Archive for ed-lake.com
August 2019

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

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

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


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

A Universe From Nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It occurs to me that if you had a radar gun that could measure velocities far above the 200 mph limit for typical police radar guns, you could measure the 18,000 mph speed of the International Space Station by pointing the gun out a window at some shiny part of the station.  If you point the gun in the direction of movement, the gun should register minus 18,000 mph.  In the opposite direction it should measure a positive 18,000 mph.  In any other direction it will measure lower speeds due to the cosine effect, until it shows zero for some part that is perpendicular to the direction of movement. ADDED NOTE: This is in ERROR - See my Sept. 1 comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Redshift with and without Big Bang

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

Here's another quote from that NASA site:

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

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

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

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

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

The result was a little bit surprising.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My
                      stereo system

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

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

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

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

Fiinding George Orwell in Burma

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Science in the Soul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radar
                      guns - photons vs waves

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

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

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

Waking Gods

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

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

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

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

radar guns
                emitting waves

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Comments for Sunday August 4, 2019, thru Saturday, August 10, 2019:

August 8, 2019 - Now that I have confirmed that "basic" radar guns work as described in my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories," I need to find some way to get others to buy "basic" radar guns and do the actual experiments.  But, clearly they won't believe me if I just name one model radar gun.  They'll claim I just misunderstood something.  Or they might get out their torches and pitchforks and go on a rampage to lynch the witches and sorcerers who claim they can perform black magic to challenge what the evangelistic mathematicians believe to be sacred and inviolate. 

One way to avoid that is to identify different guns by different manufacturers which all confirm what I wrote.  So, I'm preparing snail-mail letters to other manufacturers who didn't respond to my emails.  (I don't see any hope of making contact via a phone call.  They'll just assume I am someone looking for a way to beat a speeding ticket.)   Meanwhile, maybe some of the 468 people who have "viewed" my paper about radar guns will decide to find a "basic" radar gun and perform the experiment for themselves. 

Since I'm now 99.9% certain that my paper is correct, my focus is now on how to do the experiments - or how to get someone else to do the experiments.  If a college professor makes headlines by disproving what is in most college physics textbooks, would that end his career or boost his career?  The officials at his college would have to admit that what they've been teaching for about a century is total nonsense.

It's a lot to think about.        


August 6, 2019
- Yesterday morning, the general manager of a major radar gun manufacturing company called me.  It was in response to an email I'd sent the company via one of those fill-in-the-boxes windows which do not provide their email address and do not provide you with a copy of the email you sent.  The email I'd sent asked if they had a radar gun which would do the following:
1. Give "no reading" (i.e., a speed of less than 10 mph) if the radar gun was in a vehicle traveling at 60 mph and the gun was pointed at the road ahead, or at parked cars or highway signs.

2. Give a reading of "60 mph" when the gun is in a vehicle moving at 60 mph and the gun is pointed at the back of a truck that is directly ahead and is also traveling at 60 mph.
The connection was bad.  Evidently the general manager (GM) was using a cell phone in a bad location.  But, he told me they had such a gun, and he gave me the email address of one of their senior engineers if I had any further questions. Of course, I immediately composed an email to the engineer and sent it off.

As of 10:30 this morning I hadn't heard from the engineer, so I called the GM on his office land-line number.  I was concerned that there may have been some misunderstanding due to the bad connection, so we spent about 20 minutes going through everything again in detail.  I explained the implications behind the two questions I had asked.  If the gun does both things, then the gun must also give a 60 mph reading if it is inside the truck and the radar gun is pointed at the front wall while the truck travels at 60 mph. 

The GM realized that was true, and he started talking about how he was going to perform such an experiment to verify it.  He gave me the model number of the least expensive radar gun they sold that had this capability.  Cost: $1,600.   We talked about how the two conditions I'd asked about related to Einstein's theories, and he again suggested I contact the senior engineer.  So, as soon as we hung up, I sent another email to the engineer. 

Prior to today's phone conversation I was 99% certain I was right about what I wrote in my paper Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  Now I am 99.9% certain.  While I'm waiting to see if that engineer is going to contact me, I'm going to compose letters to the general managers of four other major radar gun manufacturers to see if they have radar guns that do the same thing. (I'm certain they do, but I need the model numbers.)   When I have at least 3 makes of guns that verify my theory, I'll then write a paper naming them.  And if no police radar gun manufacturer is interested in making an inexpensive gun that scientists can use to demonstrate Einstein's theories, I may suggest to Bushnell that they produce a simpler version of their "Velocity Speed Gun" that does what the other guns do.  They might even call it The "SR Verifier" or the "SR Demonstrator."  SR stands for "Special Relativity," of course.

Meanwhile, yesterday evening I finished listening to the 3-hour 11-minute unabridged audio book version of Janet Evanovich's "Visions of Sugar Plums."

Visions of Sugar Plums

They call it a "novel," but is basically a "novella," which means it is less than 60,000 words.  It is Evanovich's first "between the numbers" book, fitting between "Hard Eight," which I finished reading in paperback form on June 18 and "To The Nines," which I finished reading in paperback form on July 19.   

It a funny fantasy in which bounty hunter Stephanie Plum hunts for bail jumper Sandy Claws, and along the way she encounters elves and mysterious characters with unearthly powers.  It may not have been the right time of the year for it, but it was still a good way to spend 3 hours and 11 minutes while trying to avoid thinking about radar guns.  However, I much prefer her "numbered" novels. 

August 5, 2019
- Yesterday afternoon, feeling tired from doing seemingly endless research, I sat down on my couch and finished reading a book on my Kindle.  The book was "Turn Right at Machu Picchu: Rediscovering the Lost City One Step at a Time" by Mark Adams.

Turn Right at Machu Picchu

I'd started it around July 8, so it took me almost a month to read it in sessions lasting about 15 minutes
during breakfast and lunch (except for the final session).

Needless to say, it's a travel book.  It describes the author's relatively recent visits to Machu Picchu and the visits by Yale Professor Hiram Bingham III one hundred years earlier, in 1911 and 1915.  Bingham is often considered to be the inspiration behind the fictional Indiana Jones.

Hiram Bingham III

The book generally alternates between a chapter describing Professor Bingham's adventures, and then a chapter describing the author's attempts to repeat what Bingham did.  It is very interesting, but reading it on a Kindle isn't recommended, since I kept wanting to see maps and pictures.  If there were maps at the beginning of the book (as there are in the paper editions), I don't remember them, and I had no way of knowing that all the pictures were at the end of the book.  You cannot easily flip from one part of a book to another on my Kindle.

I've traveled a lot in my time, and I'd always considered Machu Picchu to be one of the places I'd like to visit, but I never visited Mexico or anywhere in Central America, much less any place in South America.  And this book made me think it was probably fortunate that I never tried to visit Peru and Machu Picchu.  There are so many people visiting Machu Picchu these days, and the area is so small and delicate, that you have to make reservations many months in advance.  Plus, I spent most of the time wandering around alone in Japan and Thailand, and during my trips to Hong Kong, England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg,  I'm not sure I'd want to do that anywhere in Peru.  But, even without having easy access to maps and pictures, Turn Right at Machu Picchu was a very interesting and enjoyable book.

August 4, 2019
- A few days ago, while researching which papers and books use Einstein's actual Second Postulate (“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body”) instead of the distorted versions that appear in most textbooks, I came across http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/ which defines itself this way:

The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity (NCTR) uses concepts of Classical Mechanics and Classical Electromagnetism to describe the relativity of inertial motion better than it is described in the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) conceived by Albert Einstein in 1905.

The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity reveals the conceptual errors of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and also explains why the STR doesn’t have a valid experimental basis.

It's a web site created by a mathematician to promote an extremely convoluted argument that Einstein was wrong.  However, the author essentially argues the same things I argue when I argue that Einstein was right and it is mathematicians who have distorted Einstein's ideas for the past 100 years and more. 

In my paper about pulsars, I mentioned that there are four groups of people who are arguing about Einstein's theories.  The first group accepts Einstein's Second Postulate just the way it is written, and they argue against those who do not.  (I'm in that group.)  The second group consists of evangelistic mathematicians who argue that Einstein didn't mean what he wrote, he meant to agree with what the mathematicians believe about the Second Postulate.  The third group just accepts what the textbooks say and they argue that it is not possible for all the textbooks to be wrong.  And then there is the fourth group, about which I wrote:
The view held by the fourth group is that Einstein was wrong when he claimed that the speed of light is a constant and will be the same for all observers independent of their motion relative to the light source. People in this group also never compared what Einstein wrote to what college textbooks claim he wrote. They just accepted that he wrote what the textbooks say he wrote, and they argue that it cannot be right because it doesn’t agree with what they see happening in the world.
The author of "The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity" appears to be in this fourth group.  It also appears that the author has put all of his five papers on vixra.org and on academia.edu.   And it seems he hasn't written any new papers since February of 2017, which (probably coincidentally) is about the same time I started posting my papers.  (The only paper I've made a sincere attempt to decipher is his first one, titled "The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity.")

It's also interesting to view the comments after his papers to see how he is attacked by other mathematicians the same way I have been attacked.


While searching for others who are in the fourth group, I came across a bunch of papers by Gocho V. Sharlanova.  One particular paper caught my eye.  It is titled "The Speed of Light Postulate - Awareness of the Physical Reality."  English isn't Sharlanova's first language, and the article seemed nearly undecipherable, but it repeatedly mentioned "the Miller's experiment" as being a famous experiment to measure the speed of light.  So, I researched "The Miller's Experiment" and found a paper by Tom Roberts, with whom I've often argued on the sci.physics.relativity forum. The Roberts paper, available on arxiv.org, is titled "An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s Anomalous 'Ether Drift' Result."  It begins with this:
Dayton C. Miller’s 1933 article in this journal reviewed the results of his voluminous measurements obtained from his “ether drift” interferometer, and proclaimed to the world that he had determined “the absolute motion of the earth”. This claim has been embraced by some, rejected by many, and remains controversial today. 
Huh?  I had never heard of Dayton C. Miller, much less any claim that he had measured "the absolute motion of the earth."  Anything about "absolute motion" is attacked by mathematicians and is of great interest to me!   A quick Google search found that the 1934 Nature article by Prof. Dayton C. Miller of the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland, Ohio, is available at https://www.nature.com/articles/133162a0.pdf and it is extremely interesting.  It says,
For the first time, in 1925 and 1926, I made observations at Mount Wilson of such extent and completeness that they were sufficient for the determination of the absolute motion of the earth.
and
The absolute motion of the earth may be presumed to be the resultant of two independent component motions. One of these is the orbital motion around the sun, which is known both as to magnitude and direction. For the purposes of this study, the velocity of the orbital motion is taken as 30 kilometres per second, and the direction changes continuously through the year, at all times being tangential to the orbit. The second component is the cosmical motion of the sun and the solar system. Presumably this is constant in both direction and magnitude, but neither the direction nor magnitude is known; the determination of these quantities is the particular object of this experiment.
and
The orbital velocity of the earth being known, 30 kilometres per second, the cosmical velocity of the solar system, determined from the proportional variations in the observed effects, is found to be 208 kilometres per second.
Hmm.  Some time ago, I read an article in Scientific American that mentioned the earth's speeds in various directions.  It said our solar system "whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second."  Did they get that number from doing what Dayton Miller did?  In addition, another article I read quoted from a different Scientific American article:
"These measurements, confirmed by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite in 1989 and 1990, suggest that our galaxy and its neighbors, the so-called Local Group, are moving at 600 kilometers per second (1.34 million miles per hour) in the direction of the constellation Hydra."
If all motion is relative, as mathematicians believe, and if mathematicians believe it is equally valid to say that the constellation Hydra is moving toward the Milky Way galaxy at 600 kilometers per second, then how do they explain blue shifting and red shifting?  This morning, I did a search through arxiv.org to see what other papers mention Dayton Miller.  I found only one.  It's by someone at an Australian University and is titled "Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects."  It says this in the abstract:
An analysis of various experiments demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been observed experimentally by Michelson and Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Torr and Kolen, and by DeWitte. The Dayton Miller and Roland DeWitte data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as gravity.
"Absolute motion relative to space" makes no sense to me, but it seems to make sense to mathematicians who inexplicably cannot imagine "absolute motion relative to the speed of light," which is Einstein's theory and makes perfect sense to me.  The abstract also shows that the author belongs in group four when it says,
The Einstein assumptions leading to the Special and General Theory of Relativity are shown to be falsified by the extensive experimental data. Contrary to the Einstein assumptions absolute motion is consistent with relativistic effects, which are caused by actual dynamical effects of absolute motion through the quantum foam, so that it is Lorentzian relativity that is seen to be essentially correct.
Ah!  Mathematicians are fantasizing a "quantum foam" to replace the "aether" they previously believed filled the universe!  That way they can ignore the reality of "absolute motion" being relative to the speed of light, which is Einstein's theory.  A search through arxiv.org for the term "quantum foam" finds 53 papers that use the term, but none also mention the aether (or ether).
 
I still have a lot of papers to go through, but it might be interesting to see what other arguments the mathematicians in group four have to counter the arguments from their fellow mathematicians in group two. 

It now seems more clear than ever that finding a radar gun that can demonstrate Einstein's theories is certainly still the best way to move forward.  I wonder how the evangelistic mathematicians would argue against countless people routinely using radar guns to demonstrate something that the mathematicians believe is totally impossible.  


Comments for Thursday August 1, 2019, thru Saturday, August 3, 2019:

August 2, 2019 - Yesterday, I tried contacting four different radar gun manufacturers via emails (mostly "fill in the boxes" type emails).  I told them I was looking for a radar gun to do scientific experiments, and I asked which models of their guns do not bounce photons off of the gun's radome and thus would give "no reading" if the gun was pointed at the ground ahead from a car going 60 mph.  Only one manufacturer responded and told me, "I think you need to find another way to fight your speeding ticket."  He clearly misunderstood me and seemed to think I was arguing that a radar gun cannot measure its own speed by bouncing photons off of its radome.  I sent an email back to him to try to correct his misunderstanding, but I've received no reply.

It appears that mathematicians may be a plague on radar gun manufacturers, too, and the manufacturers have set up barriers to prevent mathematicians from submitting arguments via emails challenging what the radar guns indicated when they got a traffic ticket.  I'm going to have to try contacting the manufacturers by regular mail.  Phone calls would only be a last resort, since phone calls require the right time and the right person. 

Meanwhile, I'm really enjoying the discussions I'm having on Facebook.  There are still plenty of mathematicians trying to dominate the discussions, but you know the others are there, too, because they "like" what you write.  Yesterday, I tried starting a new discussion on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group, and my post was approved by a moderator at about 9 p.m. last night.  When I checked the group this morning, I found that 93 people had reacted to what I had posted.

Responses to my Facebook comment

Then, as I was putting together the above image, more people kept responding, so the numbers kept changing every time I did a screen capture.  As of this moment 100 people have responded. 19+48=67 people "liked" what I posted, 19+9=28 people laughed at what I posted, and 5 "loved" what I posted. 

I'm not sure what the "18 shares" (as of this moment) indicate, but those would almost certainly indicate positive responses.  None of the 7 comments were negative.  They were mostly thoughts about why Einstein said,
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity I do not understand it myself anymore.”  

August 1, 2019
- Last night I finished listening to the 6-hour 23-minute unabridged audio book version of The Glass Key, by Dashiell Hammett.

The Glass Key by Dashiell Hammett

I wasn't really paying full attention, unfortunately.  I kept thinking about Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories and how I might get access to a collection of radar guns or get some information from someone who has such a collection (like a radar gun manufacturer).  I came up with some ideas, but I need to find the time to pursue them. 

So far, 177 people have viewed my Radar Guns paper on vixra.org and 277 people have viewed it on academia.edu.  I've had only one email from a reader.  I'm hoping that some reader will have access to a "basic" radar gun and will be curious enough to perform the experiments - and let me know what the results were.

Yesterday I also did a search through Google Scholar for the exact quote "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."  There were "only" 160 results.  But it could take me a month to study just the papers and books which appear might be of interest
(one turned out to be a paper of mine).  I downloaded about a dozen that definitely need further study. 

I see no point in further arguments with mathematicians, particularly the evangelistic mathematicians on sci.physics.relativity.  I need to see how "basic" radar guns work.  If they work the way I say they work, the mathematicians claim that would be impossible.  It would certainly be a way to either end the arguments or get the mathematicians to change to some different argument.   They are 100% certain in what they believe.  I am only 99% certain about my understanding.  But I am looking for experimental evidence to verify or change my understanding.  They aren't.  They do not feel it is possible for them to be wrong. 

Oh yes, The Glass Key wasn't the best Dashiell Hammett novel I've read (or listened to), but it was interesting.  Collars that you button onto your shirt were in style in 1930 when the book was written.  They're mentioned at least twice in the book.  They allowed you to replace a stained collar without replacing the entire shirt.  It's one of the things that "dates" the book and takes you back to a different era.












© 2019 by Ed Lake
RETURN