|
Comments for Sunday July
14, 2019, thru Saturday, July 20, 2019:
July 17,
2019 - The
mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion group are still arguing
about something I wrote on July 13. I
wrote:
A speed that is a
PERCENTAGE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS a
speed that is
RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Last night, the
mathematician named "Tom" wrote:
No, it isn't. This is
physics, and the word "relative" has a
very
specific meaning, which is
not this.
Is 1/2 somehow "relative
to 1" or "relative to 2" or "relative to
3" or
... -- your assertion
simply does not make sense.
At best this is a PUN on
"relative", which destroys your attempts
to use it in place of "relative
to the inertial frame in which the radar
gun is at rest" -- that is a
QUITE DIFFERENT meaning of "relative" than
the wishy-washy
one you made up (and which nobody else
ever uses).
If "relative to the
speed of light" were correct, why do
you
suppose that no physicist ever uses
it???? (I suppose
that
some idiots and crackpots might use it.)
So, this morning I decided
to find out if physicists use the term
"relative to the speed of light." I
began by doing a
Google search for that exact term.
I was informed that the term is used over 5
million times on the Internet, but the
vast majority are just the same material
used in different places. Looking
through the links, I found a
Wikipedia web page that says,
β in special
relativity is the velocity, v,
of an object relative
to the speed of light, c:
β = v/c.
... β is dimensionless and
equal to the velocity in natural units.
Any expression which involves v,
like the Lorentz factor,
can be rewritten using β instead.
So, in physics, the Beta
symbol (β)
means "the velocity of
an object relative to the speed of
light"! It appears that physicists
commonly use the term (and the Beta symbol)
but mathematicians like Tom may not.
On the physicsclassroom.com
web site I found this:
One
indicator of the optical density of a
material is the index of refraction
value of the material. Index of
refraction values (represented by the
symbol n)
are numerical index values that are
expressed relative to the speed of
light in a vacuum. The
index of refraction value of a material
is a number that indicates the number of
times slower that a light wave would be
in that material than it is in a vacuum.
So, there is another symbol
(n) which also has the meaning "relative to
the speed of light."
Searching further, I found a scientific
paper titled "The
Beta Ratio in Special Relativity."
This is the first sentence in the Abstract:
The Beta ratio in special
relativity [1] is commonly expressed as β
= v/c where v is the velocity between two
bodies, and c is the speed of
light.
Reference [1], of course is
Einstein's 1905 paper about Special
Relativity.
There were a lot more mentions of the term,
but I next did a search for "relative
to the speed of light" using Google
Scholar and got 1,620
results. One arxiv.org paper titled "Measurement
of the Group Velocity of Light in Sea
Water at the ANTARES Site" seems
to have nearly a hundred authors and
contains this sentence on page 4:
In this, β
is the velocity of the particle relative
to the speed of light in vacuum.
And, of course, there are
1,619 more documents using the term.
Could it be that mathematicians just
use the symbols without any
understanding of what the symbols
actually mean?
That's the only way Tom's statement
makes sense.
July 16, 2019 -
Yesterday's discovery of a bunch of jokes
about mathematicians spurred me on to look
for more. While an Internet search
found a lot of mediocre jokes, I also found
two quotations that are worth repeating:
Mathematicians are like
Frenchmen: whatever you say to them, they
translate it into their own language, and
forthwith it means something entirely
different. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
A mathematician is a blind
man in a dark room looking for a black cat
which isn’t there. - Charles R Darwin
The Goethe quote seems to be
everywhere on the Internet, but no one
provides a source for it, i.e., they do not
name a document written by Goethe that
contains the quote.
The Darwin quote also seems to be everywhere
on the Internet with no one providing a
source for it. One
web page said it was quoted in a book
titled "PI
in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and
Being" by John D. Barrow, but
the book just uses the Darwin quote to start
a chapter and doesn't state where it came
from. However, the book has another
interesting quote right after the Darwin
quote:
I knew a mathematician who
said, "I do not know as much as God, but I
know as much as God did at my age." -
Milton Shulman
PI in the Sky looks
like a very interesting book, but when will
I ever find time to read it?
The quote I found yesterday which said,
"physicists tell mathematician jokes"
spurred me on to search for physicists vs
mathematician references. I found a
web page titled "Even
physicists are 'afraid' of mathematics."
It says,
Physicists avoid highly
mathematical work despite being trained in
advanced mathematics, new research
suggests.
The study, published in the New Journal of
Physics, shows that physicists pay less
attention to theories that are crammed
with mathematical details. This suggests
there are real and widespread barriers to
communicating mathematical work, and that
this is not because of poor training in
mathematical skills, or because there
is a social stigma about doing well in
mathematics.
One can see from all the
jokes about mathematicians where the "social
stigma" comes from. Those who do well
in mathematics seem unable to discuss
anything except in mathematical terms, and
they view anyone who attempts to discuss
physics without using mathematics as being
of inferior intellect and in need of
additional schooling in mathematics.
That is probably typified by a guy named
"Tom" on the
sci.physics.relativity UseNet group
who yesterday responded to some comments of
mine from days before:
Me: I have
repeatedly stated that a radar gun
measures speeds relative to the local
speed of light.
Tom: But
that is impossible. No radar gun, or
anything else, does that.
Me: That is
EXACTLY what DOPPLER radar guns do.
Tom: Only in
your personal FANTASY world.
In
the real world, the one in which such
radar guns exist, they emit a radar wave [@] of
frequency f1, and receive a reflected
wave from the target with frequency
f2. They determine the target's speed
RELATIVE TO THE RADAR GUN by
heterodyning the two signals to get
f2-f1 and applying the formula for Doppler
shift. The speed of light has nothing to
do with it [#]. The ground also
has nothing to do with it (unless
something fixed to the ground is
the target).
[@]
Yes, WAVE. Your
attempts to describe this in terms
of "photons"
are ludicrous.
[#]
The Doppler-shift formula depends on c,
the symmetry speed of relativity.
This is different from, but numerically
equal
to, the (vacuum) speed of light.
If I quote a
NASA source where a single photon is
used to explain how a police radar gun
works, Tom just says they are "dumbing down"
what really happens, because ordinary people
are just too dumb to comprehend
reality. And since the "dumbing down"
version says just the opposite of what is
know to Tom to be true, NASA is actually
LYING.
If I quote Richard Feynman, who said,
"I want to emphasize that
light comes in this form - particles. It
is very important to know that
light behaves like particles, especially
for those of you who have gone to
school, where you were probably told
something about light behaving like
waves. I'm telling you the way it
does behave - like particles."
Tom will just laugh and
argue that Feynman wasn't talking about
radar, or Feynman clearly knew nothing about
radar, because radar emits waves, not
photons. And it becomes another
opinion versus opinion argument which only
ends when the non-mathematician gets tired
of arguing with the mathematician.
I really really need to find
some way to get others to perform
experiments with radar guns. Solid
experiments may not change the minds of any
mathematicians, but it should relegate their
beliefs to be something to
write jokes about.
July 15, 2019 -
After I finished writing and posting
yesterday's "Sunday comment," I felt like
just relaxing and reading a book. But,
at the same time, my mind was still looking
for ways to get someone to use a "basic"
radar gun to demonstrate that such a gun
measures motion relative to the speed of
light, which is interpreted to mean relative
to the gun or to a target. I cannot
read a book if my mind is on other things,
but I could try listening to an audio book,
since the audio book will continue to play
whether I'm paying attention or not.
So that is what I did. I listened to
the 5-hour 58-minute unabridged audio book
version of Dashiell Hammett's crime novel "The Thin Man."
The story takes place in 1933, during
Prohibition. So, it begins in a "speakeasy."
I have the
1934 William Powell-Myrna Loy movie on
DVD, and I've probably watched it and TV
showings of it at least 6 or 7 times,
probably more. I recall the movie also
begins in a drinking establishment, but
since Prohibition ended in 1933, I remember
it as being a very elegant night club, not a
"speakeasy." The book also mentions the
Lindbergh kidnapping, which happened
in 1932. I'm certain that wasn't
mentioned in the movie, but I'll watch it
again in a day or two just to make
certain. (My records show the last
time I watched it was on May 6, 2017.)
I recalled reading a Dashiell Hammett novel
some time ago and writing a comment about
it. Checking on it, I found that it
was "Red
Harvest," which I finished on January 24, 2016.
Anyway, I finished listening to The Thin
Man around 9:30 last night. The fact
that my mind kept drifting to scientific
problems wasn't helped by the fact that the
book has a LOT of different
characters. You really need to pay
attention if you want to remember who all
the characters are and how they
inter-relate. It's easier when you see
the names in print. Just hearing
a name doesn't usually make it memorable, at
least not for me.
So, while the book wasn't exactly
fascinating and absorbing, it was
occasionally funny and a good way to pass
the time. This morning I put Return
of the Thin Man into my MP3
player. (I'm third in line waiting to
borrow the one audio book copy of The
Maltese Falcon that my library
has available.)
Hmm. Just now, as I was returning from
my kitchen with a fresh cup of coffee, I
happened to notice a
paperback book in my own library and I
wondered what it had to say about
mathematicians. It has a lot
to say. The first quote worth
mentioning is on page 10 and says,
In any academic setting,
the scientists get along like a great big
happy
family' — with lots of bickering.
Engineers tell physicist jokes,
physicists tell
mathematician jokes, mathematicians
tell engineer jokes, and it all goes
around and around.
That's interesting.
The book turns out to have a lot
of mathematician jokes. Another quote from
page 15 and 16 says,
A mathematician became captain of the kind
of ship that actually sinks on purpose — a submarine. His briefing
speech to new sailors went as follows:
“ I have developed a
simple method that you would do well to
learn.
Every day, count the
number of times the submarine has dived
since
you boarded. Add to this
the number of times it has surfaced. If
the sum you arrive at is
not an even number— don’t open the
hatches!”
Here's one from page 50:
“I don’t think my
directional signal is working,” a
physicist complained to her friend the
mathematician. “Would you mind getting out
of the
car to take a look?”
The mathematician walked
over behind the car. “Okay, turn the
blinker on. Yes, it’s
working; now it isn’t, now it is, now it
isn’t . . .”
This one from page 87 is
particularly relevant to the discussions I
had with the mathematicians on UseNet:
“And the result follows
here quite obviously,” the cyberneticist
Norbert Wiener (1894—1964)
once told a class.
One student timidly raised
his hand and said, Professor Wiener,
I’m afraid I don’t see
it.”
“Very well,” said Wiener,
“ Perhaps I can derive it by some other
method.” He gazed into
space for a moment, then nodded. “Yes,” he
said, “by a completely
different method precisely the same
result.”
He beamed at the student.
“But, Professor Wiener, I
still don’t understand.”
Wiener looked stern.
“Young man, if you can’ t understand such
a simple matter as this,
having seen it derived by two quite
different
methods, I am afraid you
will never be a mathematician!”
I could go on and on, but
I'll just quote one more. It's from
page 153:
According to Fields
Medalist Enrico Bombieri, there are three
kinds
of mathematicians: those who can count,
and those who can’t.
Finding those quotes was an
interesting way to spend an hour, but it
doesn't really help me solve the problem I
have with mathematicians.
July 14, 2019 - Yesterday
afternoon, I finally put an end to the arguments
on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum, even though the
arguments were helping me to understand how the
mathematicians there can believe the crazy
things they believe. It became clear that
they believe what they believe because in
college they were told to memorize and accept
what they were told or they would flunk the
course. They were told to believe it even
if it did not make sense.
But that also means they do not
understand it, they just believe
it. To truly understand something,
it must
make sense to you.
I've been trying to make sense of what the
mathematicians believe. The only way it
makes sense is if they just believe it because
it is what they were taught in school, and they
weren't allowed to question it. (Their
attitude is also like a bunch of high-school
know-it-alls who feel they understand everything
about everything and can laugh at anyone who
does not "know" what they "know.")
The problem then becomes: How can you convince
all these people that they believe
nonsense? You probably can't. Most
people seem to believe what they want to
believe. I spent more than a decade
arguing with people who had conspiracy theories
or alternative theories about who committed the
anthrax mail attacks in 2001. I don't
think I ever changed anyone's
mind. Facts mean nothing to someone who
thinks he knows more than everyone else.
But, experiments are different.
There were no experiments which could be
performed to show conspiracy theorists they were
wrong about the anthrax attacks, but there
definitely are experiments which can be
performed to verify Einstein's theories.
And in the past 100 years a great many such
experiments have been performed, mostly to
confirm time dilation.
That's why I'm still looking to see radar gun
experiments performed to demonstrate that many
of the beliefs held by mathematicians are
totally wrong.
But who is going to do it? The impression
I'm getting is that no one wants to
argue with the mathematicians.
People will perform experiments, create web
sites or write papers that confirm Einstein's
theories, but they NEVER seem to
mention that they are also showing that many
college text books and the mathematicians who
wrote them are wrong.
When you point to an experiment that shows the
college textbooks are wrong, mathematicians will
argue that the experimenters are incompetent or
that they were "dumbing down" their findings for
the lowly common people who cannot comprehend
physics the way mathematicians do. That
was the response I got when talking about the
NIST time dilation experiment, about using
atomic clocks to measure the height of a
mountain, about the
Hafele-Keating experiment, and about every
other time dilation experiment. Those
experimenters just performed their experiments
and let the world ponder them. They said
the experiments confirmed Einstein's theories,
but they didn't say anything about who or what
the experiments disproved.
If my understandings are correct, what radar gun
experiments would disprove is the
most cherished belief held by mathematicians,
the belief that: All motion is relative,
which means that if Frame-A is moving at
velocity v relative to Frame-B, Frame-B is also
moving at velocity v relative to Frame-A.
Neither Frame-A nor Frame-B is a "preferred"
frame of reference.
Prior to Einstein,
physicist-mathematicians imagined that an
invisible aether filled the entire universe,
the aether was completely stationary, and
thus all other movements in the universe
could be measured relative to the stationary
aether. And light traveled as waves
through the aether, just like waves through
water.
Mathematicians accept that Einstein's Theory
of Special Relativity showed that there is no
stationary aether filling the universe.
They interpret that as meaning that there is
no way to measure motion in our universe
except as being relative to another object,
and each object measures its motion relative
to the other object. That means there
is no preferred frame of reference for motion.
It is the basis for the #1
dumbest belief in physics.
I have been arguing that Einstein's Theory of
Special Relativity says that the speed of
light can be used as a "preferred" frame of
reference. Einstein said it replaced
the imaginary aether that mathematicians
previously used as a "preferred" frame of
reference from which all movements are
measured. He even provided a mathematical
formula for calculating speeds relative to
the speed of light:
Instead of being relative to an object, speeds
can be measured as a percentage of the
speed of light. Such speeds are obviously
also relative to the speed of light.
But the mathematicians cannot accept that.
Here is what the troll named "Odd Bodkin" wrote
overnight:
Ed Lake wants to think
that “relative speed” as a physics term means
the fraction of one speed compared to another
speed.
Not knowing what any physics
term means he feels free to just guess and then insist with high confidence
that his blind guess is of course right. And he sees no point in learning
what the physics term REALLY means.
And here is what another troll
named "rotchm" wrote a few minutes later:
You are misusing,
misunderstanding, the meaning of 'relative'.
The word 'relative' has many different
meanings (did you know that?). You Are totally
mixing them up. Its like you are saying that
30 mph cant be relative because your relatives
are humans (kin, people, family) and 30 is not
a human but a number. You are using the word
'relative' as "my family". That is NOT the
meaning of 'relative' as we are using it in
physics. You have an EXTREMELY SEVERE reading
& comprehension deficiency.
And even though the whole
two-week-long discussion (currently consisting
of 239 posts) was about using radar guns
to measure velocities, this morning "Paparios"
argued:
My car speedometer
tells me my car is moving at 36 km/hr (10
meters/second) with
respect to the ground. That 10 m/s speed is
equal to 0.01 km/s and is equal to 3.3333x10^-8c.
Again you are saying that my car
moving at 36 km/hr means its speed is being measured relative to the speed of
light.
Do you not see the magnitude of
your ignorance?
Responding to those three or any
one of the others would be an opinion versus
opinion argument, which are a total waste of
time. It is Einstein, not me, who stated
that speeds can be measured as relative to the
speed of light. But, the mathematicians
won't believe that unless I can provide a direct
quote where Einstein wrote IN ENGLISH the exact
words "speeds
can be measured as relative to the speed of
light."
And, even then, they would argue that it may
be what Einstein wrote, but it
isn't what Einstein meant.
I'm done arguing with those
mathematicians. Instead, I'm going to
focus on finding some way to demonstrate what a
"basic" radar will show when it is used on a
moving vehicle and is pointed at a parked car,
and what the same gun will show when used inside
a moving vehicle and the gun is pointed at the
front and rear walls (or dashboard and back
seats).
If it is truly a "basic" radar gun and it proves
me wrong, then I'll admit it and say nothing
more about the subject. If I'm proved
right, however, I'll be mentioning every
experiment which says I'm right and how those
experiments also show that the mathematicians
and their text books are wrong.
|
Comments for Sunday July
7, 2019, thru Saturday, July 13, 2019:
July 11,
2019 - While the
arguments on the sci.physics.relativity
forum are still unanimously against
me, the pattern elsewhere is very
positive. This morning the statistics
on Academia.edu
look like this:
It says there have been "140
views" since I put it on academia.edu on
July 2, but only "21 Readers." That
means that 140 people have downloaded the
paper, but only 21 have "bookmarked"
it. I'm not sure what "bookmarked"
means in this context, but I suspect it
means 21 people did something to enable them
to find my paper again quickly if they need
to - possibly to use as a reference in
papers they are writing.
This morning, I also got a nice comment from
someone on Academia.edu that said,
Dear Ed,
Radar Guns and Einstein's
Theories
What sparked my interest
was the catchy title. Having opened the
paper, I find much food for thought. Keep
up the good work
On Facebook it is still
nearly all "Likes" and no more personal
attacks. And the number of new people
reading my paper Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories
each day on vixra.org
continues to be above zero.
As of this morning, the total number of new
readers who have viewed the paper since it
went on-line on July 1 is 56. The new
reads reported on each following morning
were spaced as follows:
July 2
= 1
July 3
= 3
July 4
= 8
July 5
= 4
July 6
= 0
July 7
= 1
July 8
= 3
July 9 =
18
July 10 = 14
July 11
= 4
Unfortunately, I have no way
of telling if any of these reads will lead
to someone doing actual experiments with
radar guns to verify what is said in my
paper. So, I'll continue to look for
other places where I can get people to read
my paper and possibly become curious enough
to perform experiments.
July 9, 2019 - My paper Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories on
vixra.org got 18 unique IP views
yesterday. I don't think I ever before
got 18 views in one day for any paper of
mine on vixra.org. I think they might
be mostly from Neil
deGrass Tyson's Facebook page.
On that page my comment about my paper got 4
"Likes" and 2 "shares." In addition,
there have been no negative comments
so far. David Beames was the first to
post a comment, and all he said was, "Seems
you'd need at least two [photons] to tell
distance traveled and thus speed." To
which Scott Gordon correctly responded,
"Even one photon will still experience a
Doppler shift due to reflecting off a moving
object. Photon energy is proportional to
frequency hence changes." So, there
was no need for me to respond. I just
"Liked" Scott Gordon's comment.
Meanwhile, that same paper has gotten about
150 reads on Academia.edu
in the past 5 days, but I think Academia.edu
sent out emails to all members telling them
about my paper.
And some of the vixra reads may be coming
from the Science,
Philosophy, and Psychology Discussion
Facebook group where I also posted a
comment. I got two "likes" there, with
no negative attacks.
There are plenty of attacks on the sci.physics.relativity
UseNet group, of course. Some are very
interesting. I tried to get them to
explain how they can agree that light can
reach a moving observer at a "closing speed"
of c+v, where v is the
speed of the observer, but they still
inexplicably claim the light will be
observed by the observer to arrive at c.
It's totally illogical. The light
arrives at a closing speed of c+v
but also at c????
Wikipedia's
comment about "closing speed" says,
Closing speeds
The rate at which two objects in motion in a
single frame of reference get closer together
is called the mutual or closing speed. This
may approach twice the speed of light, as in
the case of two particles travelling at close
to the speed of light in opposite directions
with respect to the reference frame.
Imagine two fast-moving particles approaching
each other from opposite sides of a particle
accelerator of the collider type. The
closing speed would be the rate at which the
distance between the two particles is
decreasing. From the point of view of an
observer standing at rest relative to the
accelerator, this rate will be slightly less
than twice the speed of light.
Special
relativity does not prohibit this. It
tells us that it is wrong to use Galilean relativity to
compute the velocity of one of the particles,
as would be measured by an observer traveling
alongside the other particle. That is, special
relativity gives the correct velocity-addition
formula for computing such relative velocity.
I think that says
Einstein's Special Relativity says it is
okay for light to arrive at c+v, but
Galilean relativity says c becomes
the speed at which the light arrives, so it
may be c with a different
value. I'm still trying to get someone
to explain it to me. Paparios just
posted a lengthy response which doesn't seem
to address the issue at all. It's just
about his other misconceptions. Sigh.
July 8, 2019 -
Yesterday, while eating breakfast, I
finished reading another book on my
Kindle. It was "Win
Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts
Don't Matter" by Scott
Adams.
Scott Adams is the cartoonist who draws the
Dilbert cartoons. A couple samples are shown
below.
I knew that Scott Adams drew the Dilbert
cartoons, but I didn't know that he had a
big following on Twitter and was making his
political opinions known by many media
interviews. Nor did I know that he was
a professional hypnotist.
I'm not sure what I was expecting when I
borrowed the Kindle book from my local
library, but I was probably expecting
something a lot more funny. The book
is actually deadly serious,
and it is written by a guy who endlessly
brags about his own accomplishments, who
admits to being a great admirer of Donald
Trump, and who seems to think that
manipulating people is one of the greatest
and most important talents in the
world. Here's the first passage I
highlighted in the book:
When candidate Trump
answered questions about policies, it was
clear he didn’t have a detailed
understanding of the more complicated
issues. Most observers saw this as a fatal
flaw that would keep him out of the White
House. I didn’t see it that way. I saw
it as Trump recognizing that people don’t use facts
and reason to make decisions. A
skilled persuader can blatantly ignore
facts and policy details so long as the
persuasion is skillful.
The author seems to truly
believe that "people don't use facts and
reason to make decisions." I think I do
use facts and reason to make decisions, but
probably not all the time. I think the world
consists of people who mostly
use emotions to make decisions and people
who mostly use facts and
reason to make decisions. I think the
people in the first category may
outnumber the people in the second category.
Here's another quote from the book where the
author brags about how he manipulated people
to support Trump:
So why did I say Trump had
exactly a 98 percent chance of winning
when I couldn’t possibly know the odds?
That’s a persuasion technique. You saw
Trump use the intentional wrongness
persuasion play over and over, and almost
always to good effect. The method goes
like this: Make a claim that is
directionally accurate but has a big
exaggeration or factual error in it. Wait
for people to notice the exaggeration or
error and spend endless hours talking
about how wrong it is. When you dedicate
focus and energy to an idea, you remember
it. And the things that have the most
mental impact on you will irrationally
seem as though they are high in priority,
even if they are not. That’s persuasion.
If I had boringly predicted that Trump
would win the election, without any odds
attached to it, the public would have
easily shrugged it off as another minor
celebrity’s irrelevant opinion. But if I
make you pause to argue with me in your
mind about the accuracy of the 98 percent
estimate, it deepens my persuasion on the
main point—that Trump has a surprisingly
high likelihood of winning.
A related quote:
I picked 98 percent as my
Trump prediction because Nate Silver of
FiveThirtyEight.com was saying 2 percent.
I did that for branding and persuasion
purposes.
Scott Adams' primary reason
for supporting Trump is Adams' absolute
hatred of the idea of estate taxes.
(Estate taxes were created early in the 20
Century when it was clear that the
Rockefellers, the Duponts, the Hersts and a
half-dozen other families would eventually
own the entire country if all the money and
property they accumulated could be passed
down from generation to generation.)
I already had a problem
with Hillary Clinton trying to rob my
estate after I died. Now I also wanted to
destroy the entire Democratic Party and
all of its “politically correct”
Nazi-labeling bullies. I rarely use my
persuasion skills at full strength. I only
do so in the context of a fight, or for
some greater good. This was both. You need
not remind me that Trump supporters on the
Internet were also terrible bullies in
many cases. But this is my story, and they
weren’t coming after me.
So, I certainly wouldn't
recommend the book, and there were many
times I thought about simply reading
something else, but I did get through
it. It gives me chills to see how some
people think.
Meanwhile, yesterday I posted comments about
Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to some
Facebook groups, including Neil
deGrass Tyson's group. It got
one "Like" there, but nothing else. I
also received an email from someone at
Decatur Electronics who explained that what
they mean when they say their Scout radar
gun does not "work" when it is moving is
that, if it is moving at 50 miles per hour
toward an oncoming car traveling at 60 mph,
the gun will show the oncoming car's speed
as 110 mph, not 60 mph. So, it appears
that none of the three guns I mentioned in
my paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories
actually does what I'd hoped. And I
have no idea how to identify which other
radar guns are "basic" radar guns.
July 7, 2019 - The arguments on the
Facebook thread I started on July 2nd have
come to an end. The forum seems to have a
troll named Iain Hilton who sees the forum as
his own personal troll space. In his last
post to me on July 5th, all he did was call me a
bunch of filthy names because I "can’t
even derive Pythagoras from the law of
cosines." That was the last post in
the thread.
Meanwhile, in the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum, the discussions have
been continuing, and while they occasionally
still generate good ideas, it seems clear that
the arguments have recently hit a wall.
The mathematicians there clearly do not
understand anything except mathematics, so they
cannot discuss anything except in mathematical
terms. I've been trying to get Paparios to
explain how a radar gun determines which speed
to put on which display, i.e., how does it
determine that it is measuring a target's speed when
it puts that speed in the digital display on
the left, and how does it determine that
it is measuring the patrol car's speed when it
puts that speed in the digital display on the right?
It is easy to do if you are measuring the speed
of the radar gun (and the patrol car) by using
the Doppler Effect when bouncing photons off of
the radar gun's radome, but the
mathematicians believe that is "impossible."
That shows a total lack of understanding of the
Doppler Effect as it applies to electromagnetic
energy in the form of photons. When the
gun is moving, photons emitted by the emitter at
the rear of the gun have to travel farther to
get to the radome because the radome is moving
away from the point where the photons were
emitted. I think Einstein described this
in one of his books or papers by writing about a
man on a moving train who walks toward the front
of the train while the train is moving.
By doing that, the man will enter the
station earlier than if he had stayed in the
back of the train. The distance between
the rear of the train and the front of the train
never changed, yet someone on the train can move
forward and arrive earlier than someone
remaining at the back.
In the arguments I see on sci.physics.relativity
this morning, Paparios is still arguing that the
gun always assumes that the slower speed
of two different speeds is the patrol
speed. He evidently just cannot understand
any situation where there is only ONE
speed. Yet, that is the situation when the
patrol car is moving at 31 mph and there are no
targets, and that is the situation when the
patrol car is parked and the only target is
traveling at 67 mph. How does the gun know
that in the first situation the measured speed
goes in the right-side display and in
the second situation the measured speed goes in
the left-side display? If zero is
considered to be the slowest speed, then both
situations should result in the only measured
speed being displayed as the target's
speed. I'll try to explain that to
Paparios one more time, but I seriously doubt
he'll have any answer that doesn't involve a
mathematical formula that somehow determines
which display to use by figuring out which is
the slowest speed.
These arguments also make me more and more
certain that my paper "Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories" is
rock solid science that needs to be made more
widely known. The most important aspect of
all this is that the way radar guns work is
really very simple. You
just have to ignore all the complications that
are added by mathematicians to justify their
belief that radar guns emit waves instead of
photons.
It's a situation where experiments can show
everyone that the mathematicians are
wrong. All you need to do is create video
after video where radar guns are used to
demonstrate that you can tell the speed of a
truck from INSIDE the truck by pointing a radar
gun at the front wall and pulling the
trigger. A "basic" radar gun should show
the truck's speed. A "complex" radar gun
like the Kustom Signals Golden Eagle K-band
Police Radar System used in the
video I've been discussing for weeks
should show the truck's speed in both the
"target" display window and
the patrol display window. There are some
"complex" radar guns which may not work in a
situation like that, such as the Bushnell
Speedster which has only one display window and
it is for the target, but that just makes things
more interesting, since it means you need to
explain the physics behind the fact that some
guns show the speed of the truck from inside and
some do not.
I just need to find someone to do the
experiments and show them on YouTube.
Mathematicians will argue that videos cannot
disprove their beliefs, but it would still be
interesting to see. And, if ALL the videos
disprove what I've been saying,
I'd definitely want to see that, too.
Until then, I'll be trying to find someone to do
the experiments and create videos of the
experiments.
|
Comments for Monday July
1, 2019, thru Saturday, July 6, 2019:
July 5,
2019 - When I
turned on my computer this morning, there
was an email in my inbox from a European
division of an American radar gun
manufacturing company. They sent me
the user's manual I had asked for on May
27. The email included a return
email address, so I asked them a
question. Hopefully, they will
respond.
Also this morning, when I checked the
statistics to find out how many people were
reading my radar gun paper, I found just 4
new readers of the version on Vixra.org,
but 42 new readers of the copy I put
on Academia.edu.
I think that is a one-day record of some
kind.
Meanwhile, I found CONFIRMATION of
about 90% of my paper on "Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories" in
a video I've been mentioning on this site
for months. The video is HERE.
Somehow, I failed to realize everything that
the video demonstrates. Yesterday, I
wrote a 7 page description of what is shown
in the video and put it on-line in pdf
format HERE.
The argument was originally just about
whether the hand-held radar gun in the
screen capture below (from the 5 minute mark
in the video) was pointed at the highway or
at the white car that was just passing by on
the outside lane.
When I discovered
that the hand-held gun is a Bushnell
Speedster SPORTS radar gun, I realized it must
be pointed at the highway if it reads
62 mph. And what the video
really shows is that the "Mis-aligned
Antenna" on the dashboard indicates that gun
is moving at 55 mph while the Bushnell gun
is moving at 62 mph. So, clearly the
guns do not show the speed of the
vehicle, they show the speed of the gun.
The mis-aligned gun is pointed off to one
side, which means that, due to the "cosine
effect," the displays show that
mis-aligned gun is moving slower than the
hand-held gun.
Going through the video again, I found that
it clearly demonstrates how a "basic" radar
gun works, in addition to
demonstrating how a "complex" radar gun
works. I created the pdf
file with my explanation of what the
video confirms. The only reaction I
got from one of the trolls on sci.physics.relativity
was:
Videos do not verify
theories, old deluded fart
Ah, but they do.
Experiments verify theories, and an
experiment can be done intentionally or
unintentionally. The people who made
the video just didn't intend
to demonstrate what they demonstrated.
Once you realize that a "complex" radar gun
emitter at the back of the gun sends out
photons that bounce off the target AND
off of the radome on the front of the gun,
what the video shows is very
educational. This is the illustration
I used in the pdf file to show the two
different measurements the gun makes.
The image below, from the 2 minute 33 second
mark in the video, shows what is displayed
when the gun and its radome are not moving
but the gun has a moving target within
range. The photons that travel to the
target are picking up a target that is
moving at 67 mph, and that speed shows on
the target speed display on the left
side of the display box. The gun's
speed would be shown in a display on the right,
which is dark because the speed is less than
10 mph.
This is the same thing a "basic" radar gun
would display, only it wouldn't have a
separate display for the gun's speed.
It would show only the target speed.
The
image below, from the 2 minute 54
second mark in the video, shows what
happens when the only reading the gun
can give is for the speed of the gun.
The gun shows only
its own speed of 31 mph, which is assumed to
also be the patrol car's speed. The
31 mph speed shows in the display on the right
side. There is no moving target ahead of the
gun, so the fact that the gun and car are
moving at 31 mph does not change the speed
of the photons the gun emits, in full
agreement with Einstein's Second
Postulate. That means the
photons from the gun hit the pavement and
the trees at the same speed they would if
the gun was stationary. Only a
"complex" radar gun has the ability to show
its own speed by measuring how fast the
radome is traveling.
A "basic" radar gun has no ability to show
its own speed, so in the situation above, it
would give no reading.
This confirms about 90% of what is in my
paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's
Theories. I assume that the
mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity
forum will see things differently, but I'd
like to see them argue something other than
that videos verify nothing. How would
I be able to demonstrate my theory to them
if I couldn't do it with a video?
July 4, 2019 - I hope
everyone has a great July 4 holiday!
July 3, 2019 -
Wow! They have as many obnoxious jerks
on the
Facebook Astrophysics and Physics forum
as they do on UseNet's sci.physics.relativity.
The only difference is that the jerks on
Facebook seem to respond faster. When
they do, of course, they hurl insults,
sarcasm and personal attacks instead of
discussing the subject of my post, just like
the jerks on UseNet.
One positive difference is that people on
Facebook can indicate they "Like" something
without actually writing a comment which the
jerks would then eviscerate. So far,
eight people "liked" the comment I put on
Facebook. Strangely, all of them seem
to have Indian or Middle Eastern names, and
none of the jerks do.
That tells me the next physics Facebook
group I should post to is one created by
people in the Middle East. I'm a
member of a couple.
The site also says three people "shared" my
post. Unfortunately, I do not know if
there is any way to determine where
they "shared" it.
Interestingly, one guy on the Astrophysics
and Physics forum argued "Light
is a lot faster that radio waves,
dude." That's the
first time I've encountered anyone who
believes that. The guy has a
radar detector in his car, and
he claimed that two links he provided
about radar detectors somehow
confirm his belief that light travels
faster than radio waves. But, of
course, he doesn't give any quotes,
and I don't have the time to hunt
through the sites at the links to find
out what he's talking about.
Later, that same guy (Mike Shelton)
argued,
Radio
waves are electrons,
travelling through the air.
You basically said radio waves
are photons.
and
Radio
waves do not travel at the
speed of light!!!
WTF is wrong with you?!!! I
give up!!! You need to take
electronics theory.
When I tried to
respond, I found that I was blocked by
an "owner" from doing so. I
thought for a moment that my
discussions there had come to an
end. When I reloaded the page,
however, I found that the entire
discussion I had with Mike Shelton
was removed. I did an
experiment to see if I could still
post, and I was able to do so.
So, someone evidently only deleted the
discussion with Mike Shelton because
Mike Shelton's claims and beliefs were
just too preposterous for the
forum. That's another first.
My
blog comment about Radar Guns and
Einstein's Theories received
just one response overnight. The
guy didn't provide any name, but
Paparios on the sci.physics.relativity
forum stated there that he had posted
to my blog. It was the same old
arguments, so I responded the same old
way.
There were only 2 readers of my
revised paper on Academia.edu
overnight, and only 3 on
vixra.org. I expected a lot
more, but 8 of my 9 papers on
vixra.org got new first-time readers
overnight. That's something that
hasn't happened in a long time.
July 2, 2019 - As
expected, the people on the
sci.physics.relativity forum just
hurled insults and sarcasm when I advised
them of the new version of my paper about Radar Guns and
Einstein's Theories.
Strangely, Paparios hasn't yet made any
comments. Also, there now seems to be
at least one person on my side on that
forum. Unfortunately, he posts like a
troll. When JanPB posted the same
question he has asked me at least a dozen
times before:
Why do you waste your time
on this?
Brzké Potrebu posted this
response:
You didn't read beyond the
first sentence in that paper.
And I posted this response
to JanPB's question:
How is resolving a one
hundred year old argument a "waste of
time"?
Then I moved to the next
step to publicize the paper: I posted it to
academia.edu.
Academia.edu doesn't have any easy way to
show different versions of the same paper,
so I posted the new version and changed the
name of old version to include "old version"
as part of the name. Whether or not it
will get a lot of viewers depends upon
whether or not academia.edu decides to send
out emails to advise its members about the
new version.
After putting the paper on academia.edu, I
wrote a comment for the Facebook group Astrophysics
and Physics. It's a moderated
group, so the comment is currently pending
review by a moderator. I didn't just
post the paper and ask people's opinions of
it, I somewhat disguised it by writing a
comment about NASA's
web site which says that a single
photon from a police radar gun can
theoretically measure the speed of an
oncoming car. I explained how that
seemed to contradict what is written in a
lot of college text books, according to the
paper "at the following link" (which is the
link to my paper). If they allow my
comment to appear on that Facebook group, it
could result in a lot of readers for
my paper. And it might generate some
new and different discussions, which is what
I'm hoping for. Either way, I might
try posting to the other Facebook groups
where I am a member - including, of course,
my own group Time
and Time Dilation, even though it
would be somewhat off-topic there.
As my final task this morning, I created a
new discussion thread on my
interactive blog and titled the thread
"Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories," of
course. It's the first time I've
started a new thread on that blog since
February 26, 2018. I have no idea how
people will learn about the new blog thread,
but it was something else on my to-do list
that I have now done.
July 1, 2019 - When I turned on
my computer this morning, there was an email
from Vixra.org in my inbox advising me that
version #4 of my paper on Radar Guns and
Einstein's Theories was now available
on-line at this link:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v4.pdf
As soon as it was available, someone named
"Mikko" immediately posted a
comment on Vixra stating that I didn't
correctly describe how the LO (Local Oscillator)
works inside the radar gun. He might be
right, but the paper correctly describes the purpose
and function of the LO. And I'm not
sure that having a lengthy description of how
the LO actually works would improve the
paper. The LO's purpose is to give the gun
something to compare returned photons
against. Besides, according
to at least one source:
In any electric circuit, the
smallest particle of electrical energy is
NOT the electron. The smallest particle of
energy is the "unit quantum" of
electromagnetic energy: it is the photon.
Electrons are not particles of EM energy,
neither do they individually carry the
energy as they travel in the circuit.
(Electricity is the medium. The energy
flows rapidly through the wave-medium.)
Electricity is 'made' of electrons and
protons, while electrical energy is electromagnetism
and is 'made' of photons.
That same person also complained
that "In some places the
fourth version correctly says that a radar gun
compares frequencies, but in other places it
still incorrectly says that a radar gun compare
wavelengths." I told him that may be so,
but I'm not going to create a fifth version just
to correct that kind of error.
Sigh. You can't please
everybody. But, it's also certainly
possible that he is just trying to be helpful.
Meanwhile, this afternoon I finished listening
to the 8-hour 29-minute audio book version
of "Sleeping
Giants" by Sylvain Neuvel.
Yesterday, after finishing writing my Sunday
comment and after submitting version #4 of Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories to vixra.org,
I had planned to sit down on my couch by the
window and read a Stephanie Plum paperback
novel. But, first I had to do some grocery
shopping. And while shopping, an ominous shelf
cloud was coming at me from the
west. I got home before the rain started,
but it was almost as dark as night
outside. So, instead of reading a
paperback novel by artificial light, I listened
to the first 7½ hours of Sleeping Giants,
not turning off my MP3 player until it was bed
time.
Sleeping Giants is book #1 in a
science-fiction series that begins with the
discovery of a gigantic metal hand in a pit in a
forest near Deadwood, South Dakota. The
discovery is made a young girl named Rose, who
accidentally falls into the pit. Rose
grows up to be a physicist who tries to figure
out where the metal hand and other artifacts in
the pit came from. And when other parts of
what seems to be a giant metal robot are found
in other parts of the world, Rose helps put the
robot together. It is a virtually
indestructible robot with a female figure and it
stands about 200 feet tall. The story is
about who buried the robot parts 3,000 years
ago, and why.
The story is told as a series of official
reports and transcripts, which is very unusual
but also kind of interesting. It was a
very enjoyable audio book, read by about a dozen
different actors, each reading a different
role.
I have the second book in the series, Waking
Gods, on reserve at my
library. I'm #18 in line waiting to read
one of the 3 audio book copies they have, so it
could be months before I can borrow a copy.
Right now, my next task is to mention version #4
of Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories on sci.physics.relativity.
|
Comments for Sunday June
23, 2019, thru Sunday, June 30, 2019:
June 30,
2019 - After making about a dozen
minor changes to the latest version (version #4)
of my paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories
this morning, I submitted it to Vixra.org at
11:09 AM. It should be available on-line
tomorrow morning. If so, I'll write a
comment to that effect.
Since the theory described in the paper can be
easily confirmed by experiment, I'm hoping
someone will do so. I don't have the
$1,195 needed to buy a Genesis GHD (Genesis
Hand-held Directional), nor the $995 needed to
buy a Genesis VPD (Vehicle Processing
Directional), nor even $845 to buy a Decatur
Scout radar gun. And, even if I did buy
one of them, I seriously doubt that anyone would
accept that I used the gun to prove my own
theory. They will only accept validating
results if they come from someone else.
And, if other people want to help validate the
theory, I say, "The more the merrier."
The revised paper suggests that any of those
three radar guns made by Decatur Electronics,
Inc., can be used in such an experiment.
The primary basis I have for picking those three
guns is because their user's manuals say the
guns will not "work" if the guns are
moving. I interpret that as meaning the
guns will not show relative speeds as
most other guns do, the three guns will show actual
speeds. While "complex" radar guns will
show a highway sign to be moving at 60 mph (it's
relative speed) if the gun is pointed at the
sign from a vehicle traveling at 60 mph, "basic"
radar guns do not "work" that way. They
will show the highway sign to be stationary,
with an "actual" speed of zero.
All three of the guns have "directional"
capability. That means there is a button
on the gun that will tell you if the 60 mph
reading the gun shows means the target is moving
toward the gun or away from the gun.
According to my paper, that also means that a
gun used inside a truck can tell
which way the truck moving at 60 mph.
Point the gun at the front wall and the gun will
tell you the wall is moving at 60 mph away
from the gun. Point the gun at the rear
wall, and the gun will tell you that the rear
wall is moving at 60 mph toward the gun.
My revised paper also mentions the "cosine
effect," which means that if you point the gun
directly at the side wall of the moving truck,
it will give no reading, but if you point it at
an angle to the side wall, you will get what
this diagram shows:
So, if you point the gun at a 70 degree angle to
the interior side wall of a truck traveling at
100 mph, the gun will show the speed of the
truck as 35 mph. That isn't anything
specific to a "basic" radar gun, all radar guns
will do that if used from a stationary position
outside while pointed at traffic in the opposite
lane.
The question that I'm asking myself right now
is: What do I do next? When the paper is
available, should I mention it on the sci.physics.relativity
forum? Yes, I will probably do that.
I'm not interested in arguing opinions
with anyone there, but it might be interesting
to see what kind of reaction it gets.
I'll probably also submit it to Academia.edu
and delete the version they currently
have.
What else? Should I mention it on other
forums, like the Astrophysics
and Physics Facebook group? It's a
moderated group, but I'm a member, so I might
give it a try. I might also start a new
thread about it on my
own blog.
Then what? I might try getting some
well-known scientist to read it and give me his
opinion. I might even try submitting it to
Science
or Nature.
Science magazine will almost
certainly just reply with a form letter saying "this is not the sort of work that we
publish and we are thus not considering it for
publication," but Nature might put it
into their system to see what others have to say
before they reject it. They did that with
the version I sent them a year ago.
I could work on the Radar Guns and Wave
Theory paper I had been thinking about,
but now I think Radar Guns and
Einstein's Theories says all I have to say
about radar guns and wave
theory. Since it explains how the theory
can be confirmed via experiments, it is probably
the most important paper I've written.
I could also spend some time revising other
papers. Or maybe I'll just read another
Janet Evanovich Stephanie Plum novel, then
another, then another.
June 28,
2019 - Yesterday
evening, I finished listening to the 11-hour
50-minute audio book version of "21
Lessons for the 21st Century" by
Yuval Noah Harari.
When I borrowed the audio book from my local
library and started listening to it on my
MP3 player, I was mostly just thinking about
how much I enjoyed Harari's previous book Sapiens.
I expected 21 Lessons to be mostly a
philosophy book, and it is that. But
Harari also mentions Donald Trump fairly
often in the book as Harari examines current
events in order to project what those events
likely mean for the future. Here's an
example:
Unable
to conduct a reality check, the mind
latches on to catastrophic scenarios.
Like a person imagining that a bad
headache signifies a terminal brain
tumor, many
liberals fear that Brexit and the rise
of Donald Trump portend the end of
human civilisation.
And another example:
Whereas the major
movements of the twentieth century all had
a vision for the entire human species – be
it global domination, revolution or
liberation – Donald Trump offers no such
thing. Just the opposite. His main message is that
it’s not America’s job to formulate and
promote any global vision.
Similarly, the British Brexiteers barely
have a plan for the future of the
Disunited Kingdom – the future of Europe
and of the world is far beyond their
horizon. Most
people who voted for Trump and Brexit
didn’t reject the liberal package in its
entirety – they lost faith mainly in its
globalising part. They still
believe in democracy, free markets, human
rights and social responsibility, but they
think these fine ideas can stop at the
border. Indeed, they believe that in order
to preserve liberty and prosperity in
Yorkshire or Kentucky, it is best to build
a wall on the border, and adopt illiberal
policies towards foreigners.
It was a very enjoyable
book, but it also showed me that is not
a good idea to be listening to or reading
more than one book about a given subject at
the same time. Somehow I found myself
absorbing three books on similar
subjects. The book I'm currently
listening to on CDs when driving also gets
into some of the same subjects as Harari
does his book, and the book I'm reading on
my Kindle during breakfast and lunch also
mentions Donald Trump and the kind of
thinking that put him into office. The
books all generally agree that Trump is a
disaster for America, but they do not fully
agree on what lessons are to be learned from
having elected a sleazy con-man liar like
Trump to be our President.
So, this morning I spent some time sorting
through the audio books I have available to
make sure the next one I listen to on my MP3
player is not about
politics or Trump.
Meanwhile, on the sci.physics.relativity
UseNet discussion forum, Paparios is
still reading my posts here and commenting
about them there. In a post he wrote
last night he repeatedly argued that I
"missed to put this text in context" when I
wrote about the way some manufacturers of
radar guns use photons bounced off of the
gun's radome for comparison to photons
returned from the target, instead of using
photons created by the LO (Local
Oscillator). "As a consequence your
conclusion is completely wrong" Paparios
declares. Well, if I am wrong he'll be
able to someday say, "I told you so."
(I expect he'll be saying that whether I'm
right or wrong.)
But, until then, I'll be revising my paper
on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories
with the hope of putting the new version
on-line next week.
June 27, 2019 -
I've finished reading Chapter 16 of Principles
of Modern Radar: Radar
Applications at least
three times. I probably
highlighted about a fourth of it, in
different colors to represent
differences in importance and
accuracy. The two most important
passages are this one from the bottom
of page 762:
The
S-5 is a homodyne radar system and
requires a sample of the transmitted
signal to serve as the LO. The radome is
not totally transparent to the
transmitted energy by
design. Some of the
transmitted energy is reflected
back to the receiver side of the
reflector. This transmitted energy
serves as the LO that mixes with
the returned Doppler-shifted
signal.
and
this one from the bottom of page 765
and the top of page 766:
The
signal isolation between ports 1 and
2 can be as high as 50 dB if the
turnstile junction is well designed
for the exact frequency of
operation. As a result, the LO
signal required for homodyne
operation is almost nonexistent,
given the very low-level direct
leakage from port 1 to port 2. Kustom [Signals,
Inc.] developed a plastic radome
that fit over the end of the horn
to purposely reflect a
small amount of RF power back into
port 2 and create an LO reference
signal at the required mixing
level.
The
acronym "LO" stands for Local
Oscillator. It is a device
inside a radar gun that creates the
photons that the gun compares to the
return photons to get the "beat
frequency" that is equal to the speed
of the target. The photons from
the Local Oscillator oscillate at the
same frequency as the photons the gun
emits, and are therefore perfect for
comparison purposes.
What the above passages say is that in
some radar guns the LO is purposely
not used, and, instead by
design, the gun uses photons
that bounce off the "radome," which is
the cover over the
transmitter/receiver. On a
regular weather or military radar unit
the radome looks like this:
On the front of a radar gun a
radome looks like this:
What this means is that the radar gun
emits photons that bounce off the
specially made radome at the front of
the gun and return to the radar as
the comparison photons.
That is the same as if the gun had no
radome but was inside a laboratory on
a train and pointed at the front or
back wall. If the wall (or
radome) is moving relative to the
ground outside, the gun will measure
that movement and it becomes the
speed of the gun. And when
the gun measures the speed of a real
target, the speed of the real target
will be compared to the speed of the
gun.
So, if the gun is moving at 60 mph and
the target is a stationary highway
sign, the gun will add its speed, 60
mph, to the speed of the highway sign
(zero) and will compute the sign's
speed as 60 mph. And if a target
vehicle is going 80 mph, its speed
relative to the gun is 20 mph, so the
gun will add 20 mph to the gun's 60
mph speed and give a target speed of
80 mph. If the target is going
60 mph, the gun will show "no
reading," since it only shows relative
speeds over 10 mph.
This means that if the gun does NOT
have a radome that reflects photons
back into the receiver, the gun is
what I call a "basic" radar gun that,
when used from a patrol car traveling
at 60 mph, will give "no reading" for
a highway sign, and will show 60 mph
if it is pointed at the back of a
truck that is traveling at 60 mph.
And it probably means that the three
Decatur radar guns that do not
"work" when the guns are
moving are most likely radar guns with
radomes that do NOT reflect
photons. So, they are what I
have been calling "basic radar guns."
I'll be revising my paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories
to include this information, but I'll
continue to look for experimental
confirmation.
June 26,
2019 - While I've
stopped arguing on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum, the person who calls
himself "Paparios" is still arguing his
beliefs there in the same screwball way as
before, only now he is responding to what I
have posted on this web
site.
In yesterday's comment I mentioned what the
Radar
Technology Encyclopedia says
about Einstein's Second Postulate and how it
fully agrees with what I and Einstein
said. I then wrote:
It
then explains how light (and all
electromagnetic radiation) consists
of photons, not waves.
In this post to the
sci.physics.relativity forum, Paparios
copied and pasted what I wrote and then he
stated:
Unfortunately, you failed
to copy the paragraph that follows your
cite, which nicely clarifies what we
have been discussing:
"With the advent of
quantum mechanics, electromagnetic radiant
energy is seen to be created, destroyed, and
transported in discrete quanta or photons
rather than through a continuous
transfer of energy implied by
electromagnetic waves in the classical representation
of electrodynamics. Because the energy
transported by large numbers of photons
is, on the average, equivalent to the
energy transferred in a classical
electromagnetic wave, for macroscopic
applications, including radar and
communications, Maxwell’s field equations
are accurate and extremely useful tools."
Note that Paparios simply
says the paragraph "nicely clarifies what we
have been discussing," but he doesn't saw WHAT
it actually clarifies. That's one of
the reasons I stopped posting comments
there. Paparios constantly posts links
and says, in effect, "Here is confirmation
of my beliefs." And he expects me
to hunt through the information at the link
to find the "confirmation" of his
beliefs.
In this case, however, I had thought about
quoting that same paragraph in order to
explain what the paragraph is saying.
I just didn't do it because I didn't have
the time yesterday. It is saying that
energy is created, destroyed(?) and
transported in the form of individual
photons, not waves.
However if you look at the "average"
amount of energy being transferred, you can
view energy as "classical" waves and use
Maxwell's field equations effectively.
In other words, although the math works for
energy as waves, you are working with averages,
not with individual quanta (a.k.a.
"photons"). It says what I had been
saying on the forum, that light consists of
photons, not waves, even though the math for
waves can also be made to work.
Paparios was arguing that light consists of
waves, and photons are just imaginary
nonsense.
In that same post on sci.physics.relativity,
Paparios next quoted what I wrote about
Chapter 16 in the book Principles
of Modern Radar, and he stated:
The book is for sure very
useful in this discussion, particularly
read section 16.9.1 in page764 and see
figure 16-13, which reads:
"Turnstile Junction Used
as a Duplexer for Simultaneous Transmit
and Receive [GPRC]."
AGAIN, he seems to be
claiming the book somehow supports his
beliefs, this time his belief that radar
guns transmit and receive at the same time,
but he doesn't explain HOW it does so.
He quotes from a caption to an
illustration, but fails to see that
the actual text says something very
different:
While the TR-6 operated
only in the stationary mode, it
incorporated several technological
breakthroughs. Kustom
developed a simple, inexpensive, but
very effective, duplexer that provided
high signal isolation between the
transmitter and receiver,
and very good detection range
performance. The TR-6 duplexer was a
turnstile junction that allowed
simultaneous transmit while receiving.
and
In the case of the
turnstile junction used in the MR-7/MR-9,
transmit power is
applied to port 1. One
half of the transmitted power goes into
the circular waveguide port and is
transmitted as a circularly polarized
wave toward the target vehicle. Half
of the remaining power divides equally
between ports 3 and 4, with no power going
to the receiver diode detector/mixer
on port 2.
So, it appears to be saying
the gun transmits half of its emitted energy
to the target and then captures the
other half within the gun. And while
it is capturing that second half within the
gun, it is receiving return energy from the
target. So, it doesn't actually
transmit to the target at the same
time it is receiving from the target,
it just doesn't have to turn the
power off when receiving.
Evidently that allows the gun to switch
between send and receive more quickly.
There is no "power up" and "power down"
operation.
I still haven't found the time to study that
chapter to see what else it says that could
be of value. It is near the top of my
to-do list.
Meanwhile, I sent an email to a small
company that makes radar guns, asking if
there was a copy of the user manual on-line
anywhere. They replied,
User manuals are only
provided to current customers.
That seems to be the case
for some other manufacturers, too. And
they only answer technical questions from
"current customers." So, I'm still
hunting.
June 25, 2019 - Now that I'm no longer
involved in lengthy arguments on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum, the idea of writing
a scientific paper about Radar Guns and
Wave Theory seems far less
important. Clearly, it is much
more important for me to find confirmation
of the way I describe how radar guns work in
my paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories.
To do that I need to determine which guns "don't
work" when the radar gun is moving,
and I need to verify exactly what "don't
work" means. In yesterday's comment I
mentioned 3 radar guns that, according to
their user's manuals, "don't work" when the
gun is moving:
1. Decatur Genesis VP
Directional
2. Decatur Genesis GHD
3. Decatur Scout
The web site HERE
indicates that there are a lot more
"stationary only" police radar guns made by
Decatur Electronics Inc. that should work
(and "not work") the same way. Plus,
there are other radar guns made by Applied
Concepts Inc., Kustom Electronics Inc. and
nearly a dozen other companies that might
have user manuals available on-line for
examination. And they might have email
addresses where I could ask questions.
I might even revise my Radar Guns and
Einstein's Theories paper to list the
radar guns which should work the way
I describe in the paper. People who
have access to such radar guns might then
experiment with them and advise me of the
results.
Meanwhile, in my research I came across two
interesting books:
The Radar
Technology Encyclopedia
confirms my interpretation Einstein's Second
Postulate on page 468:
Albert Einstein’s special theory of
relativity, introduced in 1905,
showed that all the
experimental results could be explained
within the context of his
theory; there was no need of the
aether. Light, Einstein
held, and all electromagnetic radiation,
travels in space at a
constant speed of approximately 3 x 108
m/s, independent of the
speed of the source.
It then explains how light
(and all electromagnetic radiation) consists
of photons, not waves. I
should definitely use it as a reference in
the next version of my paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories.
Principles
of Modern Radar: Radar
Applications has an entire
chapter on police radar guns that begins on
page 749 and ends with a list of papers for
"further reading" on page 778. I just
need to find the time to dig through it to
see if it contains anything that can help
resolve arguments. It looks like it
could be very helpful, and would
probably also be a good reference to use in
my paper.
June 24, 2019 -
Yesterday, I ended my participation in the
most recent discussion I had started on
the sci.physics.relativity UseNet group.
It had turned into a total waste of
time. The people I was arguing with
were simply playing the same games that
Donald Trump plays. They were turning
every attempt to discuss facts into an
opinion versus opinion argument. They
were also claiming I said things I never
said in order to put me on the
defensive. They were posting links
which they claimed supported their
arguments, but didn't say where in the link
it did such a thing, forcing me to hunt for
support for their
arguments. They were claiming that
NASA was lying or incompetent when I
provided links to NASA sites that supported
my arguments. And they repeatedly
claimed that Richard Feynman and Albert
Einstein didn't know what they were talking
about when they stated that light consists
of particles, not waves. And on and on
and on.
The final argument was that all ten of those
links I provided yesterday showing that
radar guns do not transmit and receive at
the same time proved nothing, since they
were mainly about large, powerful radar
devices, not low-power radar devices like
radar guns.
They claimed that low-power radars
work different from high-power
radars. And
since none of the links mentioned photons,
they claimed that meant that radars emit
waves, not photons.
After I posted my last message to the
thread, I did some research and found Patent
#US5525996, which is for "Police
Traffic Radar for Calculating and
Simultaneously Displaying Fastest Target
Speed." It uses the illustration
below to describe how the duplexer works,
only it says it will use the term
"turnstile" instead of
"duplexer." A "turnstile"
normally allows one person or object at a
time to pass through a barrier. Is
that what is meant? Or was the
inventor thinking of a "revolving door"
which usually allows people to enter a
building at the same time others are leaving
the building. The illustration seems
to show "signals" being
transmitted and received at the same time.
The patent says on page 47
of the pdf file:
Referring to FIG. 2, there
is shown a block diagram of the
antenna unit such as
antenna unit 10. A conventional micro
wave horn 20 having a
conventional corrective lens 22 emits
coherent microwave energy
toward moving and non-moving
objects in the scene in
front of the antenna. Some of the
microwave energy
bounces off the moving and non-moving
objects in the scene
and returns as microwave energy 24.
This energy is
collected and concentrated in horn 20 and
fed
to a turnstile duplexer
26 (hereafter turnstile). The function
of the turnstile 26 is
to provide isolation between the
transmitted and
received microwave energy.
Turnstiles are
known and are described in
Montgomery et al., PRIN
CIPLES OF MICROWAVE
CIRCUITS TK6553. M637
which is hereby
incorporated by reference. Basically, the
turnstile is designed
to allow the transmitter and receiver
circuitry to share the
same antenna.
Note that the patent uses
the term "microwave energy" instead
of "microwaves" or just "waves."
Unfortunately, it doesn't use the term
"photons" at all. So, the only
illustration of "microwave energy" in the
entire patent is the two jagged arrows (#24)
which could be photons but definitely are
not continuous waves.
There's no point in showing this patent (and
other patents for other radar gun
components) to the people on
sci.physics.relativity, since they will just
argue that the phrase "provide isolation
between the transmitted and received energy"
does not mean that the radar
gun cannot transmit and receive at the same
time. And that means they will want me
to somehow prove it does mean
that. So, it becomes just another
idiotic opinion versus opinion argument.
Meanwhile, yesterday I also found user
manuals for a couple more radar guns.
The
Genesis VP Directional police radar user's
manual says this on page 16:
Q. Will my radar work
while my vehicle is moving?
A. No,
the Genesis-VPD radar gun is a stationary
only models, so
your motor vehicle should
be parked. You need to hold the radar
steady while operating it.
And the
user's manual for the Genesis GHD &
Scout police radar guns says this on
page 33:
Q. Will my radar work
while my vehicle is moving?
A. No,
the GHD and SCOUT radar guns are a
stationary only models,
so your vehicle should be
parked. You need to hold the radar
steady while operating it.
But, what do they mean
when they say that the gun does not "work"
when in a moving vehicle? I seriously
doubt that it means the gun turns itself off
if it detects it is moving. It is much
more likely that it means that if the gun is
moving it will not show results that can be
used in court. Unfortunately, it
appears that the only way to find out is to
call
them. But, since I'm not about
to pay $900 for a radar gun just to prove
how it works, I can't claim to be a
customer. Interestingly, both of those
guns are used by the Pennsylvania State
Patrol.
But I don't think there is any chance of me
getting any information from the
Pennsylvania State Police about using those
radar guns while moving. I think I
need to find out why they are only allowed
to use radar guns that "work" only when
stationary. Since it is a "law" of
some kind, there should be some explanation
somewhere for why the law was passed.
But, how likely is it that the law was
passed to avoid discussions of Einstein's
Second Postulate? Not very.
June 23, 2019 - It looks more and
more like I need to write another scientific
paper. As I stated in previous comments,
this one would be about Radar Guns and Wave
Theory. The arguments I've
been having on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum are just plain
crazy. When I quoted Richard
Feyman's statement that electromagnetic energy
consists of particles, not waves, Paparios
responded:
You should be aware
that Feynman was not an engineer nor a radar
specialist, so your quote is totally
irrelevant to the subject.
Huh?
The people on the forum all endlessly and
repeatedly argue that a radar gun transmits and
receives radio waves at the same time. And
Paparios inexplicably posted TWO links which
clearly show that radar guns do NOT
transmit and receive at the same time, and he
claimed the articles support his beliefs.
(Click on links ONE
and TWO
to access that information.) The articles
explain that there is a electronic device called
a "duplexer" which switches between transmit and
receive.
Using "radar gun" and "duplexer" as a Google
search argument, I found eight additional
sources which say that radar guns CANNOT
transmit and receive at the same time.
Click on THREE,
FOUR,
FIVE,
SIX,
SEVEN,
EIGHT,
NINE,
and TEN
to access those eight sites. And there are
many many more.
Link four says:
Duplexer is a
microwave switch, which connects the Antenna
to the transmitter section for transmission of
the signal. Therefore,
the Radar cannot receive the signal during
transmission time.
Similarly, it connects the
Antenna to the receiver section for the
reception of the signal. The Radar cannot transmit
the signal during reception time.
In this way, Duplexer isolates both
transmitter and receiver sections.
Link six says:
While
the antenna is transmitting, it cannot
receive—and vice-versa.
Link seven says:
The
antenna rapidly switches back and forth
between transmitting and receiving by means
of a duplexer.
Link eight says:
an antenna cannot receive
whilst emitting, and vice-versa.
A piece of hardware known as a duplexer
switches the antenna between these two roles.
Yesterday, I posted all eight
links and the quotes from them, and yet Paparios
this morning asked:
Do you have any
reference stating that the radar gun switches
the output and the
input?
What does that mean?
I'll have to ask. Switches the output and
input??? I have references which say there
are controls that prevent radars from
transmitting directly into the receiver.
That would blow all the circuits. A radar
transmits a very POWERFUL
signal. It gets back very weak
signals, because most of what was transmitted
went off in other directions and never returns
to the radar. If you transmitted directly
into the receiver .... kablooey!
Yesterday, I finally told them that I wasn't
going to argue any other subjects until this one
subject was fully discussed. The fact that
a radar cannot transmit and receive at the same
time shows a lot of their other claims to be
nonsense. It clearly says that a radar gun
cannot emit a continuous wave for as long as the
trigger is pulled. When the trigger is
pulled, the gun immediately shows the speed of
the target. It couldn't do that if it was
only transmitting and not
receiving. So, the gun must be
switching back and forth between transmit and
receive. Link
number eight above says,
usually, antennas
emit radio waves for a few thousandths of a
second, then wait for reflections for up to
several seconds at a time before
transmitting again. This is because an antenna cannot receive
whilst emitting, and vice-versa.
That particular quote isn't about
radar guns specifically. There is no need
to "wait for reflections for up to several
seconds" with a radar gun, because the target
will always be less than three
miles away (2 miles is about the maximum range
for a radar gun), and because the photons from
the gun can travel to a target 3 miles away and
back again in less than 1/31,000th of a
second. Most of the time that is required
for the gun to show the target's speed is spent
in waiting for the electronics in the gun to
perform their functions.
Clearly the best way to argue this matter is to
write a paper about Radar Guns and Wave
Theory where I can use illustrations to
show that the illustration below is nonsense:
It shows waves being transmitted from the police
radar transmitter while waves are coming
back from the moving car. So, the gun must
be transmitting and receiving at the same
time.
Plus, aren't waves supposed to flow around
an obstacle as shown in the diagrams below?
So, wave theory says that sometimes light (and
all electromagnetic energy) acts like a wave,
and sometimes it acts like a particle. And
wave theory evidently also says
that waves sometimes reflect back from and
obstacle and sometimes flow around an
obstacle. It seems to me you have to be
NUTS to believe wave theory.
|
Comments for Sunday June
16, 2019, thru Saturday, June 22, 2019:
June 21,
2019 - I'm still
trying to get sensible answers from the
people on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum. One person who
calls himself "Paparios" argued at length
that this image showed how radar waves
work:
But when I explained to him that such waves
would just measure the closest car as moving
the fastest, he suddenly switched to this
illustration of radar waves:
And, when I asked him what
the gaps between the pulses consisted of,
his response was "Nothing...no
transmission." So, his pulses look a
lot like photons.
Overnight, Paparios posted a message that
really shows how he thinks. He and
others on the forum have been repeatedly
arguing that radar guns transmit and receive
at the same time. I've been arguing
that they do NOT transmit and
receive at the same time. This
morning, Paparios provided a
link to Wikipedia's page about duplexers,
which Paparios somehow believed supported
his beliefs. The page has an
illustration which clearly shows a duplexer
switches between transmitting and receiving
and cannot possibly do both at the same
time.
And the text of the Wikipedia page says:
"A duplexer is an
electronic device that allows
bi-directional (duplex)
communication over a single path. In radar and
radio communications systems, it
isolates the receiver from
the transmitter
while permitting them to share a
common antenna. Most radio repeater systems
include a duplexer. Duplexers can be based
on frequency (often a waveguide
filter), polarization (such as an orthomode
transducer), or timing (as is
typical in radar).[1]"
And footnote #1 says:
"Rinehart,
Ronald E. (1991). Radar for
Meteorologists. University of
North Dakota. Radar engineers
have added the automatic switch (also
called a duplexer) in the ... As soon
as the transmitter stops sending a
signal, the duplexer switches so
that the receiver is now connected
to the antenna."
So, Paparios just shot down
his own argument. And that was just
the most bizarre of of his comments.
Other comments he wrote also shot down other
beliefs he has been arguing. I'd like
to frame the whole message and my whole
response. I've never seen a post that
clarified so many arguments at once.
The discussion has made me think about
writing another paper titled "Radar Guns
and Wave Theory." Right now, it
appears that it can be easily shown that
wave theory is totally illogical
when it comes to describing how radar guns
work.
Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I finished
listening to another audio book on my MP3
player. It was Dodge
City: Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, and the
Wickedest Town in the American West
by Tom Clavin.
I'd been listening to it off and on for a
few weeks, listening to several other audio
books in their entirety during pauses in
listening to Dodge City. That
doesn't mean the book isn't
interesting. It just means it is easy
to pause and do something else without
losing track of what was going on.
What was most interesting to me was how young
Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, all their
brothers, and Doc Holiday were, compared to
the way they are depicted in movies by
middle-aged actors like Burt Lancaster, Gary
Cooper and Kirk Douglas. They were
buffalo hunters and stage coach drivers when
they were in their late teens. Wyatt
was born in 1848. He became assistant
city marshal of Dodge City when he was
30. Doc
Holiday died at the ripe old age of 36
in 1887. The Gunfight at the OK
Corral happened in 1881. Bat
Masterson was born in 1853, making him
5 years younger than Wyatt. In
1877, when he was 24 years old, he
became "under-sheriff" of Dodge
City. Later in life, Bat
became friends with Theodore Roosevelt
and wrote a sports column for a New
York newspaper for many years before
he died in New York in 1929. In
this later years, Wyatt Earp was
friends with movie stars Tom Mix and
William S. Hart, and he also died in
1929. The Earp brothers and the
Masterson brothers had many wives and
during the course of their lives they
encountered folk like Jesse and Frank
James, Billy the Kid, Wild Bill Cody,
The Dalton Gang, etc.
Interesting stuff.
June 20, 2019 - Ah! There were six
new "unique IP downloads" of my revised
paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's
Theories
in the past 24 hours. But I still need
to think about different ways to "advertise"
the paper in order to get more people to
read it. I'm thinking of contacting
some scientists who have helped me in the
past, and maybe others like Bill Nye, Sean
Carroll and Neil deGrass Tyson. I'm also
thinking about mentioning the paper on
Facebook groups where I am a member.
(I haven't even mentioned it on my own group
yet.) The hope is that someone will
offer or decide to test the theory.
Meanwhile, as I was pulling into my garage
yesterday afternoon after doing some grocery
shopping, I finished listening to CD #7 of
the 7-CD audio book set for "In
Other Worlds: SF and the
Human Imagination" by Margaret
Atwood.
While it might seem like it is the 4th book
I've read in the past week, actually
it is just the 4th book I've finished
in the past week. I started listening
to In Other Worlds on May
20. So, it took almost exactly one
month to get through it while driving to and
fro around town. (I'll be finishing
another audio book tomorrow.)
In Other Worlds is about imagining
other worlds and other cultures. Here
is how Amazon describes the book:
At a time when the borders
between literary genres are increasingly
porous, Margaret Atwood maps the richly
fertile crosscurrents of speculative and
science fiction, slipstream, utopias and
dystopias, and fantasy, and muses on their
roots in the age-old human impulse to
imagine new worlds. She shares the
evolution of her personal fascination with
this branch of literature, from her days
as a child inventing a race of flying
superhero rabbits, to her graduate study
of the Victorian ancestors of SF to her
appreciations of such influential writers
as Marge Piercy, Rider Haggard, Ursula K.
LeGuin, Kazuo Ishiguro, Aldous Huxley, and
Jonathan Swift. As humorous and charming
as it is insightful and provocative, In
Other Worlds brilliantly
illuminates “the wilder storms on the
wilder seas of invention.”
Margaret Atwood softly
narrates about two thirds of the book in
what is almost a droning monotone, but
it's still interesting - if
you are interested in science fiction and
writing, and especially science fiction
writing. I've got two
science fiction novels that I've completed,
and I'm still trying do decide what to do
with them. The chances of getting an
agent interested is virtually nil (agents
won't even talk with anyone over 65, unless
they are famous), and you can't get a
publisher interested in a novel without
first getting an agent interested.
Atwood's book wasn't much help on that, but
it was still very interesting - to me.
June 19, 2019 -
Hmm. Once again there was just one new
"unique IP download" of my revised paper on
Radar
Guns and Einstein's
Theories
in the past 24 hours. And I even tried
posting a comment about the paper to a different
UseNet forum. I posted a comment to
the sci.logic
forum, because it seemed to have a lot of
people discussing a lot of things. But
no one posted a response, and
only 6 people viewed
my comment in the past 24 hours.
Meanwhile, on sci.physics.relativity,
there have been 23 posts and 69 views in the
past 48 hours. And some are very
interesting. For example, someone who
calls himself "Paparios" wrote (in part):
a) Let the radar gun
transmit a series of pulses (30
pulses/second) to the target (an approaching car
moving at 30 meters/second).
b) Let each pulse departs
the radar gun at speed c and let L be the
distance of the target when the
pulse departs.
c) That first pulse will
arrive to the target WHEN that target has
already moved a little bit closer to the
gun (the distance between the radar gun
and the target is reducing by 30
meters each second).
d) This means the target
is not receiving the pulses at 30
pulses/second but the target is receiving
the pulses at 30.000006 pulses/second.
e) This change in
frequency will generate a Doppler
frequency of 6000 Hz (as shown by the calculator in
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/radar.html
So you see that nowhere
there is a target receiving the pulses at
speed c+v.
Wow! He doesn't seem
to realize it, but he's arguing that the
closer a target gets to the radar gun the
faster the target will be measured as
moving. I explained that to him, and
awaited a response. In his response he
said something else totally bizarre (since
he claims to be a physicist):
Radar guns use
electromagnetic waves on the order of
20-30 GHz, which are radio waves and not
light waves.
And I responded:
And you evidently do not
understand that ALL electromagnetic waves
(and photons)
work the same way. They only differ
in their frequency and energy.
"the only difference
between radio waves, visible light and
gamma rays is the energy of the photons.
Radio waves have photons with the
lowest energies. Microwaves have a little
more energy than radio waves. Infrared has
still more, followed by visible,
ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays."
Source: NASA at https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum2.html
Another person argued that
a verified theory is still just a theory and
nothing can be "proved" in physics. I
agreed and told him that, just because a
verified theory is still just a theory, that
doesn't mean we shouldn't even try
to understand how the universe works.
"Sylvia Else" wrote this:
You want the experiment
done - you pay for it.
To which I replied,
I'll pay for it if I have
to. But if someone else already HAS
the radar
guns and can use them at
no expense to VERIFY the theory, then why
should I spend the money?
Plus, if I buy a radar gun
and it confirms my theory, who will
believe me? If someone ELSE verifies
what I have said, then it becomes much
more difficult
to dispute.
Besides, there are other
aspects of the theory that are still under
investigation. For
example, what is different about a
"complex" radar
gun when it is in "test
mode" versus when "test mode" is turned
off?
That question opens of
other questions about what does a
"complex" radar gun measure when you put
a vibrating tuning fork in front of it?
And WHY must you put the gun in
"test mode" when doing that?
Those last two questions
were on my mind when I awoke this
morning. The only answer I can see is
that you have to turn the "complex" gun into
a "basic" gun so that it can measure the
speed of the fastest moving tine on the
vibrating tuning fork. Otherwise, a
"complex" radar gun will give "no reading"
because it is getting too many different
signals and the fastest signal is also the
weakest signal. The software in the gun will
reject all that as being "errors" IF the gun
is not in "test mode."
Oh yes, one other person wrote:
Why do you waste your life
away on those "papers"?
And I responded,
Is thoroughly enjoying
yourself by solving great mysteries a
"waste of time"?
This is ABSOLUTELY
FASCINATING STUFF!!!!!
And so it is.
June 18, 2019 -
There was only one new "unique IP download"
of my revised paper on Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories
in the past 24 hours. But, for all I
know there may have been a couple dozen
downloads by people who have read earlier
versions of the paper. Those wouldn't
be "unique IP downloads." What I
probably need to do is advertise it. I
usually do that by posting a comment on the
sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum. I didn't do
that until about lunchtime today. I'm
advertising it here, of course, but regular
readers of this web site wouldn't likely be
"unique IP downloads" either.
I keep thinking about the idea of using a
"complex" radar gun while it is in "test
mode." But, if I cannot find any
official source that describes what happens
when you use a "basic" radar gun in a way
that is contrary to instructions (i.e.,
while moving), I see no hope for finding an
official source describing what happens when
you are in a moving vehicle and point a
"complex" radar gun at a stationary target
while in "test mode." But it certainly
opens up a lot of possibilities for people
who have access to radar guns to create
interesting YouTube videos.
Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I finished
reading the paperback version of "Hard
Eight" by Janet Evanovich.
It is the 8th book in what is now a 25 book
series about "bounty hunter" (a.k.a. bail
jumper catcher) Stephanie Plum.
Doing a Google search to find out when I
last read a Stephanie Plum novel, I find I
finished "Seven Up" on December 19, 2105.
Hmm. I think that is a typo. I
finished "Hot Six" on October 12,
2015. And I finished "High Five"
on August 21, 2015.
Hard Eight was very funny and
enjoyable, but not quite as satisfying as
the other Stephanie Plum novels I've
read. In this book, the main case
isn't about catching some bail jumper.
It is about preventing an elderly woman from
losing her home, a home which she put up as
bond in her daughter's child custody
case. The daughter ran off with her
daughter in violation of the bond agreement,
so Stephanie Plum has to find the
granddaughter and bring her back. The
father is a criminal of sorts and there are
other much worse criminals who also want the
daughter and granddaughter found for some
mysterious reason.
My fiction reading list in paper form
includes a bunch of other Stephanie Plum
novels, as shown above (click on it or click
HERE
to see a larger version). I think it's
been years since I last read a novel in
paper form. I've been focused on
science problems during the day, and I
mostly read paper novels when I can do so by
natural light, instead of by artificial
light. I'm looking forward to reading
To the Nines and the other Stephanie
Plum novels. But, I might first listen
to some more Fox
& O'Hare detective novels, which
are also by Janet Evanovich. It all depends
on how much free time I can foresee having
during daylight hours.
June 17, 2019 -
The new version of my paper on Radar Guns
and Einstein's Theories is now
available at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v3.pdf.
I submitted it yesterday afternoon and
received an email this morning informing me
that it was on-line as of 7:11 a.m.
Of course, at about that same time this
morning I was laying in bed thinking there
was something that I maybe should have
included in the paper. It occurred to
me that running a "complex" radar gun in
"test mode" might cause the radar gun to
work like a "basic" radar gun as it measures
the speed of the fastest moving tine on a
tuning fork. If so, then it wouldn't
be necessary to find a "basic" radar gun in
order to confirm what is claimed in my
paper. A "complex" radar gun in test
mode might do just as well. Time will
tell.
Meanwhile, as I was eating lunch yesterday,
I finished reading another book on my
Kindle. It was Facts
and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in
Intelligence by James R.
Clapper.
"When he stepped down in January 2017 as the
fourth United States director of national
intelligence, James Clapper had been
President Obama's senior intelligence
adviser for six and a half years, longer
than his three predecessors combined. He led
the U.S. intelligence community through a
period that included the raid on Osama bin
Laden, the Benghazi attack, the leaks of
Edward Snowden, and Russia's influence
operation during the 2016 U.S. election
campaign."
The book was very interesting an
informative, even though it seemed like most
paragraphs were over a page long.
There is very little dialog in the
book. The book goes into great detail
about Russia's meddling in the 2016 election
to help get Trump elected. The book
explains the difference between simply
promoting one candidate over another (which
America sometimes does in other country's
elections in order to help stop some crazy
dictator from getting into office) and
spreading lies, distortions and
misinformation to get people to vote the way
you want them to vote - as Russia did during
our 2016 Presidential election.
The key point of the book, however, seems to
be the necessity of telling "truth to
power." In other words, you have to
explain the situation to your boss as the
facts say it is, especially when talking to
the President of the United States.
James Clapper worked under Kennedy, Bush 2
and Obama, and those Presidents all
understood the necessity of telling things
they way they are. Trump doesn't
like it. Clapper wrote in his book:
In the period of just a
few months, our president had attacked
Congress that wouldn’t pass legislation at
his will, the judiciary that dared to rule
against his travel ban, the “dishonest
media,” the “Nazi” Intelligence Community,
the FBI investigating his campaign, and
anyone who said no to him. Beyond that, he
had disparaged minority Americans and
mocked those with disabilities. At the
close of his first week in office, the
Economist Intelligence Unit updated its
Democracy Index to indicate that the
United States no longer qualified as a
full-fledged democracy. For the first
time, because of an “erosion of public
trust in political institutions,” our
democratic status was listed as “flawed.”
and
I don’t believe our
democracy can function for long on lies,
particularly when inconvenient and
difficult facts spoken by the
practitioners of truth are dismissed as
“fake news.” I know that the Intelligence
Community cannot serve our nation if facts
are negotiable. Just in the past few
years, I’ve seen our country become so
polarized because people live in separate
realities in which everyone has his or her
own set of facts—some of which are lies
knowingly distributed by a foreign
adversary. This was not something I could
idly stand by and watch happen to the
country I love.
I've got 26 pages of
passages I highlighted in the book, but the
last one is probably the best one:
We
have elected someone as president of
the United States whose first
instincts are to twist and distort
truth to his advantage, to generate
financial benefit to himself and his
family, and, in so doing, to demean
the values this country has
traditionally stood for. He has
set a new low bar for ethics and
morality. He has caused damage to our
societal and political fabric that will
be difficult and will require time to
repair. And, close to my heart, he
has besmirched the Intelligence Community
and the FBI—pillars of our country—and
deliberately incited many Americans to
lose faith and confidence in them. While
he does this, he pointedly refuses to
acknowledge the profound threat posed by
Russia, inexplicably trusting the denials
by Putin about their meddling in our
political process over the considered
judgments by his own Intelligence
Community.
I probably enjoyed the book
because I can see Clapper's point of view.
June 16, 2019 - I spent most of
yesterday working on the overhaul of my paper
about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories,
and it looks like I should be able to upload it
to vixra.org
tomorrow, which should mean it will be publicly
available the next day.
I'm beginning to think that, for some people,
discussing the physics of radar guns is like
discussing a conspiracy theory. No one
wants to argue about things that have not been
satisfactorily proven one way or the other to
all parties. NASA has a web page titled "How
Do Police Radars Really Work?" that
describes in detail how radar gun can emit a
single photon, and when compared with the return
photon, the gun can determine the speed of the
target. But if countless mathematicians do
not believe what NASA says or even that photons
exist, who wants to get in the middle of such a
disagreement?
Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman may have
clearly stated that light consists of photons,
not waves, and there may be a mountain of
evidence to confirm their statements, but if
countless mathematicians still believe and will
argue that light consists of waves, who wants to
get in the middle of such a disagreement?
I don't particularly want to get in the middle
of that, but I have, of course. The
problem is that finding new
evidence which cannot be denied is no easy task,
and it is made even more difficult when no one
seems willing to provide details about how radar
guns work. So, I'm just bumbling around, trying
new research ideas while continuing work on an
overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns and
Einstein's Theories.
When reading about police radar guns you also
get the distinct impression that more and more
police departments are switching to lidar
guns. Lidar guns are not only more
accurate than radar guns, they will not get you
into any arguments about the Doppler Effect,
since lidar does not utilize the Doppler
Effect. Also, many mathematicians even
seem to accept that a lidar gun sends out just
one "wave" at a time, waiting for that "wave" to
return before sending another. With radar
guns they insist the the gun sends a continuous
stream of waves and receives back a continuous
series of waves at the same time.
I'd read somewhere that the State of
Pennsylvania does not allow local police
departments to use radar guns. Only the
State Police can use them. Checking on it,
I found a
web site that says,
The only law
enforcement agency in Pennsylvania that is
allowed to operate police radar guns is the
State Police and only when in stationary
mode.
Hmm. I'll have to do some
more research to see if I can find why
they can only use radar guns in "stationary
mode." That same web page says:
State procurement
records over the past 5-years indicate that
the following police radar guns are used by
both state and local police agencies.
Decatur Genesis
K-band
Kustom Signals Falcon HR
K-band
Kustom Signals KR10 K-band
At
the web page HERE
I found the picture shown below. The radar gun
the officer is holding is a Decatur
Genesis K-band.
There is
a power cord running from the bottom of the
gun to a cigarette lighter adapter plug
within the car. You cannot see much
of it because it is hidden behind the
officer's hand.
The multi-part Kustom Signals KR10, shown below,
consists of a dash-mounted radar measuring unit
with an emitter that gets mounted somehow on the
outside of the squad car, or perhaps placed on
the dash next to the measuring unit.
There's also a button the officer pushes to turn
the radar on and off.
The Falcon HR, shown below, can also be used as
a hand-held device. You just remove it
from its dash-mount. I tried to get
information about it from Kustom Signals, but
they didn't respond to my emails.
So, the research led to nothing of value, just
more questions. Sigh.
|
Comments for Sunday June
9, 2019, thru Saturday, June 15, 2019:
June 14, 2019 - I've finally gotten back to
work on the overhaul of my paper about Radar
Guns and Einstein's Theories. I
spent most of yesterday afternoon on it, and
I'm hoping to have a new version on-line next
week.
Meanwhile, yesterday evening I finished
listening to the audio book version of Memory
Man by David Baldacci.
The audio book is 13 hours and 17 minutes
long, and it took me 3 days (actually 3
evenings) to listen to it. Although some
of the crimes in the book were a little too
grim for me, and I didn't quite buy the
culprits' motivation, it was still a very
enjoyable book, and I already have the
next book in the series in my MP3
player. There are evidently 5 books in
the series.
They are about a detective named Amos Decker
who was injured while playing football for the
NFL, and the injury resulted in him having a
photographic memory. So, he spends a lot
of time going through his mental "DVR" playing
back things he saw to see how the pieces fit
together. Unfortunately, that
photographic memory won't allow him to forget
the images of finding his wife, daughter and
brother brutally murdered. And those are
just the first crimes committed by the killer
Amos Decker must track down. The second
is a school shooting, which seems unrelated,
except that it happened at the high school
Amos Decker once attended.
The book is a "page turner" that keeps you
interested, maybe even more so if there are no
actual pages to turn.
June 13, 2019 - I
think the discussions on sci.physics.relativity
have finally come to an end. There
haven't been any new posts in the past 24
hours, and I'm not in the mood to post
anything new.
Now I just have to get back to work on the
overhaul of my Radar Guns and Einstein's
Theories paper. I've been spending
my days researching radar guns looking for
something - anything -
that would provide information on what make
and model of police radar guns will show
"actual" speeds instead of "relative" speeds
when the gun is inside a patrol car going 60
mph and the gun is pointed at a tree.
The "actual" speed of the tree is, of course,
zero. The "relative" speed is 60
mph. The Bushnell Speedster sports radar
gun will show the "relative" speed of 60
mph. But I still haven't been able to
find anything about which make and model of
radar guns gives "actual" speeds. The
people on sci.physics.relativity, of course,
argue that it is impossible for any
radar gun to give "actual" speeds, since any
"actual" speed would involve the speed that
the earth rotates, the speed that the earth
moves around the sun, the speed that the sun
moves around the center of the Milky Way
Galaxy, etc.
I've sent emails to a couple radar gun
manufacturers, to some people on the Internet
who seem knowledgeable about radar guns, and I
left a message with my local police department
asking about what make and model radar gun
they use, but so far I've gotten no
responses.
Meanwhile, the other day I realized that a
warning notice had vanished from my two blogs,
Debating
the Anthrax Attacks of 2001 and My
Thoughts on the Changing World.
This message had been displayed on the "stats"
page since February whenever I checked the
statistics for either blog:
Following
the announcement of Google+ API
deprecation scheduled for March 2019, a
number of changes will be made to
Blogger’s Google+ integration on 4
February 2019.
Google+ widgets: Support for the
“+1 Button”, “Google+ Followers” and
“Google+ Badge” widgets in Layout will no
longer be available. All instances of
these widgets will be removed from your
blog.
+1 buttons: The +1/G+ buttons
and Google+ share links below blog posts
and in the navigation bar will be removed.
Please note that if you have a custom
template that includes Google+ features,
you may need to update your template.
Please contact your template supplier for
advice.
Google+ Comments: Support for
Google+ comments will be turned down, and
all blogs using Google+ comments will be
reverted back to using Blogger comments.
Unfortunately, comments posted as Google+
comments cannot be migrated to Blogger and
will no longer appear on your blog. |
And on March 30, I received an email from
Google that began with this:
You’ve received this email because you
have content in Google+ for your
personal (consumer) account or a Google+ page
you manage.
This is a reminder that on April 2, 2019
we’re shutting down consumer Google+ and will
begin deleting content from consumer Google+
accounts. Photos and videos from Google+ in
your Album Archive and your Google+ pages will
also be deleted.
Downloading your Google+ content may take
time, so get
started before March 31, 2019.
So, I made copies of both
blogs and I've been waiting for the blogs to
disappear. They're still there.
And some time in the past couple weeks the
warning notice vanished. The warning
notice and the email were mostly gibberish
to me, so I can't even be certain that they
were referring to my blogs. I saw that
they used the term Google+ all through the
warning. I didn't even now what
Google+ was, and I never bothered to
research it. Checking on it this
morning, I found that Wikipedia
says,
Google+ was an
Internet-based social
network owned and operated by Google. The network was
launched on June 28, 2011 in the attempt to
challenge other social networks and for a
time linked other Google products like Blogger and
YouTube. The service,
Google's fourth foray into social
networking, experienced strong growth in its
initial years, although usage statistics
varied, depending on how the service was
defined. Three Google executives oversaw the
service, which underwent substantial changes
that led to a redesign in November 2015.
Due to low user engagement
and disclosed software design flaws that
potentially allowed outside developers
access to personal information of its users,[4]
the Google+ developer API was discontinued
on March 7, 2019 and Google+
was shut down for business use and
consumers on April 2, 2019.
Ah! Google+ was shut
down, but blogspot.com is still
working. So, if I wanted to, I could
create a page on my blog about radar guns
and Einstein's theories. Hmm.
June 11, 2019 - When
I checked the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum this morning to see if
there were any responses to my posting of the
link to the
NASA web page that describes a radar gun
emitting a single photon to get the
speed of a vehicle, there were only two
responses worthy of mention. The post
from Paparios stated:
First note that
h=6.63x10^-34 joule-sec, then the energy of
ONE photon is almost 0 (the actual value
at 1 Hz is 6.62606957 × 10^−34 joules, which
is the reason a radar
signal needs zillions of photons to even get
a few photons back to the receiver.
The article is poorly
written (for instance n is not defined
I was kind of surprised to see
that Paparios seemed to accept the idea that a
radar gun emits photons. But complaining
that the "The article is poorly written" will
likely allow him to ignore what the article
says.
The "n" he is referring to is in this
statement:
Since the photon energy, E, is
equal to hn,
where h = Planck's constant = 6.63 X 10-34
j sec, then
I'm no mathematician, but
clearly n is whatever you multiply Planck's
constant by. In this case it would
appear to be the photon's oscillation
frequency. But Paparios (and other
mathematicians on the forum) do not believe
that photons oscillate, so that may be where
he gets confused.
The other post, from Michael Moroney, stated:
One thing to note is that it
never claims the photon is received at a
speed of c+v, unlike Ed's claim. At
least they got that right.
It seems to be part of some
dumbed down 'science & math for kids or
laymen' set.
Claiming something is "dumbed
down" is a mathematician's way of saying
something does not fit their mathematics-based
beliefs and therefore must have been
deliberately modified to be wrong.
When I look at what the article says, I
translate this:
Consider a single
photon from the police radar. The photon
must interact with the approaching car for
a finite time while it is being reflected.
Call this time,  t. Let an
interaction force, ± f, exist between the
photon and the car for the time, t. The force
exerted by the photon on the car, +f, acts
to remove energy from the car. The force
exerted by the car on the photon, -f, acts
to add energy to the photon. Therefore, we
expect the photon frequency to increase.
into this:
When a photon is
emitted from a police radar gun, the photon
will interact with an atom in the approaching
car for a period of time while the photon is
being reflected. Call this "reaction
time." During the reaction time, the
photon will exert a force upon the atom.
The force is positive if the car is
approaching, and it is negative if the car is
moving away from the radar gun.
Therefore we can expect the return photon's
oscillation frequency to increase if energy is
added to the photon.
There is no dispute that the
photon travels at the speed of light. The
only dispute is whether it hits the approaching
car at c or at c+v. How
can the photon add to the car's energy when the
car is approaching and subtract from the car's
energy when the car is moving away if the
velocity (v) of the car is not a
factor? A couple days ago, I told Mr.
Moroney and Paparios that I wasn't going to
respond to any more of their posts in that
thread, so maybe they'll see the comments I've
written above.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Tom Roberts to
respond. If he does, he'll almost
certainly also say that the NASA article is
"dumbed down," which is his way of saying the
article is wrong, and it is
therefore either a lie or the
people at NASA are just too dumb
to understand how police radars and photons
actually work.
June 10, 2019 -
Yesterday I once again tried to end my latest
round of arguments on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum. The latest
statistics for the thread show 330 posts and 795
views since I started the thread a little over
two weeks ago, on May 24th. The arguments
had recently degenerated into nothing more than
pointless opinion vs opinion debates, people calling me
names, and a lot of inane nitpicking
about the meanings and usage of words.
But, it was a worthwhile exercise resulting in
me learning a lot about how they think.
Then, while doing research this morning, I came
across a web page on NASA's web site that I had
seen before and forgot about. It is titled
"How Do Police Radars Really Work?" Click
HERE
to view it. It is about using a single
photon from a radar gun to measure the
speed of an oncoming car. That is what my
paper is all about, and the people on the forum
endlessly argued radar guns use waves, not
photons. So, of course, I had to post the
link to the sci.physics.relativity forum to see
what they will have to say about it. (I
also tried contacting the authors at NASA, but
none of their addresses work.)
Meanwhile, yesterday evening I finished
listening to another audio book. It was a
science fiction novel, An
Absolutely Remarkable Thing, by Hank
Green.
I'd first heard about the book a month or two
ago on The
Geek's Guide to the Galaxy podcast.
So, I put my name on the waiting list at my
local library, and the 9-hour 27-minute audio
book became available on June 5.
It was a truly enjoyable book. And very
funny in parts. I think that is why I put
it on the waiting list, because it was said to
be funny, and funny books are what I am looking
for the most right now.
Here is how Amazon describes the story: "Roaming
through New York City at three a.m.,
twenty-three-year-old April May stumbles across
a giant sculpture. Delighted by its appearance
and craftsmanship—like a ten-foot-tall
Transformer wearing a suit of samurai
armor—April and her best friend, Andy, make a
video with it, which Andy uploads to YouTube.
[She calls the statue "Carl" as she talks with
it on the video.] The next day, April wakes up
to a viral video and a new life. News quickly
spreads that there are Carls in dozens of cities
around the world—from Beijing to Buenos
Aires—and April, as their first documentarian,
finds herself at the center of an intense
international media spotlight."
And then things get really weird. It seems
that someone is posting coded messages on
Wikipedia's article about the statues by leaving
out letters in certain words and by jumbling up
the reference numbers. April, her friends
and others around the Internet world try to
decipher the messages. Then April and
other people start having strange identical
dreams, and as the messages are decoded and the
dreams become more complex it becomes clear that
the statues are alien.
Then things get really interesting. The
President of the US gets involved. Conspiracy
Theorists on the Internet start attacking April
as being an alien in disguise or as being a dupe
being manipulated by the aliens who put the
statues in the 64 different cities.
Meanwhile, as time passes, April is getting rich
from licensing the video she and Andy took of
the statue in Manhattan, which was the First
Contact between humans and an alien
culture. In addition to making more videos
and documenting everything on the Internet, she
writes a best-selling book about her
experiences. She thinks the aliens are
friendly. Others don't think anything that is
alien can be friendly. And the
Conspiracy Theorists (who call themselves
"Defenders") try to kill
her. Here's a quote from
that part of the book:
I shouldn’t have been
so surprised when things started escalating. I
mean, I knew people hated me. It was a real
thing. Being recognized by fans is very
different from checking out at the corner
store and not knowing if the clerk is a
Defender thinking about what a dirty traitor
you are. I thought that I could only either
run away from that or fight it, so I fought
it. Fear is an even better fuel than anger.
Also, it is even more destructive. Their constant attacks
meant I never had to doubt my message. It
must be right, because the people who
disagreed with me were sooooo awful.
That section in red is very much
like how I feel after arguing with the people on
the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum who
seem to know nothing except mathematics and
attack me personally and call me names if I try
to discuss science instead of mathematics with
them.
Here's a quote I enjoyed about the process of
writing a book:
A friend of mine once
told me that, no matter how much you
proofread, the first time you open the final
version of your book, you will find a typo on
the very first page you look at. Ugh.
An Absolutely Remarkable Thing
was a thoroughly enjoyable book, and I can
highly recommend it to anyone who likes science
fiction.
June 9,
2019 - Last week, on the sci.physics.relativity
discussion forum, I complained that
physicists do not seem to be interested in
solving a basic science question: "What is
light?" Instead, physicists seem totally
content to use a mathematical model for
particles when light seems to act like a
particle, and they use a mathematical model for
waves when light seems to act like waves.
And it doesn't seem to bother them at all that
the models are incompatible with one
another. In response to my complaint, a
physicist called "Paparios" posted a link to a
Wikipedia article as if the article
contained some kind of proof of his
beliefs. But he didn't state where in the
article to find anything of value. So, I
wrote:
That article describes
electromagnetic radiation as being EITHER a
wave OR a photon. It doesn't decide one
way or the other.
And Paparios responded:
Why do you think a
decision is required?
I replied:
Because SCIENCE is
about how things work. You are saying we
do not KNOW how light works, except that it
sometimes acts like a particle and it
sometimes acts like a wave. That is not
science, it is an admission of IGNORANCE.
Before Paparios could respond, an
engineer named Michael Moroney wrote:
Wrong. It is an
acknowledgement that light is neither a true
wave nor true particles. It has
properties of both, but is not either one.
While stating that he was
disagreeing and that I was wrong, he was in
reality agreeing that we are
ignorant of how light works.
And then Paparios responded:
First we are not
talking about "SCIENCE" but about "Radar
Guns". All radars, including
radar guns, are electronic devices designed
and built by electrical engineers (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar).
They have worked quite well
and accurate for over 80 years using the good
old (and currently still used) classical wave model (Classical
Electrodynamics).
Humans,
like you or me, are unable to answer
questions like "how light works".
The reason
is quite simple: we are only capable of
processing thoughts, which physicists (like Einstein) use to
formulate MODELS which try to approximate the way Nature does whatever it
does.
A physical MODEL like Classical
Mechanics, Classical Electrodynamics, Special
Relativity, General
Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum
Electrodynamics, etc. represent
achievements of our human intellect, but none
of them answer "HOW AND WHY NATURE DOES WHAT IT DOES".
Wow! That shows how
far apart we are in our thinking. All I am
interested in is how Nature does
what it does, and Paparios says that "Humans,
like you or me, are unable to answer
questions like 'how light works'."
I am investigating the science and physics of
radar guns, while he evidently doesn't consider
radar guns to have anything to do with
science. In addition, he provided a link
to a book titled "Radar
Design Principles." Of course,
the 724 page book doesn't even contain the word
"photon" anywhere. But it does say this on
page 445:
The continuous wave
(CW) radar is frequently used for detection
and tracking of moving targets. In its
simplest form a single sinusoid is
transmitted, and the received signals
are mixed with the transmitted carrier
frequency. The existence of moving targets is
determined from the beat note or Doppler
frequency shift fd .
Hmm. A "sinusoid"
is defined as a single "sine curve" or
"sine wave." That seems like a photon to
me. There are other places in the book
where "sinusoid" is used as if it is a
photon. But, claiming that a "sinusoid" is
really a photon will just generate more
arguments.
The discussions on the
sci.physics.relativity discussion forum
also produced a realization on Thursday and
another on Friday that together seemed to solve
my biggest problem, which is how to show the
mathematicians on that forum that their wave
theory of light is ILLOGICAL.
The first realization I had was that radar
guns cannot transmit and receive at the same
time. As far as I know, no
radio transmitter/receiver can transmit and
receive at the same time. That is why you
always hear cops say "Over" when they are done
talking and release the transmit button on their
microphone.
The second realization I had was that a cluster
of waves will return out of order if the waves
hit multiple targets. The waves that hit
the closest target will return
before waves that hit a more distant
target. How can you measure the speed of a
target when the waves return out of order?
A basic radar gun has no way to separate one
target from another. It just displays the
speed of the fastest
target. And it does it by computing the
Doppler Effect on the oscillations of
photons.
With oscillating photons it doesn't matter if
photons from the nearest target return before
photons from a more distant target. The
gun simply shows the speed of the fastest moving
object within range. It is up to the
operator to know which object or vehicle that
was. If he uses his radar gun on a cluster
of vehicles it will be because the officer sees
that one vehicle is obviously
moving faster than the others. And he
knows by his visual observations which vehicle
that is. His radar gun cannot tell
him. It shows the speed of the fastest
vehicle, but not which vehicle that is.
Waves are an entirely different situation.
Here is an illustration I displayed the other
day which shows a radar gun emitting waves and
receiving waves back.
Note that it is implying (or stating) that new
waves are being emitted at the same time old
waves are returning. It also implies that
the distance between waves is what determines
the target's speed. That is the Doppler
Effect for SOUND waves. Sound waves move
at 343 meters per second or 767 miles per
hour. Light photons move at
299,792,458 meters per second or 186,000 miles per
second.
If the Doppler Effect also changes the distance
between light waves, and that is how radar guns
work, then we need an illustration which shows
cars of different speeds approaching the police
car and radar gun. Then we can see that
the distance between waves coming back will
different for each vehicle. The gun won't,
of course, be able to tell which car in the
bunch is traveling the fastest, but how will
does it prevent the return waves from getting
mixed together and showing that one car is
traveling at 200 mph?
It seems to me that describing radar gun using
photons instead of waves would make things much
much simpler, but if everyone is intent on
maintaining their ignorance about how light (and
all electromagnetic radiation) works, it seems
it will be a long time before we see
illustrations of radar guns emitting photons
(other than in my papers).
I really really need to get back to work
on the overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns
and Einstein's Theories. It explains
how photons work in radar guns. But will
anyone care, if they are dedicated to remaining
ignorant?
|
|
|
