Archive for ed-lake.com
February 2020

Comments for Sunday, February 9, 2020, thru Saturday, Feb. 15, 2020:

February 13, 2020 - Groan!!  There just aren't enough hours in a day to figure things out!!  This morning when I checked my web site statistics I found that no one had tried to hack my site yesterday.  That's third time in the past week that that has happened. Normally there are MANY attempts to hack into my site every day and that has been the case for YEARSWhat changed?  Could it have something to do with the news stories about Chinese hackers being "charged": "Chinese Hackers Charged In Alleged Cyber-Theft Of 145 Million Americans' Data"?  I can't see any other explanation.  But what does that have to do with my site? 

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out why my radar gun experiments with small portable fans didn't work.  One thing I did wrong was to imply that I could easily get speed readings off of those small portable fans with my TS-3 radar gun.   In reality it very difficult.  You have to hold the gun very close to the fan to get any kind of steady reading, and when you do that, you cannot see where the gun is pointed and see the speed display at the same time.  Nor can I be certain that the top reading of 20 mph for the small fan is actually a reading of the speed of the fan blades.  Sometimes it gives a reading of 28 mph for an instant or two.  It's possible that the reading is actually the same kind of reading I got by pointing the radar gun at the dashboard in my car.

I am certain that I got valid speed readings from my large floor fan.  The readings were repeated over and over.  And the blades are 6 inches in length.  But I never pointed the gun at the center of the fan where all the electronics are operating.  With the small radar gun it is next to impossible to point the gun at the fan without also pointing it many different points on the fan blades AND at the center of the fan.  The blades are only 1¼ inches long. 

Meanwhile, academia.edu keeps sending me links to physics books and textbooks that are available in pdf format.  I have to check each one to see what they say about Einstein's postulates.  And the two most recent books say things that are very interesting.  "PROCESS PHYSICS: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter" by Reginald T. Cahill claims that Einstein was wrong, but Cahill's argument is that what text books claim as Einstein's postulates are wrong, not what Einstein actually wrote as his postulates.  Another book, "An Introduction to Relativity" by Jaylant V. Narlikar provides this definition of the word "postulates" on page 37:
"Postulates are assumptions that are regarded as self-evident and are not expected to be ‘proved’."   
What Einstein does in his 1905 paper is provide two such postulates, and then he proceeds to show how they are true but untrue at the same time, they are true in any given "frame," but they are untrue when comparing one "frame" to another. That is what "Relativity" is all about. 

Meanwhile, I'm in very interesting arguments on the sci.physics.relativity discussion group.  Coincidentally, I'm arguing about what Einstein's Second Postulate is.  Mathematicians claim it is not what Einstein stated it to be, but what he MEANT it to be, i.e., it is not an assumption but it actually the equations later in the paper that the mathematicians can interpret to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Interesting stuff.  Explaining things to people in a hundred different ways helps me to understand those things myself.  But now I've run out of time and need to eat lunch and head to the gym.  Groan!

February 12, 2020
- I've been busy arguing (and discussing things) on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum.  I've also been working on that new experiment.  The discussions have been very interesting.  Unfortunately, I can say the same thing about the experiment.  It is been interesting because it is nothing but a mass of problems.  I spent most of yesterday trying to figure out how to hold the radar gun steady inside the cardboard box.  String did not work.  It does not hold the gun steady when affixed to flexible cardboard.  

This morning I awoke thinking I could greatly simplify the experiment.  After lunch, I took the box, two portable fans and my radar gun out to my car and tried something different.  The idea was that I would put some boxes on the floor on the front passenger side of my car and just put the portable fan atop them, instead of inside the cardboard box.  Then I would simply point the radar gun at the fan instead of somehow fixing it to the box.  At first, I thought I'd still have the fan inside the box, even though I would hold the radar gun in my hand.  But that turned out to be too awkward.  I couldn't see where the gun was pointed.

First
                    mobile fan & radar gun experiment

Then I just placed the smaller portable fan (which is held by rubber bands to a book) atop the boxes.  Next, while driving I tried to get a reading of the speed of the fan.  There were problems right away.  I was getting all kinds of varying readings.  Sometimes it would seem that I was getting a steady reading from the fan, but when I started the car moving, the reading did not change.   I was never able to get the speed of the fan to add to the speed of the car, which is what I expected the experiment to do. 

After giving up for the day, I realized that the heater fans were going, and that they might in some way affect the test.  All the radar gun manuals warn against fan interference and false readings from fans in the dashboard.  It doesn't happen when the gun is pointed out the windshield, but it might if the gun is not high enough to avoid any fan interference.  I've never fully understood how that interference works, and I still don't.

Of course, I could have turned off the fans, but I didn't realize what was happening until after I had given up for the day.  And I don't see how the fans could affect the experiment - unless they somehow affect the gun's ability to measure the "patrol speed" a.k.a. "the speed of the gun."  That seems very possible.

Several inches of snow are in the weather forecast for this evening, so it may be awhile before I can do more experiments.  And I have some heavy thinking to do.


February 10, 2020
- Okay, I've got an engineering project to do.  The image below shows the basic key components of the project.

Components for Special Relativity Experiment
                    #1

Component #1 is a 12x9x5 inch cardboard box.  Component #2 is my TS-3 "Type-2S" police radar gun.  Component #3 is my newly purchased Jesir Multi-Function Mini Fan.  In the illustration I have the fan held by rubber bands to a hard-cover book (components #4 and #5).  The book was selected from my personal library because it fits nicely inside the box and is heavy enough to keep the fan steady. 

My next task will be to figure out how to fix the radar gun to the box.  It appears I will have to cut a circular hole in the box large enough to enable me to insert the rear of the gun through the hole.  That will allow me to  (1) position the gun far enough away from the fan to avoid contact with the blades, (2) it will allow me to access the gun's on-off switch from outside of the box, and  most importantly (3) it will allow me to see the display screen on the rear of the gun from outside of the box.  Unfortunately, I would still have to reach inside the box to squeeze the trigger on the gun.  So, I will have to rig a string (component #6) that will allow me to pull the trigger from outside the box.  And the string will have to have an attached clip of some kind (component #7) that will allow the trigger to be held in the pulled position. String may also be used to hold the gun firmly in place, although I might do that with cardboard and tape.  I may also cut the flaps from the top of the box, which should provide the cardboard needed to hold the gun. 

Once the "device" is ready and fully tested in my office/library, the first official experiment will involve two initial steps: #1 to get readings from the device when the device is stationary
on the floor or the passenger seat of my car in order to verify that the readings are the same as in my office/library.  Then in Step #2 I will observe the readings the gun gives when the car is moving.  If the readings are the same as when the device was stationary, either the mathematicians are right or I have misunderstood how the radar gun works.  If the readings while moving are different from the readings while stationary, the experiment will be successful.  Then I may do some variations on the experiment, or I might go straight to writing up my initial findings.  I can then do variations on the experiment while trying to get the paper published.

February 9, 2020
- Back on February 5, I started a discussion about my paper Logical vs Mathematical Universes on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  Initially, the discussion was absolutely fascinating, mostly when everyone started arguing about what is "logical."  Someone named Nicolaas Vroom, who I've never seen post anything before, wrote:
The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical.
Our universe is physical and 'shaped'/'transformed' by physical processes. What we humans observe is the visible universe.

Generally speaking we
cannot see the present state of the universe because it takes time for light signals to reach us. The further away the longer. What we observe are spheres of the state of physical universe in the past. This picture is not totally correct because of space expansion. 
Here is what the best known scientist in the group had to say in his only post (so far) to the thread:
The universe is QUITE CLEARLY not "logical" -- it is what it is,
and that is not at all "logic" (or "logical"). Logic exists only in
human minds, not the world we inhabit.

        You are getting close to a truth: the only things we
        can understand are indeed logical. Because that IS
        how our minds work. But this has nothing whatsoever
        to do with the universe.

We have no hope of "understanding" the universe, for the simple reason that the world we inhabit is incommensurate with our thought processes.  
Several people argued with that comment.  I posted a comment that said we cannot understand things that are not logical because logic is what we use to gain understanding.  If there is something illogical in the universe, then that simply means we do not yet know enough about that thing.  We cannot logically put all that we know together in a way that makes sense to us.  We assume that the universe works logically, otherwise there would be no point in trying to figure things out. And, so far, everything we observe appears logical.

The discussion
is still raging.  There were over 30 messages posted overnight.  Fortunately mostly the messages are nit-picking arguments raging between others, and they do not involve me or my paper.  They mostly involve definitions of words.  But there are at least two messages that I'll have respond to.  I just need to find the time.  I'll do it as soon as I finish this comment.

On Friday morning I decided I needed to buy a portable fan to use in some radar gun experiments I want to do.  Searching the Internet, I found that Amazon sells one that looks almost perfect for my purposes.  It is rechargeable battery powered, it runs for 14 hours or more without a recharge, and costs just $14.99.  (It is shown on the left in the images below.)  However, I would have to pay $5.55 shipping costs if my order was for less than $25.  Woe is me!  What should I do?  What I did was look for another portable fan, and I found a totally different kind that also looks perfect for my purposes. (On the right below.)  It costs $12.99.  Or you could say it costs only $7.44 if I subtract shipping costs from its cost.   The two guns together cost $29.42 including sales tax.  I placed the order on Friday morning.  Here's what the fans look like:

Portable fan #1
Portable fan #2

I was informed that the fans would arrive on Thursday or Friday of the following week, February 13 or 14.  However, later that afternoon, just before I turned off my computer for the day, I was informed that both fans had been shipped and were expected to be delivered on Saturday, February 8 sometime before 9 p.m.  They arrived at about 2:45 on Saturday afternoon.

When I took the cardboard box package out of the locker at the Amazon delivery location about a block from where I live, I was surprised by how small and light it was.  I was even more surprised when I opened the box to find that it contained mostly plastic bubble packing.  Below is a picture of the two fans in their individual boxes.  The blue box is 4 inches by 4 inches by 2½ inches.

My
                  portable fans stil inside their boxes

The $12.99 fan needed to have its battery charged before I could use it.  It took me awhile to figure out how to prepare the battery for charging, since the "instruction manual" is about the size of a postage stamp.  But the $14.99 fan had a fully charged battery and I was able to confirm almost immediately that my radar gun would be able to read the speed of the blades.  At full speed, the blades showed a speed of 28 mph on my TS-3 gun.  When the smaller fan was fully charged, I was able to read a top speed of 24 mph when I pointed my radar gun at the blades.  Whew!  I had been worried that the blades would spin at 10 mph or less, which would mean that my radar guns would not show a speed for the fan blades.  As shown below, both fans have handles that turn into stands and are capable of being placed on a desk, although I'm not sure how steady the smaller one would be if the fan was going.

My two
                  portable fans

Last night I thought of the title of the paper I plan to write about using these fans in experiments with my TS-3 radar gun.  The title will probably be "Performing 'Mathematically Impossible' Relativity Experiments with Radar Guns."

I am virtually certain that the test I wanted to perform with the Type-1 radar gun can be performed with my Type-2S radar gun under totally different conditions.  The test with the Type-1 radar gun was to use it inside a box truck to see if the radar gun could measure the speed of the truck from the inside.  Everything the manufacturer told me about the gun says that it can.  Mathematicians, of course, would consider that to be totally impossible.  A local college professor told me exactly that.  Unfortunately, I've been unable to borrow a Type-1 gun, and it could be equally difficult to assemble a team (a driver plus witnesses and/or assistants) to do the experiment inside a box truck.

With the portable fans I bought, I think I can perform a similar experiment all by myself.  Instead of using a box truck, I would use a cardboard box placed on the passenger seat of my car.

I think I can perform the experiment in the next couple days. 


Comments for Saturday, February 1, 2020, thru Saturday, Feb. 8, 2020:

February 6, 2020 - Yesterday I went into a nearby city to talk to their police department about radar guns.  It turned out that they only use vehicle-mounted guns, so they do not use the Stalker II SDR hand-held gun that I'm researching, nor do they use any radar gun that works in a similar way. 

When I left their offices I went to the county sheriff's office.  They gave me a phone number to call.  This morning I called, and to my surprise I was able to talk with someone there who knows about radar guns.  Unfortunately, they also mostly use vehicle-mounted guns, and the exceptions are hand-held Lidar guns, not radar guns. The officer I talked with seemed to believe that radar guns are being phased out and are being replaced by Lidar guns everywhere. 

Meanwhile, I'm considering buying a hand-held fan to see if my radar gun can measure the blade speeds.  If the blades spin at more than 10 mph, they should give a reading. 
Hand held fans

Such battery-powered fans cost from $12 to about $27.  I can afford that.  And at that price I might even attempt to remove the cover grid to get a better angle at the blades for my radar gun.  Then we'll see what my radar gun reads when the fan is on the floor of my car and the car is stationary, and what the gun reads when the car is moving.

My paper Logical vs Mathematical Universes had 24 views on vixra.org in the past 24 hours.  The total number of reads for all of my papers was 38, which is a daily record.  The previous high number was 22 views in one day.  On Academia.edu the paper got only 3 views.  

It was an interesting day.

February 5, 2020
- Well, I seed my duty and I dood it.  As of 6:44 pm Eastern Time last night, my newest paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" has been on vixra.org at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v1.pdf  Although it officially has not yet been read by anyone, it already has one comment where "Mikko" criticizes it.  But, he criticizes everything I post to vixra.org, and his comments are usually illogical.  His latest criticism (with his typos) says,

The article has may quotes and pointers that show that the speculations in the article are contradicted by those how know and understand better than the author.
If something is logical, is it "speculation"? The definition of "speculation" is:
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
I use all the evidence science has provided.  I just view that evidence logically, not mathematically.  And if I disagree with mathematicians, that doesn't mean I must be wrong because mathematicians disagree with me.  The subject is not math.  The subject is how the universe works.

As soon as I saw that the article was on vixra.org, I also put it on academia.edu.  I put it there as a "draft" and opened it for comments and discussion. 

And then I mentioned it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum and provided a link to the vixra.org version.  As of this moment (10:50 am CST) there are two comments from a Troll named David (Kronos Prime) Fuller who is on my "Do Not Reply" list.  He says the article is off topic and has been reported as such.  It's definitely on topic, of course.  Fuller's second comment shows he has read some of the paper.  He quotes this passage which I quoted from page 6 of Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time":
The difficulty is that in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night.
And then Mr. Fuller says,
Wrong again cretin !

Can’t fix cretin

Luminosity & the Inverse square law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

So, he's actually arguing with Stephen Hawking, not with me, and he's claiming that a star beyond a certain distance cannot be seen.  But, that isn't what the quote is about.  The quote is saying that if there are an infinite number of stars out there that have been emitting light for infinity, the night sky will be white with starlight.  Even if you only get one photon a year or century from stars beyond certain distances, you will get a lot more photons from the countless stars that are closer.  My paper says that fact was first realized in 1576 by Thomas Digges, but it usually accredited to Heinrich Olbers who publicized it in 1848.  It's called "Olbers' Paradox."

It's nice when your first critics make silly blunders showing they understand nothing.  However, even those criticisms make you think about things in different ways, which can help verify what you've written and make you better prepared to respond to more thoughtful criticisms.   

February 4, 2020
- Watching my local news on TV last night, I saw an interesting story which is on-line this morning.  The story is titled "Hackers gain access to computer systems in Racine."  Here's the beginning of the article:
Hackers have gained access to city systems in Racine.

Officials said the city's internet, website, email and voicemail were all affected.

They said it could be another week before they regain control.

"If you need to interact electronically, for all intents and purposes, this week we need you to go back to an older, more analog time," Mayor Cory Mason said Monday. "Come on in to City Hall, say hello."

He said the cyberattack hit servers Friday, possible through a phishing email.

"It is ransomware that we have in the system," Mason said. "Nobody has contacted us demanding a ransom. Even if they did, the city would not pay it."
The article also says that the nearby city of Oshkosh was similarly hit one week ago.  Fire and Police department systems were not affected, only city government systems.  I highlighted a passage that seems pretty funny.

Of course, I had to try accessing a couple City of Racine web sites, but all that happened was the searches "timed out."  No access.

Technically, I do not live in Racine.  But people who live across the street from me do.  So, it is pretty close.

Meanwhile, this afternoon I submitted my new science paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" to vixra.org.  It should be available tomorrow morning, at which time I'll also put it on academia.edu.  I've probably read the paper over and over two dozen times, making minor changes each time, including the change I made just before I submitted it.  Putting it on vixra.org will allow others to read it and tell me what they think.  It might be "mind-blowing" to some.  But there will certainly be a lot of mathematicians who will hate and criticize every word of it.


February 3, 2020
- Yesterday, someone sent me an email with a link and some quotes from a foreignpolicy.com article titled "Trump Has Sabotaged America’s Coronavirus Response."  I also saw the problem mentioned in the opening skit on Saturday Night Live.  It's a very disturbing article.  Here's one quote from it:
The epidemic control efforts unfolding today in China—including placing some 100 million citizens on lockdown, shutting down a national holiday, building enormous quarantine hospitals in days’ time, and ramping up 24-hour manufacturing of medical equipment — are indeed gargantuan. It’s impossible to watch them without wondering, “What would we do? How would my government respond if this virus spread across my country?”

For the United States, the answers are especially worrying because the government has intentionally rendered itself incapable. In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure.
Why would Trump do such a thing?  Evidently because he wanted to undo everything Barrack Obama had done, particularly regarding "Obama Care," and a lot of other things got caught in the fray.  And, too, Trump was cutting expenses just to appear to be doing something, without any real thought about what the effects might be from what he was doing.  That would require discussions, and Trump does not discuss, he says what he wants done and others must do it. 

Hopefully, the epidemic will be contained.  Panicky people are buying worthless face masks intended for dust particles, not vastly smaller germs, and the masks won't stop them from breathing in germs.  But, the stopping of all flights from China and the amazing efforts by China to contain the problem within their own borders is certainly helping.  The Trump White House isn't making the problem worse.  They're just doing nothing. We can be grateful for that.

February 2, 2020
- During the past few days I managed to make some progress on my paper about "Logical vs Mathematical Universes."  That title is new.  It was originally titled "Radar Guns, Einstein and The Big Bang," and I briefly had other titles in between, such as
"The Logical Big Bang versus the Mathematical Big Bang" and "The Two Big Bang Theories."  Gradually I came to realize that the paper wasn't really about the Big Bang, it is about the whole infinite universe, of which the Big Bang Universe is just a very tiny part.

Not only is the title new, but I basically started rewriting the paper from scratch, then just patched in a few sections from older versions, after modifying them extensively.  Time will tell if I can finish it anytime soon, but it looks good.

Meanwhile, yesterday I thought about a totally different paper that I started last September, a paper originally titled "Relativity Experiments with a Radar Gun" and then changed to "Radar Gun Relativity Experiments."  Something has been nagging at me since I did some experiments with my radar gun and a floor fan.

Radar gun
                  experiments with a floor fan 
The floor fan experiment was a good demonstration that light consists of photons, not waves, since photons will go between the wires of the wire mesh covering the fan with no problem.  But how would waves do that?

There's a similar experiment that I keep thinking about, but have not yet tried.  My TS-3 radar gun is a "Type-2S" gun that does TWO measurements.  It measures the speed of a target, and it measures the speed of the radar gun.  When pointed at a floor fan in my apartment, it still does both measurements, but the gun is not moving, nor is the wall and floor, so the gun speed is measured as zero and the gun displays the speed of the fan blades (i.e., the target), which is actually the target speed plus zero.

But how does the gun tell the difference between a target and a wall or the wire mesh?  If only one is moving, then the gun is simply measuring the speed of whatever is moving faster than 10mph.  And that would be the fan blades.  The gun doesn't know what it is measuring, but the operator does.

The question then becomes: What would the gun show if the gun was moving while pointed at the fan?  Mathematicians will argue that the gun will still only show the speed of the fan blades unless the background is moving toward or  away from the gun.  So, if the fan is atop a moving truck and the gun is pointed at the fan and the road ahead through the wire mesh, the radar gun somehow knows how to tell the difference between photons bouncing off the target fan blades, off the wire mesh, and off the ground.  I claim that it cannot tell the difference.  It determines its own speed via an internal measurement (by bouncing photons off of an obstacle inside the gun, such as the radome), not by sending out photons or waves to the background that can somehow magically be separated from photons and waves that are sent to the target.  It measures the target speed by measuring the speed of the fastest object within range. 

The argument can certainly be resolved with an experiment.  All I need to do is find a portable fan of some kind.  Then, I can set the portable fan on the floor of my car while the car is parked, and I can measure the speed of the fan blades the same way that I did it in my apartment.  Only in my car I can then turn on the engine and start the car moving. If the car is moving will the gun know that?  If the gun is measuring its own speed internally, it will.  If the gun is measuring its own speed externally by bouncing waves or photons off of the interior of my car, then it won't.  The interior of the car is not moving relative to the gun.

That's the key question about Type-2 radar guns:  In addition to measuring the speed of a target, does a radar gun measure external background speeds relative to the gun, as mathematicians claim, or does a radar gun measure an internal speed relative to the speed of light as I claim?

The easiest experiment to perform is to put the portable fan on the floor under the dash, turn the fan sideways, and then place the radar gun on the front seat or at that level, so that the gun can be pointed straight ahead at side of the fan and not down at a steep angle.  Then there is the matter of positioning the fan so that the photons will hit the wide flat part of the blade and not just the thin edge of the blade. (That's a matter of getting a good reading.)  In the image below of my floor fan, you can see some of the problems. The blade at the top shows lots of surface to bounce photons off of, while the blade at the bottom shows only a narrow edge.  Plus, you have to avoid pointing the gun at the joiner.

A floor fan
                  and the angles of the blades. 
If the radar gun is pointed at the fan blades and shows 40 mph while the car is stationary, when the car starts moving, the speed of the car should affect what the gun displays.  If the gun is pointed at the blades that are moving away from the gun and the fan is on the floor under the dash, the gun will also measure its own speed internally by bouncing photons off of the gun's radome.  So, if the car is going 30 mph, the gun should show (negative) 70 mph.

If the fan is placed in the back seat, the opposite should happen if the gun is pointed at the parts of the fan blades that are moving toward the gun.  The gun will again show 70 mph, but it will be a positive number.  The only problem with that back seat experiment is that it is dangerous to perform if you have to look at where the gun is pointed while also driving the car (presumably on some totally empty street or in an empty parking lot).

Other interesting tests would combine positive and negative measurements, such as when the blades are moving toward the gun, giving a positive measurement, but the fan is on the floor and the gun measures its own speed as negative. 

The key point, however, is that mathematicians will argue that none of this is possible.  They will argue that a radar gun measures the gun's speed relative to the car.  And that relative speed is zero if the gun is inside the car and is pointed at the interior of the car.

It is also a version of the "Type-1" radar gun experiment.  If the experiment described above works, then the "Type-1" radar gun experiment must also work.  The above experiment shows that the Type-2S gun measures its own speed internally.  The Type-1 experiment shows that without that internal measurement, a radar gun will just measure the speed of a target relative to the speed of light, not relative to the gun.

I'd much prefer to do the Type-1 radar gun first.  It is far less complicated, and when you understand what is happening, it makes things much more clear when you do the Type-2S experiments.  

Sigh.  But my #1 priority at the moment is to finish my
"Logical vs Mathematical Universes" paper.











© 2020 by Ed Lake
RETURN