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!
 
email
                  address

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
                cover
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
                  detective
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to access my scientific papers about time dilation, Special Relativity, etc.
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,
p
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 October 13, 2019, thru Saturday, October 19, 2019:

October 13, 2019 - I've once again stopped posting to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  When I argued that the mathematicians there almost certainly wouldn't accept the results of my radar gun experiment if the experiment showed them to be wrong, Paparios responded:
Be sure that not only me, but the whole physics community would accept the result of that experiment, after checking the conditions and statistical analysis of the results.
For sure, you are aware of how real experiments are performed and how to perform the experiment, are you not?
Ah!  So, that is how the mathematicians will argue that my radar gun experiment is invalid if it doesn't agree with their beliefs.  They will simply claim that the experiment wasn't performed according to their standards. 

I see no point in arguing with them further, at least until after I've done the experiment.  Then we will see if they claim the experiment was invalid because they disagree with "the conditions and statistical  analysis of the results."  But first, of course, I have to find a way to do the experiment without spending $1,600 to buy a radar gun.  And how will I do an experiment inside a truck without also renting a truck and finding someone to do the driving?  I've got some ideas, but they will take time to work out.

Meanwhile, at lunch yesterday I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  It was "Hidden In Plain Sight 3: The Secret of Time" by Andrew Thomas.

Hidden In Plain Sight 3

I've had the book in my Kindle for a long time, but I think I browsed it and found it wasn't going to be of any help to me, so I just moved on to other books.  Then, four days ago, when I finished reading another book on my Kindle I had to figure out which book to start reading the next day.  So, I browsed through the books in my Kindle, I built a priority list, and Hidden in Plain Sight 3 turned out to be at the top of the list.

The book is only 171 pages long (with lots of illustrations), so I was able to get through it in just four days.  Normally, I just read from my Kindle while eating breakfast and lunch, but when I saw that the percentage completed number kept changing by 1 or 2 or 3 percent every time I read from it, I started reading it at other times, too.   And I highlighted 23 pages of quotes from it.  Here's a quote from page 3, which is the first page of the book's Introduction:
    Einstein was greatly influenced by the philosopher-physicist Ernst Mach who was an advocate of logical positivism. According to logical positivism, physics should only make statements about phenomena which could be directly observed and measured. Using logical positivism as his guide, Einstein simply stated: "Time is what we measure with a clock".  According to Einstein, there was no place in physics for philosophical musings about the nature of time — all that was important was what could be measured.
    This statement of Einstein is particularly important because the theory of special relativity states that a clock which is moving will appear to run at a slower rate than a clock which is stationary. And, as Einstein stated that "Time is what we measure with a clock", this would appear to indicate that time itself runs slower for an observer who is moving relative to a secondary observer.

I didn't like the use of the word "appear" in that quote, but I agreed with the rest of it.  Then on page 7 the book starts to show how the author is going to get into a mathematician's point of view of everything:
In the more general sense, the more recent development of the so-called Copernican principle states that no particular point in the universe (not just the Earth) can hold a privileged position in the universe. This heralds a move away from an absolute system of science and cosmology to a science which realises that no observer holds a privileged position, and that the universe is built on relative measures. The repercussions of the Copernican principle are rippling through science to this day, perhaps having its greatest impact in the theory of relativity: if no observer holds a privileged position, then all motion must be described relatively. If you have read my previous two books you will know I have a firm conviction that the universe is built on fundamental principles — principles which are "obviously correct" and would have to be true in any conceivable universe. The Copernican principle is surely another of these fundamental principles: surely no point — and therefore no observer — holds a privileged position in any conceivable universe.
If there are no "privileged positions" in the universe, then all motion is relative, and a radar gun cannot measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck.  The walls of the truck are not moving relative to the radar gun.

But the walls are moving relative to the local speed of light.  The problem, as described to me by various mathematicians, is that the speed of light is not an object.  Therefore it cannot be used to measure speeds, even if that is exactly how a radar gun works.

The book is fascinating in some ways, since it provides a lot of information I've either never seen before or have forgotten.  Here an example from page 20 and 21:
Galileo's greatest contribution to the world of science was his scientific method. Before the scientific method was introduced, the proclamations of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle were accepted without question as representing the absolute truth about Nature. Galileo was one of the first scientists to challenge the wisdom of the ancients. Galileo's introduction of the scientific method allowed Nature to speak for itself. Aristotle was no experimenter, and he relied too much on his preconceptions. Famously, Aristotle once proclaimed that women have fewer teeth than men. Because no one thought to check this proclamation of Aristotle, for a thousand years everyone believed that women have fewer teeth (women and men, of course, actually have the same number of teeth).
How can anyone believe that women have fewer teeth than men when such a thing is so easy to check?

On page 32, the author describes a photon as a form of "perpetual motion."  I hadn't thought about that before.  A photon oscillates continuously as it travels across the universe for billions of years.  It is a form of "perpetual motion," except that you cannot use it to power anything.  If the photon hits something, it is absorbed, and it is gone forever.  A new photon may be created, but it too cannot be used to continuously power some machine.  You can use its energy, but then the energy is gone.  A "perpetual motion" machine is generally viewed as a machine that runs forever while also providing energy for some useful task.

Starting on page 38 the book gets into a long description of Einstein's thought experiment involving simultaneous lightning bolts and a passing train, with "Bob" on the train and "Alice" on the embankment.  And I can see where the author starts to misinterpret that experiment.  It begins around page 42 with this:
The only conclusion which is left to us is that reality itself is different for both Alice and Bob! In Alice's version of reality, the lightning bolts hit the ground simultaneously. In Bob's version of reality, the lightning bolts did not hit the ground simultaneously. Reality is a relative concept for the two observers. This extraordinary outcome of the experiment is called relativity of simultaneity.
The author explains that Bob knows why he sees things differently from Alice, but the author still considers both observers to be viewing reality, even though it is abundantly clear that what Bob sees is an illusion.  This is exactly what I was arguing with the mathematicians on sci.physics.relativity about last week.  On page 43 the author declares:
If I am moving relative to you, then my reality is different to your reality.
The objective of a scientist is to determine what is real and what is an illusion.  It appears that mathematicians believe the only illusions in the universe are things which do not agree with their mathematical models.  If you see it, then it is real.

On page 115 there is a quote that totally agrees with the mathematicians:
If you remember, Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same for all observers who are moving at a constant velocity. There is no experiment you could perform to determine if you were stationary or moving at constant velocity.
That is exactly what the radar gun experiment will do, so evidently Galilean Relativity is very different from Einstein's Relativity on this point.

I could go on and on, but the author then begins to view everything from a mathematician's point of view.  In effect, he builds mathematical models and declares what the mathematical models show is reality.  He describes in great detail how in a "block model of the universe" the past present and future are all real and happening at the same time, and the fact that we can only see what is happening now is just an illusion.  This is from near the end of the book:
In the discussion of the block universe in the previous chapter, it was described how all times are equally real and there is, therefore, no special "now" pointer which moves through time at a certain speed and determines the current moment. Even though we derived this result in a logical manner, there still lingers a considerable amount of resistance to this model. For example, Lee Smolin recently devoted an entire book, entitled Time Reborn, in an attempt to refute the block universe. The main reason I feel that many people have such a problem accepting the block universe model is not through any rational scientific basis, but because they instinctively feel a special "now" moment. This feeling is so utterly entrenched into our lives and psyche that it is an incredibly hard habit to break.
Yes indeed.  And scientists use experiments to resolve disagreements.  They call it "the scientific method," and it has a "rational scientific basis."  Moreover, if there is no possible experiment that can demonstrate a belief, then that belief is just a waste of time.   But mathematicians spend their entire lives discussing and arguing mathematical models of multiple universes and other beliefs and ideas which cannot possibly be confirmed by observation.  Therein lies the problem with arguing with mathematicians.  They see reality as different from the way science sees it.  To mathematicians, reality is what is described by a mathematical model.  Everything else is just an illusion.

While I found the book fascinating in many places, I can only recommend it if you want to learn why mathematicians believe the screwball things they believe.

    


Comments for Sunday October 6, 2019, thru Saturday, October 12, 2019:

October 10, 2019 - During lunch yesterday, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  It was "Fifty Inventions that Shaped the Modern Economy" by Tim Harford.

Fifty Inventions that shaped the
                                modern economy

It's a very interesting and enjoyable book that shows how a simple invention can change the whole world, and when multiple inventions are combined, there is virtually no limit to how the world can be changed. The shipping container is a world-changing invention that doesn't seem like much of an invention, but it really did change the world.  Refrigeration is another.

But the changes are not always for the better, and some are not even what people would ordinarily call an "invention."  I've got 16 pages of notes from the book, including more than a page of quotes about the invention of the passport. An example:
For most of history, passports were neither so ubiquitous nor so routinely used. They were, essentially, a threat: a letter from a powerful person requesting anyone a traveler met to let the traveler pass unmolested—or else. The concept of passport as protection goes back to biblical times. And protection was a privilege, not a right: English gentlemen such as Gadsby who wanted a passport before venturing across the sea to France would need to unearth some personal social link to the relevant government minister.
and
You could visit 1890s America without a passport, though it helped if you were white.  In some South American countries, passport-free travel was a constitutional right.  In China and Japan, foreigners needed passports only to venture inland.
The Google search engine is another invention that you might not think of as an "invention."  A quote from the book:
It’s hard to remember just how bad search technology was before Google. In 1998, for instance, if you typed “cars” into Lycos—then a leading search engine—you’d get a results page filled with porn websites.  Why? Owners of porn websites inserted many mentions of popular search terms like “cars,” perhaps in tiny text or in white on a white background. The Lycos algorithm saw many mentions of “cars” and concluded that the page would be interesting to someone searching for cars. It’s a system that now seems almost laughably simplistic and easy to game. But at the time, nothing better was available.
I remember those days.  Searching for things on the Internet back then was a real chore and often a total waste of time.

Another interesting aspect to new inventions is that they do not always help save time.  Some actually require more time and yet are very popular.  The washing machine is such an invention:
The data are clear that the washing machine didn’t save a lot of time, because before the washing machine we didn’t wash clothes very often. When it took all day to wash and dry a few shirts, people would use replaceable collars and cuffs or dark outer layers to hide the grime on their clothes.
I could go on and on.  The inventions discussed in the book cover everything from the plow to the Limited Liability Corporation, from checks to concrete, from the S-bend in your toilet to the electric light.  It's a fascinating book.

October 9, 2019
- Yesterday, Tom Roberts posted an interesting comment to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  He went all the way back to a comment I had posted on October 3rd to get material for his criticism:
On 10/3/19 4:03 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
"Take a situation where I am on a moving train and I shine a flashlight at the forward wall of the train.  The mathematicians on this forum BELIEVE that the light will hit the forward wall at c, not at c-v, where v is the speed of the train."
When you say "the light will hit the wall at c-v", what you really mean is: as the light approaches the wall, the light is moving with speed c-v relative to the inertial frame in which the wall is at rest.

Your claim is, of course, directly in conflict with Einstein's second
postulate:

        2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-
        ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray
        be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

        (Earlier the "stationary system of coordinates" was
         defined to be an ARBITRARY inertial frame, so this
         applies to EVERY inertial frame, including the one
         in which the wall is at rest.)

Your claim is also directly in conflict with his SUMMARY of that
postulate in his introduction:

        light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
        velocity c
Beginning on Christmas Day of 2016, I've been saving the discussion threads on sci.physics.relativity in which I have been a participant.  The comment above is part of the 60th discussion thread. 

It's an interesting look into how Tom Roberts thinks.  He claims:

When you say "the light will hit the wall at c-v", what you really mean is: as the light approaches the wall, the light is moving with speed c-v relative to the inertial frame in which the wall is at rest.
So, is he claiming be able to read my mind, or is he just interpreting things to make them fit his beliefs?  Obviously, it is the latter.  He is claiming that I somehow said that "light is moving with speed c-v."  I've probably told them all at least a hundred times that light always moves at c.   But Tom Roberts evidently cannot understand that, because he believes that stationary "frames of reference" are real and not just a human invention for doing mathematics.  Therefore, in his mind, if I am moving away from a light source at velocity v and I encounter the light as arriving at c-v, in my stationary frame of reference the light must actually be traveling at c-v, not at c

That appears to be the central problem that is causing all of our disagreements. So, how do I explain to him that "stationary frames of reference" are not real, neither are "systems of coordinates," they are just human inventions for doing mathematics?

In a comment following the one posted by Tom Roberts, Paparios sees things the same way but he explains things in a different way.  He wrote this about what I wrote on this web site yesterday:
You wrote the following today, referring to my comment that SR does considers that both the pòint of view of the train observer and the point of view of the embankment observer are equally valid :
"If two observations conflict, how can they be "equally valid"?  That is illogical.  But, of course, mathematicians do not believe in logic.  Scientists believe in logic, and when they encounter conflicting observations, they make it their job to find out what the problem is.  In this case, the problem is the dogmatic beliefs of mathematicians".
The problem here is not one of logic but one of observing very real events (the lightning strokes). The observations clearly depend on where the different observers are located when the events occur. In the train embankment gedanken, one observer is stationary at point M on the embankment, while the train observer is stationary at point M' and moving with the train at speed v with respect to the embankment.

The reality of the events can not be disputed. What Einstein is discussing is how those events are observed and the analysis of Einstein leads to the conclusion that: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).

Therefore, one observer may declare he saw lightning A before B, another may declare he saw lightning B before A and another may well declare both lightnings were simultaneous. 

Are all these observers nuts? For sure they are not since each of them is reporting what he actually saw. Notice that the actual events A and B may well not have been simultaneous, to begin with, but the observations of the events will be different for different observers.

Then you wrote the following:
"Science says that the boy on the plane is seeing an illusion when he sees the ball go straight up and down.  The ball cannot possibly be going straight up and down if it is on a plane traveling at 500 mph. Science also says that the man on the train is seeing an illusion when he sees the lightning bolts hit at different times.  The man on the embankment is seeing reality when he sees the lightning bolts hitting simultaneously".
First, Science says nothing of the sort. In physics there are no "illusions" but observations. The boy on the plane is actually seing what he sees (the ball going up and down).

Secondly, You are giving the ground observer (the guy seeing the plane passing by his location) the unwarranted privilege of be the only one allowed to see reality. What God gave the ground observer such privilege?
The passage I highlighted in red is of key importance.  It is another way of saying that stationary frames of reference are real, and they're not just human inventions to assist in doing mathematics.  He's saying that one stationary frame of reference is as real as another, therefore "In physics there are no 'illusions,'" there are only "observations."

I'm basically saying that science is about finding out what is real when there are conflicting observations that cannot both be real.

So, there can be no conciliation of our opposing views.

The universe works the way it works whether there are sentient observers watching it or not.  When the boy on the plane tosses the ball straight up and down, that is what he sees in his mathematical "stationary frame of reference."  His entire world is that airplane, and it sees the airplane as being stationary.  If he looks out the window while tossing the ball, his "frame of reference" then includes the outside world, which appears to be moving past his "stationary" airplane at 500 mph.

According to mathematicians, what he is seeing is real.  There is no illusion.  The plane is actually stationary and the earth is moving.

So, how do they explain the fact that an hour earlier the boy was on the stationary earth and the plane was also on the stationary earth?  Both the plane and the earth were in the same stationary "frame of reference."  Then an hour later the boy and the plane are again in a "stationary frame of reference" where the plane is stationary but the earth is moving.    What forces caused the earth to start moving?  Do mathematicians actually believe that when the plane started accelerating down the runway before taking off it was actually causing the earth to start moving while the plane just stood still? 

Hmm.  I think I'll have to get back on that sci.physics.relativity thread and ask them that question.

October 8, 2019
- The blogger known as "Paparios" read what I wrote on this web site yesterday, and he once again wrote a long comment about it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  It's odd to exchange comments with him writing on that forum and me responding on this web site, but it solves some of the problems with arguing on that forum.  I don't have to deal with a dozen other mathematicians hurling insults and constantly trying to change the subject.  I can made corrections to typos. Plus, arguing this way allows me to spend a lot of time thinking about how to respond. I can even "sleep on it."  I do my best thinking early in the morning, after waking up but before getting up.

Yesterday, Paparios wrote a long post that began with him describing the two lightning bolts thought experiment that Einstein wrote about in chapter 9 of his 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  Paparios concludes that part of his post with this:

Again, Einstein explanation is clear and not subjected to any interpretation. Then Einstein concludes writing:

"We thus arrive at the important result:Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event".

This should stop any discussion about c+v or c-v or which point of view is real or not.
Hmm.  Paparios somehow believes that is something new to discuss.  In reality, I spent much of April 2018 writing about that thought experiment on this web site.  And I discussed it at length on sci.physics.relativity at the same time.  It was in a thread I started, titled "The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics" which is:
#4.  The speed of light is always measured to be the same by the emitter and by all outside observers, regardless of their own velocity.
And, of course, the April 2018 thread contains many posts by Paparios. 

I also explained Einstein's lightning bolt thought experiment at length in my paper on Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments, which I wrote in May and June of 2018. 

Paparios also wrote about other things in his post yesterday.  He mostly wrote about the "experiment" I dreamed up with the boy on the plane tossing a ball straight up and down.  I said it was an "illusion," since the plane is moving a 500 mph and the ball is actually traveling in a long arc, not straight up and down.  Paparios continues to disagree, arguing again that there is no illusion, what the boy sees (the ball going straight up and down) is real, and what an outside observer sees (the ball traveling in a long arc) is also real.  And he relates it to the lightning bolts experiment, writing:

First, SR does considers that both the pòint of view of the train observer and the point of view of the embankment observer are equally valid, period.
and
both the pòint of view of the train observer and the point of view of the embankment observer are equally valid, period.
If two observations conflict, how can they be "equally valid"?  That is illogical.  But, of course, mathematicians do not believe in logic.  Scientists believe in logic, and when they encounter conflicting observations, they make it their job to find out what the problem is.  In this case, the problem is the dogmatic beliefs of mathematicians.  Science says that the boy on the plane is seeing an illusion when he sees the ball go straight up and down.  The ball cannot possibly be going straight up and down if it is on a plane traveling at 500 mph. Science also says that the man on the train is seeing an illusion when he sees the lightning bolts hit at different times.  The man on the embankment is seeing reality when he sees the lightning bolts hitting simultaneously.   

Einstein's theories say that the different views result from the speed of light traveling at c regardless of whether the light was emitted from a stationary source or a moving source (i.e., his Second Postulate).  If an observer is stationary relative to the emitter, he will see light arrive at c.  If the observer is moving relative to the source, he will see the light arrive at c+v or c-v, depending upon whether the observer is moving at velocity v toward or away from the emitter. 

And if a stationary person on an embankment sees two lighting bolts hit the train tracks simultaneously ahead of and behind the train, but a person on the train sees a lightning bolt hit the tracks in front of the train first, and then another lightning bolt hit the tracks behind the train, what the person on the train saw was an illusion.  Period. 

Paparios then argues that both are real because
The same analysis is true with respect to me seating in my living room watching a TV show. It is of no interest to me or to anybody on Earth, that Earth is really going at 30 km/sec around the Sun or rotating at 1000 km/hr around the poles. My physics related to eating a sandwich is exactly the same physics of eating a sandwich inside an airplane. 
In other words, what I say is an "illusion" could be seen as "real" if viewed by some alien who happens to be moving the right way through space and time.

Einstein's first postulate says that "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."  It doesn't say that "all frames of reference" represent reality.  If you want to know what is "real," you need to open a window and see how test results in your frame of reference relate to results in other frames of reference.  If the results are different, then you need to figure out why.  One reason: the length of a second will be longer in the "frame of reference" that is moving faster, so the speed of light per second will be different.  In that case, neither is an "illusion," but "reality" is different and we know why.  Mathematicians, of course, do not believe time dilation is real, so they believe that one or both of the observers is seeing an "illusion."  

This has also become an opinion versus opinion argument.  We have different opinions as to what Einstein meant when he wrote his Second Postulate.  I say he meant what he wrote, the mathematicians believe he meant what they believe.

That probably means that if I can get someone to do the radar gun experiment described in my paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories, or if I can do it myself, the mathematicians simply won't believe it.  They won't believe it if a thousand people do the experiment. They'll find some way to hold onto their beliefs, and the world will have to wait until they all die off, before it will be generally accepted among different mathematicians that moving observers will see light traveling at a different velocity than what the emitters see.   


October 7, 2019
- There was an email in my inbox this morning advising me that the new (and hopefully final) version of my paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories has been available on vixra.org since 7:59 PM last night at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v6.pdf

I was somewhat surprised to see that they identified it as Version 6.  I had deleted version 5, and I assumed the new version would be a new version 5.  But, their way is probably better.  If anyone saved a copy of the previous version 5 there's no chance of getting it mixed up with the latest version.  When they go to the page where all eleven of my vixra papers are available, and then click on paper #7, Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories, they will see this:

Versions of my first radar gun
                                paper

They can then access the latest version and/or previous versions by clicking on the version number -- except for v5 which has no link.  If they click on the blue "PDF" link, they will also get version 6.

As soon as I saw that version 6 was available on vixra.org, I immediately put it on academia.edu.  Academia.edu works differently.  It has no version numbers.  Evidently, you are only supposed to have one version of a paper.  I wasn't sure what would happen if I deleted the previous version, and I didn't want to delete the number of reads for that version, so I changed the name of the prior version (version 4 on vixra) to include the words "old version" and I identified the new version as "Final?".  The link is: https://www.academia.edu/40547948/Radar_Guns_and_Einsteins_Theories_Final_  

Meanwhile, checking the sci.physics.relativity forum this morning, I found that "Paparios" had read the comment I had written for this web site yesterday, and he had written this thoughts about it:

This clearly shows that Lake can't understand what he reads!!!
Notice his writing:

"When the man on the train turns on the overhead light, he doesn't notice that the rear wall lights up first because, while the light reached that wall faster than the front wall, the man is moving away from that wall..."

That is, Lake insists that, somehow, the standing observer inside the train MOVES with respect to the couch walls!!!

Therefore, it is no surprise he concludes with the following book worth sentences:

"The key point is: What the man on the train sees is an illusion resulting from the fact that he is on a train and is moving with the train.  It is similar to a boy on an airplane tossing a ball up and down.  The boy sees the ball going straight up and down, while an observer on the ground would (theoretically) see the ball traveling in an arc covering thousands of feet as the plane moves through the air.  The man on the ground sees what is actually happening, the boy on the plane sees an illusion."

You see, according to Lake, the food we ingest inside an airplane is an ILLUSION

This is too much fun.
I think Paparios runs all of his posts through a Spanish-English translator program, and that is probably why he uses "couch" to mean a "coach" car on a railroad train.  I have no idea what he wrote that translated into "book worth sentences."  Noteworthy?

I was going to go back and change what I wrote yesterday about "the man moving away from that wall," but Einstein explained the situation, and if you understand what Einstein wrote, then you should understand what I wrote.  The man does not move away from the wall but the light has to catch up with him as if he was moving away from the wall.

I had expected that mathematicians would somehow see a difference between the illusion on the train and the illusion of the boy tossing a ball on an airplane, but Paparios clearly sees no difference.  Somehow he believes that eating something on an airplane would be an illusion if what the boy does with the ball is an illusion.  How does eating something relate to tossing a ball?  The observer on the ground sees the ball travel in a long arc, not just up and down.  Why would he see a person drinking a cup of coffee be anything other than a person drinking a cup of coffee? 

That person on the ground sees the boy moving at the same horizontal speed as the tossed ball, but he also sees that the ball is moving up and down relative to the boy.  So, the person on the ground sees how the illusion works.  The boy on the plane does not.

The person on the plane drinks coffee just as if he was stationary.  If he is dumb enough to believe that the airplane is actually standing still, then he would not realize that both he and the coffee are actually traveling a 500 mph.  The person on the ground, however, sees that the man and the coffee are both traveling at 500 mph and that it is only an illusion for the man on the plane if he thinks he and the coffee are actually stationary.

But evidently Paparios (and other mathematicians) cannot understand that.  He believes both viewpoints are equally real and neither is an illusion.  But Relativity is all about how what one person sees inside his own "frame of reference" can be seen to be an illusion by someone who can see outside of his own "frame of reference."  If you are on an airplane and you think you are stationary, all you have to do is look out the window (outside of your own "frame of reference") and you will see that you are NOT stationary.  It is just an illusion that you are stationary.  Even the boy should be able to understand that the ball is also moving with the plane, it is not really moving straight up and down.  How can anyone not understand that? 

When Paparios is flying on an airplane and he looks out the window, he evidently believes that he and the airplane are stationary and everything outside of the airplane is moving.  He believes his view is just as real as the view from someone on the ground.  How can anyone think that way??  Maybe Paparios will read this comment and provide an answer on sci.physics.relativity.

Meanwhile, I see it as a demonstration of the #1 dumbest belief in physics

October 6, 2019
- I haven't posted any comments here for a few days, mostly because I've been busy arguing on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  But I've also been busy thinking about what to do next.  I'm getting nowhere in my attempts to use emails to get some local police department to let me examine and maybe watch a demonstration of a Stalker II SDR radar gun.  Next I plan to try sending letters via the post office.  If that doesn't work, I'm not sure what I'll try next.

However, later today I will upload a new Version-5 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  The paper will name the radar guns that I think will work in the experiment described in the paper.  That will open the door for others who can get access to the Stalker II SDR and the TS3 radar guns to perform the experiment that countless mathematicians have declared to be impossible.

When I discussed the situation on the sci.physics.relativity forum, I told them that I can't afford the $1,600 to buy a Stalker II SDR, and one of the mathematicians responded:
But it won't cost you anything!  You say the company has assured you that the device will read 60 mph when pointed at the inside of an opaque truck driving down the road at 60 mph.  All you have to do is tell them you will purchase the gun based on their assurance that it works that way.  Tell them, straight out, that if you receive the device and it doesn't work as advertised (i.e., the way you say they say it works), you will be returning it for a full refund.

You can't lose.  If the gun works as you expect, you will be making millions of dollars (including the million dollar Nobel prize) as the man who over-threw all of science.  So the $1600 investment will be repaid a thousand-fold.  On the other hand, if the gun doesn't work as you expect, you get a full refund.

Either way, you can't lose.  So what's stopping you?
What's stopping me is the fact that while managers at the manufacturing companies told me that their radar guns will definitely do as the experiment requires, I later talked with technicians at those same companies who were very upset and argued that what I wanted to do was totally impossible.  The technicians didn't say that their guns couldn't do it, they just said the experiment is impossible because radar guns work with waves, not photons.  And I got the impression that this led to arguments within the companies.  I think the technicians travel around the world (one I talked with was at an airport in Iceland) to explain how their guns work with waves to measure the speed of vehicles.  Any experiment that demonstrates that radar guns emit photons, not waves, might be a big problem for them.

Last week's discussions on sci.physics.relativity also clarified a couple other things for me.  In one post, I quoted over two pages of material from The Evolution of Physics, the 1938 book Albert Einstein wrote with Leopold Infeld.  The pages describe how different observers can see different things happening, such as when one observer turns on an overhead light on a moving train, and another observer on the embankment outside the train observes it.  Here's the quote from pages 186, 187 and 188 (with my highlighting in bold and in red type) ("C.S." stands for "Co-ordinate System"):

Our new assumptions are:
(1) The velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all C.S. moving uniformly, relative to each other.
(2) All laws of nature are the same in all C.S. moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The relativity theory begins with these two assumptions.  From now on we shall not use the classical transformation because we know that it contradicts our assumptions.

It is essential here, as always in science, to rid ourselves of deep-rooted, often uncritically repeated, prejudices.  Since we have seen that changes in (1) and (2) lead to contradiction with experiment, we must have the courage to state their validity clearly and to attack the one possibly weak point, the way in which positions and velocities are transformed from one C.S. to another.  It is our intention to draw conclusions from (1) and (2), see where and how these assumptions contradict the classical transformation, and find the physical meaning of the results obtained.

Once more, the example of the moving room with outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light signal is emitted from the centre of the room and again we ask the two men what they expect to observe, assuming only our two principles and forgetting what was previously said concerning the medium through which the light travels. We quote their answers:

The inside observer: The light signal travelling from the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously, since all the walls are equally distant from the light source and the velocity of light is the same in all directions.

The outside observer: In my system, the velocity of light is exactly the same as in that of the observer moving with the room. It does not matter to me whether or not the light source moves in my C.S. since its motion does not influence the velocity of light. What I see is a light signal travelling with a standard speed, the same in all directions. One of the walls is trying to escape from and the opposite wall to approach the light signal. Therefore, the escaping wall will be met by the signal a little later than the approaching one. Although the difference will be very slight if the velocity of the room is small compared with that of light, the light signal will nevertheless not meet these two opposite walls, which are perpendicular to the direction of the motion, quite simultaneously.

Comparing the predictions of our two observers, we find a most astonishing result which flatly contradicts the apparently well-founded concepts of classical physics. Two events, i.e., the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside, but not for the observer on the outside. In classical physics, we had one clock, one time flow, for all observers in all C.S. Time, and therefore such words as “ simultaneously”, “ sooner”, “ later”, had an absolute meaning independent of any C.S. Two events happening at the same time in one C.S. happened necessarily simultaneously in all other C.S.
Assumptions (1) and (2), i.e. the relativity theory, force us to give up this view. We have described two events happening at the same time in one C.S., but at different times in another C.S. Our task is to understand this consequence, to understand the meaning of the sentence: “Two events which are simultaneous in one C.S., may not be simultaneous in another C.S."
That thought experiment shows that light will hit one wall of the train at c+v and the other wall at c-v.  The person on the train won't see it, but the person outside the train will see it.  On page 5 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories I use the image below to illustrate the situation for the man on the train.

Man on train turning on light

When the man on the train turns on the overhead light, he doesn't notice that the rear wall lights up first because, while the light reached that wall faster than the front wall, the man is moving away from that wall, so light will take longer to reach him than light from the front wall.  The result is that the man sees both walls light up simultaneously.  But someone outside of the train will not be moving with the train, so he will see the rear wall light up before the front wall.

The key point is: What the man on the train sees is an illusion resulting from the fact that he is on a train and is moving with the train.  It is similar to a boy on an airplane tossing a ball up and down.  The boy sees the ball going straight up and down, while an observer on the ground would (theoretically) see the ball traveling in an arc covering thousands of feet as the plane moves through the air.  The man on the ground sees what is actually happening, the boy on the plane sees an illusion

When I told the people on the forum that one view is an illusion while the other is real, the response from Paparios was that the two observers are in "different frames of reference," so both views are equally valid.   There is no "illusion," there are just two different frames of reference.

And therein lies the reason we can never agree.  I am interested in what is really happening in reality.  Paparios and the other mathematicians do not care about reality.  They only care about mathematics, and mathematically both "frames of reference" are equally valid. 

I also told them, "
a radar gun will measure the speed of the walls because it can tell the difference between emitted light and received light, which a human
observer cannot."

So, I once again stopped posting to the sci.physics.relativity forum.  I've got a lot of more productive things to do.


Comments for Tuesday October 1, 2019, thru Saturday, October 5, 2019:

October 2, 2019 - The message I posted to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum has generated nothing but bogus claims and arguments over words, so I'm just going to stop posting there and focus on other things.  In an attempt to get my mind on other things, yesterday evening I finished listening to another audio book.  It was "A Closed and Common Orbit" by Becky Chambers.

A Closed and Common Orbit

It's a science fiction novel, of course, but it is also a psychology book.  Just like the previous book in the series, which I reviewed on September 20, it is mostly dialog between various characters, and it doesn't have much of a plot.  But that is okay, since the dialog is both funny and fascinating.  In the previous book, the dialog was mostly about person to person interactions, how we deal with people who are different from us, but using aliens instead of humans of a different color or religion.  In this book the topic is understanding ourselves.

The book begins where the previous book left off.  It begins with an artificial life form, the computer that ran the space ship "Wayfarer" in the first book, being transferred into a human-like artificial body.  The artificial being, named "Lovey" in both books, has to cope with being only able to see and hear only what is in her immediate vicinity.  Previously, she had cameras all around the ship recording everything.  Now she can only see what is in front of her.  And she doesn't know what is happening outside of her field of vision.  PLUS, since she is no longer on the space ship, she has to learn how to look and act like an actual human being, since she's an illegal sentient being.  Fortunately, she has an alien buddy to help her adapt.  

Meanwhile, the novel is also about a human clone with similar but different problems.  The clone, Alice, was made to to be a worker in an interplanetary trash dump where she sorts out reusable trash from worthless stuff.  She lived all of her life indoors in the sorting shop, so when she accidentally gets a glimpse of the outside world, suddenly she finds it difficult to think about anything else.  Alice has an artificial life form as her buddy, but it is just an artificial face on a computer screen, an AI (Artificial Intelligence) intended for only answering questions about the scrap-sorting work they are doing.  Together they try to figure out how to learn more about what is happening outside of their shop.

I enjoyed the book, but I'm glad there are no other books in the series.  I think I should focus on detective novels for awhile.  I need something with a plot, instead of just a long but fascinating discussion of ideas and human foibles.


October 1, 2019
- As I was driving home from running some errands yesterday afternoon, I finished listening to CD #8 in the 8 CD unabridged audio book version of "The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump" by Andrew G. McCabe.

The Threat by Andrew G. McCabe

Wow!  What a terrific book!  Amazon's review of the book begins with this:
On March 16, 2018, just twenty-six hours before his scheduled retirement from the organization he had served with distinction for more than two decades, Andrew G. McCabe was fired from his position as deputy director of the FBI. President Donald Trump celebrated on Twitter: "Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy."
Needless to say, McCabe is not a fan of Donald Trump.  The book, however, is mostly a description of how the FBI operates.  They investigate crimes and look for evidence that can be used in court.  Donald Trump doesn't seem able to comprehend that.  He wants an FBI that is his loyal servant and which will do what he wants, regardless of what the law says or what the evidence says.  Here's a comment from near the end of the book:
Donald Trump would not know the men and women of the FBI if he ran over them with the presidential limo, and he has shown the citizens of this country that he does not know what democracy means. He demonstrates no understanding or appreciation of our form of government. He takes no action to protect it. Has any president done more to undermine democracy than this one? His “I hereby demand” tweet in May 2018, ordering Department of Justice investigations of the investigators who are investigating him—I can barely believe that I just wrote that phrase—is a clear example. His demand for documents identifying confidential informants does harm to the men and women of the FBI on a fundamental level. It undermines their ability to build the trust that allows law-enforcement investigations to take place, in ways that, I want to believe, he does not comprehend.
Here's another quote from earlier in the book:
I am not aware of another president who has weighed in against ongoing criminal prosecutions in the overt, hostile, and unrelenting way that President Trump has. This is a breach of propriety and of historical norms. Presidents don’t weigh in on those things. They don’t try to tip the scales of justice for or against a particular defendant. In our system, intervention from the outside is not only considered inappropriate—it is inappropriate. It undermines the operation of a fair system of justice. It sows seeds of mistrust.
The only positive thing about Donald Trump that I got from the book is that Trump is not quite as dumb as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. 

The book describes McCabe's career in the FBI and how each FBI agent is trained to handle evidence and dangerous situations.  McCabe was in the FBI on 9/11, during the Boston Marathon Bombing and while many other well known crimes took place.  He describes at length the difficulties involved in stopping potential terrorists versus simply investigating and apprehending other kinds of criminals.  McCabe also says that the Russian mob is basically run by Vladimir Putin and it is how Putin controls Russia.  And the Russian mob has a lot of operators in the USA.  McCabe's first assignment in the FBI involved investigating criminal activities by the Russian mob in New York City. 

It's tempting to quote further from the book, but suffice to say that I enjoyed the book immensely, and I highly recommend it, even though it leaves you depressed and worrying about the fate of this country.


Comments for Sunday September 29, 2019, thru Monday, Sept. 30, 2019:

September 30, 2019 - There was an email in my in-box this morning informing me that my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory had been placed on vixra.org as of 4:31 PM yesterday afternoon.  That's a little surprising, since all my other papers weren't posted until around 6 AM on the morning after I submitted them.

I was also a little surprised to see three comments posted after my article, all from "Mikko" who seems to have made it his mission in life to criticize all of my articles as soon as I post them.  His first criticism begins this way:
In section III the author discusses the problems he has because he doesn't understand special relativity. First he compares different statements used as the second postulate. Of course it makes little difference which postulates one uses as long as they result in the same theory, and there are presentations of the theory that don't use Einstein's second postulate at all. (In Einstein's original article the word "postulate" is not used but postulates were called "principles" instead.)
"It makes little difference which postulates one uses as long as they result in the same theory"??  How can anyone discuss Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity without discussing his two postulates?  Einstein's theory says that if A is true and if B is true, then C can also be true.  A and B are Einstein's two postulates.  If you try to discuss C without discussing A and B, you are discussing a theory with no basis for the theory.  That may be how mathematicians do things, but it isn't the "scientific method."  And they create their own second postulate in order to distort Einstein's theory to fit their beliefs.

Furthermore, in Einstein's original article the German term for "assumption" is used where the word "postulate" is used in the English version, and the German term for "conditions" is used where the plural word "postulates" is used in English.  Here is how Google translates things from German to English:

Wir wollen diese Vermutung (deren Inhalt im folgenden, Prinzip der Relativitat" genannt werden wird) zur Voraussetzung erheben und au6erdem die mit ihm nur scheinbar unvertragliche Voraussetzung einfiihren, da8 sich das Licht im leeren Raume stets mit einer bestimmten, vom Bewegungszustande des emittierenden Kiirpers unabhangigen Geschwindigkeit Y fortpflanze.  Diese beiden Voraussetzungen geniigen, um zu einer einfachen und widerspruchsfreien Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper zu gelangen unter Zugrundelegung der Maxwellschen Theorie fur ruhende Korper.
Let us presuppose this presumption (the content of which will hereafter be called the "principle of relativity") and introduce the only apparently incomplete assumption that light in empty space is always independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Speed ​​Y. These two conditions are sufficient to arrive at a simple and consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, based on Maxwell's theory for resting bodies.

While in this situation there doesn't seem to be an exact word in German that means "postulate," it is very clear that "Prinzip" translates to "principle" and "principle" translates to "Prinzip."


Mikko's next comment says:

The reader should not let the author's archaic use of the word "mathematician" to confuse oneself. Although the meaning is more restricted in the modern language, there is a tradition to use it more generally to mean 'a person who can think rationally', and this old meaning is used in the article.
Of course, the opposite is true.  My articles generally refer to mathematicians as people who only know and understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything "rationally." 

Curious about who (except mathematicians) would think of "mathematician" as meaning "a person who can think rationally," I searched for the difference between a physicist and a mathematician and found a web site HERE that says,

Physicists and mathematicians utilize mathematical principles to validate theories. Both fields apply their work to solve practical problems. A physicist specializes in examining how different types of components, such as energy and matter, interact. In contrast, a mathematician conducts research or experiments to further understanding of subjects like geometry or algebra.
That seems about right.  My experience in arguing with mathematicians indicates that all they are interested in is "experiments to further understanding of subjects like geometry or algebra."  In other words, they like playing mathematical games. Science is of no interest to them.

As soon as I verified that my paper was available on vixra.org, I uploaded it to academia.edu.   Then the next step was to publicize the article, i.e., to let people know it exists.  That is what I'm doing now with this comment.  And I also mentioned it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  I suspect everyone there will share Mikko's views.

September 29, 2019
- At 9:45 AM this morning, I submitted a new science paper to vixra.org.  That means it should be available for viewing tomorrow morning.  Once it appears along with all of my other papers on vixra.org, I will then also install it on academia.edu.
 

The paper is titled "Radar Guns vs Wave Theory."  I've been mentioning it here since late August, and at one time I thought it would be finished before the end of August.  But then I ran into problems with my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  Fortunately, those problems have nothing to do with Radar Guns vs Wave Theory.  Both "basic" and "complex" radar guns emit photons, not waves, and that is what the new paper is all about.  Mathematicians generally believe that radar guns emit waves.  That is how nearly all illustrations show a radar gun working. 
radar gun waves

My new paper explains that radar guns cannot possibly emit waves, since waves cannot do what a radar gun does. 

How can mathematicians argue in favor of a belief that is virtually impossible?  The paper addresses that topic, too.  It is the "herd instinct" mentioned in Thomas Gold's paper on New Ideas in Science where the "herd" says: "Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?"

I'm also working on another paper, which at one time I had combined with the paper on wave theory.  It's a paper about what radar guns tell us about the Big Bang.  It's very complicated and could take a long time to finish, since my job will be to uncomplicate it.  

Meanwhile, I'm continuing to search for a way to access and experiment with a "basic" radar gun without paying $1,600 to buy one, and without blindly buying a gun (or device) that I am not totally certain is a "basic" radar gun.  Searching around, I found information about Mattel's "Hot Wheels" radar gun, which sold for about $30 when they started making them in 2006.  

Mattel Hot Wheels radar gun
 
I have to say "sold" because Mattel stopped making such guns a few years after they started making them.  So, now you can only buy a used one as a "collector's item" for about $80 and up.  What does it measure when  the gun is moving at 40 mph toward a parked car?  It seems no one ever tried such an experiment, and the instruction manual isn't much help.  But, I suspect it works like the Bushnell Speedster "complex" radar gun, which means it would be of no help to me even if I could borrow one somewhere.
  

Comments for Sunday September 22, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 28, 2019:

September 26, 2019 - It is very difficult to write comments for this web site when all I am doing is bumping up against walls.  I've gotten absolutely no response from local police departments when I sent them emails asking questions about radar guns. 

I suppose I could write a comment about President Trump, but that would likely be more depressing than bumping up against walls. 

I tried to rent a radar gun that I figured might work like a "basic" radar gun, but the guy who runs the one-man rental company hasn't been answering his phone nor responding to emails.  Researching him, based upon some messages he posted on Facebook, it appears he's visiting some relatives.  If so, you'd think he'd leave a message on his answering machine or web site that he will be gone from the office until such and such a date.

Doing further research, just looking for ideas, I found some information about "Pocket Radars."  You can buy a basic Pocket Radar from Amazon for $199.

Pocket Radar

But will it do what I need it to do?  I'd like to know for certain before spending the $199.  Just before lunch yesterday, I sent an email to the company asking for some information, but so far I have received no response.  Checking the instruction sheet for the device, it just says,
• The Classic Model is a stationary mode radar and is not intended to be used in a moving vehicle.
• The Classic Model radar tracks the strongest signal. It displays the speed of the vehicle with the strongest radar return, which is typically the closest vehicle.
• The Classic Model measures vehicles that are approaching and receding from the stationary radar position. It does not discriminate the direction of the moving vehicle. 
It is "not intended to be used in a moving vehicle," but what happens when you do use it in a moving vehicle?  I looked through some videos where people use the device, but they just use it while stationary.   One comment in the "customer comments" section on Amazon suggests that it works just like the "complex" Bushnell Speedster radar gun.  But, how can something that is only about a half-inch thick do that?  The answer on Amazon seems to be about how such an experiment should work, not how an actual experiment did work. 

I might buy such a device just to see how it works.  If it works like the Bushnell Speedster, then maybe I can do an experiment where I point it skyward while moving to see if it is measuring return signals from the ground or something internal to the device.  But I need to do more thinking first.  I keep hoping someone else will do something to answer all my questions.  If I buy a Pocket Radar and it doesn't work the way I need it to work, I won't know why it doesn't.  Right now, I don't need any new unsolved mysteries. 

September 24, 2019
- I spent much of this morning following links.  A Google search for "radar guns relativity" (without the quote marks) led me to this link https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=tdr which contains a comment about the 1971 Hafele-Keating time dilation experiment followed by this:
In 2017, another experiment was done using strontium clocks, whose accuracy is three times that of cesium clocks, and the theory of
relativity was once again upheld (Ananthaswamy, 2017).
Hmm.  Another time dilation experiment?  I checked my list of time dilation experiments and didn't find anything from 2017.  So, I Google searched for "strontium" and "Ananthaswamy" and that led me to a New Scientist article from 22 March 2017 titled "Atomic clocks make best measurement yet of relativity of time" by Anil Ananthaswamy. The article contains this:
Special relativity established that the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other, a symmetry called Lorentz invariance. One consequence is that they would observe each other’s clocks running at different rates. Each observer would regard themselves as stationary and see the other observer’s clock as ticking slowly – an effect called time dilation.
The part I highlighted in red is totally wrong, of course, the faster moving observer will see the slower moving observer's clock as running FAST.  But, I continued to read the article and found this:
Now, Pacôme Delva of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues have used strontium clocks to test time dilation. Two optical fibre links, one between London and Paris and another between Paris and Braunschweig, Germany, were used to compare devices in these locations.

These clocks are moving at different velocities because of their position on the Earth’s surface, and relativity makes precise predictions about the extent of time dilation they experience. For example, a clock closer to the equator should tick more slowly than one closer to the North Pole. After one day, clocks in Paris and London should show a difference of 5 nanoseconds.
Hmm.  That's a test similar to the Michelson-Gale experiment from 1925, another experiment that I do not have in my list of time dilation experiments. 

The article also has this quote without citing a source for the quote:
“A violation of Lorentz invariance could point to a way to combine relativity and quantum mechanics”
Researching the quote, I found that the only place where it seems to have ever been used is in the New Scientist article where I found it.

Reading further, I found a link to the article written by the experimenters.  It is on arxiv.org and the article is titled "Test of special relativity using a fiber network of optical clocks" written by 31 authors.  The abstract begins this way:
Phase compensated optical fiber links enable high accuracy atomic clocks separated by thousands of kilometers to be compared with unprecedented statistical resolution. By searching for a daily variation of the frequency difference between four strontium optical lattice clocks in different locations throughout Europe connected by such links, we improve upon previous tests of time dilation predicted by special relativity.
The clocks were located in Teddington, England (near London), Paris, France, and Braunschweig (a.k.a. Brunswick), Germany.

London, Paris, Braunschweig time dilation
                          test

Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to have anything meaningful that I can quote.  It's an article that is filled with mathematics, and its prime purpose seems to be to prove a violation of the Lorentz invariance.  According to Wikipedia:

In relativistic physics, Lorentz symmetry, named after Hendrik Lorentz, is an equivalence of observation or observational symmetry due to special relativity implying that the laws of physics stay the same for all observers that are moving with respect to one another within an inertial frame. It has also been described as "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space"
So, it's all about Einstein's First Postulate: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

There's absolutely nothing in the arxiv.org article that I can find to quote support for what the New Scientist article says about it.  The New Scientist article says the experiment shows that, "
a clock closer to the equator should tick more slowly than one closer to the North Pole. After one day, clocks in Paris and London should show a difference of 5 nanoseconds."  But the arxiv.org article doesn't use the word "nanoseconds," nor "slowly," nor "equator" nor "closer" nor "difference."  The New Scientist article may accurately summarize the findings of the experiment as reported on arxiv.org, but the arxiv.org article has nothing I can quote to verify that. 

So, except for learning a bit more about how difficult it is to find unambiguous scientific articles and experiments supporting time dilation, this morning's research was a total waste of time. 


September 23, 2019
- Some questions I've been wondering about seem to have been answered long ago.  The main question was: How can mathematicians have been so wrong for so long without anyone proving them wrong?

Yesterday, I once again read the September 11, 2019, article in New Scientist magazine
titled "Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein’s legacy?"  The article includes this:
Einstein was both general relativity’s progenitor and quantum theory’s greatest critic. History may show whether neither, one or both of his sets of ideas were right. In the meantime, the nature of space and time seems as good a place to start as any to begin sorting out what’s what. Physics works by the minimisation of mysteries, and their current multiplication suggests that whatever we’ve got wrong, it is something pretty fundamental.
Then I did some kind of Google search which led me to a 1989 article by Dr. Thomas Gold from Cornell University's Department of Astronomy.  The article is titled "New Ideas in Science."  It is absolutely filled with passages worth quoting, so I'll have to select just the key passages to show here.  The first passage worth quoting may be this one:
What are the many factors that many people might share that go against the acceptance of scientifically valid new ideas? One obvious factor that has always been with us is the unwillingness to learn new things. Too many people think that what they learned in college or in the few years thereafter is all that there is to be learned in the subject, and after that they are practitioners not having to learn anymore. Of course especially in a period of fairly rapid evolution that is very much the wrong attitude; but unfortunately it is shared by many.
That seems to be the attitude I run up against when I argue with people on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  They endlessly quote what they memorized in college but cannot discuss anything, since all they seem to know is what they memorized.  They also have absolutely no interest in experiments, since that isn't what they learned in college.  Here's another passage which helps explain things:
a motivation that hones out new ideas, is what I brutally call the "herd" instinct. It is an instinct which humans have. It presumably dates back to tribal society. I am sure it has great value in sociological behavior in one way or another, but I think on the whole the "herd instinct" has been a disaster in science.
When I argue on sci.physics.relativity it certainly seems like I am fighting against people motivated by the "herd instinct."  Another quote:
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science.

Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge. "Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?" That is enough justification. 
That really seems to explain things.  And here is another quote that hits home for me as I try to get people to read and understand my papers:
It is now virtually impossible to do any research outside the widely accepted position. If a young man with no scientific standing were to attempt this, however brilliant he might be, he wouldn't have a hope. 
The following passage also hits home with me:
Once a herd has been established in a subject, it can only be broken by the most crass confrontation with opposing evidence. There is no gentle way that I have ever seen in the history of science where a herd once established has been broken up.

In many subjects such clear evidence is very hard to come by. In the complex subjects, especially I always think of the earth sciences in this respect, there are always different ways of interpreting any one fact; so many complicated things have taken place that any one fact can have three or four interpretations and the crass confrontation is very rare.
"Basic" radar guns provide clear evidence that the "herd" is wrong.  I just need to gain access to one and make certain that everyone knows that the guns can demonstrate that beliefs held by mathematicians for over a hundred years are undeniably FALSE.  The guns undeniably show that what the mathematicians believe is impossible is actually routinely done countless times every day.

All I need to do is gain access to a "basic" radar gun. 

Here's one final quote from Dr. Thomas Gold's article about how the refereeing procedure for new scientific papers hurts science:
What does the refereeing procedure really look like? How does it really go on? If, for example, an application was made in the early 60's or late 50's suggesting that the person wanted to investigate the possibility that continents are moving around a little, it would have been ruled out absolutely instantly without questions. That was crack- pot stuff, and had long been thought dead. Wegener, of course, was an absolute crack-pot, and everybody knew that and you wouldn't have any chance.

Six years later you could not get a paper published that doubted continental drift. The herd had swung around - but it was still a firm and arrogant herd.

Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference - namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organizer of this conference said to me, "Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow." I was not allowed 5 minutes of floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organizer started a paper with the sentence, "It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars."
What a mess!  It also explains why I have to post my papers to vixra.org and academia.edu where there are no referees. 

At the end of Dr. Gold's article is a link to a shorter article from 1999 that says similar things.  It's titled "Why Do They Leave Physics" and it's by a Princeton University professor named Philip W. Anderson.

September 22, 2019
- I think this week will determine whether or not I can do an actual radar gun test of Relativity.  I've got one more police department to try. The other local police departments wouldn't even respond to my emails.  And there is a radar gun rental company that may or may not rent a "basic" radar gun that my experiments require.  They do not rent either of the two "basic" guns I've mentioned on this web page (the Stalker II SDR and the TS3), but the type of radar gun they do rent may be a third kind of "basic" radar gun.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I saw an interesting post to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum yesterday, and I just had to put in my two cents worth.  The thread was titled: "Is there only "time-dilation" or is there REAL time-dilation ???" The discussion began with a post describing three points of view about time dilation: (1) Time dilation is impossible, time dilation experiments are really about geometry, not about time.  (2) Time dilation works just as Einstein said it does.  (3) Time dilation is just an illusion.

So, I posted a relatively short message that said:

There is only "REAL Time Dilation."  I've got a list of time dilation
experiments here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Velocity Time Dilation experiments all begin by comparing clocks A & B to make sure they are synchronous and tick at the same rate. Then clock B is moved while Clock A remains in place.  When Clock B returns to be placed next to Clock A once again, Clock B shows that it experienced less time having passed while it was moving - just as Einstein said.

That confirms REAL time dilation.  But mathematicians DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THE EXPERIMENT SHOWS.  Instead, they fantasize something that can never be demonstrated: They claim Clock B didn't actually run slower, it just took a longer path through "space-time."

Either way, the clocks showed that time dilation is REAL.  The experiments show that time dilation is NOT reciprocal.  It is NOT an illusion.  There are just people who do not believe what experiments show and confirm, instead they believe what they want to believe.  They require the IMPOSSIBLE to happen (like instantaneously comparing clock tick rates when the clocks are thousands of miles apart) before they will accept the facts.
When I checked the forum this morning, I found that Tom Roberts (who has point of view #1) had replied, first by saying the experiment I described
is NOT a "velocity time dilation experiment" -- it is a total elapsed proper time experiment.
And then he repeated my comment "That [the experiment] confirms REAL time dilation" and he added:
No, it does NOT. That confirms two different paths between a given pair of points can have different path lengths. That is _NOT_ "time dilation", it is a different geometrical phenomenon.
Two cars travel from Chicago to New York. One goes directly and the other goes via New Orleans. The fact that their odometers indicate different distances does NOT mean their odometers had different calibrations (i.e. ticked at different rates), it merely reflects the FACT that they traveled different paths and those paths had different path lengths.
        Ditto for the type of experiment you mention above.
Hint: if an experiment does not measure tick rates, one cannot conclude ANYTHING about the tick rates. That type of experiment measures and compares total elapsed proper times, not tick rates.
As soon as I finish writing this comment, I'll figure out how to respond to his comment.  I think I'll ask him what kind of experiment would resolve the debate? But I suspect that he'll just say there is no "debate."  There are just his beliefs and there are people who are wrong.

Meanwhile, a couple days ago, Academia.edu sent me an email about a science paper they figured might be of interest to me.  The paper is titled "On the nature of light and relativity," it's by a chemistry teacher at the University of California, San Diego, named Richard Sauerherber, and begins with this:
Introduction. Although evidence has been presented that the special theory of relativity for light has been confirmed and established [1- 4], other evidence suggests the contrary [5,6]. For example, Otis [6] found that the velocity of light in the propagation direction indeed is c, but when observers are in motion toward (or away) from the light, the increased (or decreased) light frequency f detected proves that the velocity with which light and observer approach each other differs from c because of motion of the observer. This motion cannot itself alter the wavelength w of the light produced by the source from which it speeds, where v (≠ c) = wf. This suggests to us that the postulates of the special theory of relativity need to be clarified. Indeed, light velocity can have component magnitudes other than c, which are usually referred to as aberration of light.
The reference for "Otis" is
[6] A. Otis, Light Velocity and Relativity (Burckel and Associates, Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY, 1960).
Since Sauerherber claims "Otis" was saying what I've been saying (the part highlighted in red, above), I had to see if I could find that reference somewhere.  It took a bit of doing, but I finally found a copy HERE.  It's a book about 140 pages long, and it's basically just one long attack on Einstein's theories.  As I've seen many many times, Arthur Otis clearly got his understanding of Einstein's theories from someone who distorted those theories, not from actually reading Einstein's papers. 

Otis spends a lot of time in his book explaining the differences between "ether theory," "source theory" and "Einstein's theory."  While I need to study the book more thoroughly, it appears that Otis believes in the "ether theory" since, as he figures things, it is the only way that,
when observers are in motion toward (or away) from the light, the increased (or decreased) light frequency f detected proves that the velocity with which light and observer approach each other differs from c because of motion of the observer.   That's not a quote from the book.  Otis's explanations are long and convoluted, designed to prove there must be an ether.  Apparently, Einstein's idea that velocities can be measured relative to the speed of light instead of relative to an imaginary ether wasn't even imagined by Otis, much less disputed.

Sigh.

I really really need to confirm that "basic" radar guns demonstrate how Einstein's theories work.  I need to get out of the world of "opinion versus opinion" arguments and into the world of experimental facts.  


Comments for Sunday September 15, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019:

September 20, 2019 - Hmm.  In the past 24 hours there were 19 "unique IP document downloads" for my scientific papers on vixra.org.  That's the largest number of new readers since August 1, when I released by paper on Pulsars and Special Relativity.  But there were only 2 new readers of that paper in the past 24 hours. Most new readers (13 of them) accessed my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories for the first time.  I have no idea what caused the sudden interest.  I'm hoping, of course, that there is some kind of "buzz" going on.

Meanwhile, this morning I finished listening to the 14-hour 24-minute audio book version of the sci-fi novel "The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet" by Beckie Chambers.

The Long Way to a Small, Angry
                                Planet

It's a very strange book.  It doesn't even have chapter numbers.  Each chapter instead begins with a date such as "Day 130, GC Standard 306."   A "Standard" is some kind of equivalent to a year.  Exactly how a "Standard" relates to a year isn't explained.

It is clear however, that the book takes place in the far distant future.  Humans made the earth uninhabitable sometime in the distant past.  The rich Earthlings moved to live in luxurious covered domes on Mars, and everyone else found homes and work elsewhere in space.  The main characters in the book all work on a spaceship called the "Wayfarer" which "punches" holes in space to create wormholes which allow rapid travel between planets.  The book is all about what happens to those characters and one "AI" (artificial intelligence being) as they travel to the distant location where the "punching" of the wormhole will take place.  There are less than 10 characters in the crew, and only a few are humanoid. 

While that may seem like it is a bit far-fetched, in reality it was a very enjoyable book.  The book doesn't really have a plot.  It's about how the crew members interact with each other and with creatures they meet on planets visited along the way.  It's about inter-species prejudices and how those prejudices have resulted in problems virtually everywhere.  One entire planet was wiped out when one species invented a weapon that just killed members of the other species. Even a slight wound would become fatal in about a half hour.  The side that invented the weapon somehow allowed the other side to steal it before it was put to use.  So, when they started using the weapon, both sides had them. 

However, nearly all the violence takes place only in discussions.  The book is mostly about how the crew members get along.  There are very warm inter-species relationships.  It's all hard to explain.  You'd have to read the book to see what I mean.  I'm now pondering whether or not to start listening to the next book in the series.  I've already borrowed it from my library.  But there are so many other books I also want to read and listen to!  


September 18, 2019
- This morning I received what I think is my first complementary email about one of my scientific papers.  The email read:
I read with pleasure your paper 'An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate".   It is great to find a bit of sanity out there.

I am an inventor who has been thinking about inertia, gravity and time for at least 60 years.  I never got very far beyond basic arithmetic in my education and am thoroughly put off by many papers that promise well but descend into heavy math even before they get the main idea across.  It is heartening that Einstein was also put off by his theories being hijacked by the mathematicians.  I didn't know that until I read your paper.
Yesterday, I had an idea about another way to obtain a "basic" radar gun to use in experiments: Rent one.  But why would anyone rent Stalker II SDR police radar guns?  If they rent other types of guns, are any of them "basic" radar guns?  I'm now trying to find out. 

September 17, 2019
- This morning, while waiting for a reply to the email about radar guns that I sent to a local police department, I started wondering about how that $99 Bushnell Speedster radar gun would work if I did a test I had never thought about before.  Bushnell's FAQ page about the gun says that “if you would like to know the speed of the vehicle you are in, point the Speedster at a stationary object, such as the ground.”  But I think the gun is actually reading the speed of the gun, not the speed of the vehicle the gun is in as it moves over the ground.  So, what would happen if instead of pointing the gun at the ground, you pointed it upward away from the ground?  If it still reads "the speed of the vehicle," it is clearly actually reading the speed of the gun. Such a test would confirm that waves or photons bouncing off the ground do not give a speed of 45 mph, the gun determines that speed by bouncing photons off of its own radome.

The problem is: If the test fails, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.  The Bushnell Speedster may measure two things, the speed of the gun and the speed of a target.  That could mean that the gun works differently when it bounces photons off of the ground "target" versus sending photons off into space and not getting any return "target" photons at all.  But, the experiment would still certainly be worth trying.

Meanwhile, this morning I wanted to check something in a book I have in my computer in epub format.  I used Microsoft Edge, which is how I've always read .epub books on my computer.  But, this morning I got a notice that Microsoft Edge no longer supports epub files, and I have to buy an "app" from Windows to access .epub files! 

Of course, I'm not going to buy an "app" if there is another way to read .epub files.  So, I did some research.  The first method I found was to use Adobe Digital Editions.  It was already in my computer, so I tried it.  It worked okay, but I had problems with highlighting and copying passages.  So, I looked for another way to read .epub files.  I found I could download a free app called "Calibre."  I did so, and it works fine.  But it is also very different from other ways of reading .epub files.  If I want to copy a passage so I can post it here as a quote, I first have to paste it as a .txt file into Notepad.  That's not a serious problem, but it is different.  Here's a passage from "The Threat" by former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew G. McCabe, a terrific book which I'm currently absorbing:
Krysha is the Russian word for roof. The word can be used literally or figuratively.  Krysha refers to the exterior top surface of something, such as a building or a car. Or krysha can refer to a person who provides the same kind of protection as a roof. “I’ll be your krysha”—I’ll be your roof—means that I will stop things from falling on you. Since the early 1990s, most businesses in Russia have had to operate with the protection of a krysha. Even if provided by the police or other government officials, the krysha is ultimately tied to organized crime. There is no effective distinction, in Russia, between organized crime and government, so kryshas have proliferated to where they block out the sky. Everyone lives under protection. The transformation has been systemic. It cannot be attributed exclusively to the actions of any one individual. But under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the cohabitation of crime and government became the norm. Crime is the central and most stable force in Russian society.
It will be a week or two before I finish "The Threat," but it's got a lot of passages that I might want to quote when I review it, particularly comments about Donald Trump and former US Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

September 16, 2019
- Yesterday, I finished converting the last of my music CDs into MP3 format and loading the MP3 files into my MP3 player.  I was a bit surprised to see that nearly a hundred CD albums take up less than one-half of the space on the player.

Space left on my MP3 player

So, this morning, while listening to great music on my MP3 player, I composed and sent an email to the head of a nearby police department, asking him if they have one of the "basic" radar guns I have identified as confirming my theory, and whether it would be possible or not for me to watch such a gun in use.  Now I have to wait for a response.  If they do not respond in a couple days, I'll try mailing them a letter.  Then I'll have to wait a week for a response to the letter.  And, if I get no response, I'll try another nearby police department.  So, for the near future I'm going to be spending most of my time waiting.  I may also read some novels.  That will give me something to write about on this web site.

September 15, 2019
- I think the latest round of arguments I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum have come to an end.  We can all see that there is no way to resolve our differences, so there isn't much point in continuing to argue - at least not with me.  As I see it, I'm talking about reality and experimental evidence, and they are talking about mathematics and personal theories. 
There have been occasions when a few others seem to agree with me, but then we will find there are other areas where we totally disagree.  I suspect that if I can get access to the right kind of radar gun and confirm beyond any doubt as to how the gun works, nearly everyone on the forum will still not believe me.  That by itself will prove something.

So, I have two tasks ahead: (1)  To get access to the right kind of radar gun and (2) to watch someone else demonstrate it, or to use it myself, or both.  The only way I can think of to do that without actually buying a $1,600 gun is to contact local police departments to see if they have the right kind of gun, and if they will allow me to watch it in action.  That's going to take some convincing, since I'm sure they won't do it for just anyone.  I need to find the right way to go about asking, since I want them to use a "stationary only" gun while moving.  That requires a "ride along."  But, I won't need to do the "ride along" until after I've confirmed by talking with them that the gun will demonstrate Einstein's theories, i.e., it will give "no reading" when pointed at highway signs at the ground ahead from a moving car, and it will give the correct speed of any vehicle that comes into the target area while the gun is pointed at the ground ahead from a moving car.  It's a simple test.  It shouldn't take more than ten minutes.

It's convincing them to let me do the "ride along" that is the hard part.  I need to find the right way to go about that.

Yesterday, Pentcho Valev, who endlessly rants his hatred for Albert Einstein, but who is generally ignored on the sci.physics.relativity forum, posted a link to a New Scientist article dated Sept. 11 and titled "Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein’s legacy?"  The article includes this:
Einstein was both general relativity’s progenitor and quantum theory’s greatest critic. History may show whether neither, one or both of his sets of ideas were right. In the meantime, the nature of space and time seems as good a place to start as any to begin sorting out what’s what. Physics works by the minimisation of mysteries, and their current multiplication suggests that whatever we’ve got wrong, it is something pretty fundamental.
Amen.  It seems that everyone has their own theory about how the universe works and their own interpretation of Einstein's theories.  If we are to ever determine how the universe works, it's going to have to be done with new experiments, not by arguing over who was right and who was wrong over a hundred years ago.  We have tools to answer questions that they didn't have back then, and we have used those tools to learn a lot of things they didn't know back then.  Yes, one of them is the radar gun.

I just need to confirm that certain guns work in a way that many physicists think is impossible.  That will give them something new to argue about: How can radar guns do things that are impossible?  They might develop a new mathematical equation to explain it, but what will they do with the mathematical equations that say it is impossible?  They'll probably just argue about which equation is right.

Meanwhile, I've converted more than two thirds of my CDs to MP3 files.  I worried a bit that I might fill up the hard drive in the computer, since Windows Media Player automatically puts "RIPPED" MP3 files into a "Music" folder on my hard drive.  But, when I checked to see how much space I had left, I found I had a lot more than I ever suspected.

Disk space on my computer   

And that was after I put 2.53 Gigabytes worth of music onto the hard drive.  And I've got 1,372 science books and papers in one folder in my computer, plus about 200 audio books in another folder.    And I've got invoices and receipts from my web site host in pdf format going back to December 29, 2014.  And many many emails.  And copies of just about every photograph I ever took.   And 1,694 astronomy pictures.  And much much more.  And it hardly makes a dent in the amount of space available to me.

Live and learn.
 

Comments for Sunday September 8, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 14, 2019:

September 13, 2019 - Yesterday afternoon, just as I finished lunch, I also finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  It was "Origin Story: A Big History of Everything" by David Christian.

Origin Story by David Christian

I started reading it around August 5, so it took over a month of 15-minute reading sessions during breakfast and lunch.  It is truly an interesting book and an enjoyable read.  I've got 21 pages of passages I highlighted and copied.  Here's a particularly interesting quote from page 24:
Matter appeared within the first second after the big bang. Matter is the stuff that energy pushes around.
I don't think I've ever before heard or read about matter being described that way.  It's something that causes you to stop and try to visualize and understand it.

Here's another interesting quote from page 79:
All forms of life require mechanisms to interpret local information (such as the presence of different chemicals or local temperatures and acidity levels) so they can respond appropriately (Should I hug it or eat it or run?). The philosopher Daniel Dennett writes: “Animals are not just herbivores or carnivores. They are… informavores.”  In fact, all living organisms are informavores. They all consume information, and the mechanisms they use for reading and responding to local information—whether they are eyes and tentacles or muscles and brains—account for much of the complexity of living organisms.
A lot of the book is about how we (and all living things, including plants) learn to adapt to our environments.  Animals (and humans) also learn to move to a better environment if the current location becomes uninhabitable.  Another quote from page 110:
Despite the profound differences between Tyrannosaurus rex and an E. coli bacterium, in important respects, life is remarkably unified. All organisms alive today are related genetically. And they share many genetic gadgets, particularly those that, like subroutines in computer software, handle basic housekeeping tasks. In cells, these tasks include jobs such as breaking down food molecules for their energy or their chemical components or moving energy and atoms around. This is why, if you zoom down to the level of cells, it’s hard to distinguish between a human being and an amoeba. 
The book gets into how humans changed from being foragers to being farmers.  Farming changed everything.  The book gets really interesting when it talks about energy consumption and how things changed when we went from burning wood to burning coal to produce energy.  Then we learned we could burn oil.  Then we learned we could use nuclear energy.  And, of course, the biggest change came when we learned to write and could pass ideas on to the world instead of just to people we could talk with.  Here's another interesting quote from page 296:
In March 1968, just before he was assassinated, Robert Kennedy described the limitations of an economy devoted to never-ending growth in gross national product: The Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.… It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.… Yet the GNP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or… the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.… It measures everything, in short, except that which makes
life worthwhile.

It was a very interesting and enjoyable book.  I highly recommend it.

September 12, 2019
- Yesterday afternoon, feeling tired of arguing about radar guns, I turned my attention to the fact that I needed more music on my MP3 player.  It had about 10 hours worth that I downloaded from the Net back in mid-August, but that still meant that certain distracting songs were repeating too often.  Every couple days I'd hear odd songs or tunes that would be repeats and it would distract me from whatever I was working on.  So, I looked into how to convert my music CDs into MP3 files.  I found that the process is called "RIPing" and it can be done with a standard feature of Windows called the "Windows Media Player."  I assumed it would take 45 minutes to copy a 45 minute CD, but to my pleasant surprise, it takes less than 5 minutes to convert a 45 minute CD to MP3 format.  So, I converted 15 CDs in less than an hour.  And I'm now listening to the combined collection of about 20 hours of music.  When I get a chance, I'll convert about 60 other CDs that I own.  It appears that my MP3 player can hold all of them with no problem.

After I had installed those 15 CDs into my MP3 player, I shut down my computer and went into the other room to again get my mind off of radar guns.  I picked up my other MP3 player and continued listening to the audio book version of Dashiell Hammet's Sam Spade novel from 1930, "The Maltese Falcon."

The Maltese Falcon

I had listened to about 2 hours of it on Tuesday evening.  Last night I finished listening to the final 6 hours.  It's a very good book, and I love detective stories.  I couldn't help from thinking about the Humphrey Bogart movie, of course, but that wasn't a problem.  Also, when Sam Spade's secretary, Effie, finishes a phone call and returns the receiver to its "prong" that can take you out of the story as you visualize the kind of phones they used back then.  The same thing happens when Sam opens a dresser drawer and takes out a fresh shirt and collar.

I think there's a very good chance I might start on a different audio book this evening.   


September 11, 2019
- I think I've confirmed once again that there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.  Yesterday I wrote about my arguments with "Paparios" on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  He argued that all correctly functioning clocks show time passing at the same rate, and there is no experiment which shows otherwise.  So, I gave him the link to my web page of time dilation experiments which show otherwise.  In every one of the eleven experiments time is demonstrated to tick at different rates depending upon speed and altitude. 

Paparios's response was to show me a web page which argues that time dilation is an illusion and when two moving people measure time, each will see that the other's clock is running slow.

But that is disproved by the experiments.  The clocks are compared, and in the velocity time dilation experiments the clocks show that the moving clock ran slower.  Less time passed for the moving clock.

This morning, Paparios changed his argument.  He argued:

First you have to notice that, in their experiment, the clock comparison was made AFTER the flight!!! Again each flown clock run at their building tick rate during the flight, ie 1 second per second. The difference in the readings after the flight was due to the flown clocks following a different path through spacetime (compared with the path through spacetime of the stationary clock, which also run at its building tick rate, ie 1 second per second.

You have been told before that atomic clocks perform a similar function to the function an odometer perform in our cars.

Clocks measure elapsed time along a spacetime path <==> Odometers measure elapsed distance along a space path.

So if you have two identical cars with identical odometers and make the two cars go from Chicago to New York, but following different highways, comparing the odometers readings will show different distances even if the two odometers measure 1 km/km.

The trajectories of the flown atomic clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment were clearly different from the trajectory of the clock at US Naval Observatory.
So, Paparios is now arguing that the moving clocks didn't tick slower, they took a longer route through spacetime.  The fact that the clocks showed that a different amount of time passed between comparisons just shows that they didn't travel the same route through spacetime. 

That's like saying that clocks don't measure time, they measure distances just like an odometer.  And if you argue that that is illogical, they will argue that physics is not logical.  They were taught in school that some things is physics are contrary to "common sense," and they interpret that to mean that some things in physics are "not logical," but you must believe them anyway. 

It might be contrary to "common sense" that geostationary satellites "hover" over the same spot on earth without falling down.  But if you understand they are 22,232 miles above the equator, and they are simply moving at the same rate the earth is spinning under them, so they are not really "stationary," it all becomes logical.  It must be logical in order to be understood.  Otherwise it is just a belief.  

But, I'm just repeating myself.  I see no point in continuing the arguments if I already know what they are going to argue, especially since there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.

So, I have to focus on getting the experiment done.  Then they can argue about how the experiment just demonstrated that some radar guns do not work properly.

September 10, 2019 - I've been browsing through US patents for various radar gun components to see if they might contain something of value that can be used in the arguments about radar guns.  I downloaded 14 different patents, including one for a LIDAR gun, and was somewhat surprised to find that not a single one of them ever uses the word "photon."  They all refer to "signals" when they describe what a radar gun transmits and gets back.  One patent also describes those signals as "waves," and it is the oldest patent I've found so far.  It was filed in 1946 and granted in 1953.  The inventor is J. L. Barker, and the invention was called "Radio Echo Apparatus for Detecting and Measuring the Speed of Moving Objects."  Here is what patent #2,629,865 says on page 3:
According to the present invention a beam of
microwaves or radio waves of ultra high frequen-
cy is directed along the path of movement of the
vehicle in the roadway toward the vehicle from
a test station adjacent to the roadway, and a
small part of such microwaves reflected from
the vehicle are received back at the test station,
The reflected waves are mixed with the trans-
mitted waves by the apparatus in accordance with
the invention to provide a beat frequency which
is directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle
along its path. As a speed meter this beat fre-
quency is applied to a frequency meter calibrated
to provide a direct reading of Speed.
So, from the very beginning they were determining a "beat frequency" by mixing the reflected "waves" with the transmitted "waves."  However, the next four patents never use that term.  It isn't until patent #5,525,996 issued in 1996 that "beat frequency" is again used:
The frequency of the beat frequency
components depends upon the Doppler shifts caused by the
relative speeds between the patrol car and the various
objects painted by the radar which cause radar returns.
That seems to illustrate a fundamental problem with "wave theory."  If the waves are bouncing off of a target and are reduced in frequency because the target is approaching, and thus each individual wave has less distance to travel before it gets reflected, how do you beat such waves together to get a "beat frequency"? 

radar guns emitting waves

The illustration above suggests that you can simply measure distances between waves, you don't need to "beat" the waves together.  And when you argue with the mathematicians, they cannot comprehend any way light can hit an object at c+v, where v is the velocity of the target, because they believe light must travel at c for all observers.  With the waves depicted above, each wave hits at c, but the target gets closer and closer.  But, radar guns do not work that way.  According to NASA, a radar gun can theoretically measure the speed of a target with a single photon.  The emitted photon hits the target at c+v which causes the target to emit a new photon back to the gun that oscillates faster than the original photon.  A comparison is then made inside the gun between emitted photons and the returned photon.  The difference in oscillating frequencies (i.e., the "beat frequency") is equivalent to the speed of the target.

I'm going to have to study these patents further to see what they might contain that would be of value in arguments with mathematician-physicists.

Meanwhile, the arguments on the sci.physics.relativity forum continue to rage.  Yesterday, "Paparios" argued that the length of a second does not change when you are traveling very fast.  He wanted evidence of my claim that it does.  So, I provided a link to my web page of Time Dilation Experments.  This morning, amid a heap of other arguments from other people, Paparios wrote to me:

You do not have the slightest idea of what time dilation is. For your
information, Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two clocks, either due to them having a velocity relative to each other, or by there being a gravitational potential difference between their locations.

You see the duration of a second DOES NOT change depending upon your speed!!!  What changes is the elapsed measure of the moving clock (see the twin paradox at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html). Both the stationary clock and the moving clock are identical clocks and they both tick at 1 second
per second, period!
All the experiments at my link disprove his claim in that last sentence, but he found someone who wrote:
Early in the study of special relativity students learn about the phenomenon of time dilation, i.e., that "moving clocks run slow." Those who have properly appreciated the fact that all motion is relative and who have properly appreciated that clocks measure the passage of physical (including biological) time, ought necessarily to experience some mental discomfort at this result. After all when two observers pass each other, the prediction is that both will find the other's clocks to run slower than their own. This might well seem to be impossible on its face and, therefore, to invalidate the entire theory.
So, Paparios continues to believe that one clock does not run slower than another, in spite of what ALL the experiments on my web page show.  According to Paparios, it's just an illusion.  He believes "both will find the other's clocks to run slower than their own."  But that is NOT what all the experiments showed.  NO experiment has ever showed such a result.  But Paparios believes it, and he somehow believes all experiments confirm his beliefs.  He believes I am just misinterpreting what all the experiments show and what all the experimenters state as their findings.

Sigh.

September 8, 2019
- I keep wondering if that second type of radar gun (the TS3) that I was told works like a "basic" radar gun doesn't actually do as I was told.  When I discussed that company's radar gun via emails with the person in their office who answers emails, I was told again and again that the gun would work as I described.  It turned out I was exchanging emails with a woman, but that doesn't mean that she was a secretary or clerk, she could have been a scientist or maybe even the wife of the owner.

On September 5, when I talked with her for the first time on the phone to start the process of buying a used gun, I started asking technical questions, and she had to turn me over to their technical expert.  The technical expert then proceeded to recite dogma and inform me that their gun did not work the way a "basic" radar gun works.  He was also implying that the TS3 does not work the way the woman said it worked.

So was the woman lying?  Or was she describing the way she'd actually seen the gun work?  And what is the technician's job?  I don't think he's a repairman, since the techies always seem to be on the road somewhere, and you have to wait until they return before you can talk with them.  Are they salesmen?  Why would a technical expert be a salesman?  It seems more likely that they are on the road to testify in court when some driver disputes what a radar gun indicated as the driver's speed.  And, as a "technical expert" they'll have to recite the gospel according to textbooks.  It isn't likely that anyone is going to get a ticket because some police officer used a "stationary only" gun while his patrol car was moving. That is a "no no" that is drilled into them, and any defense lawyer would figure that out right away and make the police department liable for false arrest.

Version #4 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories still has some comments on page 10 about the GHD and Scout radar guns made by Decatur Electronics in San Diego, California.  I exchanged a bunch of emails with one of their technical experts to find out why their operator's manuals say those two guns "do not work" while moving.  I found out that they will add together the speed of the gun and the speed of the target.  So, if a target is coming toward the gun at 60 mph and the gun is moving at 50 mph, the gun will give a reading for that target as 110 mph!  Why would anyone make a gun that works that way?  Clearly there is a lot about the way radar guns are made that I do not know anything about.

I need to find some way to test the Stalker II SDR to verify it works the way their general manager says it works.  I cannot afford to buy one for $1,600 plus tax, shipping and handling.  It's a very popular gun, so a nearby police department might use them. (I think my local police department does or did, but I somehow antagonized them with my questions, so I cannot ask them more questions.)  If I send letters to the other nearby Chief's of Police and ask them if they use the Stalker II SDR, and what happens if they use that "stationary only" gun while moving, would I get an answer?  Or should I go about it in a different way, like just asking to see it in operation.  It's something I'll have to think about.

Meanwhile, on Friday I had an idea that bugged me all day.  It was so simple I couldn't figure out why I hadn't thought about it before. 

If you are in a moving truck and point a radar gun at the front wall, when you pull the trigger, photons will start moving toward that front wall.  Meanwhile, the front wall moves, too.  The wall is not moving away from the gun, but it is moving through space.  The photons have to catch up with it.  When they do, the photons hit the wall at c-v, where v is the speed of the truck and the wall.

What happens after that is less important.  Mathematician physicists will argue that the wall does not move relative to the gun, therefore there can be no measurement of the speed of the wall. The speed must be zero relative to the wall.  It is totally absurd, but it is what they thoroughly believe.

Will they argue that the wall does not move while the photons move?  I needed to to test them to find out. 

An opportunity arose yesterday morning.  A bunch of trolls were arguing with someone posting as "Kenseto" in a thread Kenseto had started and titled "Is Ed Lake Right?
Ken H. Seto and I are often compared by the mathematician trolls as they argue over which of us is dumber than the other.  Ken Seto and I think somewhat alike, but we've never actually compared ideas.  I have a copy of a book he wrote, but I've never gotten around to reading it.  He views things from a different angle than I do, and he appears to believe there is an aether of some kind throughout the universe.  Anyway, a troll named "Dono" (who is on my "do not reply" list) posted this:
Ken Shito

The Doppler effect is a function of the relative speed, not the closing speed. The relative speed between the source and the receiver being ZERO, there is NO Doppler effect. You are dumber than a sack of rocks.
A mathematician troll named "Odd Bodkin" had been arguing that the operator's manuals for radar guns explain how radar guns work.  Ken Seto ignored Dono's personal attack and asked Odd Bodkin:
Does the operation manual says that if the gun is in a moving truck and if you point the gun at the rear panel you will not get frequency shift?
To which Odd Bodkin replied:
It says if you point it at ANYTHING that is not moving relative to the gun, then you will get a zero reading.
And Ken Seto then asked another question:
Does it say that the gun inside the trailer of a moving truck and is point at the back panel of a moving truck you will not get frequency shift?
That was when I saw an opportunity to use my new idea, and I took it.  I posted this:
Maybe it would help to explain that while the distance between the radar gun and the wall of the moving truck does not change, BOTH the gun and the wall of the truck MOVE while the photons are traveling from the gun to the wall.  While the photons are moving toward the front wall, the front wall is moving away from where the photons were emitted, so the photons have to travel further to reach the wall than they would if the gun and wall were stationary.

The photons also hit the wall with less force, since the wall is moving away. As a result, when the atoms in the wall emit return photons, those photons have less energy than the photons emitted by the gun.

When the return photons reach the gun, the gun RECEIVES the photons as energy. The gun compares the energy of the photons it emitted to the energy of the return photons and gets the speed of the wall.

The Doppler Shift is a function of the CLOSING speed, not the relative speed.  The relative speed between the gun and the wall may be zero when both are moving at the same speed in the same direction, but the Doppler Shift results from the photon hitting a MOVING wall.
It took awhile, but someone identified only as "pnal...@gmail.com" then posted this in response:
Ed, let's assume that you can throw a ball @60 mph. Let's also assume that you are in the back of a large box truck, which is traveling down a long straight and level road @ 60 mph. Do you really think that if you threw the ball towards the front wall of that truck that the ball would never get there? Heck, if your thinking was correct the ball would never even leave your hand! What would happen if the truck was going 80 mph, would the ball just smack you in the face? THINK, man, think!

I assure you, Ed, that we could play catch in the back of that truck and have no clue about the truck's speed, or even if it was moving or not, ignoring vibrations..
To which I replied,
Correct.  That is because rubber balls work different from photons.
Rubber balls have MASS, photons do not.  Different laws of electrodynamics work with an object that has MASS than with a photon that has NO mass.

Are you claiming that the wall of the truck will NOT move while the
photon moves?
I immediately wished I'd also said something about rubber balls having to push aside air molecules, while photons just pass through those molecules, but that might have made things more complicated.  So, I just waited for a response.

It took a couple hours for responses to come back.  The first was from "Paparios" who argued that my idea violated Einstein's Second Postulate because:
While the radar gun and the wall are not moving, relative to each other, in that frame of reference (the one attached to the truck), the photons ARE MOVING at speed c (according to the second postulate).

You are confusing this with the view an observer on the ground would have of those photons!! 
because he can dream up a frame of reference where the radar gun and the wall are NOT moving and therefore light will NOT hit the wall at c-v.  It is a perfect illustration of how mathematicians can dream up mathematical reasons that they believe are more real that what actually happens in a real experiment in real life.

A post by
"pnal...@gmail.com" again argued that photons and rubber balls are both "elastic" and will both work the same way.  I explained to him that rubber balls have mass and cannot travel at the speed of light while photons have no mass and always travel at the speed of light, so they are governed by different laws of physics, but he just ignored that and repeated his previous arguments.

The rest of the arguments yesterday were more of the same.  The mathematicians cannot accept that their fantasy "frames of reference" cannot alter reality, and they cannot accept that light can hit an object at any speed other than c.  It is what they were taught in school, and therefore it cannot be wrong.  It's as if they believe that if they can dream up a "frame of reference" where the wall does not move, then that proves the wall does not move.

In one of his posts,
"pnal...@gmail.com" declared that I had an IQ of nearly zero and I was wrong in trying to use logic to argue with him.  He stated,  
"you cannot use logic to prove much of anything in science."
To me, if something is not logical it means one of two things:  Either (1) It is wrong, or (2) I do not understand it.  So, it becomes my job to either prove it is wrong, or to figure out how to understand it.

Mathematician-physicists are clearly unconcerned if something is illogical, since their reasoning is based upon mathematics and memorized dogma, not logic.  That means they do not care if it is illogical to consider the interior of a moving truck to be "stationary," because they can imagine a mathematical frame of reference where the interior of a moving truck is stationary.

Here's part of a comment from "Michael Moroney" that I see among the 15 new comments posted overnight:
Move? Relative to what? Relative to the ground! I keep asking you what makes the reference frame of the ground special, you deny doing so yet you keep doing so! This is in violation of the First Postulate, there are no preferred reference frames, and this includes the earth's surface.

In reality, the truck body is inertial, so all physics in the moving truck work exactly the same as in the parked truck.  In the reference frame of the inertially moving truck, the gun is stationary, the front wall is stationary and the back wall is stationary.  The radar gun will measure a speed of 0 (or no reading).
It's all recited dogma from a True Believer.  And there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.  I spent about 15 years trying to change the minds of conspiracy theorists (each with a different theory) when I was researching the anthrax attacks of 2001.  They, too, are True Believers.  I never succeeded in changing the mind of a single one of them.  They're all still out there arguing their beliefs today.

So, my task with radar guns is not to change the minds of True Believers but to confirm for myself, and for whoever else might be interested, that "basic" radar guns work the way Einstein's theories say they must work. 







Other interests:

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

Archives: 
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    
August 2019 
September 2019
October 2019
                                   
                                   
                               
                                  
                                     
                              

            
© 2019 by Ed Lake