Archive for
September 2019

Comments for Sunday September 29, 2019, thru Monday, Sept. 30, 2019:

September 30, 2019 - There was an email in my in-box this morning informing me that my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory had been placed on as of 4:31 PM yesterday afternoon.  That's a little surprising, since all my other papers weren't posted until around 6 AM on the morning after I submitted them.

I was also a little surprised to see three comments posted after my article, all from "Mikko" who seems to have made it his mission in life to criticize all of my articles as soon as I post them.  His first criticism begins this way:
In section III the author discusses the problems he has because he doesn't understand special relativity. First he compares different statements used as the second postulate. Of course it makes little difference which postulates one uses as long as they result in the same theory, and there are presentations of the theory that don't use Einstein's second postulate at all. (In Einstein's original article the word "postulate" is not used but postulates were called "principles" instead.)
"It makes little difference which postulates one uses as long as they result in the same theory"??  How can anyone discuss Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity without discussing his two postulates?  Einstein's theory says that if A is true and if B is true, then C can also be true.  A and B are Einstein's two postulates.  If you try to discuss C without discussing A and B, you are discussing a theory with no basis for the theory.  That may be how mathematicians do things, but it isn't the "scientific method."  And they create their own second postulate in order to distort Einstein's theory to fit their beliefs.

Furthermore, in Einstein's original article the German term for "assumption" is used where the word "postulate" is used in the English version, and the German term for "conditions" is used where the plural word "postulates" is used in English.  Here is how Google translates things from German to English:

Wir wollen diese Vermutung (deren Inhalt im folgenden, Prinzip der Relativitat" genannt werden wird) zur Voraussetzung erheben und au6erdem die mit ihm nur scheinbar unvertragliche Voraussetzung einfiihren, da8 sich das Licht im leeren Raume stets mit einer bestimmten, vom Bewegungszustande des emittierenden Kiirpers unabhangigen Geschwindigkeit Y fortpflanze.  Diese beiden Voraussetzungen geniigen, um zu einer einfachen und widerspruchsfreien Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper zu gelangen unter Zugrundelegung der Maxwellschen Theorie fur ruhende Korper.
Let us presuppose this presumption (the content of which will hereafter be called the "principle of relativity") and introduce the only apparently incomplete assumption that light in empty space is always independent of the state of motion of the emitting body Speed ​​Y. These two conditions are sufficient to arrive at a simple and consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, based on Maxwell's theory for resting bodies.

While in this situation there doesn't seem to be an exact word in German that means "postulate," it is very clear that "Prinzip" translates to "principle" and "principle" translates to "Prinzip."

Mikko's next comment says:

The reader should not let the author's archaic use of the word "mathematician" to confuse oneself. Although the meaning is more restricted in the modern language, there is a tradition to use it more generally to mean 'a person who can think rationally', and this old meaning is used in the article.
Of course, the opposite is true.  My articles generally refer to mathematicians as people who only know and understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything "rationally." 

Curious about who (except mathematicians) would think of "mathematician" as meaning "a person who can think rationally," I searched for the difference between a physicist and a mathematician and found a web site HERE that says,

Physicists and mathematicians utilize mathematical principles to validate theories. Both fields apply their work to solve practical problems. A physicist specializes in examining how different types of components, such as energy and matter, interact. In contrast, a mathematician conducts research or experiments to further understanding of subjects like geometry or algebra.
That seems about right.  My experience in arguing with mathematicians indicates that all they are interested in is "experiments to further understanding of subjects like geometry or algebra."  In other words, they like playing mathematical games. Science is of no interest to them.

As soon as I verified that my paper was available on, I uploaded it to   Then the next step was to publicize the article, i.e., to let people know it exists.  That is what I'm doing now with this comment.  And I also mentioned it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  I suspect everyone there will share Mikko's views.

September 29, 2019
- At 9:45 AM this morning, I submitted a new science paper to  That means it should be available for viewing tomorrow morning.  Once it appears along with all of my other papers on, I will then also install it on

The paper is titled "Radar Guns vs Wave Theory."  I've been mentioning it here since late August, and at one time I thought it would be finished before the end of August.  But then I ran into problems with my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories.  Fortunately, those problems have nothing to do with Radar Guns vs Wave Theory.  Both "basic" and "complex" radar guns emit photons, not waves, and that is what the new paper is all about.  Mathematicians generally believe that radar guns emit waves.  That is how nearly all illustrations show a radar gun working. 
radar gun waves

My new paper explains that radar guns cannot possibly emit waves, since waves cannot do what a radar gun does. 

How can mathematicians argue in favor of a belief that is virtually impossible?  The paper addresses that topic, too.  It is the "herd instinct" mentioned in Thomas Gold's paper on New Ideas in Science where the "herd" says: "Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?"

I'm also working on another paper, which at one time I had combined with the paper on wave theory.  It's a paper about what radar guns tell us about the Big Bang.  It's very complicated and could take a long time to finish, since my job will be to uncomplicate it.  

Meanwhile, I'm continuing to search for a way to access and experiment with a "basic" radar gun without paying $1,600 to buy one, and without blindly buying a gun (or device) that I am not totally certain is a "basic" radar gun.  Searching around, I found information about Mattel's "Hot Wheels" radar gun, which sold for about $30 when they started making them in 2006.  

Mattel Hot Wheels radar gun
I have to say "sold" because Mattel stopped making such guns a few years after they started making them.  So, now you can only buy a used one as a "collector's item" for about $80 and up.  What does it measure when  the gun is moving at 40 mph toward a parked car?  It seems no one ever tried such an experiment, and the instruction manual isn't much help.  But, I suspect it works like the Bushnell Speedster "complex" radar gun, which means it would be of no help to me even if I could borrow one somewhere.

Comments for Sunday September 22, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 28, 2019:

September 26, 2019 - It is very difficult to write comments for this web site when all I am doing is bumping up against walls.  I've gotten absolutely no response from local police departments when I sent them emails asking questions about radar guns. 

I suppose I could write a comment about President Trump, but that would likely be more depressing than bumping up against walls. 

I tried to rent a radar gun that I figured might work like a "basic" radar gun, but the guy who runs the one-man rental company hasn't been answering his phone nor responding to emails.  Researching him, based upon some messages he posted on Facebook, it appears he's visiting some relatives.  If so, you'd think he'd leave a message on his answering machine or web site that he will be gone from the office until such and such a date.

Doing further research, just looking for ideas, I found some information about "Pocket Radars."  You can buy a basic Pocket Radar from Amazon for $199.

Pocket Radar

But will it do what I need it to do?  I'd like to know for certain before spending the $199.  Just before lunch yesterday, I sent an email to the company asking for some information, but so far I have received no response.  Checking the instruction sheet for the device, it just says,
• The Classic Model is a stationary mode radar and is not intended to be used in a moving vehicle.
• The Classic Model radar tracks the strongest signal. It displays the speed of the vehicle with the strongest radar return, which is typically the closest vehicle.
• The Classic Model measures vehicles that are approaching and receding from the stationary radar position. It does not discriminate the direction of the moving vehicle. 
It is "not intended to be used in a moving vehicle," but what happens when you do use it in a moving vehicle?  I looked through some videos where people use the device, but they just use it while stationary.   One comment in the "customer comments" section on Amazon suggests that it works just like the "complex" Bushnell Speedster radar gun.  But, how can something that is only about a half-inch thick do that?  The answer on Amazon seems to be about how such an experiment should work, not how an actual experiment did work. 

I might buy such a device just to see how it works.  If it works like the Bushnell Speedster, then maybe I can do an experiment where I point it skyward while moving to see if it is measuring return signals from the ground or something internal to the device.  But I need to do more thinking first.  I keep hoping someone else will do something to answer all my questions.  If I buy a Pocket Radar and it doesn't work the way I need it to work, I won't know why it doesn't.  Right now, I don't need any new unsolved mysteries. 

September 24, 2019
- I spent much of this morning following links.  A Google search for "radar guns relativity" (without the quote marks) led me to this link which contains a comment about the 1971 Hafele-Keating time dilation experiment followed by this:
In 2017, another experiment was done using strontium clocks, whose accuracy is three times that of cesium clocks, and the theory of
relativity was once again upheld (Ananthaswamy, 2017).
Hmm.  Another time dilation experiment?  I checked my list of time dilation experiments and didn't find anything from 2017.  So, I Google searched for "strontium" and "Ananthaswamy" and that led me to a New Scientist article from 22 March 2017 titled "Atomic clocks make best measurement yet of relativity of time" by Anil Ananthaswamy. The article contains this:
Special relativity established that the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other, a symmetry called Lorentz invariance. One consequence is that they would observe each other’s clocks running at different rates. Each observer would regard themselves as stationary and see the other observer’s clock as ticking slowly – an effect called time dilation.
The part I highlighted in red is totally wrong, of course, the faster moving observer will see the slower moving observer's clock as running FAST.  But, I continued to read the article and found this:
Now, Pacôme Delva of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues have used strontium clocks to test time dilation. Two optical fibre links, one between London and Paris and another between Paris and Braunschweig, Germany, were used to compare devices in these locations.

These clocks are moving at different velocities because of their position on the Earth’s surface, and relativity makes precise predictions about the extent of time dilation they experience. For example, a clock closer to the equator should tick more slowly than one closer to the North Pole. After one day, clocks in Paris and London should show a difference of 5 nanoseconds.
Hmm.  That's a test similar to the Michelson-Gale experiment from 1925, another experiment that I do not have in my list of time dilation experiments. 

The article also has this quote without citing a source for the quote:
“A violation of Lorentz invariance could point to a way to combine relativity and quantum mechanics”
Researching the quote, I found that the only place where it seems to have ever been used is in the New Scientist article where I found it.

Reading further, I found a link to the article written by the experimenters.  It is on and the article is titled "Test of special relativity using a fiber network of optical clocks" written by 31 authors.  The abstract begins this way:
Phase compensated optical fiber links enable high accuracy atomic clocks separated by thousands of kilometers to be compared with unprecedented statistical resolution. By searching for a daily variation of the frequency difference between four strontium optical lattice clocks in different locations throughout Europe connected by such links, we improve upon previous tests of time dilation predicted by special relativity.
The clocks were located in Teddington, England (near London), Paris, France, and Braunschweig (a.k.a. Brunswick), Germany.

                Paris, Braunschweig time dilation test

Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to have anything meaningful that I can quote.  It's an article that is filled with mathematics, and its prime purpose seems to be to prove a violation of the Lorentz invariance.  According to Wikipedia:

In relativistic physics, Lorentz symmetry, named after Hendrik Lorentz, is an equivalence of observation or observational symmetry due to special relativity implying that the laws of physics stay the same for all observers that are moving with respect to one another within an inertial frame. It has also been described as "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space"
So, it's all about Einstein's First Postulate: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

There's absolutely nothing in the article that I can find to quote support for what the New Scientist article says about it.  The New Scientist article says the experiment shows that, "
a clock closer to the equator should tick more slowly than one closer to the North Pole. After one day, clocks in Paris and London should show a difference of 5 nanoseconds."  But the article doesn't use the word "nanoseconds," nor "slowly," nor "equator" nor "closer" nor "difference."  The New Scientist article may accurately summarize the findings of the experiment as reported on, but the article has nothing I can quote to verify that. 

So, except for learning a bit more about how difficult it is to find unambiguous scientific articles and experiments supporting time dilation, this morning's research was a total waste of time. 

September 23, 2019
- Some questions I've been wondering about seem to have been answered long ago.  The main question was: How can mathematicians have been so wrong for so long without anyone proving them wrong?

Yesterday, I once again read the September 11, 2019, article in New Scientist magazine
titled "Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein’s legacy?"  The article includes this:
Einstein was both general relativity’s progenitor and quantum theory’s greatest critic. History may show whether neither, one or both of his sets of ideas were right. In the meantime, the nature of space and time seems as good a place to start as any to begin sorting out what’s what. Physics works by the minimisation of mysteries, and their current multiplication suggests that whatever we’ve got wrong, it is something pretty fundamental.
Then I did some kind of Google search which led me to a 1989 article by Dr. Thomas Gold from Cornell University's Department of Astronomy.  The article is titled "New Ideas in Science."  It is absolutely filled with passages worth quoting, so I'll have to select just the key passages to show here.  The first passage worth quoting may be this one:
What are the many factors that many people might share that go against the acceptance of scientifically valid new ideas? One obvious factor that has always been with us is the unwillingness to learn new things. Too many people think that what they learned in college or in the few years thereafter is all that there is to be learned in the subject, and after that they are practitioners not having to learn anymore. Of course especially in a period of fairly rapid evolution that is very much the wrong attitude; but unfortunately it is shared by many.
That seems to be the attitude I run up against when I argue with people on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  They endlessly quote what they memorized in college but cannot discuss anything, since all they seem to know is what they memorized.  They also have absolutely no interest in experiments, since that isn't what they learned in college.  Here's another passage which helps explain things:
a motivation that hones out new ideas, is what I brutally call the "herd" instinct. It is an instinct which humans have. It presumably dates back to tribal society. I am sure it has great value in sociological behavior in one way or another, but I think on the whole the "herd instinct" has been a disaster in science.
When I argue on sci.physics.relativity it certainly seems like I am fighting against people motivated by the "herd instinct."  Another quote:
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science.

Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge. "Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?" That is enough justification. 
That really seems to explain things.  And here is another quote that hits home for me as I try to get people to read and understand my papers:
It is now virtually impossible to do any research outside the widely accepted position. If a young man with no scientific standing were to attempt this, however brilliant he might be, he wouldn't have a hope. 
The following passage also hits home with me:
Once a herd has been established in a subject, it can only be broken by the most crass confrontation with opposing evidence. There is no gentle way that I have ever seen in the history of science where a herd once established has been broken up.

In many subjects such clear evidence is very hard to come by. In the complex subjects, especially I always think of the earth sciences in this respect, there are always different ways of interpreting any one fact; so many complicated things have taken place that any one fact can have three or four interpretations and the crass confrontation is very rare.
"Basic" radar guns provide clear evidence that the "herd" is wrong.  I just need to gain access to one and make certain that everyone knows that the guns can demonstrate that beliefs held by mathematicians for over a hundred years are undeniably FALSE.  The guns undeniably show that what the mathematicians believe is impossible is actually routinely done countless times every day.

All I need to do is gain access to a "basic" radar gun. 

Here's one final quote from Dr. Thomas Gold's article about how the refereeing procedure for new scientific papers hurts science:
What does the refereeing procedure really look like? How does it really go on? If, for example, an application was made in the early 60's or late 50's suggesting that the person wanted to investigate the possibility that continents are moving around a little, it would have been ruled out absolutely instantly without questions. That was crack- pot stuff, and had long been thought dead. Wegener, of course, was an absolute crack-pot, and everybody knew that and you wouldn't have any chance.

Six years later you could not get a paper published that doubted continental drift. The herd had swung around - but it was still a firm and arrogant herd.

Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference - namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organizer of this conference said to me, "Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow." I was not allowed 5 minutes of floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organizer started a paper with the sentence, "It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars."
What a mess!  It also explains why I have to post my papers to and where there are no referees. 

At the end of Dr. Gold's article is a link to a shorter article from 1999 that says similar things.  It's titled "Why Do They Leave Physics" and it's by a Princeton University professor named Philip W. Anderson.

September 22, 2019
- I think this week will determine whether or not I can do an actual radar gun test of Relativity.  I've got one more police department to try. The other local police departments wouldn't even respond to my emails.  And there is a radar gun rental company that may or may not rent a "basic" radar gun that my experiments require.  They do not rent either of the two "basic" guns I've mentioned on this web page (the Stalker II SDR and the TS3), but the type of radar gun they do rent may be a third kind of "basic" radar gun.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I saw an interesting post to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum yesterday, and I just had to put in my two cents worth.  The thread was titled: "Is there only "time-dilation" or is there REAL time-dilation ???" The discussion began with a post describing three points of view about time dilation: (1) Time dilation is impossible, time dilation experiments are really about geometry, not about time.  (2) Time dilation works just as Einstein said it does.  (3) Time dilation is just an illusion.

So, I posted a relatively short message that said:

There is only "REAL Time Dilation."  I've got a list of time dilation
experiments here:

Velocity Time Dilation experiments all begin by comparing clocks A & B to make sure they are synchronous and tick at the same rate. Then clock B is moved while Clock A remains in place.  When Clock B returns to be placed next to Clock A once again, Clock B shows that it experienced less time having passed while it was moving - just as Einstein said.

That confirms REAL time dilation.  But mathematicians DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THE EXPERIMENT SHOWS.  Instead, they fantasize something that can never be demonstrated: They claim Clock B didn't actually run slower, it just took a longer path through "space-time."

Either way, the clocks showed that time dilation is REAL.  The experiments show that time dilation is NOT reciprocal.  It is NOT an illusion.  There are just people who do not believe what experiments show and confirm, instead they believe what they want to believe.  They require the IMPOSSIBLE to happen (like instantaneously comparing clock tick rates when the clocks are thousands of miles apart) before they will accept the facts.
When I checked the forum this morning, I found that Tom Roberts (who has point of view #1) had replied, first by saying the experiment I described
is NOT a "velocity time dilation experiment" -- it is a total elapsed proper time experiment.
And then he repeated my comment "That [the experiment] confirms REAL time dilation" and he added:
No, it does NOT. That confirms two different paths between a given pair of points can have different path lengths. That is _NOT_ "time dilation", it is a different geometrical phenomenon.
Two cars travel from Chicago to New York. One goes directly and the other goes via New Orleans. The fact that their odometers indicate different distances does NOT mean their odometers had different calibrations (i.e. ticked at different rates), it merely reflects the FACT that they traveled different paths and those paths had different path lengths.
        Ditto for the type of experiment you mention above.
Hint: if an experiment does not measure tick rates, one cannot conclude ANYTHING about the tick rates. That type of experiment measures and compares total elapsed proper times, not tick rates.
As soon as I finish writing this comment, I'll figure out how to respond to his comment.  I think I'll ask him what kind of experiment would resolve the debate? But I suspect that he'll just say there is no "debate."  There are just his beliefs and there are people who are wrong.

Meanwhile, a couple days ago, sent me an email about a science paper they figured might be of interest to me.  The paper is titled "On the nature of light and relativity," it's by a chemistry teacher at the University of California, San Diego, named Richard Sauerherber, and begins with this:
Introduction. Although evidence has been presented that the special theory of relativity for light has been confirmed and established [1- 4], other evidence suggests the contrary [5,6]. For example, Otis [6] found that the velocity of light in the propagation direction indeed is c, but when observers are in motion toward (or away) from the light, the increased (or decreased) light frequency f detected proves that the velocity with which light and observer approach each other differs from c because of motion of the observer. This motion cannot itself alter the wavelength w of the light produced by the source from which it speeds, where v (≠ c) = wf. This suggests to us that the postulates of the special theory of relativity need to be clarified. Indeed, light velocity can have component magnitudes other than c, which are usually referred to as aberration of light.
The reference for "Otis" is
[6] A. Otis, Light Velocity and Relativity (Burckel and Associates, Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY, 1960).
Since Sauerherber claims "Otis" was saying what I've been saying (the part highlighted in red, above), I had to see if I could find that reference somewhere.  It took a bit of doing, but I finally found a copy HERE.  It's a book about 140 pages long, and it's basically just one long attack on Einstein's theories.  As I've seen many many times, Arthur Otis clearly got his understanding of Einstein's theories from someone who distorted those theories, not from actually reading Einstein's papers. 

Otis spends a lot of time in his book explaining the differences between "ether theory," "source theory" and "Einstein's theory."  While I need to study the book more thoroughly, it appears that Otis believes in the "ether theory" since, as he figures things, it is the only way that,
when observers are in motion toward (or away) from the light, the increased (or decreased) light frequency f detected proves that the velocity with which light and observer approach each other differs from c because of motion of the observer.   That's not a quote from the book.  Otis's explanations are long and convoluted, designed to prove there must be an ether.  Apparently, Einstein's idea that velocities can be measured relative to the speed of light instead of relative to an imaginary ether wasn't even imagined by Otis, much less disputed.


I really really need to confirm that "basic" radar guns demonstrate how Einstein's theories work.  I need to get out of the world of "opinion versus opinion" arguments and into the world of experimental facts.  

Comments for Sunday September 15, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019:

September 20, 2019 - Hmm.  In the past 24 hours there were 19 "unique IP document downloads" for my scientific papers on  That's the largest number of new readers since August 1, when I released by paper on Pulsars and Special Relativity.  But there were only 2 new readers of that paper in the past 24 hours. Most new readers (13 of them) accessed my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories for the first time.  I have no idea what caused the sudden interest.  I'm hoping, of course, that there is some kind of "buzz" going on.

Meanwhile, this morning I finished listening to the 14-hour 24-minute audio book version of the sci-fi novel "The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet" by Beckie Chambers.

The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet

It's a very strange book.  It doesn't even have chapter numbers.  Each chapter instead begins with a date such as "Day 130, GC Standard 306."   A "Standard" is some kind of equivalent to a year.  Exactly how a "Standard" relates to a year isn't explained.

It is clear however, that the book takes place in the far distant future.  Humans made the earth uninhabitable sometime in the distant past.  The rich Earthlings moved to live in luxurious covered domes on Mars, and everyone else found homes and work elsewhere in space.  The main characters in the book all work on a spaceship called the "Wayfarer" which "punches" holes in space to create wormholes which allow rapid travel between planets.  The book is all about what happens to those characters and one "AI" (artificial intelligence being) as they travel to the distant location where the "punching" of the wormhole will take place.  There are less than 10 characters in the crew, and only a few are humanoid. 

While that may seem like it is a bit far-fetched, in reality it was a very enjoyable book.  The book doesn't really have a plot.  It's about how the crew members interact with each other and with creatures they meet on planets visited along the way.  It's about inter-species prejudices and how those prejudices have resulted in problems virtually everywhere.  One entire planet was wiped out when one species invented a weapon that just killed members of the other species. Even a slight wound would become fatal in about a half hour.  The side that invented the weapon somehow allowed the other side to steal it before it was put to use.  So, when they started using the weapon, both sides had them. 

However, nearly all the violence takes place only in discussions.  The book is mostly about how the crew members get along.  There are very warm inter-species relationships.  It's all hard to explain.  You'd have to read the book to see what I mean.  I'm now pondering whether or not to start listening to the next book in the series.  I've already borrowed it from my library.  But there are so many other books I also want to read and listen to!  

September 18, 2019
- This morning I received what I think is my first complementary email about one of my scientific papers.  The email read:
I read with pleasure your paper 'An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate".   It is great to find a bit of sanity out there.

I am an inventor who has been thinking about inertia, gravity and time for at least 60 years.  I never got very far beyond basic arithmetic in my education and am thoroughly put off by many papers that promise well but descend into heavy math even before they get the main idea across.  It is heartening that Einstein was also put off by his theories being hijacked by the mathematicians.  I didn't know that until I read your paper.
Yesterday, I had an idea about another way to obtain a "basic" radar gun to use in experiments: Rent one.  But why would anyone rent Stalker II SDR police radar guns?  If they rent other types of guns, are any of them "basic" radar guns?  I'm now trying to find out. 

September 17, 2019
- This morning, while waiting for a reply to the email about radar guns that I sent to a local police department, I started wondering about how that $99 Bushnell Speedster radar gun would work if I did a test I had never thought about before.  Bushnell's FAQ page about the gun says that “if you would like to know the speed of the vehicle you are in, point the Speedster at a stationary object, such as the ground.”  But I think the gun is actually reading the speed of the gun, not the speed of the vehicle the gun is in as it moves over the ground.  So, what would happen if instead of pointing the gun at the ground, you pointed it upward away from the ground?  If it still reads "the speed of the vehicle," it is clearly actually reading the speed of the gun. Such a test would confirm that waves or photons bouncing off the ground do not give a speed of 45 mph, the gun determines that speed by bouncing photons off of its own radome.

The problem is: If the test fails, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.  The Bushnell Speedster may measure two things, the speed of the gun and the speed of a target.  That could mean that the gun works differently when it bounces photons off of the ground "target" versus sending photons off into space and not getting any return "target" photons at all.  But, the experiment would still certainly be worth trying.

Meanwhile, this morning I wanted to check something in a book I have in my computer in epub format.  I used Microsoft Edge, which is how I've always read .epub books on my computer.  But, this morning I got a notice that Microsoft Edge no longer supports epub files, and I have to buy an "app" from Windows to access .epub files! 

Of course, I'm not going to buy an "app" if there is another way to read .epub files.  So, I did some research.  The first method I found was to use Adobe Digital Editions.  It was already in my computer, so I tried it.  It worked okay, but I had problems with highlighting and copying passages.  So, I looked for another way to read .epub files.  I found I could download a free app called "Calibre."  I did so, and it works fine.  But it is also very different from other ways of reading .epub files.  If I want to copy a passage so I can post it here as a quote, I first have to paste it as a .txt file into Notepad.  That's not a serious problem, but it is different.  Here's a passage from "The Threat" by former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew G. McCabe, a terrific book which I'm currently absorbing:
Krysha is the Russian word for roof. The word can be used literally or figuratively.  Krysha refers to the exterior top surface of something, such as a building or a car. Or krysha can refer to a person who provides the same kind of protection as a roof. “I’ll be your krysha”—I’ll be your roof—means that I will stop things from falling on you. Since the early 1990s, most businesses in Russia have had to operate with the protection of a krysha. Even if provided by the police or other government officials, the krysha is ultimately tied to organized crime. There is no effective distinction, in Russia, between organized crime and government, so kryshas have proliferated to where they block out the sky. Everyone lives under protection. The transformation has been systemic. It cannot be attributed exclusively to the actions of any one individual. But under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the cohabitation of crime and government became the norm. Crime is the central and most stable force in Russian society.
It will be a week or two before I finish "The Threat," but it's got a lot of passages that I might want to quote when I review it, particularly comments about Donald Trump and former US Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

September 16, 2019
- Yesterday, I finished converting the last of my music CDs into MP3 format and loading the MP3 files into my MP3 player.  I was a bit surprised to see that nearly a hundred CD albums take up less than one-half of the space on the player.

                      left on my MP3 player

So, this morning, while listening to great music on my MP3 player, I composed and sent an email to the head of a nearby police department, asking him if they have one of the "basic" radar guns I have identified as confirming my theory, and whether it would be possible or not for me to watch such a gun in use.  Now I have to wait for a response.  If they do not respond in a couple days, I'll try mailing them a letter.  Then I'll have to wait a week for a response to the letter.  And, if I get no response, I'll try another nearby police department.  So, for the near future I'm going to be spending most of my time waiting.  I may also read some novels.  That will give me something to write about on this web site.

September 15, 2019
- I think the latest round of arguments I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum have come to an end.  We can all see that there is no way to resolve our differences, so there isn't much point in continuing to argue - at least not with me.  As I see it, I'm talking about reality and experimental evidence, and they are talking about mathematics and personal theories. 
There have been occasions when a few others seem to agree with me, but then we will find there are other areas where we totally disagree.  I suspect that if I can get access to the right kind of radar gun and confirm beyond any doubt as to how the gun works, nearly everyone on the forum will still not believe me.  That by itself will prove something.

So, I have two tasks ahead: (1)  To get access to the right kind of radar gun and (2) to watch someone else demonstrate it, or to use it myself, or both.  The only way I can think of to do that without actually buying a $1,600 gun is to contact local police departments to see if they have the right kind of gun, and if they will allow me to watch it in action.  That's going to take some convincing, since I'm sure they won't do it for just anyone.  I need to find the right way to go about asking, since I want them to use a "stationary only" gun while moving.  That requires a "ride along."  But, I won't need to do the "ride along" until after I've confirmed by talking with them that the gun will demonstrate Einstein's theories, i.e., it will give "no reading" when pointed at highway signs at the ground ahead from a moving car, and it will give the correct speed of any vehicle that comes into the target area while the gun is pointed at the ground ahead from a moving car.  It's a simple test.  It shouldn't take more than ten minutes.

It's convincing them to let me do the "ride along" that is the hard part.  I need to find the right way to go about that.

Yesterday, Pentcho Valev, who endlessly rants his hatred for Albert Einstein, but who is generally ignored on the sci.physics.relativity forum, posted a link to a New Scientist article dated Sept. 11 and titled "Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein’s legacy?"  The article includes this:
Einstein was both general relativity’s progenitor and quantum theory’s greatest critic. History may show whether neither, one or both of his sets of ideas were right. In the meantime, the nature of space and time seems as good a place to start as any to begin sorting out what’s what. Physics works by the minimisation of mysteries, and their current multiplication suggests that whatever we’ve got wrong, it is something pretty fundamental.
Amen.  It seems that everyone has their own theory about how the universe works and their own interpretation of Einstein's theories.  If we are to ever determine how the universe works, it's going to have to be done with new experiments, not by arguing over who was right and who was wrong over a hundred years ago.  We have tools to answer questions that they didn't have back then, and we have used those tools to learn a lot of things they didn't know back then.  Yes, one of them is the radar gun.

I just need to confirm that certain guns work in a way that many physicists think is impossible.  That will give them something new to argue about: How can radar guns do things that are impossible?  They might develop a new mathematical equation to explain it, but what will they do with the mathematical equations that say it is impossible?  They'll probably just argue about which equation is right.

Meanwhile, I've converted more than two thirds of my CDs to MP3 files.  I worried a bit that I might fill up the hard drive in the computer, since Windows Media Player automatically puts "RIPPED" MP3 files into a "Music" folder on my hard drive.  But, when I checked to see how much space I had left, I found I had a lot more than I ever suspected.

Disk space
                  on my computer   

And that was after I put 2.53 Gigabytes worth of music onto the hard drive.  And I've got 1,372 science books and papers in one folder in my computer, plus about 200 audio books in another folder.    And I've got invoices and receipts from my web site host in pdf format going back to December 29, 2014.  And many many emails.  And copies of just about every photograph I ever took.   And 1,694 astronomy pictures.  And much much more.  And it hardly makes a dent in the amount of space available to me.

Live and learn.

Comments for Sunday September 8, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 14, 2019:

September 13, 2019 - Yesterday afternoon, just as I finished lunch, I also finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  It was "Origin Story: A Big History of Everything" by David Christian.

Origin Story by David Christian

I started reading it around August 5, so it took over a month of 15-minute reading sessions during breakfast and lunch.  It is truly an interesting book and an enjoyable read.  I've got 21 pages of passages I highlighted and copied.  Here's a particularly interesting quote from page 24:
Matter appeared within the first second after the big bang. Matter is the stuff that energy pushes around.
I don't think I've ever before heard or read about matter being described that way.  It's something that causes you to stop and try to visualize and understand it.

Here's another interesting quote from page 79:
All forms of life require mechanisms to interpret local information (such as the presence of different chemicals or local temperatures and acidity levels) so they can respond appropriately (Should I hug it or eat it or run?). The philosopher Daniel Dennett writes: “Animals are not just herbivores or carnivores. They are… informavores.”  In fact, all living organisms are informavores. They all consume information, and the mechanisms they use for reading and responding to local information—whether they are eyes and tentacles or muscles and brains—account for much of the complexity of living organisms.
A lot of the book is about how we (and all living things, including plants) learn to adapt to our environments.  Animals (and humans) also learn to move to a better environment if the current location becomes uninhabitable.  Another quote from page 110:
Despite the profound differences between Tyrannosaurus rex and an E. coli bacterium, in important respects, life is remarkably unified. All organisms alive today are related genetically. And they share many genetic gadgets, particularly those that, like subroutines in computer software, handle basic housekeeping tasks. In cells, these tasks include jobs such as breaking down food molecules for their energy or their chemical components or moving energy and atoms around. This is why, if you zoom down to the level of cells, it’s hard to distinguish between a human being and an amoeba. 
The book gets into how humans changed from being foragers to being farmers.  Farming changed everything.  The book gets really interesting when it talks about energy consumption and how things changed when we went from burning wood to burning coal to produce energy.  Then we learned we could burn oil.  Then we learned we could use nuclear energy.  And, of course, the biggest change came when we learned to write and could pass ideas on to the world instead of just to people we could talk with.  Here's another interesting quote from page 296:
In March 1968, just before he was assassinated, Robert Kennedy described the limitations of an economy devoted to never-ending growth in gross national product: The Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.… It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.… Yet the GNP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or… the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.… It measures everything, in short, except that which makes
life worthwhile.

It was a very interesting and enjoyable book.  I highly recommend it.

September 12, 2019
- Yesterday afternoon, feeling tired of arguing about radar guns, I turned my attention to the fact that I needed more music on my MP3 player.  It had about 10 hours worth that I downloaded from the Net back in mid-August, but that still meant that certain distracting songs were repeating too often.  Every couple days I'd hear odd songs or tunes that would be repeats and it would distract me from whatever I was working on.  So, I looked into how to convert my music CDs into MP3 files.  I found that the process is called "RIPing" and it can be done with a standard feature of Windows called the "Windows Media Player."  I assumed it would take 45 minutes to copy a 45 minute CD, but to my pleasant surprise, it takes less than 5 minutes to convert a 45 minute CD to MP3 format.  So, I converted 15 CDs in less than an hour.  And I'm now listening to the combined collection of about 20 hours of music.  When I get a chance, I'll convert about 60 other CDs that I own.  It appears that my MP3 player can hold all of them with no problem.

After I had installed those 15 CDs into my MP3 player, I shut down my computer and went into the other room to again get my mind off of radar guns.  I picked up my other MP3 player and continued listening to the audio book version of Dashiell Hammet's Sam Spade novel from 1930, "The Maltese Falcon."

The Maltese Falcon

I had listened to about 2 hours of it on Tuesday evening.  Last night I finished listening to the final 6 hours.  It's a very good book, and I love detective stories.  I couldn't help from thinking about the Humphrey Bogart movie, of course, but that wasn't a problem.  Also, when Sam Spade's secretary, Effie, finishes a phone call and returns the receiver to its "prong" that can take you out of the story as you visualize the kind of phones they used back then.  The same thing happens when Sam opens a dresser drawer and takes out a fresh shirt and collar.

I think there's a very good chance I might start on a different audio book this evening.   

September 11, 2019
- I think I've confirmed once again that there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.  Yesterday I wrote about my arguments with "Paparios" on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  He argued that all correctly functioning clocks show time passing at the same rate, and there is no experiment which shows otherwise.  So, I gave him the link to my web page of time dilation experiments which show otherwise.  In every one of the eleven experiments time is demonstrated to tick at different rates depending upon speed and altitude. 

Paparios's response was to show me a web page which argues that time dilation is an illusion and when two moving people measure time, each will see that the other's clock is running slow.

But that is disproved by the experiments.  The clocks are compared, and in the velocity time dilation experiments the clocks show that the moving clock ran slower.  Less time passed for the moving clock.

This morning, Paparios changed his argument.  He argued:

First you have to notice that, in their experiment, the clock comparison was made AFTER the flight!!! Again each flown clock run at their building tick rate during the flight, ie 1 second per second. The difference in the readings after the flight was due to the flown clocks following a different path through spacetime (compared with the path through spacetime of the stationary clock, which also run at its building tick rate, ie 1 second per second.

You have been told before that atomic clocks perform a similar function to the function an odometer perform in our cars.

Clocks measure elapsed time along a spacetime path <==> Odometers measure elapsed distance along a space path.

So if you have two identical cars with identical odometers and make the two cars go from Chicago to New York, but following different highways, comparing the odometers readings will show different distances even if the two odometers measure 1 km/km.

The trajectories of the flown atomic clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment were clearly different from the trajectory of the clock at US Naval Observatory.
So, Paparios is now arguing that the moving clocks didn't tick slower, they took a longer route through spacetime.  The fact that the clocks showed that a different amount of time passed between comparisons just shows that they didn't travel the same route through spacetime. 

That's like saying that clocks don't measure time, they measure distances just like an odometer.  And if you argue that that is illogical, they will argue that physics is not logical.  They were taught in school that some things is physics are contrary to "common sense," and they interpret that to mean that some things in physics are "not logical," but you must believe them anyway. 

It might be contrary to "common sense" that geostationary satellites "hover" over the same spot on earth without falling down.  But if you understand they are 22,232 miles above the equator, and they are simply moving at the same rate the earth is spinning under them, so they are not really "stationary," it all becomes logical.  It must be logical in order to be understood.  Otherwise it is just a belief.  

But, I'm just repeating myself.  I see no point in continuing the arguments if I already know what they are going to argue, especially since there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.

So, I have to focus on getting the experiment done.  Then they can argue about how the experiment just demonstrated that some radar guns do not work properly.

September 10, 2019 - I've been browsing through US patents for various radar gun components to see if they might contain something of value that can be used in the arguments about radar guns.  I downloaded 14 different patents, including one for a LIDAR gun, and was somewhat surprised to find that not a single one of them ever uses the word "photon."  They all refer to "signals" when they describe what a radar gun transmits and gets back.  One patent also describes those signals as "waves," and it is the oldest patent I've found so far.  It was filed in 1946 and granted in 1953.  The inventor is J. L. Barker, and the invention was called "Radio Echo Apparatus for Detecting and Measuring the Speed of Moving Objects."  Here is what patent #2,629,865 says on page 3:
According to the present invention a beam of
microwaves or radio waves of ultra high frequen-
cy is directed along the path of movement of the
vehicle in the roadway toward the vehicle from
a test station adjacent to the roadway, and a
small part of such microwaves reflected from
the vehicle are received back at the test station,
The reflected waves are mixed with the trans-
mitted waves by the apparatus in accordance with
the invention to provide a beat frequency which
is directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle
along its path. As a speed meter this beat fre-
quency is applied to a frequency meter calibrated
to provide a direct reading of Speed.
So, from the very beginning they were determining a "beat frequency" by mixing the reflected "waves" with the transmitted "waves."  However, the next four patents never use that term.  It isn't until patent #5,525,996 issued in 1996 that "beat frequency" is again used:
The frequency of the beat frequency
components depends upon the Doppler shifts caused by the
relative speeds between the patrol car and the various
objects painted by the radar which cause radar returns.
That seems to illustrate a fundamental problem with "wave theory."  If the waves are bouncing off of a target and are reduced in frequency because the target is approaching, and thus each individual wave has less distance to travel before it gets reflected, how do you beat such waves together to get a "beat frequency"? 

radar guns emitting waves

The illustration above suggests that you can simply measure distances between waves, you don't need to "beat" the waves together.  And when you argue with the mathematicians, they cannot comprehend any way light can hit an object at c+v, where v is the velocity of the target, because they believe light must travel at c for all observers.  With the waves depicted above, each wave hits at c, but the target gets closer and closer.  But, radar guns do not work that way.  According to NASA, a radar gun can theoretically measure the speed of a target with a single photon.  The emitted photon hits the target at c+v which causes the target to emit a new photon back to the gun that oscillates faster than the original photon.  A comparison is then made inside the gun between emitted photons and the returned photon.  The difference in oscillating frequencies (i.e., the "beat frequency") is equivalent to the speed of the target.

I'm going to have to study these patents further to see what they might contain that would be of value in arguments with mathematician-physicists.

Meanwhile, the arguments on the sci.physics.relativity forum continue to rage.  Yesterday, "Paparios" argued that the length of a second does not change when you are traveling very fast.  He wanted evidence of my claim that it does.  So, I provided a link to my web page of Time Dilation Experments.  This morning, amid a heap of other arguments from other people, Paparios wrote to me:

You do not have the slightest idea of what time dilation is. For your
information, Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two clocks, either due to them having a velocity relative to each other, or by there being a gravitational potential difference between their locations.

You see the duration of a second DOES NOT change depending upon your speed!!!  What changes is the elapsed measure of the moving clock (see the twin paradox at Both the stationary clock and the moving clock are identical clocks and they both tick at 1 second
per second, period!
All the experiments at my link disprove his claim in that last sentence, but he found someone who wrote:
Early in the study of special relativity students learn about the phenomenon of time dilation, i.e., that "moving clocks run slow." Those who have properly appreciated the fact that all motion is relative and who have properly appreciated that clocks measure the passage of physical (including biological) time, ought necessarily to experience some mental discomfort at this result. After all when two observers pass each other, the prediction is that both will find the other's clocks to run slower than their own. This might well seem to be impossible on its face and, therefore, to invalidate the entire theory.
So, Paparios continues to believe that one clock does not run slower than another, in spite of what ALL the experiments on my web page show.  According to Paparios, it's just an illusion.  He believes "both will find the other's clocks to run slower than their own."  But that is NOT what all the experiments showed.  NO experiment has ever showed such a result.  But Paparios believes it, and he somehow believes all experiments confirm his beliefs.  He believes I am just misinterpreting what all the experiments show and what all the experimenters state as their findings.


September 8, 2019
- I keep wondering if that second type of radar gun (the TS3) that I was told works like a "basic" radar gun doesn't actually do as I was told.  When I discussed that company's radar gun via emails with the person in their office who answers emails, I was told again and again that the gun would work as I described.  It turned out I was exchanging emails with a woman, but that doesn't mean that she was a secretary or clerk, she could have been a scientist or maybe even the wife of the owner.

On September 5, when I talked with her for the first time on the phone to start the process of buying a used gun, I started asking technical questions, and she had to turn me over to their technical expert.  The technical expert then proceeded to recite dogma and inform me that their gun did not work the way a "basic" radar gun works.  He was also implying that the TS3 does not work the way the woman said it worked.

So was the woman lying?  Or was she describing the way she'd actually seen the gun work?  And what is the technician's job?  I don't think he's a repairman, since the techies always seem to be on the road somewhere, and you have to wait until they return before you can talk with them.  Are they salesmen?  Why would a technical expert be a salesman?  It seems more likely that they are on the road to testify in court when some driver disputes what a radar gun indicated as the driver's speed.  And, as a "technical expert" they'll have to recite the gospel according to textbooks.  It isn't likely that anyone is going to get a ticket because some police officer used a "stationary only" gun while his patrol car was moving. That is a "no no" that is drilled into them, and any defense lawyer would figure that out right away and make the police department liable for false arrest.

Version #4 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories still has some comments on page 10 about the GHD and Scout radar guns made by Decatur Electronics in San Diego, California.  I exchanged a bunch of emails with one of their technical experts to find out why their operator's manuals say those two guns "do not work" while moving.  I found out that they will add together the speed of the gun and the speed of the target.  So, if a target is coming toward the gun at 60 mph and the gun is moving at 50 mph, the gun will give a reading for that target as 110 mph!  Why would anyone make a gun that works that way?  Clearly there is a lot about the way radar guns are made that I do not know anything about.

I need to find some way to test the Stalker II SDR to verify it works the way their general manager says it works.  I cannot afford to buy one for $1,600 plus tax, shipping and handling.  It's a very popular gun, so a nearby police department might use them. (I think my local police department does or did, but I somehow antagonized them with my questions, so I cannot ask them more questions.)  If I send letters to the other nearby Chief's of Police and ask them if they use the Stalker II SDR, and what happens if they use that "stationary only" gun while moving, would I get an answer?  Or should I go about it in a different way, like just asking to see it in operation.  It's something I'll have to think about.

Meanwhile, on Friday I had an idea that bugged me all day.  It was so simple I couldn't figure out why I hadn't thought about it before. 

If you are in a moving truck and point a radar gun at the front wall, when you pull the trigger, photons will start moving toward that front wall.  Meanwhile, the front wall moves, too.  The wall is not moving away from the gun, but it is moving through space.  The photons have to catch up with it.  When they do, the photons hit the wall at c-v, where v is the speed of the truck and the wall.

What happens after that is less important.  Mathematician physicists will argue that the wall does not move relative to the gun, therefore there can be no measurement of the speed of the wall. The speed must be zero relative to the wall.  It is totally absurd, but it is what they thoroughly believe.

Will they argue that the wall does not move while the photons move?  I needed to to test them to find out. 

An opportunity arose yesterday morning.  A bunch of trolls were arguing with someone posting as "Kenseto" in a thread Kenseto had started and titled "Is Ed Lake Right?
Ken H. Seto and I are often compared by the mathematician trolls as they argue over which of us is dumber than the other.  Ken Seto and I think somewhat alike, but we've never actually compared ideas.  I have a copy of a book he wrote, but I've never gotten around to reading it.  He views things from a different angle than I do, and he appears to believe there is an aether of some kind throughout the universe.  Anyway, a troll named "Dono" (who is on my "do not reply" list) posted this:
Ken Shito

The Doppler effect is a function of the relative speed, not the closing speed. The relative speed between the source and the receiver being ZERO, there is NO Doppler effect. You are dumber than a sack of rocks.
A mathematician troll named "Odd Bodkin" had been arguing that the operator's manuals for radar guns explain how radar guns work.  Ken Seto ignored Dono's personal attack and asked Odd Bodkin:
Does the operation manual says that if the gun is in a moving truck and if you point the gun at the rear panel you will not get frequency shift?
To which Odd Bodkin replied:
It says if you point it at ANYTHING that is not moving relative to the gun, then you will get a zero reading.
And Ken Seto then asked another question:
Does it say that the gun inside the trailer of a moving truck and is point at the back panel of a moving truck you will not get frequency shift?
That was when I saw an opportunity to use my new idea, and I took it.  I posted this:
Maybe it would help to explain that while the distance between the radar gun and the wall of the moving truck does not change, BOTH the gun and the wall of the truck MOVE while the photons are traveling from the gun to the wall.  While the photons are moving toward the front wall, the front wall is moving away from where the photons were emitted, so the photons have to travel further to reach the wall than they would if the gun and wall were stationary.

The photons also hit the wall with less force, since the wall is moving away. As a result, when the atoms in the wall emit return photons, those photons have less energy than the photons emitted by the gun.

When the return photons reach the gun, the gun RECEIVES the photons as energy. The gun compares the energy of the photons it emitted to the energy of the return photons and gets the speed of the wall.

The Doppler Shift is a function of the CLOSING speed, not the relative speed.  The relative speed between the gun and the wall may be zero when both are moving at the same speed in the same direction, but the Doppler Shift results from the photon hitting a MOVING wall.
It took awhile, but someone identified only as "" then posted this in response:
Ed, let's assume that you can throw a ball @60 mph. Let's also assume that you are in the back of a large box truck, which is traveling down a long straight and level road @ 60 mph. Do you really think that if you threw the ball towards the front wall of that truck that the ball would never get there? Heck, if your thinking was correct the ball would never even leave your hand! What would happen if the truck was going 80 mph, would the ball just smack you in the face? THINK, man, think!

I assure you, Ed, that we could play catch in the back of that truck and have no clue about the truck's speed, or even if it was moving or not, ignoring vibrations..
To which I replied,
Correct.  That is because rubber balls work different from photons.
Rubber balls have MASS, photons do not.  Different laws of electrodynamics work with an object that has MASS than with a photon that has NO mass.

Are you claiming that the wall of the truck will NOT move while the
photon moves?
I immediately wished I'd also said something about rubber balls having to push aside air molecules, while photons just pass through those molecules, but that might have made things more complicated.  So, I just waited for a response.

It took a couple hours for responses to come back.  The first was from "Paparios" who argued that my idea violated Einstein's Second Postulate because:
While the radar gun and the wall are not moving, relative to each other, in that frame of reference (the one attached to the truck), the photons ARE MOVING at speed c (according to the second postulate).

You are confusing this with the view an observer on the ground would have of those photons!! 
because he can dream up a frame of reference where the radar gun and the wall are NOT moving and therefore light will NOT hit the wall at c-v.  It is a perfect illustration of how mathematicians can dream up mathematical reasons that they believe are more real that what actually happens in a real experiment in real life.

A post by
"" again argued that photons and rubber balls are both "elastic" and will both work the same way.  I explained to him that rubber balls have mass and cannot travel at the speed of light while photons have no mass and always travel at the speed of light, so they are governed by different laws of physics, but he just ignored that and repeated his previous arguments.

The rest of the arguments yesterday were more of the same.  The mathematicians cannot accept that their fantasy "frames of reference" cannot alter reality, and they cannot accept that light can hit an object at any speed other than c.  It is what they were taught in school, and therefore it cannot be wrong.  It's as if they believe that if they can dream up a "frame of reference" where the wall does not move, then that proves the wall does not move.

In one of his posts,
"" declared that I had an IQ of nearly zero and I was wrong in trying to use logic to argue with him.  He stated,  
"you cannot use logic to prove much of anything in science."
To me, if something is not logical it means one of two things:  Either (1) It is wrong, or (2) I do not understand it.  So, it becomes my job to either prove it is wrong, or to figure out how to understand it.

Mathematician-physicists are clearly unconcerned if something is illogical, since their reasoning is based upon mathematics and memorized dogma, not logic.  That means they do not care if it is illogical to consider the interior of a moving truck to be "stationary," because they can imagine a mathematical frame of reference where the interior of a moving truck is stationary.

Here's part of a comment from "Michael Moroney" that I see among the 15 new comments posted overnight:
Move? Relative to what? Relative to the ground! I keep asking you what makes the reference frame of the ground special, you deny doing so yet you keep doing so! This is in violation of the First Postulate, there are no preferred reference frames, and this includes the earth's surface.

In reality, the truck body is inertial, so all physics in the moving truck work exactly the same as in the parked truck.  In the reference frame of the inertially moving truck, the gun is stationary, the front wall is stationary and the back wall is stationary.  The radar gun will measure a speed of 0 (or no reading).
It's all recited dogma from a True Believer.  And there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.  I spent about 15 years trying to change the minds of conspiracy theorists (each with a different theory) when I was researching the anthrax attacks of 2001.  They, too, are True Believers.  I never succeeded in changing the mind of a single one of them.  They're all still out there arguing their beliefs today.

So, my task with radar guns is not to change the minds of True Believers but to confirm for myself, and for whoever else might be interested, that "basic" radar guns work the way Einstein's theories say they must work. 

Comments for Sunday September 1, 2019, thru Saturday, Sept. 7, 2019:

September 6, 2019 - I received an email from this morning informing me that version-5 of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories has been removed.  So, the latest version of that paper is now version #4.

I'd been thinking of revising version-5 to only mention the Stalker II SDR, but I now think I need to double, triple and quadruple verify that the Stalker II SDR will  definitely and undeniably work the way the paper says a "basic" radar gun works.  A web page HERE says that Applied Concepts makes EIGHT different Stalker models.  There is not only a Stalker II SDR, there is also a Stalker DSR.  I need to make absolutely certain there are no misunderstandings.

I also keep wondering how one would tell if a "complex" radar gun is measuring the speed of the ground or the speed of the gun.  If you are in a car traveling at 30 mph and point the gun at a parked car, how can you be certain that the reading of 30 mph that you get from the "complex" gun is a reading from the parked car and not an internal reading done by bouncing photons off of the gun's radome?  (Mathematician-physicists will argue that bouncing photons off the radome will give a relative speed reading of zero, because the radome is part of the gun the parts all move together relatively, and it is impossible for it to be otherwise.  But their beliefs may not be the same as reality.)

If you are in a car moving at 30 mph and get a reading of 30 mph from a parked car, would  you also get a reading of 30 mph if you then put a notebook against the radome?   According to my papers, the "complex" radar gun is taking TWO readings, one by bouncing photons off of its radome and the other by bouncing photons off the parked car.  It gets 30 mph from the radome and it gets zero from the parked car.  So it subtracts zero from 30 mph and shows a reading of 30 mph.  If you put a notebook in front of the radome, the gun will still get 30 mph from the radome, but it will now also get 30 mph for the notebook.  So, the gun will subtract 30 mph from 30 mph and it will show a reading of zero.  And people will claim that proves the gun measured the relative speed between the gun and the notebook.  Of course, it doesn't.  It just proves that that is not a way to demonstrate how the radar gun actually works. 

If you remove the radome, the gun will still assume the radome is in place and when pointed at a parked car while going 30 mph, it should get a reading of zero from the target and it should get a second reading of zero from the parked car because it "thinks" the parked car is the radome.  So, it will show a reading of zero.  But will the gun even work if the radome is removed?   Who knows?  And would anyone with a complex radar gun even try it that way? 

September 5, 2019
- DAMN!!!   I screwed up!  While I talked on the phone with people at Applied Concepts to make absolutely certain that their Stalker II SDR is a "basic" radar gun that works as my papers describe, I only exchanged emails with people at a second company about their radar gun, which they said would work the way I need.  This morning I awoke thinking I might buy a refurbished model of that gun, but I wanted to make absolutely certain the gun truly works the way I need.  So, I called them. 

It turns out I was exchanging emails with a secretary or clerk. When I talked with their chief engineer, he explained that their guns will not do what I need.  Their guns will measure the speed of the gun when the gun is moving and is pointed at a highway sign, although they believe the gun will measure the relative speed of the highway sign to the gun.  So, it seems clear that, if there is something inside the gun that measures the speed of the gun, they are totally unaware of it.

I immediately deleted version-5 of my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" from academia. edu, and a bit later (after figuring out how to do it) I sent in a request to delete version-5 from  I assume the actual deletion will take place some time tomorrow morning.  (For some reason, no one ever actually read the version-5 I put on  As of this morning, they were still just accessing version-4.  I think it is because that is the version Google would point to.) 

Coincidentally, this morning I received an email from one of the other radar gun manufacturers who had not previously responded to my queries.  The email said in part:
While you can set the gun to be used in a stationary mode, once you start moving you will be interpreting returned reflected frequencies from mailboxes, signs, parked cars, even the ground as targets moving toward you so you would see targets registering.  The software inside the gun is assuming the gun is stationary so it sees reflected shifted frequencies as targets.
If you were to set the gun into moving mode, the stationary objects would be filtered out of the reflected frequencies based on the speed of the gun vehicle (via large ground return or VSS or CAN), but aiming at the back of the moving truck would be interpreted as a moving target since it is not altering the reflected frequency like the ground.  However, the gun will not show the target because it would be too close to the speed of the gun vehicle speed.
The fact that their gun has a MODE switch says it does not work the way I need.

At one time, all radar guns were "stationary only" guns.  In fact, they were boxes set up on a tripod next to the road, as shown below.

original police radar gun 

The device that displays the target's speed via a moving needle is setting on the police car's left fender.  The power source is a battery (or batteries) connected by a power cable to the emitter/receiver.

This afternoon, I found a web page titled "The History of the Radar Gun."  It contains a lot of interesting information, including this tidbit about Kustom Signals, Inc.:
We introduced the first digital readout radar, the industry's first moving radar, and the first hand-held option.
It also says that Kustom Signals was founded in 1965.  Further research found a book titled "The Complete Book on Speed Enforcement" by Kevin M. Morrison.  It says on page 83,
Kustom Signals produced the first moving radar called the MR-7.  The radar was similar to their TR-6 stationary radar with a computer unit (often called a counting unit in the 1970s) and a separate antenna.
So, hand-held "stationary only" guns that still work the original way would be "basic" radar guns.  And everything else has added parts.  Added parts means added complications.  That is probably why it seems that people no longer care about the exact details of how radar guns work.

Groan!  Now I have to tell all my critics on sci.physics.relativity that I made a mistake in adding that second gun in version-5 of my Radar Gun paper.

September 4, 2019
- Yesterday I stopped posting to the thread I had started Friday on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  It was not only a waste of time, it was counter-productive, since I need to work on my paper about Radar Guns and Frames of Reference.  The arguments continue on that thread, and right now there are 238 posted messages in the thread.

Interestingly, minutes after I told them I was no longer going to post to that thread, someone named "Kenseto" started a new thread titled "Is Ed Lake Right?" It had 20 messages in it this morning when I saw they were still arguing that I should buy an $80 Bushnell Speedster to demonstrate that it would not work inside a moving truck.  I've probably told them twenty times that a Bushnell Speedster is a COMPLEX radar gun, not a BASIC radar gun.  So I know that the Bushnell will not work.  What reason would I have to spend $80 to buy a radar gun that I know won't do what I need a radar gun to do?  Arguing with people on that forum is like arguing with people who do not understand English.

Anyway, I've been working on the paper about Frames of Reference, and I'm learning a lot while doing so.  Wikipedia defines an "inertial frame of reference" this way:
An “inertial frame of reference” in classical physics and special relativity possesses the property that in this frame of reference a body with zero net force acting upon it does not accelerate; that is, such a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line.
Wikipedia defines a "non-inertial frame of reference" this way:
A “non-inertial frame of reference” is a frame of reference that is undergoing acceleration with respect to an inertial frame. An accelerometer at rest in a non-inertial frame will, in general, detect a non-zero acceleration. While the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames, in non-inertial frames, they vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.
Note that both descriptions are about acceleration.  An inertial frame does not accelerate, a non-inertial frame does accelerate.  And an inertial frame has to have "zero net force" acting upon it.

I will probably have to use those terms, but since I'll be talking about a truck on planet Earth, if the truck is parked I'll be talking about a frame of reference that is inertial but does not have "zero net" forces acting upon it.  Gravity is holding the truck onto the Earth.  However it is inertial because it is moving with the Earth as the Earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun.   

More importantly, when talking about a moving truck, I'll be talking about a truck that is powered by an engine, but it moves at a constant speed, it does not accelerate.  It may have accelerated to get to 60 mph, but it will remain at 60 mph for the duration of the radar gun tests, so it is not accelerating. 

Einstein doesn't even use the word "inertial" in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, and when he only talks about acceleration when he is talking about how electrons work.  In the book he wrote with Leopold Infeld, Einstein clearly used an embankment for an "inertial frame" and a non-accelerating train as his "non-inertial frame," but he never used the term "frame of reference" when talking or writing about such things.  He used the term "co-ordinated system."  He talks about inertial co-ordinated systems that travel at different speeds.  The embankment travels at one speed and the train travels at another speed.   

So, I need to figure out how to explain the way radar guns work in different reference frames when no authority uses the terminology I need for quotes.      

September 2, 2019
- As of this moment, there are 185 posts by 19 different authors in the thread I started on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum on Friday morning.  Even though I have been attacked by probably 15 of the 19 people posting to that forum, it has been a very productive discussion.

I've been arguing for a long time that mathematicians are a plague on science. Mathematicians argue that light is both a particle and a wave because they have two different equations, one for particles and one for waves, when they want to calculate some experimental result.  Scientists, meanwhile, have determined that light consist of photons, which are NOT waves and NOT particles, either, since particles have mass and photons have no mass.  Mathematicians, however, like the status quo and cannot be bothered with developing a mathematical equation for photons.  They prefer to stick with the "wave-particle duality."

Now it appears from the discussions I've been having that mathematicians also believe that, when discussing motion, there are just two types of reference frames: (1) inertial frames, and (2) accelerating frames.

Basic radar guns, however, demonstrate that there are THREE types of reference frames (1) inertial frames, (2) accelerating frames and (3) non-accelerating "motorized" frames which are not accelerating and not inertial because they are being moved at a steady rate by some kind of engine or force.

Interestingly, Einstein based his Theory of Special Relativity on reference frame types #1 and #3.  The only time he used accelerating frames was when discussing the relationship between gravity and acceleration in his Theory of General Relativity.  Otherwise, he always used railroad embankments (type #1) and moving trains (type #3).  And he also used type #1 reference frames moving through space at different speeds.

The mathematicians I've been arguing with believe reference frame types #1 and #3 are the same thing.  That's why they cannot accept Einstein's theories but twist them to fit their own beliefs.  But basic radar guns do not work the same way in type #1 inertial frames  and type #3 non-accelerating "motorized frames."  In type #1 radar guns give a speed of zero when pointed at the wall of a moving frame, in type #3 radar guns give the speed of the frame relative to frame #1.

I just need to find a way to demonstrate this with a basic radar gun.  I may have to buy a used radar gun to do it.  The best test with a gun that uses power from my car's cigarette lighter socket would be to drive down a street at about 30 mph and press the gun's trigger while I point the gun at street signs and then at oncoming and passing vehicles.  The gun should show zero speed for the street signs and vehicle speeds for the moving vehicles. 
But as soon as I start thinking about that, I start thinking about what the reaction would be when people in moving vehicles see someone pointing what looks like a ray gun at them.  Will I cause accidents?  Is there some way to eliminate that possibility?  I dunno.  But I'm not going to buy a radar gun until I have a totally safe way to use it. 

Meanwhile, I'm going to start working on a paper tentatively titled "Radar Guns and Relativity Reference Frames."  Maybe I'll be able to merge it into my planned paper on Radar Guns and Wave Theory or the paper on Radar Guns, Einstein, and the Big Bang.  Or maybe I'll end up with four different papers about radar guns.

September 1, 2019
- I posted a comment about the latest revision of my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories to the sci.physics.relativity discussion group on Friday morning.  By the end of my work day, there were 31 posts in the thread from 9 different authors.  Ten of the posts were my responses to posts from others.
  Seven of the posts were from trolls who are on my "do not reply" list.  And there were a few posts which were just one guy attacking another on subjects that have nothing to do with what I posted.

When I shut down my computer yesterday evening, there were 73 posts in the thread by 12 different authors.  (This morning there are 88 posts from 14 different authors.)  I had to stop posting yesterday afternoon because I needed to work on today's comment for this site, and I needed to think about some of the interesting questions posted to the sci.physics.relativity forum.

One question from someone who I've never seen post anything before was about using a radar gun to measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck. He asked me:
If you put the truck in space, in orbit around the sun (at the same orbital radius and speed as the earth), will the gun read 67000 mph?
My first answer was "No," then I changed it to "I don't think so."   On the 27th I wrote a comment here about measuring the speed of the International Space Station (ISS) by using a radar gun on board the ISS.  I thought you could do it.  But, if you can do that, why can't you measure the speed of a satellite going around the sun from inside the satellite?  And, if you can't do it, why can't you?

That's one reason I post things to sci.physics.relativity.  Responding to their attacks - and occasional questions - makes me look at things I've written from different angles. 

At first I just thought the answer had something to do with the "local speed of light."  A radar gun emits photons that travel at the local speed of light ("local c") regardless of whether the gun is stationary or moving.  But when it measures the speed of a vehicle, what is it measuring that speed relative to?  I've been saying it measures the speed relative to the local speed of light.  Light travels at c to the approaching vehicle, it hits the vehicle at c+v, where v is the speed of the vehicle toward the gun, and the returned photon has c+v oscillation frequency.  The gun subtracts c from c+v and gets v as the speed of the target.  That certainly makes sense, but felt that I was missing something.   I've also been saying that the speed is relative to the point in space where the photons were emitted.  That seemed incompatible with the vehicle speed being relative to c.  

So, I went to bed last night with a lot of unsolved problems on my mind.  And, as is often the case, I awoke this morning with solutions to all of the problems.  While my conscious mind was asleep, my subconscious was working all night to figure out the solutions to the problems.

I'd forgotten about acceleration.  You can measure the speed of a truck from inside  a moving truck because a moving truck is NOT an inertial system.  It is an accelerating system.  It may be under constant acceleration, which, when you are inside, makes it feel like it is an inertial system, but the truck's engine is moving it forward, and if the engine stops, the truck stops.  When the truck is stopped, it is an inertial system and firing a radar gun at the wall will show no speed for the wall.  When the truck is moving under power, if you fire a radar gun at the wall, the gun will show the speed of the truck.  The same would be true on an airplane.  The plane is under power.  It may not feel like it, but the plane is moving because of the engines.  Constant acceleration is still acceleration.

That means my August 27 comment was in error.  You cannot measure the speed of the International Space Station (ISS)  with a radar gun.  The ISS is an inertial system.  It does not require an engine to keep it moving.  And, likewise, in answer to the question that was asked yesterday on the sci.physics.relativity forum, if the truck is in space following the earth's orbit, it is an inertial system.  It is not under power.  So, you would not be able to measure the speed of the truck from inside the truck.  I was right, I just wasn't able to explain why I answered the way I did.

There are probably places in some of my papers where I should have made the effects of acceleration  more clear.  But, we learn from our mistakes.  I may not have thought about acceleration when I wrote most of my papers, but I'll definitely be thinking about it from this point onward.

© 2019 by Ed Lake