes light to travel from point to point.  Light does not move instantaneously.

I had to replay that entire section of the movie a second time to make sure I didn't miss anything. 

The rest of the movie gets pretty grim as we see Marilyn suffer medical problems and fight with her husband, Joe DiMaggio (played by Gary Busey).  Joe McCarthy is in the movie to accuse Einstein of being un-American.  And Einstein is suffering guilt resulting from helping to build atom bombs which killed children.

I haven't erased the movie from my DVR.  I don't know if I would ever want to see it again, but until I decide it will remain in my DVR.

Meanwhile, I'm still arguing with various people on the Radar Guns and Countermeasures forum I found.  It appears to be mainly for people interested in ways to fight traffic tickets and people who want to learn about equipment to avoid getting speeding tickets by using radar detectors.  I'm learning a lot by just asking questions, even though the answers so far is stuff I already know.

July 28, 2020 - Ah!  I made some progress on my radar gun project!  Since it looks like I'll be getting another stimulus check in August, I started checking to see if I can buy a used Stalker II SDR radar gun somewhere.  I saw what looked like an ad for a Stalker II SDR at a better price than what I saw on EBay, but I would have to join a discussion forum to respond to the ad.  I was really interested in the gun, even though it had evidently been advertised on the forum since August of 2019.  So, I joined the forum.

As soon as I did, several people welcomed me and began asking questions about why I joined the forum.  When I told them I had questions about the Stalker II SDR, one of them said that he had a Stalker II MDR which he said was "basically the same thing,"  so he could probably answer my questions.

So, I had to explain to him that the SDR and MDR are different.  If they aren't different, why are there two guns? 

That caused me to research the difference between the SDR and the MDR.  They look almost identical.  Outwardly, the only difference seems to be that one says MDR in very small white letters on a red background on the side, and the other says SDR.

 

The display screen on the back is evidently identical on both models.


I dug through the operators manual for the SDR but it showed no images of what it displays when it is being used.  It has places for the TARGET speed and for the PATROL speed.  It seems to use the patrol speed location for miscellaneous information, like option numbers.  But that could be the same way the MDR also works.

Then I decided I needed to look at the operators manual for the MDR.  I quickly found a copy, and it showed me how the target speed and patrol speeds are displayed.  Below you see a target speed of 60 mph and a patrol speed of 55 mph being displayed.

July 26, 2020 - On Friday afternoon, I took tour of Mars - a "virtual" tour.  It wasn't a planned tour, but it wasn't accidental, either.  I was simply looking for something on YouTube and they showed me a list of videos that are "4K" tours of Mars as seen by the Mars Rovers Spirit, Curiosity and Opportunity.  I gathered that "4K" means very high quality.  So, being even more curious than "Curiosity," I watched the first video on the list. 



It's a very interesting video with very clear views of numerous different locations on Mars.  At each location, the camera slowly pans across the landscape, so, if you are watching it on a large screen, it looks almost as if you are there.  The image below is a screen capture I took of one location.  (You can probably right click on the image to see the full size version.)



I was also somewhat surprised to see that there is more than just one such video.  I found at least four of them. There is even one that is over 10 hours long.  Fortunately, you can skip through it and just look for interesting things that weren't on the shorter videos.

After taking that tour, I returned to the task I was supposed to be doing, which was to look for videos that might help me explain what I want to put in one of the new science papers I'm trying to write.  The paper is tentatively titled either "The Fundamental Question" or "The Fundamental Problem."  If it's a question, the question is "Is it a Natural LAW that nothing can go faster than light?"  If it's a problem, the problem is "Since there is nothing stationary in the known universe, what is the speed of light measured against?"

While searching for videos related to measuring the speed of light, I found a video provocatively titled "The Mystery at the Bottom of Physics."  It's an excellent video.  At the 1:30 mark, the narrator says, "If you are traveling at 1 meter per second, light is traveling this fast away from you: 299,792,458 m/s.  If you are traveling a 298 million meters per second, then light is still traveling this fast away from you: 299,792,458 m/s.  If the speed of light doesn't change, then everything around it must change, such as time and distance."

FDA expands hand sanitizer recall to at least 75 brands across the U.S.
The recalled products contain methanol, or wood alcohol, which can be harmful if absorbed through the skin or fatal if ingested.

Methanol is used industrially as a solvent, pesticide and alternative fuel source, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exposure to it can cause nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system and death.

"Methanol is not an acceptable active ingredient for hand sanitizers and must not be used due to its toxic effects," the FDA said, noting its investigation of methanol in certain hand sanitizers is ongoing.

• Cleaning removes germs, dirt, and other impurities from surfaces, but doesn't necessarily kill them.
• Sanitizing lowers the number of germs on surfaces or objects—either by killing them or removing them—to a safe level, according to public health standards or requirements.
• Disinfecting kills germs on surfaces or objects.

If you want to get really technical, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines sanitizers as chemical products that can kill at least 99.9% of germs on hard surfaces (that percentage should go up to 99.99% of germs on surfaces used for food service). Disinfectants are, again, stronger, killing 99.999% of germs on hard, non-porous surfaces or objects.

The difference really boils down to the fact that sanitizing solutions aren’t as strong as disinfecting solutions. But some products can be both sanitizers and disinfectants. Case in point, Dr. Calello says, is concentrated bleach: It can be a disinfectant, but if it’s very diluted, it might be a sanitizer (meaning, again, that it kills less bacteria and viruses). 

Why are so many Relativists Pedos? Lol

Relativity... the #1 model preferred by pedophiles.

I think a lot of these people are involved with devious stuff and just so happen to think the same scientifically. Like their brains are wired a certain way.

I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists. Stephen Hawking came. We had three Nobel laureates: Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who's working on the Large Hadron Collider—which, a decade ago, people wouldn't have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.

And the article also contains this:

The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity." Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event.

And, like a good mathematician putting 2 and 2 together, this mathematician evidently came to the conclusion that everyone who attended the event was a pedophile like Jeffrey Epstein.  Wow.

July 21, 2020 - My plan when I awoke this morning was to write a comment about two scientists who have web pages where they argue against Einstein's theories and promote their own.  People on Facebook have been telling me about them.  Plus, I've been digging through web sites looking for other scientists who have such theories.  There are probably thousands of them.  A somewhat dreaded the idea of comparing their various beliefs, but that was my plan this morning.  Then, when I looked at the Covid-19 statistics for this morning, I felt I had to analyze those statistics instead. 

Starting back on March 9th, I began doing daily screen captures of some of the Covid-19 data provided by Johns Hopkins University.  Below is a shrunk-down copy of the main page they displayed as of 7:42 a.m. this morning (you can click on it to view the full size version).  I do a screen capture of it every morning:



As you can see the total world-wide number of confirmed cases of Covid-19 this morning was 14,735,331.  A graph of the total confirmed cases is shown in the lower right corner as a yellow line that keeps going higher and higher instead of leveling off. 

However, on the Johns Hopkins site, when you click on "Daily Cases" option below the graph in the lower right corner, you get a different graph instead of the "Confirmed Cases" graph.  It's a graph that is definitely of more value than a "total cases" graph that just goes up and up until it levels off.  I'm more interested in how many new cases there are, instead of some running total.  And there is something else about that "Daily Cases" graph that has been bugging me for weeks.  Here's what it looked like as of this morning:



There appears to be a definite up-down pattern to the cases (a pattern within the upward pattern), and it seems to be a weekly pattern.  You can see that the daily cases show as bumps that get repeated, but each bump gets a bit higher each week. 

I used the daily worldwide confirmed cases number from the main page to prepare a spreadsheet of the daily differences, i.e., the change between today's total cases and yesterday's total cases, going back for about a month.  Here's that graph:

The reason for this unexpected behavior is that when the atoms in contact are all of the same kind, there is no way for the atoms to “know” that they are in different pieces of copper. When there are other atoms, in the oxides and greases and more complicated thin surface layers of contaminants in between, the atoms “know” when they are not on the same part.

 It is evident, is it not, that if you are in a space ship going at 100,000 miles a second in some direction, while I am standing still, and I shoot a light beam at 186,000 miles a second through a little hole in your ship, then, as it goes through your ship, since you are going at 100,000 miles per second and the light is going at 186,000, the light is only going to look to you as if it is passing at 86,000 miles a second. But it turns out that if you do this experiment it looks to you as if it is going at 186,000 miles a second past you, and to me as if it is going 186,000 miles a second past me! 

I don't recall ever watching the 1931 movie with Boris Karloff as the monster, although I probably did a some point in the distant past.  Of course, I recall seeing clips showing electricity arcing around Victor Frankenstein as he and his servant Igor look upon their creation and Frankenstein proclaims, "It's alive!  It's alive!"



The book is nothing like that.  Some time in the 1700's in some location near Geneva, Switzerland, all by himself, Victor Frankenstein assembles his creation from body parts he has collected, and there is no real description of what tools he used to bring the creature to life.  The creature just seems to wake up:

It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.

His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped, and rushed down stairs. I took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited; where I remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so miserably given life.

Oh! no mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.

"Devil," I [Frankenstein] exclaimed, "do you dare approach me? and do not you fear the fierce vengeance of my arm wreaked on your miserable head? Begone, vile insect! or rather, stay, that I may trample you to dust! and, oh! that I could, with the extinction of your miserable existence, restore those victims whom you have so diabolically murdered!"

"I expected this reception," said the dæmon. "All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends."

"Abhorred monster! fiend that thou art! the tortures of hell are too mild a vengeance for thy crimes. Wretched devil! you reproach me with your creation; come on, then, that I may extinguish the spark which I so negligently bestowed."

We attempted to carry him into the cabin; but as soon as he had quitted the fresh air, he fainted.

I quitted my seat, and walked on, although the darkness and storm increased every minute, and the thunder burst with a terrific crash over my head.

My father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a child's blindness, added to a student's thirst for knowledge.

 I then reflected, and the thought made me shiver, that the creature whom I had left in my apartment might still be there, alive, and walking about.

The idea that objects contract in length when they travel near the speed of light is a widely accepted consequence of Einstein’s special relativity. But if you could observe such an object, it wouldn’t look shorter at all – bizarrely, it would seem to have been rotated

As astrophysicist Glen Mackie wrote, “A consensus seems to exist: in later years, Einstein worked with mathematical blinkers, immune to relevant discoveries, and unable to change his method of investigation.” God does not play dice with the universe, Einstein asserted, figuratively. Niels Bohr, his contemporary who illuminated the structure of atoms (using analogies to Saturn’s rings and the solar system), replied that Einstein should keep an open mind and not tell God how to run the universe.

As psychologist and prominent creativity researcher Dean Keith Simonton observed, “rather than obsessively focus[ing] on a narrow topic,” creative achievers tend to have broad interests. “This breadth often supports insights that cannot be attributed to domain-specific expertise alone.”

Scientists and members of the general public are about equally likely to have artistic hobbies, but scientists inducted into the highest national academies are much more likely to have avocations outside of their vocation. And those who have won the Nobel Prize are more likely still. Compared to other scientists, Nobel laureates are at least twenty-two times more likely to partake as an amateur actor, dancer, magician, or other type of performer. Nationally recognized scientists are much more likely than other scientists to be musicians, sculptors, painters, printmakers, woodworkers, mechanics, electronics tinkerers, glassblowers, poets, or writers, of both fiction and nonfiction. And, again, Nobel laureates are far more likely still.

After exercising 3 times per week at the Chicago Health Club since last October, I'm now down to 201½.  I started a 215 or 218.

I wasn't involved in science back then, and I didn't have a web site.  The journal was mostly about how things were going at the place where I worked.

Anyway, when I started the latest volume of my journal on June 11, I used the only blank journal I had, and the imitation leather cover material seemed to be falling apart.  Here's what it looked like this morning:


  

45.133.192.13 - - [10/Jul/2020:16:27:40 -0500] "GET /Stupid_donkey_Ed_Lake___YOU_are_the_one_claiming_
Time=Motion___spin_IS_motion__therefore_if_Time_is_
spin=TIME_IS_MOTION___according_to_moron_Ed HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

45.133.192.13 - - [10/Jul/2020:16:28:30 -0500] "GET /Moron_Ed_lake_does_NOT_operate_from_a_position_of_logic
HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

45.133.192.13 - - [10/Jul/2020:16:28:59 -0500] "GET /Actions_occur_IN_TIME___saying_that_--Time-ticks-in-Time--_is_like_saying_that_YOU_CAN_SIT_ON_YOU_OWN_LAP___
Moron HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

45.133.192.13 - - [10/Jul/2020:16:29:32 -0500] "GET /Stating_that_--Time-Ticks_is%20stating_that_Time_
performs_actions_in_TIME_or_
implying_that_there_a_--Double-Time--_where_Time_performs_
actions_in_DOUBLETIME HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

I have said very often that I believed "Time is particle spin."  That does NOT mean that "time is motion."  It means that time is the elementary cycles of sub-atomic particles that have mass.  Those cycles are happening for all objects that have mass, whether stationary or moving.  Particles such as photons, which have no mass, do not experience time.  That also shows that motion is separate from time.  Besides, there are different kinds of "motion."  Spin is very different from lateral motion.

In addition, "particle spin" does not mean that a particle is actually spinning.  It means that the effects of the particle are those of a spinning particle.  Science has not yet progressed to the point where the physical appearance of a sub-atomic particle can be studied.  We can barely produce images of atoms in an electron microscope.   The image below is of sulfur atoms.

 

Sub-atomic particles are vastly smaller than atoms.  According to one source, if the individual atoms in the picture above have a radius of one 10 billionth of a meter, those atoms are 100 million times larger than an electron.

So we have a long way to go before we can produce actual images of electrons and other sub-atomic particles that comprise an atom.  Until then we just think of them in terms of other things we can visualize, like little planets orbiting a star.

Since "particle spin" is a term that may have nothing to do with reality, it's probably not a good idea for me to continue to argue that "Time is particle spin."  I need a better definition.

There seem to be a lot of clues about what time is and how time works.  A few:

1.  Atoms seem to have no properties which could also be a property of time.  Time must therefore be controlled by something smaller than an atom.
 
2.  Atomic clocks demonstrate that time slows down when the fundamental cycles of sub-atomic particles are affected by motion or gravity.

3.  When time slows down due to the motion of an object, time slows down ONLY for the object that is moving, such as an atomic clock.  That object's motion affects the rate of time for nothing else.

4.  Time also ticks at different rate depending upon altitude.

5.  Einstein's ideas about "Length Contraction" seem to be a similar concept, except that, instead of particle spin slowing down, length contraction has particles (and atoms) being compressed in the direction of movement.  That compression supposedly slows them down, thereby slowing down time.

6.  Einstein's ideas about length contraction have never been confirmed by experiment. 

a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing
b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses

1. The Language of Time
2. The Physics of Time
3. The Psychology of Time
4. The Physiology of Time
5. The Construction of Time

18.27.197.252 - - [08/Jul/2020:12:01:16 -0500] "GET /You_have_it_ASS_BACKWARDS_moron_Ed___You_use_
TIME_to_measure___in_the_same_way_that_you_use_
NUMBERS_to_count_(*natural_numbers) HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

18.27.197.252 - - [08/Jul/2020:12:01:46 -0500] "GET /You_do_not_count_NUMBERS__you_use_NUMBERS_
to_count__Idiot_Ed____That_is_why_TIME-DOES-NOT-TICK
HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

185.220.100.254 - - [08/Jul/2020:12:07:14 -0500] "GET /If_to_you_TIME_is_PARTICLE_SPIN_then_what_you_
are_saying_that_TIME_IS_MOTION___but_motion_occurs_
in_TIME HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

185.220.100.254 - - [08/Jul/2020:12:07:41 -0500] "GET /Particle_spin_occurs_IN_TIME___so_it_CAN_NOT_BE_
TIME_ITSELF_moron_ED____you_are_most_illogical
HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

144.91.106.71 - - [07/Jul/2020:11:47:08 -0500] "GET /Moron_Ed_Lake_has_not_realized_that_the_word_TIME_
represents_a_CONCEPT___Time-is-a-measurement___
TIME_DOES_NOT_TICK HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

144.91.106.71 - - [07/Jul/2020:11:47:31 -0500] "GET /If_time_stops_for_a_photon_traveling_at_the_speed_of_light___
how_long_does_it_take_for_that_photon_to_get_from_
the_Sun_to_the_Earth_if_time_does_not_pass_for_that_photon? HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

Words that represent concepts that were previously the domain of scholars became widely understood in a few generations. The word “percent” was almost absent from books in 1900. By 2000 it appeared about once every five thousand words.

          We live in extraordinary times for the understanding of science. In May 2010, the prestigious journal Science published a letter signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences. It began “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.”
          But how many laypeople understand what this means and recognize it as a strength rather than a weakness of scientific reasoning? And of course there are always those who are willing to exploit any uncertainty for their own political purposes. “We don’t know what’s causing climate change, and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,” said US presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2011.