Archive for
June 2019

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. 

Memory Man

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 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

deltaE = h deltafrequency
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, deltat. Let an interaction force, ± f, exist between the photon and the car for the time, deltat. 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.

An Absolutely Remarkable Thing

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 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.

radar gun
                  and waves calculator 
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?  

Comments for Saturday, June 1, 2019, thru Saturday, June 8, 2019:

June 8, 2019 - In yesterday's comment I failed to mention a problem I had with listening to the audio book version of "The President is Missing."  If the title of a book is over 25 characters in length, the part number does not show on the little screen on my ClipSport MP3 player.  AND the parts are somehow scrambled.

"The President is Missing" consisted of 11 MP3 files (11 parts).  The file name for Part 1 is "The President is Missing - Part 01."  The 25 character limit (which includes spaces as characters) just shows "The President is Missing " for all 11 parts, and the parts were actually in this order 6, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 7, 8, 9 ... and so on.

Fortunately, the book consisted of 128 chapters, which meant that nearly every MP3 file began with Dennis Quaid stating a chapter number. All I had to do was make a note every time a chapter number was given.  That way I could tell I was in the right MP3 file when I started on a new file.

Last night I started listening to another audio book.  It also has a title that is over 25 characters, but this time it has relatively few chapters.  So, I ended up listening to chapters 1, 2 and part of 4.  I couldn't think of any way to tell if I was in the right chapter except by gut feel that what I'm hearing seems to fit after what I last heard.  My gut feeling was wrong.

This morning, I looked at the MP3 files in my computer and made a note of the first few words on each of the files and to what chapter they belonged.  So, now I can be sure that I'll be listening to them in the correct order (after I go back and listen to chapter 3).    

Checking the Internet to see if others have had the same problem, I found that they have, and the best solution is to edit the file names so that the entire name, including the part number, is less than 25 characters.  I had considered that idea, but I was concerned that trimming the file names might cause some other kind of problem.  I'll do it next time.

Life didn't used to be this complicated.

June 7, 2019 -
Yesterday evening I finished listening to another audio book.  It was The President is Missing by Bill Clinton and James Patterson, a bestseller which was published almost exactly one year ago:

The President is Missing

It took me three evenings to listen to the 13 hour audio book.  I listened to Chapters 1-33 on Tuesday, Chapters 34-76 on Wednesday, and Chapter 77 through Chapter 128 and the Epilogue last night.  The primary narrator was actor Dennis Quaid, supported by several others.

It was an enjoyable book, and well worth the time I spent on it.  It is about a potential cyber attack upon the United States, a threat that is so menacing that if it happens it would throw the United States back into the Dark Ages.  It would shut down our electric power sources, our banks, out hospitals, our businesses and everything that connects to the Internet.  President John Duncan has just three days to stop it from happening.

The only problem I had with the book was the description of the computer virus that the culprits plan to use.  As a former computer programmer, the virus didn't seem to work the way any software works that I am aware of.  But, the book is a work of fiction, so that wasn't a serious problem for me.  Far more interesting to me was a speech given by President Duncan where he describes a political situation that is virtually identical to our current political situation:
     Our democracy cannot survive its current downward drift into tribalism, extremism, and seething resentment. Today it’s “us versus them” in America. Politics is little more than blood sport. As a result, our willingness to believe the worst about everyone outside our own bubble is growing, and our ability to solve problems and seize opportunities is shrinking.
     We have to do better. We have honest differences. We need vigorous debates. Healthy skepticism is good. It saves us from being too naive or too cynical. But it is impossible to preserve democracy when the well of trust runs completely dry.
We have a real President who views anyone who disagrees with him as an enemy who must either change their ways or be destroyed.  That includes other political parties, the  media, the FBI and all foreign governments (except perhaps a few dictatorships).

The book contains a lot of fascinating details about the inner workings of the government.  And since it was co-written by an ex-President, everything has a solid ring of reality about it.  I can definitely recommend the book. 

June 6, 2019
- I'm not sure if anyone is reading this web page anymore.  My web site statistics show I had a low of 176 visitors and a high of 218 visitors in the first 5 days of this month, but they could nearly all be hackers and robots.

It's been difficult for me to find the time to work on the overhaul of my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  I've been doing some research while also arguing on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  Then I get so mentally exhausted that all I can do is sit back on an easy chair and listen to an audio book novel.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of people reading my scientific papers on and  So, if I'm losing readers for this web site, I'm gaining readers for my papers.   They probably find out about my papers from the discussion forum and (hopefully) by word of mouth.

There's little that is more frustrating than to read a police radar gun web site that seems to refer to basics radar guns as "analog" guns (as opposed to "digital" guns), and then after spending a hour or more searching the Internet I can find no place that identifies what makes or models of radar guns are  considered to be "analog" guns.  Here's what that sites says about analog guns:

Digital radar guns measure speed based on a 12-inch travel distance of target vehicles, compared to 10 to 15 car lengths used by analog guns.
Older, analog radar guns always display the strongest reflected signal. This creates great frustration when you are locked on to an approaching 18-wheeler in a group of oncoming vehicles that includes a speed demon sports car. You see the Mustang going 80 mph, but the radar gun shows 53 mph because it's reading the 18-wheeler.
Right now I am agonizing about contacting my local police department to find out what make and model of hand-held basic radar gun they use.  I just hate the idea of getting some cop angry at me for being a pest.  Sigh.  I just gathered up the nerve to try it, but all I got was answering machines.  I don't think I can get any answers that way.  Sigh.

June 4, 2019
- Although I tried to end the arguments on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, I'm still involved in arguments there.  And yesterday one of the arguments became very productive.  Since none of my previous arguments were getting any results, I tried to explain in a different way how radar guns work.  I stated:
The best way to understand how radar guns work is to just follow one single photon to the target and back.
And I proceeded to describe how an oscillating photon leaves the radar gun traveling at c, it hits an approaching car at c+v, which causes the car (traveling at v) to bounce back photons that oscillate at a higher frequency.  This morning I remembered seeing a calculator for that.  I did a search and found one HERE which looks like this:

                      Frequency and Speed calculator

I plunked in a transmission frequency of 24.125 GHz, which is the standard frequency for K-Band police radar guns.  I then plunked in a speed of 60 mph for the speed of the target vehicle.  When I hit ENTER, the above data appeared.  It shows that the return photon will oscillate at
24125004308.035713 Hz, and when you subtract the transmitted frequency from the return frequency, you get a "beat frequency" of 4308.035713195801 Hz. (They call it a "beat frequency" because you "beat" the two photons together to get the difference in their oscillation frequencies.)  

Unfortunately, the illustration shows waves, not photons.  But illustrating the beat frequency concept using photons is difficult.  I know because I will need to do it in my revised paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.
The point is, however, that a photon oscillates at a very high frequency as it moves, but the mathematicians have no mathematical model for such a thing.  They only have a mathematical model for particles that travel at the speed of light but do not oscillate, and they have a mathematical model for waves that travel at the speed of light but do not oscillate.  And such waves must have a medium and be continuous.  The illustration above shows a continuous flow of waves.  The wave crests move forward like the compressed air of sound waves.  There is no oscillation of the wave itself, the crest just moves from point to point.  The oscillation is in the medium.  With air as a medium, the oscillation is from compressed air to normal air and back to compressed air again.  But light works without any medium.  Light can travel in a vacuum, sound cannot.

I could probably explain the problem better if I had more time, but it just occurred to me.  The real problem is that mathematicians only understand their mathematical formulas and cannot explain things except as math problems.  If I tried to get them to describe in words or images how a light wave moves from a radar gun to a target and back, I doubt they could do it.  How can you have a moving crest of a wave without any medium?  You can't.  That may explain why there are still scientists arguing in scientific papers that the aether or ether must exist.  If you do not have a medium you must have a continuous ray, like a rope running from the source to the target, and the wave moves along the rope.  The rope, of course, is then the medium. 

It all just brings me back to what Richard Feynman 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.  
Correct.  You cannot have waves without a medium.  And light can travel in a vacuum where there is no medium.    

Somehow, I need to incorporate all this into my radar gun paper.

June 3, 2019
- Two days ago, I wondered what the current best selling fiction books were.  When I researched it, I found that #2 on the list was a James Patterson novel The 18th Abduction.  It was the one on the list that looked most interesting, and it made me wonder if my local library had it in audio book form.  They did, but there was a waiting list.  More significantly, I learned that it was the 18th book in a series of novels about "The Women's Murder Club."  So, I wouldn't want to read it anyway.  I'd want to start with the first book in the series.  That turned out to be "1st to Die."

1st to Die

And it turned out that my library had 1st to Die in audio book form and it was available for immediate borrowing.  So, I borrowed it, and yesterday afternoon and evening I listened to it - 6 hours and 9 minutes.

At first the book didn't seem particularly interesting.  It was about the formation of the "Women's Murder Club" (Lindsay Boxer is a homicide inspector in the San Francisco Police Department, Claire Washburn is a medical examiner, Jill Bernhardt is an assistant D.A., and Cindy Thomas just started working the crime desk of the San Francisco Chronicle).  They come together as they try to solve the grizzly murder of a newly-wed couple.  Early on it seemed clear to me who the killer was, so it was just a matter of time before the club members figured it out.  But then things took a weird turn and the story became a little far-fetched. 

While I enjoyed the  book, it wasn't really my cup of tea.  The murders were too graphic and grizzly.  I prefer more humor in my murder mystery novels.  So, I won't be reading any more from the series.

But it got my mind off of radar guns for awhile.         

June 2, 2019
- I think the arguments about my Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories paper on the sci.physics.relativity forum have come to an end.  Some of the discussion was very worthwhile.  For one thing, it made me realize exactly what "problem" my paper should address.  That problem was also mentioned in the abstract for the paper by Jeremy Fiennes I wrote about yesterday:
The 'constant speed of light' postulate predicts that two inertial observers – for instance twins in spaceships free-floating in outer space – will each see the other's clock running slower than his own.
As far as I know, Einstein never said anything like that.  It is the mathematicians' misinterpretation of Einstein's theories.  It is also #1 on my list of the ten dumbest beliefs in physics

In the sci.physics.relativity discussion, relative motion came up in an argument from "RichD" on May 25:
Ed, imagine you're in a space ship, in outer space. 
Looking through the front window, you spot an
approaching asteroid.  You aim the radar gun at it:

I)  You are stationary, the asteroid is moving
    toward you at 90 mph.  What does the device read? 
    Will a patrol cop cite you for speeding?

II) The asteroid is stationary, you are moving
   forward at 90 mph.  What does the device read? 
   Will a patrol cop cite you for speeding?
In my response I wrote:
Those situations are FANTASY situations that mathematicians use to argue that all motion is relative.  

Einstein said that the speed of light is always emitted at c and cannot
exceed c.

Your FANTASY situations have my spaceship and the asteroid in empty space with no frames of reference to determine who is moving. In reality, of course, both are moving.  The only question is: who is moving fastest?  That is determined by finding out who is moving closer to the fixed speed of light.  

According to my paper, I should be able to point my radar gun at the wall inside my space ship to determine my speed relative to the speed of light. The gun subtracts my speed v from the speed of light c to show my speed.

Knowing my speed, I can then point the gun at the asteroid and get its
speed relative to the speed of light.  If it is moving at 90 mph, the
gun will read 90 mph, but won't say whether it is positive or negative.

If the asteroid is stationary relative to me, then we are both moving in
the same direction.  If the asteroid is moving relative to me, then the
asteroid is moving at 90 mph in a different direction than I am.

If the asteroid is moving at 200 mph relative to the speed of light,
the gun will show that.  That has no effect on how fast I am moving.

I should probably have spent some time thinking about what I just wrote, but I think it is correct.
A basic police radar gun measures a target's speed relative to the local speed of light.  (Local c basically means c at the local altitude, since the length of a second varies with altitude.)  A photon of a specific wavelength is emitted from the gun at local c, it encounters the target at c+v, the target sends back a new photon which has a slightly shorter wavelength representing the added kinetic energy from the moving target.  The new photon travels at local  c back to the gun.  The gun compares the wavelength of the photon it emitted to the wavelength of the photon it received back and computes the speed of the target to be vIn addition, my research into radar guns now indicates that some models of a basic radar gun can determine the direction the target is moving without losing its other "basic radar" features.

In space, basic radar guns would work the same way as they do on a highway, only "local c" does not involve any altitude because the experiment takes place in "empty space".  There aren't even any stars to judge your own direction of movement by.  

                    ships with radar guns passing one another

So, as seen in the cartoon above, the radar gun on the spaceship on the right emits photons which travel at c toward the spaceship on the left.  The fact that the radar gun may be moving doesn't change c ("light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"). 

Atoms in the outer surface of the spaceship on the left absorb the oncoming photons and emit new photons back toward the gun.  The new photons travel at c, but they will have a shorter or longer wavelength depending upon who is moving toward whom.  The gun on the spaceship on the right will compute the difference in wavelengths to find the speed of the target and the direction it is moving.  If it shows the spaceship on the left is approaching at 200 mph, the gun can then be pointed at a wall inside the right spaceship and the speed of the wall relative to the speed of light can be computed.  If the wall turns out to be approaching at 190 mph, that means the left space ship is traveling at 200 mph toward the right and the spaceship on the right is traveling backwards at 190 mph in the same direction (in space, if your engines are turned off, you can be easily moving backwards if you do not orient yourself to the stars).  In other words, the spaceship on the left is approaching the spaceship on the right with a "closing speed" of 10 mph.

Of course, that means the radar gun on the spaceship on the left will get a reading 190 mph off of the spaceship on the right, and the gun will indicate the target is moving away from the spaceship on the left.  But, checking the speed of the forward wall on the left spaceship, that wall will have a speed of 200 mph away from the gun. So, from the point of view of the spaceship on the left, it is approaching the spaceship on the right at a "closing speed" of 10 mph.

But how do I prove any of this?  All I need to do is find a basic radar gun that works the way such a gun was described to me by a police officer about a year ago.  I cannot ask my local police department any more questions, since they seem to be very concerned that I am going to cause some kind of political problem for them.  I'm going to continue to try contacting the manufacturers of radar guns while at the same time trying to find manuals and other materials on-line that might help.

While hunting, I'm going to overhaul my paper about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to describe things the way I understand them, beginning with the "problem" of whether or not all motion is relative.  If I can't find an inexpensive way to do a radar gun experiment for myself, I may just recommend that the readers of the paper do so.  If I am wrong, they can prove me wrong (as long as they use the correct type of radar gun).  If I am right, they may be the first to discover solid evidence that all motion is not relative and the textbooks which say all motion is relative need to be thrown in the trash.

June 1, 2019
- This morning, sent me a link to a new 82-page article about "Einstein's Terrible Twins" by Jeremy Fiennes.  Browsing through the article, I saw it has a weird version of the second paragraph from Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity paper
"The unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relative to the 'light medium' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics, as well as those of mechanics, possess no properties corresponding to an absolute rest a9. But rather that the same laws of electrodynamics are valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good b10. We will raise this conjecture to the status of a 'relativity postulate'. And will introduce another, only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. The introduction of a 'luminiferous aether' will thus prove superfluous."11
That is clearly not the translation I always use, but it says basically the same thing.  However, then things really get weird when the article goes on to say,
He later amplified the last bit to:

"Light in vacuo has a definite velocity of propagation, independent of the state of motion of the source or of the observer."12 (italics ours)
When did Einstein say that?!  I looked through the references section for reference #12, which turns out to be a letter Einstein sent to the London Times in 1919.     The letter says this on page 2:
The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light).
The letter is in English, but Einstein couldn't write in English in 1919.  Could the section in red have been added by the translator?  That seems unlikely.  What seems far more likely is that Einstein was saying that light always propagates through space at c, and the speed of the observer or emitter doesn't change that.  In other words, while an observer moving toward the source of the light at speed v might encounter the light at c+v, the light isn't actually moving at c+v, it is moving at c.  The speed of the observer doesn't change the speed of light.

But that makes it another opinion versus opinion argument.  What did Einstein mean when he wrote the above?  It is clearly different from what he wrote in his 1905 paper, but countless mathematicians argue that what he wrote in his 1905 paper isn't what he actually meant to write.

Looking back to the abstract for Jeremy Fiennes' paper, I found it says this:
Einstein's Special Relativity is based on two fundamental assumptions, the so-called 'Einstein postulates'. The 'constant speed of light' postulate predicts that two inertial observers – for instance twins in spaceships free-floating in outer space – will each see the other's clock running slower than his own. The 'relativity' postulate says that both perceptions are equally valid, effectively correct. The logical incoherence of this makes a nonsense of the postulates, and by extension of Special Relativity itself.
So, Fiennes is evidently debunking Einstein's theories.  I just do not have the time to figure out exactly what Feinnes is arguing.  He appears to be arguing against the mathematicians' interpretations of Einstein's theories while claiming those interpretations are actually Einstein's words.  I'm fairly certain that Einstein never said anything like this:
The 'constant speed of light' postulate predicts that two inertial observers – for instance twins in spaceships free-floating in outer space – will each see the other's clock running slower than his own.
That is pure mathematician crap.

I think my radar gun experiment can end the debate once and for all time, but how can I confirm that without spending a lot of money?

© 2019 by Ed Lake