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

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

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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

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

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to 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,
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 September 15, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019:

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.


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. 

Comments for Sunday September 1, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 7, 2019:

September 6, 2019 - I received an email from vixra.org this morning informing me that version-5 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories has been removed.  So, the latest version of that paper is now version #4.

I'd been thinking of revising version-5 to only mention the Stalker II SDR, but I now think I need to double, triple and quadruple verify that the Stalker II SDR will  definitely and undeniably work the way the paper says a "basic" radar gun works.  A web page HERE says that Applied Concepts makes EIGHT different Stalker models.  There is not only a Stalker II SDR, there is also a Stalker DSR.  I need to make absolutely certain there are no misunderstandings.

I also keep wondering how one would tell if a "complex" radar gun is measuring the speed of the ground or the speed of the gun.  If you are in a car traveling at 30 mph and point the gun at a parked car, how can you be certain that the reading of 30 mph that you get from the "complex" gun is a reading from the parked car and not an internal reading done by bouncing photons off of the gun's radome?  (Mathematician-physicists will argue that bouncing photons off the radome will give a relative speed reading of zero, because the radome is part of the gun the parts all move together relatively, and it is impossible for it to be otherwise.  But their beliefs may not be the same as reality.)

If you are in a car moving at 30 mph and get a reading of 30 mph from a parked car, would  you also get a reading of 30 mph if you then put a notebook against the radome?   According to my papers, the "complex" radar gun is taking TWO readings, one by bouncing photons off of its radome and the other by bouncing photons off the parked car.  It gets 30 mph from the radome and it gets zero from the parked car.  So it subtracts zero from 30 mph and shows a reading of 30 mph.  If you put a notebook in front of the radome, the gun will still get 30 mph from the radome, but it will now also get 30 mph for the notebook.  So, the gun will subtract 30 mph from 30 mph and it will show a reading of zero.  And people will claim that proves the gun measured the relative speed between the gun and the notebook.  Of course, it doesn't.  It just proves that that is not a way to demonstrate how the radar gun actually works. 

If you remove the radome, the gun will still assume the radome is in place and when pointed at a parked car while going 30 mph, it should get a reading of zero from the target and it should get a second reading of zero from the parked car because it "thinks" the parked car is the radome.  So, it will show a reading of zero.  But will the gun even work if the radome is removed?   Who knows?  And would anyone with a complex radar gun even try it that way? 

September 5, 2019
- DAMN!!!   I screwed up!  While I talked on the phone with people at Applied Concepts to make absolutely certain that their Stalker II SDR is a "basic" radar gun that works as my papers describe, I only exchanged emails with people at a second company about their radar gun, which they said would work the way I need.  This morning I awoke thinking I might buy a refurbished model of that gun, but I wanted to make absolutely certain the gun truly works the way I need.  So, I called them. 

It turns out I was exchanging emails with a secretary or clerk. When I talked with their chief engineer, he explained that their guns will not do what I need.  Their guns will measure the speed of the gun when the gun is moving and is pointed at a highway sign, although they believe the gun will measure the relative speed of the highway sign to the gun.  So, it seems clear that, if there is something inside the gun that measures the speed of the gun, they are totally unaware of it.

I immediately deleted version-5 of my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" from academia. edu, and a bit later (after figuring out how to do it) I sent in a request to delete version-5 from vixra.org.  I assume the actual deletion will take place some time tomorrow morning.  (For some reason, no one ever actually read the version-5 I put on academia.edu.  As of this morning, they were still just accessing version-4.  I think it is because that is the version Google would point to.) 

Coincidentally, this morning I received an email from one of the other radar gun manufacturers who had not previously responded to my queries.  The email said in part:
While you can set the gun to be used in a stationary mode, once you start moving you will be interpreting returned reflected frequencies from mailboxes, signs, parked cars, even the ground as targets moving toward you so you would see targets registering.  The software inside the gun is assuming the gun is stationary so it sees reflected shifted frequencies as targets.
If you were to set the gun into moving mode, the stationary objects would be filtered out of the reflected frequencies based on the speed of the gun vehicle (via large ground return or VSS or CAN), but aiming at the back of the moving truck would be interpreted as a moving target since it is not altering the reflected frequency like the ground.  However, the gun will not show the target because it would be too close to the speed of the gun vehicle speed.
The fact that their gun has a MODE switch says it does not work the way I need.

At one time, all radar guns were "stationary only" guns.  In fact, they were boxes set up on a tripod next to the road, as shown below.

original police radar gun 

The device that displays the target's speed via a moving needle is setting on the police car's left fender.  The power source is a battery (or batteries) connected by a power cable to the emitter/receiver.

This afternoon, I found a web page titled "The History of the Radar Gun."  It contains a lot of interesting information, including this tidbit about Kustom Signals, Inc.:
We introduced the first digital readout radar, the industry's first moving radar, and the first hand-held option.
It also says that Kustom Signals was founded in 1965.  Further research found a book titled "The Complete Book on Speed Enforcement" by Kevin M. Morrison.  It says on page 83,
Kustom Signals produced the first moving radar called the MR-7.  The radar was similar to their TR-6 stationary radar with a computer unit (often called a counting unit in the 1970s) and a separate antenna.
So, hand-held "stationary only" guns that still work the original way would be "basic" radar guns.  And everything else has added parts.  Added parts means added complications.  That is probably why it seems that people no longer care about the exact details of how radar guns work.

Groan!  Now I have to tell all my critics on sci.physics.relativity that I made a mistake in adding that second gun in version-5 of my Radar Gun paper.

September 4, 2019
- Yesterday I stopped posting to the thread I had started Friday on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  It was not only a waste of time, it was counter-productive, since I need to work on my paper about Radar Guns and Frames of Reference.  The arguments continue on that thread, and right now there are 238 posted messages in the thread.

Interestingly, minutes after I told them I was no longer going to post to that thread, someone named "Kenseto" started a new thread titled "Is Ed Lake Right?" It had 20 messages in it this morning when I saw they were still arguing that I should buy an $80 Bushnell Speedster to demonstrate that it would not work inside a moving truck.  I've probably told them twenty times that a Bushnell Speedster is a COMPLEX radar gun, not a BASIC radar gun.  So I know that the Bushnell will not work.  What reason would I have to spend $80 to buy a radar gun that I know won't do what I need a radar gun to do?  Arguing with people on that forum is like arguing with people who do not understand English.

Anyway, I've been working on the paper about Frames of Reference, and I'm learning a lot while doing so.  Wikipedia defines an "inertial frame of reference" this way:
An “inertial frame of reference” in classical physics and special relativity possesses the property that in this frame of reference a body with zero net force acting upon it does not accelerate; that is, such a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line.
Wikipedia defines a "non-inertial frame of reference" this way:
A “non-inertial frame of reference” is a frame of reference that is undergoing acceleration with respect to an inertial frame. An accelerometer at rest in a non-inertial frame will, in general, detect a non-zero acceleration. While the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames, in non-inertial frames, they vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.
Note that both descriptions are about acceleration.  An inertial frame does not accelerate, a non-inertial frame does accelerate.  And an inertial frame has to have "zero net force" acting upon it.

I will probably have to use those terms, but since I'll be talking about a truck on planet Earth, if the truck is parked I'll be talking about a frame of reference that is inertial but does not have "zero net" forces acting upon it.  Gravity is holding the truck onto the Earth.  However it is inertial because it is moving with the Earth as the Earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun.   

More importantly, when talking about a moving truck, I'll be talking about a truck that is powered by an engine, but it moves at a constant speed, it does not accelerate.  It may have accelerated to get to 60 mph, but it will remain at 60 mph for the duration of the radar gun tests, so it is not accelerating. 

Einstein doesn't even use the word "inertial" in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, and when he only talks about acceleration when he is talking about how electrons work.  In the book he wrote with Leopold Infeld, Einstein clearly used an embankment for an "inertial frame" and a non-accelerating train as his "non-inertial frame," but he never used the term "frame of reference" when talking or writing about such things.  He used the term "co-ordinated system."  He talks about inertial co-ordinated systems that travel at different speeds.  The embankment travels at one speed and the train travels at another speed.   

So, I need to figure out how to explain the way radar guns work in different reference frames when no authority uses the terminology I need for quotes.      

September 2, 2019
- As of this moment, there are 185 posts by 19 different authors in the thread I started on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum on Friday morning.  Even though I have been attacked by probably 15 of the 19 people posting to that forum, it has been a very productive discussion.

I've been arguing for a long time that mathematicians are a plague on science. Mathematicians argue that light is both a particle and a wave because they have two different equations, one for particles and one for waves, when they want to calculate some experimental result.  Scientists, meanwhile, have determined that light consist of photons, which are NOT waves and NOT particles, either, since particles have mass and photons have no mass.  Mathematicians, however, like the status quo and cannot be bothered with developing a mathematical equation for photons.  They prefer to stick with the "wave-particle duality."

Now it appears from the discussions I've been having that mathematicians also believe that, when discussing motion, there are just two types of reference frames: (1) inertial frames, and (2) accelerating frames.

Basic radar guns, however, demonstrate that there are THREE types of reference frames (1) inertial frames, (2) accelerating frames and (3) non-accelerating "motorized" frames which are not accelerating and not inertial because they are being moved at a steady rate by some kind of engine or force.

Interestingly, Einstein based his Theory of Special Relativity on reference frame types #1 and #3.  The only time he used accelerating frames was when discussing the relationship between gravity and acceleration in his Theory of General Relativity.  Otherwise, he always used railroad embankments (type #1) and moving trains (type #3).  And he also used type #1 reference frames moving through space at different speeds.

The mathematicians I've been arguing with believe reference frame types #1 and #3 are the same thing.  That's why they cannot accept Einstein's theories but twist them to fit their own beliefs.  But basic radar guns do not work the same way in type #1 inertial frames  and type #3 non-accelerating "motorized frames."  In type #1 radar guns give a speed of zero when pointed at the wall of a moving frame, in type #3 radar guns give the speed of the frame relative to frame #1.

I just need to find a way to demonstrate this with a basic radar gun.  I may have to buy a used radar gun to do it.  The best test with a gun that uses power from my car's cigarette lighter socket would be to drive down a street at about 30 mph and press the gun's trigger while I point the gun at street signs and then at oncoming and passing vehicles.  The gun should show zero speed for the street signs and vehicle speeds for the moving vehicles. 
But as soon as I start thinking about that, I start thinking about what the reaction would be when people in moving vehicles see someone pointing what looks like a ray gun at them.  Will I cause accidents?  Is there some way to eliminate that possibility?  I dunno.  But I'm not going to buy a radar gun until I have a totally safe way to use it. 

Meanwhile, I'm going to start working on a paper tentatively titled "Radar Guns and Relativity Reference Frames."  Maybe I'll be able to merge it into my planned paper on Radar Guns and Wave Theory or the paper on Radar Guns, Einstein, and the Big Bang.  Or maybe I'll end up with four different papers about radar guns.

September 1, 2019
- I posted a comment about the latest revision of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to the sci.physics.relativity discussion group on Friday morning.  By the end of my work day, there were 31 posts in the thread from 9 different authors.  Ten of the posts were my responses to posts from others.
  Seven of the posts were from trolls who are on my "do not reply" list.  And there were a few posts which were just one guy attacking another on subjects that have nothing to do with what I posted.

When I shut down my computer yesterday evening, there were 73 posts in the thread by 12 different authors.  (This morning there are 88 posts from 14 different authors.)  I had to stop posting yesterday afternoon because I needed to work on today's comment for this site, and I needed to think about some of the interesting questions posted to the sci.physics.relativity forum.

One question from someone who I've never seen post anything before was about using a radar gun to measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck. He asked me:
If you put the truck in space, in orbit around the sun (at the same orbital radius and speed as the earth), will the gun read 67000 mph?
My first answer was "No," then I changed it to "I don't think so."   On the 27th I wrote a comment here about measuring the speed of the International Space Station (ISS) by using a radar gun on board the ISS.  I thought you could do it.  But, if you can do that, why can't you measure the speed of a satellite going around the sun from inside the satellite?  And, if you can't do it, why can't you?

That's one reason I post things to sci.physics.relativity.  Responding to their attacks - and occasional questions - makes me look at things I've written from different angles. 

At first I just thought the answer had something to do with the "local speed of light."  A radar gun emits photons that travel at the local speed of light ("local c") regardless of whether the gun is stationary or moving.  But when it measures the speed of a vehicle, what is it measuring that speed relative to?  I've been saying it measures the speed relative to the local speed of light.  Light travels at c to the approaching vehicle, it hits the vehicle at c+v, where v is the speed of the vehicle toward the gun, and the returned photon has c+v oscillation frequency.  The gun subtracts c from c+v and gets v as the speed of the target.  That certainly makes sense, but felt that I was missing something.   I've also been saying that the speed is relative to the point in space where the photons were emitted.  That seemed incompatible with the vehicle speed being relative to c.  

So, I went to bed last night with a lot of unsolved problems on my mind.  And, as is often the case, I awoke this morning with solutions to all of the problems.  While my conscious mind was asleep, my subconscious was working all night to figure out the solutions to the problems.

I'd forgotten about acceleration.  You can measure the speed of a truck from inside  a moving truck because a moving truck is NOT an inertial system.  It is an accelerating system.  It may be under constant acceleration, which, when you are inside, makes it feel like it is an inertial system, but the truck's engine is moving it forward, and if the engine stops, the truck stops.  When the truck is stopped, it is an inertial system and firing a radar gun at the wall will show no speed for the wall.  When the truck is moving under power, if you fire a radar gun at the wall, the gun will show the speed of the truck.  The same would be true on an airplane.  The plane is under power.  It may not feel like it, but the plane is moving because of the engines.  Constant acceleration is still acceleration.

That means my August 27 comment was in error.  You cannot measure the speed of the International Space Station (ISS)  with a radar gun.  The ISS is an inertial system.  It does not require an engine to keep it moving.  And, likewise, in answer to the question that was asked yesterday on the sci.physics.relativity forum, if the truck is in space following the earth's orbit, it is an inertial system.  It is not under power.  So, you would not be able to measure the speed of the truck from inside the truck.  I was right, I just wasn't able to explain why I answered the way I did.

There are probably places in some of my papers where I should have made the effects of acceleration  more clear.  But, we learn from our mistakes.  I may not have thought about acceleration when I wrote most of my papers, but I'll definitely be thinking about it from this point onward.

Comments for Sunday August 25, 2019, thru Saturday, August 31, 2019:

August 30, 2019 - One problem with posting new versions of papers to vixra.org is that no one is going to know about it unless I tell them about it.  I've told people via this web site and via an email or two, but that doesn't reach the people who argue against what the previous versions of the paper said. 

So, this morning I posted a comment about the paper to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  I hadn't planned on doing that, but a member of that forum named "Paparios" has been reading this web site avidly since I last posted there back in June.  On the August 28th, the day the latest version of the paper was released, Paparious checked this web site at 10:33 AM, 10:36 AM, 12:39 PM, 1:52 PM, 4:54 PM, and 7:15 PM.  I'm not sure what he was looking for, but he would have gotten the location of the latest version of the paper with his first check.  I suspect I'll find out when he posts to the discussion forum.   

August 29, 2019
While heading out to do chores after lunch this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #5 in the 5-CD audio book version of "A Universe From Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss.

A Universe From Nothing

While it was definitely a book worth listening to, it was also a bit too much about things of absolutely no interest to me.  I suppose I should have realized that from the title.  The book is essentially about how a universe can be created from nothing without having a omnipotent God do it.  The answer is evidently to do it via mathematics based upon assumptions. The book has a very interesting comment about a different well-known theory based entirely upon mathematics:
On a slightly less facetious note, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Frank Wilczek has suggested that string theorists have invented a new way of doing physics, reminiscent of a novel way of playing darts. First, one throws the dart against a blank wall, and then one goes to the wall and draws a bull’s-eye around where the dart landed.
That's a very good analogy for conspiracy theorists, too.  They dream up a theory and then imagine all kinds of evidence to support the theory while ignoring all the real evidence that disproves their theory.  So, they simply draw bull's eyes around the screwball theories they dreamed up.

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss's whole book is essentially an idea which has a bull's eye drawn around it.  It's the idea that a universe can develop from nothing.  And it is explained by describing how the universe is built from nothing if all the positive energy in it is balanced out by negative energy.  To build a universe from "something," you need to begin with something positive.

While it's somewhat interesting, it's not anything I care about.  I have a billion questions I would like answers to before I get into the question about how the universe began. The book discusses a few things of interest to me, and it well written.  That is why I can give the book a positive review even though it is mainly about things of no interest to me.

Meanwhile, it appears that I am once again going to change course on my writing endeavors.  There are too many things about the organization of the observable universe that I have to study before I can finish my paper about Radar guns, Einstein and the Big Bang.  So, I'm going to try to focus on a paper tentatively titled "Radar Guns vs Wave Theory."  I don't think it will take long to write, but I've given up on predicting completion dates.

August 28, 2019 - This morning I received an email time-stamped at exactly 8 AM advising me that the latest (and hopefully final) version (version 5) of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories is now on-line on vixra.org.  So, I then immediately also uploaded the paper to Academia.edu.

The new version identifies two "basic" police radar guns which can be used to demonstrate Einstein's Second Postulate, which is “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”  That means that regardless of the speed of the gun, it always emits photons at the same speed, c.  So, the gun will measure the speed of a highway sign or parked car as zero when the gun is stationary and also when the gun is moving at any speed.  It emits photon as if it was stationary and thereby always measures stationary objects as being stationary.

This can be demonstrated with the Stalker II SDR radar gun (on the left below) made by Applied Concepts, Inc., and the TS-3 (on the right below) made by Municipal Electronics.
Stalker II SDR
The Stalker is battery operated, while the TS-3 has to be plugged into a cigarette lighter socket.  Because the Stalker is battery operated, it is better suited for the second test, where the gun measures the speed of a moving target while the gun is also moving.  The Stalker can be used inside the back of a truck that is going 60 mph to measure the truck's speed as 60 mph, by simply pointing the gun at the back wall.  The TS-3, however, will prove the concept if you point it at the back or front of a truck going 60 mph while the gun is in a car going 60 mph.  Both guns will show the speed of the truck to be 60 mph, not zero or 120 mph. 

Many mathematicians, of course, consider this to be impossible.  They believe that light is not only always emitted at c but it also always received at c.  They do not accept that radar guns emit oscillating photons which change frequency when they hit a target at c+v or c-v, they believe that radar guns emit waves which change frequency when they hit a moving target.  They believe the waves change frequency because the distance to the target changes between waves, just like sound waves do when a train is approaching while sounding its horn.  So, they believe a radar gun moving toward a stationary object will measure the stationary object as moving (the return waves will be closer together) and a gun inside a truck will measure the truck as being stationary because the waves bouncing off the wall of the truck will be the same distance apart as the waves emitted by the gun. 

The Stalker II SDR and the TS-3 show that what the mathematicians believe is total nonsense, and it can be demonstrated via experiments to be total nonsense.

Added NOTE: Damn!!  The paragraph above that explains what mathematicians think about waves compared to the reality of photons should probably have been included in the radar gun paper.  I just didn't realize why mathematicians believe what they believe and how simple the problem is until I wrote that paragraph. 

August 27, 2019
- At about 10 a.m. this morning, I submitted the newly revised version of my paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to vixra.org.  If past experiences are any guide, the paper should appear as version 5 (V5) on that site tomorrow morning.  At that time I will also place the new version of the paper on academia.edu.  

The new version identifies two models of "basic" radar guns which the two manufacturers tell me can be used to perform the experiment described in the paper, i.e., measuring the speed of a box truck from inside the box.  Other guns from other manufacturers may do the same thing, but they have not responded to my queries.  It is also possible that using the radome to measure the speed of the gun may be standard for some manufacturers.  Why else would a gun be built for "stationary use only" because when the gun is moving it will combine the speed of the target with the speed of the gun?  It's like building a gun with a lot of "extra features" for use while the gun is moving and saying the "extra features" do not work if the gun is moving.

Meanwhile, I'm continuing to work on my new paper which is now titled "Radar Guns, Einstein and the Big Bang."  I removed all material debunking wave theory from the paper.  That's really a separate subject, and it just complicates things to include it in a paper that is primarily about how radar guns demonstrate that most descriptions of the visible effects of the Big Bang are wrong.  Redshift does not indicate a galaxy is moving away from the Earth, it indicates the Earth is moving away from that galaxy.  Einstein's Second Postulate says so:
“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”
and radar guns routinely demonstrate that postulate while also demonstrating that outside observers will NOT measure the light as arriving at c unless both the gun and the observer are stationary.  If the observer is moving relative to the point where the radar gun emitted its photons, the movement of the observer will register in the gun because the gun's photons hit the observer at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the observer toward or away from the gun.

It complicates things when galaxies emit their own light instead of emitting reflected light.  The light is emitted at c, but because the earth is moving away from that galaxy, we observe the light arriving at c-v, which is "red-shifted."  That does not mean, however, that the galaxy isn't also moving away from us.  It's movement just doesn't affect the speed of light that it emits.  So, we are probably both moving away from some point about midway between us.  But only the Earth's motion results in our observing the red-shift.

It occurs to me that if you had a radar gun that could measure velocities far above the 200 mph limit for typical police radar guns, you could measure the 18,000 mph speed of the International Space Station by pointing the gun out a window at some shiny part of the station.  If you point the gun in the direction of movement, the gun should register minus 18,000 mph.  In the opposite direction it should measure a positive 18,000 mph.  In any other direction it will measure lower speeds due to the cosine effect, until it shows zero for some part that is perpendicular to the direction of movement.

What is the gun measuring?  It is measuring its speed relative to the speed of light.  Photons travel at local c when emitted from the gun, regardless of how fast the gun is moving.  That means they emit photons that travel at the same speed they would travel if the gun was stationary.  The ISS, however, is not stationary. Therefore, the emitted photons will hit a target behind or ahead at c+v or c-v (i.e., at ISS velocities relative to the local speed of light) and new photons return to the gun oscillating at different frequencies than were originally omitted.
I just wish someone would perform such an experiment - in space or here on Earth - and create a YouTube video of it. 

August 25, 2019
- I haven't heard from "the techie" who was supposed to contact me about his company's radar guns, which follows the pattern I saw with another company where management would talk to me, but their technical expert wouldn't.  I also haven't heard from any of the other three radar gun companies I have tried contacting.  So, I'll just proceed with the two I have contacted when I upload an updated version of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories on Tuesday evening.  If two out of six manufacturers state that their radar guns work the way my paper describes them, there doesn't seem any possibility that any manufacturer is going to say it is impossible.  And it doesn't seem likely that a manufacturer who only makes "complex" radar guns, which do not work the way "basic" radar guns work, is going to admit that to me.
  They'd be admitting that their guns do not measure the speed of the ground relative to the gun when the gun is pointed at the ground, their guns measure the speed of the gun relative to the local speed of light.  And all their literature which says their guns can measure speeds relative to the ground are wrong.

I've already revised the paper and dated it August 28.  I can still change it if I hear from the techie or one of the other manufacturers before that date.

Right now I'm working on a follow-up paper tentatively titled "Radar Guns, Wave Theory and the Big Bang" which is tentatively dated August 29.  I'd thought about combining the information from this second paper into the first Radar Gun paper, but that made the paper too long and too complicated.  The first paper describes how radar guns work and how they totally debunk the idea of reciprocal motion, the second paper just adds some interesting implications resulting from the correct interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate.  In my August 11 and August 12 comments I mentioned how radar guns confirm that light travels as photons and totally debunks "wave theory."  That is what I wrote about in the first part of the new paper.  The second part is about what I wrote about here on August 21, i.e., how redshifting results from the Earth moving away from distant galaxies, not from those galaxies moving away from the Earth.

Yesterday, as I did more research for that new paper, I learned quite a bit about Vesto Melvin Slipher.  I mentioned him in my August 21 comment as being the first to measure the blueshift of Andromeda.  He did that in 1913, publishing his paper about it in the Lowell Observatory Bulletin, instead of some better known scientific publication.  Two years later he presented to the American Astronomical Society another paper about redshifts observed in 11 out of 15 observed distant "nebulae."  And two years after that, in 1917, he presented another paper about 21 of 25 observed "nebulae" being redshifted.  I found those papers to be interesting because he writes about "spiral nebulae" at a time when the Milky Way was believed to be the entire universe, and "spiral nebulae" were just dust clouds that were likely to be planets which had not yet fully formed.

Edwin Hubble did not discover that the Andromeda Nebula was actually a Galaxy just like the Milky Way until 1923.  His discovery implied that other "spiral nebulae" were also very likely distant galaxies filled with stars instead of just  nearby dust clouds.  Hubble did not publish his findings about the expanding universe until 1929.

What this research did for me was make it clear that there are mind-boggling results when the correct interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate is applied to astrophysics.  When creating a spectrograph of Jupiter, you are using reflected light, much like a radar gun bouncing photons off of a car.  Instead of a radar gun doing the emitting, the sun is the emitter.  And an observatory on Earth is the receiver.  So, you can measure Jupiter's spin by measuring the redshift from the side that is rotating away from an observer on Earth, and measuring the blueshift from the side that is rotating toward the Earth.  It's the same as measuring the speed of a car moving away from a radar gun and the speed of another car moving toward a radar gun.

But, if you try to apply that technique to galaxies, as Slipher did, you are not measuring reflected light, you are measuring direct light from an emitter.  And since Einstein's Second Postulate says that light will be emitted at c regardless of the speed of the emitter, viewing red-shifted light from a galaxy says that the Earth is moving away from that galaxy.  Whether the galaxy is also moving away from the Earth cannot be determined by the red-shift.  But, as explained in my August 21 comment, in an expanding universe nearly all galaxies are moving away from each other.  And, the redshift measures only the speed of the observer.

But what about blueshifting?  In an expanding universe, how can any galaxy be moving toward another galaxy?  In Slipher's 1913 paper, he suggests that one possible cause is a "dark star" that might have changed the trajectory of a nebula (i.e., a galaxy).  That is certainly possible.  Another explanation would be simple gravity causing nearby galaxies to move toward each other.  That most likely explains why
we can see galaxies colliding with each other.
But is a third explanation for blue-shifted galaxies that interests me.  If the Milky Way Galaxy is behind the Andromeda Galaxy as they both move away from the point of the Big Bang, light from Andromeda will appear blue-shifted when it reaches the Earth, because the earth is moving toward the point where the emitter (Andromeda) emitted the photons and earth will thus receive the photons at c+v.

That poses a question:  Are there other blue-shifted galaxies, and are they clustered in one part of the universe?  Yes there are others.  In his 1915 paper, Slipher measured the color shifts of 15 nebulae, and presented a table on page 23 (page 3 of the pdf file) that shows that 3 blue-shifted nebulae were on the "south side of the Milky Way," and only 1 nebula that may or may not be blue-shifted was on the "north side of the Milky Way."  All the others are red-shifted.  One of the 3 nebulae (i.e., galaxies) that are on the south side is NGC 224, which is the Andromeda Galaxy.

Can locating the direction to where the Big Bang occurred be as simple as that? 

Maybe.  A web page HERE says that there are a bunch of galaxies "in the Virgo cluster" that are blue-shifted. Another web page HERE says:
Finally, I found that the Milky Way moves through space within the cluster of galaxies it is a member of, and this cluster in turn moves through space towards yet another larger cluster of galaxies off in the direction of the constellation Virgo.    
And yet another web page HERE says,
There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group, and are all bound to each other. Most are also dwarf galaxies which you've probably never heard of, although the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, is in there.
A long time ago I created this image of how the observable universe relates to the Big Bang universe:

Big Bang universe
I think I may use a modified version of this image in my new paper.  I may modify it to include a couple dots between the x that marks the location of the earth and the upper right edge of the small circle that represents the observable universe.  Those dots would represent Andromeda and other galaxies that appear blue-shifted from Earth. 

But first I need to a lot more research.  There's a web page HERE that says the above idea won't work because the Big Bang would create a "shell" of galaxies.  But that seems wrong to me, since I visualize the Big Bang unleashing and spraying out a cloud of elementary particles, with the first particles traveling faster than later particles, like a expanding spring opening up.  When those particles merged and created objects, that might also create a "shell," but the "shell" could be very thick, possibly as thick as the radius of the shell.  I.e., it would look just like the image above.           

Comments for Sunday August 18, 2019, thru Saturday, August 24, 2019:

August 21, 2019 - Something has been nagging at me for a long time, but I've generally just pushed it aside to work on more pressing matters.  This morning I awoke thinking about that subject once again.  The subject is the "redshift" behind the Big Bang Theory.  According to a NASA web page on the subject
In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that almost all galaxies appeared to be moving away from us. In fact, he found that the universe was expanding - with all of the galaxies moving away from each other. This phenomenon was observed as a redshift of a galaxy's spectrum. This redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further, galaxies. Hence, the farther a galaxy, the faster it is receding from Earth.
Radar guns appear to demonstrate that the last sentence above is not quite true.  In reality, the farther a galaxy is from earth, the faster the earth is receding from that galaxy.  So, the universe is expanding, which means most galaxies are moving away from each other.  Or to put it more accurately, the universe is expanding, so galaxies are moving away from a point where they were once all together.   

In Example 1 in the illustration below, some other galaxy (B) is moving away from the earth, which is located in the Milky Way galaxy (A).  The movement for redshift calculations is typically measured as B moving way from A.

Redshift with and without Big

In reality, however, as shown in Example 2 above, both A and B are moving away from a point where they were once together.  That point is the point of the Big Bang.  However, there is no way to measure the distance to the point of the Big Bang, because while A and B are moving apart, they are also both moving in some other direction (say upward) away from where the Big Bang actually occurred.

Here's another quote from that NASA site:

So to determine an object's distance, we only need to know its velocity. Velocity is measurable thanks to the Doppler shift. By taking the spectrum of a distant object, such as a galaxy, astronomers can see a shift in the lines of its spectrum and from this shift determine its velocity. Putting this velocity into the Hubble equation, they determine the distance. Note that this method of determining distances is based on observation (the shift in the spectrum) and on a theory (Hubble's Law). If the theory is not correct, the distances determined in this way are all nonsense. Most astronomers believe that Hubble's Law does, however, hold true for a large range of distances in the universe.
If both Galaxy A and Galaxy B are moving at a million miles per hour (v) away from the point of the Big Bang, they are moving at 2 million mph (2v) away from each other.  And light arriving on earth from Galaxy B will arrive at c-2v as the earth moves away from the point where the light as emitted at c.  That means the light will be redshifted, and it will be redshifted at the same amount as measured as if B was moving away from A.  So, either way you do the calculations for the redshift, you will get the same result.

But, what about the Andromeda Galaxy, which appears blueshifted to us.  We know that the galaxies in the universe are not all moving away from each other, because we can see colliding galaxies.  They may look like the image below.

Colliding galaxies
The problem is that light from a galaxy that is getting closer cannot be measured as c+2vThere is no relationship to the Big Bang.  So, are we moving toward Andromeda, or is Andromeda moving toward the Milky Way?   Or both?

Which brings us back to Einstein's Second Postulate:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
That means we would not see any blueshifting if Andromeda was moving toward the earth and the earth was stationary.  But, of course, the earth is not stationary.  Because Andromeda is seen as blueshifted, the earth must be moving toward Andromeda. But the amount of blueshifting does NOT tell us the closing speed between Earth and Andromeda.  It only tells us how fast we are moving toward the point in space where Andromeda was located when it emitted the light we just received. 

According to one web site:
The story starts in the early 1900s, when astronomer Vesto Slipher measured the radial velocity of Andromeda — in other words, he calculated the speed at which the galaxy was moving toward or away from Earth. Slipher did this by looking for a telltale stretching or compression in the light from Andromeda arriving at Earth: Light from objects that are moving away from us is slightly stretched, or red-shifted. Light from objects moving toward us is blue-shifted, or compressed.

The result was a little bit surprising.

“We may conclude that the Andromeda Nebula is approaching the solar system with a velocity of about 300 kilometers per second,” Slipher wrote in the Lowell Observatory Bulletin in 1913
Hmm.  300 kps equals 1,080,000 kph.  However, according to another web site:
Astronomers have long known that the Milky Way and Andromeda, which is also known as M31, are barrelling toward one another at a speed of about 250,000 mph (400,000 kph).
So, when you calculate the speed that Andromeda is approaching us by using blueshift calculations, the speed you get is roughly double the speed of Andromeda toward us as measured by other methods:
In 2003, astronomers calculated that Andromeda is 2.57 million light-years away. And in 2004, astronomers redid Hubble’s Cepheid variable calculations, and determined that Andromeda was 2.51 million light-years. Another group used a different technique in 2005 to calculate that Andromeda was 2.52 million light-years away. And yet another technique in 2005 put it at 2.56 million light-years away. And so, the agreed distance of 2.54 million light-years is an average of the distances measured so far.
So, measuring distances by the red and blueshifting of light works for the redshift of the universe, but not for anything that is blueshifted.  Blueshifted light will typically be just the speed of receiver toward the source (c+v) and any movement of the source toward the receiver does not blueshift the light.  Just as with radar guns.

Hmm.  It took me all morning to write this.  I hope it is correct. 

August 20, 2019 - I changed my mind about buying that used radar gun for $300.  Researching the company, I found that they are located just 244 miles from where I live.  That means, according to Google Maps, I could drive down there in 3 hours and 45 minutes.  And I could ask to test the gun first before buying it.  But, if I spend ten minutes testing the gun, and if it works the way I need it to work, then I no longer have any reason to buy the gun.  I'm only interested in verifying that it works the way I need it to work (and the way the manufacturer said it "should" work).

I also found that that particular model of hand-held radar gun doesn't have batteries in the handle.  It only works by plugging its power cord into the cigarette lighter socket of a car. That's not a major problem, but it means I cannot use it inside the back of a truck.  I can only use it in a car. 

Yesterday afternoon, I wrote a long email to the manufacturer, explaining the situation in detail.  This morning I received a response back that said,

I will give this information to our tech and have him contact you…he is traveling now wont be back til Friday.
So, again I have to wait.  Hopefully, while waiting, I'll get a response to some of the four snail mail letters I sent out last week.

Added Note:  When I returned home from doing chores this afternoon, there was a message on my answering machine.  It was from a woman at Kustom Signals, Inc., in Lenexa, Kansas, responding to the snail mail letter I'd sent to them last week.  She informed me that Kustom Signals only sells radar guns to police, government and military organizations. I'd asked them about their Falcon and Talon hand-held models, saying that I hoped to get scientists interested in buying such guns to demonstrate Einstein's theories.

Falcon handheld radar gun
Talon hand-held radar gun
Too bad I didn't think to mention that I hoped scientists at NASA, the NIST and various national laboratories would also want to buy such guns.  But I doubt it would have gotten a different response.

Previously on this web page , I wrote comments about Kustom Signals' dash mounted Golden Eagle system, which logically must do some of the things I need a radar gun to do.  So, I'm fairly sure Kustoms Signals has the right kind of guns, but, at the moment, I don't see any way I can get them to say so or identify which guns best meet my criteria.

August 19, 2019
- I'm seriously thinking about spending $300 to buy that used radar gun I mentioned in my August 16 comment.  During the past few days I spent that much to buy a backup computer, plus I bought a second MP3 player and a new "Bluetooth" speaker for about $75.  The new MP3 player and the speaker are atop the stereo system in my office as shown in the picture below.  The system is on a table behind me as I work on my computer.  I play cassettes all day long.  There are two shelves containing about 200 audio cassettes under the stereo system.

My stereo system

The sudden purchases where prompted by the fact that the stereo system suddenly stopped working a few days ago.  I was in the middle of doing other things and I didn't have time to figure out what was wrong. 
(Later, by plugging headphones into the stereo system, I determined that the system and the cassette player work fine, there is just something wrong with the connection to the speakers which are on the other side of the room.)  At first I just got out my "old" MP3 player and its speaker and used them to play the music I find I need to be in the background as I work on my computer.  But that MP3 player is filled with audio books and podcasts, so there wasn't much room left for music.  So, I bought the new one  

For a long time I've been contemplating copying all my cassettes to MP3 files, but that would take about 300 hours.  I've also contemplated copying my music CDs to MP3 files.  (My CD player is part of my other stereo system in my front room.)  That would probably take about 150 hours.  Right now, the new MP3 player just contains about 10 hours of jazz albums I downloaded for free from the Internet (99.9% of which are new and not something I already had). 

The point of all this is that it broke my train of thought.  And it made me realize I can probably afford to spend $300 for a used radar gun.  It seems crazy, but it appears that no one else in this world is interested in demonstrating that a simple "basic" radar gun can show that nearly all college physics text books are wrong in the way they explain Special Relativity and particularly Einstein's Second Postulate.  I just need to make a decision to buy the gun.  That could take hours, days or months.

August 18, 2019
- Yesterday morning, I sat down at my computer to start writing today's comment, which I thought might be about the apparent fact that no one cares if colleges are teaching nonsense about Special Relativity, but then I got a notification from Microsoft that I needed to do an update to Windows 10.  I needed some time to think, anyway, so I shut down everything in my computer and allowed the update to take place.  Uh oh.  After about 10 minutes, it was only about 1% finished.  I didn't feel like just sitting and staring at the computer, so I got out my MP3 player and continued listening to
the unabridged 8-hour 7-minute version of Emma Larkin's "Finding George Orwell in Burma" that I'd started the day before.

Fiinding George Orwell in Burma

The Windows 10 update took over 3 hours!  By the time I was able to get back on my computer, it was lunch time, and also time for me to run some errands.  That quashed any idea I had about writing today's comment.  And, when evening rolled around, I felt I should finish the audio book, since I had less than three hours left.  I finished it at about 8 p.m.

Wow!  I had expected it to be just a travel book about Burma.  I wasn't sure how George Orwell fitted into the picture.  As it turned out, it is a totally fascinating travel book about Burma, but it isn't just a travel book about Burma.  George Orwell was the author of the novels 1984 and Animal Farm, both of which I read many many years ago.  And Orwell lived and worked as a police officer in Burma for many years, when the country was run by the British and the locals were just a problem the British had to deal with.  1984 and Animal Farm are, more or less, about about life in Burma back in the first half of the 20th century.  And life in Burma today is still about living under one of the most cruel and corrupt governments in the world, certainly the most cruel and corrupt in Asia.  Only a few countries in sub-Saharan Africa are worse.  The author says this about her first visit to Burma in 1995:
During the three weeks I spent wandering through postcard-perfect scenes of bustling markets, glittering pagodas and faded British hill stations I found it hard to believe I was travelling through a country that has one of the worst records for human-rights abuse in the world. To me, this is the most staggering thing about Burma: that the oppression of an entire nation of some 50 million people can be completely hidden from view. A vast network of Military Intelligence spies and their informers ensures that no one can do or say anything that might threaten the regime. The Burmese media—books, magazines, movies and music—are controlled by a strict censorship board and government propaganda is churned out not only through newspapers and television, but also in schools and universities. These methods of reality-control are kept firmly in place by the invisible, though ever present, threat of torture and imprisonment.
The fact that the author is a woman makes things even more intriguing.  It's hard to imagine a woman prowling around alone in such a country, but since she was able to speak Burmese, and since the police had her under surveillance most of the time, she was probably more safe there than in a lot of better run countries.  She was tracing George Orwell's life there, which allowed her to get into places which would ordinarily be off-limits to foreigners. 

Some comments about how schools are run were of particular interest to me.  One conversation she had with a school teacher hit home:
He told me that he currently had more students than he could handle, and taught seven or eight hour-long classes a day. ‘Our education system is absolutely going to the dogs,’ he said. ‘It’s just getting worse and worse.’ He moved some cross-word puzzles aside and dusted down a chair for me to sit on. ‘They no longer teach anything in the schools,’ he continued. ‘The pupils simply learn their lessons by heart. Everything is memorized, even subjects like mathematics. Students do not understand why seven multiplied by three is twenty-one: they just remember it.  If you ask them to do a sum that is not in the multiplication tables they have learned they will not be able to answer you.’ He leaned over and glared at me over his thick glasses. ‘This is not what you or I would call an education,’ he said.
And everyone gets a passing grade, since if a teacher fails too many students, he will be arrested and thrown in jail for failing to do his job.  It made me think of the physics students in this country who are told that they must believe what they are taught, even though it makes no sense, otherwise they will receive a failing grade.  Their text books say that physics doesn't have to make sense because some things in physics are contrary to "common sense."  But, if something doesn't make sense to you, then you do not understand it.  But no one seems to care.

Burma not only has a corrupt government, it also has many different ethnic groups fighting with one another.  It was a dictatorship before the British arrived to colonize the country.  Then it became a dictatorship again under General Ne Win.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say it was a fascinating book.

Comments for Sunday August 11, 2019, thru Saturday, August 17, 2019:

August 16, 2019 - Yesterday I received an email from the radar gun manufacturer who had written to me on August 13 to say that he'd have his techie contact me when the techie returned from a road trip.  The techie didn't write, but his boss did, saying that his techie said that the model I asked about "should be able to do what you are asking," and they had a used gun of that model available for $300.

I responded that the word "should" was a problem.  I needed to know that the gun will be able to do what I need it to do, and that I was attempting to get someone else to buy such a gun.   That was the last I heard from them. 

I found it interesting that the techie would not write to me.  It's the same situation I had with the radar gun manufacturer to stated that one radar gun model they make does do what I need.  The boss was going to have their techie contact me, but the techie never did.  I'm not sure what the problem is, but I have to assume they do not want to discuss Einstein's theories with me.  They may have had a lot of contact with mathematicians arguing that their guns cannot possibly work they way the company claims they work.  Or, the techies know their guns do not work the way virtually every college text book says they must work.

I'm still waiting for responses to the snail mail letters I sent to other radar gun manufacturers last weekend.  And this afternoon I'll send out a snail mail letter to the radar gun manufacturer who did not respond to my email.

August 14, 2019
- While driving around doing errands this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #12 of the 12 CD set for "Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist" by Richard Dawkins.

Science in the Soul

I think I chose it over many other audio books to burn onto CDs because, at the time, I had just 12 blank CDs left and it was the only book on my waiting-to-hear list that consisted of exactly 12 CDs.  That's probably not the best reason for choosing a book, but it was not a total disappointment.  I got it because it's a "science book," and there are many parts of the book that are very interesting, plus it hits home on some political subjects.  Here is a small part of what Amazon wrote about it:
Elected officials have opened the floodgates to prejudices that have for half a century been unacceptable or at least undercover. In a passionate introduction, Dawkins calls on us to insist that reason take center stage and that gut feelings, even when they don’t represent the stirred dark waters of xenophobia, misogyny, or other blind prejudice, should stay out of the voting booth.
"Elected officials" could refer specifically to Donald Trump.  The book does mention Trump once by name (on page 310 of the paperback edition):
Who then would rally against reason? The following statements will sound all too familiar.

‘I don’t trust educated intellectuals, elitists who know more than I do. I’d prefer to vote for somebody like me, rather than somebody who is actually qualified to be President.’

What other than this mentality accounts for the popularity of Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush – politicians who flaunt their ignorance as a vote-winning virtue? You want your airline pilot to be educated in aeronautics and navigation. You want your surgeon to be learned in anatomy. Yet when you vote for a President to lead a great country, you prefer somebody who is ignorant and proud of it, someone you’d enjoy having a drink with, rather than somebody qualified for high office?
I don't know that Trump ever flaunted his ignorance.  He mostly just unwittingly displays his ignorance while claiming to be smarter than everyone else.

What bothered me most about the book was Richard Dawkins' endless attacks on people who disagree with The Theory of Evolution and those who believe in God.  The word "evolution" is used 353 times in the book.  And Dawkins once wrote a whole book titled "The God Delusion."  Amazon says this about Dawkins in their page about "The God Delusion":
A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
I'm certainly not a religious person, but it really gets tedious when someone rants endlessly about the damage religions have done in this world. 

To my surprise, when I finished listening to "Science in the Soul" and put in the first CD for the next book on my listening list (another science book), the book began with this:
In the interests of full disclosure right at the outset I must admit that I am not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator, which is the basis for all the the world's religions.
I don't know how much of the book will be about religion, but it's only 5 CDs long, and I have no other books currently burned onto CDs.  I just noticed that the book has an "Afterward" by Richard Dawkins!  I'm going to have to learn to sample audio books more thoroughly before I burn them onto CDs!  

August 13, 2019
- I received an email this morning from one of the two radar gun manufacturers to whom I sent emails on Saturday.  But all the email said was that their techie was on the road at the moment, and he would respond when he returned on Thursday or Friday. 

Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I finished listening to the 8-hour 46-minute unabridged audio book version of "Only Human"
by Sylvain Neuvel.

Only Human
As I stated yesterday, "Only Human" is the third and final book in "The Themis Files" series.  Here's how Amazon describes the start of the series:

Brilliant scientist Rose Franklin has devoted her adult life to solving the mystery she accidentally stumbled upon as a child: a huge metal hand buried beneath the ground outside Deadwood, South Dakota. The discovery set in motion a cataclysmic chain of events with geopolitical ramifications. Rose and the Earth Defense Corps raced to master the enigmatic technology, as giant robots suddenly descended on Earth’s most populous cities, killing one hundred million people in the process. Though Rose and her team were able to fend off the attack, their victory was short-lived. The mysterious invaders retreated, disappearing from the shattered planet . . . but they took the scientist and her crew with them.
You can't tell from that description, but the books are very funny - in a "dark humor" sort of way.  They are also unusual because they are written as a series of reports, transcripts, recordings and other ways of recording dialog.  That means that the books are mostly dialog.  And it is dialog between very intelligent people with lots of wryly humorous infighting between them.  Plus, the aliens from the planet Esat Ekt cannot pronounce the letter L, and they use base-8 mathematics.

The key point, which is gradually learned through the series, is that the aliens didn't mean to harm anyone.  They believe in what was called "The Prime Directive" on the Star Trek series, i.e., Do NOT interfere with the civilizations of planets that have not yet achieved interplanetary travel. 

The problem is that, when the aliens visited earth 3,000 years ago, they mingled with the people of that time, and since they were very similar to earthlings (just with less body hair), they were able to produce offspring.  It took them 3,000 years to realized that that was "interfering."  So, in book 2 they sent back their robots to correct the situation by wiping out everyone who had some of the aliens' DNA, which was about 99 out of every 100 humans.  When humans started fighting back by using a robot that had been left behind 3,000 years ago, the aliens realized they had screwed up again and stopped attacking.  Then it became a matter of figuring out what to do next.

Meanwhile, humans started hunting down people who have large amounts of alien DNA and segregating them, imprisoning them.  And humans who had access to damaged robots that were left behind started repairing them and using them to fight old enemies who were of a different color or who believed in a different religion.  And everybody is fighting with everybody.  In other words, earth was back to "normal," only worse.  But some intelligent people begin working with the aliens to try to reduce the infighting.  "Only Human" was first published in 2018, which makes you wonder how much the author was thinking about Donald Trump's world when he wrote the book. 

It's a terrific science-fiction series which may be made into a movie.  I hope so.

August 12, 2019
- Saturday afternoon, I posted a comment to the Astrophysics and Physics group on the Facebook.  It was basically the same message about radar guns that I posted here yesterday.  About 5 hours later, it was accepted by the moderators and appeared on the group.  The reaction was somewhat surprising.  Here is a screen capture of the beginning of the thread as of this morning (I held the cursor over the "like" emoji so that the list of names would appear):

Radar guns - photons vs waves

As you can see, I got 64 "likes" and no negative emojis.  Amid the comments, however, there were posts from three mathematicians who disagreed with what I wrote.  One just kept repeating "Photons are waves" without explaining further, another just cited some mathematics page about how waves work and wrote nothing further, and the third just posted a one word message: "Wrong."

I'd really like to see some mathematician explain (without using mathematics) how a radar gun using waves can tell which waves came from the front of the car and which came from the pavement, from trees, from highway signs, and from other parts of the car.

Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I finished listening to the 9-hour, 8-minute audio book version of "Waking Gods" by Sylvain Neuvel. 

Waking Gods

"Waking Gods" is the second of three books in "The Themis Files" series, the first of which I finished on July 1.  (I wasn't able to borrow #2 until August 8.)  As soon as I finished #2, I immediately started on #3, which I'll finish sometime today, since I only have about 2 hours and 20 minutes left to go.  The first book was about the discovery of a hand from a 200-foot tall, female-shaped robot, which was deliberately buried about 3,000 years ago.  When humans find all the parts, we assemble them and name it "Themis" after a female Greek god.  The second book is about an "attack" by similar but male-shaped alien robots that wipe out about ten major cities around the world, killing about two hundred million people, before one of the main characters in the books figures out a way to fight back using the original robot.  They manage to badly damage one of the male-shaped robots, and the rest just vanish.  I'll wait until I finish #3 before saying anything further.

August 11, 2019
- On Friday, I sent off a snail-mail letter to a major radar gun manufacturer.  I used that letter as a model to send out letters to two other radar gun manufacturers on Saturday.  I also sent emails to 2 lesser-known radar gun manufacturers yesterday.  The goal is still to find as many guns as I can which do what mathematicians consider to be impossible.  I've found one manufacturer who makes such guns, I'm hoping that some of the other five also have such guns - even if they are guns which do not run on batteries and have to be plugged into the cigarette lighter socket.  (You wouldn't be able to use such a gun inside a the rear of a truck, but you could still point it at the back of a truck going 60 mph from a car going 60 mph and get a reading of 60 mph.)

Meanwhile, last week as I was trying to figure out who else I could talk with about this, I remembered that, years ago, when I was tracking the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letters, I had exchanged emails with a scientist at a major U.S. scientific organization.  We'd last exchanged emails in 2014.  On Thursday, I sent off an email to him, and he immediately responded.  Since then we've exchanged several friendly emails about my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories," which he has read and passed on to others at his organization.

The discussions reminded me of something I'd argued about with mathematicians but didn't include in my paper.  It's an argument explaining why the wave theory cannot work with radar guns, even though that is the typical way radar guns are shown in illustrations. 

radar guns emitting waves

What a radar gun actually does is emit photons that oscillate at 24125000000 Hz, and in the situation illustrated above it gets back photons that oscillate at 24125004308.035 Hz.  The gun then compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons that returned and it computes the target's speed as 60 mph. 

What the illustration does NOT show is key to understanding radar guns:
1.  The illustration does NOT show waves that bounced off highway signs, trees, stones on the ground and off of different parts of the car.

2.  The illustration does NOT show light waves from the sun that bounce off of everything else that is visible in the area.
If the only way to tell one wave from another is the wave's frequency, how can you tell a wave's frequency if the return waves are mixed with a million other waves of different frequencies? 

It cannot be done with waves if all electromagnetic waves are identical and the only difference between them is their frequency.

It is a simple matter with photons.  First of all, the gun uses a frequency that is uncommon and unlike any known natural frequency.  The gun emits photons that oscillate at 24.125 GHz.  It then switches to receive mode, and the receiver ignores all photons entering the gun that do not oscillate between 24.125001 and 24.124999 GHz.  That gets rid of all the light photons.  The gun then ignores photons that are the same frequency as the photons that were emitted, which gets rid of stationary objects like highway signs and trees.  The gun just works with the photons that oscillate at rates that are significantly different from the emitted photons.  The photons that bounced off the bumper of the target car will oscillate at the same rate as the photons that bounced off of the metal surrounding the windshield.

The gun can show the fastest object within range, or it can count photons and use the strongest signals returning from more than one object within range.

I once argued this situation with the evangelistic mathematicians who hang out  on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum.  They angrily claimed that photons do not oscillate and that radar guns do emit waves.  When I tried to explain the situation above, they they just buried me in mathematical equations and ranted that I do not understand anything.  Since they cannot accept that photons oscillate, without realizing it they argued that radar guns work like lidar guns: A wave is emitted at the speed of light, and that wave returns at the speed of light.  The time it took to make the round trip at the speed of light tells you the distance to the target.  The gun then emits another wave and gets another distance to the target.  The amount of time it took the target to travel the distance between the  two measured distances gives the speed of the target.  But they cannot explain how the gun can tell one wave from another.  They didn't even seem to understand the question.  It appears that, when everything is converted to mathematical equations, the problems with reality simply go away.

Other interests:

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

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

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

© 2019 by Ed Lake