Archive for
October 2020

Comments for Sunday, October 25, 2020, thru Saturday, Oct. 31, 2020:

October 30, 2020 - While driving to a place to get the oil changed in my car this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #12 of the 13-hour, 5-minute, 12-CD set for "The Castle on Sunset: Life, Death, Love, Art, and Scandal at Hollywood's Chateau Marmont" by Shawn Levy.

Castle on Sunset

If you are a life-long movie buff, as I am, the book is a fascinating look into Hollywood life styles.  Chateau Marmont was built in 1929 as an apartment house, but by the early 1950s it had turned into a hotel.  It was a place where movie stars stayed when they wanted to avoid the scrutiny and media attention paid at the more famous hotels, like the Roosevelt and the Beverly Hills.  The book is sprinkled with stories about famous Hollywood personalities, everyone from Jean Harlow and Clark Gable to Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, from Natalie Wood and Dennis Hopper to Scarlett Johansson and Benecio Del Toro. 

Chateau Marmont

It's where John Belushi died of a drug overdose in 1982, after partying with Robin Williams and Robert Di Nero. It's where Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins began their love affair.  Director Nicholas Ray retreated to the Chateau Marmont after walking in on his wife, actress Gloria Grahame, having sex with his son from a previous marriage.

And on and on and on.  The place was recently renovated and you can rent one of the penthouses for $5,000 a night.  A suite costs $1,290 per night, and an ordinary room costs just under $500 a night.

Castle on Sunset was probably a good book to listen to on CDs during occasional 10-minute drives I took over the course of the past two months during the Covid-19 pandemic.  There was something interesting in every 10-minute segment, and there was no problem if I couldn't remember what happened in the previous 10-minute segment I listened to a couple days prior.  Hopefully, the next book on CDs that I started today will also not require paying close attention.

October 28, 2020
- Yesterday, I received an email from a scientist/philosopher who I had never heard of before.  The email's subject was "Great paper!" and the  text of the message was:

Looks like none of these regressive mathematicians ever had to measure anything. Of course, the velocity of any wave in any medium is solely dependent on the properties of the medium.
Huh?  What paper was he talking about?  I sent an equally short response, thanking him, informing him that I didn't know what paper he was talking about, and explaining that I had 15 papers on line at

Then I proceeded to research him on the Internet.  He's definitely well-known on the Internet, or he knows how to use the Internet to promote himself.  In some ways, his ideas match mine, we both have problems with mathematicians, but in other ways we are in total disagreement.  He hasn't yet replied to my email, so I won't mention his name.  I read part of one of his books using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature.  His arguments against mathematicians are mostly philosophical.

I don't know if he'll ever reply to my reply, but his email caused me to think about a possible title for a book: "Logical vs Mathematical Relativity," which would put all of my papers about relativity into book form.

Meanwhile, this morning when I checked how my papers were doing, I found that yesterday I had 9 new readers of my latest paper, "Radar guns and Relativity," the largest one-day number since October 21, when I had 19 new reads in one day.  It seems to indicate that people are talking about the paper.  Is it just a coincidence, or does it have something to do with how that scientist/philosopher learned about my paper?  Who knows?  Maybe time will tell.

While all that was going on, I looked through my collection of LP records.  I've got a hundred and twenty of them tucked away in a cabinet. 

                    record collection

My record player stopped working about ten years ago or more, and I may not have listened to any of them for 20 years or more.  I was somewhat surprised by what I had.  I didn't recall that I had so many classical albums.  The stack on the right seems to be mostly classical stuff, but it also includes a copy of "Victory at Sea."  That album is currently selling for $25 on EBay.

Victory at Sea
In the stack on the left, I have
Kyu Sakamoto's "Sukiyaki":


It was a BIG hit in America in 1963

There are a lot of jazz albums in there, too, plus Johnny Cash, Peter Nero, Simon and Garfunkle, Henry Mancini, and at least 2 Ferrante & Teicher albums.  I need to do an inventory.  I should probably also think about converting the LPs to MP3 files and then seeing what my collection would be worth on EBay. 

October 27, 2020
- Usually I'm the last one to post to a discussion thread when arguing about physics.   That's what happened on the sci.physics.relativity forum. The mathematicians and trolls just stopped responding to my posts.  There were only 21 messages in the entire thread, 8 of them from me, including my last one on Oct. 24, three days ago.  No one bothered to respond to that final post, in which I merely informed everyone that I had uploaded a revised version of my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns."
  So, that discussion is ended.

Meanwhile, on the RDForum, I've run out of ways to explain how radar guns work, and so I just stopped posting.  But "Barry" and "Deacon" are still arguing and posting.  "Barry" posted message #296, and "Deacon" posted message #297, which might be some kind of record for that forum.  "Barry" posted a list of 12 changes he thinks I should make to the latest version of my "Relativity and Radar Guns" paper.  Most are just changes in wording, which means they are just personal preferences, but some are the same arguments he's been making since I began the thread back on September 26.  The post by "Deacon" is just a rant about how I still do not accept his belief that my proposed truck experiment won't work. 

If I respond, it will just cause them to say the same things over and over and over and over again.  So, I'm not going to respond.  I'm ending the discussion.

When I went for a brisk walk yesterday, after deciding I was going to end the RDForum discussion, all I could think about, for some reason, was my "music problem." 

Back in August of 2019, the stereo system in my office/library suddenly stopped working.  At the time, I was just beginning the arguments over radar guns, and I was contemplating spending $300 to buy a used radar gun that the manufacturer was saying would show the truck speed if I was in a car directly behind the truck with the gun pointed at the back of the truck.  That is basically the truck experiment mentioned in my latest paper, but done with only one radar gun.  I didn't buy the gun, and I eventually learned that there is no gun that works the way that manufacturer said his gun worked.

Anyway, my point is that I was too busy with other things, and I just couldn't focus on solving my "music problem."  So, instead of fixing the stereo system, I spent about $70 to buy a second MP3 player (the other one was being used for podcasts) and a BlueTooth speaker to work with it.  Then I proceeded to load music from my CD collection onto the new MP3 player.  That's what I've been listening to ever since, for more than a year, whenever I'm on my computer.

Yesterday, while out for a walk, I must have decided I was tired of listening to the music from my CD collection.  It was mostly modern stuff, with some Swing and Rock and Roll.  I wanted to listen to solid jazz.  That is what I have on my cassette collection and what I played on my stereo system.

My stereo system plus MP3 player

In the image above, you can see some of my cassette collection on the shelf under the stereo system.  (The cassettes are all recordings I made from a local jazz station years ago, when there was such a thing as a jazz radio station.)  My MP3 player and BlueTooth speaker are atop the stereo receiver.  I couldn't figure out what was wrong with the 27" by 14" speakers for the stereo system, which are on the other side of the room, so I connected another set of smaller speakers I have to the cassette player.  I got them to work, but there was no way to adjust the sound level.  The cassette player is supposed to be connected to the stereo system which has the volume control and is connected to the big speakers.  Fortunately, the sound was just a little too soft instead of too loud, so the setup was workable.

I had also decided it was time to convert my cassettes to MP3 files.  It should take only about 400 or 500 hours.  Doing it with my computer is just too complicated, so I searched the Internet and found I could buy a $30 cassette player that does it, putting the resulting MP3 files on a flash drive.  I ordered the device from Amazon and should have it Monday.

Then, this morning, I took the time to carefully examine the large speakers for my stereo system and their connections.  I must have jiggled something, because the large speakers suddenly started working once again, and at this moment I'm listing to solid jazz on the big speakers once again.  When I get the cassette to MP3 converter I'll still going to convert the cassettes to MP3 files.  That way I can listen to jazz for as long as I want without having to change cassettes.  I'll just have to charge the battery in the MP3 player every night, and I'll have to charge the battery in the BlueTooth speaker once a week, which is what I've been doing for the past year.

And it seems I now need to start thinking about my "weather problem."  There was a hard frost yesterday morning, and snow flurries.  It is time to start winterizing my apartment.  I just need to focus and muster some will power.

October 26, 2010
- The arguments on the
sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum and the RDForum seem to have come to an end.  I had hoped there might be some inexpensive way to do the experiment described in my latest paper, but the RDForum discussions seem to rule that out. 

It occurred to me that even if radar guns cannot be fine-tuned enough to measure the exact speed of a truck from inside the truck, the experiment might still work even if there was a minor error of some kind.  If the guns were pointed at each other while stationary on the ground and showed some erroneous speed because they weren't identically tuned, that wouldn't prevent the experiment from working.  The experiment would be validated if the guns showed 15 mph while on the ground and then showed higher and higher speeds if the guns were inside a moving truck that was gaining speed, showing 55 mph mph when the truck was actually going only 40 mph.  The guys on the RDForum who have considerable experience with radar guns, however, insist that the errors might be well outside of the 10 to 200 mph range that guns display, plus they say that if the guns show 15 mph while stationary, the speed will change as you continue to hold the trigger, and they may not show 15 mph the next time to pull the trigger.

I'm not willing to spend $200 to find out by buying two of the least expensive radar guns at WalMart. So, everything is "on hold" until someone reads my paper and decides he knows how to make the experiment work.

Meanwhile, everything is settling down and the most important question in the world right now is clearly: Who will win the election next week?  In some ways it is difficult to think about anything else.  I spent a couple hours this morning looking for podcasts that I haven't yet heard.  I downloaded a couple dozen into my computer.  I'll transfer them to my MP3 player when I finish listening to the ones in the player I still haven't listened to.  It's work that doesn't require much thinking.  And now that I'm done (for now), I'll probably listen to an audio book instead of some podcasts.  Or maybe I'll just go for a walk.  There were some snow flurries outside my window this morning.  But there doesn't seem to be much wind, so a brisk walk is still worthwhile.  Maybe while walking I'll think of something to do instead of just sitting around and waiting for election day. 

October 25, 2020
- I think I spent time every day last week arguing on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum and the RDForum.  And the arguments are still raging on the RDForum.  They have been unusually productive arguments.  People on the RDForum pointed out to me four relatively minor errors in my latest paper, Relativity and Radar Guns, and I made the corrections, posting a new version which got uploaded at 8:05 p.m. on Friday evening.  

Most of the arguments were with mathematicians who cannot accept that radar guns measure speeds relative to the speed of light and not relative to the radar gun or the point on the ground where the radar gun is located.  In "normal" situations, the results are basically the same either way, but a radar gun definitely has the capability to measure speeds relative to the speed of light, and they definitely have no capability to measure speeds relative to the gun or to the ground.  That would require measuring distances, and police radar guns definitely do not measure distances.  Lidar guns measure distances - and so do normal radars used in aviation and weather forecasting.

During one argument late yesterday afternoon, someone named "Token" wrote: "For the record, I am a radar systems engineer, I have about 40 years professional experience in radar and radar related fields."  And he ranted about how radar guns measure speeds relative to the radar's location, even though his experience was entirely with military radars.  I used this illustration to respond to him:

radar screen

The illustration shows how regular radars work, including military radars.  They measure distances and directions.  In the illustration, the radar beam is moving around the center and is currently at the 55 degree mark.  If 0 is north, then the beam is currently pointing northeast as it sweeps around the entire circle.

As you can see, there are four targets on the radar.  The scale for the circles on the screen is not known, but if they represent 5 miles, then the closest target is 15 miles away, and another is at about 18 miles, while the two others are at about 28 miles away.

"Token's" response to me would take about 3 pages in a book, but it began with this:
At this point you are making a pretty classic mistake. You have done a little research and think you understand a little how radars work, specifically the ones you have researched. You assume that you and you alone are correct and that others do not know how they work.

I rather doubt you have any idea how many different ways the Doppler shift of a target is used in radar beyond just to determine radial velocity in a police radar gun. Or how similar the processing techniques are for a variety of different radars and radar functions.
And, he goes on and on and on and on, arguing that military and Air Traffic Control (ATC) radars use the Doppler shift the same way that police radar guns so, even though no one said otherwise. Evidently, ATC radars use the Doppler shift to get rid of "ground clutter."  If a signal comes back showing no Doppler shift, it is assumed that it is a building or tree or mountain, and the ATC radar ignores it, showing only objects that are moving.

All the debates boil down to one question: Do police radar guns measure speeds relative to the ground or relative to the local speed of light?

The answer should be obvious: Radar guns have no ability to measure speeds relative to the ground, they only have the ability to measure speeds relative to the local speed of light.  I've shown them that a dozen times and explained it in a hundred different ways, but they just continue to claim that radar guns measure speeds relative to the ground.  In one final discussion yesterday, I pointed out once again what it says in Encyclopedia Britannica:
With the formulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905 and its acceptance by scientists generally, the ether hypothesis was abandoned as being unnecessary in terms of Einstein’s assumption that the speed of light, or any electromagnetic wave, is a universal constant.
And I stated:
A universal constant is what you can measure all speeds against. And that is what radar guns do, using the speed of light as a "universal constant" in full agreement with Einstein's 1905 paper.
The response was:
The only thing that’s measured is the return frequency. That return frequency only changes if the target is moving relative to the radar gun, as far as the radar gun is concerned.

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this simple and fundamental fact, there’s no point in pretending you’re actually seeking any understanding. 
He's stating what he believes to be a "fact."  So, it's an opinion vs opinion argument.  He cannot explain how a radar gun measures movement relative to the radar gun.  He just states his opinion, claiming it is a fact.  And, if it is a fact, my proposed experiment cannot possibly work.

I agree with that.  That's why I proposed the experiment described in my paper, where two identical radar guns are pointed at each other inside a moving truck.  In what might be my final post to the RDForum I quoted what Richard Feynman famously said,
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.  If it doesn't agree with experiment, it is wrong.
Here's how my post appears on the RDForum where I post as "Investigator":

Final post to RDForum

If you click on the image you can see it full size.  My post suggests a way to end the argument.  The response from "Deacon" is a bit garbled, but it says:
There’s no argument. There is extremely well established true TJ theofh thousands of experiments and millions of radar units produced, and then there’s your failure of understanding.
So, "There's no argument," even though we've been arguing since July 27.

If experiments show that I am wrong, then I am wrong.  But the facts say I'm right, and someone claiming to have different "facts" doesn't change anything, particularly if they also claim the experiment is a waste of time and money because it cannot possibly work, since it disagrees with their facts.

Comments for Sunday, October 18, 2020, thru Saturday, Oct. 24, 2020:

October 22, 2020 - Today was a drizzly and foggy day.  Around 3:30 p.m. I wondered if the bad weather would affect the lines at city hall for early voting.  I decided to check it out, just to see how long the line might be.  City hall is only a few miles away.

When I got there, there was no line at all, and I found a parking spot within 20 feet of the door.  No lines inside, either, except at one of the counters where there was a woman ahead of me, but only for about 20 seconds. 

So, I voted.  It's a secret ballot, so I can't say who I voted or, but I definitely enjoyed voting this time more than any other time, and I also enjoyed going in and coming out in less than 10 minutes.  The parking lot had a lot more cars than when I arrived, and 4 or 5 voters passed me as I was walking to my car.  So, I really picked the perfect time. 

I had to stop off at the post office to mail a letter on the way home, but I got home a few minutes after 4.  That was 35 minutes well spent.

Added Note: I neglected to mention that had received a letter which said I should go to to find where I can do early voting.  That site informed me that early voting is done at city hall.  On election day my voting place will be a nearby church where I voted many times before.    

October 21, 2020
- Ah!  Yesterday, 19 more people read my new paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns."  That brings the total to 23.  That's a good number, considering how few people know about it and how few people in our world are interested in Relativity or radar guns.  Maybe some "word of mouth" will raise the number in the next few days.  The 4 reads on the first day may have been due to when the paper was put on-line.  According to the email I received from, it was put on-line at 7:54 p.m. on the 18th.  So the first 4 reads could have been between that time and midnight, or between that time and some time the next morning, when I began telling people it was on-line.  Then the next 23 reads were during the following 24 hours.  There doesn't seem to be any way to know for certain exactly what time frame is included in an update of the number.

Meanwhile, the troll who posts messages in my web site log file posted 5 more personal attack messages yesterday via a web site in Riga, Latvia.  One of the messages makes it clear that he reads this web site.  The message said,
Stupid Ed lake sure reads a lot...but it dos not register in his mushy brain
In reality, of course, I not only read (mostly just during breakfast and lunch), I also listen to audio books.  And around 7:30 yesterday evening I finished listening to another audio book I obtained from my local library.  It was the 7-hour 20 minute unabridged version of "The Pursuit," another Fox & O'Hare novel by Janet Evanovich and Lee Goldberg.

The Pursuit 

I read it because when I finished book #4 in the series on Sunday, it ended with a "cliffhanger," suggesting that con man Nick Fox may have been killed.  While that seemed highly unlikely, since there are seven books in the Fox & O'Hare series, three more after that one, I didn't have anything better to do, so I listened to book #5 on Monday and Tuesday evening.  Nick Fox was merely kidnapped, not killed.  Fox was kidnapped by Dragan Kovic, an ex–Serbian military officer who is plotting to unleash an epidemic of smallpox on Los Angeles.  Kovic thinks that Fox is a bad guy who can help in the plot.  But Fox is a good guy who has FBI agent Kate O'Hare as a buddy and lover, and together Fox and O'Hare have to thwart the bad guy's plans.

It was an enjoyable book, but listening to novels being read to me is difficult to do when I have so many other things on my mind. I think I'm going to stick with non-fiction books for awhile.  With non-fiction, you don't usually have to remember who all the characters are and who is a bad guy and who is a good guy.  I'm also going to burn 9 CDs later today, making another non-fiction audio book available to listen to when I'm driving my car.  There are only 2 CDs left in the 12-CD book I'm currently listening to.

October 20, 2020
- Wow!  Yesterday, I got a whopping 4 reads for my new paper.  And that is from a world with a mere 7.8 billion people!  And the only comments I got on the sci.physics.relativity forum and
the RDForum are incoherent rambling explanations about how motion is measured relative to objects, not to the speed of light.  It makes all the time and effort I put into the paper totally worthwhile - or maybe I should wait to see if the pattern holds for today, tomorrow and the next day.

And, of course, I got an idea for a new paper.  Basically, the new paper would just compare textbooks' and science books' explanations about Relativity.  I've only been quoting textbooks which have incorrect versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.  I know there are textbooks which have the correct version, but I don't know how many there are.  If I can gather up the ambition, I may try to find out.  It would probably mean going through about 500 books.

Meanwhile, during lunch yesterday, I finished reading another library book in my Kindle.  The book was "We Have No Idea; A Guide to the Unknown Universe" by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson:

We Have No Idea

It's a humorous book about physics, with lots of illustrations which mostly just turn problems into puns.

We Have No Idea - illustration

The cartoons weren't particularly "hilarious" or helpful, but the book was very thought provoking and worthwhile.   I've got 10 pages of notes from it.  Here's an example that fits right into what my most recent paper is about:
When Einstein introduced the idea that there is a maximum speed in the universe, it was not very intuitive. After all, why should there be a speed limit in the universe? Why shouldn’t you be able to hop on a rocket, blast off, press the accelerator pedal all the way down, and build up speed forever until you are zooming past galaxies left and right at ludicrous speed? If space is empty, what is actually preventing you from going as fast as you like?
The answer, of course, is "We Have No Idea."  But we know that having a speed limit helps to make things make sense.  Another quote from the book:
How does it make sense for a particle to have zero mass? For example, the photon has exactly zero mass. If it has no mass, then it’s a particle of what? If you demand that mass is equal to stuff, then you have to conclude that a massless particle literally has nothing to it. Instead of thinking about a particle’s mass as how much stuff is crammed into a supertiny little ball, just think of it as a label that we apply to an infinitesimal quantum object.
And here's another quote that shows that what that troll put into my log file about "Relativity completely dispenses with Causality" is nonsense:
Why does the universe respect cause and effect? We can’t expect that the universe was designed to be sensible to our particular minds. Why do we have this particular maximum speed and not another? The question of why the universe is causal is very difficult even to discuss, not to mention answer in a satisfactory way. Causality is built so deeply into our pattern of thinking that we can’t just step outside of it and consider a universe without it. We can’t use logic and reasoning to consider a universe without logic and where reasoning is impossible or inappropriate.
Here's another interesting thought:
It’s possible that there are questions for which we will never find the answers, but there are also questions that have moved from philosophy to science. As we expand our ability to look far into the universe and deep within particles, we also expand the number of things we can test with science. This grows what we call the testable universe.
Similarly, the testable universe is the fraction of the universe that we can confirm and know about using science. It doesn’t include just the outward bounds of our vision (how far away into space we can see). It also includes the inward bounds (the smallest bits of space and matter that we can see). It includes the limits of how finely and how accurately we can discern things at the smallest and largest scales, and it includes the limits of our theories, mathematics, and capacity for understanding.
And one more final quote from the book:
Look around you and you might be overwhelmed by the variety and complexity of our beautiful universe, but find the patterns and you can begin to make sense of it.
Yes, and when you do, you will also make enemies of countless people who do not put the pieces together the same way you do.

October 19, 2020
- Yesterday afternoon I decided that my new science paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" was ready for release onto the Internet, so I submitted it to  This morning I was notified that the paper is on-line at this address:

I'm not sure exactly when the paper appeared on, but it already has one rambling criticism from "Mikko," a troll who writes bad reviews for all of my papers.  There doesn't seem any point to responding to his latest criticism, so I'm just ignoring it. 

As soon as I saw it was available on, I started a new thread about it on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum where I assume everyone will hate it and criticize it, or just ignore it.  I also mentioned it on the RDForum, thanking everyone there for helping me with it.  Their "help" may have been unintentional, but it was still extremely helpful.  

And I keep thinking it may be my final paper.  If I write anything further, it would be to put all my papers about Relativity into book form.  But, tomorrow I may have an idea for another paper.  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, last night I finished listening to another audio book I got from my local library.  The book was "The Scam," another Fox & O'Hare novel by Janet Evanovich and Lee Goldberg.  It was just 6 hours and 55 minutes long.

The Scam

There are seven books in the series, and "The Scam" is #4. The series features a con man named Nicolas Fox who is forced to work undercover with a top FBI agent Kate O'Hare to expose an criminal scheme of some kind.  In "The Scam," they work together to bust up an international money laundering operation involving a casino in Las Vegas and another in Macao. I was very surprised that "The Scam" ends with a true "cliffhanger."  The other books may also have ended with some kind of event that will cause you to want to read the next book in the series, but this one ends with Nick Fox appearing to have been killed.   So, it looks like I'm going to start listening to "The Pursuit," #5 in the series.  I already have it in my MP3 player.

It's difficult to write a review, other than to say that it is another Janet Evanovich novel, and she is a writer who puts a lot of humor into her well-written books.  I've lost count of how many of her books I've read.  Most of them feature Stephanie Plum, a bounty hunter.

My mind kept drifting into science arguments while I was listening to "The Scam," and I'm hoping that won't happen when I listen to "The Pursuit."

October 18, 2020
- The troll who has been putting messages in my web site log file posted three more messages on Friday, this time via a web site in Roubaix, France.  Here are the three messages stripped of all the extra log file coding:
Ed Lake states that RELATIVE MOTION is a stupid idea

Ed Lake is very ignorant because he does not know that RELATIVE MOTION is a PRECEPT of Relativity [hence the name=Relativity]

Ed Lake is very stupid because he does not understand that he is completely dismissing RELATIVITY by claiming that one of it's fundamental precepts is stupid AND at the same time he states that he understands relativity

This time he's right.  I do think that "relative motion" is a "stupid idea" when talking about physics and objects. It implies that you cannot definitively say whether a speeding car hit a wall or whether a speeding wall hit the car.

wall hits car

Or, perhaps more absurdly, we cannot tell if we sent the Voyager 1 spacecraft off to explore beyond our solar system, or if Voyager 1 is still where it was at launch time when we somehow caused the solar system (and the entire universe) to move away from it.

The second and third comments are totally wrong, of course.  I merely claim that "relative motion" as defined in Einstein's theories is not between objects, it is the motion of an object relative to the speed of light, which is a "universal constant."  Unfortunately, as I stated in last Sunday's comment, "
mathematicians cannot comprehend measuring a speed against another speed.  They can only measure speeds relative to some object."

And yet there can be no doubt that radar guns measure traffic speeds relative to the speed of light. 

This morning I found three more messages in my log file:

Ed Lake is still a moron because he does not understand that Relativity only relates motion to 'observers'

Ed Lake is still a moron because he introduces a third frame [a tree-a planet-a star-a pulsar] and does not realize that he is contradicting the axioms of Relativity

Ed Lake is still a moron because he does not understand that Relativity completely dispenses with Causality
Relativity completely dispenses with causality???  So, there is no such thing as "cause and effect"?   And what does he mean by "Relativity only relates motion to observers"?  And what is a "third frame"?

There are probably a lot of clues in those messages as to who the troll is, but the clues just seem to indicate that it probably isn't who I thought it was.  I recall arguing with people on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum who did not believe in "cause and effect," but that was a long time ago, and  I don't recall how they identified themselves.  

I think I need to go back to the practice of not mentioning his insulting messages when I write comments on this web site. It could be some troll who simply read some of my papers and is putting comments on my web site log because he knows there is no way I can block or stop such messages.  And how can anyone who does that kind of thing expect to be taken seriously?  He's making it absolutely clear that he is an obnoxious troll and he clearly enjoys being one.

Meanwhile, I think I'm just about finished with the latest science paper I've been working on, a paper which describes in great detail how radar guns work and how they measure the speed of an object relative to the speed of light.  The paper is currently titled "Relativity and Radar Guns," which seems a better title than the one I was using until yesterday, "The Physics of Radar Guns."  In some ways, it is also like a new version of my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" or  my most recent paper "Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics Experiments."  The new paper just explains things more clearly and more undeniably than those previous papers.  It even proposes a new invention which I'd like to get a patent for, but it costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to get a patent, and it would probably be a good idea to build the device first to make certain it works.  That is what I did with the only patent I ever filed.  I'd have no way to do that with the device I describe in my new paper.

Hopefully, I will have the new paper on-line within the next few days, maybe even by tomorrow morning.

Comments for Sunday, October 11, 2020, thru Saturday, Oct. 17, 2020:

October 17, 2020 - Hmm.  In a world that seems to be falling apart, I'm spending most of my time trying to figure how how the universe works, particularly light and time.  I suppose it is better than sitting around and worrying about Covid-19, or worrying about whether Trump will refuse to leave office if he's defeated in the upcoming election, or, worst of all, worrying about what could happen if Trump is somehow re-elected to a second term.

And when I'm not trying to figure out how the universe works, I'm reading books on my Kindle, and listening to audio books.  Yesterday evening, I finished another audio book.  It was the 12-hour, 2-minute unabridged version of "Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883" by Simon Winchester.


It's a history book, a travel book, and also somewhat of a science book.  It was a very interesting read.  Winchester writes very vividly and eloquently. The first part of the book is about the history of the region where Krakatoa is located, i.e., the area around Java, Sumatra, and Indonesia.  Krakatoa volcano was located in the middle of the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, and it seems to have been erupting every so often throughout recorded history.  Krakatoa blew itself apart in 1883, but a new volcano immediately began forming in the same location.  It's called Anak Krakatoa, "the son of Krakatoa." Here's a picture from 2018:

The book is mainly about the eruption in August 1883, which was the loudest and biggest explosion in recorded history.  The sound waves went around the world at least 5 times, and they were heard thousands of miles away.  Debris was hurled 24 miles into the air.  But most of the damage done was from the resulting tidal wave which was over a hundred feet high, killed tens of thousands of people, destroyed countless ships and traveled for thousands of miles.  

The book then gets into how the explosion changed the history of the region.  It was then known as the Dutch East Indies, and it was ruled from the Netherlands.  But the Muslims in the area saw the 1883 explosion as a sign from God and started to revolt against the Dutch, eventually gaining independence in 1945.  

The book ends with a travel story as the author visits Anak Krakatoa during a quiet period a few years ago, and he climbs to the rim of the current crater.  It's not just a volcano, it's also a lush tropical island once again, with trees, grass, brush, birds, animals and insects. There a lot of speculation on where all the living things came from.  Did seeds somehow survive the 1883 explosion?  Did insects come via winds?   Not much is known for certain.  Every time someone tries to do an exhaustive study of the island, the volcano erupts again.  Interesting stuff.

October 14, 2020 - The troll who has been putting messages in my web site log file posted four more messages on Monday.  I know that mentioning them here just encourages him to post more, but the four he posted Monday are interesting.  He posted them via a web site in Hassfurt, Germany.  Here are the four messages stripped of all the extra log file coding:
Ed lake is still stupid because he does not understand that Time Dilation has been confirmed MATHEMATICALLY in a mathematical model called Relativity

Ed lake is still stupid because does not understand that Time Dialtion [sic] is a mathematical construct

Ed lake is still stupid because does not understand that Time is a mental construct and it does not exist in the Universe

Ed lake is still stupid because he does not understand that if Time Dilation has been confirmed so has Length Contraction been confirmed
So, the troll doesn't like what I've written about time dilation?   I've never discussed time dilation on the RDForum, I can't even recall the last time I mentioned it on this web site, and I definitely haven't discussed it on the sci.physics.relativity forum in a long, long time.  Back in September, however, I received an email from a psychology professor at a university in a Middle-East country who asked my opinion of a paper he had written on the subject of the Twin Paradox, which, of course, involves time dilation.  In the paper he had developed his own Theory of Relativity that allowed the twins to age equally.

His theory is totally based upon mathematics, of course. He evidently also has a degree in economics.  I read some of his paper and responded, telling him that I was the wrong person to ask about his paper, since my views directly conflict with his.  He responded:

Dear Ed,
I agree with you. You are not the right person. You repeat what you have been told, which is nothing but a fairy tail.
Just look at my page in the [xxxxxx] and see what I was able to achieve with my wrong theory.
I xxxx'ed out the name of the pay-to-print journal where his papers appear on-line. Could he be the same person who is posting messages to my log file?  The evidence definitely seems to point to him, even though he's a professor of psychology.  What he is arguing in his messages in my log file is the same thing he argued in his paper.  He's arguing the same fundamental misunderstanding of Relativity that countless other mathematicians argue:
the twin paradox is unsolvable within the framework of special relativity, unless we make the assumption of a preferred frame of reference, which stands in diametrical opposition to the mere principle of relativity.
What he doesn't understand is: There is a "preferred frame of reference" in Special Relativity.  It is the speed of light.  All motion in the universe can be measured relative to the maximum possible speed in the universe, the speed of light.  That is why Einstein stated that it makes the aether "superfluous."  The aether was a "preferred frame of reference" before experiments showed it didn't exist.

The problem is that Einstein didn't spell things out in simple terms.  You have to follow the logic of his Postulates and how they seem to conflict, but do not really conflict if you understand his theory that time slows down for an object that is moving, and the faster that object moves, the slower time passes for that object.  Against what do you measure those different speeds?  Against the speed of light, of course. 

I just looked up the "ether" on the Encyclopedia Britannica web site and it says this:

With the formulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905 and its acceptance by scientists generally, the ether hypothesis was abandoned as being unnecessary in terms of Einstein’s assumption that the speed of light, or any electromagnetic wave, is a universal constant.
So, I am definitely not the only person in the world who sees that the speed of light is a "universal constant" against which all other speeds can be measured.

But mathematicians cannot comprehend measuring a speed against another speed.  They can only measure speeds relative to some object

That is what the arguments on sci.physics.relativity and RDForum are mostly about. It seems to be the fundamental disagreement between Relativists and Quantum Mechanics mathematicians.  And the disagreement has been raging for 115 years!  But it is never argued that way.  Instead the argument is mostly about gravity and General Relativity.  It's like everyone is too busy arguing about big things to spend time resolving little things, even if those "little things" might have the key to resolving some of those BIG arguments.

October 12, 2020
- Last Friday I saw comedian Jerry Seinfeld on some TV talk show promoting his new book, "Is This Anything?"  The book looked interesting, so I checked my local library to see if they had a copy.  They didn't.  But they had an audio book from 2017 titled "Seinfeldia: How a Show About Nothing Changed Everything" by Jennifer Keishin Armstrong.  It also looked interesting, so, even though I had about two dozen other interesting books waiting to be heard in my MP3 player, I borrowed it. 


The audio book is 9 hours and 59 minutes long.  I finished listening to it last night at about 10:40 p.m.  I was a fan of the TV show "Seinfeld" from when it first aired in 1989 through its final season in 1998, and I have the entire series on DVDs. 

Seinfeld on DVD

It was a very interesting, funny and enjoyable audio book.  It definitely made me want to view the entire series again. Did the final episode end with Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer in jail?  I don't remember that at all, probably because the last time I watched that episode from a DVD was in August 2008.  According to the book, reviewers also considered it to be their worst
episode.  Nevertheless, I'm going to have to find the time to watch the entire series again.

Meanwhile, there were three more personal attacks on my web site log when I checked it this morning.  The attacks make it pretty clear that I was wrong in believing the previous attack came from someone on the RDForum.  Everything now indicates that they are from the same idiot who posted attacks to my web site logs in the past, some mathematician from the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum. It's clear he's a mathematician because of what he posted yesterday.  There were ten copies of three different messages in my log file.  Here are the three messages: - - [11/Oct/2020:10:12:39 -0500] "GET /Imbecile_Ed_
so_is_Time_Dilation HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0" - - [11/Oct/2020:10:13:08 -0500] "GET /Idiot_Ed_lake_
Epicycles_are_to_Geocentrism_[mathematical_constructs] HTTP/1.1  404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0" - - [11/Oct/2020:10:13:51 -0500] "GET /Moron_Ed_Lake_does_not_understand_that_when_he_
HTTP/1.1" 404

- "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0"
What this mathematician doesn't seem to understand is that even though Time Dilation was just a "mathematical construct" when Einstein first proposed it in 1905, it has since been confirmed by many experiments.  That means Time Dilation is no longer just a "mathematical construct" like Spacetime, it is something many different experiments have shown to be real, even though mathematicians will endlessly argue that it is not.

Also, I don't think I've ever called all mathematicians idiots.  I've only called the ones "idiots" who call me names and attack me when I challenge their beliefs, like the idiot who posted those 30 attacks.  I can't just call him a "mathematician," since that would imply an attack on all mathematicians.  There are mathematicians who know that their math is just a pattern they have created. It is not a "discovery."  A mathematical explanation without experimentation is just an interesting pattern.

I made a mistake in writing about the guy's previous post in my Oct. 10 comment.  That just encouraged him to post more personal attacks.  So, I won't be writing about any more of them ... unless he posts something truly interesting.
October 11, 2020
- The arguments and discussions I've been having on the RDForum have been very productive and very interesting.   Yesterday I actually got a mathematician/engineer to discuss something instead of just declaring his beliefs.  It turned out we were saying the same thing, we just computed it in a different way.  I produced a spreadsheet showing how I think radar guns measure target speeds.   The spreadsheet looked like this:

calculating mph from the beat frequency

And I explained it this way:
1. The gun has the Hertz frequency and the speed of light programmed into it.
2. It develops the beat frequency by comparing the transmitted Hertz frequency to the returned Hertz frequency.
3. It then develops a percentage by finding the percentage that beat frequency is of the transmitted Hertz frequency times 2.
4. It then uses that percentage against the speed of light to find the speed of the target.
5. It then somehow rounds off the speed of the target to the nearest whole number and displays it.
A radar engineer on the RDForum figured things a different way.  He wrote:
1. The gun develops the beat frequency by comparing the transmitted Hertz frequency to the returned Hertz frequency.

2. It divides the beat frequency of the target return by the K factor [from the table below:]
@35.5 GHz 1 MPH = K of ~105.873 Hz
@34.7 GHz 1 MPH = K of ~103.487 Hz
@33.8 GHz 1 MPH = K of ~100.803 Hz
@24.15 GHz 1 MPH = K of ~72.023 Hz
@24.125 GHz 1 MPH = K of ~71.949 Hz
@10.525 GHz 1 MPH = K of ~31.389 Hz
3. It then somehow rounds off the speed of the target to the nearest whole number (actually nearest lower whole number) and displays it.
A radar gun is operating on a designed center frequency of 35.5 GHz and receives back target Doppler of 6000 Hz.

6000/105.873= ~56.67 MPH

Round down to 56 MPH and display.
What he produced was just another mathematical way of doing the same thing I had done.  He developed the "K factor" by utilizing the Hertz frequency and the speed of light.  So we confirmed what I'd quoted from a book I recently read:
"Mathematics is simply the catalogue of all possible patterns."
He used one pattern and I used another pattern to get the same answer.  But, more importantly both of us used mathematical "patterns" which measure speeds relative to the speed of light.  That confirmed what I had written to start the debate: Radar guns measure speeds relative to the speed of light, they do not measure speeds relative to some object.

So, we have a solid basis for our next discussion.  Does he agree to what I highlighted in red above?

In another discussion on Friday, I suddenly realized there was a different way to argue about waves versus photons.  Instead of arguing about radar guns, we could argue about telescopes.  Do telescopes receive photons or waves?  How would a telescope work if it received waves?

Photons vs waves in telescopes
The problem however, is that when you look at descriptions of how telescopes work, they don't discuss photons or waves.  They generally discuss "light rays."

light rays into a telescope
But maybe a discussion about telescopes will lead to another point of agreement.  It's certainly worth a try.

Comments for Sunday, October 4, 2020, thru Saturday, Oct. 10, 2020:

October 10, 2020 - Hmm.  Normally I just ignore the trolls who try to attack and insult me by causing messages to appear on my web site logs, but the message that appeared on yesterday's log is kind of interesting.

I check the logs every day to see who has been visiting this web site, and who has been attempting to hack into it.  There's a line on the log for every attempt to read any image or file on the site or to post to the site.  Yesterday, there was an attack from someone at IP address, which traces back to Warrenton, Virginia.  That's not an address the troll on sci.physics.relativity ever used to attack me.  And I hadn't posted to that forum in a long time, so why would the troll suddenly find a need to attack me?

The troll first accessed my very first archive file, which is for January of 2015.  He may have done that just to verify that I wasn't blocking accesses from the web address he was about to use to attack me, but he may also have needed a good web site html address to modify to contain his  personal attacks.  Either way, that access was followed by 20 messages which looked like this in the log file: - - [09/Oct/2020:12:59:52 -0500] "GET /All_your_
OF_HUMANITY_[sarcasm HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0
(Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0"
In reality, my scientific papers are all on and and will probably remain there for many years after I shut down this web site.  Plus, my writings on this web site are archived on web archives.  The Wayback Machine archive saved copies of this web site three times this year, once in January and twice in August. And they've been saving copies since I bought the domain name  Plus, other archive sites have been doing the same thing, including Google and Amazon.  So, there's a good possibility that if someone wants to read my "RAMBLINGS" a hundred (or a thousand) years from now, there will be some way to do it.

After I completed my morning routine and finished with the log file, I checked to see what was happening on the RDForum.  On that forum someone had posted this:
You need radar guns to be based on and measure c as part of their operations to support your paper here:

And your blog post here: My Thoughts on the Changing World.
So, he'd just been prowling my web sites.  It seems to be about 95% certain that the person who put the attack on my web site blog was someone from the RDForum.

October 8, 2020
Groan!  There just aren't enough hours in a day!  Yesterday morning I had my annual physical, which took nearly all morning.  I  left for the doctor's office at 8:30 a.m. and returned home at 11 a.m.  Then I had to cram my normal day into the hours that were left.  The physical went fine.  No problems.  I even managed to relax while waiting to see the doctor, so when the nurse took my blood pressure, it was 120 over 60, which is in the "ideal" range. 

The discussions I had later on the RDForum where very interesting and helpful.  It's all very different from the arguments on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum where everyone seems to have their own view of science and they're ready to defend it to the death, so there is no possibility for any "meeting of the minds." On the RDForum, where the members (except me) are people who own radar detectors and want to learn more about avoiding and fighting traffic tickets, there are very few mathematicians who can only discuss things in mathematical terms.  But there are a few.  You just have to learn how to avoid them.

Last night I listened to an audio book instead of watching TV and the Vice Presidential Debate.  I recorded the debate, of course.  I may watch some of it tonight.  At around 10 p.m. last night I finished listening to the audio book version of  "A Very Punchable Face: A Memoir" by Colin Jost, who I only know from his playing a newscaster on the TV comedy show Saturday Night Live.

A Very Punchable Face

It's a 7 hour, 43 minute audio book that I borrowed from my library 3 days ago, on October 5.  I listened to half of it on Tuesday night and the last half last night. I was expected a funnier book.  While there are lots of funny parts in the book, it is also very grim at times, and at other times it is also "gross."  (If I occasionally crapped by pants as an adult, I'm not sure that I'd write details about it in a memoir.)

Jost grew up on Staten Island, where his father was a school teacher and his mother was a fire department doctor.  There's an entire chapter in the book about how his mother was almost killed twice on 9-11 as she tended to victims while the first tower fell and then again when the second tower fell. 

Jost is a Harvard graduate and he worked
on the Harvard Lampoon while there. After graduating, he worked at Merrill Lynch for awhile, then for a small newspaper.  Then he became a stand-up comic, and before long he worked as a head writer on Saturday Night Live, a.k.a "SNL".  Then he became a regular as part of SNL's fake news show "Weekend Update" with Colin Jost and Michael Che.  He's been working at SNL for over 15 years, but the book ends with him saying he's about to quit and settle down with his wife-to-be, movie star Scarlett Johansson and just write.  Johansson is only mentioned a few times in the book, mostly about the time when she and Jost were wandering around Paris and they were pelted with tomatoes thrown by some teenagers. 

It's a weird book, so it's difficult to recommend.  But if you are a fan of Jost on SNL's "Weekend Update," then I can definitely recommend the book to learn more about him and his life.  He's only 38, but he's definitely been places and done things.

October 6, 2020 - It used to annoy the hell out of me that Trump would always hold his Corona virus updates at the same time as the evening news shows were on.  So, instead of watching the world news, everyone would end up watching Trump rambling and blathering for an hour or more.  After a couple minutes, I usually just switched to watching something else. 

The networks finally caught onto Trump's game, and they would cut away from his ramblings after about ten minutes and go back to presenting the world news.  Soon after, Trump stopped doing daily briefings.

Does anyone think it is just a coincidence that Trump went to the hospital while the evening new shows were on?  Or that he left the hospital while the evening news shows were on?

The only question is: Does he do that to mess with what he considers to be "fake news" shows, or does he do it because he knows that is when he'll get the best TV coverage?  Either way, he is just demonstrating his creepy narcissism.

Last night I finally watched some of the Trump-Biden debate.  I decided that I'd never be able to sit through it in its entirety, so I burned it onto a DVD.  When watching it from my DVR I had the ability to fast-forward past boring stuff, of course, but when it's on a DVD you can instantly jump forward by 10 minutes, watch a sample, and if it's unbearable, you can instantly jump forward another 10 minutes.  I did that and watched maybe a half hour of Trump's rants and ravings.  If I can stomach it, I can do more of it sometime in the future.  And I erased it from my DVR so that it isn't always there as a reminder when I look to see what I've got waiting to watch on my DVR.  (The only thing I watch while it is being broadcast is the evening news.)

Meanwhile, I'm once again feeling a little overwhelmed.  I'm working on a paper about the physics of radar guns, while at the same time my library seems to be buying more books and providing them to me faster.  Books that were said to have a 6-month wait when I first reserved them turn out to be available in just a few weeks.  I borrowed two books yesterday that I thought I'd have to wait another 5 months or more for, one audio book and one Kindle book.  I started on the audio book right away, but the Kindle book will have to wait.   

And, for some reason, the people on the RDForum suddenly restarted arguments with me.   They are interesting arguments, since explaining things to people causes me to think about those things in different ways, plus the topics are the same topics I'm covering in my new paper.  Also, when you are arguing with someone who refuses to understand, you end up explaining the same things in a dozen different ways, while the other person just argues the same things over and over.  It can be very interesting, but it can also get tedious very fast.  One benefit is that the others on the forum seem to be catching on.  They don't usually join in the arguments.  No one wants to argue with someone who refuses to understand.  But when they write something new you can see they are trying to understand something new.

October 4, 2020
- Yes, we are definitely living in interesting times.  Watching the news about President Trump contracting Covid-19 and having to go to the hospital, and others around him also being tested positive, like Hope Hicks, Kellyanne Conway, Chris Christie, Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, and my idiot Senator Ron Johnson, plus two other Republican senators, it's like watching some comedy show where the idiots all finally get their comeuppance.  I wanted to create a cartoon about it, but the best I could come up with is the one below.   

Better safe or sorry?


I wanted to create a cartoon where people wearing masks are carrying signs like the one on the left, but I couldn't think of what the people who refuse to wear masks would be doing while carrying signs with a slogan like the one on the right.

Making matters worse, the news broke on a Friday and my two favorite talk show hosts, Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah don't do shows on Friday nights.  My third favorite, Jimmy Kimmel does do Friday night shows, and he only talked briefly about Trump contracting Covid-19.  Maybe he didn't think it was very funny, either. It's more pathetic than funny when someone who has been ridiculing people for wearing masks contacts Covid-19 because he wasn't wearing a mask as often as he should have. 

Will he lose some of his supporters because of this?  Maybe, but I think most will just say, "That's just Trump being Trump.  It doesn't mean anything.  I still support him.  It's better than having a politician in the White House."

Comments for Thursday, October 1, 2020, thru Saturday, Oct. 3, 2020:

October 2, 2020 - Hmm.  The news this morning is all about how President Trump and his wife Melania have contracted the Covid-19 virus.  And his senior aide, Hope Hicks, has been infected, too.  The only question seems to be, given how careless Trump has been, why did it take so long for him to get it?

What worries me most about Trump getting Covid-19 is that if he gets really sick, Mike Pence will have to take over some or all of the President's duties.  And that situation was confronted a couple years ago when there was a risk of Trump being removed from office by being impeached.  That's when I created this banner:
Pence vs Trump
And what happens if Trump gets so sick he cannot continue his campaign for a second term?  Does Pence automatically become the Republican candidate - maybe with Rush Limbaugh or Steve Bannon as Vice President?

I hope you get better soon, Mr. President! 

October 1, 2020
- On Tuesday evening I really wanted to watch the Presidential Debate.  I set my DVR to record it, and also I sat down to watch it.  But as soon as Donald Trump started ranting I felt like I was watching a movie I didn't like and I was watching it for the hundredth time.  I figured I'd wait until Wednesday evening and watch it from the DVR, allowing me to skip over things if it got too annoying and depressing.  So, I turned it off and listened to an audio book instead.  It was supposed to be a 90 minute debate, and at 9:30 I turned it on again to see what the news commentators had to say, but Trump was still talking, so I turned it off again and listened to more from the audio book.

Then after supper on Wednesday evening, I sat down to watch it on my DVR, but I just couldn't get myself to turn it on.  I had watched what the evening news shows had to say about it, including all the clips, and from my DVR I watched what talk show hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert had to say about it, including all their clips, but I just couldn't watch the actual debate. So, I spent the whole evening listening to more from the audio book.  At about 10:20 p.m., I finished listening to "A Crack in the Edge of the World: America and the Great California Earthquake of 1906" by Simon Winchester.

A Crack at the Edge of the World

It's a history book, of course, but it's also a travel book.  It isn't just about the San Francisco earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906, it is also about a lot of other earthquakes the preceded it and followed it.  And it's about Simon Winchester's travels to visit the locations of some of these events.  I found it interesting that it was already a time when everyone owned a camera, so there are countless pictures of the San Francisco destruction on the web.

San Francisco earthquake of 1906

The picture above was almost certainly taken before the fires really started doing damage.   All the buildings that are still standing in the photo probably ended up in ashes as fires raged through the city, doing far more damage than the quake.

San Francisco earthquake and fire

The 1811 earthquake at New Madrid, Missouri, has always fascinated me, maybe because it wasn't just "an earthquake," it was a lot more than that.  Winchester also writes briefly about that quake in the book.  Here's a snippet:
Jared Brooks, of Louisville, Kentucky, counted no fewer than 1,874 separate earth-shaking episodes in and around New Madrid over the next few weeks. Shocks like the first enormous one of 16 December occurred two more times – once on 23 January and again on 7 February, this last being the mightiest of all. And then the world fell quiet again.
He also writes about the Alaska quake of 1964.  That's one I remember, because I was in Japan at the time, and while quakes were common there, they didn't get anything like the Alaska quake while I was there.  I recall staring out at the Pacific while waiting for news of an approaching tsunami, but it never came.

Alaska earthquake of 1964 

Winchester's book was an interesting read.  I enjoyed it, maybe just because it kept my mind off of the disaster that is known as the Donald Trump Presidency and the fact that there are tens of millions of Americans who are cheering the disaster and are ready to vote for four more years of it.


© 2020 by Ed Lake