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

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

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

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
                  detective
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "The Reality of Time Dilation".
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "What is Time?"


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

just trying to figure things out.


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

My Latest Comments


Comments for Sunday, June 24, 2018, thru Saturday, June 30, 2018:

June 24, 2018 - This morning someone sent me a link to an article dated a few days ago titled "Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so."  The finding stated in the title is no surprise to me, but this paragraph from the article contains some surprising info:
Experts debate how many journals falsely claim to engage in peer review. Cabells, an analytics firm in Texas, has compiled a blacklist of those which it believes are guilty. According to Kathleen Berryman, who is in charge of this list, the firm employs 65 criteria to determine whether a journal should go on it—though she is reluctant to go into details. Cabells’ list now totals around 8,700 journals, up from a bit over 4,000 a year ago. Another list, which grew to around 12,000 journals, was compiled until recently by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado. Using Mr Beall’s list, Bo-Christer Björk, an information scientist at the Hanken School of Economics, in Helsinki, estimates that the number of articles published in questionable journals has ballooned from about 53,000 a year in 2010 to more than 400,000 today. He estimates that 6% of academic papers by researchers in America appear in such journals.
There are 12,000 science journals that publish 400,000 non-peer-reviewed papers per year?  I wouldn't have thought there were so many.  And it certainly demonstrates "supply and demand" in an interesting way.  The web site HERE lists and ranks 34,171 science journals.  I wonder how many from those 12,000 are on the list.  I'm glad I no longer think about publishing my papers anywhere. 

But, I do wonder who is reading the papers I have put on vixra.org and academia.edu.  I check the viewer statistics for those sites every day to see how many new viewers have accessed my papers.  The statistics seem to change nearly every day, so people are reading my papers.  I just wish I was getting more helpful feedback from them.

I'm really trying to understand how a radar gun can pick out the specific photons that were returned from the part of a vibrating tuning fork that was moving back and forth at the highest speed while ignoring all the other photons.  And probably more importantly, how can the radar gun sort through all the photons it receives in order to find the specific photons that it needs to compute the speed of a car?  It is not only receiving back photons that were originally emitted by the gun, the gun is also receiving countless photons from every object in front of it, including radio stations, trees, clouds, grass, cell phone towers, cell phones, satellites, the sun, distant stars, etc.  I gather the sorting it is done by a frequency "tuner," but I'm having a problem relating a radio frequency tuner to a radar gun frequency tuner.  I do not fully understand either.    

And when I can't find what I'm looking for after spending hours doing research, I sometimes change focus and look for answers to other questions instead.  Yesterday, I read the first 3rd of a book titled "About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" by Paul Davies.  The author and I seem to agree on most things.  And that means we agree that college physics professors are teaching a lot of nonsense.  But Paul Davies never seems to explain things in brief and easily quotable terms.  You have to quote an entire page in order to have something with meaning, and even then you have to explain what parts of it mean.

I'm tempted to quote from pages 1226 and 1227 of volume 2 of the 3rd edition of "Physics for Engineers and Scientists" by Hans C. Ohanian and John T. Markert and compare that information to material from pages 59 and 60 of Paul Davies' book, but doing that would probably take me the rest of the day.  Those pages represent two different views of the so-called "Twin Paradox." 

The more I study the textbook pages, the more it seems to be only about how to compute time dilation.  It says you cannot compute actual time dilation for the traveling twin using Einstein's formula for velocity time dilation because the formula assumes a constant speed for the traveling twin, and that isn't possible.  The traveling twin will have to accelerate in order to get to the cruising speed of Einstein's formula, and when the traveling twin reaches his or her destination, the spaceship will have to decelerate to slow down and turn around, and then will have to accelerate again to get back to Earth.  And, of course, the ship will have to decelerate when it gets near Earth in order to arrive safely home.  Einstein's simple time dilation formula does not account for any of that accelerating and decelerating. 

But then the textbook says,
A detailed analysis of the behavior of the Earth clocks from the point of view of the spaceship reference frame establishes that the Earth clocks indeed do also run slow as long as the spaceship is moving with uniform velocity, but that the Earth clocks run fast when the spaceship is undergoing its acceleration to turn around at Proxima Centauri. The time that the Earth clocks gain during the accelerated portions of the trip more than compensates for the time they lose during the other portions of the trip. This confirms that Stella will be younger than Terra, even from the point of view of the spaceship reference frame.  
Earth clocks don't run slow at any time during the trip.  Compared to clocks on the space ship, Earth clocks run fast.  Does acceleration produce the same effect on clocks as is produced by gravity?  I dunno.  If so, acceleration/deceleration are the same, and both will cause clocks on the space ship to slow down more due to gravitational time dilation while the reduction in speed causes the clocks to slow down less due to velocity time dilation.  So, clocks on Earth will probably run even faster than clocks on the spaceship during those period of acceleration and deceleration. 

Or maybe I'm wrong.  If I find that I'm wrong before the end of the day, I'll come back and modify this comment.  If I find out tomorrow that I was wrong, I'll decide tomorrow what to do.  Either way, this is the end of today's comment.  


Comments for Sunday, June 17, 2018, thru Saturday, June 23, 2018:

June 22, 2018 - I cannot stop thinking about radar guns and tuning forks.  This morning I created a new illustration showing how tuning forks must work when they are used to test radar guns:
Measuring different speeds of tuning
                            fork vibrations
As you can see in the illustration, the radar gun is getting all kinds of different speed readings from the tuning fork, and those are also plus and minus readings.  The tip of the tuning fork moves at 25 mph first toward the radar gun and then away from the radar gun, and everywhere between the tip and the base the speed will be different.

Standard radar guns are built to display the highest speed measured and/or the strongest signal, and they cannot determine if that highest speed is toward or away from the radar gun. If that is difficult to believe, then a quote from a radar gun web site might help.  A source HERE says this about positive and negative speeds:
Since the circuitry in a radar gun only processes the difference of the frequencies of the retained and reflected signals, the exact same result would be shown whether a target vehicle is moving toward or away from the police radar gun. 
I spent all morning looking for something quotable about radar guns showing only the highest speed measured, but mostly they are just about how a stronger signal will interfere with a weaker signal.  The problem is, I also couldn't find anything that says the image I produced above is wrong.  It's like it's a subject that no one wants to address.  Sigh.

Meanwhile, a couple people on the sci.physics.research discussion group have responded to my posts about simplifying Einstein's thought experiments, but mostly they just argue that thought experiments don't prove anything.  One person wrote:
I have always had certain misfeelings about thought experiments, because how you can do an experiment solely in your mind.  
And another person wrote:
Thought experiments can not be used to learn anything about the world, only to gain insight into the laws of physics as you understand them.  Einstein's though experiments about the train allow you to understand the implications of the assumption that the speed of light is a constant for all observers, even observers moving wrt each other. These "experiments" prove nothing by themselves except what the assumptions imply.  You still have to do real world experiments to verify that the real world gives the same results as the thought experiment.  If they do not, then there is a faulty assumption somewhere.  The value of the thought experiment is to understand the implications of an hypothesis (i.e. assumption).
I've been trying to respond to say that most of Einstein's thought experiments have been verified by real experiments, but the moderator seems to be deleting my responses.  I'm getting the impression that the moderator will not allow anything to be posted that disagrees with his or her beliefs.

June 21, 2018 - I'm feeling overwhelmed by things to do, things to read, and things to think about, but amid it all I stumbled upon an animated gif of a vibrating tuning fork on a web site run by PennState University:
vibrating tuning fork

The animated gif clearly shows that the tips of the tines move a lot faster than the parts of the tines near the base (although both vibrate at the same rate).  So, if you are using a tuning fork to test a radar gun, the gun would show all sorts of different speeds -- if it is capable of doing so.  But a basic radar gun just shows the fastest speed of the objects it can detect.  Moreover, the basic radar gun cannot even tell you if the object is moving toward the radar gun or away from the radar gun.  The vibrating tines, when viewed edge-on, move toward the gun and then away from the gun.  The radar gun just shows the difference between the speed the gun is measuring for itself and the speed of the nearest tine.

I also found it interesting that there are different vibration "modes" for tuning forks.  The one above is the "fundamental mode."  There's also the "clang mode":
Vibrating tuning fork - clang mode
I'm going to assume that "clang mode" got that name because you get that mode when you hit the tuning fork against something metal.  Tuning forks are supposed to be hit against wood or plastic.  Checking site after site after site, however, I couldn't find a single one which explained how the mode got that name.  Some suggest "clang mode" results when you hit the tuning fork against something "hard," and other sites indicate it results when you hit the tuning fork very hard against a surface instead of just tapping it against a surface.

I still cannot imagine how someone who believes light travels as waves would illustrate light waves bouncing off of a vibrating tuning fork. 

June 20, 2018 - While I was having the oil in my car's engine changed this afternoon, I finished reading a book on my Kindle, "Spaceman" by Mike Massimino.   

Spaceman by Mike Massimino

It was a very readable and interesting book about becoming an astronaut, working for NASA, and going on two missions to repair and upgrade the Hubble telescope.  The Hubble orbits at 350 miles above the surface of the earth, which is about 100 miles higher than the International Space Station.  So, except for the trips to the moon, the astronauts who did repair missions to the Hubble flew higher than everyone else.  Here is part of Massimino's description of his first shuttle takeoff:
With a few seconds left, the auxiliary power units start. The beast that terrified you out on the launchpad? Now that beast is waking up. At six seconds you feel the rumble of the main engines lighting. The whole stack lurches forward for a moment. Then at zero it tilts back upright again and that’s when the solid rocket boosters light and that’s when you go. There’s no question that you’re moving. It’s not like Oh, did we leave yet? No. It’s bang! and you’re gone. You’re going 100 miles an hour before you clear the tower. You accelerate from 0 to 17,500 miles an hour in eight and a half minutes.
And here is his description of what things look like when you are spacewalking in the sunlight 350 miles up:
In space, sunlight is nothing like sunlight as you know it. It’s pure whiteness. It’s perfect white light. It’s the whitest white you’ve ever seen. I felt like I had Superman vision. The colors were intense and vibrant—the gleaming white body of the shuttle; the metallic gold of the Mylar sheets and the thermal blankets; the red, white, and blue of the American flag on my shoulder. Everything was bright and rich and beautiful. Everything had a clarity and a crispness to it. It was like I was seeing things in their purest form, like I was seeing true color for the first time.
and here is his description of what its like every 90 minutes when the sun sets:
When night comes in space, you feel it before you see it. The temperature swing from 200 degrees Fahrenheit to −200 degrees Fahrenheit occurs in an instant. The amazing thing is that your suit protects you from that; the temperature inside stays within a tolerable range, and you have a temperature control valve you can adjust to warm up or cool down as needed. So the 400-degree swing isn’t harsh, but you definitely still notice it. The best I can describe it is like when you’re in the ocean on a warm summer’s day and a cold current rushes past and it gets you down in your bones.
and
At night, without the sun, space becomes this magical place. In space, stars don’t twinkle. Because there’s no atmosphere to fog your view, they’re like perfect pinpoints of light. Stars are different colors, too, not just white. They’re blue, red, purple, green, yellow. And there are billions of them. The constellations look like constellations. You can make out the shapes and see what early astronomers were getting at with their descriptions.
The first mission to repair and service the Hubble telescope was done with the shuttle Columbia.  The next time the Columbia flew it disintegrated over Texas as it was returning to earth after a scientific research mission.  That delayed the next Hubble repair mission for years.  And due to lack of funding for the space program they almost left the Hubble to just remain in orbit until it totally stopped working and eventually fell back to earth.  But finally they made another repair mission to the Hubble, and Massimino was on that one too.
 
I only had about 5 pages left to read in the book when I arrived at the car dealer where the oil change was performed.  So, when I finished "Spaceman" I had to choose what book to read next.  I started on what would probably be best described as a psychology book, but it couldn't grab my interest, so I switched over to a travel book.  It's a book written by the same author that wrote the audio book I'm currently listening to, and it's about travels in the same country (England), but the trips are about 19 years apart.    

June 19, 2018 - I was thinking that I should stop writing about how tuning forks are used to calibrate (or test) radar guns until I am absolutely certain how it is done - and can prove it.  But then yesterday morning I noticed that the NIST document that caused all the confusion begins with this information:
In common use for traffic speed control is a Doppler radar gun. The basic principle of operation of these guns is that the radar signal reflected from a moving vehicle is shifted in frequency by an amount directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle relative to the radar gun. Intrinsically one sees that such a radar gun is a frequency measuring device.  The typical way of calibrating these radar guns is to place in front of the gun a vibrating tuning fork which produces a reflected signal to which the radar responds as though it were a moving vehicle.  There exists a well-known relationship between this signal and the speed of the vehicle provided the radar frequency is known.
The part I highlighted in red is exactly how I said a tuning fork is use to test a radar gun.  It also implies there is no "sympathetic vibration" involved.  Nor does the tuning fork simulate the "delta frequency" or "beat frequency" that the gun develops when it "beats" its emitted photons together with the returned photons.  The gun doesn't simulate anything.  It works the same way with a tuning fork as it does with a moving car.  The radar gun emits photons toward the tuning fork, and the tuning fork "reflects" Doppler-shifted photons back to the radar gun.  The gun compares the different photon oscillating frequencies and determines the speed of the object (car or tuning fork) it is measuring.  Period.  End of story.

I was confused by this section from the next page in the NIST document:
Suppose, for example, that a radar instrument which was designed for 10525 MHz had a microwave oscillator which was detuned (outside the FCC allocation) to 12000 MHz; then that radar instrument would measure a vehicle which was actually traveling 50 mph as traveling 57 mph even though a 50 mph tuning fork made for that gun would cause it to read 50 mph.  Similarly, if a 50 mph tuning fork made for a 21150 MHz type radar gun were used to calibrate a properly functioning 10525 MHz type radar gun it would cause the latter to read 115 mph! 
It's confusing because it talks about a radar gun that is not properly tuned.  I don't care what an improperly tuned radar guns shows.  And it's also confusing because it has a 10525 MHz radar gun and a 21150 Mhz radar gun.  A casual glance might suggest that 21150 is 2 x 10525, but it's not.  2 x 10525 = 21050 not 21150. 

I started writing this comment yesterday morning, but by the end of the day I was still trying to figure out how you can have 2 tuning forks, where one vibrates at twice the rate of the other, yet both will register as moving at 50 mph by a radar gun designed to work with each tuning fork.  And, as it says above, if you use the wrong tuning fork with a specific radar gun, you will get an incorrect reading of around twice what it should be.


I think the answer has to do with the fact that a high pitched vibration involves a back and forth motion that covers less distance in a shorter amount of time than a lower pitched vibration. 


When I try to visualize that, I see a car traveling at 50 mph between two points that are 1 mile apart.  In one hour, the car makes 25 round trips (vibrations) to travel a total of 50 miles.  If it travels at 50 mph between two points that are ½ mile apart, it will make 50 round trips (vibrations) to travel 50 miles. 

But, it's not as simple as that.  For each "vibration" the car has to slow to a stop and change directions.  And I assume the prongs or tines on a tuning fork have to do that also.  Moreover, a vibrating prong on a tuning fork will move farther and faster at its tip than at its base.

If I can ever describe in plain English exactly what happens when they use a tuning fork to test the accuracy of a radar gun, it may be the first time that has ever been done.  If it has been done before I certainly haven't been able to find it.  I'm going to work on it as another scientific paper, instead of bumbling through it on this web site.

And, it will be interesting to see if I can describe how the mathematicians' imaginary waves of light would react when they hit the vibrating prongs of a tuning fork.  It's easy to visualize "waves" of light bouncing off a moving car to produce the "Doppler effect."  But its not that easy to visualize waves bouncing off a vibrating tuning fork.

I just hope I have the patience to figure it all out.


June 17, 2018 (B) - Someone who reads this web site but who has never written to me before, sent me an email this morning.  It was about radar guns.  And part of it was also about how tuning forks are used to test radar guns.  That part said:
By the way, the test tuning fork just excites the delta frequency sensor in the speed gun at the delta frequency corresponding to the reference speed for a given transmitter frequency.  So, a tuning fork doesn't really test the transmitter calibration at all, it just tests the delta frequency receiver calibration, meaning the part of the gun that detects the difference between the transmitted and received frequencies.
Hmm.  At first I did not understand a word of that.  But it was very clear I needed to decipher it, since the last part of the last sentence looked very important to me.  I did a Google search for "Delta frequency receiver" and radar gun and got NO results if I have the quote marks around "Delta frequency receiver."  But Google showed me that without the quote marks there are some good references.  The first reference on the list was a book from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Time and Frequency Users Manual" that says this on page 56 (with my highlighting in red):
In much of the literature, the frequency error is referred to as delta-f (delta means a small difference).
That's all it means???  But what does that mean in the context of what was in that email I received?  I think I can decipher it, but it doesn't seem to answer any of my questions.  It doesn't tell me how emitting a sound can test a device that emits and receives microwave light photons.  The email seems to suggest there is some kind of "sympathetic vibration" going on.  I.e., vibrating the tuning fork somehow causes "the delta wave sensor in the speed gun" to vibrate at the same sound frequency.  But how does that relate to a light frequency?   Is the light "Delta frequency" so small that it is comparable to a sound wave frequency?  It seems that most books about radar guns use the term "beat frequency" instead of "delta frequency." 

Hmm.   I just found a web site run by a company that sells radar gun tuning forks.  It says,

Any X band tuning fork will work on any X band radar.  Any K band fork will work on any K band radar.  Ka band forks are specific to the manufacturer of radar.  This is because all 4 manufacturers have different Ka band operating frequencies.
and
All X band radars use same X band tuning forks.  All K band radars use same K band tuning forks.  Ka band forks are different for each radar manufacturer (i.e. Stalker, MPH, Kustom, Decatur)
So, a specific tuning fork will work on any radar of the type for which the tuning fork was created.  That brings me back to believing that I was right in my June 15 comment.  A radar gun measures the speed of the vibrations of the tuning fork at 55 miles per hour, which is the same you would get from measuring the speed of a car traveling at 55 mph.   But why doesn't any manual just say that????

It also means I simply misinterpreted the NIST manual which seemed to say I was wrong.  It just says you cannot use a X-band tuning fork to test a K-band radar gun.  If you do, you will not get the reading stamped on the tuning fork.

But I still NEED someone or some source to solidly confirm that the tuning fork vibrates at 55 mph when it produces a 55 mph reading on the radar gun, and that reading has absolutely NOTHING to do with sound.  (A source HERE seems to say so on page 6, but there's nothing in it that I can quote without generating an argument.)   Groan!  The more I think about it, the less certain I become.  If the gun measures the tuning fork vibrations as if the tines were moving toward and away from the gun, you should get the same results for every kind of gun.  What is it that I'm not understanding --- or that the books aren't explaining?   

June 17, 2018 (A) - I really need to figure out how a tuning fork works when it is used to test a radar gun.  There's nothing more frustrating than to think you have discovered something only to find out that what you discovered is apparently that you misunderstood something.  And it seems to be something that no one else understands, either, since no explanation they provide makes any sense.

But, meanwhile, before I made that "discovery," I was doing research trying to figure out how other things work, and I found some interesting passages in the 6th edition of a college textbook titled "Physics for Scientists and Engineers," by Paul A. Tipler and Gene Mosca.  The passages show that students are being taught that Einstein said motion was reciprocal.  (The same belief is in other text books, but this one is very clear about it.)  Below (underlined in red) is how it is phrased on page 1321 of that book:
image from a physics textbook
On that same page, as show below, the authors make it clear that they are just stating what they believe Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity stated:
In 1905, at the age of 26, Albert Einstein published a paper* on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. In this paper, he postulated that absolute motion cannot be detected by any experiment. That is, there is no ether.  Earth can be considered to be at rest and the velocity of light will be the same in any direction. His theory of special relativity can be derived from two postulates. Simply stated, these postulates are as follows:
Postulate 1: Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected.

Postulate 2: The speed of light is independent of the motion of the source.
That is a good rewording of Einstein's Second Postulate, but Einstein did not postulate that "absolute motion cannot be detected by any experiment."  Nor did he say that "there is no ether."  He said,
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
"Superfluous" means "not needed."  So, Einstein was saying that his theory does not need an ether because his theory does not require an "absolutely stationary space" in order to work.  His theory was based upon the fact that the faster you travel, the slower time moves.  That can be proven by itself.  And by itself it shows that you do not need an ether.  If I can tell by how a clock ticks that I am going faster than you, it is not necessary to have an ether relative to which we can both measure our velocities.  I am going faster than you is demonstrated by the fact that time moves slower for me. 
  
The physics textbook continues on with this totally invalid "alternate version" of Einstein's Second Postulate along with the explanation that follows it:
Postulate 2 (alternate): Every observer measures the same value for the speed of light.
This result contradicts our intuitive ideas about relative velocities. If a car moves at 50 km/h away from an observer and another car moves at 80 km/h in the same direction, the velocity of the second car relative to the first car is 30 km/h. This result is easily measured and conforms to our intuition. However, according to Einstein’s postulates, if a light beam is moving in the direction of the cars, observers in both cars will measure the same speed for the light beam. Our intuitive ideas about the combination of velocities are approximations that hold only when the speeds are very small compared with the speed of light. Even in an airplane moving with the speed of sound, to measure the speed of light accurately enough to distinguish the difference between the results c and c+v where v is the speed of the plane, would require a measurement with six-digit accuracy.
The "alternate" postulate is absurdly wrong because Einstein's theories say just the opposite: Every observer (moving at a different speed) observes a different value for one second of time.  Thus, if everyone measures the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per second, and if everyone is moving at a different speed and has a different length of a second, then speed of light is actually different for everyone.

In addition, Einstein's theories (and countless experiments) say that the "arrival speed" of light will be measured to be different by different observers moving at different speeds relative to the source of the light.  The light will arrive at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer relative to the source of the light.

Lastly, radar guns routinely measure "the difference between the results c and c+v where v is the speed of the [target vehicle]."

I may have been wrong on how tuning forks work when they are used to test radar guns, but it is absolutely clear that time moves at a different rate depending upon how fast you are traveling (and how close you are to a gravitational mass).  So, all that is needed is for someone to make some official comparisons of the speed of light.  If the length of a second is longer in one laboratory than in another, then a speed of light measured to be 299,792,458 meters per second in both laboratories is not truly the same speed.  This appears to have been confirmed a million times, but it seems no one has ever done it officially.  

So, now I need to get back to trying to figure out how a tuning fork is used to test a radar gun and exactly how the gun compares the oscillation rate of emitted photons to the oscillation rate of returned photons.


Comments for Sunday, June 10, 2018, thru Saturday, June 16, 2018:

June 16, 2018Dammit!!!!  I looks like yesterday's comment was incorrect.  I added some information at the end of the comment to show what I've learned.  It basically says that if things worked the way I thought they worked, then a tuning fork would give the same reading for every gun.  But that is not true.  According to a new document I found (published by the National Bureau of Standards in May 1976), a tuning fork created to generate a reading of 50 mph for one type of gun will generate a reading of 115 mph if a different kind of radar gun is tested.   So, I have no clue as to how a tuning fork works on radar guns. 

Here's part of a quote I used at the end of yesterday's comment:

Suppose, for example, that a radar instrument which was designed for 10525 MHz had a microwave oscillator which was detuned (outside the FCC allocation) to 12000 MHz; then that radar instrument would measure a vehicle which was actually traveling 50 mph as traveling 57 mph even though a 50 mph tuning fork made for that gun would cause it to read 50 mph.
So, the radar gun's oscillator is malfunctioning, but the tuning fork still causes it to give the reading that is stamped on the tuning fork???  Then what's the purpose of the tuning fork????   I'm totally lost. 

June 15, 2018 - **(^@&$^%&^&#&%!!!!!  [Added NOTE on June 16:  This comment now appears to be in error. See the end of the comment for details.]  I awoke this morning realizing something about the tuning forks they use to "calibrate" radar guns.  Here's what some of those tuning forks look like:
radar tuning fork
Notice is says "65 mph" on the side of the fork. Here's another kind:
radar gun tuning fork
Notice it says "25.25 MPH" and "40.64 KPH" on the side of the fork.  It also says "34.7 GHZ."

When you strike the tuning fork against a piece of wood or metal (do not hit it against anything made of metal because the vibrations of the metal will affect the vibrations of the tuning fork) you can hear a tone.  If you listen to a video of how those tuning forks work, you can hear the tone.  And all the videos make a point of hearing the tone.  Some dash-mounted radar guns also include speakers which emit a tone that varies with the speed of the car being targeted.

I couldn't make any sense of that when I read various instructions manuals and papers about how radar guns work, but I didn't stop to figure things out because that wasn't the subject I was researching.  It didn't make any sense to me because radar guns work with light, not with sound.  So, what the hell does sound have to do with radar guns?  And, tuning forks cannot generate light.  So, how do they work?

Duh!  This morning it hit me.  So, I checked a bunch of manuals and papers and videos, but none of them explain anything.   However, they do show how the tuning fork is used.

testing a radar gun using a tuning
                            fork 
In the picture above, note that the tuning fork is placed edgewise to the radar gun (the round object atop the box).   Below is another image where two tuning forks are being used at the same time to test a radar gun (note that both tuning forks are being held edgewise to the radar gun):

radar gun tuning fork test 

And here's one of those images of a tuning fork again:

radar gun tuning fork
What NONE of the manuals and papers (click HERE for an example) tell you is that, while the tuning fork is vibrating, the radar gun will measure the nearest side of the tuning fork as moving toward the gun at 25.25 mph and then moving away from the gun at 25.25 mph over and over and over. (They do tell you that you must strike the edge of the tuning fork against an object, do not strike the face of the tuning fork against anything.)
radar gun and tuning fork

So, the tuning fork test for a radar gun has nothing to do with sound, it only has to do with radar photons emitted from the radar gun striking atoms in the side of the tuning fork at c+v and c-v,  where v is the speed of the side of the tuning fork moving toward the gun and moving away from the gun.  Those atoms then emit new photons oscillating at the different wavelengths back to the gun.  So, the tuning fork works the same way as a moving car works.

The tuning fork doesn't "tune" anything, nor does it "calibrate" anything.  It just tells you if the radar gun is working properly.  (You're supposed to test the gun with the tuning fork once per day, or at the start of every shift, to verify that the gun is working properly.)  The manuals tell you that, but they do not tell you the relationship between 25.25 mph and 34.7 Ghz.  One is velocity, the other is frequency over time.  But, a little research indicates that 34.7 Ghz is the photon oscillation frequency of the type of radar gun to be used with that particular tuning fork.

But why isn't any of that explained anywhere?  Am I wrong?  How can I be wrong if it makes total sense?  And how can I be wrong if nothing else makes any sense?  (%^$&#%^^#@!!!!!!

Okay, I definitely could be wrong.  If I was right, then every radar gun should give the same results for every tuning fork.  You wouldn't need a different tuning fork for every gun.  I found a document at the NIST web site that says,
Some of the available FCC allocated frequencies for law enforcement radar include 10525 MHz and 24150 MHz; the vast majority of current radar guns use the 10525 MHz allocation.  Suppose, for example, that a radar instrument which was designed for 10525 MHz had a microwave oscillator which was detuned (outside the FCC allocation) to 12000 MHz; then that radar instrument would measure a vehicle which was actually traveling 50 mph as traveling 57 mph even though a 50 mph tuning fork made for that gun would cause it to read 50 mph. Similarly, if a 50 mph tuning fork made for a 24150 MHz type radar gun were used to calibrate a properly functioning 10525 MHz type radar gun it would cause the latter to read 115 mph!
So, I'm back to square one.  I have absolutely no idea how a tuning fork causes a radar gun to show a specific speed.   Normally, a radar gun doesn't work unless the vehicle being measured is at least 10 feet away.  But tuning forks are placed just inches away from the gun.  And the gun is probably set to "Test mode."  So, it could all depend upon how "Test mode" works.   

June 14, 2018 - I spent much of this morning watching astronauts replace and fix things on the International Space Station.  It was a live link at this YouTube address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0  Because it is "live," there's no telling what you might see if you click on that link.  The space walk repair job I'm watching as I write this only has about an hour left to go.  It's can be pretty spectacular when you view it in "full screen" mode on a large computer screen - or my big screen TV.   It can also be very tedious if you listen to the dialog exchange between Houston and the astronauts as they got through all the steps involved in attaching "TMA3" to "A7YS."   Here's a screen capture:

Space walk June 14 2018 screen capture

Much of the time the view is from a camera attached to the astronaut's helmet.  Here's a sample of that taken after the astronaut closed that cover:

June 14 2018 spacewalk screen capture
                          closeup

Meanwhile, I also found an interesting web page titled "What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts."  Here's an interesting part from it:
On 14 December 1900, Max Planck demonstrated that heat radiation was emitted and absorbed in discrete packets of energy — quanta.  Later, Albert Einstein showed in 1905 that this also applied to light. Einstein used the term Lichtquant, or quantum of light. Now, at the dawn of the 20th-century, a new revolution in physics would once again hinge on the nature of light. This time, it’s not about whether light is a corpuscle or wave. It’s whether it’s both or not.
I can answer that question.  It's something that appears to be a particle (but it isn't solid in any way) and it oscillates as it travels, which gives it its wavelength property while eliminating any regular "frequency" associated with waves.  Each photon travels as a separate unit unconnected to any other photon.

June 13, 2018 - When I looked at my email inbox this morning, I found two new messages.  One was from a scientific journal inviting me to submit my papers to them.  Hmm.  Since, except for using my name at the beginning, it was a "form letter" that didn't mention any of my papers by their titles, I wasn't particularly excited by the email, but I definitely wondered why they chose this particular moment to send me the email.  Then I did some research and found the journal they were talking about is an "open access" journal, and they charge $299 for the first 16 pages and $25 for each additional page.  I suspect they watch some Google forum or vixra.org and send out emails to everyone who seems likely to be desperate to get their paper published.

I've pretty much give up on the idea of having my papers published by some scientific journal for free.  And I'm not willing to pay any journal to publish them.  There is no benefit to me to offset the cost.  (Some day I may pay to self-publish a book that contains all (or most) of my papers.  The benefit there would be that I'd have copies of the book to give to people I know, and Amazon and Barnes & Noble might actually sell some copies.) 

The other email in my inbox this morning was from a scientist who works at CERN in Switzerland.  I'd sent him an email on May 15, along with the version of my paper Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments that was current at that time.  I asked him if he'd like to discuss the conflicts between my paper and a paper he had written about Einstein's thought experiments.  His email said he'd very much like to discuss those conflicts.  So, that's what I'm going to be working on for awhile - maybe a day or two, or maybe just the rest of today.

Meanwhile, I awoke this morning realizing I need to learn more about how radio tuners work.  A radar gun contains a tuner that it uses to separate the frequency it wants to listen to from the countless other signals that are hitting the receiver.  That tuner is critical to understanding whether my papers are correct or incorrect. The problem is: Every source I see on the subject is full of jargon that I need to decipher.  For example, one on-line source says,

Tuners work using a principle called resonance. That is, tuners resonate at, and amplify, one particular frequency and ignore all the other frequencies in the air. It is easy to create a resonator with a capacitor and an inductor (check out How Oscillators Work to see how inductors and capacitors work together to create a tuner).
I gather the radar gun has an "oscillator," which is like an atomic clock or a pendulum clock (or tuning fork) in that it ticks or oscillates at a given rate.  That rate determines the oscillating frequency of the photons the gun sends out.  And it is what the return photons are measured against.  But I do not understand how that comparison is done.  The sources say the two rates are combined and the difference is produced and measured, but I cannot visualize it.  I cannot visualize capturing a photon without having it slam into an atom and create a new photon.  And, if it slams into an atom and creates a new photon, the gun's velocity is added to the speed of light.  I cannot see how that would produce the results the gun produces.  It doesn't look difficult to understand.  It just requires time to understand.  And I'm really unable to find spare time at the moment. 

June 12, 2018 - This morning, the moderator on the sci.physics.research Google discussion group allowed my newest post to appear.  The new post includes a link to the latest version of my paper on Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments and the post says I'd really like to get people's thoughts about it.

Meanwhile, I've been getting requests from people on Facebook who want to join a Facebook group I created and abandoned years ago.  The group was titled "Rational Scientific Methodists & Their Beliefs."  Back then I as arguing with Bill Gaede and his cult followers.  I gave up after arguing for probably a year because the arguing accomplished nothing.  It was like arguing with flat earthers. 

I don't know why people suddenly want to join a group I abandoned years ago, but I'm hoping they are people who read my papers or read my posts in the Google groups and do not want to post there, preferring Facebook.  If so, there is a group I did NOT abandon, I just haven't posted to it for a long time because I've been so busy writing papers and arguing on Google's forums.

So, today I decided that, instead of trying to attract attention to my papers by posting messages to various science-related Facebook groups, I should start by posting new comments to my own Facebook group, Time and Time Dilation.  And that is what I did.  We'll see what happens.

While writing a new post there, and looking for an image that shows how photons are created, I found a couple web pages that I could have used before.  Both pages are titled "How light bulbs work" and the first page contains the image I was looking for - How atoms emit light:

how light is created

The second page goes into more details about light bulbs.  The word "photon" is used many times in the two pages.  The only use of the word "wave" in the two pages is in this quote:
The wavelength of the emitted light (which determines its color) depends on how much energy is released, which depends on the particular position of the electron. Consequently, different sorts of atoms will release different sorts of light photons. In other words, the color of the light is determined by what kind of atom is excited.
If light is not emitted as waves, it cannot reflect as waves. 

June 11, 2018 - I submitted the revised version of my paper on "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" to vixra.org yesterday afternoon, and this morning there was an email in my inbox informing me that, as of 5:44 a.m., the new version is on-line at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf

So, that new version of "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" and my paper on "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" now agree that you can tell if you are moving if you are in a closed Frame of Reference and have a radar gun with you.  The two papers are either both right or they're both wrong.  

I also put both papers on academia.edu.  I never had versions of either paper on academia.edu before.  I'm not sure how many readers scientific papers get there.  They keep telling me that other people are mentioning my papers in their papers, but the number of "views" they show for my papers rarely changes.  Plus, they keep wanting me to pay money upgrade to their "premium" version so that I can see who is mentioning my papers in their papers.  I think they have at least one other "Ed Lake" (someone in England) putting papers on their web site, and they might be getting us confused.  

I also searched for instruction manuals for radar guns to see what they might say about the question I need answered (what speed the gun measures if it is traveling at 60 mph behind a target traveling at 60 mph).  There's nothing in the Bushnell Speedster III manual, nor the Decatur Scout Manual, nor in the JUGS sports radar gun manual, nor a half dozen other manuals I found.  But, then I found a manual from the Illinois State Police dated 1992 that says this on page 8 and 10:
In summary, relative motion will occur only when the solid object and the RADAR are not moving in the same direction, at the same speed. It will occur if
a. The RADAR is stationary and the object moves;
b. The object is stationary and the RADAR moves; or
c. If they both are moving, as long as they move at different speeds or in different directions so that the distance between them changes.
In each case, the Doppler Principle says that the transmitted signal and the reflected signal will have different frequencies if there is relative motion between the RADAR and the object.  
Hmm.  Note I highlighted situation "b" above in red.  Will a moving standard radar gun emit photons oscillating at a different wavelength than a stationary radar gun?  If so, that says that you can tell if you are moving or not by looking at the oscillating frequency your gun is using, just as if it were an atomic clockThat's Time Dilation.  It says a moving atomic clock (or radar gun) will run or tick slower than a stationary clock (or radar gun).  That's true, but it is not what radar guns measure.  If you fire a moving standard radar gun at a stationary object, the difference in oscillating frequency due to Time Dilation will NOT give you a reading.  The difference is too small.  Plus, due to Time Dilation, the photons emitted from a moving radar gun oscillate slower, not faster.

Can a moving radar gun emit photons that oscillate faster than photons emitted from a stationary radar gun?  I say: No.  There is nothing to cause the photons to oscillate faster.

Interestingly, that manual does not contain the word "photon."  Everything is described in terms of "waves."  But it can be used as a source to argue against my papers.  So, what is needed is an experiment to show who is right.

June 10, 2018 - I really need to find some quotable source that explains exactly what a regular radar gun would measure in these two situations:
1.  The gun is moving at 60 mph and the target is stationary.
2.  The gun is moving at 60 mph following a target moving at 60 mph.
The police officer I talked with back on May 21 answered the first question.  If the gun is moving at 60 mph and the target is stationary, the gun will show "no reading," which is equivalent to showing a speed of zero.  It makes perfect sense if you understand that no matter how fast the radar gun is moving it cannot send out light photons faster than c (the speed of light).  So, if the gun is stationary and is pointed at a stationary target, it will show zero.  And if the gun is moving and is pointed at a stationary target, it will also show zero, because the light emitted by the gun does not travel faster when the gun moves.  It travels at the same speed as when the gun is stationary.

However, that makes no sense to mathematicians who insist that motion is relative (which they seem to interpret as also meaning "reciprocal") and therefore if the gun is moving at 60 mph relative to a parked car, the parked car is also moving at 60 mph relative to the radar gun.  If that seems preposterous (and it is), the mathematicians explain that in the moving radar gun's "frame of reference" it is stationary and the parked car is moving at 60 mph, while in the parked car's "frame of reference" the parked car is stationary and the radar is moving at 60 mph. 

Two versions of Relativity

I did research to find out how the radar gun issue first came up.  It came up in a May 19 argument on Google's sci.physics.relativity discussion forum where I argued that photons from the radar gun hit the oncoming target at c+v, where c is the speed of light and v is the velocity of the target.  Atoms in the target absorb the photons and emit new photons back toward the gun that oscillate at a shorter (higher and more energetic) frequency than the original photons.  Below is the reply argument from "danco":

No, the light pulses propagate at c (in both directions) in the rest frame of the gun, and the round trip distance each successive pulse must travel is less because the on-coming car is getting closer.  As a result, the reflected pulses arrive back at the emitter at a higher frequency than they were emitted.  This gives the result that the velocity of the car (relative to the gun) is (we-wr)/(we+wr), where we is the emitted frequency and wr is the received frequency.  We get the same result if we work in the rest frame of the on-coming car, in which the speed of light is also c.
That is (sort of) how lidar guns work.  It is not how radar guns work.  But, so far, nothing I've been able to show to the mathematicians has changed their minds.  And I've been researching radar guns for at least 3 weeks.  I have found at least a dozen papers (and one short book) on the subject, yet not one of them answers those two questions I asked at the top of this comment.  Instead, you have to try to interpret what is written to see if it contradicts what I say, or if it says what I say but in a much more convoluted way.  When you have to do that, it's not something you can quote and use in an argument.  The counter-argument will always be that I didn't interpret the paper correctly.

It's also frustrating that no one comments on my papers via emails (except for the two that resulted from my post to sci.physics.research.  I tried sending an email to my local sheriff's department, but they just suggested I try emailing radar gun manufacturers.  I tried that once and got no response.  I suspect that if I get a response it will be that I should purchase one of their radar guns and test it myself to see how it works.

I could try asking questions on some Facebook groups, but I've never had much success there.  Mostly Facebook users just click on "like" and never answer any complicated questions.  Only the mathematicians on Facebook seem to give opinions.  This morning I joined the Niel de Grasse Tyson Facebook group.  But, I'm not sure if it is a group Tyson started, or if it is a group his fans started to talk about him.  One thing I am sure of, however, is that I like this flat earth illustration that I found there this morning:
flat earth, other planets are globes

I've also been thinking of creating some cartoons, like the one about Relativity near the top of this comment, in order to start discussions about Relativity on Facebook.  The trick on Facebook is to grab people's attention.  Cartoons are good at doing that.  They don't have to be funny, just eye-catching.

On Friday and Saturday I revised my paper on "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" to include as a new Experiment #11 the same thought experiment I have in "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  The current version of the Simplifying paper includes several things that I say are wrong in the latest version of Radar Guns.  They are things that mathematicians would agree with, but I didn't realize were wrong until I started examining how radar guns work.  (When I wrote the Simplifying paper I thought that you couldn't tell if you were moving if you were inside a closed "frame of reference."  But, since then I've realized that, by using a radar gun, you can tell if you are moving.)

The new version of Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments that I plan to submit later today will correct those errors.   Or, maybe I should say the repairs will put my two most recent papers in agreement, right or wrong.

You would have thought that someone would have pointed out to me that the two papers do not agree on some key points.  But no one has done so.  So, either no one is really reading them, or no one wants to risk getting into an argument. 


Comments for Sunday June 3, 2018, thru Saturday, June 9, 2018:

June 9, 2018 - While driving around doing chores this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #17 in the 17-CD set for the audio book version of "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" by Yuval Noah Harari:

Homo Deus

It was a really great book, almost as great as the previous book of his, "Sapiens," that I listened to a couple months ago.  However, I kept constantly wishing I also had the Kindle version handy, so that when the reader of the audio version read something really interesting I could make some kind of note of it.  I probably would have been highlighting and making notes of about half of what was in the first half of the book.  "Homo Deus" means man-god or man as god, and the first part of the book was about how man is learning to fix things so that he can live longer have more control of nature and things around him.  Later in the book, however, the author gets more into how the tools (specifically computers and the Internet) that man has created to do work for him are likely to cause problems. 

A scan of the "look inside" version of the book on Amazon shows it uses the work "algorithm" 83 times.  I would have estimated it was at least five times that number.  And now it seems that I'm hearing that word somewhere every day.  One definition is that it is "a set of guidelines that describe how to perform a task."  So, it's a lot more than just a mathematical term.  It applies to recipes and instruction manuals, too.  And the book says more and more things are getting defined as algorithms, so that routine chores can be done almost without thinking.  Just follow the instructions and you've got it.

Anyway, it was a great book.  I highly recommend it - but, if you haven't read it, I recommend reading "Sapiens" first. 

On my way home from doing chores, I started listening to a travel-humor book that consists of 10 CDs.  I truly recommend listening to non-fiction audio books as a way to make the time pass faster if you have to drive somewhere every day. 


June 6, 2018 - According to vixra-org's statistics, my new paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's theories had 19 new downloads in the past 24 hours, bringing the total to 21 so far.  That's just short of the 23 unique downloads my previous paper about Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments got in its first 24 hours.

Statistics for June 6, 2018 - my
                            papers

What is probably most interesting to me is that every one of my seven papers had at least one new "unique download" during the past 24 hours.  That doesn't happen very often, and I have to wonder what caused it.  According to vixra.org's FAQ page, this is how they define a "unique-IP download":

It is a count of the number of times the PDF document has been downloaded for reading. In order to not count multiple reads by the same user we look at the IP address and only count once for each unique IP. Downloads of different versions of a paper are added together to give a single number. The method is not perfect because many people have dynamic IP addresses that change when they reconnect to the network, and some IP addresses are shared. However it is the best approximation possible to the total number of people who have read the document. It should never be regarded as exact.
So, a person can actually download a paper a hundred times, but it will only register as 1 download if he used the same IP address every time.  I checked how many downloads have been registered for a half-dozen other papers that were posted around the same time as my paper was posted.  I found the lowest number was 2 and the highest number was 11.  So, I'm doing comparatively well.

Unfortunately, I'm not getting what I want from the paper.  I want people to make suggestions for improvements, or to tell me where the paper is wrong.  The only thing they do on Google's sci.physics.relativity discussion forum is argue that my papers conflict with their beliefs.  They never suggest a way to determine who is right and who is wrong.  I suggest ways, but they just claim those ways will confirm their beliefs, and, of course, they cannot explain how. 

You'd think there would be a hundred places on the Internet where they explain in detail how radar guns work when the guns are used to measure the speed of a car.  There are probably that many, but none of them get down to quotable specifics.  In addition, they always explain things in terms of waves, not photons.  They always say that waves "reflect" off of vehicles.  But what does "reflect" mean?  How does "reflecting" work?  The articles about radar guns don't explain. 

When you research "reflection" you find there is "specular reflection" and "diffuse reflection."  

Specular and diffuse reflection

Specular reflection works the way mirrors work: Light is emitted away in the same angle that it arrived.  Diffuse reflection works the way light bouncing off walls and rocks (and speeding cars) work: Light is emitted away in random directions.  Both (but particularly diffuse reflection) are typically described in terms of how rays of light work.   So, they stop talking about waves of light and start talking about rays of light.  But there are no rays and there are no waves.  There are only photons.

This morning I found a BBC article from 2015 titled "What is a ray of light made of?"  It begins with this:
Light is what allows us to understand the world we live in. Our language reflects this: after groping in the dark, we see the light and understanding dawns.

Yet light is one of those things that we don't tend to understand. If you were to zoom in on a ray of light, what would you see? Sure, light travels incredibly fast, but what is it that's doing the travelling? Many of us would struggle to explain.

It doesn't have to be that way. Light certainly has puzzled the greatest minds for centuries, but landmark discoveries made over the last 150 years have robbed light of its mystery. We actually know, more or less, what it is.
Later, the article says,
Einstein realised that the photoelectric effect was easier to understand by thinking of light in terms of Planck's quanta.

He suggested that light is carried in tiny quantum packets. Each quantum packs a discrete energy punch that relates to the wavelength: the shorter the wavelength, the denser the energy punch. This would explain why violet light packets, with a relatively short wavelength, carried more energy than red light packets, with a relatively longer one.

It also explained why simply increasing the brightness of the light made less of an impact.

A brighter light source delivers more light packets to the metal, but it doesn't change the amount of energy each light packet contains. Crudely speaking, a single violet light packet could transfer more energy to a single electron than any number of red light packets.
Einstein called these energy packets photons, and these are now recognised as a fundamental particle. Visible light is carried by photons, and so are all the other kinds of electromagnetic radiation like X-rays, microwaves and radio waves. In other words, light is a particle.

At this point physicists decided to end the debate over whether light behaved as a wave or a particle. Both models were so convincing that neither could be rejected.

To the confusion of many non-physicists, the scientists decided that light behaved as both a wave and a particle at the same time. In other words, light is a paradox.
The problem is: if you believe light actually travels as waves, you are WRONG.  But people who believe that way have endless support for their beliefs.  And it means if I were to show this article to the people on the Google group, they would just argue that the author of the article is LYING in order to simplify things for the ignorant layman, and only mathematicians understand reality.  That belief still remains as the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics.  

It seems the wave versus photon "paradox" could be easily resolved by examining the workings of radar guns, but it would mean that mathematicians would have to memorize new equations.  And they do not want to do that.

June 5, 2018 - My new paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories isn't getting much reaction.  I'm not sure why.  This morning's statistics for my papers on vixra.org show that only two people had viewed the paper since it was uploaded about 24 hours ago.  And one of those two people could be me.  But, I have no way of knowing when the data for the daily statistics was collected.  It could have been an hour after the paper was put on the site.  Tomorrow's statistics should give me a better idea of how many people are reading it.

The response to the message I posted to Google's sci.physics.relativity discussion forum announcing that the paper was available for viewing has also been very sparse.  Right now, there are only 15 posts in the thread, and 5 of them are from me (including the post where I created the thread).  7 are from people on my "Do Not Reply" list who do nothing but call me an "idiot" or "imbecile."  One of the remaining three posts simply asked me why I waste my time on this.  That was easy to answer:  I find it all to be absolutely fascinating.  How can universities and colleges all around the world be teaching absolute nonsense, and yet no one cares?  I care.  And I want to understand what is going on.  If I am wrong, explain to me where I'm wrong.  Don't just tell me I'm wrong because I disagree with the textbooks or because I disagree with some "expert."

The first non-insult response to my post was a recommendation that I view a 1 hour 17 minute video of a college physics course being taught by Professor Walter Lewin, now retired from teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  I wrote about Prof. Lewin and his lectures back in May 2017, and I commented on that particular lecture in my May 21, 2017 comment.  All I can say is what I said back then:  Professor Lewin is wrong.  And he can be easily shown to be wrong.  He argues the mathematician's "all observers theory" which I debunked in my 2017 paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  

The remaining post that wasn't just a personal attack was from "Steve BH" who argued his beliefs about photons, beliefs which conflict with every source I can find about photons.   I politely cited a few facts for him.

And then things went quiet.  No further responses.  But the last non-insulter to post to the thread was "Steve BH," and his post was time-stamped 13 hours hours ago, as of this moment.  So, I may have to wait until tomorrow for responses to my responses.

Meanwhile, I should probably mention that I sent the paper off to a science journal yesterday afternoon.  I received a rejection this morning.  So, that is another dead end.

June 4, 2018 (B) - One of my morning "chores" every day is to check NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day websiteThis morning's entry is a video taken last week during the full moon.  It's really spectacular.

   
The video not only shows a spectacular view of the moon setting behind a bunch of people on a mountain top, it is also one of the best examples I've seen of how a telescopic lens will make a distant object appear closer than it really is.  It's also mind-blowing when you realize that it isn't "fast motion."  It is just as you would see it if you were behind the telescope and camera.

June 4, 2018 (A) - Yesterday, at about 11 a.m., I submitted my new paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" to vixra.org.  This morning, there was an email in my inbox, time-stamped at 5:55 a.m., informing me that the paper is now on-line at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v1.pdf    Interestingly, while the statistics for the paper say no one has yet read it, there is a comment after the paper written by someone in Russia, who just rambles on about his own paper.  I've never had that happen before.

Once I saw that vixra.org had placed the paper on-line, I immediately posted a comment about it to the sci.physics.research Google discussion group.  However, because that group is moderated, I couldn't be sure the moderator(s) would let it appear.  I quickly received an email telling me:
Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it is overly speculative.
I responded by telling them that there was no speculation in the paper at all.  I had researched the paper by talking with police officers about how radar guns work, and the rest of the paper is just a logical explanation of how that research matches Einstein's theories and disagrees with many college text books. I don't know if that argument will change any minds.  I assume not, but I'll just wait to see what happens. 

I also posted information about the new paper to the mathematician-dominated  sci.physics.relativity Google discussion forum, which isn't moderated, and where it appeared almost immediately and had a couple views within a few minutes.  Hopefully, someone there will read the paper before attacking it and me.

I'm pondering whether I should also send the paper to some scientific journal.  But, I think I'll wait to see what the reaction is on the Google groups first. 

Meanwhile, it's just a big relief to have finished that paper.  It might even be my final paper, since it is undoubtedly my most important paper.  It is also a paper that contains a lot that all my other papers also said, but does it in just ten pages.  My next task will be to go back and make revisions to my previous paper.  

June 3, 2018 - I think I'm ready once again to submit my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" to vixra.org.  I plan to do it first thing tomorrow morning (or maybe this afternoon).   One reason I deleted my first attempt was because I had included a photograph in the paper that I was worried might run into copyrights problems.  I'd converted a color photo of a radar gun into black and white, and I'd modified it in other ways, but someone might still have grounds for claiming a copyrights infringement.  So, I created a new drawing that I use instead.

The main reason I deleted that first attempt, however, was because I began to worry that I hadn't sufficiently addressed the issue of the Doppler effect from a moving emitter.  The target car becomes a moving emitter when it sends back photons to the radar gun.  Each returning photon oscillates at a different frequency than the frequency of the photons that were originally sent from the radar gun, but there are no returning radio waves or waves of photons.  It can be argued that, when the target is moving toward the radar gun there will be less space between photons than if the target was stationary, and that would be true.  But, is that really "the Doppler effect"?  There are no waves involved.  Isn't "the Doppler effect" for light the change in oscillating frequency of the individual returned photons?

Moving lighbulb 

One of the illustrations I use in my paper is shown above.  It shows a lightbulb that is moving from left to right at high speed.   Each photon emitted by the bulb is emitted in a totally random direction, so there can be no oscillating wavelength difference for those photons emitted in one direction versus another.  There would be no cause for such a difference.  And since every photon is emitted in a totally random direction, there can be no waves of photons.  However, the photons emitted in the direction the lightbulb is moving will be closer together, because the lightbulb is moving in the same direction those photons are moving. That means the bulb is, in effect, following those photons while emitting more photons in the same direction.  If the bulb was stationary, the photons should be fairly evenly distributed in all directions. 

Does the image of the lightbulb illustrate the Doppler effect?  It seems that many astronomy text books say it does (when applied to stars instead of lightbulbs).  But that "Doppler effect" is very different from the "Doppler effect" that results when a radar gun fires billions of photons at a target vehicle and the target encounters some of the photons at c+v where v is the target's speed.  The target then emits back to the radar gun a few photons that have a shorter wavelength. 

In that instance, the photons headed in the target's direction of movement may be more closely spaced than photons heading in other directions, but there would also be more photons (and thus more closely spaced photons) if the target car has a polished chrome bumper instead of a rusty bumper.  Chrome reflects light back toward the emitter better than rust.  There would also be less space between returned photons if the target is a large truck instead of a small car.  Bigger objects reflect more photons than smaller objects.  In those instances, there is less space between photons because MORE photons are being returned per unit of time for other reasons, not due to any "Doppler effect."

I guess the question is: Can there be TWO Doppler effects occurring at the same time: (1) the change in the oscillating frequency of the photon, and (2) the larger quantity of photons per square meter and per unit of time?  

Answer #2 isn't really true, since billions of photons were emitted by the gun toward the target and only thousands or hundreds or less were returned from the target to the gun.

You can tell the speed of the target by the difference in oscillating frequency of the returned photons.   You cannot tell the speed of the target by the number of photons returned when the targets have different reflection characteristics.

But how will mathematicians see it?


Comments for Friday June 1, 2018, thru Saturday, June 2, 2018:

June 2, 2018 - I just noticed an NBC news article titled "Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails" and subtitled "Has the love of 'elegant' equations overtaken the desire to describe the real world?"

Ah!  It feels nice to know that there are actual scientists who are seeing the same things I'm seeing and writing about.  The article says,
"All of the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s has not produced a single successful prediction," says Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. "That's a very shocking state of affairs."

This doesn't mean physicists aren't busy; the journals are publishing more research than ever. But Turok says all that research isn't doing much to advance our understanding of the universe — at least not the way physicists did in the last century.

Physicists today "write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science," he says. "But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that's been lacking."
and
In a new book entitled "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," [Sabine] Hossenfelder [a physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany] argues that many physicists working today have been led astray by mathematics — seduced by equations that might be "beautiful" or "elegant" but which lack obvious connection to the real world.

"I can't believe what this once-venerable profession has become," she writes. "Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed. And they're not even good at that."

Why haven't there been more books and articles about this?  And why haven't more people been complaining about the WRONG lessons being taught in college physics courses?  Hossenfelder's book will be coming out on June 12, and it appears to be written for the layman.  Or maybe the author just felt it would be counter-productive to fill such a book with mathematics.


Comments for Sunday, May 27, 2018, thru Thursday, May 31, 2018:

May 31, 2018 - Okay, I seed my duty and I dooed it.  At 9:28 a.m. this morning, I submitted my newest paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to vixra. org.  I'm already kicking myself for not making an important change to one of the illustrations before submitting it.  I kept putting off making the change because of its complexity, and then I became so keyed up about submitting the paper that I forgot about that change.  I don't think it is anything anyone but me would notice, so it really shouldn't affect reactions to the paper.

I have no idea what the reactions will be, except I can assume that the mathematicians on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum will hate it and attack it (and me) without supplying any meaningful evidence of anything being incorrect in the paper.

Groan!  I just realized something else that bothered me that I failed to check out.  And it will give my critics some solid facts to use in their attacks.  The problem is: I don't know what the problem is.  There's something that disagrees with the logic in my paper, but I don't know why it disagrees.  It could be something that everyone else is misunderstanding.  I'll just have to wait and see what happens.  Arguing with people who disagree with me helps me understand things better.

Nuts!!!  I need to think some more about that one problem.  So, I cancelled the submission.  Grumble grumble.

May 30, 2018 - Yesterday I received via an email what seems to be only the second helpful suggestion regarding any of my scientific papers.  As with the first attempt to help (the suggestion that I modify Figure 3 in my paper about Einstein's thought experiments), the new suggestion was also from someone who evidently read my post to Google's sci.physics.research discussion group, the group that I learned has a moderator.  The emailer in Germany advised me that, in my paper about Einstein's thought experiments, I shouldn't use so many different ways to emphasize words.  Simple italics is enough, he wrote, don't also add bold or underlining or a combination or ALL CAPITALS. 

It's probably good advice, so I thanked him and told him I'd keep his advice in mind when I revised that paper.  Meanwhile, as I worked on my current paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories, I applied his advice and removed all the extra emphasizing.  Only italics remain.  I probably did it because it gave me something to do while I trying to figure out how to conclude the paper. It is almost done.  I just need to find the right way to end it.  If all goes well, I may submit it to vixra.org tomorrow.

May 29, 2018 (B) - The discussions on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum have turned into nothing but personal attacks and incoherent ranting.  So, I'm going to try to focus on my new paper about "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  Yesterday, someone mentioned something in a comment that got me to thinking once again about that quote from Michael Massimino's book I used in my Sunday comment. Here's the quote once again:
When we talked he said he liked the fact that I was an industrial engineer, because it had given me some practical experience with human factors, something that most of the Good Will Hunting geniuses on campus didn't necessarily have .
Some comments people made on the Google forum seemed to hit upon that same idea that there are mathematician-physicists and practical physicists who use physics to build things and understand things. 

One poster who had never before posted anything in any of my threads wrote this yesterday:

Learn once for all, is not the speed of light which is measured, it is
impossible. But the beat frequency between the two, which is very low and achievable. This is the whole idea in having a homodyne or a heterodyne setup. You derive the speed of the car reversibly, out of that.

You people know everything about Relativity but nothing about Physics.
In what I hope is my final post to that thread I responded that I couldn't make any sense of what he wrote, but I liked the fact that he brought up homodyne and heterodyne setups.  From what I understand, they are the two different methods that engineers use when building radar guns.
Definition of homodyne. : of or relating to the process of detecting a radio wave by the aid of a locally generated current or wave of exactly the same frequency as that of the incoming wave. homodyne reception — see zero beat.  (old, stationary radar gun technology)

Heterodyning is a signal processing technique invented in 1901 by Canadian inventor-engineer Reginald Fessenden that creates new frequencies by combining or mixing two frequencies (new, moving radar gun technology)    
This morning I noticed a new thread in the Google forum.  The new thread was started by "rotchm," who I had recently added to my "Do Not Reply" list.  The thread was titled, "Alfred Einstein & ed lake."  It began with sarcasm about how I had mis-typed "Alfred Einstein" instead of "Albert Einstein" in my May 27 comment here on this website.  And then "rotchm" ranted,
why would you declare that 60 = 0 only for signs that are reflective?  (And what does daytime vs nighttime reading of radar guns have anything to do with the speeds??)
I have absolutely no idea where he got either one of those ideas from.  Did I say something that suggests reflective highway signs give different readings than other highway signs?  When?  Where?  And I certainly never even remotely suggested that radar guns get different readings in the daytime versus nighttime.

It seem those wrong ideas can only be from some language translator program incorrectly translating something I wrote.  I hadn't thought about it much before, but that now seems to be a major part of our communications problems.  We not only do not speak about physics from the same point of view, we are literally talking in different languages, which means the others have to translate what I say into their native languages via some automatic translator program.  And what they say may also get automatically translated from their language into English.  (And the only things that always get translated correctly are mathematical equations, which do not require translation.)

Sometimes the language translations work fine, such as when one poster in that new thread wrote this:

It is not a matter of physics, but technology.
However, then he rambled on incoherently in what I see as some automated translation of what he actually wrote in another language:
The radar gun does measure the 60.

But then it depends, if it is a simple stationary gun, or a  portable gun used in patrol cars.

The former will just show 60.
The latter will subtract the car speed wrt surface = 60 and will  show 0.
There could be something that would be helpful to know in that gibberish, but I cannot decipher it into anything meaningful.  In what situation does the radar gun "measure the 60"?

However, it seems clear I should be talking about how engineer-physicists think versus how mathematician-physicists think. 

Mathematician-physicists think of light as arriving in the form of waves, so the radar gun receives return waves of a different frequency than what were sent out.  The return waves are just like sound waves coming from a moving body.  They are closer together.  Here is an image from an Arizona University web site showing how sound waves work:
sound waves
The ambulance emits higher frequency sound waves in the direction it is moving and lower frequency sound waves in the opposite direction.

That same web site then shows this illustration for how light waves work:
light waves
Is that true?  It is certainly true for sound waves, since the sound has to travel through the air, and sound is literally created by waves moving through the air.  And those waves impact upon our eardrums, causing us to hear the sounds.  The air is the medium of transmitting the sound waves to our ears.  

But there is nothing in space to transmit waves of any kind.  There is no ether (or aether) to carry waves.  There is just a vacuum.  In the air, light travels slower as it works its way through all the atoms, but it still does NOT travel as waves.  It travels as individual photons.  And, according to Albert Einstein, (except for time dilation factors) those photons travel at the same speed whether they are emitted from the backside of a moving emitter or from the front side.  The speed of the emitter cannot be added to the speed of light being emitted.  That means that if the emitter is coming toward you or going away from you, the light photons will travel at the same speed.  And because there is no ether (or aether) to create "waves," the second image above is total nonsense.  The individual photons will oscillate at the same wavelength regardless of the direction in which they are emitted.  The only difference an observer in front of the moving observer will see is that the light is brighter, because he is receiving more photons in a shorter period of time than someone located behind the emitter.  I.e., the emitter emits a photon then moves closer then emits another photon then moves closer, etc.  The photons are thus closer together because the emitter was moving toward you.

moving emitter 

But there are no waves.  (I wrote about all this in my March 23, 2018, comment.)  And there is no "blue-shifting" in that situation.  To get blue- or red-shifting, the observer has to be moving toward or away from the emitter.  When the observer is moving toward the emitter, the photons the observer sees will be encountered at c+v, where v is the observer's velocity.   Receiving photons faster than they were emitted means the wavelengths of the photons will appear shorter.

moving observer
 
No matter how I look at it, I always get the same results.  And those results clearly conflict with what is written in virtually every college text book.  If I'm wrong, I need someone to explain to me - in plain English - where  I am wrong.  Spraying mathematical equations at me won't do it.  Neither will any argument which claims that the majority is always right, nor will any argument which claims that the person with the most impressive credentials is always right.

While waiting, I'll continue working on my papers.   


May 29, 2018 (A)
- News reports this morning say that the Malaysian government has given up on trying to find the remains of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared over 4 years ago.  Winter is approaching in the area in the South Indian Ocean where the plane disappeared, and the private ship that was searching for it on a "no find, no fee" basis has failed to find anything.

If history is any gauge, someday someone will realize something they hadn't thought about before, they'll try something new, and they'll find the plane.  Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists have an open playing field to voice whatever fantasy-based opinions they want. 


May 27, 2018 - A couple days ago, while reading "Spaceman" by NASA astronaut Michael Massimino on my Kindle, I came across the passage underlined in red below:
Quote from "Spaceman" by Mike
                          Massimino
Hmm.  That seems to be saying something about mathematician-physicists and how they have no practical experience with "human factors."  While "Good Will Hunting" was a terrific movie (I have it on DVD and have probably watched it at least 3 times), I'd never before thought of it as being about a mathematician-physicist, probably because I wasn't fighting with mathematician-physicists the last time I watched that DVD five years ago.  But, more importantly, the quote seems to say that Michael Massimino and/or the person with whom he was talking saw an important difference between engineering-type physicists and mathematician-type "geniuses."  It's a difference I'm seeing every day.

In my arguments with the mathematician-physicists on the Google forum, I thought about how, due to velocity time dilation, a moving radar gun will use a different length for a second than a stationary speed gun.  But, even if the gun is traveling at 100 mph, it is still a very very small difference in time.  And the difference would be in violator's favor.  Instead of getting a ticket for 100 mph, he'd get a ticket for traveling at something like 99.9999999998 miles per hour. 

Then something else occurred to me.  Not only would the length of a second be different for the moving radar gun, but the speed of light would also be different.  The speed of light when traveling at 100 mph is still 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but because the length of a second is longer, the speed of light emitted at that speed is slower.

Radar guns that are built to work while on a moving vehicle send out two radar signals, one to the target vehicle and another to the ground or to nearby stationary objects.  While the photons that are sent toward the ground travel slower and use a longer second, the photons returning from the ground will travel at the correct speed of light because they were emitted from a stationary body.  And a gun that measures speed by measuring the Doppler shift could be sensitive enough to detect that difference in the speed of light.

The problem is: How do I confirm that?  I found a web site run by Chiefs of Police that has a lot of information about radar guns.  But, it says,

Stationary radar is the old standard. An officer sits on the side of the road and watches traffic, waiting for a vehicle moving at high speed. When he sees one, he activates the radar, which measures and displays the vehicle’s speed. The radar will give a tone. If the tone is clear and the displayed speed matches the officer observations, the officer can make the stop.

Moving radar is more complicated because the system must look for two different speeds and compare them to come up with the motorist’s speed. The radar looks for the largest object in its field and assumes this is the background. Then it looks for the second most significant object and assumes this is the target. The radar measures the difference between the target speed and that of the patrol vehicle. The radar’s counting unit uses the following formula:

Target Speed (TS) = Closing Speed (CS) – Patrol Speed (PS)

The radar unit’s display will show two speeds: the target speed and the patrol speed. The officer must make sure the displayed patrol speed matches the speed on his speedometer to determine if the reading is accurate.
Note that in the second paragraph it says that the moving radar system "must look for two different speeds" and it finds them in (1) the background and (2) the target.  Then, in the part I highlighted in red, it says "The radar measures the difference between the target speed and that of the patrol vehicle."  Whaaa?  How do you get from measuring the speeds of (1) the background and (2) the speed of the target to computing the difference in the speed of (1) the target and (2) the patrol vehicle? 

The mathematician-physicists can make assumptions, and I can make different assumptions, but I need to find a good and quotable source that states how the speed of the background is turned into the speed of the patrol vehicle.  It works if you assume both are zero, and it works if you assume both are x mph.  The formula given in the quote indicates that you assume both are x mph.  But how did you get x mph?  The mathematician-physicists say that a standard radar gun moving at 60 mph would get a speed of 60 mph if the radar gun was pointed at the ground or a highway sign.  Albert Einstein, Willem de Sitter, the police officer I talked with last Monday, and I say that the radar gun would show ZERO as the speed of the ground and the sign.  BUT, if the radar gun can measure the difference in the speed of the light going to the ground and the speed of the light coming back from the ground, then you can get x mph.

I need to find some good and quotable source which explains how it is done.  Or I need to talk with more police officers to make sure there is no misunderstanding.


Comments for Sunday, May 20, 2018, thru Saturday, May 26, 2018:

May 25, 2018 - Hmm.  I awoke this morning thinking I need to modify my new paper about "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  I thought I was almost done with the first draft yesterday, but something someone wrote in a comment on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum was evidently bouncing around in my subconscious looking for an explanation.  My paper basically ignored time dilation as being of no consequence to the operation of a radar gun, but on the forum early yesterday morning "Voney" had asked me:
So tell us why a moving radar system needs two guns while an ordinary stationary handheld radar only needs one?

Remember, I know the answer, having worked on mobile radar systems...
I ignored the question, thinking it was just about how you need some way to establish zero when computing speeds.  Someone else had asked why a radar gun can't just assume zero and get rid of all the equipment used to establish zero.  A stationary radar assumes it's speed is zero.  But a moving radar needs to establish zero in order to compute the speed of the target. 

When I awoke this morning I realized that if you are establishing zero for computing speeds, you also need to establish the local length of a second for computing speeds.  A moving radar will use a longer second than the local standard second and will thus compute a slower speed for the target.

So, instead of being unimportant to my new paper, suddenly Time Dilation has become VERY important to my new paper.  I just need to figure out what additions and adjustments to make. 

Meanwhile, as I was doing my regular morning routine I noticed a news article titled "A Eulogy for the Luminiferous Ether."  The article is about a  "Science Wake: Eulogies for Failed Theories" to take place in New York City on June 6.  It’s a part of the "Underground Science Festival, an alternative science festival meant to spotlight how science really works as well as science’s forgotten voices."  The article says:
As early as the ancient Greeks, scientists and philosophers supposed that space was not truly empty. Instead, a mysterious substance filled the cosmos like a vast ocean, suspending the stars and serving as the medium through which light traveled.
and
After all, physicists have long known that light moved, either as a beam or a wave. And if light traveled as a wave, like sound, then surely it needed to travel through something. The greatest minds in history thought it to be true, so surely it must have been. Even physics great James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations reveal the speed of light, considered these ethereal ideas.

You were a sensical theory, luminiferous ether. And physicists love when things make sense. But science need not make sense—the universe doesn’t give a damn what human beings think.
I highlighted that last sentence in bold and in red because I think it is STUPID!  Science does need to make senseIf it doesn't make sense, then we are not understanding it correctly.  If you claim that science doesn't need to make sense, then you are saying you can make up any crap you like and call it "science." If mathematicians need something stationary in order to do their mathematics, then why not take my suggestion and use the theoretical point where the Big Bang occurred instead of an imaginary aether?  The "eulogy" concludes with this:
Science is a tool to get at the truth, but it is not the truth itself. And though you’re gone, we do not despair. Finding the truth requires new ideas, and it requires luminiferous ethers to disprove. We’ll never know what’s right unless we know everything that’s wrong.

Rest in peace... maybe. Perhaps someday we’ll find that you’ve been hiding in existing theory all along.
That last paragraph seems to suggest that maybe there is an ether after all, but we just haven't figured out how it works.  Grumble grumble grumble.

And I just spent over an hour writing this comment instead of working on my new paper.  
Grumble grumble grumble.

May 23, 2018 - I received an email this morning, time-stamped at 5:59 a.m., informing me that the revised version of my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" is now at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v2.pdf  

I awoke this morning thinking about that paper and about the new paper I began working on yesterday,
"Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  As I lay in bed thinking about those papers, I did a "thought experiment" of my own, and the results of the experiment would have "blown my socks off," if I'd been wearing socks.  I can't even write about it here.  First I have to include the experiment in the "Radar Guns" paper and put the paper on vixra.com.  In the process of writing the paper I hope to think through every step of the experiment to make sure I'm not misunderstanding something.  It's so damn simple I cannot understand why there aren't already a hundred papers about it.

I'd like to perform the experiment myself.  It would cost virtually nothing, if I could borrow a radar gun and the vehicle I'd need, plus I'd need someone to drive the vehicle.  If I can't get some police department to help me, maybe I can get some local physics professor to help.  But first I need to write the paper.

Meanwhile, I see a physicist who has worked at Fermi-lab in the past has posted this to the Google forum:
All that matters TO THE [RADAR] GUN is the speed of the reflector RELATIVE TO THE GUN, because that is all it can measure (know). This is proven daily by police that use radar guns -- a gun in a car traveling down the highway at 60 MPH will measure a tree to have a speed of 60 MPH.
The police officer I talked with on Monday says that is NOT TRUE.  A radar gun in a car traveling down the highway at 60 MPH will measure a tree to have a speed of ZERO, in full agreement with Einstein and De Sitter

I tried to explain things this morning by posting a comment to the Google forum about the "two reflections" type of radar gun, which sends out photons to the ground and gets a speed of zero and sends out photons to the target car and gets a speed of 90 mph.   "Steve BH" then asked me:

A whole second radar just to subtract zero? And why don’t we just leave that out?
I responded:
Because the radar gun compares photon frequencies.  It needs TWO photons to make a comparison.

In a standard radar gun, the gun compares the frequency of the photons it emits to the frequency of the photons it gets back from the target.

In the "two reflections" type of radar gun, the gun compares the frequency of photons returned from the ground to the frequency of photons returned from the target vehicle.
I'm awaiting a response to that.  It should give them something to think about. 

The experiment I thought about his morning will resolve the dispute.  I just need to finish the paper about the experiment and get the paper on-line.

May 22, 2018 - I awoke this morning deciding that I needed to create a second draft of my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" before I begin work on my newest paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  I wanted to add a lot of things to the Notes Section to show how college textbooks incorrectly describe the ideas behind Einstein's thought experiments, but haven't had time to work on that.  So, I only made three changes to create the second draft: (1) I changed the date on the paper; (2) I changed Figure 3 to the corrected version illustrated in my May 20 comment; and (3) I changed the second Experiment #10 to Experiment #11 (which it should have been in the first place).   I submitted the revised version of the paper to vixra.org at about 9:30 this morning.  There's a good chance that they will make it available later today.  If they do, I'll modify this comment to reflect that.

Meanwhile, someone on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion group wrote a comment that I felt needed a response from me.  "Paparios" responded to my comment that I had discussed radar guns with a local police officer.  "Paparios" wrote:

You and your policeman do not know what you are talking about!!!

You see, Edward, radars only "see" metalic stuff, like cars, trains, airplanes and missiles. A tree is made of wood and not of metal, do you understand that?

You are way too dumb to understand any of this....
Although typical insulting nonsense, I felt it made one valid point.  When radar photons hit the polished surface of a car more photons will reflect back to the radar gun.  When radar photons hit the rough surface of a tree, the photons will be more scattered, and fewer photons will return to the gun.  So, I explained that to "Paparios" and told him I'd use metal highway signs instead of trees in future discussions with police officers (and in my new paper).  And, I explained that lidar (which is a form of radar) has no problem mapping the locations of trees.  I provided a link to lots of images of trees located by lidar.  The response from "Paparios" was:
Is a lidar a radar?

Do you even think before writing your daily nonsense?
Meanwhile, "rotchm" (who was recently added to my "Do Not Reply" list) stated that I needed to use parked cars instead of highway signs.  How could that make any difference?  It can't, but it says that if I use highway signs I'll just get more arguments from the mathematicians. 

It also occurred to me that I could have mentioned baseball radar guns to "Paparios."  They measure the speed of oncoming baseballs by bouncing photons off of a thrown baseball, which is not made of "metallic stuff, like cars, trains, airplanes and missiles."  Baseballs have a leather covering and are filled with non-metallic materials.   But, I imagine that "Paparios" would just claim that those are a different kind of radar gun, he'd claim they are radar guns specifically made for use with baseballs, and therefore nothing like police radar guns.  The claim would undoubtedly be false, but how could I prove it?  And if I could, I'm certain that "Paparios" would just find some new reason to dismiss my findings.  

So, I'll keep all that in mind as I write the paper.  

May 21, 2018 - I finally found some time to call my local police department to ask them how their radar guns work.  The officer told me that if the radar gun is in a car moving at 60 mph and they point the gun at a tree beside the road, the gun will show "no reading." 

radar gun

I made certain I was understanding what "no reading" means.  In the illustration above, the reading is 55 mph.  If the gun was on a moving car and it was pointed at the grass at the side of the road, the screen on the back of the gun would be blank.  It would show nothing because the gun has no difference in photons to compute.  The outbound photons are identical to the return photons.

I assumed that no one on the Google forum would believe I actually called the police department.  This afternoon's comments show that they all seemed to believe me, they just believe I misunderstood what the police officer told me.   So, I still need to find some on-line source that says the same thing in unambiguous terms.  But, talking with the officer was a big relief for me, since it made me more confident when arguing with a dozen people who all say I am wrong.

I ended the discussion on Google.  I'll now focus on writing a short paper about how radar guns confirm Einstein's theory of light.

I'm also thinking of asking my local police department if they will give me a ride to watch how the radar gun works, so that there can be no misunderstandings.  I have a larger town just across the street, so I may ask their police department, too.  Plus, that larger town is the county seat, so I might ask the sheriff's department if they will let me go along for a short ride.  I might show them the paper about radar guns to see if that helps convince them to give me a ride.

I also realized that I can use imgur.com to store quotes so that I can find them again if I need them.  Here are some quotes from Richard Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and matter":

Feynman quote
Feynman quotes page 15
As you can see, they are from Chapter 1 (the Introduction), pages 14 and 15, so it will be easy to find them again in the book if I need to do so.  I can use them when people claim that I'm the only one who believes that light consists of photons, not waves.


May 20, 2018 - Wow!  Some of my discussions about physics on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have become truly fascinating.  A few days ago, I tried posting a message about my new paper to a different Google physics discussion group and it took over a day for my post to show up on the  group.  The day after it showed up on the forum, someone responded, telling me that I needed to modify one of the illustrations in my paper.  When I tried to answer, I kept getting messages from Google saying that something or other was very slow and that I should try posting again.  I tried about a half dozen times and nothing happened.

Then the next day a message from the "moderator" appeared in the thread.  Moderator?  I didn't know that any Google discussion group had a moderator.  I'd never encountered one before.  The moderator agreed that my illustration needed to be modified and wrote:

Since there is no new physics here, I suggest that further comments be mailed to the original poster.
I'm the "original poster."  So, the guy who had responded sent me an email explaining his view in greater detail.  I agreed with him and said I'd modify the illustration.  Here are the before (incorrect) and after (correct) versions:
fixed Figure 3
The complaint was the stone dropped by the observer on the train (OT) would not bounce in the direction of the engine the way I had shown it.  That version implied that the stone was somehow moving faster than OT and the train.  As you can see, the modified version is better, since the stone never moves past OT.  It is still not totally satisfactory, since the stone would be slowing down and wouldn't actually be directly below OT after it had bounced a few times.  But I don't know how to illustrate that without getting another complaint that the stone didn't fall straight down from OT's hand.

But what really interested me in that response was that there was evidently no disagreement with the physics in my paper.  The guy who suggested the change evidently agreed with the paper, and the moderator felt the paper contained nothing new.  That made me really wonder if the scientists and physicists who share my understanding of Relativity try to avoid "social media" because they do not want to endlessly argue with mathematicians as I've been doing.

If there are lots of scientists out there who agree with me, why aren't they protesting against what the colleges and universities are teaching?  Is it because as soon as they open their mouths a hoard of mathematicians will start attacking them and insulting them?  I'm thinking more and more that that is the case.

Meanwhile, I have registered at imgur.com.  It's a place where I can store images and use them on this web site or in posts to various social media forums.  The image above was placed there instead of on my own web site.  Using an image placed on imgur.com instead of on my own site makes things a bit simpler, and it means I'll be using a lot more illustrations here in the future.  

Yesterday, my arguments with the mathematicians really hit one particularly fascinating area.  We were talking mostly about how police radar guns work.  It's an area where I can find a lot of on-line references which totally disagree with the beliefs of the mathematicians.  But, more than that, the discussions seem to have provided me with undeniable arguments to use against the mathematicians.  I just need to do some more research, and I may even try to contact my local police department to ask them some questions - if I can't find the answers on-line.

We all know that if I am in a police car on the side of the road and I aim a radar gun at a car coming toward me at 90 mph, the radar gun will show that car is traveling at 90 mph.  The question then becomes:  If I am in a moving police car traveling at 60 mph and I aim the radar gun at a traffic sign on the side of the road, what speed will the radar gun register for the sign: zero or 60 mph?

The unanimous answer from the mathematicians is 60 mph.  But, as I see it, that can only happen if the speed of light (c) emitted from the radar gun is added to the speed of the police car (v) I'm in.  That way, the outgoing light travels at c+v, it bounces off the stationary highway sign and returns at c.  The gun subtracts c from c+v and gets v, the speed of the police car (or highway sign).  But the speed of the emitter cannot be added to the speed of light.   I.e., a moving emitter cannot send out light that travels at c+v.  Light cannot go faster than c, the local speed of light.  That is a basic rule in Einsteinian physics and has been confirmed in countless experiments. 

Here's an image I created and put on imgur.com in about 10 minutes to illustrate this situation:
moving police car and stationary sign
But I haven't been able to find a source that says if you are in a moving car and aim a radar gun at a sign next to the road, the speed of the sign will register as zero velocity.  (That is what you would get if the radar gun sends out light at c instead of c+v and gets back a signal traveling at c.  c-c=zero.)  It isn't that the sources say that is wrong, it's that the sources say nothing at all about that situation.  Or they don't spell things out.  For example, one source I found says,
Radar guns measure the relative velocity between the radar gun and the target. If the radar gun is moving, that has to be accounted for in some way. Most modern guns do this by detecting both the return from the target vehicle and the return from the ground or terrain in the vicinity of the target vehicle, and comparing the two to determine the velocity of the target relative to the ground or terrain.
That implies that the speed of the ground or terrain is measured to be zero, but it doesn't say so.  Here's another quote from the same source:
There will be a number of returns in the radar gun’s received signal. The road, terrain, signs, trees, etc. will all be moving at one speed relative to the gun, and will return a signal Doppler-shifted by an amount corresponding to that velocity. Each vehicle that intercepts the beam will have a return with a Doppler shift that reflects its velocity relative to the gun. Most radar guns today will assume that the single largest return is the (presumably stationary) ground and the second largest return is the target vehicle, or vice versa, and report the difference in velocity between the two as the target vehicle speed relative to the ground.
Again it is implied that the speed of the road, signs, trees, etc. are moving at zero, but it doesn't say so.   I suppose it can be argued that the signal from the ground could indicate the police car is moving at 60 mph and that speed is either subtracted from the speed of an oncoming car (150 mph if the speeder is coming toward the police car at 90 mph) or added to the speed of the police car (30 mph if the speeder is going away from the police car), but the gun would have to be set differently for speeders moving away versus speeders approaching.  I need to have things stated in unambiguous terms, otherwise I'll get nothing but arguments from the mathematicians.  

One mathematician crossed the line in a post yesterday:  Someone who posts as "rotchm" wrote this:  

So it is now concluded that YOU LIE, that you intentionally misquote and change the quotes to serve your needs. Totally fraudulent and disgraceful behavior. I will report this to your publishers and the author of that new book (anthrax/fbi thing on your site). We dont need liars like you.
I immediately informed him that he is now on my "Do Not Reply" list.  But, I see four posts from him this morning.  I'll continue to read his posts, since they show his misunderstandings (which can be interesting and informative), but I won't respond to any of them.  There are a bunch of other posts from overnight which require responses, however, and it is now time for me to do that.


Comments for Sunday, May 13, 2018, thru Saturday, May 19, 2018:

May 16, 2018 - The arguments are coming in hot and heavy on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum where I posted a link to my new paper about "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments."  As of this moment, there are 61 posts in the thread, 22 of them from me, including the post that started the thread.

While a lot of it is just complaints that I do not use the words they use or explain things the way they learned those things, some of it is pretty interesting.  Paul Anderson posted links to seven papers he has on his web site which he claims all show that light travels at the same speed everywhere.  But, I think they just show that light travels at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND within all inertial "frames of reference" even when the length of a "second" is different in those frames.  I'll check them out to see if I can use them as references in some paper of mine.  Here they are:
1. Kennedy-Thorndike
2. Michelson-1913
3. Babcock-Bergman
4. Alvager et al
5. Beckman-Mandics
6. Filippas-Fox
7. Bretcher
I already had copies of them all in my files, and I recall using #4 as a reference in some paper where I showed Alvager et al had no moving observer.  But, I plan to go through each one to see what it says about the speed of light.

Meanwhile, I slapped together a cartoon to use to start a discussion about my new paper on Facebook's Astrophysics & Physics group.  Here's the cartoon:
Einstein debates
This morning I see the cartoon and my comment have received 8 "likes" and 5 "Wows."  One person also responded by posting five comments.  All are his negative opinions.  Here is his first comment in its entirety:
Cheers, but given your track record, I’ll just read what Einstein himself wrote, have a look at the actual mathematics, and if I need to look elsewhere I’ll trust people like Bertotti who actually worked on the theories with him.

I’ve already seen your work, and I know what quality I can expect from people trying to seek attention with “independent papers”.
I couldn't recall the name Bertotti, so I looked him up on Wikipedia.  It says Bertotti was born in 1930, so he was only 25 when Einstein died in 1955.  It also says, "Bertotti was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1958-59" so he arrived in Princeton 3 years after Einstein died.  But, do I want to argue with the guy on Facebook about it?  I think not.

I also started a thread about my new paper on Google's Sci.,Physics,Research discussion forum, but it is clearly a forum that is rarely accessed.  It takes a long time for a post to show up there.  There was one (negative) response overnight.  I responded to it, but a half hour later my response still wasn't showing up.

Finally, it seems 23 people have viewed my new paper since I put it on vixra.org. That's not very many, but maybe it will get some "word of mouth" action.  Time will tell.


May 15, 2018 - This morning I see there are only 17 posts and 36 views in the thread I started yesterday on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  None are particularly interesting.  No one seems to have bothered to read more than a few pages of the paper.   Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "simplifying" in the title of a 26-page paper.  If something is "simplified" it should be explainable in a 1-page paper.  Maybe I'll title the second draft "Reviewing Einstein's Thought Experiments."

Only 3 of the overnight posts required a response from me.  The first was a post from someone else to someone else, a post mentioning "length contraction," which I address in my paper.  So, I pointed that out to them.  The second was by someone who argue against Experiment #1 in my paper, complaining that it doesn't do what the experiment is supposed to do.  I explained to him that is because I do what he says the experiment is "supposed to do" in Experiments #2 and #3, because it is important to see the result of the same experiment performed in different ways.  The third comment requiring a response from me was from "Paul Anderson" who wanted to restart an argument from April, but I didn't disagree with anything he wrote last night, and I told him so. 

So, now I'm waiting to see if my responses generate new argument and if some of the regulars who haven't yet posted so far post comments during the day today.

Meanwhile, when I looked at the web page which shows all the papers recently placed on vixra.org, I saw several papers about subjects similar to the subject of my paper.  One paper posted on Sunday, for example, is titled "Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity Argued Against."  It's written by someone in Hungary who seems to be arguing that Einstein shouldn't have said events are simultaneous just because they were viewed as being simultaneous.  Is that what Einstein wrote, or is that how Einstein's words are interpreted?  It is not how I interpret what Einstein wrote.

I'm thinking I should also post a comment to Google's Science, Physics, Research discussion group, to see what reaction I get there.  I never posted there before. (It doesn't seem to be a very popular group.  I see only one or two posts per day.)  I'm also thinking about posting something to Facebook about my paper, in an attempt to get a discussion going there.  But, I'd need an illustration to get those people interested.  I'm thinking of creating a cartoon where three groups of people are arguing with each other.  One group argues, "We agree that Einstein didn't mean what he wrote, and we agree about what Einstein actually meant!"  Another group argues, "We disagree with Group One and agree that Einstein meant what he wrote!"  And a third group argues, "We disagree with Einstein, we think he meant what he wrote, but we agree with Group One that Einstein should have written what they mistakenly believe he meant." 

I really hope I can get at least one person to discuss my paper and how it relates to what it taught in colleges and universities around the world.

May 14, 2018 (B) - Just before lunch this morning, I finished the first draft of my new science paper titled "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments."  I then submitted it to vixra.org, and when I returned from a workout at the gym this afternoon I found an email in my inbox informing me that the paper was now available on-line at the link above.

So, of course, the next thing I did was to start a new thread on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum asking for "constructive criticism on how to improve the paper or clarify the ideas."   I received the first response 10 minutes later.  Here it is in its entirety:

... it is essentially useless since the train/bank Gedanken is well understood and has never been misinterpreted by actual scientists. The only people who don't understand it are folks who do not have the math-physics background necessary to do so... like, for example, YOU, Ed...
So, we're off to a routine start with a dogma opinion and a personal attack.  Since it's time for me to shut down my computer for today, I'll find out tomorrow if there were any intelligent comments overnight.

May 14, 2018 (A) - Hmm.  Evidently, last night's edition of the Australian current affairs program "60 Minutes" was about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.  This morning there are a number of news articles about it.  The article in the International Business Times is titled "MH370 Mystery: 'Premeditated Murder' Planned By Flight's Pilot, Experts Claim."  The experts are claiming that the pilot of MH370 committed suicide and took all of his passengers with him.  That's the same conclusion I arrived at back on May 10, 2015, because it seemed to be what most commercial pilots also believe.

The article also indicates that the search by an independent contractor that began about six months ago on a "no find, no fee" agreement is still in progress, even though it is now getting close to winter on that side of the world. 

May 13, 2018 - This is another one of those Sunday mornings when I do not have anything prepared and already written for my Sunday comment.  So, I have to start from scratch.

The reason I have nothing written is because I've been working on my new paper about Einstein's thought experiments.  I'm really excited about it, and I really want to get it on-line so I can get people's opinions about it.  In the process of writing it, I've been clarifying and organizing my own thoughts about Relativity, and I've been stunned at how simple it really is.  And it is also very clear that my view is Einstein's view, and the people with whom I've been arguing (and all the college textbooks they got their mistaken beliefs from) are wrong.  And I wonder how anyone will be able to argue that it is more complicated than how I describe it.  

Yesterday it was a choice between continuing to work on that paper or starting work on this comment.  I worked on the paper.  Right now, it looks like I should be able to put a first draft on Vixra-org sometime this week, maybe as early as Tuesday.

I keep changing the title.  The current title is "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments."  But maybe it should be "Einstein's thought Experiments Simplified."  Or maybe "Analyzing Einstein's Thought Experiments" would be better.  Or maybe I should go a different route and title it "Simplified Relativity" or "Simplifying Relativity."  Or "Relativity Simplified."  We'll see what happens.

The current version is 24 pages long.  I think another 2 or 3 pages might be needed before I'll have a good "first draft."  A big part of the work has gone into the illustrations.  It has 27 illustrations, but 2 or 3 of them need to be overhauled before I release the "first draft."  A lot more can be improved, but I can do that in later drafts. 

Meanwhile, I've been continuing the discussion on Facebook's Astrophysics and Physics group about the difference between the Big Bang Universe and the Observable Universe.  It's an argument about things that aren't in the paper I'm currently working on, but probably should be in a different paper.  In the process of writing that different paper I may figure out some things that I'm not clear about. 

Back on May 8, I posted this illustration of the Observable Universe that I found on NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day website:

The visible universe 

The Earth as it exists today is at the center of the above illustration.  The outer edge of the disk is the universe as it existed 13.8 billion years ago.  The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the spider-web yellow and pink stuff just inside of the outer edge of the disk.  So, the CMB surrounds us on all sides.

The problem is reconciling the above image to an image of the Big Bang Universe timeline as shown in the image below:

The Big Bang Universe
  
In the second image we are located in one of the "present day" galaxies at the far right.  The Cosmic Microwave Background is the green stuff on the left, between "The Dark Age"which is in dark blue, and the pink and yellow stuff that represents the "Age of Inflation," the period when the material from the Big Bang expanded at a much faster rate than today's rate of expansion.

So, the disk version is like sticking a pin in our galaxy on the right in the second image and then spinning the second image around to create the disk version. 
In the Facebook discussions it became clear that the others couldn't make the leap between the long Big Bang illustration with the Earth at one end and the Big Bang at the other, and the disk illustration with the Earth in the center.  I then found the illustration shown below, which represents what a section of that disk would look like in 3 dimensions:

A slice of time and the universe
   
But there is still something that isn't quite easily understandable.  I visualize the problem as you and I standing side by side a very tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Then you and I moved apart as the universe expanded in the seconds after the Big Bang.  We must have moved apart much faster than the speed of light if today we cannot see each other (although if we both moved apart from each other, each moving at nearly the speed of light, we would very quickly lose sight of each other).  It probably also relates to why we cannot see the Big Bang in all directions if we can see the CMB in all directions.  Another part of the answer is that there was nothing to be seen in the Big Bang.  It happened in darkness.  We can see the darkness.  And the "Age of Inflation" also happened in darkness, and during the "Age of Inflation" things did move apart much faster than the speed of light (there was no light).

But, all that thinking about that problem is doing is keeping me from finishing my paper on "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments."  Or should it be titled "The Logic of Einstein's Thought Experiments"?  Or "Einstein's Logical Thought Experiments"?   








Other interests:

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

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


            
© 2018 by Ed Lake