The other thing that's nice and the one thing that has come out, and I learned this, again, it was reaffirmed by President Xi last night in my conversation, the young people are really, this is an incredible phenomenon, but they are attacked, successfully attacked to a much lesser extent by this pandemic, by this disease.  This whatever they want to call it. You call it a germ, you can call it a flu, you can call it a virus. You know, you can call it many different names. I'm not sure anybody even knows what it is, but the children do very well.

167.114.92.53 - - [30/Mar/2020:15:58:32 -0500] "GET /Ed_Lake_is_a_narcissistic_IMBECILE_with_intellectual_
delusions_of_grandeur HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

Analyzing the "Twin Paradox."   I created the illustration below to help explain the idea, which involves comparing elapsed time on a stationary atomic clock (x1) to an identical atomic clock that has been spinning or hours (or days) in a centrifuge (x2).
 

For some reason, the people I was arguing with kept wanting to measure time dilation between clock x2 and some point midway between x2 and the center of the spinning centrifuge.  I think it may be because that is how they model their mathematical equations.  They have no standard model equations that compare a point on the centrifuge to a point outside of the centrifuge room.  That would evidently involve comparing two frames of reference, and they do not want to do that, probably because it gives results that their equations cannot deal with.

At the time, I was writing comments about it on this web site.  I was also posting comments to different Facebook groups, but I couldn't get any discussions started. All I got was a lot of "Likes" and a few "dislikes."  I finally ended the discussions about it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum on August 1, 2018.  There was just no way to get mathematicians to view reality.  They could only understand the models they created, and evidently no mathematical model compares time differences between two reference frames, or, if they have such a model, it is reciprocal, the centrifuge spins to give one answer, and the centrifuge stands still as the universe spins to give an identical answer. 

Anyway, I think I need to work on both problems: (1) verifying how a "Type-1" radar gun measures motion relative to the local speed of light, and (2) verifying how a clock on a centrifuge will measure time compared to a stationary clock.  Both experiments will challenge and debunk the beliefs of countless Quantum Mechanics mathematicians.

Meanwhile, this morning while going through my web site log file to see who has been viewing this site, I found another bunch of personal attacks created by someone looking for non-existent web pages on this site.  This time the IP address showed the "attack" came from a computer in Bucharest, Romania. There were 9 of them.  I circled them in red in the screen capture below:



Here's what the complete second "attack" line looks like:

89.34.27.37 - - [28/Mar/2020:06:16:57 -0500] "GET /ed-lake-is-a-certified-imbecile HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

95.211.230.211 - - [24/Mar/2020:13:32:12 -0500] "GET /ed-lake-is-incredibly-stupid HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"

XX.XXX.80.200 - - [28/Mar/2020:03:22:34 -0500] "GET /email-1.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 12662 "http://ed-lake.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36"

XX.XXX.153.118 - - [28/Mar/2020:08:36:40 -0500] "GET /email-1.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 12662 "http://ed-lake.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 (x86_64)) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4099.0 Safari/537.36"

XXX.XX.239.1 - - [28/Mar/2020:21:53:57 -0500] "GET /email-1.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 12662 "http://ed-lake.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0"

      “Puns on cars, eh?” the Doc said thoughtfully. “Hey, you can’t exhaust that one: there are manifold puns on a topic like that. Wheel never use it up. It’s universal: you just put your mind in gear, and as long as you don’t clatch up, the transmission of standard puns becomes automatic.”
      “Yeah,” said Callahan, “but lay off the sci-fi angle. You can’t a Ford to let a fan belt you.”
      “I’ll just use my enginuity and try to Dodge,” the Doc said. “Give us a brake, Doc,” said the Drink. “I think you’re running out of gas.”
      “You could have fueled me. Hood ever have believed I could pun like this, dead trunk? Oil tell you, this is really sedan accelerating, it’s a gas!”
      LongDrink flinched slightly under the barrage, and then came up with an evil grin. “Thank God no one will ever clone you, Doc. God help us if ever VW.”
      That brought a growing chorus of groans to the howling point. “Well, BM double, you!” the Doc riposted, but he was clearly staggered.
      “Yeah,” the Drink went on, “we’d end up having to toss the spare over a cliff somewhere … and then we’d be arrested for making an obscene clone fall.
     From there, as it usually does, it got worse-

DVD and Blu-Ray disks.  On Sunday and Monday night, however, my evening news shows were preempted by President Trump unexpectedly interrupting things to blather for over an hour about all the "terrific" and "beautiful" things that are being done by "terrific" and "wonderful" people.  I wondered if he was deliberately preempting the nightly news shows because he hates the media so much.  But last night he appeared about half hour earlier, so I was still able to watch the NBC Nightly News "live."  And while waiting for Trump and his cronies to stop blathering, I simply hit the mute button and listened to a very interesting Sean Carroll podcast about COVID-19.

This morning something totally different - but still very interesting - happened.  I was examining my web site logs, as I do every morning, and I noticed someone in Amsterdam, Netherlands, did something I'd never seen before.  He used phony web page names while accessing my web site, leaving a record in my log file of his activities.  In the screen-capture below I underlined in red the first and last of 8 fake file accesses he tried at around 1:30 yesterday afternoon.



I have no idea who the person is, but I'd say it is most likely someone from the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  That's the only place I know of where trolls are that inventive.  What set him off?  I assume it was my posts about the competing paradigms related to the speed of light.  But, if he reads my web site to see those posts, how come I've never seen anyone access my web site from that IP address before?  For now, it's another one of Life's interesting mysteries.     

Meanwhile, although I know I should be spending my time researching or trying ways to access a "Type -1" radar gun, I spent nearly all day yesterday listing to and finishing a sci-fi novel I'd started the previous day, an 11-hour, 8-minute unabridged audio book titled "The Darkest Time of Night" by Jeremy Finley.

Jeremy Finley’s debut The Darkest Time of Night was hailed by People magazine and the NY Post as one of the best books of the summer of 2018, was named to the Lariat list as one of the top 25 outstanding books of the year, and described by NPR as "a hugely satisfying, while still mystifying, suspense novel."

Thus the modern ether theory based on the inertial transformation is a robust replacement for special relativity and the transition to this new theory is facilitated by the similarity of the structure of the members of the set of “equivalent” transformations. Such a transition can usher in a period of renewed scientific discovery as areas that are now prohibited can legitimately be explored.

In view of the incontrovertible demonstrations of light speed variation using GPS technology presented in this chapter, investigation into the properties of the Inertial Transformation and the nature of the associated Modern Ether Theory should be the main focus of space-time research in the twenty-first century.

These analyses suggest that the ether drift experiments may, in fact, show evidence of an absolute reference frame for the propagation of light.

Considering the weakness of the present experimental support for the invariance of c — the fact that observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, the absence of speed-of-light measurements with moving detectors, the lack of experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions, doubts about the interpretation of the classical ether-drift experiments, concerns about the applicability of the modern isotropy experiments, and the fact that all of the unambiguous tests of special relativity in the photon sector have produced null results — it cannot yet be claimed that the local Lorentz invariance of c has been convincingly validated by observation or experiment.

A new physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics has been formulated. Model Mechanics posits that a structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix occupies all of pure space.

We analyse how the concept of the ether, playing the role of absolute space, is still present in physics.

The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

"Superfluous" means you do not need it.  But mathematicians who cannot comprehend the idea of measuring speeds relative to the local speed of light instead of relative to some physical object still need it.  Their inability to comprehend such a thing doesn't just require a paradigm shift, it requires them to stop believing that mathematics is the Word of God. 

March 22, 2020 - When all the pieces of a puzzle fall together, the problem then sometimes becomes how to describe what the picture looks like.  The book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that I finished on Friday put some final pieces together.  It explains why physicists are in total disagreement over Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics.  They either accept one theory (i.e., one "paradigm") or the other.  It is not allowed to accept both or even to examine how they relate. 


It also explains why I have seen at least a dozen scientific papers where engineers and physicists argue that the ether (or aether) should be reinstated as the prime theory of how distances are measured in the universe.  The ether theory was a paradigm: "all motion, including the speed of light, is relative to the stationary ether."  It was the basis for countless measurements of motion, plus the basis for wave theory.  Then in 1887 it was demonstrated by experiment that there is no ether.

It took a long time to change the minds of physicists, but gradually most physicists switched to the preposterous paradigm that all motion, including the speed of light, is relative to the observer.  Today, textbooks falsely claim it was the basis of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, specifically his Second Postulate. 

So, today we have some physicists "discovering" that Einstein's Second Postulate (as it is stated in textbooks) is nonsense, since there are many experiments which show that the speed of light can be different for the observer than it is for the emitter, and therefore they argue that we should all switch back to the ether theory.  They see it as a choice (or shift) between two established paradigms, i.e., a "paradigm shift" between two ways of thinking.  Typically, a paradigm shift is illustrated as being like the 2-choice image below (is it a duck looking to the left, or is it a rabbit looking to the right?):

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is indeed a paradigmatic work in the history of science. Kuhn's use of terms such as "paradigm shift" and "normal science," his ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt to acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological factors in science--all have had profound effects on historians, scientists, philosophers, critics, writers, business gurus, and even the cartoonist in the street.

a model of something, or a very clear and typical example of something

To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.

Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e., with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science. It then continues with a more or less extended exploration of the area of anomaly. And it closes only when the paradigm theory has been adjusted so that the anomalous has become the expected. Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory, and until that adjustment is completed—until the scientist has learned to see nature in a different way—the new fact is not quite a scientific fact at all.

Once a first paradigm through which to view nature has been found, there is no such thing as research in the absence of any paradigm. To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself. That act reflects not on the paradigm but on the man.

Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. And perhaps that point need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are the men who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.

In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. Though he may, during the search for a particular puzzle’s solution, try out a number of alternative approaches, rejecting those that fail to yield the desired result, he is not testing the paradigm when he does so. Instead he is like the chess player who, with a problem stated and the board physically or mentally before him, tries out various alternative moves in the search for a solution. These trial attempts, whether by the chess player or by the scientist, are trials only of themselves, not of the rules of the game. They are possible only so long as the paradigm itself is taken for granted. Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm. In the sciences the testing situation never consists, as puzzle-solving does, simply in the comparison of a single paradigm with nature. Instead, testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community.

 

What is enlightenment? In a 1784 essay with that question as its title, Immanuel Kant answered that it consists of “humankind’s emergence from its self-incurred immaturity,” its “lazy and cowardly” submission to the “dogmas and formulas” of religious or political authority. Enlightenment’s motto, he proclaimed, is “Dare to understand!”

The belief in an absence of progress has been fortified by the recent history of the universe we do live in, where Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton was the beneficiary of the American electoral system in 2016. During his campaign, Trump uttered misogynistic, anti-Hispanic, and anti-Muslim insults that were well outside the norms of American political discourse, and the rowdy followers he encouraged at his rallies were even more offensive. Some commentators worried that his victory represented a turning point in the nation’s progress toward equality and rights, or that it uncovered the ugly truth that we had never made progress in the first place.

Nothing captures the tribalistic and backward-looking spirit of populism better than Trump’s campaign slogan: Make America Great Again.

The ideal of Knowledge—that one’s opinions should be based on justified true beliefs—has been mocked by Trump’s repetition of ludicrous conspiracy theories: that Obama was born in Kenya, Senator Ted Cruz’s father was involved in John F. Kennedy’s assassination, thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrated 9/11, Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered, Obama had his phones tapped, millions of illegal voters cost him the popular vote, and literally dozens of others. The fact-checking site PolitiFact judged that an astonishing 69 percent of the public statements by Trump they checked were “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire” (their term for outrageous lies, from the children’s taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”).  All politicians bend the truth, and all sometimes lie (since all human beings bend the truth and sometimes lie), but Trump’s barefaced assertion of canards that can instantly be debunked (such as that he won the election in a landslide) shows that he sees public discourse not as a means of finding common ground based on objective reality but as a weapon with which to project dominance and humiliate rivals.

Recriminations over the nature of science are by no means a relic of the “science wars” of the 1980s and 1990s, but continue to shape the role of science in universities. When Harvard reformed its general education requirement in 2006–7, the preliminary task force report introduced the teaching of science without any mention of its place in human knowledge: “Science and technology directly affect our students in many ways, both positive and negative: they have led to life-saving medicines, the internet, more efficient energy storage, and digital entertainment; they also have shepherded nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, electronic eavesdropping, and damage to the environment.” Well, yes, and I suppose one could say that architecture has produced both museums and gas chambers, that classical music both stimulates economic activity and inspired the Nazis, and so on. But this strange equivocation between the utilitarian and the nefarious was not applied to other disciplines, and the statement gave no indication that we might have good reasons to prefer understanding and know-how to ignorance and superstition.

The most commonly assigned book on science in modern universities (aside from a popular biology textbook) is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That 1962 classic is commonly interpreted as showing that science does not converge on the truth but merely busies itself with solving puzzles before flipping to some new paradigm which renders its previous theories obsolete, indeed, unintelligible.

 

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday called for 5.3 million senior citizens and others at risk to stay home in an effort to slow the spread of coronavirus.

"People should conduct themselves around their grandparents as if they have it.” Newsom said.

It is a general object of the invention to provide an improved door for an electronic oven which permits viewing of the interior of the oven and provides a closure which is substantially leak-proof to microwave radiation.

Another object of the invention is to provide an improved viewing window for an electronic oven which permits a high degree of visibility of the oven interior while effectively barring the passage of microwave radiation.

It has been found that a relatively fine screen having approximately 150 openings per square inch and providing approximately 50% clear opening permits good visibility of the interior of the oven under normal conditions

A structure of a microwave oven door screen which facilitates the observation of the inside of a heating cavity and enhances the safety against the electromagnetic wave leakage and durability. A door screen of this type generally comprises a pair of transparent plates and
an electromagnetic wave shielding material interposed therebetween. The present door screen uses a punched metal plate as the electromagnetic shielding material made of aluminum having a thickness of 0.1 to 0.35mm, an aperture diameter of 1.2 mm or less and a ratio of the aperture diameter to a center-to-center distance of an aperture of 0.67 to 0.85, these parameters being chosen such that an aperture rate of more than 40% is assured and the electromagnetic wave leakage through the door screen is effectively prevented (to meet the Regulations of U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) and a strain due to continuous mechanical treatment of the punched metal plate is minimized.

So, it has a punched metal plate instead of wires.  That's what my microwave oven has.  The plate is made of aluminum, and the holes are 1.2 mm in diameter or less). But why 1.2 mm?  And why aluminum?  Searching the patents to see if the door mesh reflects or absorbs microwaves finds nothing.

My research then stumbled upon a Faraday bag.
 


It's a bag used to prevent a cell phone from being hacked.  Law enforcement officers use them when they seize phones from criminals and want to be certain that other criminals do not remotely access the phone and erase information.  The bag has wire mesh that prevents cellphone radio wave photons from getting in or out.  Since the bag is not an electrical device, that strongly suggests that the bag simply prevents photons from escaping or entering by "reflecting" them, i.e., by absorbing photons and then emitting the photons away from the bag.  It is, in effect, a mirror for photons in microwave and radio wave frequencies.

That makes a lot of sense.  It implies that photons in a microwave oven bounce off the door mesh and help cook the food, instead of the mesh absorbing the photons and leaving one side of the food uncooked.

And it means that microwaves generated by the oven are mostly reflected back into the oven by the mesh on the door because of the large wavelength of the photons.  Shorter wavelength photons from a radar gun, however, will go through the mesh on the door almost as if the mesh wasn't there.  Why?  How?

A photon from my radar gun has a wavelength of 2.5 centimeters.  A photon generated by my microwave oven has a wavelength of 12.2 centimeters.  Clearly, neither could get through a 1.2 millimeter hole sideways, and no one seems to know the height of the photon waves.   If I assume they have the same height, say 2 millimeters, that seems to mean that the photon with the longer wave length is stopped because its electric field is extended about 5 times longer and is therefore about 5 times more likely to encounter the wire mesh as it attempts to pass through.  If a longer wavelength also means a greater height for the electric field, then the longer wavelength photon is even more likely to be stopped.  

when I went out do do some grocery shopping, I saw some clear signs that people are becoming very concerned about the Coronavirus pandemic.  Everything seemed fairly normal at the Kroger store I visited, except for the parking lot being more crowded than usual.  The two items they had on sale that I wanted were in stock.  No problem.  From there I went to Aldi, where the rest of my shopping was to be done.  The place didn't seem particularly crowded, but I was surprised to see they were totally out of all bread items.  Are bread, buns and bagels items you stock up on when you expect shortages?  Evidently so.

I didn't need bread, but I wanted to buy a 3-pound bag of Gala apples.  They were out.  So, I bought Red Delicious, instead.  They had plenty of  yogurt, packaged salads and orange juice, so I bought what I needed, plus a pound of strawberries for $1.19, which weren't on my shopping list.  Then I went to the frozen vegetable isle and found the freezeer shelves were virtually empty.  Are frozen vegetables something else people stock up on when concerned about shortages?  It appears so.

I wasn't out of frozen peas, but I had less than one bag and I wanted to stock up, so I next went to Festival Foods, just for frozen peas.   But the place had very long lines at every checkout register!   I've never seen the place so busy!  So, without even looking at what they had in stock, I left and went across the street to a Walmart Neighborhood Market. 

Just inside the entrance doors at the Walmart, they had 3-pound bags of Gala apples on sale for less than Aldi charged.  So, I grabbed a bag.   (They keep for a long time, and I eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away.)  It looked like they were having a run on frozen vegetables and bread, too.  I grabbed two of the three packages of frozen peas they had left, and although I hadn't planned on buying any bread, it looked like they were running low, too, so I also bought a package of whole-wheat hotdog buns.  The self-checkout lanes were mostly empty, so I was in and out of the place in probably less than 10 minutes.  

My freezer is full, and except for milk and packaged salad, I could probably last close to a month on the supplies I have.  I'll probably have to go to Aldi on Tuesday for milk and packaged salad.

Oh yes, one more thing:  At the Walmart I saw someone wearing a mask, the first time I'd seen that.  It was a elderly cleaning woman who was sweeping the floors.

When I got home and turned on my computer, I found an email in my inbox with a news story from my local paper.  The headline: "In photos: Empty Walmart shelves after coronavirus announcement."   The photos were of the Walmart Supercenter and showed empty shelves for bread, milk, eggs, toilet paper, baby wipes, cleaning supplies, cereal, box dinners and canned foods.  The coronavirus announcement was that the first case was reported in my county.   

It all reminds me of the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."  We are definitely entering some interesting times.

March 13, 2020 - Hmm.  I just completed my 2020 US census form.  I did it on-line and it probably didn't take more than 5 minutes.  I don't recall how I did it the last time, which I assume was ten years ago, but it might have been by talking with a census taker.  I wonder if they still have census takers, and what they would do during this Coronavirus pandemic.

Stephen Colbert said on his show that next week the late-night talk shows are going to stop having live audiences until the Coronavirus crisis is over.  That's something that has never happened before in my lifetime.  Samantha Bee didn't have a live audience for her Wednesday show, except for members of the TV crew.  It was odd to watch.

Yesterday, I tried to do my taxes on-line, but I couldn't connect to TurboTax for some reason.  The same thing happened today.  It turned out that I needed to use Firefox as my browser instead of SeaMonkey.  So, I'm going to work on my taxes.  Okay.  Done.  That took about an hour and a half.

So, now it's back to work again on an overhaul of my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory.

March 11, 2020 - The email conversation I was having with a physicist, that I described in detail in my March 8 comment, seems to have come to an end.  I haven't heard from him in about 2 days.  The conversation turned out to be extremely productive, but evidently only on my end. 

As a result of our discussion, I realized I could perform some very interesting experiments with my TS-3 radar gun that I hadn't thought about before, experiments which would clearly demonstrate that a radar gun does NOT emit waves as is commonly depicted in illustrations like the one below. 


I described two of those experiments in my March 8 comment.  The first was to do a speed measurement of a car driving past on the street outside my apartment, performing the measurement through the aluminum screen my balcony door.  It worked fine.  How would waves  like those shown above get through an aluminum screen?

Then I thought of another experiment where I measured the speed of the blades on a small potable fan through the wave-blocking screen that covers the window in my microwave oven.  That experiment worked fine, too.  I didn't have any problem reading the speed of the tiny fan blades that I didn't also have when reading the fan blade speeds while the fan was sitting on a table.

So, I advised the physicist of my experimental findings.  He responded:

One question:  what material is the screening on your screen door?  Nylon or copper?

It's not nylon, and I assume it's not copper.  The most common types
of window screens are aluminum and aluminum-coated fiberglass.

The microwave probably uses aluminum, too.

Whatever the material, isn't the real question: How do waves get
through it?  I know how photons get through it.

You assume it’s not copper?  You’re off to a rocky start. 

How about not assuming anything?

Your next move is to try to find a hardware store that still carries copper screening and buy yourself a square foot. 

I'd have to have a reason for doing that.
Aluminum is almost as conductive as copper.
If I bought some copper screen, then we'd be
arguing  that the holes are not the right size.

I'm not going to waste money on an experiment
that proves nothing.

Tell me what you expect the experiment to demonstrate.

The cheapest copper screen I can find at local hardware
stores is $427 for a 24-inch by 100-feet roll.

Hmmm, that seems to be about 99 feet too much...

The easiest and cheapest way to create a copper wire screen is to buy the wire and make the screen.  A screen that is 4 or 5 inches square should do.

But what would be the purpose?  What would it demonstrate that the
wire screen on the microwave oven door doesn't?

You’re making a claim that radio light is composed of photons because your radar gun detects motion through your kitchen screen door. 

To support your claim you’d want to do some experiments that would convince a skeptic that your claim is true. 

You’ve begun by assuming some things and not knowing some others. 

Now you want me to tell you why knowing or determining those things matters. 

These are questions you’d have to answer yourself in order to make the must persuasive argument.  

Ah!  So, you have no reason for suggesting the copper wire screen.
You just want me to run in circles.

You don’t have to convince me of anything.  You have to convince the whole scientific community. 

Convince them of what?  You can't even tell me what I have to
convince you that a radar gun can or can't do.

If you know someone who can access a Stalker II SDR "Type-1"
radar gun, he can measure the speed of a box truck from inside the truck.
Then it would still be a matter of convincing the skeptics.
They would argue that it is a "trick."  But what kind of "trick" could do it? 

Maybe after 20 years of demonstrations you might change most minds, but not all.

And that was the end of it.  I haven't heard anything further from him.  That final comment also made me realized that the Type-1 radar gun experiment would probably have to be done a thousand times or more over 20 years or more before the majority of Quantum physicists would accept what Einstein actually stated in his Theory of Special Relativity.  And maybe not even then.

But, of course, I'm not going to change any minds if I don't do the Type-1 radar gun experiment and other experiments.  The Type-1 radar gun experiment inside a box truck is the real fantasy-shattering experiment, but while I continue to try to figure out some way to get access to a Stalker II SDR radar gun, I can still do other experiments to make certain that I have no misunderstandings. 

I awoke this morning realizing that I could easily measure the speed of the large blades of my floor fan through the screen on my microwave oven door, instead of measuring the speed of the tiny blades of a portable fan. 


 
It only took a few minutes to set up.  The experiments both confirmed and clarified things.  The first time I tried it, I could definitely get measurements of the large blades of the floor fan through the door, but it was very difficult to get a steady reading.  I wondered why.  I can definitely get steady readings when the microwave oven door isn't in the way.

So, I analyzed the situation.  My humidifier is also in the room, setting to the right of the microwave oven in the picture above.  It was going full blast. 

Was the problem the result of having the radar gun and the humidifier plugged into the same outlet power strip?  The easiest way to find out was to turn off the humidifier.  As soon as I did that, there was an immediate improvement in the readings.  The readings didn't jump around anywhere near as much.  But they still jumped around more than they did when the oven door wasn't between the gun and the fan.

So, I tried something else.  I moved the gun closer to the door.  That did the trick.  The closer the gun was to the door, the steadier the measurements were for the fan blades on the other side of the door.  They were almost as steady as they were when the door wasn't in the way.  Why?  I'm not sure, but it could have something to do with the photons from the gun being deflected to different parts of the blades when the gun was farther away from the door.  I'll have to think about how to verify that.

Meanwhile, I definitely need to overhaul my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory.   And I should give up on getting that physicist to help me gain access to a Stalker II SDR "Type-1" radar gun.  I'll have to find another way.  

March 10, 2020 - Hmm.  Maybe it's not such a good idea to check the Corona virus statistics via C-Span's web site.  When I checked it this morning, I found that the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. jumped by 149 in the past 18 hours.
 


The total number of deaths in the U.S. also jumped from 22 to 27, not including 6 deaths on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.  Plus, one of those deaths was reported between 8:13 a.m. when I took the screenshot above, and 8:53 when I looked at the site again.  And the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. increased from 756 to 761 during those 40 minutes.  On the positive side, there were no new cases in the 20 minutes between 8:53 and 9:13 a.m.

I need to focus on my discovery that I can measure speeds with my TS-3 radar gun when I point it through an aluminum window screen and when I point it through the grid covering the window on my microwave oven.  If you believe that radar guns emit waves, how would it be possible to measure speeds that way?  It's easy to explain if you understand that radar guns emit photons.

March 9, 2020 - I encountered another mystery while at the gym this afternoon.  There are 7 TVs on the wall in front of the treadmills and exercycles. For some reason, last Thursday they changed the channel on the TV that was showing CNN.  It now appears to be a permanent change.  It now shows the Bravo Channel.  I wondered if changing the channel might have to do with scaring people about the Coronavirus, but they still show FOX News on one of the TVs.  So, the only thing I can think of is that it has something to do with Trump.  Maybe someone just wants news that is favorable to Trump.  I asked one of the employees why they changed the channel, and she said she'd try to find out for me.  Will the guy who runs the place tell her the truth?  Time will tell.

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to a C-Span program about the Corona virus that aired on March 6.  It's a very informative program, but what intrigued me the most was the web site they talked about that showed all the cases world-wide. The link is HERE.  Here's what the page looked like at 2:33 this afternoon:



You should be able to click on the image above to see a larger version that is close to 4 times larger.  At the moment, there are 113,584 total confirmed cases world-wide (607 of them in the USA).  There have been 3,996 deaths, and 62,496 people who had the disease have now fully recovered.  U.S. deaths are shown by county.  I think the total is 22 as of this moment, 17 of them in King County, Washington.  None in my state.  

Meanwhile, I'm still arguing with that physicist I wrote about yesterday.  At least I think I am.  There's been no response to the last email I sent at 11 a.m., and it's now 3:35 p.m.  I'll summarize the latest discussion when I'm sure it's over.

March 8, 2020 - Last week, on Monday, March 2nd, more or less out of desperation, I tried contacting a half dozen physicists by email to see if any of them might be interested in discussing an experiment using a Type-1 radar gun to demonstrate how such a device verifies Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and particularly his Second Postulate.

There were no responses on the 2nd, and none on the 3rd, but late on the 4th a physicist sent a response that I didn't see until the next morning, on the 5th.  The physicist wrote:

I’m curious to see what your ideas are involving radar guns, but I can’t get too involved in it with you since I’m swamped here with lots of wholesome, overdue projects.  Maybe you could just give me a hint of what your idea is.

OK, Ed.  Just hold everything until I have a chance to read your email carefully and make sure I understand exactly what you’re talking about.  At first glance I think what you’re explaining doesn’t apply to my [work], but I want to think about it a bit before answering.

What’s so special about a “Type 1” gun?  The gun measures the Doppler shifted return from the scene passing at 60mph and compares it to the unshifted return from the 60mph truck ahead which is not moving relative to the gun.  The difference is the Doppler shift equivalent to 60mph.  It’s just comparing 0 to 60 instead of 60 to 0.

A "Type-1" radar gun does just one measurement.  It sends out photons and measures the change in photon oscillation rates when the return photons arrive.

That means it can be used to demonstrate Einstein's Special Relativity.

The other guns use TWO measurements, and they contain a lot of programming software to correct problems encountered when doing TWO measurements from one burst of photons.  Using such a gun (I have one) just generates arguments about what the radar gun is actually doing.

Radar guns compare c to c+v or c-v.  Type-1 radar guns do that
in an undeniable way.

What’s the wavelength of the TS3 gun?

What is the size of the grill on your fan?

The size of the grill?  You mean how far apart are the wires?  They are
3/8ths of an inch apart at the edge and narrow down to maybe 1/8th at the hub. The wires are maybe 1/8th inch in diameter.

Remember: Waves are supposed to be like sound waves and ocean waves.  They get bigger and bigger as they move away from the source.

So you think that radar must be “photons” because 1.2 cm wavelength “waves” couldn’t get through 3/8” spaced wires? 

Here’s a fun experiment for you to do...  go down to the hardware store, buy a sq. foot each of 1”, 1/2”, 1/4” wire mesh and a piece of copper screening and see where the mesh size completely blocks the 24 GHz radar beam. 

Radio wave propagation is century-old engineering, not theory. 

...and ‘the wavelength increases with the distance from the source’?  Where’d you get that?

Remember: Waves are supposed to be like sound waves and ocean waves.  They get bigger and bigger as they move away from the source.

“We know that light is made of particles because we can take
a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it,
and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops — each little lump of light is called a photon — and if the light is all one color, all the ‘raindrops’ are the same size.”

The size of electromagnetic wave (which consist of many many photons) is equal roughly to the size of device which emits it. So the waves emitted by atoms are roughly atom size the waves emitted by radio stations are the size of radio station transmitter and the microwaves in the microwave oven are the size of the electronic part which emits them. Your main confusion comes from the question - How to understand a wave consisting of particle photons? Look at it as a normal wave - when the wave passes trough breakwater some of the wave gets through but the remaining part is killed, which effectively stops whole wave.

 

People who have taken more mathematics courses are more proficient at math than those who have not. The same holds true for English, foreign languages, and almost every other subject. Only in history is stupidity the result of more, not less, schooling.

Columbus’s conquest of Haiti can be seen as an amazing feat of courage and imagination by the first of many brave empire builders. It can also be understood as a bloody atrocity that left a legacy of genocide and slavery that endures in some degree to this day. Both views of Columbus are valid; indeed, Columbus’s importance in history owes precisely to his being both a heroic navigator and a great plunderer.

When Columbus and his men returned to Haiti in 1493, they demanded food, gold, spun cotton—whatever the Natives had that they wanted, including sex with their women. To ensure cooperation, Columbus used punishment by example. When an Indian committed even a minor offense, the Spanish cut off his ears or nose. Disfigured, the person was sent back to his village as living evidence of the brutality the Spaniards were capable of.

In the real West, among 250,000 whites and blacks who journeyed across the Plains between 1840 and 1860, only 362 pioneers (and 426 Native Americans) died in all the recorded battles between the two groups. Much more common, American Indians gave the new settlers directions, showed them water holes, sold them food and horses, bought cloth and guns, and served as guides and interpreters. 

Wilson used his power as chief executive to segregate the federal government. He appointed Southern whites to offices traditionally reserved for blacks. His administration used the excuse of anticommunism to surveil and undermine black newspapers, organizations, and union leaders. He segregated the navy, which had not previously been segregated, relegating African Americans to kitchen and boiler work.

The one occasion on which Wilson met with African American leaders in the White House ended in a fiasco as the president virtually threw the visitors out of his office. Wilson’s legacy was extensive: he effectively closed the Democratic Party to African Americans for another two decades, and parts of the federal government remained segregated into the 1950s and beyond.

Teachers need to put themselves in the position that for students to disagree with their interpretation is okay, so long as students back up their disagreement with serious historical work: argumentation based on evidence. People have a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big. Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces – electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.

Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

The conflict between the two halves of physics has been brewing for more than a century – sparked by a pair of 1905 papers by Einstein, one outlining relativity and the other introducing the quantum – but recently it has entered an intriguing, unpredictable new phase.

Quantum physics has very successfully described the behaviour of tiny particles such as atoms and electrons, while relativity is very accurate for forces at cosmic scales. However, in some cases, notably gravity, the two theories produce incompatible results.

"We are talking about why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. IOW what is the cause of gravity."

All of the pure-space in our universe is occupied by a substance
called the E-Matrix. Subsequently, the E-Matrix is perceived by
us as space. The E-Matrix, in turn, is composed of E-Strings.