Ed Lake's web page
clipper cover
If you want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.
Welcome to Ed Lake's web site!

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/

My latest comments are near the bottom of this page.
You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

A Crime Unlike Any Other book
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to go to my Facebook group about Time and Time Dilation. Click HERE to go to my notes about scientific topics discussed on this web site.

My interests are writing, books, movies, science, psychology, conspiracy theorists,
hotography, photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz, blues, and ...

just trying to figure things out.

Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
A major interest: Fact Finding
                                  I have a fascination with Time and Time Dilation.                                Another interest: Movies Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments

Comments for Sunday July 14, 2019, thru Saturday, July 20, 2019:

July 17, 2019 - The mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity discussion group are still arguing about something I wrote on July 13.   I wrote:
Last night, the mathematician named "Tom" wrote:
No, it isn't. This is physics, and the word "relative" has a very
specific meaning, which is not this.

Is 1/2 somehow "relative to 1" or "relative to 2" or "relative to 3" or
... -- your assertion simply does not make sense.

At best this is a PUN on "relative", which destroys your attempts to use it in place of "relative to the inertial frame in which the radar gun is at rest" -- that is a QUITE DIFFERENT meaning of "relative" than the wishy-washy one you made up (and which nobody else ever uses).

        If "relative to the speed of light" were correct, why do
        you suppose that no physicist ever uses it???? (I suppose
        that some idiots and crackpots might use it.)
So, this morning I decided to find out if physicists use the term "relative to the speed of light."  I began by doing a Google search for that exact term.  I was informed that the term is used over 5 million times on the Internet, but the vast majority are just the same material used in different places.  Looking through the links, I found a Wikipedia web page that says,
β in special relativity is the velocity, v, of an object relative to the speed of light, c: β = v/c.  ...  β is dimensionless and equal to the velocity in natural units. Any expression which involves v, like the Lorentz factor, can be rewritten using β instead.
So, in physics, the Beta symbol (β) means "the velocity of an object relative to the speed of light"!  It appears that physicists commonly use the term (and the Beta symbol) but mathematicians like Tom may not.

On the physicsclassroom.com web site I found this:
One indicator of the optical density of a material is the index of refraction value of the material. Index of refraction values (represented by the symbol n) are numerical index values that are expressed relative to the speed of light in a vacuum. The index of refraction value of a material is a number that indicates the number of times slower that a light wave would be in that material than it is in a vacuum.
So, there is another symbol (n) which also has the meaning "relative to the speed of light."

Searching further, I found a scientific paper titled "The Beta Ratio in Special Relativity."  This is the first sentence in the Abstract:
The Beta ratio in special relativity [1] is commonly expressed as β = v/c where v is the velocity between two bodies, and c is the speed of light.
Reference [1], of course is Einstein's 1905 paper about Special Relativity. 

There were a lot more mentions of the term, but I next did a search for "relative to the speed of light" using Google Scholar and got 1,620 results.  One arxiv.org paper titled "Measurement of the Group Velocity of Light in Sea Water at the ANTARES Site" seems to have nearly a hundred authors and contains this sentence on page 4:
In this, β is the velocity of the particle relative to the speed of light in vacuum.
And, of course, there are 1,619 more documents using the term.

Could it be that mathematicians just use the symbols without any understanding of what the symbols actually mean?  That's the only way Tom's statement makes sense. 

July 16, 2019
- Yesterday's discovery of a bunch of jokes about mathematicians spurred me on to look for more.  While an Internet search found a lot of mediocre jokes, I also found two quotations that are worth repeating:
Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them, they translate it into their own language, and forthwith it means something entirely different. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn’t there. - Charles R Darwin
The Goethe quote seems to be everywhere on the Internet, but no one provides a source for it, i.e., they do not name a document written by Goethe that contains the quote.

The Darwin quote also seems to be everywhere on the Internet with no one providing a source for it.  One web page said it was quoted in a book titled "PI in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being" by John D. Barrow, but the book just uses the Darwin quote to start a chapter and doesn't state where it came from.  However, the book has another interesting quote right after the Darwin quote:
I knew a mathematician who said, "I do not know as much as God, but I know as much as God did at my age." - Milton Shulman
PI in the Sky looks like a very interesting book, but when will I ever find time to read it?

The quote I found yesterday which said, "physicists tell mathematician jokes" spurred me on to search for physicists vs mathematician references.  I found a web page titled "Even physicists are 'afraid' of mathematics."  It says,
Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests.

The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.

One can see from all the jokes about mathematicians where the "social stigma" comes from.  Those who do well in mathematics seem unable to discuss anything except in mathematical terms, and they view anyone who attempts to discuss physics without using mathematics as being of inferior intellect and in need of additional schooling in mathematics. 

That is probably typified by a guy named "Tom" on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet group who yesterday responded to some comments of mine from days before:

Me: I have repeatedly stated that a radar gun measures speeds relative to the local speed of light.
Tom: But that is impossible. No radar gun, or anything else, does that.

Me: That is EXACTLY what DOPPLER radar guns do.

Tom: Only in your personal FANTASY world.
In the real world, the one in which such radar guns exist, they emit a radar wave [@] of frequency f1, and receive a reflected wave from the target with frequency f2. They determine the target's speed RELATIVE TO THE RADAR GUN by heterodyning the two signals to get f2-f1 and applying the formula for Doppler shift. The speed of light has nothing to do with it [#]. The ground also has nothing to do with it (unless something fixed to the ground is the target).

        [@] Yes, WAVE. Your attempts to describe this in terms of "photons" are ludicrous.

        [#] The Doppler-shift formula depends on c, the symmetry speed of relativity. This is different from, but numerically equal to, the (vacuum) speed of light.  
If I quote a NASA source where a single photon is used to explain how a police radar gun works, Tom just says they are "dumbing down" what really happens, because ordinary people are just too dumb to comprehend reality.  And since the "dumbing down" version says just the opposite of what is know to Tom to be true, NASA is actually LYING.

If I quote Richard Feynman, who said,

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves.  I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles."
Tom will just laugh and argue that Feynman wasn't talking about radar, or Feynman clearly knew nothing about radar, because radar emits waves, not photons.  And it becomes another opinion versus opinion argument which only ends when the non-mathematician gets tired of arguing with the mathematician.

I really really need to find some way to get others to perform experiments with radar guns.  Solid experiments may not change the minds of any mathematicians, but it should relegate their beliefs to be something to write jokes about.

July 15, 2019
- After I finished writing and posting yesterday's "Sunday comment," I felt like just relaxing and reading a book.  But, at the same time, my mind was still looking for ways to get someone to use a "basic" radar gun to demonstrate that such a gun measures motion relative to the speed of light, which is interpreted to mean relative to the gun or to a target.  I cannot read a book if my mind is on other things, but I could try listening to an audio book, since the audio book will continue to play whether I'm paying attention or not.  So that is what I did.  I listened to the 5-hour 58-minute unabridged audio book version of Dashiell Hammett's crime novel "The Thin Man."

The Thin Man

The story takes place in 1933, during Prohibition.  So, it begins in a "speakeasy." I have the 1934 William Powell-Myrna Loy movie on DVD, and I've probably watched it and TV showings of it at least 6 or 7 times, probably more.  I recall the movie also begins in a drinking establishment, but since Prohibition ended in 1933, I remember it as being a very elegant night club, not a "speakeasy." The book also mentions the Lindbergh kidnapping, which happened in 1932.  I'm certain that wasn't mentioned in the movie, but I'll watch it again in a day or two just to make certain.  (My records show the last time I watched it was on May 6, 2017.)

I recalled reading a Dashiell Hammett novel some time ago and writing a comment about it.  Checking on it, I found that it was "Red Harvest," which I finished on January 24, 2016.

Anyway, I finished listening to The Thin Man around 9:30 last night. The fact that my mind kept drifting to scientific problems wasn't helped by the fact that the book has a LOT of different characters.  You really need to pay attention if you want to remember who all the characters are and how they inter-relate.  It's easier when you see the names in print.   Just hearing a name doesn't usually make it memorable, at least not for me. 

So, while the book wasn't exactly fascinating and absorbing, it was occasionally funny and a good way to pass the time.  This morning I put Return of the Thin Man into my MP3 player.  (I'm third in line waiting to borrow the one audio book copy of The Maltese Falcon that my library has available.)

Hmm.  Just now, as I was returning from my kitchen with a fresh cup of coffee, I happened to notice a paperback book in my own library and I wondered what it had to say about mathematicians.  It has a lot to say.  The first quote worth mentioning is on page 10 and says,
In any academic setting, the scientists get along like a great big happy family' — with lots of bickering. Engineers tell physicist jokes,
physicists tell mathematician jokes, mathematicians tell engineer jokes, and it all goes around and around.
That's interesting.  The book turns out to have a lot of mathematician jokes. Another quote from page 15 and 16 says,
A mathematician became captain of the kind of ship that actually sinks on purpose — a submarine. His briefing speech to new sailors went as follows:
“ I have developed a simple method that you would do well to learn.
Every day, count the number of times the submarine has dived since
you boarded. Add to this the number of times it has surfaced. If
the sum you arrive at is not an even number— don’t open the
Here's one from page 50:
“I don’t think my directional signal is working,” a physicist complained to her friend the mathematician. “Would you mind getting out of the car to take a look?”
The mathematician walked over behind the car. “Okay, turn the
blinker on. Yes, it’s working; now it isn’t, now it is, now it isn’t . . .”
This one from page 87 is particularly relevant to the discussions I had with the mathematicians on UseNet:
“And the result follows here quite obviously,” the cyberneticist
Norbert Wiener (1894—1964) once told a class.
One student timidly raised his hand and said,  Professor Wiener,
I’m afraid I don’t see it.”
“Very well,” said Wiener, “ Perhaps I can derive it by some other
method.” He gazed into space for a moment, then nodded. “Yes,” he
said, “by a completely different method precisely the same result.”
He beamed at the student.
“But, Professor Wiener, I still don’t understand.”
Wiener looked stern. “Young man, if you can’ t understand such
a simple matter as this, having seen it derived by two quite different
methods, I am afraid you will never be a mathematician!” 
I could go on and on, but I'll just quote one more.  It's from page 153:
According to Fields Medalist Enrico Bombieri, there are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count, and those who can’t.
Finding those quotes was an interesting way to spend an hour, but it doesn't really help me solve the problem I have with mathematicians.

July 14, 2019
- Yesterday afternoon, I finally put an end to the arguments on
the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, even though the arguments were helping me to understand how the mathematicians there can believe the crazy things they believe.  It became clear that they believe what they believe because in college they were told to memorize and accept what they were told or they would flunk the course.  They were told to believe it even if it did not make sense.  But that also means they do not understand it, they just believe it.  To truly understand something, it must make sense to you.

I've been trying to make sense of what the mathematicians believe.  The only way it makes sense is if they just believe it because it is what they were taught in school, and they weren't allowed to question it.  (Their attitude is also like a bunch of high-school know-it-alls who feel they understand everything about everything and can laugh at anyone who does not "know" what they "know.")

The problem then becomes: How can you convince all these people that they believe nonsense?  You probably can't.  Most people seem to believe what they want to believe.  I spent more than a decade arguing with people who had conspiracy theories or alternative theories about who committed the anthrax mail attacks in 2001.  I don't think I ever changed anyone's mind.  Facts mean nothing to someone who thinks he knows more than everyone else.

But, experiments are different.  There were no experiments which could be performed to show conspiracy theorists they were wrong about the anthrax attacks, but there definitely are experiments which can be performed to verify Einstein's theories.  And in the past 100 years a great many such experiments have been performed, mostly to confirm time dilation. 

That's why I'm still looking to see radar gun experiments performed to demonstrate that many of the beliefs held by mathematicians are totally wrong. 

But who is going to do it?  The impression I'm getting is that no one wants to argue with the mathematicians.  People will perform experiments, create web sites or write papers that confirm Einstein's theories, but they NEVER seem to mention that they are also showing that many college text books and the mathematicians who wrote them are wrong.

When you point to an experiment that shows the college textbooks are wrong, mathematicians will argue that the experimenters are incompetent or that they were "dumbing down" their findings for the lowly common people who cannot comprehend physics the way mathematicians do.   That was the response I got when talking about the NIST time dilation experiment, about using atomic clocks to measure the height of a mountain, about the Hafele-Keating experiment, and about every other time dilation experiment. Those experimenters just performed their experiments and let the world ponder them.  They said the experiments confirmed Einstein's theories, but they didn't say anything about who or what the experiments disproved. 

If my understandings are correct, what radar gun experiments would disprove is the most cherished belief held by mathematicians, the belief that: All motion is relative, which means that if Frame-A is moving at velocity v relative to Frame-B, Frame-B is also moving at velocity v relative to Frame-A.  Neither Frame-A nor Frame-B is a "preferred" frame of reference. 

Prior to Einstein, physicist-mathematicians imagined that an invisible aether filled the entire universe, the aether was completely stationary, and thus all other movements in the universe could be measured relative to the stationary aether.  And light traveled as waves through the aether, just like waves through water.

Mathematicians accept that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity showed that there is no stationary aether filling the universe.  They interpret that as meaning that there is no way to measure motion in our universe except as being relative to another object, and each object measures its motion relative to the other object.
  That means there is no preferred frame of reference for motion.

It is the basis for the #1 dumbest belief in physics.

I have been arguing that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity says that the speed of light can be used as a "preferred" frame of reference.  Einstein said it replaced the imaginary aether that mathematicians previously used as a "preferred" frame of reference from which all movements are measured.  He even provided a mathematical formula for calculating speeds relative to the speed of light:
time dilation formula
The speed of light is 299,792 kilometers per second (kps).  Anyone who doesn't want to do the math in his head or on a sheet of paper can compute time dilation by using that formula on a web page HERE.  While a person measuring dilated time (t') records the passing of one second as he travels at 99.498833956657% of the speed of light (i.e., 298,290 kilometers per second), a person (t) who is traveling 0% of the speed of light will record the passing of 10 seconds.

Instead of being relative to an object, speeds can be measured as a percentage of the speed of light.  Such speeds are obviously also relative to the speed of light.

But the mathematicians cannot accept that.  Here is what the troll named "Odd Bodkin" wrote overnight:
Ed Lake wants to think that “relative speed” as a physics term means the fraction of one speed compared to another speed.

Not knowing what any physics term means he feels free to just guess and then insist with high confidence that his blind guess is of course right. And he sees no point in learning what the physics term REALLY means. 
And here is what another troll named "rotchm" wrote a few minutes later:
You are misusing, misunderstanding, the meaning of 'relative'. The word 'relative' has many different meanings (did you know that?). You Are totally mixing them up. Its like you are saying that 30 mph cant be relative because your relatives are humans (kin, people, family) and 30 is not a human but a number. You are using the word 'relative' as "my family". That is NOT the meaning of 'relative' as we are using it in physics. You have an EXTREMELY SEVERE reading & comprehension deficiency.
And even though the whole two-week-long discussion (currently consisting of 239 posts) was about using radar guns to measure velocities, this morning "Paparios" argued:
My car speedometer tells me my car is moving at 36 km/hr (10 meters/second) with respect to the ground. That 10 m/s speed is equal to 0.01 km/s and is equal to 3.3333x10^-8c.

Again you are saying that my car moving at 36 km/hr means its speed is being measured relative to the speed of light.

Do you not see the magnitude of your ignorance?
Responding to those three or any one of the others would be an opinion versus opinion argument, which are a total waste of time.  It is Einstein, not me, who stated that speeds can be measured as relative to the speed of light.  But, the mathematicians won't believe that unless I can provide a direct quote where Einstein wrote IN ENGLISH the exact words "speeds can be measured as relative to the speed of light."

And, even then, they would argue that it may be what Einstein wrote, but it isn't what Einstein meant.

I'm done arguing with those mathematicians.  Instead, I'm going to focus on finding some way to demonstrate what a "basic" radar will show when it is used on a moving vehicle and is pointed at a parked car, and what the same gun will show when used inside a moving vehicle and the gun is pointed at the front and rear walls (or dashboard and back seats).

If it is truly a "basic" radar gun and it proves me wrong, then I'll admit it and say nothing more about the subject.  If I'm proved right, however, I'll be mentioning every experiment which says I'm right and how those experiments also show that the mathematicians and their text books are wrong.   

Comments for Sunday July 7, 2019, thru Saturday, July 13, 2019:

July 11, 2019 - While the arguments on the sci.physics.relativity forum are still unanimously against me, the pattern elsewhere is very positive.  This morning the statistics on Academia.edu look like this:
views of my radar gun paper on
It says there have been "140 views" since I put it on academia.edu on July 2, but only "21 Readers."  That means that 140 people have downloaded the paper, but only 21 have "bookmarked" it.  I'm not sure what "bookmarked" means in this context, but I suspect it means 21 people did something to enable them to find my paper again quickly if they need to - possibly to use as a reference in papers they are writing.

This morning, I also got a nice comment from someone on Academia.edu that said,

Dear Ed,
Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories
What sparked my interest was the catchy title. Having opened the paper, I find much food for thought. Keep up the good work
On Facebook it is still nearly all "Likes" and no more personal attacks.  And the number of new people reading my paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories each day on vixra.org continues to be above zero.

As of this morning, the total number of new readers who have viewed the paper since it went on-line on July 1 is 56.  The new reads reported on each following morning were spaced as follows:
July  2 =  1
July  3 =  3
July  4 =  8
July  5 =  4
July  6 =  0
July  7 =  1
July  8 =  3
July  9 = 18
July 10 = 14
July 11 =  4
Unfortunately, I have no way of telling if any of these reads will lead to someone doing actual experiments with radar guns to verify what is said in my paper.  So, I'll continue to look for other places where I can get people to read my paper and possibly become curious enough to perform experiments.

July 9, 2019 - My paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories on vixra.org got 18 unique IP views yesterday.  I don't think I ever before got 18 views in one day for any paper of mine on vixra.org.  I think they might be mostly from Neil deGrass Tyson's Facebook page.  On that page my comment about my paper got 4 "Likes" and 2 "shares."  In addition, there have been no negative comments so far.  David Beames was the first to post a comment, and all he said was, "Seems you'd need at least two [photons] to tell distance traveled and thus speed."  To which Scott Gordon correctly responded, "Even one photon will still experience a Doppler shift due to reflecting off a moving object. Photon energy is proportional to frequency hence changes."  So, there was no need for me to respond.  I just "Liked" Scott Gordon's comment.

Meanwhile, that same paper has gotten about 150 reads on Academia.edu in the past 5 days, but I think Academia.edu sent out emails to all members telling them about my paper.

And some of the vixra reads may be coming from the Science, Philosophy, and Psychology Discussion Facebook group where I also posted a comment.  I got two "likes" there, with no negative attacks.

There are plenty of attacks on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet group, of course. Some are very interesting.  I tried to get them to explain how they can agree that light can reach a moving observer at a "closing speed" of c+v,  where v is the speed of the observer, but they still inexplicably claim the light will be observed by the observer to arrive at c.  It's totally illogical.  The light arrives at a closing speed of c+v but also at c????  Wikipedia's comment about "closing speed" says,

Closing speeds

The rate at which two objects in motion in a single frame of reference get closer together is called the mutual or closing speed. This may approach twice the speed of light, as in the case of two particles travelling at close to the speed of light in opposite directions with respect to the reference frame.

Imagine two fast-moving particles approaching each other from opposite sides of a particle accelerator of the collider type. The closing speed would be the rate at which the distance between the two particles is decreasing. From the point of view of an observer standing at rest relative to the accelerator, this rate will be slightly less than twice the speed of light.

Special relativity does not prohibit this. It tells us that it is wrong to use Galilean relativity to compute the velocity of one of the particles, as would be measured by an observer traveling alongside the other particle. That is, special relativity gives the correct velocity-addition formula for computing such relative velocity.

I think  that says Einstein's Special Relativity says it is okay for light to arrive at c+v, but Galilean relativity says c becomes the speed at which the light arrives, so it may be c with a different value.  I'm still trying to get someone to explain it to me.  Paparios just posted a lengthy response which doesn't seem to address the issue at all.  It's just about his other misconceptions. Sigh.    

July 8, 2019
- Yesterday, while eating breakfast, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  It was "Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter" by Scott Adams. 

Win Bigly

Scott Adams is the cartoonist who draws the Dilbert cartoons. A couple samples are shown below.

Dilbert Cartoon
Dilbert Cartoon

I knew that Scott Adams drew the Dilbert cartoons, but I didn't know that he had a big following on Twitter and was making his political opinions known by many media interviews.  Nor did I know that he was a professional hypnotist.

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I borrowed the Kindle book from my local library, but I was probably expecting something a lot more funny.  The book is actually deadly serious, and it is written by a guy who endlessly brags about his own accomplishments, who admits to being a great admirer of Donald Trump, and who seems to think that manipulating people is one of the greatest and most important talents in the world.  Here's the first passage I highlighted in the book:
When candidate Trump answered questions about policies, it was clear he didn’t have a detailed understanding of the more complicated issues. Most observers saw this as a fatal flaw that would keep him out of the White House. I didn’t see it that way. I saw it as Trump recognizing that people don’t use facts and reason to make decisions. A skilled persuader can blatantly ignore facts and policy details so long as the persuasion is skillful
The author seems to truly believe that "people don't use facts and reason to make decisions." I think I do use facts and reason to make decisions, but probably not all the time. I think the world consists of people who mostly use emotions to make decisions and people who mostly use facts and reason to make decisions.  I think the people in the first category may outnumber the people in the second category.

Here's another quote from the book where the author brags about how he manipulated people to support Trump:
So why did I say Trump had exactly a 98 percent chance of winning when I couldn’t possibly know the odds? That’s a persuasion technique. You saw Trump use the intentional wrongness persuasion play over and over, and almost always to good effect. The method goes like this: Make a claim that is directionally accurate but has a big exaggeration or factual error in it. Wait for people to notice the exaggeration or error and spend endless hours talking about how wrong it is. When you dedicate focus and energy to an idea, you remember it. And the things that have the most mental impact on you will irrationally seem as though they are high in priority, even if they are not. That’s persuasion. If I had boringly predicted that Trump would win the election, without any odds attached to it, the public would have easily shrugged it off as another minor celebrity’s irrelevant opinion. But if I make you pause to argue with me in your mind about the accuracy of the 98 percent estimate, it deepens my persuasion on the main point—that Trump has a surprisingly high likelihood of winning.
A related quote:
I picked 98 percent as my Trump prediction because Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com was saying 2 percent. I did that for branding and persuasion purposes. 
Scott Adams' primary reason for supporting Trump is Adams' absolute hatred of the idea of estate taxes.  (Estate taxes were created early in the 20 Century when it was clear that the Rockefellers, the Duponts, the Hersts and a half-dozen other families would eventually own the entire country if all the money and property they accumulated could be passed down from generation to generation.)
I already had a problem with Hillary Clinton trying to rob my estate after I died. Now I also wanted to destroy the entire Democratic Party and all of its “politically correct” Nazi-labeling bullies. I rarely use my persuasion skills at full strength. I only do so in the context of a fight, or for some greater good. This was both. You need not remind me that Trump supporters on the Internet were also terrible bullies in many cases. But this is my story, and they weren’t coming after me.
So, I certainly wouldn't recommend the book, and there were many times I thought about simply reading something else, but I did get through it.  It gives me chills to see how some people think.

Meanwhile, yesterday I posted comments about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to some Facebook groups, including Neil deGrass Tyson's group.  It got one "Like" there, but nothing else.   I also received an email from someone at Decatur Electronics who explained that what they mean when they say their Scout radar gun does not "work" when it is moving is that, if it is moving at 50 miles per hour toward an oncoming car traveling at 60 mph, the gun will show the oncoming car's speed as 110 mph, not 60 mph.  So, it appears that none of the three guns I mentioned in my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories actually does what I'd hoped.  And I have no idea how to identify which other radar guns are "basic" radar guns. 

July 7, 2019
- The arguments on the Facebook thread I started on July 2nd have come to an end.  The forum seems to have a troll named Iain Hilton who sees the forum as his own personal troll space.  In his last post to me on July 5th, all he did was call me a bunch of filthy names because I "
can’t even derive Pythagoras from the law of cosines."  That was the last post in the thread.

Meanwhile, in the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, the discussions have been continuing, and while they occasionally still generate good ideas, it seems clear that the arguments have recently hit a wall.  The mathematicians there clearly do not understand anything except mathematics, so they cannot discuss anything except in mathematical terms.  I've been trying to get Paparios to explain how a radar gun determines which speed to put on which display, i.e., how does it determine that it
is measuring a target's speed when it puts that speed in the digital display on the left, and how does it determine that it is measuring the patrol car's speed when it puts that speed in the digital display on the right?

radar gun target and patrol display

It is easy to do if you are measuring the speed of the radar gun (and the patrol car) by using the Doppler Effect when bouncing photons off of the radar gun's radome, but the mathematicians believe that is "impossible."
Measuring speeds with a radar gun 
The mathematicians endlessly argue that the radome at the front of the gun and the emitter/receiver at the rear are always stationary relative to one another, so it is impossible to measure any speeds without measuring a change in distance.  "Speed" is defined as distance divided by time.

That shows a total lack of understanding of the Doppler Effect as it applies to electromagnetic energy in the form of photons.  When the gun is moving, photons emitted by the emitter at the rear of the gun have to travel farther to get to the radome because the radome is moving away from the point where the photons were emitted.  I think Einstein described this in one of his books or papers by writing about a man on a moving train who walks toward the front of the train while the train is moving.   By doing that, the man will enter the station earlier than if he had stayed in the back of the train.  The distance between the rear of the train and the front of the train never changed, yet someone on the train can move forward and arrive earlier than someone remaining at the back.

In the arguments I see on sci.physics.relativity this morning, Paparios is still arguing that the gun always assumes that the slower speed of two different speeds is the patrol speed.  He evidently just cannot understand any situation where there is only ONE speed.  Yet, that is the situation when the patrol car is moving at 31 mph and there are no targets, and that is the situation when the patrol car is parked and the only target is traveling at 67 mph.  How does the gun know that in the first situation the measured speed goes in the right-side display and in the second situation the measured speed goes in the left-side display?  If zero is considered to be the slowest speed, then both situations should result in the only measured speed being displayed as the target's speed.  I'll try to explain that to Paparios one more time, but I seriously doubt he'll have any answer that doesn't involve a mathematical formula that somehow determines which display to use by figuring out which is the slowest speed.  

These arguments also make me more and more certain that my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" is rock solid science that needs to be made more widely known.  The most important aspect of all this is that the way radar guns work is really very simple.   You just have to ignore all the complications that are added by mathematicians to justify their belief that radar guns emit waves instead of photons.

It's a situation where experiments can show everyone that the mathematicians are wrong.  All you need to do is create video after video where radar guns are used to demonstrate that you can tell the speed of a truck from INSIDE the truck by pointing a radar gun at the front wall and pulling the trigger.  A "basic" radar gun should show the truck's speed.  A "complex" radar gun like the Kustom Signals Golden Eagle K-band Police Radar System used in the video I've been discussing for weeks should show the truck's speed in both the "target" display window and  the patrol display window.  There are some "complex" radar guns which may not work in a situation like that, such as the Bushnell Speedster which has only one display window and it is for the target, but that just makes things more interesting, since it means you need to explain the physics behind the fact that some guns show the speed of the truck from inside and some do not.

I just need to find someone to do the experiments and show them on YouTube.  Mathematicians will argue that videos cannot disprove their beliefs, but it would still be interesting to see.  And, if ALL the videos disprove what I've been saying, I'd definitely want to see that, too.  Until then, I'll be trying to find someone to do the experiments and create videos of the experiments.

Comments for Monday July 1, 2019, thru Saturday, July 6, 2019:

July 5, 2019 - When I turned on my computer this morning, there was an email in my inbox from a European division of an American radar gun manufacturing company.  They sent me the user's manual I had asked for on May 27.  The email included a return email address, so I asked them a question.  Hopefully, they will respond.

Also this morning, when I checked the statistics to find out how many people were reading my radar gun paper, I found just 4 new readers of the version on Vixra.org, but 42 new readers of the copy I put on Academia.edu.  I think that is a one-day record of some kind.

Meanwhile, I found CONFIRMATION of about 90% of my paper on "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" in a video I've been mentioning on this site for months.  The video is HERE. Somehow, I failed to realize everything that the video demonstrates.  Yesterday, I wrote a 7 page description of what is shown in the video and put it on-line in pdf format HERE.

The argument was originally just about whether the hand-held radar gun  in the screen capture below (from the 5 minute mark in the video) was pointed at the highway or at the white car that was just passing by on the outside lane.  

radar gun arguments

When I discovered that the hand-held gun is a Bushnell Speedster SPORTS radar gun, I realized it must be pointed at the highway if it reads 62 mph.   And what the video really shows is that the "Mis-aligned Antenna" on the dashboard indicates that gun is moving at 55 mph while the Bushnell gun is moving at 62 mph.  So, clearly the guns do not show the speed of the vehicle, they show the speed of the gun.  The mis-aligned gun is pointed off to one side, which means that, due to the "cosine effect," the displays show that mis-aligned gun is moving slower than the hand-held gun. 

Going through the video again, I found that it clearly demonstrates how a "basic" radar gun works, in addition to demonstrating how a "complex" radar gun works. I created the pdf file with my explanation of what the video confirms.  The only reaction I got from one of the trolls on sci.physics.relativity was:
Videos do not verify theories, old deluded fart
Ah, but they do.  Experiments verify theories, and an experiment can be done intentionally or unintentionally.  The people who made the video just didn't intend to demonstrate what they demonstrated.

Once you realize that a "complex" radar gun emitter at the back of the gun sends out photons that bounce off the target AND off of the radome on the front of the gun, what the video shows is very educational.  This is the illustration I used in the pdf file to show the two different measurements the gun makes.
signals from a "complex"
                                radar gun

The image below, from the 2 minute 33 second mark in the video, shows what is displayed when the gun and its radome are not moving but the gun has a moving target within range.  The photons that travel to the target are picking up a target that is moving at 67 mph, and that speed shows on the target speed display on the left side of the display box.  The gun's speed would be shown in a display on the right, which is dark because the speed is less than 10 mph.

stationary radar gun with moving

This is the same thing a "basic" radar gun would display, only it wouldn't have a separate display for the gun's speed.  It would show only the target speed.  

The image below, from the 2 minute 54 second mark in the video, shows what happens when the only reading the gun can give is for the speed of the gun.

radar gun only speed

The gun shows only its own speed of 31 mph, which is assumed to also be the patrol car's speed.   The 31 mph speed shows in the display on the right side. There is no moving target ahead of the gun, so the fact that the gun and car are moving at 31 mph does not change the speed of the photons the gun emits, in full agreement with Einstein's Second Postulate.  That means the photons from the gun hit the pavement and the trees at the same speed they would if the gun was stationary.  Only a "complex" radar gun has the ability to show its own speed by measuring how fast the radome is traveling.

A "basic" radar gun has no ability to show its own speed, so in the situation above, it would give no reading.

This confirms about 90% of what is in my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  I assume that the mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity forum will see things differently, but I'd like to see them argue something other than that videos verify nothing.  How would I be able to demonstrate my theory to them if I couldn't do it with a video?

July 4, 2019 - I hope everyone has a great July 4 holiday!

July 3, 2019
- Wow!  They have as many obnoxious jerks on the Facebook Astrophysics and Physics forum as they do on UseNet's sci.physics.relativity.  The only difference is that the jerks on Facebook seem to respond faster.  When they do, of course, they hurl insults, sarcasm and personal attacks instead of discussing the subject of my post, just like the jerks on UseNet.

One positive difference is that people on Facebook can indicate they "Like" something without actually writing a comment which the jerks would then eviscerate.  So far, eight people "liked" the comment I put on Facebook.  Strangely, all of them seem to have Indian or Middle Eastern names, and none of the jerks do.  That tells me the next physics Facebook group I should post to is one created by people in the Middle East.  I'm a member of a couple.

The site also says three people "shared" my post.  Unfortunately, I do not know if there is any way to determine where they "shared" it.

Interestingly, one guy on the Astrophysics and Physics forum argued "
Light is a lot faster that radio waves, dude."  That's the first time I've encountered anyone who believes that.  The guy has a radar detector in his car, and he claimed that two links he provided about radar detectors somehow confirm his belief that light travels faster than radio waves.  But, of course, he doesn't give any quotes, and I don't have the time to hunt through the sites at the links to find out what he's talking about.

Later, that same guy (Mike Shelton) argued,

Radio waves are electrons, travelling through the air. You basically said radio waves are photons.
Radio waves do not travel at the speed of light!!! WTF is wrong with you?!!! I give up!!! You need to take electronics theory. 
When I tried to respond, I found that I was blocked by an "owner" from doing so.  I thought for a moment that my discussions there had come to an end.  When I reloaded the page, however, I found that the entire discussion I had with Mike Shelton was removed.  I did an experiment to see if I could still post, and I was able to do so.  So, someone evidently only deleted the discussion with Mike Shelton because Mike Shelton's claims and beliefs were just too preposterous for the forum.  That's another first.

My blog comment about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories received just one response overnight.  The guy didn't provide any name, but Paparios on the sci.physics.relativity forum stated there that he had posted to my blog.  It was the same old arguments, so I responded the same old way.

There were only 2 readers of my revised paper on Academia.edu overnight, and only 3 on vixra.org.  I expected a lot more, but 8 of my 9 papers on vixra.org got new first-time readers overnight.  That's something that hasn't happened in a long time.  

July 2, 2019
- As expected, the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum just hurled insults and sarcasm when I advised them of the new version of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  Strangely, Paparios hasn't yet made any comments.  Also, there now seems to be at least one person on my side on that forum.  Unfortunately, he posts like a troll.  When JanPB posted the same question he has asked me at least a dozen times before:

Why do you waste your time on this?
Brzké Potrebu posted this response:
You didn't read beyond the first sentence in that paper.
And I posted this response to JanPB's question:
How is resolving a one hundred year old argument a "waste of time"?
Then I moved to the next step to publicize the paper: I posted it to academia.edu.  Academia.edu doesn't have any easy way to show different versions of the same paper, so I posted the new version and changed the name of old version to include "old version" as part of the name.  Whether or not it will get a lot of viewers depends upon whether or not academia.edu decides to send out emails to advise its members about the new version.

After putting the paper on academia.edu, I wrote a comment for the Facebook group Astrophysics and Physics.  It's a moderated group, so the comment is currently pending review by a moderator.  I didn't just post the paper and ask people's opinions of it, I somewhat disguised it by writing a comment about NASA's web site which says that a single photon from a police radar gun can theoretically measure the speed of an oncoming car.  I explained how that seemed to contradict what is written in a lot of college text books, according to the paper "at the following link" (which is the link to my paper).  If they allow my comment to appear on that Facebook group, it could result in a lot of readers for my paper.  And it might generate some new and different discussions, which is what I'm hoping for.  Either way, I might try posting to the other Facebook groups where I am a member - including, of course, my own group Time and Time Dilation, even though it would be somewhat off-topic there.

As my final task this morning, I created a new discussion thread on my interactive blog and titled the thread "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories," of course.  It's the first time I've started a new thread on that blog since February 26, 2018.  I have no idea how people will learn about the new blog thread, but it was something else on my to-do list that I have now done.     

July 1, 2019
- When I turned on my computer this morning, there was an email from Vixra.org in my inbox advising me that version #4 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories was now available on-line at this link:

As soon as it was available, someone named "Mikko" immediately posted a comment on Vixra stating that I didn't correctly describe how the LO (Local Oscillator) works inside the radar gun.  He might be right, but the paper correctly describes the purpose and function of the LO.  And I'm not sure that having a lengthy description of how the LO actually works would improve the paper.  The LO's purpose is to give the gun something to compare returned photons against.   Besides, according to at least one source:

In any electric circuit, the smallest particle of electrical energy is NOT the electron. The smallest particle of energy is the "unit quantum" of electromagnetic energy: it is the photon. Electrons are not particles of EM energy, neither do they individually carry the energy as they travel in the circuit. (Electricity is the medium. The energy flows rapidly through the wave-medium.) Electricity is 'made' of electrons and protons, while electrical energy is electromagnetism and is 'made' of photons.     
That same person also complained that "In some places the fourth version correctly says that a radar gun compares frequencies, but in other places it still incorrectly says that a radar gun compare wavelengths."  I told him that may be so, but I'm not going to create a fifth version just to correct that kind of error.

Sigh.  You can't please everybody.  But, it's also certainly possible that he is just trying to be helpful.

Meanwhile, this afternoon I finished listening to the 8-hour 29-minute audio book version of  "Sleeping Giants" by Sylvain Neuvel.

Sleeping Giants

Yesterday, after finishing writing my Sunday comment and after submitting version #4 of Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to vixra.org, I had planned to sit down on my couch by the window and read a Stephanie Plum paperback novel.  But, first I had to do some grocery shopping.  And while shopping, an ominous shelf cloud was coming at me from the west.  I got home before the rain started, but it was almost as dark as night outside.  So, instead of reading a paperback novel by artificial light, I listened to the first 7½ hours of Sleeping Giants, not turning off my MP3 player until it was bed time.  

Sleeping Giants is book #1 in a science-fiction series that begins with the discovery of a gigantic metal hand in a pit in a forest near Deadwood, South Dakota.  The discovery is made a young girl named Rose, who accidentally falls into the pit.  Rose grows up to be a physicist who tries to figure out where the metal hand and other artifacts in the pit came from.  And when other parts of what seems to be a giant metal robot are found in other parts of the world, Rose helps put the robot together.  It is a virtually indestructible robot with a female figure and it stands about 200 feet tall.  The story is about who buried the robot parts 3,000 years ago, and why.

The story is told as a series of official reports and transcripts, which is very unusual but also kind of interesting.  It was a very enjoyable audio book, read by about a dozen different actors, each reading a different role. 

I have the second book in the series, Waking Gods, on reserve at my library.  I'm #18 in line waiting to read one of the 3 audio book copies they have, so it could be months before I can borrow a copy.

Right now, my next task is to mention version #4 of Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories on sci.physics.relativity.

Comments for Sunday June 23, 2019, thru Sunday, June 30, 2019:

June 30, 2019 - After making about a dozen minor changes to the latest version (version #4) of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories this morning, I submitted it to Vixra.org at 11:09 AM.  It should be available on-line tomorrow morning.  If so, I'll write a comment to that effect.

Since the theory described in the paper can be easily confirmed by experiment, I'm hoping someone will do so.  I don't have the $1,195 needed to buy a Genesis GHD (Genesis Hand-held Directional), nor the $995 needed to buy a Genesis VPD (Vehicle Processing Directional), nor even $845 to buy a Decatur Scout radar gun.  And, even if I did buy one of them, I seriously doubt that anyone would accept that I used the gun to prove my own theory.  They will only accept validating results if they come from someone else.  And, if other people want to help validate the theory, I say, "The more the merrier."   

The revised paper suggests that any of those three radar guns made by Decatur Electronics, Inc., can be used in such an experiment.  The primary basis I have for picking those three guns is because their user's manuals say the guns will not "work" if the guns are moving.  I interpret that as meaning the guns will not show relative speeds as most other guns do, the three guns will show actual speeds.  While "complex" radar guns will show a highway sign to be moving at 60 mph (it's relative speed) if the gun is pointed at the sign from a vehicle traveling at 60 mph, "basic" radar guns do not "work" that way.  They will show the highway sign to be stationary, with an "actual" speed of zero. 

All three of the guns have "directional" capability.  That means there is a button on the gun that will tell you if the 60 mph reading the gun shows means the target is moving toward the gun  or away from the gun.  According to my paper, that also means that a gun used inside a truck can tell which way the truck moving at 60 mph.  Point the gun at the front wall and the gun will tell you the wall is moving at 60 mph away from the gun.  Point the gun at the rear wall, and the gun will tell you that the rear wall is moving at 60 mph toward the gun.

My revised paper also mentions the "cosine effect," which means that if you point the gun directly at the side wall of the moving truck, it will give no reading, but if you point it at an angle to the side wall, you will get what this diagram shows:

cosine effect diagram

So, if you point the gun at a 70 degree angle to the interior side wall of a truck traveling at 100 mph, the gun will show the speed of the truck as 35 mph.  That isn't anything specific to a "basic" radar gun, all radar guns will do that if used from a stationary position outside while pointed at traffic in the opposite lane.

The question that I'm asking myself right now is: What do I do next?  When the paper is available, should I mention it on the sci.physics.relativity forum?  Yes, I will probably do that.  I'm not interested in arguing opinions with anyone there, but it might be interesting to see what kind of reaction it gets.

I'll probably also submit it to Academia.edu and delete the version they currently have. 

What else?  Should I mention it on other forums, like the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group?  It's a moderated group, but I'm a member, so I might give it a try.  I might also start a new thread about it on my own blog.

Then what?  I might try getting some well-known scientist to read it and give me his opinion.  I might even try submitting it to Science or Nature.   Science magazine will almost certainly just reply with a form letter saying "
this is not the sort of work that we publish and we are thus not considering it for publication," but Nature might put it into their system to see what others have to say before they reject it.  They did that with the version I sent them a year ago.

I could work on the Radar Guns and Wave Theory paper I had been thinking about, but now I think Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories says all I have to say about radar guns and wave theory.  Since it explains how the theory can be confirmed via experiments, it is probably the most important paper I've written.

I could also spend some time revising other papers.  Or maybe I'll just read another Janet Evanovich Stephanie Plum novel, then another, then another. 

June 28, 2019 - Yesterday evening, I finished listening to the 11-hour 50-minute audio book version of "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" by Yuval Noah Harari.

21 lessons for the 21st century

When I borrowed the audio book from my local library and started listening to it on my MP3 player, I was mostly just thinking about how much I enjoyed Harari's previous book Sapiens.  I expected 21 Lessons to be mostly a philosophy book, and it is that.  But Harari also mentions Donald Trump fairly often in the book as Harari examines current events in order to project what those events likely mean for the future.  Here's an example:
Unable to conduct a reality check, the mind latches on to catastrophic scenarios. Like a person imagining that a bad headache signifies a terminal brain tumor, many liberals fear that Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump portend the end of human civilisation.
And another example:
Whereas the major movements of the twentieth century all had a vision for the entire human species – be it global domination, revolution or liberation – Donald Trump offers no such thing. Just the opposite. His main message is that it’s not America’s job to formulate and promote any global vision. Similarly, the British Brexiteers barely have a plan for the future of the Disunited Kingdom – the future of Europe and of the world is far beyond their horizon. Most people who voted for Trump and Brexit didn’t reject the liberal package in its entirety – they lost faith mainly in its globalising part. They still believe in democracy, free markets, human rights and social responsibility, but they think these fine ideas can stop at the border. Indeed, they believe that in order to preserve liberty and prosperity in Yorkshire or Kentucky, it is best to build a wall on the border, and adopt illiberal policies towards foreigners.
It was a very enjoyable book, but it also showed me that is not a good idea to be listening to or reading more than one book about a given subject at the same time.  Somehow I found myself absorbing three books on similar subjects.  The book I'm currently listening to on CDs when driving also gets into some of the same subjects as Harari does his book, and the book I'm reading on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch also mentions Donald Trump and the kind of thinking that put him into office.  The books all generally agree that Trump is a disaster for America, but they do not fully agree on what lessons are to be learned from having elected a sleazy con-man liar like Trump to be our President.

So, this morning I spent some time sorting through the audio books I have available to make sure the next one I listen to on my MP3 player is not about politics or Trump.

Meanwhile, on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet discussion forum, Paparios is still reading my posts here and commenting about them there.  In a post he wrote last night he repeatedly argued that I "missed to put this text in context" when I wrote about the way some manufacturers of radar guns use photons bounced off of the gun's radome for comparison to photons returned from the target, instead of using photons created by the LO (Local Oscillator).  "
As a consequence your conclusion is completely wrong" Paparios declares.  Well, if I am wrong he'll be able to someday say, "I told you so."  (I expect he'll be saying that whether I'm right or wrong.)  But, until then, I'll be revising my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories with the hope of putting the new version on-line next week. 

June 27, 2019
- I've finished reading Chapter 16 of
Principles of Modern Radar: Radar Applications at least three times.  I probably highlighted about a fourth of it, in different colors to represent differences in importance and accuracy.  The two most important passages are this one from the bottom of page 762:
The S-5 is a homodyne radar system and requires a sample of the transmitted signal to serve as the LO. The radome is not totally transparent to the transmitted energy by design.  Some of the transmitted energy is reflected back to the receiver side of the reflector. This transmitted energy serves as the LO that mixes with the returned Doppler-shifted signal.
and this one from the bottom of page 765 and the top of page 766:
The signal isolation between ports 1 and 2 can be as high as 50 dB if the turnstile junction is well designed for the exact frequency of operation. As a result, the LO signal required for homodyne operation is almost nonexistent, given the very low-level direct leakage from port 1 to port 2. Kustom [Signals, Inc.] developed a plastic radome that fit over the end of the horn to purposely reflect a small amount of RF power back into port 2 and create an LO reference signal at the required mixing level.
The acronym "LO" stands for Local Oscillator.  It is a device inside a radar gun that creates the photons that the gun compares to the return photons to get the "beat frequency" that is equal to the speed of the target.  The photons from the Local Oscillator oscillate at the same frequency as the photons the gun emits, and are therefore perfect for comparison purposes.

What the above passages say is that in some radar guns the LO is purposely not used, and, instead by design, the gun uses photons that bounce off the "radome," which is the cover over the transmitter/receiver.  On a regular weather or military radar unit the radome looks like this:

On the front of a radar gun  a radome looks like this:

radar gun radome

What this means is that the radar gun emits photons that bounce off the specially made radome at the front of the gun and return to the radar as the comparison photons.  That is the same as if the gun had no radome but was inside a laboratory on a train and pointed at the front or back wall.  If the wall (or radome) is moving relative to the ground outside, the gun will measure that movement and it becomes the speed of the gun.  And when the gun measures the speed of a real target, the speed of the real target will be compared to the speed of the gun.

So, if the gun is moving at 60 mph and the target is a stationary highway sign, the gun will add its speed, 60 mph, to the speed of the highway sign (zero) and will compute the sign's speed as 60 mph.  And if a target vehicle is going 80 mph, its speed relative to the gun is 20 mph, so the gun will add 20 mph to the gun's 60 mph speed and give a target speed of 80 mph.  If the target is going 60 mph, the gun will show "no reading," since it only shows relative speeds over 10 mph.

This means that if the gun does NOT have a radome that reflects photons back into the receiver, the gun is what I call a "basic" radar gun that, when used from a patrol car traveling at 60 mph, will give "no reading" for a highway sign, and will show 60 mph if it is pointed at the back of a truck that is traveling at 60 mph.

And it probably means that the three Decatur radar guns that do not "work" when the guns are moving are most likely radar guns with radomes that do NOT reflect photons.  So, they are what I have been calling "basic radar guns."

I'll be revising my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to include this information, but I'll continue to look for experimental confirmation.

June 26, 2019 - While I've stopped arguing on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, the person who calls himself "Paparios" is still arguing his beliefs there in the same screwball way as before, only now he is responding to what I have posted on this web site. 

In yesterday's comment I mentioned what the Radar Technology Encyclopedia says about Einstein's Second Postulate and how it fully agrees with what I and Einstein said.  I then wrote:

It then explains how light (and all electromagnetic radiation) consists of photons, not waves.
In this post to the sci.physics.relativity forum, Paparios copied and pasted what I wrote and then he stated:
Unfortunately, you failed to copy the paragraph that follows your cite, which nicely clarifies what we have been discussing:

"With the advent of quantum mechanics, electromagnetic radiant energy is seen to be created, destroyed, and transported in discrete quanta or photons rather than through a continuous transfer of energy implied by electromagnetic waves in the classical representation of electrodynamics. Because the energy transported by large numbers of photons is, on the average, equivalent to the energy transferred in a classical electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic applications, including radar and communications, Maxwell’s field equations are accurate and extremely useful tools."
Note that Paparios simply says the paragraph "nicely clarifies what we have been discussing," but he doesn't saw WHAT it actually clarifies.  That's one of the reasons I stopped posting comments there.  Paparios constantly posts links and says, in effect, "Here is confirmation of my beliefs."  And he expects me to hunt through the information at the link to find the "confirmation" of his beliefs. 

In this case, however, I had thought about quoting that same paragraph in order to explain what the paragraph is saying.  I just didn't do it because I didn't have the time yesterday.  It is saying that energy is created, destroyed(?) and transported in the form of individual photons, not wavesHowever if you look at the "average" amount of energy being transferred, you can view energy as "classical" waves and use Maxwell's field equations effectively. 

In other words, although the math works for energy as waves, you are working with averages, not with individual quanta (a.k.a. "photons").  It says what I had been saying on the forum, that light consists of photons, not waves, even though the math for waves can also be made to work.  Paparios was arguing that light consists of waves, and photons are just imaginary nonsense.

In that same post on sci.physics.relativity, Paparios next quoted what I wrote about Chapter 16 in the book Principles of Modern Radar, and he stated:
The book is for sure very useful in this discussion, particularly read  section 16.9.1 in page764 and see figure 16-13, which reads:

"Turnstile Junction Used as a Duplexer for Simultaneous Transmit and Receive [GPRC]."    
AGAIN, he seems to be claiming the book somehow supports his beliefs, this time his belief that radar guns transmit and receive at the same time, but he doesn't explain HOW it does so.  He quotes from a caption to an illustration, but fails to see that the actual text says something very different:
While the TR-6 operated only in the stationary mode, it incorporated several technological breakthroughs. Kustom developed a simple, inexpensive, but very effective, duplexer that provided high signal isolation between the transmitter and receiver, and very good detection range performance.  The TR-6 duplexer was a turnstile junction that allowed simultaneous transmit while receiving.
In the case of the turnstile junction used in the MR-7/MR-9, transmit power is applied to port 1. One half of the transmitted power goes into the circular waveguide port and is transmitted as a circularly polarized wave toward the target vehicle. Half of the remaining power divides equally between ports 3 and 4, with no power going to the receiver diode detector/mixer on port 2.
So, it appears to be saying the gun transmits half of its emitted energy to the target and then captures the other half within the gun.  And while it is capturing that second half within the gun, it is receiving return energy from the target.  So, it doesn't actually transmit to the target at the same time it is receiving from the target, it just doesn't have to turn the power off when receiving.  Evidently that allows the gun to switch between send and receive more quickly.  There is no "power up" and "power down" operation.
I still haven't found the time to study that chapter to see what else it says that could be of value.  It is near the top of my to-do list.

Meanwhile, I sent an email to a small company that makes radar guns, asking if there was a copy of the user manual on-line anywhere.  They replied,

User manuals are only provided to current customers.
That seems to be the case for some other manufacturers, too.  And they only answer technical questions from "current customers."  So, I'm still hunting.

June 25, 2019 - Now that I'm no longer involved in lengthy arguments on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, the idea of writing a scientific paper about Radar Guns and Wave Theory seems far less important.  Clearly, it is much more important for me to find confirmation of the way I describe how radar guns work in my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  To do that I need to determine which guns "don't work" when the radar gun is moving, and I need to verify exactly what "don't work" means.  In yesterday's comment I mentioned 3 radar guns that, according to their user's manuals, "don't work" when the gun is moving:
1. Decatur Genesis VP Directional
2. Decatur Genesis GHD
3. Decatur Scout
The web site HERE indicates that there are a lot more "stationary only" police radar guns made by Decatur Electronics Inc. that should work (and "not work") the same way.  Plus, there are other radar guns made by Applied Concepts Inc., Kustom Electronics Inc. and nearly a dozen other companies that might have user manuals available on-line for examination.  And they might have email addresses where I could ask questions. 

I might even revise my Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories paper to list the radar guns which should work the way I describe in the paper.  People who have access to such radar guns might then experiment with them and advise me of the results.

Meanwhile, in my research I came across two interesting books:

Radar Technology Encyclopedia
Principles of Modern Radar
The Radar Technology Encyclopedia confirms my interpretation Einstein's Second Postulate on page 468:
Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, introduced in 1905,
showed that all the experimental results could be explained
within the context of his theory; there was no need of the
aether. Light, Einstein held, and all electromagnetic radiation,
travels in space at a constant speed of approximately 3 x 108
m/s, independent of the speed of the source.
It then explains how light (and all electromagnetic radiation) consists of photons, not waves.   I should definitely use it as a reference in the next version of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.

Principles of Modern Radar: Radar Applications has an entire chapter on police radar guns that begins on page 749 and ends with a list of papers for "further reading" on page 778.  I just need to find the time to dig through it to see if it contains anything that can help resolve arguments.  It looks like it could be very helpful, and would probably also be a good reference to use in my paper.

June 24, 2019
- Yesterday, I ended my participation in the most recent discussion I had started on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet group.  It had turned into a total waste of time.  The people I was arguing with were simply playing the same games that Donald Trump plays.  They were turning every attempt to discuss facts into an opinion versus opinion argument.  They were also claiming I said things I never said in order to put me on the defensive.  They were posting links which they claimed supported their arguments, but didn't say where in the link it did such a thing, forcing me to hunt for support for their arguments.  They were claiming that NASA was lying or incompetent when I provided links to NASA sites that supported my arguments.  And they repeatedly claimed that Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein didn't know what they were talking about when they stated that light consists of particles, not waves.  And on and on and on.  

The final argument was that all ten of those links I provided yesterday showing that radar guns do not transmit and receive at the same time proved nothing, since they were mainly about large, powerful radar devices, not low-power radar devices like radar guns. 
They claimed that low-power radars work different from high-power radars.  And since none of the links mentioned photons, they claimed that meant that radars emit waves, not photons.  

After I posted my last message to the thread, I did some research and found Patent #US5525996, which is for "Police Traffic Radar for Calculating and Simultaneously Displaying Fastest Target Speed."  It uses the illustration below to describe how the duplexer works, only it says it will use the term "turnstile" instead of "duplexer."   A "turnstile" normally allows one person or object at a time to pass through a barrier.  Is that what is meant?  Or was the inventor thinking of a "revolving door" which usually allows people to enter a building at the same time others are leaving the building.  The illustration seems to show "signals" being transmitted and received at the same time.
Radar gun duplexer/turnstile
The patent says on page 47 of the pdf file:
Referring to FIG. 2, there is shown a block diagram of the
antenna unit such as antenna unit 10. A conventional micro
wave horn 20 having a conventional corrective lens 22 emits
coherent microwave energy toward moving and non-moving
objects in the scene in front of the antenna. Some of the
microwave energy bounces off the moving and non-moving
objects in the scene and returns as microwave energy 24.
This energy is collected and concentrated in horn 20 and fed
to a turnstile duplexer 26 (hereafter turnstile). The function
of the turnstile 26 is to provide isolation between the
transmitted and received microwave energy. Turnstiles are
known and are described in Montgomery et al., PRIN
which is hereby incorporated by reference. Basically, the
turnstile is designed to allow the transmitter and receiver
circuitry to share the same antenna.

Note that the patent uses the term "microwave energy" instead of "microwaves" or just "waves."  Unfortunately, it doesn't use the term "photons" at all.  So, the only illustration of "microwave energy" in the entire patent is the two jagged arrows (#24) which could be photons but definitely are not continuous waves.

There's no point in showing this patent (and other patents for other radar gun components) to the people on sci.physics.relativity, since they will just argue that the phrase "provide isolation between the transmitted and received energy" does not mean that the radar gun cannot transmit and receive at the same time.  And that means they will want me to somehow prove it does mean that.  So, it becomes just another idiotic opinion versus opinion argument.

Meanwhile, yesterday I also found user manuals for a couple more radar guns.  The Genesis VP Directional police radar user's manual says this on page 16:
Q. Will my radar work while my vehicle is moving?
A. No, the Genesis-VPD radar gun is a stationary only models, so
your motor vehicle should be parked. You need to hold the radar
steady while operating it.
And the user's manual for the Genesis GHD & Scout police radar guns says this on page 33:
Q. Will my radar work while my vehicle is moving?
A. No, the GHD and SCOUT radar guns are a stationary only models,
so your vehicle should be parked. You need to hold the radar
steady while operating it.
But, what do they mean when they say that the gun does not "work" when in a moving vehicle?  I seriously doubt that it means the gun turns itself off if it detects it is moving.  It is much more likely that it means that if the gun is moving it will not show results that can be used in court.  Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to find out is to call them.  But, since I'm not about to pay $900 for a radar gun just to prove how it works, I can't claim to be a customer.  Interestingly, both of those guns are used by the Pennsylvania State Patrol. 

Pennyslvania State Patrol radar
Pennsylania State Patrol radar gun
But I don't think there is any chance of me getting any information from the Pennsylvania State Police about using those radar guns while moving.  I think I need to find out why they are only allowed to use radar guns that "work" only when stationary.  Since it is a "law" of some kind, there should be some explanation somewhere for why the law was passed.  But, how likely is it that the law was passed to avoid discussions of Einstein's Second Postulate?  Not very.

June 23, 2019
- It looks more and more like I need to write another scientific paper.  As I stated in previous comments, this one would be about Radar Guns and Wave Theory.  The arguments I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum are just plain crazy.  When I quoted Richard Feyman's statement that electromagnetic energy consists of particles, not waves, Paparios responded:
You should be aware that Feynman was not an engineer nor a radar specialist, so your quote is totally irrelevant to the subject.

The people on the forum all endlessly and repeatedly argue that a radar gun transmits and receives radio waves at the same time.  And Paparios inexplicably posted TWO links which clearly show that radar guns do NOT transmit and receive at the same time, and he claimed the articles support his beliefs.  (Click on links ONE and TWO to access that information.)  The articles explain that there is a electronic device called a "duplexer" which switches between transmit and receive. 

Using "radar gun" and "duplexer" as a Google search argument, I found eight additional sources which say that radar guns CANNOT transmit and receive at the same time.  Click on THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, and TEN to access those eight sites.  And there are many many more.

Link four says:
Duplexer is a microwave switch, which connects the Antenna to the transmitter section for transmission of the signal. Therefore, the Radar cannot receive the signal during transmission time.

Similarly, it connects the Antenna to the receiver section for the reception of the signal. The Radar cannot transmit the signal during reception time. In this way, Duplexer isolates both transmitter and receiver sections.
Link six says:
While the antenna is transmitting, it cannot receive—and vice-versa.
Link seven says:
The antenna rapidly switches back and forth between transmitting and receiving by means of a duplexer.
Link eight says:
an antenna cannot receive whilst emitting, and vice-versa. A piece of hardware known as a duplexer switches the antenna between these two roles.
Yesterday, I posted all eight links and the quotes from them, and yet Paparios this morning asked:
Do you have any reference stating that the radar gun switches the output and the input?
What does that mean?  I'll have to ask.  Switches the output and input???  I have references which say there are controls that prevent radars from transmitting directly into the receiver.  That would blow all the circuits.  A radar transmits a very POWERFUL signal.  It gets back very weak signals, because most of what was transmitted went off in other directions and never returns to the radar.  If you transmitted directly into the receiver .... kablooey!  

Yesterday, I finally told them that I wasn't going to argue any other subjects until this one subject was fully discussed.  The fact that a radar cannot transmit and receive at the same time shows a lot of their other claims to be nonsense.  It clearly says that a radar gun cannot emit a continuous wave for as long as the trigger is pulled.  When the trigger is pulled, the gun immediately shows the speed of the target.  It couldn't do that if it was only transmitting and not receiving.  So, the gun must be switching back and forth between transmit and receive.  Link number eight above says,

usually, antennas emit radio waves for a few thousandths of a second, then wait for reflections for up to several seconds at a time before transmitting again. This is because an antenna cannot receive whilst emitting, and vice-versa.
That particular quote isn't about radar guns specifically.  There is no need to "wait for reflections for up to several seconds" with a radar gun, because the target will always be less than three miles away (2 miles is about the maximum range for a radar gun), and because the photons from the gun can travel to a target 3 miles away and back again in less than 1/31,000th of a second.  Most of the time that is required for the gun to show the target's speed is spent in waiting for the electronics in the gun to perform their functions.

Clearly the best way to argue this matter is to write a paper about Radar Guns and Wave Theory where I can use illustrations to show that the illustration below is nonsense:

radar gun transmitting waves

It shows waves being transmitted from the police radar transmitter while waves are coming back from the moving car.  So, the gun must be transmitting and receiving at the same time. 

Plus, aren't waves supposed to flow around an obstacle as shown in the diagrams below?

waves and obstacles

So, wave theory says that sometimes light (and all electromagnetic energy) acts like a wave, and sometimes it acts like a particle.  And wave theory evidently also says that waves sometimes reflect back from and obstacle and sometimes flow around an obstacle.  It seems to me you have to be NUTS to believe wave theory.

Comments for Sunday June 16, 2019, thru Saturday, June 22, 2019:

June 21, 2019 - I'm still trying to get sensible answers from the people on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  One person who calls himself "Paparios" argued at length that this image showed how radar waves work:

radar waves

But when I explained to him that such waves would just measure the closest car as moving the fastest, he suddenly switched to this illustration of radar waves:

pulsed sine waves
And, when I asked him what the gaps between the pulses consisted of, his response was "Nothing...no transmission."  So, his pulses look a lot like photons.

Overnight, Paparios posted a message that really shows how he thinks.  He and others on the forum have been repeatedly arguing that radar guns transmit and receive at the same time.  I've been arguing that they do NOT transmit and receive at the same time.  This morning, Paparios provided a link to Wikipedia's page about duplexers, which Paparios somehow believed supported his beliefs.  The page has an illustration which clearly shows a duplexer switches between transmitting and receiving and cannot possibly do both at the same time.  


And the text of the Wikipedia page says:

"A duplexer is an electronic device that allows bi-directional (duplex) communication over a single path. In radar and radio communications systems, it isolates the receiver from the transmitter while permitting them to share a common antenna. Most radio repeater systems include a duplexer. Duplexers can be based on frequency (often a waveguide filter), polarization (such as an orthomode transducer), or timing (as is typical in radar).[1]"
And footnote #1 says:
"Rinehart, Ronald E. (1991). Radar for Meteorologists. University of North Dakota. Radar engineers have added the automatic switch (also called a duplexer) in the ... As soon as the transmitter stops sending a signal, the duplexer switches so that the receiver is now connected to the antenna."
So, Paparios just shot down his own argument.  And that was just the most bizarre of of his comments.  Other comments he wrote also shot down other beliefs he has been arguing.  I'd like to frame the whole message and my whole response.  I've never seen a post that clarified so many arguments at once.  The discussion has made me think about writing another paper titled "Radar Guns and Wave Theory."  Right now, it appears that it can be easily shown that wave theory is totally illogical when it comes to describing how radar guns work.

Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I finished listening to another audio book on my MP3 player.  It was Dodge City: Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, and the Wickedest Town in the American West by Tom Clavin.

Dodge City by Tom Clavin

I'd been listening to it off and on for a few weeks, listening to several other audio books in their entirety during pauses in listening to Dodge City.  That doesn't mean the book isn't interesting.  It just means it is easy to pause and do something else without losing track of what was going on. 

What was most interesting to me was how young Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, all their brothers, and Doc Holiday were, compared to the way they are depicted in movies by middle-aged actors like Burt Lancaster, Gary Cooper and Kirk Douglas.  They were buffalo hunters and stage coach drivers when they were in their late teens.  Wyatt was born in 1848.  He became assistant city marshal of Dodge City when he was 30. 
Doc Holiday died at the ripe old age of 36 in 1887.  The Gunfight at the OK Corral happened in 1881.  Bat Masterson was born in 1853, making him 5 years younger than Wyatt.  In 1877, when he was 24 years old, he became "under-sheriff" of Dodge City.   Later in life, Bat became friends with Theodore Roosevelt and wrote a sports column for a New York newspaper for many years before he died in New York in 1929.  In this later years, Wyatt Earp was friends with movie stars Tom Mix and William S. Hart, and he also died in 1929.  The Earp brothers and the Masterson brothers had many wives and during the course of their lives they encountered folk like Jesse and Frank James, Billy the Kid, Wild Bill Cody, The Dalton Gang, etc.  Interesting stuff.    

June 20, 2019 - Ah! There were six new "unique IP downloads" of my revised paper on
Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories in the past 24 hours.  But I still need to think about different ways to "advertise" the paper in order to get more people to read it.  I'm thinking of contacting some scientists who have helped me in the past, and maybe others like Bill Nye, Sean Carroll and Neil deGrass Tyson. I'm also thinking about mentioning the paper on Facebook groups where I am a member.  (I haven't even mentioned it on my own group yet.)  The hope is that someone will offer or decide to test the theory.

Meanwhile, as I was pulling into my garage yesterday afternoon after doing some grocery shopping, I finished listening to CD #7 of the 7-CD audio book set for "In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination" by Margaret Atwood.

In Other Worlds by Margaret Atwood

While it might seem like it is the 4th book I've read in the past week, actually it is just the 4th book I've finished in the past week.  I started listening to In Other Worlds on May 20.  So, it took almost exactly one month to get through it while driving to and fro around town. (I'll be finishing another audio book tomorrow.)

In Other Worlds is about imagining other worlds and other cultures.  Here is how Amazon describes the book:

At a time when the borders between literary genres are increasingly porous, Margaret Atwood maps the richly fertile crosscurrents of speculative and science fiction, slipstream, utopias and dystopias, and fantasy, and muses on their roots in the age-old human impulse to imagine new worlds. She shares the evolution of her personal fascination with this branch of literature, from her days as a child inventing a race of flying superhero rabbits, to her graduate study of the Victorian ancestors of SF to her appreciations of such influential writers as Marge Piercy, Rider Haggard, Ursula K. LeGuin, Kazuo Ishiguro, Aldous Huxley, and Jonathan Swift. As humorous and charming as it is insightful and provocative, In Other Worlds brilliantly illuminates “the wilder storms on the wilder seas of invention.”
Margaret Atwood softly narrates about two thirds of the book in what is almost a  droning monotone, but it's still interesting - if you are interested in science fiction and writing, and especially science fiction writing.  I've got two science fiction novels that I've completed, and I'm still trying do decide what to do with them.  The chances of getting an agent interested is virtually nil (agents won't even talk with anyone over 65, unless they are famous), and you can't get a publisher interested in a novel without first getting an agent interested.  Atwood's book wasn't much help on that, but it was still very interesting - to me.

June 19, 2019
- Hmm. Once again there was just one new "unique IP download" of my revised paper on
Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories in the past 24 hours. And I even tried posting a comment about the paper to a different UseNet forum.  I posted a comment to the sci.logic forum, because it seemed to have a lot of people discussing a lot of things.  But no one posted a response, and only 6 people viewed my comment in the past 24 hours.

Meanwhile, on sci.physics.relativity, there have been 23 posts and 69 views in the past 48 hours.  And some are very interesting.  For example, someone who calls himself "Paparios" wrote (in part):
a) Let the radar gun transmit a series of pulses (30 pulses/second) to the target (an approaching car moving at 30 meters/second).
b) Let each pulse departs the radar gun at speed c and let L be the distance of the target when the pulse departs.
c) That first pulse will arrive to the target WHEN that target has already moved a little bit closer to the gun (the distance between the radar gun and the target is reducing by 30 meters each second).
d) This means the target is not receiving the pulses at 30 pulses/second but the target is receiving the pulses at 30.000006 pulses/second.
e) This change in frequency will generate a Doppler frequency of 6000 Hz (as shown by the calculator in http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/radar.html

So you see that nowhere there is a target receiving the pulses at speed c+v.
Wow!  He doesn't seem to realize it, but he's arguing that the closer a target gets to the radar gun the faster the target will be measured as moving.  I explained that to him, and awaited a response.  In his response he said something else totally bizarre (since he claims to be a physicist):
Radar guns use electromagnetic waves on the order of 20-30 GHz, which are radio waves and not light waves.
And I responded:
And you evidently do not understand that ALL electromagnetic waves (and photons) work the same way.  They only differ in their frequency and energy.

"the only difference between radio waves, visible light and gamma rays is the energy of the photons. Radio waves have photons with the lowest energies. Microwaves have a little more energy than radio waves. Infrared has still more, followed by visible, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays."
Source: NASA at https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum2.html
Another person argued that a verified theory is still just a theory and nothing can be "proved" in physics.  I agreed and told him that, just because a verified theory is still just a theory, that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to understand how the universe works. 

"Sylvia Else" wrote this:
You want the experiment done - you pay for it.
To which I replied,
I'll pay for it if I have to.  But if someone else already HAS the radar
guns and can use them at no expense to VERIFY the theory, then why should I spend the money?

Plus, if I buy a radar gun and it confirms my theory, who will believe me?  If someone ELSE verifies what I have said, then it becomes much more difficult to dispute.

Besides, there are other aspects of the theory that are still under
investigation.  For example, what is different about a "complex" radar
gun when it is in "test mode" versus when "test mode" is turned off?

That question opens of other questions about what does a "complex" radar gun measure when you put a vibrating tuning fork in front of it?  And WHY must you put the gun in "test mode" when doing that?
Those last two questions were on my mind when I awoke this morning.  The only answer I can see is that you have to turn the "complex" gun into a "basic" gun so that it can measure the speed of the fastest moving tine on the vibrating tuning fork.  Otherwise, a "complex" radar gun will give "no reading" because it is getting too many different signals and the fastest signal is also the weakest signal. The software in the gun will reject all that as being "errors" IF the gun is not in "test mode."

Oh yes, one other person wrote:

Why do you waste your life away on those "papers"?
And I responded,
Is thoroughly enjoying yourself by solving great mysteries a "waste of time"?

And so it is.

June 18, 2019
- There was only one new "unique IP download" of my revised paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories in the past 24 hours.  But, for all I know there may have been a couple dozen downloads by people who have read earlier versions of the paper.  Those wouldn't be "unique IP downloads."  What I probably need to do is advertise it.  I usually do that by posting a comment on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  I didn't do that until about lunchtime today.  I'm advertising it here, of course, but regular readers of this web site wouldn't likely be "unique IP downloads" either.

I keep thinking about the idea of using a "complex" radar gun while it is in "test mode."  But, if I cannot find any official source that describes what happens when you use a "basic" radar gun in a way that is contrary to instructions (i.e., while moving), I see no hope for finding an official source describing what happens when you are in a moving vehicle and point a "complex" radar gun at a stationary target while in "test mode."  But it certainly opens up a lot of possibilities for people who have access to radar guns to create interesting YouTube videos.

Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I finished reading the paperback version of "Hard Eight" by Janet Evanovich.  It is the 8th book in what is now a 25 book series about "bounty hunter" (a.k.a. bail jumper catcher) Stephanie Plum.

Hard Eight by Janet Evanovich

Doing a Google search to find out when I last read a Stephanie Plum novel, I find I finished "Seven Up" on December 19, 2105.  Hmm.  I think that is a typo.  I finished "Hot Six" on October 12, 2015.  And I finished "High Five" on August 21, 2015. 

Hard Eight was very funny and enjoyable, but not quite as satisfying as the other Stephanie Plum novels I've read.  In this book, the main case isn't about catching some bail jumper.  It is about preventing an elderly woman from losing her home, a home which she put up as bond in her daughter's child custody case.  The daughter ran off with her daughter in violation of the bond agreement, so Stephanie Plum has to find the granddaughter and bring her back.  The father is a criminal of sorts and there are other much worse criminals who also want the daughter and granddaughter found for some mysterious reason.

My fiction book reading backlog
                              -paper books

My fiction reading list in paper form includes a bunch of other Stephanie Plum novels, as shown above (click on it or click HERE to see a larger version).  I think it's been years since I last read a novel in paper form.  I've been focused on science problems during the day, and I mostly read paper novels when I can do so by natural light, instead of by artificial light.  I'm looking forward to reading To the Nines and the other Stephanie Plum novels.  But, I might first listen to some more Fox & O'Hare detective novels, which are also by Janet Evanovich. It all depends on how much free time I can foresee having during daylight hours.   

June 17, 2019
- The new version of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories is now available at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v3.pdf.  I submitted it yesterday afternoon and received an email this morning informing me that it was on-line as of 7:11 a.m.

Of course, at about that same time this morning I was laying in bed thinking there was something that I maybe should have included in the paper.  It occurred to me that running a "complex" radar gun in "test mode" might cause the radar gun to work like a "basic" radar gun as it measures the speed of the fastest moving tine on a tuning fork.  If so, then it wouldn't be necessary to find a "basic" radar gun in order to confirm what is claimed in my  paper.  A "complex" radar gun in test mode might do just as well.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, as I was eating lunch yesterday, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  It was Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence by James R. Clapper.
Facts and Fears by James R.

"When he stepped down in January 2017 as the fourth United States director of national intelligence, James Clapper had been President Obama's senior intelligence adviser for six and a half years, longer than his three predecessors combined. He led the U.S. intelligence community through a period that included the raid on Osama bin Laden, the Benghazi attack, the leaks of Edward Snowden, and Russia's influence operation during the 2016 U.S. election campaign."

The book was very interesting an informative, even though it seemed like most paragraphs were over a page long.  There is very little dialog in the book.  The book goes into great detail about Russia's meddling in the 2016 election to help get Trump elected.  The book explains the difference between simply promoting one candidate over another (which America sometimes does in other country's elections in order to help stop some crazy dictator from getting into office) and spreading lies, distortions and misinformation to get people to vote the way you want them to vote - as Russia did during our 2016 Presidential election.

The key point of the book, however, seems to be the necessity of telling "truth to power."  In other words, you have to explain the situation to your boss as the facts say it is, especially when talking to the President of the United States.  James Clapper worked under Kennedy, Bush 2 and Obama, and those Presidents all understood the necessity of telling things they way they are.   Trump doesn't like it.  Clapper wrote in his book:
In the period of just a few months, our president had attacked Congress that wouldn’t pass legislation at his will, the judiciary that dared to rule against his travel ban, the “dishonest media,” the “Nazi” Intelligence Community, the FBI investigating his campaign, and anyone who said no to him. Beyond that, he had disparaged minority Americans and mocked those with disabilities. At the close of his first week in office, the Economist Intelligence Unit updated its Democracy Index to indicate that the United States no longer qualified as a full-fledged democracy. For the first time, because of an “erosion of public trust in political institutions,” our democratic status was listed as “flawed.”
I don’t believe our democracy can function for long on lies, particularly when inconvenient and difficult facts spoken by the practitioners of truth are dismissed as “fake news.” I know that the Intelligence Community cannot serve our nation if facts are negotiable. Just in the past few years, I’ve seen our country become so polarized because people live in separate realities in which everyone has his or her own set of facts—some of which are lies knowingly distributed by a foreign adversary. This was not something I could idly stand by and watch happen to the country I love.
I've got 26 pages of passages I highlighted in the book, but the last one is probably the best one:
We have elected someone as president of the United States whose first instincts are to twist and distort truth to his advantage, to generate financial benefit to himself and his family, and, in so doing, to demean the values this country has traditionally stood for. He has set a new low bar for ethics and morality. He has caused damage to our societal and political fabric that will be difficult and will require time to repair. And, close to my heart, he has besmirched the Intelligence Community and the FBI—pillars of our country—and deliberately incited many Americans to lose faith and confidence in them. While he does this, he pointedly refuses to acknowledge the profound threat posed by Russia, inexplicably trusting the denials by Putin about their meddling in our political process over the considered judgments by his own Intelligence Community.
I probably enjoyed the book because I can see Clapper's point of view.

June 16, 2019
- I spent most of yesterday working on the overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories, and it looks like I should be able to upload it to vixra.org tomorrow, which should mean it will be publicly available the next day.

I'm beginning to think that, for some people, discussing the physics of radar guns is like discussing a conspiracy theory.  No one wants to argue about things that have not been satisfactorily proven one way or the other to all parties.  NASA has a web page titled "How Do Police Radars Really Work?" that describes in detail how radar gun can emit a single photon, and when compared with the return photon, the gun can determine the speed of the target.  But if countless mathematicians do not believe what NASA says or even that photons exist, who wants to get in the middle of such a disagreement?

Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman may have clearly stated that light consists of photons, not waves, and there may be a mountain of evidence to confirm their statements, but if countless mathematicians still believe and will argue that light consists of waves, who wants to get in the middle of such a disagreement?

I don't particularly want to get in the middle of that, but I have, of course.  The problem is that finding new evidence which cannot be denied is no easy task, and it is made even more difficult when no one seems willing to provide details about how radar guns work. So, I'm just bumbling around, trying new research ideas while continuing work on an overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.

When reading about police radar guns you also get the distinct impression that more and more police departments are switching to lidar guns.  Lidar guns are not only more accurate than radar guns, they will not get you into any arguments about the Doppler Effect, since lidar does not utilize the Doppler Effect.  Also, many mathematicians even seem to accept that a lidar gun sends out just one "wave" at a time, waiting for that "wave" to return before sending another.  With radar guns they insist the the gun sends a continuous stream of waves and receives back a continuous series of waves at the same time.

I'd read somewhere that the State of Pennsylvania does not allow local police departments to use radar guns.  Only the State Police can use them.  Checking on it, I found a web site that says,
The only law enforcement agency in Pennsylvania that is allowed to operate police radar guns is the State Police and only when in stationary mode.
Hmm.  I'll have to do some more research to see if I can find why they can only use radar guns in "stationary mode."   That same web page says:
State procurement records over the past 5-years indicate that the following police radar guns are used by both state and local police agencies.
Decatur Genesis K-band
Kustom Signals Falcon HR K-band
Kustom Signals KR10 K-band
At the web page HERE I found the picture shown below.  The radar gun the officer is holding is a Decatur Genesis K-band.
PA State Police Officer with radar gun

There is a power cord running from the bottom of the gun to a cigarette lighter adapter plug within the car. You cannot see much of it because it is hidden behind the officer's hand.

The multi-part Kustom Signals KR10, shown below, consists of a dash-mounted radar measuring unit with an emitter that gets mounted somehow on the outside of the squad car, or perhaps placed on the dash next to the measuring unit.  There's also a button the officer pushes to turn the radar on and off.  

Kustom Signals KR10

The Falcon HR, shown below, can also be used as a hand-held device.  You just remove it from its dash-mount.  I tried to get information about it from Kustom Signals, but they didn't respond to my emails.

Falcon HR radar gun
So, the research led to nothing of value, just more questions.  Sigh.

Comments for Sunday June 9, 2019, thru Saturday, June 15, 2019:

June 14, 2019 - I've finally gotten back to work on the overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  I spent most of yesterday afternoon on it, and I'm hoping to have a new version on-line next week.

Meanwhile, yesterday evening I finished listening to the audio book version of Memory Man by David Baldacci. 

Memory Man

The audio book is 13 hours and 17 minutes long, and it took me 3 days (actually 3 evenings) to listen to it.  Although some of the crimes in the book were a little too grim for me, and I didn't quite buy the culprits' motivation, it was still a very enjoyable book, and I already have the next book in the series in my MP3 player.  There are evidently 5 books in the series.

They are about a detective named Amos Decker who was injured while playing football for the NFL, and the injury resulted in him having a photographic memory.  So, he spends a lot of time going through his mental "DVR" playing back things he saw to see how the pieces fit together.  Unfortunately, that photographic memory won't allow him to forget the images of finding his wife, daughter and brother brutally murdered.  And those are just the first crimes committed by the killer Amos Decker must track down.  The second is a school shooting, which seems unrelated, except that it happened at the high school Amos Decker once attended.    

The book is a "page turner" that keeps you interested, maybe even more so if there are no actual pages to turn.

June 13, 2019
- I think the discussions on sci.physics.relativity have finally come to an end.  There haven't been any new posts in the past 24 hours, and I'm not in the mood to post anything new. 

Now I just have to get back to work on the overhaul of my Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories paper.  I've been spending my days researching radar guns looking for something - anything - that would provide information on what make and model of police radar guns will show "actual" speeds instead of "relative" speeds when the gun is inside a patrol car going 60 mph and the gun is pointed at a tree.  The "actual" speed of the tree is, of course, zero.  The "relative" speed is 60 mph.  The Bushnell Speedster sports radar gun will show the "relative" speed of 60 mph.  But I still haven't been able to find anything about which make and model of radar guns gives "actual" speeds.  The people on sci.physics.relativity, of course, argue that it is impossible for any radar gun to give "actual" speeds, since any "actual" speed would involve the speed that the earth rotates, the speed that the earth moves around the sun, the speed that the sun moves around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc.

I've sent emails to a couple radar gun manufacturers, to some people on the Internet who seem knowledgeable about radar guns, and I left a message with my local police department asking about what make and model radar gun they use, but so far I've gotten no responses. 

Meanwhile, the other day I realized that a warning notice had vanished from my two blogs, Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001 and My Thoughts on the Changing World.  This message had been displayed on the "stats" page since February whenever I checked the statistics for either blog:

Following the announcement of Google+ API deprecation scheduled for March 2019, a number of changes will be made to Blogger’s Google+ integration on 4 February 2019.

Google+ widgets: Support for the “+1 Button”, “Google+ Followers” and “Google+ Badge” widgets in Layout will no longer be available. All instances of these widgets will be removed from your blog.

+1 buttons: The +1/G+ buttons and Google+ share links below blog posts and in the navigation bar will be removed.

Please note that if you have a custom template that includes Google+ features, you may need to update your template. Please contact your template supplier for advice.

Google+ Comments: Support for Google+ comments will be turned down, and all blogs using Google+ comments will be reverted back to using Blogger comments. Unfortunately, comments posted as Google+ comments cannot be migrated to Blogger and will no longer appear on your blog.

And on March 30, I received an email from Google that began with this:

You’ve received this email because you have content in Google+ for your personal (consumer) account or a Google+ page you manage.

This is a reminder that on April 2, 2019 we’re shutting down consumer Google+ and will begin deleting content from consumer Google+ accounts. Photos and videos from Google+ in your Album Archive and your Google+ pages will also be deleted.

Downloading your Google+ content may take time, so get started before March 31, 2019.

So, I made copies of both blogs and I've been waiting for the blogs to disappear.  They're still there.  And some time in the past couple weeks the warning notice vanished.  The warning notice and the email were mostly gibberish to me, so I can't even be certain that they were referring to my blogs.  I saw that they used the term Google+ all through the warning.  I didn't even now what Google+ was, and I never bothered to research it.  Checking on it this morning, I found that Wikipedia says,

Google+ was an Internet-based social network owned and operated by Google. The network was launched on June 28, 2011 in the attempt to challenge other social networks and for a time linked other Google products like Blogger and YouTube. The service, Google's fourth foray into social networking, experienced strong growth in its initial years, although usage statistics varied, depending on how the service was defined. Three Google executives oversaw the service, which underwent substantial changes that led to a redesign in November 2015.

Due to low user engagement and disclosed software design flaws that potentially allowed outside developers access to personal information of its users,[4] the Google+ developer API was discontinued on March 7, 2019 and Google+ was shut down for business use and consumers on April 2, 2019.
Ah!  Google+ was shut down, but blogspot.com is still working.  So, if I wanted to, I could create a page on my blog about radar guns and Einstein's theories. Hmm. 

June 11, 2019
- When I checked the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum this morning to see if there were any responses to my posting of the link to the NASA web page that describes a radar gun emitting a single photon to get the speed of a vehicle, there were only two responses worthy of mention.  The post from Paparios stated:
First note that h=6.63x10^-34 joule-sec, then the energy of ONE photon is almost 0 (the actual value at 1 Hz is 6.62606957 × 10^−34 joules, which is the reason a radar signal needs zillions of photons to even get a few photons back to the receiver.

The article is poorly written (for instance n is not defined 
I was kind of surprised to see that Paparios seemed to accept the idea that a radar gun emits photons.  But complaining that the "The article is poorly written" will likely allow him to ignore what the article says. 

The "n" he is referring to is in this statement:

Since the photon energy, E, is equal to hn, where h = Planck's constant = 6.63 X 10-34 j sec, then

deltaE = h deltafrequency
I'm no mathematician, but clearly n is whatever you multiply Planck's constant by.  In this case it would appear to be the photon's oscillation frequency.  But Paparios (and other mathematicians on the forum) do not believe that photons oscillate, so that may be where he gets confused.

The other post, from Michael Moroney, stated:
One thing to note is that it never claims the photon is received at a speed of c+v, unlike Ed's claim. At least they got that right.

It seems to be part of some dumbed down 'science & math for kids or laymen' set.
Claiming something is "dumbed down" is a mathematician's way of saying something does not fit their mathematics-based beliefs and therefore must have been deliberately modified to be wrong.  When I look at what the article says, I translate this:
Consider a single photon from the police radar. The photon must interact with the approaching car for a finite time while it is being reflected. Call this time, deltat. Let an interaction force, ± f, exist between the photon and the car for the time, deltat. The force exerted by the photon on the car, +f, acts to remove energy from the car. The force exerted by the car on the photon, -f, acts to add energy to the photon. Therefore, we expect the photon frequency to increase.
into this:
When a photon is emitted from a police radar gun, the photon will interact with an atom in the approaching car for a period of time while the photon is being reflected.  Call this "reaction time."  During the reaction time, the photon will exert a force upon the atom.  The force is positive if the car is approaching, and it is negative if the car is moving away from the radar gun.  Therefore we can expect the return photon's oscillation frequency to increase if energy is added to the photon.   
There is no dispute that the photon travels at the speed of light.  The only dispute is whether it hits the approaching car at c or at c+v.  How can the photon add to the car's energy when the car is approaching and subtract from the car's energy when the car is moving away if the velocity (v) of the car is not a factor?  A couple days ago, I told Mr. Moroney and Paparios that I wasn't going to respond to any more of their posts in that thread, so maybe they'll see the comments I've written above.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Tom Roberts to respond.  If he does, he'll almost certainly also say that the NASA article is "dumbed down," which is his way of saying the article is wrong, and it is therefore either a lie or the people at NASA are just too dumb to understand how police radars and photons actually work. 

June 10, 2019
- Yesterday I once again tried to end my latest round of arguments on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  The latest statistics for the thread show 330 posts and 795 views since I started the thread a little over two weeks ago, on May 24th.  The arguments had recently degenerated into nothing more than pointless opinion vs opinion debates, people calling me names, and a lot of inane nitpicking about the meanings and usage of words.  But, it was a worthwhile exercise resulting in me learning a lot about how they think.

Then, while doing research this morning, I came across a web page on NASA's web site that I had seen before and forgot about.  It is titled "How Do Police Radars Really Work?" Click HERE to view it.  It is about using a single photon from a radar gun to measure the speed of an oncoming car.  That is what my paper is all about, and the people on the forum endlessly argued radar guns use waves, not photons.  So, of course, I had to post the link to the sci.physics.relativity forum to see what they will have to say about it.  (I also tried contacting the authors at NASA, but none of their addresses work.)

Meanwhile, yesterday evening I finished listening to another audio book.  It was a science fiction novel, An Absolutely Remarkable Thing, by Hank Green.

An Absolutely Remarkable Thing

I'd first heard about the book a month or two ago on The Geek's Guide to the Galaxy podcast.  So, I put my name on the waiting list at my local library, and the 9-hour 27-minute audio book became available on June 5. 

It was a truly enjoyable book.  And very funny in parts.  I think that is why I put it on the waiting list, because it was said to be funny, and funny books are what I am looking for the most right now.

Here is how Amazon describes the story: "Roaming through New York City at three a.m., twenty-three-year-old April May stumbles across a giant sculpture. Delighted by its appearance and craftsmanship—like a ten-foot-tall Transformer wearing a suit of samurai armor—April and her best friend, Andy, make a video with it, which Andy uploads to YouTube. [She calls the statue "Carl" as she talks with it on the video.] The next day, April wakes up to a viral video and a new life. News quickly spreads that there are Carls in dozens of cities around the world—from Beijing to Buenos Aires—and April, as their first documentarian, finds herself at the center of an intense international media spotlight."

And then things get really weird.  It seems that someone is posting coded messages on Wikipedia's article about the statues by leaving out letters in certain words and by jumbling up the reference numbers.  April, her friends and others around the Internet world try to decipher the messages.  Then April and other people start having strange identical dreams, and as the messages are decoded and the dreams become more complex it becomes clear that the statues are alien. 

Then things get really interesting.  The President of the US gets involved. Conspiracy Theorists on the Internet start attacking April as being an alien in disguise or as being a dupe being manipulated by the aliens who put the statues in the 64 different cities.  Meanwhile, as time passes, April is getting rich from licensing the video she and Andy took of the statue in Manhattan, which was the First Contact between humans and an alien culture.  In addition to making more videos and documenting everything on the Internet, she writes a best-selling book about her experiences.  She thinks the aliens are friendly. Others don't think anything that is alien can be friendly.  And the Conspiracy Theorists (who call themselves "Defenders") try to kill her.   Here's a quote from that part of the book:
I shouldn’t have been so surprised when things started escalating. I mean, I knew people hated me. It was a real thing. Being recognized by fans is very different from checking out at the corner store and not knowing if the clerk is a Defender thinking about what a dirty traitor you are. I thought that I could only either run away from that or fight it, so I fought it. Fear is an even better fuel than anger. Also, it is even more destructive. Their constant attacks meant I never had to doubt my message. It must be right, because the people who disagreed with me were sooooo awful.
That section in red is very much like how I feel after arguing with the people on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum who seem to know nothing except mathematics and attack me personally and call me names if I try to discuss science instead of mathematics with them.

Here's a quote I enjoyed about the process of writing a book:
A friend of mine once told me that, no matter how much you proofread, the first time you open the final version of your book, you will find a typo on the very first page you look at. Ugh.
An Absolutely Remarkable Thing was a thoroughly enjoyable book, and I can highly recommend it to anyone who likes science fiction.

June 9, 2019 - Last week, on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, I complained that physicists do not seem to be interested in solving a basic science question: "What is light?"  Instead, physicists seem totally content to use a mathematical model for particles when light seems to act like a particle, and they use a mathematical model for waves when light seems to act like waves.  And it doesn't seem to bother them at all that the models are incompatible with one another.  In response to my complaint, a physicist called "Paparios" posted a link to a Wikipedia article as if the article contained some kind of proof of his beliefs.  But he didn't state where in the article to find anything of value.  So, I wrote:
That article describes electromagnetic radiation as being EITHER a wave OR a photon.  It doesn't decide one way or the other.
And Paparios responded:
Why do you think a decision is required?
I replied:
Because SCIENCE is about how things work.  You are saying we do not KNOW how light works, except that it sometimes acts like a particle and it sometimes acts like a wave.  That is not science, it is an admission of IGNORANCE.
Before Paparios could respond, an engineer named Michael Moroney wrote:
Wrong. It is an acknowledgement that light is neither a true wave nor true particles.  It has properties of both, but is not either one.
While stating that he was disagreeing and that I was wrong, he was in reality agreeing that we are ignorant of how light works.  

And then Paparios responded:

First we are not talking about "SCIENCE" but about "Radar Guns". All radars, including radar guns, are electronic devices designed and built by electrical engineers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar). They have worked quite well and accurate for over 80 years using the good old (and currently still used) classical wave model (Classical Electrodynamics).
Humans, like you or me, are unable to answer questions like "how light works".  The reason is quite simple: we are only capable of processing thoughts, which physicists (like Einstein) use to formulate MODELS which try to approximate the way Nature does whatever it does.

A physical MODEL like Classical Mechanics, Classical Electrodynamics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, etc. represent achievements of our human intellect, but none of them answer "HOW AND WHY NATURE DOES WHAT IT DOES".
Wow!  That shows how far apart we are in our thinking.  All I am interested in is how Nature does what it does, and Paparios says that "Humans, like you or me, are unable to answer questions like 'how light works'."  I am investigating the science and physics of radar guns, while he evidently doesn't consider radar guns to have anything to do with science.  In addition, he provided a link to a book titled "Radar Design Principles."  Of course, the 724 page book doesn't even contain the word "photon" anywhere.  But it does say this on page 445:
The continuous wave (CW) radar is frequently used for detection and tracking of moving targets. In its simplest form a single sinusoid is transmitted, and the received signals are mixed with the transmitted carrier frequency. The existence of moving targets is determined from the beat note or Doppler frequency shift fd
Hmm.  A "sinusoid" is defined as a single  "sine curve" or "sine wave."  That seems like a photon to me.  There are other places in the book where "sinusoid" is used as if it is a photon.  But, claiming that a "sinusoid" is really a photon will just generate more arguments. 

The discussions on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum also produced a realization on Thursday and another on Friday that together seemed to solve my biggest problem, which is how to show the mathematicians on that forum that their wave theory of light is ILLOGICAL.

The first realization I had was that radar guns cannot transmit and receive at the same time.  As far as I know, no radio transmitter/receiver can transmit and receive at the same time.  That is why you always hear cops say "Over" when they are done talking and release the transmit button on their microphone.

The second realization I had was that a cluster of waves will return out of order if the waves hit multiple targets.  The waves that hit the closest target will return before waves that hit a more distant target.  How can you measure the speed of a target when the waves return out of order?  A basic radar gun has no way to separate one target from another.  It just displays the speed of the fastest target.  And it does it by computing the Doppler Effect on the oscillations of photons. 

With oscillating photons it doesn't matter if photons from the nearest target return before photons from a more distant target.  The gun simply shows the speed of the fastest moving object within range.  It is up to the operator to know which object or vehicle that was.  If he uses his radar gun on a cluster of vehicles it will be because the officer sees that one vehicle is obviously moving faster than the others.  And he knows by his visual observations which vehicle that is.  His radar gun cannot tell him.  It shows the speed of the fastest vehicle, but not which vehicle that is.

Waves are an entirely different situation.  Here is an illustration I displayed the other day which shows a radar gun emitting waves and receiving waves back.

radar gun and waves calculator 
Note that it is implying (or stating) that new waves are being emitted at the same time old waves are returning.  It also implies that the distance between waves is what determines the target's speed.  That is the Doppler Effect for SOUND waves.  Sound waves move at 343 meters per second or 767 miles per hour.  Light photons move at 299,792,458 meters per second or 186,000 miles per second.

If the Doppler Effect also changes the distance between light waves, and that is how radar guns work, then we need an illustration which shows cars of different speeds approaching the police car and radar gun.  Then we can see that the distance between waves coming back will different for each vehicle.  The gun won't, of course, be able to tell which car in the bunch is traveling the fastest, but how will does it prevent the return waves from getting mixed together and showing that one car is traveling at 200 mph? 

It seems to me that describing radar gun using photons instead of waves would make things much much simpler, but if everyone is intent on maintaining their ignorance about how light (and all electromagnetic radiation) works, it seems it will be a long time before we see illustrations of radar guns emitting photons (other than in my papers).

I really really need to get back to work on the overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  It explains how photons work in radar guns.  But will anyone care, if they are dedicated to remaining ignorant?  

Other interests:

fake picture of snow on
                    the pyramids
 Click HERE for an analysis of this fake photo.

January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 2018
February 2018
March 2018
April 2018
May 2018
June 2018
July 2018
August 2018
September 2018
October 2018
November 2018
December 2018

January 2019
February 2019
March 2019
April 2019
May 2019
June 2019
July 2019                                 

© 2019 by Ed Lake