|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.
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 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.
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):
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" 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.
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.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.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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.