Archive for
February 2020

Comments for Sunday, February 23, 2020, thru Saturday, Feb. 29, 2020:

February 29, 2020 - I may be wacko, but I find the Coronavirus outbreak to be more interesting than scary.  Maybe that's because there are relatively few cases in the United States and no cases near where I live.  One of the things I find most interesting about the outbreak was mentioned on The Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday evening.  She mentioned the fact that very few children are being infected.  Normally, for viral outbreaks, children and the elderly are the first to suffer, because they have weaker immune systems.  But in this outbreak that is not the case.  Why?

Researching the situation, I found a Harvard Gazette article titled "A big coronavirus mystery: What about the children?"  The article is mostly an interview with Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist and head of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics.  The article contains this comment by Professor Lipsitch:
We just don’t understand whether children are getting infected at low rates or just not showing very strong symptoms. So I don’t want to make assumptions about children until we know more.
and this one:
It’s definitely the case that the older you are, the more at risk of getting infected you are and, if you get symptomatic infection, the more at risk of dying you are. Men also seem to be overrepresented among those getting severe illness.
And here's part of an article dated 9 days ago from NPR:
As the case count of coronavirus infections continues to rise in China, the number of reported infections among children is remarkably low.

"We're seeing [about] 75,000 total cases at this point, but the literature is only reporting about 100 or so pediatric cases," says Terri Lynn Stillwell, a pediatric infectious disease expert at Mott Children's Hospital at the University of Michigan.

It's possible that many more kids are infected but don't get sick enough to seek medical treatment. It's also possible that some infected children may develop no symptoms at all.

"So far, it appears that more than 80% of the [coronavirus] infections are pretty mild, no more severe than the common cold,' says Cody Meissner, an infectious disease expert and professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine. "And children appear to have even milder infections than adults," Meissner says. This is based on preliminary data, he says.
And here is what another news source dated yesterday says:
A recent study from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzing 72,314 coronavirus cases in mainland China found that while about 80 percent of cases are mild, the virus poses the greatest threat to elderly people with preexisting health issues.

The research shows patients older than the age of 80 had a 14.9 percent chance of dying after being infected, while those in their 70s were found to have an 8 percent chance of death. Patients in their 50s were about three times more likely to die than patients in their 40s, at a rate of 1.3 percent.

Patients ages 10 to 19 were as likely to die as patients in their 30s, at just 0.2 percent. The study did not report any deaths in children younger than 10, who represented less than 1 percent of patients.
According to the NPR article, the same situation was true with the 2003 SARS outbreak.  Here's more info from that article:
 "Infants are born with maternal antibodies," [Sallie Permar, a professor of pediatrics and immunology at Duke University School of Medicine] says. "So whatever their mother had been exposed to, they may have some protection [against] when they're first born." She says whether this is contributing at all to the reports of a low degree of severity in infants "will be something to study going forward."

Meanwhile, children are certainly being affected by the current flu season in the United States.

So far this year, almost 100 children have died from the flu in the U.S. And, in the past year, the vast majority of those pediatric deaths occurred in children who did not receive a flu vaccine.
I don't know if the average person can get comfort from statistics, but I certainly can - even if I am in the most susceptible category.

February 27, 2020
- I should have version #2 of my paper on "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" on-line by Monday morning, March 2nd.  Modifying it has been very educational experience for me.  I should have realized long ago that it wasn't "mathematicians" who were putting nonsense into college physics textbooks, it was Quantum Mechanics mathematicians.  I should have identified Quantum Mechanics as the problem right away.  The column headline below from the May 4, 1935 edition of The New York Times puts a date on the problem:

Einstein attacks Quantum Mechanics

The article is about the paper "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" written by
Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen.  I had in my collection of science papers and books, but I'd never actually read it.  It's dated 10 days after the Times article.  The article was actually written by Podolsky after discussions with Einstein and Rosen, and Einstein had some serious problems with what Podolsky wrote.  I didn't study those problems.  Instead, I mostly just used Einstein's comments about mathematicians that I obtained elsewhere:
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity I do not understand it myself anymore.”[1] Nine years later, in a talk he gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”[2] In one of his letters, he referred to the interpretations by mathematicians as a disease when he wrote to his friend Paul Ehrenfest, “You are one of the few theoreticians who has not been robbed of his common sense by the mathematical contagion.”[3]
In my defense, I wasn't that concerned with the fact that Quantum Mechanics was "incomplete."  I was concerned that mathematicians were distorting Einstein's theories to make them fit their own beliefs, and those distortions were what was being printed in textbooks.  Now I realize it was the work of Quantum Mechanics mathematicians.  But that makes me seem like a conspiracy theorist.  Did they deliberately distort Einstein's theories, or did they just fail to understand them and misinterpreted them to fit Quantum Mechanics?

By some weird coincidence, I'm just about to finish reading a library book on my Kindle titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen.  It's about history books, not physics books, but it's also about how all college and high school textbooks get published.  The people listed as the "authors" of the textbooks often have very little to do with the actual writing of the book.  Instead, anonymous free-lance writers do most of the writing.  Here's a quote from the book that I highlighted just yesterday:
Judith Conaway, who has ghostwritten elementary-level textbooks in several fields, wrote, “It is absolutely the standard practice in the textbook publishing industry to assign ALL the writing to freelancers. Then you rent a name to go on the cover.
What a mess!  But it has all been an eye-opening revelation for me.  The problem now is how to make the problem and the solution more widely known.  I'm still thinking the best way is to get people to do the "Type-1" radar gun experiment.  Quantum Mechanics mathematicians do not care what experiments show, but most others do - particularly actual scientists.  The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen mentioned above says,
The correctness of the theory is judged by the degree of agreement between the conclusions of the theory and human experience.  This experience, which alone enables us to make inferences about reality, in physics takes the form of experiment and measurement. 
I couldn't have said it better myself.

And all this has given me some ideas about how to get someone to do the "Type-1" radar gun experiment.  Time will tell if I can actually get someone to do it or not. 

February 25, 2020
- Damn!  I was awakened at about 4:30 this morning when my subconscious mind started complaining to my conscious mind.  In the comment I wrote yesterday, I mentioned the idea of starting a new science paper about "Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity," and later in the day I actually started working on it.  All I got done before shutting down my computer for the day was the abstract and first paragraph.  However, that was apparently enough to upset my subconscious.  It, in effect, told me, "Hey dumb ass, you should forget about a new paper and just write a revision to our latest paper 'Logical vs Mathematical Universes'!  That paper already has most of what you would put in a new paper!  You just didn't mention Quantum Mechanics as being behind the 'Mathematical Universe.'  It isn't mathematicians who are behind all the illogical nonsense, it is Quantum Mechanics!"  

Right.  Of Course.  It is Quantum Mechanics that created an illogical universe which ends at the most distant solid object and ignores the infinite universe that logically must be beyond that.  Who but a practitioner of Quantum Mechanics can accept the screwball idea that our expanding universe is not expanding into empty space, that it is instead creating empty space inside our finite universe as the distance between galaxies and other such objects increases?

And it is Quantum Mechanics practitioners who cannot accept the logical facts of Relativity that have been confirmed by many experiments.  Mathematicians just parrot the dogma they learned about Quantum Mechanics in school.  And that dogma included the fantasy that if there is no aether to measure motion against, then all motion must be relative to solid objects, and if I am moving relative to you, you are also moving relative to me, regardless of what the facts and evidence say.  

So, I'll be dropping the idea of a new paper and I will instead work on a new version of my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes." 

Meanwhile, someone sent me an email this morning which contained an article that seemingly suggests some connection between the Coronavirus outbreak and a South Korean "doomsday cult" known as the Shincheonji Church of Jesus.  I responded by sending back some quotes from an audio book I'm currently listening to in my car while driving.  The book says,
In 2002 [British astrophysicist] Martin Rees publicly offered the bet that “by 2020, bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event."
The book then says,
The biotech expert Robert Carlson adds that “one of the problems with building any flu virus is that you need to keep your production system (cells or eggs) alive long enough to make a useful quantity of something that is trying to kill that production system. . . . Booting up the resulting virus is still very, very difficult. . . . I would not dismiss this threat completely, but frankly I am much more worried about what Mother Nature is throwing at us all the time.

And crucially, advances in biology work the other way as well: they also make it easier for the good guys (and there are many more of them) to identify pathogens, invent antibiotics that overcome antibiotic resistance, and rapidly develop vaccines. An example is the Ebola vaccine, developed in the waning days of the 2014–15 emergency, after public health efforts had capped the toll at twelve thousand deaths rather than the millions that the media had foreseen. Ebola thus joined a list of other falsely predicted pandemics such as Lassa fever, hantavirus, SARS, mad cow disease, bird flu, and swine flu. Some of them never had the potential to go pandemic in the first place because they are contracted from animals or food rather than in an exponential tree of person-to-person infections. Others were nipped by medical and public health interventions. Of course no one knows for sure whether an evil genius will someday overcome the world’s defenses and loose a plague upon the world for fun, vengeance, or a sacred cause. But journalistic habits and the Availability and Negativity biases inflate the odds, which is why I have taken Sir Martin up on his bet.
The Coronavirus seems to have originated in a fish shop, not in a lab.  And while it is certainly scary, particularly in China and countries near China, I'm just watching what's going on, I'm not really concerned that it is somehow going to get to me.  To me, it's just a lesson, not the "final lesson" for us all.

February 24, 2020
- It appears that the most recent discussion I was having on the sci.physics.relativity forum has come to an end.  That was my biggest time consumer during the past few weeks. 

I think I've also learned what I needed to learn from my radar gun & portable fan experiments.  Yesterday, I tried a crude version of the experiment, and the results were about the same as the results of the previous test - just a bit more clear.  My "Type-2S" TS-3 radar gun contains programing that my experiments cannot circumvent.  Plus, I would need a second person to assist me if I want to do comprehensive tests.  Such tests require that I be looking toward the rear of the car while driving forward.  I  haven't even performed the simplest of those tests, which would be to point the gun at receding cars behind me in the opposite lane to verify that my "Type-2S" radar gun will measure a "separating speed" of 70 mph if I am going west at 30 mph and the cars in the other lane behind me are going east at 40 mph.  I've been assuming that the gun will work that way since experiments I have performed more than once demonstrate that the gun will show a "closing speed" of 70 mph if I point it at cars coming toward me at 40 mph in the other lane while I am going toward them at 30 mph.  

So, my radar gun experiments have also come to an end, at least temporarily.  Those have been the second-biggest consumer of my time in recent weeks.

I haven't given up on trying to find some way to experiment with a "Type-1" radar gun without spend $1,600 to actually buy one.  But that mostly involves waiting for responses to emails and waiting for some new idea to occur to me on how to gain access to a "Type-1" radar gun.  Waiting time is very different from work time. 

Finding myself momentarily without any major project to work on, yesterday afternoon I sat down on a couch and finished listening to an audio book titled "NPR Laughter Therapy."

NPR Laughter Therapy

I started listening to it about a month ago, and it is only 2½ hours long, which shows how little time I've had lately for spare time listening or reading.  I don't have much in the way of a review for the book.  It was pretty funny in parts, and interesting in other parts.  I kind of wish I had made some notes.  I think it was Mel Brooks who started out intending to become a lawyer, but then got sidetracked into comedy.  And Joan Rivers started out intending to become a serious actress.

Right now, I have two tasks I want to work on.  I'm thinking about writing a paper about "Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity."  There are countless articles on-line about that battle which has been raging for about 100 years.  Example: "Einstein and the Quantum."  Just do a Google search for Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity.  That is also the battle that I have been waging for years without realizing it, because the main argument seems to be between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.  I was arguing with "mathematicians" who have screwball ideas about Special Relativity, but I now realize those screwball ideas originated with Quantum Mechanics and the inability of Quantum Mechanics to deal with things that cannot be "quantified," such as empty space, variable time, the variable speed of light, and a universe that provides no absolutely stationary point for measuring relative motion.  I don't know what the paper will say about it all, but writing about it should help clarify my thoughts.

The other task is to write a simple step-by-step summary of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."  I find it absolutely insane that mathematicians cannot accept that Einstein's two "postulates" are what he gave as his two postulates.  When writing in German, Einstein may not have use the word "postulat," but what he was doing was "postulating," which means he was suggesting and wanted the readers of his paper to  

assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
He presented two "postulates" (defined as "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief",) and he then proceeded to explain how those postulates, which seem to conflict, actually do not conflict if you understand that time varies with the speed of the object measuring time.

I'm also keeping track of what is in the news about the Coronavirus.  It seems to be generating some new interest in the anthrax attacks of 2001 and all the conspiracy theories that were spawned by that case.  I have absolutely no interest in conspiracy theories about the Coronavirus outbreak.  Arguing with conspiracy theorists is worse than arguing with mathematicians.  In both cases you are arguing with a closed mind, but mathematicians at least provide arguments that can be and have been repeatedly proven false by experiments.

February 23, 2020
- Yesterday, I performed the radar gun experiment where I placed a piece of cardboard (actually, I used a book) between my radar gun and the small portable fan so that the gun can only bounce photons off of the top tips of the fan blades instead of the entire fan.  The results were as expected.  When the fan was running at high speed, the reading was a constant 28 mph.  When the fan was running at low speed, the reading was a constant 23 mph.

So the next step is that "engineering project" once again.  I have to construct a device that will hold the radar gun, the fan and everything else in place, including the trigger on the radar gun, while I drive my car and just observe the readings on the back of the gun. 

It doesn't seem like the project should be too complicated, but I need to gather up some enthusiasm for it.  The last experiment where I just pointed the gun at the entire fan was a disaster.  And I still don't know why it appeared that I also got readings from heater fans inside the dashboard of my car.  I'll turn those heater fans off to avoid the problem, but if I don't know why I got such readings in the first place, and that means I also don't know that there won't still be some kind of related problem when I turn the heater fans off.

The biggest problem with doing the moving fan experiment is finding time to focus on constructing the device.  I could probably build it in less than two hours if I could only find two hours with nothing else to think about.

Which reminds me: I still need to do my taxes.

I'm also thinking about trying other means to get access to a "Type-1" radar gun or to get someone else to get access to such a gun.  Three separate police agencies have told me that they have stopped using radar guns (except for dash-mounted "Type-2M" guns), and they now just use Lidar guns for measuring traffic speeds from a stationary position.  That poses a question: What happened to all the radar guns they were previously using?  I cannot imagine they threw them in the trash.  I don't think they can be returned to the manufacturer for a refund.  And there is no sign that EBay is being flooded with used radar guns.  What happened to all those guns? 

I also started wondering about radar guns made by Kustom Signals, Inc., of Lenexa, Kansas.  Kustom Signals invented the moving radar gun.  So, it doesn't seem logical that they would build "stationary only" radar guns that includes the software and hardware used for moving radar guns and then suppress or turn off that capability in order to make it a "stationary only" gun. 

Researching Kustom Signals, I found that they make a number of different "stationary only" guns.  When I contacted them as part of my survey of radar gun manufacturers, they told me they only sold guns to police and other law enforcement agencies, and they do not sell guns to scientists looking to do experiments with them.  Hmm.  I really wonder if their hand-held Talon radar gun doesn't work just like the Stalker II SDR is said to work.  But I can't think of any way to find out.    

Meanwhile, I think the discussions and arguments I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity forum are once again coming to an end.  I think I have all the information I need from them.  All we have been doing for the past couple days is mostly arguing about how questions are phrased and presented. 

The exception was an exchange I had with someone named "Ned Latham."  Like me, Latham is considered to be a "crank" by the regulars on the forum.  Latham and I do not agree on many things, but we do seem to agree on some things, although I cannot point to any specific thing.  One of things we do not agree about is the scientific paper on titled "Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c" by Daniel Y. Gazari of NASA.  I include that paper in my List of Variable Speed of Light Experiments.    Yesterday, Latham posted a comment about it, stating,

Be advised, Ed. Gezari's "Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance
of c" is a joke, cranck-bait. 
Of course, I immediately responded,
What makes you say that?  Gezari works for NASA.  I exchanged emails with him.  He reported what his experiments showed.  He knows his experiments conflict with what is stated in most text books.  He doesn't explain why because he is unsure why.   
And Ned Latham responded (with my highlighting in red):
Consider the length of the optical path. At the moment the pulse is
emitted the distance to the moon is D. During the time T that the light
takes for the return journey, the Earth moves vT metres towards the
moon. The distance for the return journey is therefore 2D - vT, and
the speed is therefore (2D - vT) / T = 2D / T - v. He used 2D / T.
That's not only wrong, it has to be deliberately so; no scientist
of his calibre would ever make such a mistake.
I also couldn't figure out where that information was located in Gezari's paper, so I had to ask Latham if he wasn't using some foreign translation.  He responded by confirming he was using the same version I was using, and he added this comment about Daniel Gezari (with my highlighting in red):
He made an error, but it cannot have been a mistake: it has to have
been deliberate.

On p 13 the formula he gives for the speed of light is 2D / T.
There's no way he wouldn't know the correct formula is 2D / T - v. 
So, I responded to his first sentence with this:
So, you think it is a conspiracy of some kind? 
And Latham responded with this:
If that's what you want to call a standing joke, yes.
Everyone who accepts that paper as a true report proves themself wrong.
Latham then proceeded to argue that Daniel Gezari didn't actually make any measurements like those described in his paper, because the records for the time when Gezari wrote his paper do not show him as being at the site where the measurements were said to have been done.

I responded by telling Latham that the paper explains that Gezari didn't make the actual experiments, he simply used data collected and made available by other NASA scientists several years earlier.  That was my last message to Latham yesterday afternoon. 

This morning I saw that after I had finished posting yesterday afternoon, a troll known as "Dono," who is on my "Do Not Reply" list, had posted a message to me.   He began by copying my question to  Ned Latham:

What makes you say that?  Gezari works for NASA.  
And then Dono replied to it this way:
He;s a cretin, just like you 
To which Ned Latham responded a few minutes later yesterday evening:
Really, Bonehead? You thiunk that's report's bona fide?
I think that means that Ned Latham thinks that Dono thinks Daniel Gezari and I agree (which is true) but Latham thinks Gezari is actually lying as part of some kind of conspiracy, so Gezari's paper cannot be true.

I'm curious as to what the next comment will be.  Or will that be the end of the thread?   It's been more than 17 hours since Latham posted the last post to that thread. 

Meanwhile, I've come to the conclusion that nearly everyone seems to know that Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are incompatible, but it seems most people disagree on exactly why they are incompatible.  I see it as a simple problem: Quantum Mechanics requires that everything be "quantified" as a number that is valid in all situations.  And there is no way to "quantify" a "quantum" of empty space, nor a "quantum" of time, nor a "quantum" of lightspeed.  Because of that limitation, Quantum Mechanics cannot compute properties of a universe that is infinite, nor can they compute time dilation, nor can they compute speeds relative to the local speed of light.  And that is basically what Special Relativity and a lot of General Relativity is all about. 

So, now I've got to work on my "engineering project."

Comments for Sunday, February 16, 2020, thru Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020:

February 22, 2020 - A couple days ago, someone sent me an email about conspiracy theories that have been started about the Coronavirus outbreak.  I suppose I should have expected that someone would start such a theory.  The world seems to be filled with paranoid people who think their government is up to all sorts of nasty things.  Of course, their government probably is up to all sorts of nasty things, but that doesn't mean that every conspiracy theory you can dream up is real.

Anyway, today I had the time to check on a couple of the news articles about those conspiracy theories.  The first one I checked is titled "Scientists ‘strongly condemn’ rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus outbreak." It says there was even a scientific paper that proposed a conspiracy theory.  The paper was quickly withdrawn, but plenty of people had already saved copies of it.   The key fact from the paper is that there is a virus research laboratory about 950 feet away from the fish shop where the outbreak began.

Meanwhile, Russia is promoting a conspiracy theory that the US Government is behind the outbreak, which makes no sense at all.   Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas is promoting a conspiracy theory that a research lab in Wuhan, China, was developing the virus as a weapon and accidentally released it.  That happens to be the same theory that was in the deleted science paper.

The fact that I don't think there was any conspiracy behind the outbreak doesn't mean it isn't true.  It just means that I've seen NO convincing evidence that any such theory is true.  And I try to stick with what the evidence says.

February 20, 2020
- Because I have my science papers on, they send me links to things they think are related to what I have written in my papers.  This morning I received an email from them which included a link to a pdf copy of a 336 page book titled "Physics Before and After Einstein."  The book contains 13 chapters, a couple of which seem very interesting. 
Chapter 4: The Origins and Concepts of Special Relativity   Page 71
Seiya Abiko

Chapter 7: Testing Relativity                                                  Page 163
Klaus Hentschel
Looking at Chapter 4, it appears that Seiya Abiko does a step by step analysis of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," which is exactly what I said in yesterday's comment that I was planning to do.  I'll have to study Seiya Abiko's analysis to see if I agree with it.  The chapter by Klaus Hentschel seems more difficult to wade through, but I'll give it a try.

A few days ago, sent me a link to another "book."  It was Volume 3 of "Progress in Physics," from 2005, which contains a couple more items that might be of interest to me.  It's a 101 page book of 11 science articles from a "free access" web site.  Two of the articles look interesting:
H. Arp Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .3

R. T. Cahill The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 25
I just need to find the time to study them.

And I also need to find the time to do another radar gun experiment.  I plan to put a piece of cardboard in front of one of my small portable fans to try to prevent my TS-3 radar gun from "seeing" anything but the top tips of the spinning blades.  That should prevent the gun from getting mixed readings from different parts of the fan.  The fan is not much bigger than the front end of the gun.  And the photons spread out in a 20 degree cone, so without the piece of cardboard it gets photons from all parts of the fan.  With the cardboard it should just let the gun measure what I need to measure.  I just need to find the time to try it.

February 19, 2020
- I'm still overwhelmed with things to do, but I think the main problem is that I'm not sure I want to do any of them.  People on the sci.physic.relativity forum are still arguing that Einstein never used the word "postulate," so any argument about "Einstein's postulates" is an invalid argument. And then moments later they will argue that Einstein's "postulates" are not what most English language versions of his paper say they are, instead the postulates actually appear later in the paper disguised as "principles" or something else.

One of the projects on my "to do" list is to create a greatly simplified summary of Einstein's entire 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which is what the arguments are all about.   A few days ago, I created a simplified version to start a new thread on the sci.physics.relativity forum, but that version was too simplified.  It didn't address the arguments about what is written in the various sections of the the rest of the paper:
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in
Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
§ 5. The Composition of Velocities

§ 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for
Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces
Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion
§ 7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration
§ 8. Transformation of the Energy of Light Rays. Theory
of the Pressure of Radiation Exerted on Perfect Reflectors
§ 9. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations
when Convection-Currents are Taken into Account
§ 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron
I dread the idea of trying to summarize what is in each of those sections, but it would certainly be educational for me, while at the same time it would give me ammunition for future arguments where people will claim I have only read the part about the two postulates on pages 1 and 2 and not the rest of the paper.

The version of Einstein's 1905 paper that I generally use is from HERE.  On the last page of that paper it says,
This edition of Einstein’s On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is
based on the English translation of his original 1905 German-language paper (published as Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K¨orper, in Annalen der Physik. 17:891, 1905) which appeared in the book The Principle of Relativity, published in 1923 by Methuen and Company, Ltd. of London. Most of the papers in that collection are English translations from the German Das Relativatsprinzip, 4th ed., published by in 1922 by Tuebner.
I have several copies of "The Principle of Relativity."  The translation in two of the copies (a 1923 edition and a 1953 edition) was done by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery.  Both editions appear to match the version at the link provided above.  I discovered I also have a copy published in 1920 by the University of Calcutta with the translation by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose.  Like the translation HERE that I mentioned in my February 16 comment, it doesn't use the word "postulate." Moreover it is a very different translation, even though both translations were done by English-speaking people in India.  Those versions won't be of any use, but it's interesting to know that they exist.

Meanwhile, I've decided I need to create a new web page for this site which will list all the experiments which demonstrate that light will hit a moving object at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of that object and c is the speed of light.  Mathematicians, of course, argue that light will be emitted and received by all objects at c.  They claim that "all" experiments prove that.

In reality, all experiments prove they are wrong.  In my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity" I list and describe the following ways that demonstrate c+v measurements:
1. The Sagnac Effect
2. Michelson-Gale experiment
3. The Mirrors on the Moon experiment
4. The Annual Doppler Effect
5. Police radar guns
And the experiments that the mathematicians falsely claim prove that light is always emitted and received at c are
1. "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source" by Filippas & Fox
2. "Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region" by T. Alväger et al.
plus I know there is a third one that I have temporarily lost track of. 

None of the three papers says anything about the speed at which light is received.  They simply confirm what Einstein said about how light is always emitted at c regardless of the speed of the emitter.  When that is pointed out to the mathematicians, they simply shrug and recite dogma that Einstein's Second Postulate says that light is both emitted and received at c.  It doesn't, of course.  But many college textbook versions do.

Lots to do, and I just spent nearly two hours writing this comment.

Plus, I need to start thinking about doing my income taxes.

February 17, 2020
- I just got caught up on responding to posts to the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, so I can spare a few minute to write a comment here.  I'm tempted to start a new argument on that forum which I would title "Is Mathematics a Religion?"  It appears that is the case. 

The mathematicians on that forum (and elsewhere) cannot comprehend infinite space because they can only compute distances between objects.  Therefore they argue that the universe must end at the farthest object, and there can be nothing beyond the farthest object, not even empty space.  They are converting the universe to fit their mathematics. 

The same is true with the speed of light.  The speed of light is not an object, so they cannot compute speeds relative to the speed of light, even though that is exactly what Einstein did when he described his Theory of Special Relativity and measured speeds relative to the speed of light instead of relative to the fictional "ether" that was the practice for centuries until experiments showed there was no "ether" (or aether).  So, mathematicians believe all motion must be relative to an object, and if you disagree, you are challenging their religion, which will result in them attacking you with everything they've got.

This appears to be the fundamental disagreement between mathematicians and Einstein which caused Einstein to lament,

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity I do not understand it myself any more."
Since the problem began with the introduction of Quantum Mechanics, it seems that the problem is that empty space cannot be "quantified" and neither can a speed.  Neither is a "quantum" of anything, so "it does not compute."  It is not something mathematicians can comprehend.

I can't be the first to realize this.  Or am I?

Meanwhile, for two days in a row the total number of people who have read my paper "The Reality of Time Dilation" on has decreased.  On Saturday morning the total was 656, on Sunday morning it was 651, and this morning the total was 646.   It makes no sense that 10 fewer people have viewed that paper since Saturday, but I'm getting used to encountering things that make no sense.

February 16, 2020
- Wow!  It's been a extremely busy past few days.  I've been arguing almost constantly on the sci.physics.relativity forum, and some of it was really very interesting. 

But the main event occurred on Thursday.  I argued on the forum all morning, then I had lunch and went out to do chores.  When I returned home, I was fully prepared to argue some more.  But when I turned on my computer, it wouldn't work! 

The computer would turn on, and it would show a picture of some flowers in front of a mountain range, but no text appeared, and there was no sign-in box.  After about 5 minutes the picture would change, but still no sign-in box appeared.  I turned the computer off and on, I rebooted several times.  Nothing.

I could move the cursor arrow around on the screen, but that's all.  I clicked and double clicked on everything, but nothing helped.

I went over to Best Buy to describe the problem to them, but they had never heard of such a situation before.  Then I made an appointment to bring my computer in for examination.  I couldn't get an appointment before 5:20 the next afternoon

So, I had to use my backup computer.  I mostly just use it for reading books and papers.  It doesn't have much memory.  When I bought it I didn't think to check to see how much memory it had.  I assumed it would have plenty - or at least enough to do whatever I needed to do.  Big mistake.

About all I could do with my backup computer was continue with the discussions on sci.physics.relativity.  And I could worry.  I worried because I couldn't update this web site.  And I didn't know how long it would take for them to fix my computer.  And I worried because I didn't know how much it would cost me to get the computer fixed?  And I don't know if my small computer has enough memory to hold the SeaMonkey browser I use to maintain this site, much less the copy of this site that I keep in my main computer.  When I make a change to this site, I make a change to the original version of the web page that is stored in my computer, and then I replace the page that is on my web site host's computer with the page from my computer.   My borrowed library audio books are also on the main computer, and I couldn't return them.  One had just over a day of borrow time left on it.  It was also a real pain to access my emails.  Fortunately, I didn't get any emails during that period.  Most annoyingly, I can't update Windows because the computer doesn't have enough storage space.  Every time I turn it on I am reminded that it needs more space to do an update.

Evidently, I need to delete my Firefox browser and use Microsoft Edge.  There isn't enough memory for both.  But I've never used Edge as a browser.

Anyway, after arguing on sci.physics.relativity most of Friday, I took my main laptop to Best Buy for the 5:20 appointment.  I opened the lid and showed it to the guy behind the counter.  As before, the picture of mountains and flowers appeared, but no lettering and no sign-in box.  The clerk seemed surprised by that.  He puttered around with the touch pad, and suddenly the sign-in box appeared!  My jaw dropped open!  What the f...!  

I asked him what he did, and all he could tell me was that he "double tapped outside of the box."  Evidently, that means he moved the arrow on the screen to where it was no longer visible, and then he double tapped the touch pad.  That was something I had never tried.  Or, if I did, it's possible that it only worked this time because the mouse was not connected.  But why was it the first thing he did?  Could it be a common problem with smart phones and notepads?

Whatever the reason, I was back in business again.  They didn't charge me anything.

So, all day Saturday I argued on sci.physics.relativity.  When I checked the forum this morning I found there were almost 50 new posts since I'd last checked.  I'd started the thread on February 5, and there are now 370 posts to it.  So, that's about 37 posts per day, but more than average just last night.

Perhaps the longest and most intense argument was over the word "postulate."  A physics professor from Chile is heatedly arguing that Einstein didn't use the word "postulate" (or "postulat"), Einstein used the German word "Voraussetzung," which translates to "assumption."  And he argues that that is the correct word, even though every American (and Probably British) textbook uses the word "postulate."

To many Americans, when the word ASSUME is used, we automatically think of how "to ASSUME is to make an ASS out of U and ME."  Assumptions are often baseless and wrong, while
postulates are like facts that are regarded as obvious and established.  Einstein's two postulates are such a case.  Both are routinely demonstrated and proven:
1: the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good

2: light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Like so many other mathematicians, the Chilean physics professor argued that Einstein's actual postulates are elsewhere in the paper, and they are NOT the postulates identified as "postulates" on page 1 of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." (He's also arguing that Einstein's first postulate is are not what nearly all text books present as his "first postulate".)  Here's what is on page 1 of the paper at the link I just provided:
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies.
Then to prove his case, the physics professor provided me with a link to an English language version of Einstein's original German paper that was translated by someone in India.  That paper has this on page 1:
Examples of a similar kind, as well as the unsuccessful attempts to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "light-medium", lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of the phenomena correspond to the concept of absolute rest, but rather that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we will elevate this guess to a presupposition (whose content we shall subsequently call the "Principle of Relativity") and introduce the further assumption, — an assumption which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former one — that light in empty space always propagates with a velocity V which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest.
So, the Chilean physics professor found a version that not only calls Einstein's first postulate a "presupposition" and his second postulate an "assumption," it also states that light travels at velocity V  not c.  I was somewhat stunned and asked him to let me know if he found any more translations that didn't use the word "postulate."

Previously, I had argued that "postulate" was an English word, and that's why Einstein used
"Voraussetzung," which translates to "assumption."  But the professor then provided me with another link.  The link shows 35 papers written in German between 1895 and 1905 that use the word "Postulat."  I took several of the quotes and translated them into English.  An example:
Die Beziehungen dieser drei Postulate zur Erhaltung und Fortpflanzung der Individuen.

The relationship of these three postulates to the maintenance and reproduction of individuals.
Another example:
Wir bekämen es mit Descartes und der gesamten modernen Naturwissenschaft und ihren Postulaten zu tun.

We would be dealing with Descartes and all of modern science and its postulates.   
All the quotes use "postulate" as it is used in English.  I argued that Germans were simply using an English word in German, just as we use autobahn, bratwurst, blitzkrieg, beer garden and angst as if they were English words.  But I found no way to prove that. 

And there were a lot of other things argued on the forum, too.  If you are interested, go to the sci.physics.relativity link.  The arguments are merely making me more convinced that I am right.  But they are also helping me construct better arguments.  I wonder what that Chilean physics professor will argue when I point out to him that virtually all English language physics books identify Einstein's FIRST postulate as a "postulate" not as a "presupposition" or "assumption."  Will he argue that all the text books are all wrong?  That would be interesting, since he has argued that I am nuts for arguing that most college physics textbooks give an incorrect version of Einstein's SECOND Postulate.  

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, 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.

                    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

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.

                  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 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 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 at this link:  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, 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, I also put it on  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 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

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  It should be available tomorrow morning, at which time I'll also put it on  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 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 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