|Comments for Sunday, March 29,
2020, thru Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2020:
March 31, 2020 - The water in my apartment building was finally turned on again at 5:10 p.m. yesterday afternoon, and the faucets spouted liquefied mud. I was watching the news on TV and heard something click. I thought it might be the water turning back on, so I went to the bathroom to see if the toilet tank had refilled. It had, and the toilet was filled with liquefied mud. I then went downstairs to the laundry room, hoping to clear most of the mud out of the pipes before turning on my own faucets. It's a good thing I did that, since the faucet was running when I entered the room, and the sink was nearly full. Someone had left it turned full on. I let the sink drain and then ran the faucet for about 20 minutes, watching the water turn from liquefied brown mud to liquefied gray clay, and then gradually clear. Then I flushed my toilet about ten times. And I ran the kitchen and bathroom faucets in my apartment until the water seemed clear.
When I made coffee this morning, I used bottled water. I'll probably do that tomorrow, too, and the next day if I have enough bottled water.
For awhile, it was like something from a science fiction movie. The whole world is shut down and quarantined, you're told to wash your hands thoroughly whenever you touch things out side of your home, and then the water supply becomes contaminated.
I wasn't totally isolated, though. Three times I walked over to where the water main had broken to check on the progress of the Water Department crew. They'd dug a hole about ten feet deep and ten feet across to get to the pipe. At first they just sealed the two pipe ends, assuming that the water would get to everyone from a different direction. They were stunned when I told them that my water was totally off. After checking further to make sure I was right, they then had to fix the broken pipe and reconnect the two sections.
On my last walk to the break location, I continued walking, just for the exercise. I walked to the Hobby Lobby store, about two blocks from my apartment, where I simply planned to turn around. To my surprise, the store was open. There was a sign on the door that said they were "an essential business" and would therefore remain open. When I watched the news that evening, I saw that they were being threatened to have their power and utilities turned off if they didn't shut down. They were NOT an essential business, and putting a sign on their door didn't change that. Hobby Lobby is owned and run by a very religious guy who has fought with the government before. Meanwhile, some pastor for a church in Florida had been arrested because he considered his church to be an "essential business."
And that guy who has been attacking me via my web site logs did so again yesterday, this time from Montreal, Canada. I don't know how he does it. He can't be flying from place to place. A sample attack line:
18.104.22.168 - - [30/Mar/2020:15:58:32 -0500] "GET /Ed_Lake_is_a_narcissistic_IMBECILE_with_intellectual_It really is like some science fiction movie. And these are definitely interesting times.
Meanwhile, as all that was going on, I revised a paper of mine that I had written in July of 2018, titled "Analyzing the 'Twin Paradox'." The new version is on-line this morning. The comment I wrote yesterday showed me that I was wrong about how an atomic clock would work on a centrifuge. While the centrifuge should still cause gravitational time dilation, it evidently will not cause velocity time dilation. That is because, as I stated yesterday, "about ¼ of the time the clock would be moving with the earth's rotation, about ¼ of the time the clock would be moving against the earth's rotation, and about ½ of the time the clock would be moving at right angles to the earth's rotation." Thus it can "be argued that the net effect on the clock on the centrifuge would be zero" for velocity time dilation.
I don't know why I didn't realize that before. But more intriguing is why no one explained things that way to me. If they had, I would certainly have seen the problem. But all they did was what that guy posting to my log is doing, they called me names. Or they talked only about reference frames and a very different experiment where there was no "stationary" clock, just two atomic clocks on the centrifuge at different distances from the center. To talk about a "stationary" clock and a "moving" clock evidently requires a paradigm shift in how they view the universe. It requires looking from one "reference frame" into another.
The revised paper now includes a brief passage about doing an experiment where velocity time dilation is measured during the day when the rotating earth is spinning against the movement of the earth in its orbit around the sun, and during the night when the earth is spinning with the movement of the earth in its orbit around the sun. I probably should have spent more time thinking about that experiment before writing about it, but it's too late now.
I also deleted the part about Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper" and how temperature might affect time. I think I only included that as an attempt at humor. I wasn't viewing QM mathematicians' arguments as seriously then as I view them today.
March 30, 2020 - This morning when I turned on the shower, the water pressure was very low. I was a bit nervous about shampooing my hair, since it seemed like the water might stop before I could rinse out the shampoo. But, it remained low for awhile, long enough for me to finish showering and shaving, to fill up my coffee pot, to wash my breakfast dish, and to fill up a gallon jug, just in case. Then there was none.
Groan! What I didn't need in this Coronavirus crisis time was to have no water. I called the apartment complex office, but there was no answer. I went down to the laundry room to try the faucet there, and it didn't work. But I wasn't sure that it was supposed to work, and I wasn't about to put money into the washing machine to see if it would work. So, I put on my jacket and went out to my garage. I could see trucks on a nearby street with yellow lights flashing. As I drove down the street past the office, I saw a man standing in the parking lot. I asked him if his water was off. It was. I advised him that mine was, too, so he wasn't the only one with a problem. Then I drove over to where the trucks with the flashing lights were located. Yes, one of the Water Department workers told me, there had been a water main break. They had it fixed and they assumed the water was already back on. It wasn't. That was at about 9:45 a.m. It still isn't on at 3 p.m., but they say it will be back on before very long.
All the while, of course, I kept thinking about how I should probably stock up on bottled water. But, at the same time I knew that the water problem had nothing to do with the Coronavirus crisis. And I consider drinking bottled water to be a waste of money. I eventually went to Walmart and bought a gallon of "spring water" for 80 cents. At that price I can use it to wash my hands.
Meanwhile, when I checked my web site log files this morning, I found another string of insults in the form of searches for non-existent files on my web site. This time the prankster's location was Helsinki, Finland. So, I can probably expect to get some almost every day until the idiot gets tired of it. And I imagine he'll get tired faster if I stop commenting on what he's doing. I'll try doing that.
Before all those distractions, I awoke this morning thinking about the atomic clock in a centrifuge experiment I mentioned yesterday. The problem with that experiment is that I would have no way to predict what the atomic clocks would show - other than that the stationary clock should show that more time has passed than the clock on the centrifuge.
The Hafele-Keating experiment involved moving with the rotation of the earth, doing a clock comparison, then moving against the rotation of the earth and doing a comparison. The Earth's rotation speed is known. The experiments also involved changes in altitude. Those changes could be estimated. In the centrifuge experiment, about ¼ of the time the clock would be moving with the earth's rotation, about ¼ of the time the clock would be moving against the earth's rotation, and about ½ of the time the clock would be moving at right angles to the earth's rotation. If the earth's rotation was the only cause of time dilation, it could be argued that the net effect on the clock on the centrifuge would be zero. But the centrifuge should also cause gravitational time dilation. That should have no counter effect.
I still think it would be an interesting experiment to perform, but nowhere near as interesting as the "Type-1" radar gun experiment. The radar gun experiment would show that what QM mathematicians believe is totally impossible, and what college textbooks say is wrong, is actually basic Special Relativity as described by Albert Einstein in 1905.
March 29, 2020 - I think I may be adapting to this Coronavirus crisis which requires me to stay at home as much as possible. Since there is no rule that says I cannot go outside or go for a walk, the most serious problem is that it becomes difficult to remember what day of the week it is. I can't go to the gym, so every day is just like the previous day. I used to look forward to Wednesdays and weekends, when I didn't go to the gym. Now, it's like every day is Wednesday. The only way to tell what day of the week it is is by what TV shows I recorded on my DVR the previous evening. And when NCIS, FBI and Tommy end their current season, I won't even be able to do that.
On the other hand, it's beginning to look like the U.S. Government is going to send me a check which would enable me to buy a Stalker II SDR "Type-1" radar gun. The only thing I need to do first is erase that 0.001% uncertainty factor that I still have as to whether the gun will actually do what my analysis (and what I've been told by the manufacturer) says it will. To do that, I need to confirm that the gun will work as the manufacturer says it will. I think the coronavirus crisis is going to make it next to impossible for me to borrow a radar gun from some police department. But I don't really need to borrow such a gun, I just need to have someone who has such a gun confirm how it works. Yesterday, I sent an email to someone on the Internet who has such a gun, to see if he will respond. I also sent a couple emails to some scientists who I'm hoping might be willing to discuss how radar guns work.
Then I started doing research to see if I could find more scientists who might have some interest in how radar guns work. Since the topic is actually Relativity, I decided to look for scientists who have been verifying Relativity, specifically time dilation. The idea was that, if a scientist has verified by experiment that time dilation is real, he cannot be closed-minded about how light works. The two subjects are interconnected. When time slows down for an emitter, the light the emitter emits must slow down, since the speed of light is always emitted at 299,792,458 meters per local second.
That research brought me back to the idea that time should slow down on a centrifuge. In July of 2018, I wrote about it in my paper Analyzing the "Twin Paradox." I created the illustration below to help explain the idea, which involves comparing elapsed time on a stationary atomic clock (x1) to an identical atomic clock that has been spinning or hours (or days) in a centrifuge (x2).
For some reason, the people I was arguing with kept wanting to measure time dilation between clock x2 and some point midway between x2 and the center of the spinning centrifuge. I think it may be because that is how they model their mathematical equations. They have no standard model equations that compare a point on the centrifuge to a point outside of the centrifuge room. That would evidently involve comparing two frames of reference, and they do not want to do that, probably because it gives results that their equations cannot deal with.
At the time, I was writing comments about it on this web site. I was also posting comments to different Facebook groups, but I couldn't get any discussions started. All I got was a lot of "Likes" and a few "dislikes." I finally ended the discussions about it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum on August 1, 2018. There was just no way to get mathematicians to view reality. They could only understand the models they created, and evidently no mathematical model compares time differences between two reference frames, or, if they have such a model, it is reciprocal, the centrifuge spins to give one answer, and the centrifuge stands still as the universe spins to give an identical answer.
Anyway, I think I need to work on both problems: (1) verifying how a "Type-1" radar gun measures motion relative to the local speed of light, and (2) verifying how a clock on a centrifuge will measure time compared to a stationary clock. Both experiments will challenge and debunk the beliefs of countless Quantum Mechanics mathematicians.
Meanwhile, this morning while going through my web site log file to see who has been viewing this site, I found another bunch of personal attacks created by someone looking for non-existent web pages on this site. This time the IP address showed the "attack" came from a computer in Bucharest, Romania. There were 9 of them. I circled them in red in the screen capture below:
Here's what the complete second "attack" line looks like:
22.214.171.124 - - [28/Mar/2020:06:16:57 -0500] "GET /ed-lake-is-a-certified-imbecile HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"The last time I saw such an "attack", the IP address traced back to Amsterdam, Netherlands, but take a look at a complete line from that "attack":
126.96.36.199 - - [24/Mar/2020:13:32:12 -0500] "GET /ed-lake-is-incredibly-stupid HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0"Note that it appears that the same computer was used. It uses Windows NT 10.0, revision 68.0, and it uses Firefox as its browser.
Compare those entries from a few others picked at random (with only their IP addresses changed):
XX.XXX.80.200 - - [28/Mar/2020:03:22:34 -0500] "GET /email-1.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 12662 "http://ed-lake.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36"It's very interesting, and it's amusing that someone would go to the trouble of attacking me in such a way - a way that only I can see and can do no harm.
|Comments for Sunday, March 22,
2020, thru Saturday, Mar. 28, 2020:
March 28, 2020 - I finished listening to another audio book yesterday. It was "Callahan's Legacy" by Spider Robinson, a relatively short 6-hour, 27-minute audio book:
It's possible that I read it before. It's even more possible that I started listening to it but didn't finish it, since I remember parts from early in the book, but not later parts. The evidence says I borrowed it from my library on June 9, 2019, but I wrote no comment on this web site about finishing it. This web site shows I finished a bunch of Spider Robinson's other "Callahan" books in January, 2019, but none before or since then. Like all the other "Callahan" books, this one is about the inhabitants of a saloon on Long Island that caters to aliens from outer space and locals. There is a lot of humorous scientific and philosophical discussion between the patrons, and this book has a lot to do with an Earth woman giving birth in a back room of the saloon. The book is also loaded with puns, since punning is a sport the patrons of the saloon all participate in on Punday, which could be any day of the week. Here are some examples:
“Puns on cars, eh?” the Doc said thoughtfully. “Hey, you can’t exhaust that one: there are manifold puns on a topic like that. Wheel never use it up. It’s universal: you just put your mind in gear, and as long as you don’t clatch up, the transmission of standard puns becomes automatic.”That "making an obscene clone fall" pun is brilliant! It made me laugh out loud. A lot of the puns seem easier to catch when seen in print, but hearing them may be the best way, even if you do not catch every one.
Anyway, I think I started listening to it back in June of 2019 but never finished it, probably because there's a section of the book that is a real "turn off" for me. I got through it this time, but my plan to listen to two more "Callahan" books has been put "on hold." I awoke this morning thinking about radar guns once again.
March 27, 2020 - The weather was reasonable enough to allow me to go for a walk on Wednesday. I walked roughly 1.5 miles in about 30 minutes, which was about what I was doing on treadmills when I was able to go to the gym. The walk took me along the edges of two strip-mall shopping centers, passing by store after store with "Closed Until Further Notice" signs on the doors: Hobby Lobby, Men's Warehouse, Office Depot, Barnes & Noble, etc. A Speedway gas station was open, so was the drive-thru lane for a bank, a McDonald's and a Kentucky Fried Chicken. Best Buy had a drive-thru lane set up in front of their store, and a car did pull to a stop to pick up something as I walked through the empty parking lot. I think there were a couple other stores that were open on the other side of the lot, maybe a pet store and maybe UPS store. I'll have to walk that side of the parking lot the next time the weather is good enough for a walk. I may take a camera with me, too. It's all kind of spooky, like something from a horror movie. The only store with a busy parking lot was the grocery store at the far end of my walk.
It rained on Thursday, so I read a book on my Kindle, finishing it. When I turned on the news shortly before 5 p.m., Trump was doing one of his daily talks. He seemed to be blaming Obama for all that was going on. But before I could press the mute button, the local station came on with their regular news show, saying they would watch Trump's broadcast for anything interesting. After watching the evening news, I wasn't in the mood to watch a movie, so I listened to an audio book all evening, finishing more than half of it.
I'd like to work on some science research, but right now it's very difficult to focus on the details such research requires. All I can think about is how it seems that the best way to kill some time is to finish that audio book I started yesterday, and also the two other audio books I have in the series. The book on my Kindle that I finished yesterday was "Alone Time" by Stephanie Rosenbloom, a travel book.
The book is about talking long walks alone around Paris, Istanbul, Florence and New York. I've never been to Istanbul, but I have taken long walks alone around Paris, Florence, New York, London, Tokyo, Bangkok, San Francisco, Rome, Venice, New Orleans, Honolulu, Hong Kong, and many other beautiful cities. I've traveled with my brother, my sister, with others, and with groups, too, but mostly I remember the walks alone. When walking with someone else, you have to walk at their pace and stop when they want to stop. While some of those walks provided good memories, I vividly remember the walks I took alone, particularly crisis moments in countries where I didn't speak the language and had to figure out how to communicate with people who didn't speak English.
But, before I start showing countless pictures I took in all those places, I should probably end this comment by saying that I didn't read "Alone Time" because of the Coronavirus crisis, I started reading it just because I was in the mood for a travel book. During breakfast this morning I started on another book about President Trump.
March 25, 2020 - We are definitely living in interesting times. While the COVID-19 pandemic is undoubted the most interesting thing happening right now, it's also a very long and tedious process that mostly just involves sitting around at home waiting for something to happen. In a way, I supposed it's something like sitting in a bomb shelter in London during WWII and the Blitz. Is a bomb going to hit you, or isn't it? You've done all you can to protect yourself, but you can't protect yourself from chance and statistics.
The pandemic hasn't changed how I watch TV or how much TV I watch. I only watch "live TV" in the evenings when I watch the local and national evening news shows. Otherwise I just watch DVR recordings of the previous night's shows, or movies and shows I have on DVD and Blu-Ray disks. On Sunday and Monday night, however, my evening news shows were preempted by President Trump unexpectedly interrupting things to blather for over an hour about all the "terrific" and "beautiful" things that are being done by "terrific" and "wonderful" people. I wondered if he was deliberately preempting the nightly news shows because he hates the media so much. But last night he appeared about half hour earlier, so I was still able to watch the NBC Nightly News "live." And while waiting for Trump and his cronies to stop blathering, I simply hit the mute button and listened to a very interesting Sean Carroll podcast about COVID-19.
This morning something totally different - but still very interesting - happened. I was examining my web site logs, as I do every morning, and I noticed someone in Amsterdam, Netherlands, did something I'd never seen before. He used phony web page names while accessing my web site, leaving a record in my log file of his activities. In the screen-capture below I underlined in red the first and last of 8 fake file accesses he tried at around 1:30 yesterday afternoon.
I have no idea who the person is, but I'd say it is most likely someone from the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum. That's the only place I know of where trolls are that inventive. What set him off? I assume it was my posts about the competing paradigms related to the speed of light. But, if he reads my web site to see those posts, how come I've never seen anyone access my web site from that IP address before? For now, it's another one of Life's interesting mysteries.
Meanwhile, although I know I should be spending my time researching or trying ways to access a "Type -1" radar gun, I spent nearly all day yesterday listing to and finishing a sci-fi novel I'd started the previous day, an 11-hour, 8-minute unabridged audio book titled "The Darkest Time of Night" by Jeremy Finley.
I started reading it mostly out of curiosity. Amazon's review says,
Jeremy Finley’s debut The Darkest Time of Night was hailed by People magazine and the NY Post as one of the best books of the summer of 2018, was named to the Lariat list as one of the top 25 outstanding books of the year, and described by NPR as "a hugely satisfying, while still mystifying, suspense novel."As soon as I started listening, it grabbed me, not so much because of the story, but because of how well the audio book is read by Suzanne Toren. They used a female voice to tell the story because the story is told in the 1st person by a 70-year-old wife of a Senator from Tennessee whose grandson mysteriously disappeared. It turns out there have been other mysterious disappearances in the past, and gradually it appears that aliens from outer space are behind it, and the government is covering things up. If that seems like a plot from a 1950's sci-fi movie, or from "The X-Files," it is. But, I kept listening to the very disappointing end where the boy is rescued but very little is cleared up. And now I may have to listen to the sequel, which I also borrowed from my local library. Sigh. The sequel isn't written in the 1st person, and it's read by a man. So, maybe it won't grab me and keep me listening. It didn't. I gave up after listening for less than 10 minutes and read from a travel book on my Kindle instead.
March 23, 2020 - In yesterday's comment I mentioned that "I have seen at least a dozen scientific papers where engineers and physicists argue that the ether (or aether) should be reinstated as the prime theory of how distances are measured in the universe." This morning I decided to find some of those papers and provide links. The first I found again was "GPS and the One-Way Speed of Light" by Stephan J.G. Gift. Here's a quote from near the end of the paper:
Thus the modern ether theory based on the inertial transformation is a robust replacement for special relativity and the transition to this new theory is facilitated by the similarity of the structure of the members of the set of “equivalent” transformations. Such a transition can usher in a period of renewed scientific discovery as areas that are now prohibited can legitimately be explored.And here's the last paragraph in the paper:
In view of the incontrovertible demonstrations of light speed variation using GPS technology presented in this chapter, investigation into the properties of the Inertial Transformation and the nature of the associated Modern Ether Theory should be the main focus of space-time research in the twenty-first century.Another paper I quickly found was "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector" by Daniel Y. Gezari. It says near the bottom of page 5:
These analyses suggest that the ether drift experiments may, in fact, show evidence of an absolute reference frame for the propagation of light.And the "CONCLUSION" section on page 8 begins with this sentence:
Considering the weakness of the present experimental support for the invariance of c — the fact that observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, the absence of speed-of-light measurements with moving detectors, the lack of experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions, doubts about the interpretation of the classical ether-drift experiments, concerns about the applicability of the modern isotropy experiments, and the fact that all of the unambiguous tests of special relativity in the photon sector have produced null results — it cannot yet be claimed that the local Lorentz invariance of c has been convincingly validated by observation or experiment.It was also easy to find papers (and books) by Ken H. Seto who has his own version of the ether which he calls "the X-Matrix." His paper "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and the Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)" begins with this:
A new physical model of our universe called Model Mechanics has been formulated. Model Mechanics posits that a structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix occupies all of pure space.Mr. Seto argues endlessly on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet forum.
A search through Arxiv.org for papers that have the word "ether" in the title quickly finds a paper released just last month titled "On the persistence of the ether as absolute space" by Hernán G. Solari and Mario A. Natiello. The first sentence of the Abstract is:
We analyse how the concept of the ether, playing the role of absolute space, is still present in physics.That sentence is definitely true, since there are at least a dozen other papers with the word "ether" in their titles on arxiv.org which argue for the existence of the ether. I won't list them here, but the idea of some magical substance filling empty space just so it can provide a stationary frame of reference for mathematicians has not faded into oblivion as a result of Einstein's 1905 paper which stated:
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."Superfluous" means you do not need it. But mathematicians who cannot comprehend the idea of measuring speeds relative to the local speed of light instead of relative to some physical object still need it. Their inability to comprehend such a thing doesn't just require a paradigm shift, it requires them to stop believing that mathematics is the Word of God.
March 22, 2020 - When all the pieces of a puzzle fall together, the problem then sometimes becomes how to describe what the picture looks like. The book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that I finished on Friday put some final pieces together. It explains why physicists are in total disagreement over Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics. They either accept one theory (i.e., one "paradigm") or the other. It is not allowed to accept both or even to examine how they relate.
It also explains why I have seen at least a dozen scientific papers where engineers and physicists argue that the ether (or aether) should be reinstated as the prime theory of how distances are measured in the universe. The ether theory was a paradigm: "all motion, including the speed of light, is relative to the stationary ether." It was the basis for countless measurements of motion, plus the basis for wave theory. Then in 1887 it was demonstrated by experiment that there is no ether.
It took a long time to change the minds of physicists, but gradually most physicists switched to the preposterous paradigm that all motion, including the speed of light, is relative to the observer. Today, textbooks falsely claim it was the basis of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, specifically his Second Postulate.
So, today we have some physicists "discovering" that Einstein's Second Postulate (as it is stated in textbooks) is nonsense, since there are many experiments which show that the speed of light can be different for the observer than it is for the emitter, and therefore they argue that we should all switch back to the ether theory. They see it as a choice (or shift) between two established paradigms, i.e., a "paradigm shift" between two ways of thinking. Typically, a paradigm shift is illustrated as being like the 2-choice image below (is it a duck looking to the left, or is it a rabbit looking to the right?):
In reality, of course, Einstein proposed a third paradigm: the speed of light is variable, and all motion is relative to the local speed of light. Nothing can go faster than c, the speed of light, and c can be considered to be a "constant" at any given location. So, at any given location you can measure the motion of an object relative to the speed of light at your location. If the object is not stationary relative to you, it will be moving at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the object relative to your local speed of light. That also means that the speed of light c varies between locations, it varies depending upon the speed of the location (Special Relativity) and the altitude of the location (General Relativity). The speed of light, c, varies because c is always 299,792,458 meters per second, and the length of a second varies with the speed and altitude of the location.
The Time Dilation part of Einstein's paradigm has been verified by many experiments, but accepting it requires a paradigm shift for most Quantum Mechanics mathematicians, and they will not change unless something forces them to change. Instead, they will find ways to claim that the experiments are misleading. Meanwhile, they preposterously argue that two clocks cannot be verified to run at different rates due to time dilation unless the clocks are side by side. And, of course, if the clocks are side by side they cannot be traveling at different speeds or be a different altitudes.
While I'd still like to get my hands on a Stalker II SDR "Type-1" radar gun to do some experiments, the Coronavirus pandemic will probably make that harder to do. Meanwhile, I'm going to try to work on other things, such as a step by step simplification of Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.
I should also mention NASA's Astronomy Picture of the day, which is actually a video:
It's probably the best video I've ever seen that shows how the spinning earth makes it seem as if the moon is moving down behind the horizon. It also shows how a telescopic lens changes your perspective. The video shows a dozen people walking around in front of a moon that is a hundred times larger than the people are and moves faster than the people do. It's also the second time this video has been "NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day." The first time was on June 4, 2018, when I also wrote a comment about it. I still think it's a terrific video.
|Comments for Sunday, March 15,
2020, thru Saturday, Mar. 21, 2020:
March 21, 2020 - Yesterday afternoon, I finished reading a physics book on my Kindle. I didn't just read it during breakfast and lunch. I sometimes sat down and read it for hours at a time, finishing the 200 page book in about 5 days. The book was "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn.
It's really an eye-opening book. It looks at science from a different angle than anything I've ever heard about or read about before, and it makes perfect sense. Here's part of what an Amazon review says about the book:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is indeed a paradigmatic work in the history of science. Kuhn's use of terms such as "paradigm shift" and "normal science," his ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt to acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological factors in science--all have had profound effects on historians, scientists, philosophers, critics, writers, business gurus, and even the cartoonist in the street.I read it at exactly the right time, too. I feel I've finally put all the pieces together in my understanding of Einstein's Relativity, and this book explains the conflicts over how others interpret Relativity.
The key term in the book is "paradigm," which is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as:
a model of something, or a very clear and typical example of somethingI would tend to say it is more like a cornerstone for understanding or the basis for a theory. Thomas Kuhn defines it as "an accepted model or pattern." The key point is that, if a flaw is found in the paradigm, then the whole understanding needs to be reevaluated. Here's a quote from the book:
To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.I've got 40 pages of underlined notes from the book. But they are mostly very convoluted musings that seem indecipherable when taken out of context. Here's a quote that might be decipherable by itself:
Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e., with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science. It then continues with a more or less extended exploration of the area of anomaly. And it closes only when the paradigm theory has been adjusted so that the anomalous has become the expected. Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory, and until that adjustment is completed—until the scientist has learned to see nature in a different way—the new fact is not quite a scientific fact at all.Another:
Once a first paradigm through which to view nature has been found, there is no such thing as research in the absence of any paradigm. To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself. That act reflects not on the paradigm but on the man.And this one particularly strikes home for me:
Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. And perhaps that point need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are the men who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.When Einstein came up with his Theory of Special Relativity, he was a patent clerk, not a practicing physicist. He hadn't spent all his life devoted to experiments that verified some model of the universe (a.k.a. "paradigm"). He had nothing to lose in coming up with a very different view of reality. A typical physicist, on the other hand, works within known rules. So, he is unlikely to do anything that will violate the rules. According to the book:
In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. Though he may, during the search for a particular puzzle’s solution, try out a number of alternative approaches, rejecting those that fail to yield the desired result, he is not testing the paradigm when he does so. Instead he is like the chess player who, with a problem stated and the board physically or mentally before him, tries out various alternative moves in the search for a solution. These trial attempts, whether by the chess player or by the scientist, are trials only of themselves, not of the rules of the game. They are possible only so long as the paradigm itself is taken for granted. Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm. In the sciences the testing situation never consists, as puzzle-solving does, simply in the comparison of a single paradigm with nature. Instead, testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community.Physics books tend to explain the history of physics as one discovery after another that inevitably leads to current understandings, like finding new bricks to add to what is already built in order to complete the structure. In reality, physics has consisted of a lot of tearing down of old collapsing structures in order build new ones that seem more sturdy.
I'll write more about this tomorrow, in my Sunday comment. It won't be about Kuhn's book, it will be about the conflict of paradigms that we are currently experiencing in physics.
March 20, 2020 - Yesterday afternoon, I finished listening to another audio book on my MP3 player. It was "A is for Alibi" by Sue Grafton.
It's a very well-written private detective novel featuring a female detective named Kinsey Millhone, the first in a series of at least 25 books. I picked it because it was the first in the series. I'm not sure if I'll be listening to any more or not, since I prefer the Stephanie Plum books by Janet Evanovich. They're much funnier, and I have a stack of at least 15 of them awaiting my finding time to read them. I also think I prefer reading private eye novels instead of listening to them. It's easier to keep track of all the characters and the investigative details when you are reading. When listening, my mind sometimes wanders to all the scientific problems I'm working on. That can't happen when reading.
And I need to focus on those scientific problems, particularly now that all the pieces seem to have fallen together. I just need to figure out what to do next.
March 19, 2020 - Yesterday afternoon, while driving home from getting a fill-up at a gas station, I finished listening to CD #16 in the 16 CD set for the audio book version of "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" by Steven Pinker.
Wow! What a great book! However, I'd recommend reading it instead of listening to it, since it contains a lot of graphs. I had to obtain a epub copy in order to view the graphs and save quotes from the book. I saved more quotes from this book than from any other I've ever read or listened to. Here's the first quote I saved, it's from page 7:
What is enlightenment? In a 1784 essay with that question as its title, Immanuel Kant answered that it consists of “humankind’s emergence from its self-incurred immaturity,” its “lazy and cowardly” submission to the “dogmas and formulas” of religious or political authority. Enlightenment’s motto, he proclaimed, is “Dare to understand!”The book is about how humans have progressed over the centuries, wiping out diseases, educating virtually everyone, living longer and healthier, while at the same time endlessly complaining about how terrible things are and how they used to be much better. Another quote:
The belief in an absence of progress has been fortified by the recent history of the universe we do live in, where Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton was the beneficiary of the American electoral system in 2016. During his campaign, Trump uttered misogynistic, anti-Hispanic, and anti-Muslim insults that were well outside the norms of American political discourse, and the rowdy followers he encouraged at his rallies were even more offensive. Some commentators worried that his victory represented a turning point in the nation’s progress toward equality and rights, or that it uncovered the ugly truth that we had never made progress in the first place.Another:
Nothing captures the tribalistic and backward-looking spirit of populism better than Trump’s campaign slogan: Make America Great Again.Another:
The ideal of Knowledge—that one’s opinions should be based on justified true beliefs—has been mocked by Trump’s repetition of ludicrous conspiracy theories: that Obama was born in Kenya, Senator Ted Cruz’s father was involved in John F. Kennedy’s assassination, thousands of New Jersey Muslims celebrated 9/11, Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered, Obama had his phones tapped, millions of illegal voters cost him the popular vote, and literally dozens of others. The fact-checking site PolitiFact judged that an astonishing 69 percent of the public statements by Trump they checked were “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire” (their term for outrageous lies, from the children’s taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”). All politicians bend the truth, and all sometimes lie (since all human beings bend the truth and sometimes lie), but Trump’s barefaced assertion of canards that can instantly be debunked (such as that he won the election in a landslide) shows that he sees public discourse not as a means of finding common ground based on objective reality but as a weapon with which to project dominance and humiliate rivals.I wish I could repeat all the passages about Trump that are in the book, but there are too many, and it would just give the impression that the book is about Trump. It isn't. It's a book about how science has improved the human condition over the centuries, and how some people cannot see that. Another quote:
Recriminations over the nature of science are by no means a relic of the “science wars” of the 1980s and 1990s, but continue to shape the role of science in universities. When Harvard reformed its general education requirement in 2006–7, the preliminary task force report introduced the teaching of science without any mention of its place in human knowledge: “Science and technology directly affect our students in many ways, both positive and negative: they have led to life-saving medicines, the internet, more efficient energy storage, and digital entertainment; they also have shepherded nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, electronic eavesdropping, and damage to the environment.” Well, yes, and I suppose one could say that architecture has produced both museums and gas chambers, that classical music both stimulates economic activity and inspired the Nazis, and so on. But this strange equivocation between the utilitarian and the nefarious was not applied to other disciplines, and the statement gave no indication that we might have good reasons to prefer understanding and know-how to ignorance and superstition.One passage was of particular interest to me. The quote:
The most commonly assigned book on science in modern universities (aside from a popular biology textbook) is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That 1962 classic is commonly interpreted as showing that science does not converge on the truth but merely busies itself with solving puzzles before flipping to some new paradigm which renders its previous theories obsolete, indeed, unintelligible.As soon as I heard that passage, I researched the book and found a Kindle copy. I then stopped reading the travel book I had been reading during breakfast and lunch and started reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" instead. It really clarifies why so many physicists simply cannot comprehend that some of their beliefs about Einstein's Theories of Relativity are just plain wrong. Their work involves acceptance of the incorrect versions. To change their minds would require a "paradigm shift" in the way they understand things.
March 18, 2019 - Yesterday evening, I finished listening to another audio book. It was "The Black-Eyed Blonde" by Benjamin Black.
It's a 7-hour, 56-minute audio book, and I finished it in two sessions, half on Monday evening and half on Tuesday afternoon and evening.
It was an enjoyable book, but a little too bloody for me. I don't recall any of Raymond Chandler's books being quite so graphic in their descriptions of people getting beaten up. And, too, it was supposed to take place in the 1940s, but it sometimes got details wrong. At one point, Marlowe talks about someone being as tight-fisted or as miserly as Bob Hope, but it was Jack Benny who was noted for being miserly, not Bob Hope. This morning I had to check the "look inside" option on Amazon to see how "The Cahuilla Club" was spelled. It's mentioned at least a dozen times in the book.
But, it did take my mind off of the coronavirus pandemic for awhile. I think I may be doing a lot of daytime reading and nighttime listening in the next month or two. All they seem to have on TV these days is reruns. Last week, Stephen Colbert had talked about doing his show without an audience, and that's the way he did his Friday show, but this week it appears they are just doing reruns instead. "Full Frontal," Samantha Bee's Show on TBS was done without an audience last week, and it looks like she'll do it again this evening. I've got my DVR set to record it. The show she did last week about the coronavirus was terrific. I hadn't thought about how racists would react to the virus.
Fortunately, I have a large collection of movies and TV shows on DVD and Blu-Ray, so I am not dependent upon what happens to be showing on TV. The big chore I worked on for the past few days was to update the spreadsheet I maintain, and I produced new listings for the collections. I not only printed a new listing for the entire movie collection in alphabetical order, I also printed a listing in order by the last date I watched each movie, everything though 2010. I find that if I last watched a movie like "Salvador" on Sept. 3, 2006, it is almost like watching it for the first time when I view it again nearly 14 years later. Plus, I rank the 3,100 movies in my collection, so I can view just my favorites if I want to. Here are my favorite 17 movies (rank = A1) followed by the first 25 of my 2nd favorites (rank = A2) in alphabetical order:
While I want to work on some papers (and maybe on a book), it's hard to focus with so much else going on. These are definitely interesting times. I've never seen anything quite like it. Since my gym is closed, I dug out some 5-lb weights that my brother-in-law gave me for Christmas about 20 years ago. I'll be working out with them, and maybe going for a walk.
I should be finishing another audio book this afternoon, a 17-hour book on CDs that I began listening to while driving about a month ago. I plan to drive to a gas station for gas. That should give me enough driving time to finish the book. If so, I'll write a comment about it tomorrow.
March 17, 2020 - Hmm. There was an email in my inbox this morning advising me that my gym will be closed "through March 31, 2020." I was kind of surprised that they were open yesterday. I go in the afternoons, but I think the peak times are in the evening and early morning.
So, where am I going to walk 1.6 miles in 30 minutes four times a week, and where am I going to ride a bike for 3 miles in 20 minutes? My purpose for going to the gym is to remain fit and healthy. They've now made that more difficult.
What really bothers me, however, is the trend that is starting in California. According to today's Los Angeles Times,
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday called for 5.3 million senior citizens and others at risk to stay home in an effort to slow the spread of coronavirus.What?! It's my understanding that the elderly are no more likely to catch the virus than younger people, it's just that the elderly are more likely to get truly sick and die, particularly if they are already sick with something else. What I don't need is to have everyone look at me as if I was a carrier.
On the other hand, trying to look at the positive side, it gives me more time to work on science papers. I really feel as if all the pieces have finally fallen together, and I fully understand why there can be no merging of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. So, instead, since practitioners of Quantum Mechanics are in the majority, they are just going to take over and squelch arguments from Relativists --- unless the Relativists can show how stupid Quantum Mechanics can be when it is applied to our visible universe instead of just to the subatomic world where there is currently no better way of doing things.
March 16, 2020 - It's very difficult to focus on scientific questions when there is so much else going on. So, instead I decided to work on other things for awhile, labor intensive chores that I've been putting off. I was also wondering how things would be at the gym this afternoon, but things turned out to be close to normal. There were probably fewer people than the average, but far from the fewest people I've ever seen there. I stopped at the Walmart Neighborhood Market on my way home, and they were still out of bread, buns and bagels, but they had the three items I needed. All schools and libraries are closed until mid-April. Yet, things seemed close to normal as I drove around this afternoon.
March 15, 2020 - Last week, I worked a bit on a major revision to my paper about "Radar Guns vs Wave Theory" to include the experiments I did with my microwave oven door and through my balcony screen door. But, when I did research to find out exactly how the wire mesh on the microwave oven door stops microwaves from escaping, I couldn't find any clear explanations. I even studied several patents for microwave oven doors, but they don't really explain anything.
The oldest patent I found was #2,958,754, dated Nov. 1, 1960, for "Electronic Ovens." It begins this way:
It is a general object of the invention to provide an improved door for an electronic oven which permits viewing of the interior of the oven and provides a closure which is substantially leak-proof to microwave radiation.About the only helpful passage in the patent is this one:
It has been found that a relatively fine screen having approximately 150 openings per square inch and providing approximately 50% clear opening permits good visibility of the interior of the oven under normal conditions150 openings per inch means about 12 or 13 aluminum wires per inch. But how do the wires stop the radiation? Do they reflect it back into the oven, or do they absorb the radiation to prevent it from escaping? They don't say.
Another patent, #4,051,341 for "Microwave Oven Door Screen" contains some interesting details in the patent abstract:
A structure of a microwave oven door screen which facilitates the observation of the inside of a heating cavity and enhances the safety against the electromagnetic wave leakage and durability. A door screen of this type generally comprises a pair of transparent plates andSo, it has a punched metal plate instead of wires. That's what my microwave oven has. The plate is made of aluminum, and the holes are 1.2 mm in diameter or less). But why 1.2 mm? And why aluminum? Searching the patents to see if the door mesh reflects or absorbs microwaves finds nothing.
My research then stumbled upon a Faraday bag.
It's a bag used to prevent a cell phone from being hacked. Law enforcement officers use them when they seize phones from criminals and want to be certain that other criminals do not remotely access the phone and erase information. The bag has wire mesh that prevents cellphone radio wave photons from getting in or out. Since the bag is not an electrical device, that strongly suggests that the bag simply prevents photons from escaping or entering by "reflecting" them, i.e., by absorbing photons and then emitting the photons away from the bag. It is, in effect, a mirror for photons in microwave and radio wave frequencies.
That makes a lot of sense. It implies that photons in a microwave oven bounce off the door mesh and help cook the food, instead of the mesh absorbing the photons and leaving one side of the food uncooked.
And it means that microwaves generated by the oven are mostly reflected back into the oven by the mesh on the door because of the large wavelength of the photons. Shorter wavelength photons from a radar gun, however, will go through the mesh on the door almost as if the mesh wasn't there. Why? How?
A photon from my radar gun has a wavelength of 2.5 centimeters. A photon generated by my microwave oven has a wavelength of 12.2 centimeters. Clearly, neither could get through a 1.2 millimeter hole sideways, and no one seems to know the height of the photon waves. If I assume they have the same height, say 2 millimeters, that seems to mean that the photon with the longer wave length is stopped because its electric field is extended about 5 times longer and is therefore about 5 times more likely to encounter the wire mesh as it attempts to pass through. If a longer wavelength also means a greater height for the electric field, then the longer wavelength photon is even more likely to be stopped.
It would be nice if I could find some explanation somewhere that illustrates how some photons are stopped by a wire mesh but other photons are not. It appears no one will do such an illustration because it would show electromagnetic energy as consisting of photons, not waves. Evidently, many physicists believe it is better to leave things as an unexplained mystery than to explain things in a way that is contrary to established dogma. Grumble grumble.
|Comments for Sunday, March 8, 2020,
thru Saturday, March 14, 2020:
March 14, 2020 - This afternoon when I went out do do some grocery shopping, I saw some clear signs that people are becoming very concerned about the Coronavirus pandemic. Everything seemed fairly normal at the Kroger store I visited, except for the parking lot being more crowded than usual. The two items they had on sale that I wanted were in stock. No problem. From there I went to Aldi, where the rest of my shopping was to be done. The place didn't seem particularly crowded, but I was surprised to see they were totally out of all bread items. Are bread, buns and bagels items you stock up on when you expect shortages? Evidently so.
I didn't need bread, but I wanted to buy a 3-pound bag of Gala apples. They were out. So, I bought Red Delicious, instead. They had plenty of yogurt, packaged salads and orange juice, so I bought what I needed, plus a pound of strawberries for $1.19, which weren't on my shopping list. Then I went to the frozen vegetable isle and found the freezeer shelves were virtually empty. Are frozen vegetables something else people stock up on when concerned about shortages? It appears so.
I wasn't out of frozen peas, but I had less than one bag and I wanted to stock up, so I next went to Festival Foods, just for frozen peas. But the place had very long lines at every checkout register! I've never seen the place so busy! So, without even looking at what they had in stock, I left and went across the street to a Walmart Neighborhood Market.
Just inside the entrance doors at the Walmart, they had 3-pound bags of Gala apples on sale for less than Aldi charged. So, I grabbed a bag. (They keep for a long time, and I eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away.) It looked like they were having a run on frozen vegetables and bread, too. I grabbed two of the three packages of frozen peas they had left, and although I hadn't planned on buying any bread, it looked like they were running low, too, so I also bought a package of whole-wheat hotdog buns. The self-checkout lanes were mostly empty, so I was in and out of the place in probably less than 10 minutes.
My freezer is full, and except for milk and packaged salad, I could probably last close to a month on the supplies I have. I'll probably have to go to Aldi on Tuesday for milk and packaged salad.
Oh yes, one more thing: At the Walmart I saw someone wearing a mask, the first time I'd seen that. It was a elderly cleaning woman who was sweeping the floors.
When I got home and turned on my computer, I found an email in my inbox with a news story from my local paper. The headline: "In photos: Empty Walmart shelves after coronavirus announcement." The photos were of the Walmart Supercenter and showed empty shelves for bread, milk, eggs, toilet paper, baby wipes, cleaning supplies, cereal, box dinners and canned foods. The coronavirus announcement was that the first case was reported in my county.
It all reminds me of the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." We are definitely entering some interesting times.
March 13, 2020 - Hmm. I just completed my 2020 US census form. I did it on-line and it probably didn't take more than 5 minutes. I don't recall how I did it the last time, which I assume was ten years ago, but it might have been by talking with a census taker. I wonder if they still have census takers, and what they would do during this Coronavirus pandemic.
Stephen Colbert said on his show that next week the late-night talk shows are going to stop having live audiences until the Coronavirus crisis is over. That's something that has never happened before in my lifetime. Samantha Bee didn't have a live audience for her Wednesday show, except for members of the TV crew. It was odd to watch.
Yesterday, I tried to do my taxes on-line, but I couldn't connect to TurboTax for some reason. The same thing happened today. It turned out that I needed to use Firefox as my browser instead of SeaMonkey. So, I'm going to work on my taxes. Okay. Done. That took about an hour and a half.
So, now it's back to work again on an overhaul of my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory.
March 11, 2020 - The email conversation I was having with a physicist, that I described in detail in my March 8 comment, seems to have come to an end. I haven't heard from him in about 2 days. The conversation turned out to be extremely productive, but evidently only on my end.
As a result of our discussion, I realized I could perform some very interesting experiments with my TS-3 radar gun that I hadn't thought about before, experiments which would clearly demonstrate that a radar gun does NOT emit waves as is commonly depicted in illustrations like the one below.
I described two of those experiments in my March 8 comment. The first was to do a speed measurement of a car driving past on the street outside my apartment, performing the measurement through the aluminum screen my balcony door. It worked fine. How would waves like those shown above get through an aluminum screen?
Then I thought of another experiment where I measured the speed of the blades on a small potable fan through the wave-blocking screen that covers the window in my microwave oven. That experiment worked fine, too. I didn't have any problem reading the speed of the tiny fan blades that I didn't also have when reading the fan blade speeds while the fan was sitting on a table.
So, I advised the physicist of my experimental findings. He responded:
One question: what material is the screening on your screen door? Nylon or copper?Huh? Why did he want to know that? I replied,
It's not nylon, and I assume it's not copper. The most common typesHe responded:
You assume it’s not copper? You’re off to a rocky start.Damn! He was playing games with me. I responded,
I'd have to have a reason for doing that.Before he could respond, I did some on-line research and sent him this:
The cheapest copper screen I can find at local hardwareAnd he responded:
Hmmm, that seems to be about 99 feet too much...I felt he was playing games with me again, so I wrote:
The easiest and cheapest way to create a copper wire screen is to buy the wire and make the screen. A screen that is 4 or 5 inches square should do.He responded:
You’re making a claim that radio light is composed of photons because your radar gun detects motion through your kitchen screen door.To me that was just an evasion. He couldn't answer any question about what a copper screen would do that wasn't also done with an aluminum screen. I tried to corner him with this response:
Ah! So, you have no reason for suggesting the copper wire screen.His response was to change the argument:
You don’t have to convince me of anything. You have to convince the whole scientific community.I responded:
Convince them of what? You can't even tell me what I have toAnd that was the end of it. I haven't heard anything further from him. That final comment also made me realized that the Type-1 radar gun experiment would probably have to be done a thousand times or more over 20 years or more before the majority of Quantum physicists would accept what Einstein actually stated in his Theory of Special Relativity. And maybe not even then.
But, of course, I'm not going to change any minds if I don't do the Type-1 radar gun experiment and other experiments. The Type-1 radar gun experiment inside a box truck is the real fantasy-shattering experiment, but while I continue to try to figure out some way to get access to a Stalker II SDR radar gun, I can still do other experiments to make certain that I have no misunderstandings.
I awoke this morning realizing that I could easily measure the speed of the large blades of my floor fan through the screen on my microwave oven door, instead of measuring the speed of the tiny blades of a portable fan.
It only took a few minutes to set up. The experiments both confirmed and clarified things. The first time I tried it, I could definitely get measurements of the large blades of the floor fan through the door, but it was very difficult to get a steady reading. I wondered why. I can definitely get steady readings when the microwave oven door isn't in the way.
So, I analyzed the situation. My humidifier is also in the room, setting to the right of the microwave oven in the picture above. It was going full blast. Was the problem the result of having the radar gun and the humidifier plugged into the same outlet power strip? The easiest way to find out was to turn off the humidifier. As soon as I did that, there was an immediate improvement in the readings. The readings didn't jump around anywhere near as much. But they still jumped around more than they did when the oven door wasn't between the gun and the fan.
So, I tried something else. I moved the gun closer to the door. That did the trick. The closer the gun was to the door, the steadier the measurements were for the fan blades on the other side of the door. They were almost as steady as they were when the door wasn't in the way. Why? I'm not sure, but it could have something to do with the photons from the gun being deflected to different parts of the blades when the gun was farther away from the door. I'll have to think about how to verify that.
Meanwhile, I definitely need to overhaul my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory. And I should give up on getting that physicist to help me gain access to a Stalker II SDR "Type-1" radar gun. I'll have to find another way.
March 10, 2020 - Hmm. Maybe it's not such a good idea to check the Corona virus statistics via C-Span's web site. When I checked it this morning, I found that the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. jumped by 149 in the past 18 hours.
The total number of deaths in the U.S. also jumped from 22 to 27, not including 6 deaths on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Plus, one of those deaths was reported between 8:13 a.m. when I took the screenshot above, and 8:53 when I looked at the site again. And the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. increased from 756 to 761 during those 40 minutes. On the positive side, there were no new cases in the 20 minutes between 8:53 and 9:13 a.m.
I need to focus on my discovery that I can measure speeds with my TS-3 radar gun when I point it through an aluminum window screen and when I point it through the grid covering the window on my microwave oven. If you believe that radar guns emit waves, how would it be possible to measure speeds that way? It's easy to explain if you understand that radar guns emit photons.
March 9, 2020 - I encountered another mystery while at the gym this afternoon. There are 7 TVs on the wall in front of the treadmills and exercycles. For some reason, last Thursday they changed the channel on the TV that was showing CNN. It now appears to be a permanent change. It now shows the Bravo Channel. I wondered if changing the channel might have to do with scaring people about the Coronavirus, but they still show FOX News on one of the TVs. So, the only thing I can think of is that it has something to do with Trump. Maybe someone just wants news that is favorable to Trump. I asked one of the employees why they changed the channel, and she said she'd try to find out for me. Will the guy who runs the place tell her the truth? Time will tell.
Yesterday, someone sent me a link to a C-Span program about the Corona virus that aired on March 6. It's a very informative program, but what intrigued me the most was the web site they talked about that showed all the cases world-wide. The link is HERE. Here's what the page looked like at 2:33 this afternoon:
You should be able to click on the image above to see a larger version that is close to 4 times larger. At the moment, there are 113,584 total confirmed cases world-wide (607 of them in the USA). There have been 3,996 deaths, and 62,496 people who had the disease have now fully recovered. U.S. deaths are shown by county. I think the total is 22 as of this moment, 17 of them in King County, Washington. None in my state.
Meanwhile, I'm still arguing with that physicist I wrote about yesterday. At least I think I am. There's been no response to the last email I sent at 11 a.m., and it's now 3:35 p.m. I'll summarize the latest discussion when I'm sure it's over.
March 8, 2020 - Last week, on Monday, March 2nd, more or less out of desperation, I tried contacting a half dozen physicists by email to see if any of them might be interested in discussing an experiment using a Type-1 radar gun to demonstrate how such a device verifies Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and particularly his Second Postulate.
There were no responses on the 2nd, and none on the 3rd, but late on the 4th a physicist sent a response that I didn't see until the next morning, on the 5th. The physicist wrote:
I’m curious to see what your ideas are involving radar guns, but I can’t get too involved in it with you since I’m swamped here with lots of wholesome, overdue projects. Maybe you could just give me a hint of what your idea is.So, I wrote fairly lengthy reply telling him all about the different types of radar guns, and how a Type-1 radar gun just does just one measurement while all the others do two measurements, and how a Type-1 radar gun can evidently measure the speed of a box truck from inside the box truck. The physicist responded:
OK, Ed. Just hold everything until I have a chance to read your email carefully and make sure I understand exactly what you’re talking about. At first glance I think what you’re explaining doesn’t apply to my [work], but I want to think about it a bit before answering.Later on the afternoon of the 5th, the physicist sent me an email containing four brief statements in which he presented four single-sentence arguments against my radar gun findings. I didn't see what he wrote until the morning of the 6th. I can't show his arguments here, since they might identify him.
So, again I wrote a lengthy reply, explaining things in greater detail. Gradually I deduced that he was responding on a smart phone, thumbing his short responses, while I was on a lap top writing like a writer writes. One response from him about measuring the speed of a truck going 60 mph from a car behind the truck also going 60 mph was:
What’s so special about a “Type 1” gun? The gun measures the Doppler shifted return from the scene passing at 60mph and compares it to the unshifted return from the 60mph truck ahead which is not moving relative to the gun. The difference is the Doppler shift equivalent to 60mph. It’s just comparing 0 to 60 instead of 60 to 0.I wrote another lengthy response which began this way:
A "Type-1" radar gun does just one measurement. It sends out photons and measures the change in photon oscillation rates when the return photons arrive.I then addressed the issues of the Doppler Effect and how a radar gun emits photons, not waves. I told him about my paper Radar Guns vs Wave Theory and the experiment I did with my TS-3 radar gun to measure the speed of the fan blades through the wire mesh that covers the whirling blades, and how that seems to debunk the idea that radar guns emit waves. His response was this single short sentence:
What’s the wavelength of the TS3 gun?In response, I sent him a lot of details about radar guns including the fact that the TS-3 radar gun emits photons that oscillate at 24.15 GigaHertz. I wondered why he had asked that question. Was he concerned about my safety in putzing around with a radar gun that emits microwaves? He then responded:
What is the size of the grill on your fan?I responded:
The size of the grill? You mean how far apart are the wires? They areI knew where he was going. His response was:
So you think that radar must be “photons” because 1.2 cm wavelength “waves” couldn’t get through 3/8” spaced wires?NUTS!!! Now he was apparently getting into the screwball logic I encounter when arguing on UseNet. I was saying that the photons get easily through the wire mesh that covers the fan, but waves like water waves wouldn't be able to do that. And his response is to suggest an experiment that would prove absolutely nothing. The signals get through the mesh because they are photons. Using a smaller mesh would not demonstrate that the gun emits waves.
Then the physicist did something else that the trolls on the sci.physics.relativity forum do, he sent me an email that said only:
...and ‘the wavelength increases with the distance from the source’? Where’d you get that?He was claiming I said something I never said. What I said was:
Remember: Waves are supposed to be like sound waves and ocean waves. They get bigger and bigger as they move away from the source.I could have phrased it better, but I was talking about ever-widening wave circles moving away from where something was dropped:
The wavelength is the distance between wave crests, not the wave circumference.
When I told him I never said what he claimed I said, he responded that he was going to end the discussion. He seemed to want it to end forever, but I hinted that it was just ending for the day or week.
And I began thinking about what we discussed. If he was claiming that a smaller wire mesh would stop waves, but since electromagnetic energy is transmitted a photons, not waves, that poses the question: Would a smaller wire mesh stop photons? That's an experiment I had never tried. The 3/8ths of an inch I mentioned to the physicist was the space between the wires that go from the hub to the rim. The space between the circular wires around the hub is more like 2 inches. So, the biggest "holes" are actually 3/8ths inches by 2 inches.
That posed the question: would my radar gun work if I pointed it at a moving target through a window screen? That was fairly simple to test. I just pointed my TS-3 radar gun out through the screen on my balcony door at traffic about 40 or 50 feet away on the street outside. The wires of the screen are about 1/10th of an inch apart, which is great for the test. However, there was a minor problem with the cosine effect, since the cars were moving at right angles to my balcony door. However, by pointing it at about a 70 degree angle to the road, I was able to get 10 mph readings for two cars that passed by at about 30 mph.
A few minutes later, I got another idea. I turned on one of my small portable fans, placed it inside my microwave oven, closed the door and pointed my radar gun at the top of the fan through the microwave-proof mesh covering the window in the door. I got an excellent, steady reading of 28 mph, a better reading than I get when the fan is setting on a table. The wire mesh that allows you to see inside the microwave when it is operating is similar to my door screen, the holes are about 10 per inch, but the wires are significantly thicker, which means the holes are actually smaller.
I'll inform the physicist of my findings on Monday morning.
But, in the meantime, there are things I need to research.
24.15 GHz is the oscillation frequency of the photons my TS-3 radar gun emits, not the wavelength of the photons. If I calculate the wavelength for a wave frequency of 24.15 GHz, I get a wavelength of 0.02467428 meters, or 2.467428 centimeters. That would certainly stop a wave if 2.467428 centimeters was the height of the wave, but it's not. It's the length. In theory, I can fire a 3 foot long arrow through a 1/2 inch hole. The length of the photon or wave should have almost nothing to do with whether or not it will pass through a wire mesh. But something does.
My microwave oven operates at a frequency of 2.45 GHz. The mesh over the door prevents most (but not all) of those microwaves from escaping. The calculator says that those microwaves have a wavelength of 0.12236427 meters, which is 12.236427 centimeters, or 4.81749094488 inches.
So, maybe the real question is: What is the width and height of a photon or wave? Or: How do you calculate wave height for electromagnetic waves? Or: CAN you calculate the wave height for electromagnetic waves? All that I can say for certain is that intensity of light has nothing to to with the height or width of a photon. (And therefore, it has nothing to do with a wave of light, since there is no such thing.) In one of my emails to that physicist, I included this quote from page 14 of physicist Richard Feynman's book "QED":
“We know that light is made of particles because we can takeMy research this morning into what actually happens when a photon hits or passes through the metal grid on the door of a microwave oven just seems to show that nobody knows. People talk about the wavelength as if it was synonymous with wave height. And they talk about waves consisting of multiple photons. An example:
The size of electromagnetic wave (which consist of many many photons) is equal roughly to the size of device which emits it. So the waves emitted by atoms are roughly atom size the waves emitted by radio stations are the size of radio station transmitter and the microwaves in the microwave oven are the size of the electronic part which emits them. Your main confusion comes from the question - How to understand a wave consisting of particle photons? Look at it as a normal wave - when the wave passes trough breakwater some of the wave gets through but the remaining part is killed, which effectively stops whole wave.So, an electromagnetic wave consists of a string of photons like sending a wave down a rope, and if you stop one photon, you stop them all (the entire rope)? I think not. That explanation is total nonsense.
The facts say that some photons escape from a microwave, but not enough to do harm unless the microwave is broken and has large openings. That suggests that it is a matter of chance as to whether an individual photon will get through the grid on the door or not.
I just wish I could find some credible source that explains it that way - or some other way that makes sense. Either way, it looks like I need to do an update to my paper on Radar Guns vs Wave Theory to explain how photons get through a wire mesh.
Plus, I'll have to ask that physicist how waves can measure speeds through a wire-mesh screen if the mesh blocks many of them, and only a tiny fraction of the waves actually make the round trip.
|Comments for Sunday, March 1, 2020,
thru Saturday, March 7, 2020:
March 7, 2020 - Groan! I do not need any new mysteries right now! But, I got one this morning. When I checked my web site statistics for yesterday, I found the graphs looked like this for the daily and hourly usage:
To have a spike like that is not particularly unusual. It usually means that between 7 and 8 a.m. on March 6th, some hacker tried hundreds of times to post crap onto my web site, and it was all blocked by my host's security software.
But that wasn't the case yesterday. Yesterday, starting at 7:24 a.m. and ending at 7:59 a.m., a translator program operated by Extran Ltd. Translation Services in Geneva, Switzerland began translating two different pages on my web site. Specifically, it seemed interested in my main page and in my Quantum Mechanics page that I wrote about on March 5. It accessed both 135 times.
Why? Beats me. Into what language did it translate my stuff? Beats me. Could it have been into 135 different languages? Beats me. I wondered if there are 135 different languages. A quick search found that there are about 6,500 languages spoken on earth today, and there are about 4,000 written languages.
Hey guys! If you are translating this, I have stuff that I'd like to see translated more than an argument I had 3½ years ago about Quantum Mechanics! Translate my scientific papers at https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake !
March 5, 2020 - While going through my web site statistics yesterday, I noticed several visits to my Quantum Mechanics web page. I didn't even recall creating a Quantum Mechanics web page! And I didn't have a copy of it in my laptop computer. An investigation found that I created it on August 6, 2016, using my old desk-top computer. For some reason, I didn't save a copy of it there, either.
The page is just part of a discussion I had on the Quantum Mechanics Facebook group from July 30 to August 8, 2016. As I recall, it's a "Members Only" Facebook group, and I'm not a member. But, I think I was at one time. Then they kicked me out of it. And, using a made-up name of "Ralph Maggio," I rejoined for awhile, using my old computer when it had a different IP address than my laptop.
The discussion is like a carbon copy of seventy other discussions I've had about Relativity on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet group. It's me arguing with mathematicians, only using a different name. So, I see no reason to start another discussion on sci.physics.relativity to discuss version #2 of my paper on Logical vs Mathematical Universes. I need to find a new way to discuss the subject where the person I'm talking to won't start calling me names and hurling personal insults if I cannot decipher the mathematical equations he uses to support his arguments.
Meanwhile, I've been researching blue-shifted galaxies. I downloaded 9 different papers on the subject, trying to learn more about the 5,987 "negative redshift" galaxies mentioned in a paper HERE. The paper is extremely technical, and I'm having a hard time deciphering it. But, my research found another paper titled "Blueshifted Galaxies in the Virgo Cluster" which seems to refer to some of the galaxies mentioned in the other paper as "star spam," implying that the survey that produced those 5,987 "negative redshift" galaxies was ill-conceived or just plain wrong. I think it may just be about something different that what it seems to be about. I just need to find the time to study it, which is difficult to do when there are so many far more interesting things to do.
Finding a Type-1 radar gun is my top priority. If I can do that, or if I can get someone else to experiment with such a gun, all other issues will go away.
March 3, 2020 - This morning someone advised me that there are a least 7,000 blue-shifted galaxies, and they are not all ahead of the Earth as we move away from the point of the Big Bang. The sources I used in my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" said there were only about 200. The source the person who contacted me used is HERE. It's a blog by someone called "Kvanderlass" who provides no information about himself. And the information he provides is somewhat cryptic. However, it does say that the galaxies are not evenly scattered around the universe, they are basically in two locations, 180 degrees away from each other. (Presumably, behind and ahead of us.)
I searched for more information and found an arxiv.org paper which seems to be an analysis of 5,987 blue-shifted galaxies. It is also very difficult to decipher. It sometimes seems like they are talking about spinning galaxies which have a blue-shifted side and a red-shifted side. That would be totally different from what I wrote about. I'll have to study that article further, too.
The "unique IP download" statistics for my papers on vixra.org show that in the past 24 hours there were 13 new readers for my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes." That's not a tremendous number, but the previous day I got zero, so I'm not complaining. Also, there were more negative numbers, one paper dropping by 2 the total number of readers to date, and another dropping by 1. I presume that is just some program bug that happens a few times a month.
Meanwhile, last night I listened to four different Infinite Monkey Cage podcasts. They were all very interesting and funny, but the one that I liked the best was a podcast about Conspiracy Theories. I dealt with conspiracy theorists a lot when I was analyzing the anthrax attacks of 2001. To me, conspiracy theorists are people who mostly think emotionally, not logically. They mostly think with their right-brain, not their left-brain. Almost 3 years ago, I created a blog page titled "Trump thinks emotionally, NOT logically." It discussed some of Trump's conspiracy theories in detail. Today that page seems more relevant than ever, which is probably why right now it is getting more views than other pages.
March 2, 2020 - There was an email in my inbox this morning advising me that version #2 of my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" is now on-line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf Of course, as soon as I submitted it yesterday I realized I made a mistake in it. On page 12, I put the final reference number (#18) next to a comment I wrote about Einstein instead of putting it after the quote from Einstein that I wrote about. I don't know what I was thinking, but it certainly isn't a big enough error to do a version #3.
I also put the paper on Academia.edu, but I've forgotten how to post revisions there, so it shows up as a new paper, and the site now has two papers by me with the same title. There's probably some simple way to fix the problem, but I'll have to find the time to think about it.
Meanwhile, at breakfast this morning I finished reading another library book on my Kindle. The book was "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen.
It's a very interesting book about history and history textbooks. Here's a quote from near the end of the book:
People who have taken more mathematics courses are more proficient at math than those who have not. The same holds true for English, foreign languages, and almost every other subject. Only in history is stupidity the result of more, not less, schooling.The book explains in great detail about how history is made "politically correct." Christopher Columbus is depicted as a great explorer and no mention is made of the genocide he inflicted upon Haiti and other areas. A quote:
Columbus’s conquest of Haiti can be seen as an amazing feat of courage and imagination by the first of many brave empire builders. It can also be understood as a bloody atrocity that left a legacy of genocide and slavery that endures in some degree to this day. Both views of Columbus are valid; indeed, Columbus’s importance in history owes precisely to his being both a heroic navigator and a great plunderer.another quote:
When Columbus and his men returned to Haiti in 1493, they demanded food, gold, spun cotton—whatever the Natives had that they wanted, including sex with their women. To ensure cooperation, Columbus used punishment by example. When an Indian committed even a minor offense, the Spanish cut off his ears or nose. Disfigured, the person was sent back to his village as living evidence of the brutality the Spaniards were capable of.The brutality Europeans inflicted upon American Indians is well known, but it isn't generally described in textbooks. Nor are the facts about the settling of the West:
In the real West, among 250,000 whites and blacks who journeyed across the Plains between 1840 and 1860, only 362 pioneers (and 426 Native Americans) died in all the recorded battles between the two groups. Much more common, American Indians gave the new settlers directions, showed them water holes, sold them food and horses, bought cloth and guns, and served as guides and interpreters.Nor is President Woodrow Wilson's overt racism mentioned in textbooks:
Wilson used his power as chief executive to segregate the federal government. He appointed Southern whites to offices traditionally reserved for blacks. His administration used the excuse of anticommunism to surveil and undermine black newspapers, organizations, and union leaders. He segregated the navy, which had not previously been segregated, relegating African Americans to kitchen and boiler work.and
The one occasion on which Wilson met with African American leaders in the White House ended in a fiasco as the president virtually threw the visitors out of his office. Wilson’s legacy was extensive: he effectively closed the Democratic Party to African Americans for another two decades, and parts of the federal government remained segregated into the 1950s and beyond.The problem is political. School boards won't buy any textbooks which teach students that America was created by slave owners who brutally wiped out local Indian tribes in order to steal their land. So, instead of any realistic description of history, textbooks just show a fantasized version of history. The solution is to find a middle-ground. The book suggests that some parts of our history be taught as a series of lessons about how problems we still have today were a lot worse in the past.
Teachers need to put themselves in the position that for students to disagree with their interpretation is okay, so long as students back up their disagreement with serious historical work: argumentation based on evidence. People have a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.I keep thinking about physics textbooks and the errors they contain. Again, the problem is political. If you teach Einstein's Relativity the way Einstein described it, you will get a political backlash from Quantum Theorists who do not accept Einstein's theories, and who even claim that Einstein didn't mean what he wrote, he meant to agree with the Quantum Theorists he fought against most of his life.
I really need to find some way to access a "Type-1" radar gun. There is nothing that stops an argument faster than a clear demonstration of who is right and who is wrong.
March 1, 2020 - Later today, I'll submit the latest version of my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" to vixra.org. I think it is around version #167, but vixra.org will label it Version #2. They don't know how many times I actually revised the article. Sometimes it seemed I was revising it 30 times a day, usually just changing a word or a phrase. I just wasn't uploading the changes to vixra.
Revising the article was very educational for me. I think I understand the cause of the century-long conflict between Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and it has a lot to do with what is usually given as the cause of the conflict: differences between the very big and the very small.
For example, an article from 2015 in the British newspaper The Guardian says,
At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big. Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces – electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.As I see it, and as Einstein saw it, the main problem is far more fundamental than that. Relativity is about reality and things that can be seen and measured. Quantum Mechanics is about approximations and guesswork related to things that cannot be seen nor precisely defined by experiments. The example that was the basis for my newest paper is empty space in an infinite universe. Quantum Mechanics cannot deal with empty space unless it is the empty space between two objects. As a result, Quantum Mechanics theorizes logical absurdities, such as objects moving apart from one another without going anywhere or into anything. All that happens in Quantum Mechanics is the empty space between the objects expands. How is that possible? They don't care! It works mathematically.
Yesterday morning, as I was working on this comment, I realized that there is another Quantum Mechanics absurdity that I do not even mention in my paper: Quantum Gravity.
One article about Quantum Gravity says,
Quantum physics has very successfully described the behaviour of tiny particles such as atoms and electrons, while relativity is very accurate for forces at cosmic scales. However, in some cases, notably gravity, the two theories produce incompatible results.Duh! In Relativity, gravity is something that is felt and measured and used in experiments, just as light and time are used. In Quantum Mechanics, it is another problem like empty space, light and time: it is a thing that cannot be quantified. There is no quantum of gravity that can be pointed to as an object, just as there is no quantum of space or time. So the Quantum Mechanics mathematicians want to change the universe to fit their solution: Quantum Gravity. And they invented a particle that can be viewed as an object: the graviton.
In science, if you do not know how something works, you admit that you do not know how it works, and you devise experiments to help you learn and hopefully eventually understand how it works. In Quantum Mechanics, if you do not know how something works, you create a mathematical equation that looks right and modify the universe to fit that equation. If the equation requires that gravity be an object, so be it. And thus a "graviton" is created, not by Nature but by a QM mathematician.
Meanwhile, for much of the past week I've been watching (without participating in) arguments on the sci.physics.relativity forum in a thread titled [sic] "How does the moon able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth?" that was started by a chemist named Ken Seto. One would think that the question would be easily answered using what Isaac Newton taught us about motion and gravity, but when someone tried that, Ken Seto responded,
"We are talking about why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth. IOW what is the cause of gravity."As of this moment, there are 95 posts in the thread, by 15 different authors. It also looks like there is no relationship between most questions and answers. And they spend half their time hurling insults at one another.
Interestingly, Ken Seto frequently points to his self-published book as a source for possible enlightenment. The 170 page book is titled "Model Mechanics: The Final Theory." The book attempts to bring back the thoroughly debunked aether (or ether), but Seto calls it the "E-Matrix." This is from page 62:
All of the pure-space in our universe is occupied by a substanceThat is probably somewhere around the 100th document I've come across where someone attempts to resurrect the aether as a way of clarifying and getting around the nonsense printed in physics textbooks about Einstein's postulates. How much simpler things would be if textbooks just described Einstein's actual theories instead of distorted versions created by authors and publishers who want their textbooks to be non-controversial, which means they don't want their textbooks to be attacked by Quantum Mechanics mathematicians!
I sometimes wonder how anything gets accomplished in science when it seems like everyone has their own theory of how things work.
Last night I had some free time, so I went through some podcast sites looking for interesting science podcasts that I might want to listen to. I was very pleased and surprised to see a podcast on "The Infinite Monkey Cage," which is a science web site run by Britain's BBC4 and featuring British scientist Brian Cox. Their February 10th episode is titled "Quantum Worlds." It's just 43 minutes long, so I also had time to listen to it yesterday evening. It was a very funny and extremely interesting discussion. In effect, it was a discussion about the absurdity of trying to fit Quantum Mechanical rules for the sub-atomic world to the observable universe around us. And yet, that seems to be exactly what Quantum Mechanics mathematicians are trying to do every day.
When I looked at the BBC4 web site this morning to get the links I used above, I noticed that they have a link to five other podcasts that are related to the one about "Quantum Worlds." All of them look interesting, and I'll download them into my MP3 player as soon as I finish this comment. The first one I'll listen to is "When Quantum Goes Woo" which is about "Why is quantum physics often so popular with purveyors of pseudoscience and quackery?" I may have listened to it before, but I'm in the right mood to listen to it again.
It really feels great to have a lot of pieces of a puzzle that I have been working on for years suddenly fall together in a way that makes perfect sense!