Ed Lake's web page
clipper cover
If you want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.
Welcome to Ed Lake's web site!

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

My latest comments are near the bottom of this page.
You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

A Crime Unlike Any Other book
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "Time Dilation Re-visualized."
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "What is Time?"

My interests are writing, books, movies, science, psychology, conspiracy theorists,
hotography, photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz, blues, and ...

just trying to figure things out.

Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
A major interest: Fact Finding
                              I have a fascination with Time, Time Dilation & Light.                                Another interest: Movies Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments

Comments for Sunday, June 25, 2017, thru Friday, June 30, 2017:

June 26, 2017 - I spent a couple hours yesterday morning working through the list of 227 physics journals trying to find the "right" journals for submitting my papers on Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate.  I came to the conclusion that there are only a couple left on the list that seem like possibilities, and neither is truly "right" for either one of my papers. 

So, I spent the rest of the day trying to organize the books, papers and other documents that I downloaded and saved while doing my research.  Of the 536 items I now have in my "Miscellaneous papers" folder, I've sorted through 122 of them, updating a spreadsheet that shows the file name, the type of file (book, article, epub, mobi, etc.), the title, the authors, the number of pages, whether it is a "searchable" pdf or not, and a comments column.  In the comments column I make a note if it is something I should definitely read, and if not, why not.    

This morning I awoke making a decision to pause the submission of my papers for awhile as I think things over.  I also decided to put the latest version of my Second Postulate paper on viXra.org, where it should appear as version #4 later today.  It's 28 pages long and contains 9 illustrations.  It's basically the version that was turned down by Annals of Physics on June 14. 

I also put a "draft" copy of it on academia.edu.  It's never been on that site before, although I've put "final" versions of my other papers there.  The oldest paper I have on viXra.org is the May 31, 2015 version of Time Dilation without Relativity.  I wrote some comments for this web site on that date when I discovered viXra.org and decided to start posting papers there.  The oldest paper I have on academia.edu is Time Dilation Revisualized, which has that same date.  But academia.edu doesn't show prior versions of papers.  And a search through my web site comments shows that I put my first paper on academia.edu on July 18, 2015.  I haven't been paying much attention to academia.edu, so I'm not totally sure how things work there.  I'll have to study it further when I get some time.     

June 25, 2017 - On Friday afternoon, I submitted my revised paper about Time Dilation to the scientific journal Physics in Perspective.  On Saturday morning, I received a rejection email telling me that my paper didn't provide any historical perspective on physics, so it was outside of the scope of their journal.  From my point of view, the fact that scientists have seemed unwilling to discuss Time Dilation with mathematician-physicists for over 100 years is a "historical perspective" that needs discussion.  But I didn't point that out in my cover letter.  All I did in my cover letter was say I hoped they would find the article worthy of publication.

Before submitting the paper to Physics in Perspective, I made some revisions to the paper, mostly just improving the references.  The previous version included 8 references to articles from Physics Essays, which was the first journal I tried and the one that was ready to publish it when they notified me that publication would cost me $508 to offset printing costs, and I withdrew the paper.  In addition to replacing some references with better references and removing 7 of the 8 Physics Essays references, I changed the title of the paper.  When I submitted it to Physics Essays, it was titled "Time Dilation without Relativity."  When I submitted it to Physics in Perspective it was titled "Science, Physics and the Reality of Time Dilation."  I'm seriously considering just titling it "The Reality of Time Dilation" when I submit it the next time.

Physics in Perspective is a journal someone recommended to me months ago.  I hadn't tried it earlier because it is ranked #220 out of 227 physics journals listed HERE, and I had been trying to work through that list from the top down. 

So, once again neither one of my two scientific papers is currently being reviewed anywhere.  But I've got new targets picked for both papers.  Unless I want to try a Romanian, Russian or Chinese journal, the two targets I've picked are the last ones I can find in the top 100.

I'm really getting to detest the research required to find a journal that isn't a "by invitation only" journal, which doesn't charge fees to publish, which doesn't have a word maximum or minimum that eliminates my papers, which doesn't require me to supply names of reviewers, and which doesn't have a narrow focus on some specific area of physics that doesn't include what I wrote about.

I'd also really like to find some time to read some of the books I've downloaded.  But I first need to find the time to organize the books, so that I'll read the most likely to be best ones first.  I must have at least 100 books waiting to be browsed so they can be prioritized, and there could easily be over 150.   

But, before I can organize those books I need to get my two papers into the queue at some journals.  While waiting for the responses I can do other things. 

Oh yeah, one more problem: Formatting the papers for submission.  It seems that nearly every journal has their own requirements about how the papers they will accept are formatted, how references are described, etc.  I've formatted papers using LaTex several times, and I'd gotten pretty good at it.  Then, yesterday, when I tried to figure out how to format it for the journal where I wanted to send my Time Dilation paper - moan! - there were tremendous differences.  They appear to use LaTeX features that no one else uses.  I spent an hour trying to figure out how to format the References section before giving up for the day.  It looks like it's going to take a lot of study.

But, it's not yet 9.a.m. and I've already finished my Sunday comment, so I really have nothing else to do all day.

Comments for Sunday, June 18, 2017, thru Saturday, June 24, 2017:

June 21, 2017 - I had planned to work on submitting my papers to different journals today.  But something has been really nagging at me, and I can't get it off my mind.   The best way to get a problem off my mind is to clarify it, and the best way to clarify a problem is to write it down.  So, here goes:  

A couple days ago on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, I mentioned my problem of not being able to figure out how Albert Einstein arrived at his realization that Time slowed down with velocity.  The physicist at Fermilab with whom I'd been arguing then posted this:
I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
I did a quick search and found the entire book "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler was available on-line for free in various formats, including searchable pdf format and Kindle format HERE.  So, I downloaded a searchable pdf copy and began browsing.  I found this on page 55:
          Einstein’s Principle of Relativity says that once the laws of physics have been established in one free-float frame, they can be applied without modification in any other free-float frame. Both the mathematical form of the laws of physics and the numerical values of basic physical constants that these laws contain are the same in every free-float frame. So far as concerns the laws of physics, all free-float frames are equivalent.
          We can tell where we are on Earth by looking out of the window. Where we are in the Milky Way we can tell by the configuration of the Big Dipper and other constellations. How fast and in what direction we are going through the larger framework of the universe we measure with a set of microwave horns pointed to pick up the microwave radiation streaming through space from all sides. But now exclude all information from outside. Screen out all radiation from the heavens. Pull down the window shade. Then do whatever experiment we will on the movement and collision of particles and the action of electric and magnetic forces in whatever free-float frame we please. We find not the slightest difference in the fit to the laws of physics between measurements made in one free-float frame and those made in another. We arrive at the Principle of Relativity in its negative form:
No test of the laws of physics provides any way whatsoever to distinguish one free-float frame from another.
Okay.  That's exactly what I've been arguing.  The LAWS of nature are the same in all references frames.  Browsing further, I found this on page 56:
Notice what the Principle of Relativity does not say. It does not say that the time between two events is the same when measured from two different free-float frames.  Neither does it say that space separation between the two events is the same in the two frames. Ordinarily neither time nor space separations are the same in the two frames.
And this on page 60:
          Different values of some physical quantities between the two frames? Yes, but identical physical laws! For example, the relation between the force acting on a particle and the change in velocity per unit time of that particle follows the same law in the laboratory frame as in the rocket frame. The force is not the same in the two frames.  Neither is the change in velocity per unit time the same. But the law that relates force and change of velocity per unit time is the same in each of the two frames. All the laws of motion are the same in the one free-float frame as in the other.
          Not only the laws of motion but also the laws of electromagnetism and all other Laws of physics hold as true in one free-float frame as in any other such frame. This is what it means to say, "No test of the laws of physics provides any way whatsoever to distinguish one free-float frame from another."
          Deep in the laws of physics are numerical values of fundamental physical constants, such as the elementary charge on the electron and the speed of light. The values of these constants must be the same as measured in overlapping free-float frames in relative motion; otherwise these frames could be distinguished from one another and the Principle of Relativity violated.
          One basic physical constant appears in the law's of electromagnetism: the speed of light in a vacuum, c ~ 299,792,458 meters per second. According to the Principle of Relativity, this value must be the same in all free-float frames in uniform relative motion. Has observation checked this conclusion? Yes, many experiments demonstrate it daily and hourly in every particle-accelerating facility on Earth. Nevertheless, it has taken a long time for people to become accustomed to the apparently absurd idea that there can be one special speed, the speed of light, that has the same value measured in each of two overlapping free-float frames in relative motion.
          Values of the speed of light as measured by laboratory and by rocket observer turn out identical. This agreement has cast a new light on light. Its speed rates no longer as a constant of nature. Instead, today the speed of light ranks as mere conversion factor between the meter and the second, like the factor of conversion from the centimeter to the meter.
So, the speed of light is NOT a "constant of nature."  That's what I have been saying.  It is the same in every reference frame, but it is different if you compare one frame to another.

The book goes on say it again a different way on page 61, stating that the speed of light MUST be the same in every reference frame in order for the LAWS of nature to be the same in every reference frame. 

Then, on page 64, the authors write this about "the train paradox":
 For the observer standing on the ground, the two lightning bolts strike the front and back of the train at the same time. Therefore for him the distance between the char marks on the track constitutes a valid measure of the length of the train.  In contrast, the observer riding on the train measures the front lightning bolt to strike first, the rear bolt later. The rider on the train exclaims to her Earth-based colleague, “See here! Your front mark was made before the back mark — since the flash from the front reached me (at the middle of the train) before the flash from the back reached me. Of course the train moved during the time lapse between these two lightning strikes. By the time the stroke fell at the back of the train, the front of the train had moved well past the front char mark on the track. Therefore your measurement of the length of the train is too small. The train is really longer than you measured.”
Okay.  Right away I see I misunderstood something about Einstein's train and embankment diagram:
Einstein's train-embankment diagram 
I thought that points A and B in the Einstein diagram were just the points where the two bolts of lightning struck, but now I realize they are also the location of the front and rear of the train at the time of the lightning strikes.  Einstein didn't clearly and specifically state that.  Looking back at it now, I see he phrased it this way:
Then every event which takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of the train.
But I didn't get the connection.  And now I still do not fully "get" the connection between time and length/distance.  I can see that physicists measure a meter as being the distance light travels in one second.  The book says on page 59:
Today the meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in the fraction 1/299,792,458 of a cesium-defined second.
And, for some reason that will take me some more time to figure out, the person on the train is saying that meter is longer than that, therefore a second is longer. 

The way I understand things, a second is longer on the moving train because the atomic particles which make up the train (and which are the cause of time) are spinning slower.  They're spinning slower because they have to spin slower because their lateral motion combined with their speed of spin is restricted by the maximum speed of light (and spin and matter).   

I think I can see what Einstein was saying, but I still cannot explain how he could determine the existence of Time Dilation that way.  I need to study it further.  It appears to be a mathematical conclusion that does not relate to reality, which Einstein expressed this way: 

Einstein quote

and this way:

Einstein quote #2

So, as long as I continue to view things the way an analyst or scientist would view things, I may never be able to understand how a mathematician views the same things.

But, I'll continue to try.

Obviously the mathematicians' view is wrong.  And Einstein's logic may have also been wrong, even though he came  up with the right answers.  Scientists knew next to nothing about particles in 1905, so Einstein was working with what he knew and had available to him.  Did he actually believe the length of the train would change, or was it only his way of explaining things? 

Now I understand why I keep reading that no experiment has ever even remotely confirmed that objects change their length in accordance with Time Dilation when moving or when they are  at different altitudes.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  How does "Nature" know the "length" of a cube if it is tumbling through space at half the speed of light?  How does she know which way to reduce the "length" of a spinning iron ball when the cause of Time Dilation is gravity?  And research indicates that the logic seems to say that the length of the moving object, like the length of the train, will only  "appear" to be "foreshortened."  That probably helps to foster the invalid notion that Time Dilation is not real.

This all seems to make my papers more important than ever, particularly my paper on Time Dilation.

June 20, 2017 - Groan!  At the moment, I have no papers being reviewed by any journals.   And I don't have any specific journals selected as targets for my next attempts to get my papers published.  Plus, instead of working on those papers and researching physics journals to target, I've been arguing for two solid days on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.

This morning it all turned into personal attacks and insults, so I've given up on that forum once again - for awhile.  But, before it all turned to personal attacks, there were some very interesting arguments.  As usual, no one on the forum provided any new information, but in the process of arguing against their beliefs and posing questions to ask them, I came to realize some things I'd never noticed before.  One realization stands out.  In one of the arguments, I quoted from Albert Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory."  This is from Chapter 9:

We were led to that conflict by the considerations of [Chapter] 6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment.

In the part of the quote I highlighted in bold red, Einstein is clearly saying that one second for the man walking on the moving train is not equal to one second for someone standing on the embankment next to the moving train. 

I quoted that passage in response to this claim by a Fermilab physicist:
The definition of a second does not change with frame, and _IS_ the same in every frame. "Time dilation" is NOT about "the length of a second varying" or a "clock tick rate varying" -- it is about the GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION involved in making the measurement.
How does a "geometrical projection" make it appear that the length of a second is different in every "frame" when it really isn't?  The Fermilab physicist could not or would not explain himself, of course.  It seems he was just reciting memorized phrases he learned somewhere.  If I were to ask him to explain, he would just tell me I am too dumb to understand.

So, I still need to figure out for myself how Einstein arrived at that conclusion.  The biggest problem is Einstein's method of explaining.  Here is his definition of "time" from Chapter 8 of his book:
     We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. For this purpose we suppose that clocks of identical construction are placed at the points A, B and C of the railway line (co-ordinate system) and that they are set in such a manner that the positions of their pointers are simultaneously (in the above sense) the same. Under these conditions we understand by the " time " of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.
     This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical construction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of the one clock is simultaneous (in the above sense) with the same position, of the pointers of the other clock, then identical "settings" are always simultaneous (in the sense of the above definition).    
That's the end of the chapter, except for this footnote:
We suppose further, that, when three events A, B and C occur in different places in such a manner that A is simultaneous with B and B is simultaneous with C (simultaneous in the sense of the above definition), then the criterion for the simultaneity of the pair of events A, C is also satisfied. This assumption is a physical hypothesis about the the of propagation of light: it must certainly be fulfilled if we are to maintain the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo.
So, what is his "definition of 'time'?"  There's got to be a shorter way to explain it!  And when he says "in the sense of the above definition," you get the feeling that in some other more important sense the "definition" he just provided (whatever it is) would not be valid. 

I think he's simply saying that "time" is what is defined by identical clocks that are all synchronous when they are working properly in the same location.  Therefore, "simultaneous events" means events which occur at the same time as shown on these identical clocks.

Which leads me to ask: "Okay.  So what?"  The next chapter is about "The Simultaneity of Relativity" and has nothing to do with Time Dilation.

Sigh.  Is Einstein relating Time to the speed of light?  How can he if he claims there is a "law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo"? 

Of course, I've been saying that two different observers, one moving and one stationary, will both measure the speed of light to be the same in their frames of reference, because the length of a second is different in each frame of reference due to Time Dilation.  And that means the speed of light is actually different in the two frames of reference. 

For all I know (and I think it is the case), Einstein and I could be saying the same thing, just using different words and different situations.  But, I cannot get his explanations to fit with my explanations.

Hmm.  I just noticed that a few minutes ago the Fermilab physicist posted a very long response to something I wrote.   And he argues the same thing over and over:
YOU just don't read the experiments and understand HOW THEY WERE ACTUALLY  PERFORMED. NONE of them measure what you claim -- they do NOT compare clocks' tick rates, they compare one clock to SIGNALS from the other clock
By repeatedly ignoring ESSENTIAL aspects of these experiment you have confused yourself. The ENTIRE effect is in the SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not in the clocks.
The other experiments ALL compare one clock to SIGNALS FROM ANOTHER CLOCK. And the physics PURELY AFFECTS THE SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not the clocks. In EACH of these experiments, the clocks all tick at the same rate, but the MEASUREMENTS involve SIGNALS which affect the results.

 I repeat: to measure a clock's tick rate you MUST have the
        clock sitting right next to the measuring instrument. NONE
        of these experiments did that, they ALL used SIGNALS
Yes, many of these authors wrote papers which were not careful to distinguish between "effects on the clocks" and the actual effects on the SIGNALS they used.  But SR and GR are quite clear on this (signals are affected, clocks are not);
So, none of the Time Dilation experiments worked the way the scientists who performed the experiments said they worked.  Only the Fermilab physicist knows the truth: that it was some kind of "signals" that just made it appear that clocks ran slow.  What are these signals?  I've tried to get him to explain, but he just says I'm too dumb to understand (and apparently so are all the scientists who performed the experiments).
Sigh.  I need to focus on getting my papers published and stop getting distracted by the unresolveable opinion-based arguments on that Google forum.

June 18, 2017 - Today is another one of those Sundays where I have nothing prepared to post here as my "Sunday comment."  So, I'm going to have to write something from scratch.

I was planning to start working on my Sunday comment yesterday afternoon, but then I noticed an interesting post to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  The title of the thread was "Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics," and it began with a tirade against Einstein for claiming something that Einstein never claimed: that the speed of light was the same for all observers.  That is exactly what my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity is all about.  Einstein never said what the author of the post, Pentcho Valev, claimed he said:
If Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, modern physics is pseudoscience (true science was killed in 1905).

Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate false? Of course, this is obvious. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

Doppler effect #1

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

Doppler effect moving observer

Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula (measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses) is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev 
Of course, this is NOT a violation of Einstein's relativity, it is exactly what Einstein's relativity says is true.  It is a violation of the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  It is the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which claims that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

The thread contained 6 messages by 4 different authors when I posted mine as message #7, telling Pentcho Valev that he got things backwards. 
It was the first time I'd posted a message to that forum in about a month.  A hullabaloo ensued.  This morning it has 71 messages by 16 different authors, about 18 more messages than when I signed off last night.  None are from Pentcho Valev.  From what I've seen in the past, Pentcho Valev just endlessly posts his beliefs and rarely if ever reads the responses.

A lot of the overnight discussion is just people calling other people names, but I see a post from a physicist at FermiLab that is addressed to me, so I'm going to have to respond to that.  But, I'm also going to have to break off from the discussion pretty soon, so that I can get back to work on revisions to my Time Dilation paper.  I must have spent at least an hour yesterday trying to track down a reference.   And I still haven't found it.

On a University of California: Riverside web site, it has this question and answer:

Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?

The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it.    
Editors generally do not like references that are web sites, so I searched around and found the same thing was stated in a book "Velocity of Light and Radio Waves" by K. D. Froome and L. Essen.  But, I failed to note the page the statement was on.  I don't have a copy of that book, so I have to find the page number by doing a search for the statement via Google.  But that requires knowing or finding the exact wording. 

Hmm.  Just now, while I was typing this comment, I received an email from Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, the academic journal where I'd submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  They turned it down.  It wasn't just a "not suitable" turn-down, they specified some reasons for turning it down.  They said it lacked "technical rigour."  And they said that I needed to support my arguments by providing the mathematical equations that would replace the mathematical equations used by mathematicians if my claims were true.  And they argued the same argument that Pentcho Valev argued, that it was Einstein who argued what I say the mathematicians are arguing.  So, they missed the whole point of my paper: logic does not agree with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  They also want me to provide a mathematical argument.  I have no way of doing that.

Sigh.  I think that's enough commenting for today.

Comments for Sunday, June 11, 2017, thru Saturday, June 17, 2017:

June 15, 2017 - I've been complaining about not having a clue as to how the publication process works for scientific journals, and I've been writing here about how I've been bumbling around in the dark just experimenting with submissions to see what happens.  I've been looking for advice on how to best do things, but the only "advice" I've gotten is from the mathematicians on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum who tell me I'm just too stupid to understand anything and that I should give up. 

I didn't fail to notice that someone gave me some advice yesterday.  So, yesterday afternoon, I decided to take that physics journal editor's suggestion, and I submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to an academic journal.  It was relatively easy to do, even though it meant creating a new LaTex type-set version.  The academic journal is owned by the same company that owns the physics journal I tried, so it uses  the same LaTeX code.  All I had to do was change the name of the journal and add the paragraph I wanted to include about Einstein's book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, which shows that Einstein directly contradicts the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."

I finished the changes and submitted the paper via the journal's web site just before supper last night.  This morning, its status is "with editor."

This morning, I also checked the rankings for such academic journals and found that the journal that has my paper is ranked in the top 50, but there are only 128 journals on the ranking list.  I have no clue what the rankings really mean, and the paper is already submitted, so I'm just going to try to focus on getting my paper on Time Dilation ready to submit somewhere else.

Busy busy busy.     

June 14, 2017 - There are three reasons for skipping a few days without writing a comment for this web site: (1) I have nothing new or interesting to say, (2) I can't find the time to write a comment because I'm just overwhelmed with things to do, and (3) I'm overwhelmed with things to do, but they wouldn't be of interest to anyone but me.  I imagine that reading about someone trying to get a scientific paper published is like watching paint dry.  There's nothing interesting about it if you are not the person who is trying to get a paper published.

This morning, I received a rejection email from the physics journal to which I'd sent my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. They turned it down without saying there was anything wrong with the paper.  The editor simply wrote: "I have come to the conclusion that [our journal] is not the appropriate journal for publication of your work."  The email was from the Managing Editor, not the Editor in Chief (who is a well-known physics professor and author).  On the positive side, he suggested a different journal for me to try.  However, it is an academic journal, not a science or physics journal.  That poses the question: If physics professors are teaching crap because it is what physicists believe to be true, is that a teaching problem or a physics problem?  I submitted the paper to a journal for physics teachers, the American Journal of Physics (AJP), back on April 19.  It was rejected the next day because

Manuscripts that question well-established physical principles are outside the purview of AJP and should be submitted to a more specialized journal for consideration.
But, the journal that was recommended might be different.  I'll have to research it.

Meanwhile, yesterday I received the final chapter for the book I've been proof-reading for a scientist acquaintance of mine.  That took a couple hours of my time, but it was an interesting read, and I'm anxiously awaiting the publication of the book, which is tentatively scheduled for October.

And, of course, while all that was going on I've been trying to figure out how to revise my paper on Time Dilation to incorporate some of the things I've learned since I wrote it.  And then I have to find another journal to try with that paper.  

Busy busy busy.  I just wish I didn't feel like I'm bumbling around in the dark.  Is there some simple method to determine which journals are right for my papers?  If there is, I have no clue as to what that method might be.       

June 11, 2017 - Two days ago, I received a spam email from Amazon.com that was fairly interesting.  When I access their web site to browse a book, they must record my IP address and what books I looked at.  Then they sometimes send me an email suggesting I buy the book I looked at, or that I might want to buy some other book that is similar in some way.

On Friday, they sent an unusually long email listing 8 books that they somehow determined might be of interest to me:
"The Higgs Fake - How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee" by Alexander Unzicker

"Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility"
by Alexander Unzicker

"The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next" by Lee Smolin

"Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law for Unity in Physical Law" by Peter Woit

"Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe" by Roger Penrose

"The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us"  by Noson S. Yanofsky

"A Beginner's Guide to Reality" by Jim Baggott

"Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity" by Carlo Rovelli      
Surprisingly, I was unaware of most of those books, and they are of significant interest to me.  Moreover, when I looked for other books by the same authors, I found six more that might be of equal or even greater interest:
"On Space and Time" by Shahan Majid, Roger Penrose and others.

"The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose

"Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe" by Lee Smolin

"The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin

"Origins: The Scientific Story of Creation" by Jim Baggott
Now I just have to find the time to read them.  ("The Road to Reality" is 1,123 pages in pdf format!)

It doesn't look like any of them argue that the mathematicians are claiming things to be true that experiments undeniably and demonstrably prove to be false.  The books seem to focus on the concepts that mathematicians have dreamed up (like String Theory) which have no "real" aspects to them, and thus no one can use experiments to prove them to be either real or false.  They are "non-falsifiable" ideas and therefore non-scientific. 

However, a quick browse of Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" finds that Chapter 1 is titled "The Five Great Problems of Theoretical Physics," and there is an explanation starting on page 8 of one of the main "problems" with Quantum Mechanics.  That problem is that Quantum Mechanics doesn't relate to reality.  Quantum Mechanics assumes the universe would not exist if we were not around to observe it.

On page 7 it says,
Since quantum theory was first proposed, a debate has raged between those who accept this way of doing science and those who reject it.  Many of the founders of quantum mechanics, including Einstein, Erwin Shrödinger, and Louis de Broglie, found this approach to to physics repugnant.  They were realists.  For them quantum theory, no matter how well it worked, was not a complete theory, because it did not provide a picture of reality absent our interaction with it.  On the other side were Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and many others.  Rather than being appalled, they embraced this new way of doing science.
The first of the 5 problems with Theoretical Physics is the well-known problem that General Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.  The second problem is that quantum mechanics does not relate to reality.  On page 8 it says:
This whole issue goes under the name the foundational problems of quantum mechanics.  It is the second great problem of contemporary physics.
Problem 2: Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.
Lee Smolin suggests several ways the problem might be solved, and then he says near the top of page 9 (with my highlighting):
There are unfortunately not many physicists who work on this problem.  This is sometimes taken as an indication that the problem is either solved or unimportant.  Neither is true.  This is probably the most serious problem facing modern science.
What amazes me is that mathematician-physicists do not seem to care that what they believe can be easily demonstrated to be false.  They do not care that their beliefs can be disproved.  That is what my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate is all about.  It describes the many experiments which conclusively disprove the mathematicians' screwball beliefs about the speed of light.

Browsing through Unzicker's "Bankrupting Physics," I found this in the last paragraph of the Prologue:
While completing my German manuscript, I discovered Sheilla Jones’s The Quantum Ten, an excellent history of quantum mechanics. What really impressed me was how persuasively she explained the way modern theoretical physics has gone astray since the late 1920s.
So, of course, I had to find a copy of "The Quantum Ten."  Browsing through it, I found this on page 5:
At this point, it’s worth adding some clarity to the terms physicists use to talk about quantum science. They often treat the phrases “quantum mechanics,” “quantum theory” and “quantum physics” as if they were interchangeable, which they are not. Throughout this book, “quantum mechanics” is defined as the set of rules for how the physics and mathematics are used to make testable predictions; these rules have been used to unparalleled fruitfulness since their development in the 1920s. “Quantum theory” is defined as the explanation for why the quantum world behaves the way it does; this exercise is still fraught with controversy. “Quantum physics” is the whole package—the mechanics and the theory.
So, I and everyone else really should be talking about the problem with "Quantum Theory," not any problem with "Quantum Mechanics."  Live and learn.

I'm wondering if I should re-write my Time Dilation paper to do the same thing with it as I did with my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate: compare theories.  Time Dilation is a real phenomenon, but mathematician-physicists insist on arguing that it is just an "illusion."  I wasn't aware of the "foundational problems of quantum mechanics" when I wrote the paper.  I was simply wondering why more people weren't looking into the implications of Time Dilation being real after it had been proven real in so many experiments. 

Maybe I'll submit the paper to another journal as it is currently written and, while waiting to see what happens, I'll revise it and give it a new title, something like "An Analysis of the Two Conflicting Theories of Time Dilation."  On the one side we have all the scientists who do experiments which undeniably prove that Time Dilation is real, and on the other side we have mathematician-physicists who continue to argue that Time Dilation is just an "illusion" because their equations cannot deal with reality - particularly reality that involves cause and effect.

Yesterday, I wondered what science journals have to say about the subject of Time Dilation.  I've mostly read what physics journals have to say.  First I looked to see how science journals are ranked.  There are 274 journals in the "Earth and Planetary Sciences" category.  Most are journals I never heard of before, and very few seem even remotely likely to have an interest in an article about Time Dilation.  Then I tried viewing those in the "Space and Planetary Science" field and found 97 journals, mostly in astrophysics.  Time Dilation should be of interest to astrophysicists, but they probably don't care about any controversy between what science says and what physicists say.  Sigh.  It's as Lee Smolin said, "
There are unfortunately not many physicists who work on this problem."

I'll continue researching.  Maybe I'll find the right journal somewhere.     

Comments for Sunday, June 4, 2017, thru Saturday, June 10, 2017:

June 9, 2017 - Nuts!  Back on May 15, I submitted my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" to Foundations of Physics, a scientific journal that publishes monthly.  They just turned down the paper for no specific reason.  The rejection they sent me appears to be a form-letter-type email listing various general reasons they turn down manuscripts and then saying,
the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.
It's frustrating to be turned down after the paper was accepted by Physics Essays before I learned that it would cost me $508 to publish there, and I withdrew the article. 

So, I'm going to have to find another journal to try.  Someone recommended a journal that publishes controversial articles like mine, but it is very low ranked.  I think it's better if I just work my way down the ranking list

One high-ranked journal I checked out this morning only publishes on-line.  I've set my goal on getting published in a journal that publishes paper copies.  So, I can come back to that one later if I change my mind.

Another high-ranked journal, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physicsrequires that the article be placed on arXiv.org first. I can't do that.  ArXiv.org not only turned down my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, they pretty much turned down any other paper I might write by stating that they require that I be "a professional scientist," that I already have some published articles, and that I have some affiliation with a scientific institution. 

The only other journal in the top 50 (out of 227) that seems to be applicable is the journal where my article on Einstein's Second Postulate is being considered.  I don't think I should try submitting my Time Dilation paper to that journal until I find out what they think about the Second Postulate paper.  So, it appears I need to hunt through 51-100 group for the right journal to try next.      

June 8, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning I used Google to translate the English word "space" into German, and I got "Platz."  That wasn't what I expected, and I recognized the German word "Platz" from when I was studying German.  So I used Google to translate the German word "Platz" into English and I got "place," which was what I remembered.  However,  when I translated the English word "place" into German, I got "Ort."  And "Ort" also translates to "place."

It still have a large English-German/German-English dictionary on one of my bookshelves.  So, I opened it and looked for the English word "space."  In the dictionary, the equivalent German word is "raum" which means "room" as in "having enough room (or space) to fit something into."  "Space capsule" is "Raumkapsel." "Spaceman" is "Raumfahrer."  There is no German equivalent of "space-time" provided, but the English phrase "to launch a rocket into space" translates to "eine Rakete in den Raum schiessen." 

I found a German-language copy of Einstein's book and then located a spot in the book where the term "space-time" is first used.  It's in Chapter 11.  In the English version it says:
This question leads to a quite definite positive answer, and to a perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time magnitudes of an event when changing over from one body of reference to another.
And in the original German that sentence reads as:
Diese Frage führt zu einer bejahenden, ganz bestimmten Antwort, zu einem ganz bestimmten Verwandlungsgesetz für die Raum-Zeit-Größen eines Ereignisses beim Ubergang von einem Bezugskörper zu einem anderen.
So, "Raum-Zeit" is the German version of "space-time."  "Room-Time" doesn't have any more meaning than "space-time" when trying to figure out what Einstein was saying.  There doesn't seem to be any German word for "location."  Yet, "location-time" fits with the rest of the book (and with experiments) which are about how Time can be different in different locations.  

Now I have to figure out how Einstein determined via logic and gedanken (thought experiments) that Time can be different in different locations depending upon how fast those locations are moving.

June 7, 2017 - Since most arguments I've had with mathematicians are not about the abundant experimental evidence which shows they are wrong, but are instead about whether or not Albert Einstein's Second Postulate is what I claim it is, I decided to read Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory."  I'd browsed through it before, doing highlighting and making some notes, but this time I was determined to read it thoroughly and carefully (at least the first half of it, the part about Special Relativity).

First published in December 1916, the book begins with this:
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.  The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader.
In other words, it is not written for mathematicians. 

Another important factor for me was the fact that it is available for free on the Internet.  I had downloaded a couple 163-page pdf versions from somewhere back in October of last year, browsing through one of them at that time.  When I started organizing my collection of books and papers a couple months ago, I found I had two identical copies, so I deleted one of them.  Yesterday, I saw that there was also 115-page pdf version on-line at marxists.org.  And I also saw that there was a 56-page pdf version on line at gutenberg.org.  It wasn't until this afternoon that I discovered that my 163-page version and Gutenberg's 56-page both originated with the marxist.org version.  (They all have the same contents, just different font sizes and different widths to their pages.)  The Gutenberg version seems to have corrected some typos that are in the other versions, but it's annoying to read because the pages are so wide.

Anyway, this morning I finished reading the first 18 of the 32 chapters.  That's probably all I'll read for now, since those chapters are about Special Relativity and the remaining chapters are mostly about General Relativity.

So far, I've found nothing that disagrees with my interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate, I only found things that disagree with the mathematicians' interpretation.  Most notably, on page 21 of the Gutenberg version it refers to 
the yearly movement of the apparent position of the fixed stars resulting from the motion of the earth round the sun (aberration), and to the influence of the radial components of the relative motions of the fixed stars with respect to the earth on the colour of the light reaching us from them. The latter effect manifests itself in a slight displacement of the spectral lines of the light transmitted to us from a fixed star, as compared with the position of the same spectral lines when they are produced by a terrestrial source of light (Doppler principle).
In other words, we on Earth are "moving observers" watching the light from those stars arrive at c + v (where v is our orbital speed) at the point in our orbit around the sun where we are moving toward the star, and at c - v six months later in the orbit, when we are moving away from the star.  It is usually called "the annual Doppler shift," and refer to in my paper on the Second Postulate.

On page 12 of the Gutenberg version, Einstein describes a situation that can be illustrated as below:


If lightning bolts strike points A and B at exactly the same time according to an observer sitting at point M, which is equidistant from A and B, the sitting observer will see and measure that the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously.

If, however, there is an observer at point M who is moving at high speed toward point B and away from point A when the two lightning bolts strike, the moving observer will see and measure the lighting strike from point B arriving first and then the strike from point A.  He will be rushing to meet the oncoming light (c + v) from point B while rushing away from the following light (c - v) from point A.  That is also in direct conflict with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which says that light will travel at the same speed for all observers.

The biggest problem I have with the book is that it is horribly written, and the translation wasn't the best (besides being translated from German into British English instead of American English).  It's horribly written because it seems to spend a hundred words to describe something when ten words would have done much better.  Plus, it is like asking someone to tell you how to get to New York City and having him respond with a long description of the route the original explorers took who first visited that location.  If I want to know about "Relativity," I don't necessarily want to know about all the previous theories which had some connection to Relativity but didn't describe it accurately.  And I don't want to know about all the possible problems I could encounter if I do not take the best route. 

Plus, it seems that either as a result of bad translating or because Einstein wanted to do it for some reason, Einstein uses the word "space" to mean "distance."  When he writes about "space," he's not writing about the empty nothingness between the Earth and Mars, he's talking about the distance between two marks made on the floor of your living room.  It's about coordinates.  So, it appears that when he's writing about "space-time" he is really writing about "distance-time."

On page 9 of the Gutenberg version, Einstein describes the "de Sitter double star experiment" in a way I never saw before.  De Sitter found that the light coming from a rotating double star that was moving toward the Earth did not arrive at c + v where v is the speed of the star.  It arrived at c whether the star was coming toward us or going away from us. (There is no moving observer involved.)  The way Einstein describes the experiment, it showed him (Einstein) that "all light travels at the same speed."  Although its wavelength is longer, red light does NOT travel at a slower speed than blue light.  Both travel at the same speed.  If they didn't, in the double star experiment, where the bright star is periodically hidden by a dark body star, the light from the star when it comes out from behind the dark body would first be seen as all blue and then gradually turn to all red or violet because the blue light would arrive first at the Earth.  That is absolutely fascinating and something I'll probably be able to use in an argument someday.

The biggest problem I have with the book is the way it goes about describing Time Dilation.  The word "dilation" isn't used in the book, of course, just as it wasn't used in the 1905 paper that introduced the concept.  Instead, the book is all about different coordinates in different locations and how they appear to different observers.   I'm going to have to see if I can turn several thousand words of description into a few sentences that say the same thing while making it clear how Time Dilation works.  But, I have to really understand what Einstein wrote before I can do that.

Meanwhile, I'm pondering the idea of writing a paper about how light works.  I just need to thoroughly understand how light works first - before I can write the paper.  I think the question "Is light a particle or a wave?" is answerable. 

June 5, 2017 - Hmm.  Looking at my web site logs, I see that this web site got a lot of visitors via Facebook last night, starting at about 8:45 p.m. Central Time.  But I've received no notification that anyone posted anything to my threads on Facebook, nor did anyone mention me by name using my Facebook link.  It seems that someone on Facebook posted a link to this web site and a lot of people clicked on that link.  I can't tell who or where they are, only that they came to my site via Facebook.   So, if they are reading this message, maybe they'll click on my name link so that I can track things back to a Facebook comment and figure out what is going on. 

Meanwhile, this morning I discovered that I had already read "Farewell to Reality" by Jim Baggott.  I have it on my Kindle, and I wrote a comment about finishing reading it on October 23, 2016.  I also created a 9-page .docx file of the passages I highlighted in the Kindle version.  It includes some of the passages I highlighted in the pdf version yesterday and the day before.

Back in October of 2016, I was still trying to finish my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  I was looking at things from a different angle back then.  I was focused on Time Dilation, not on the bizarre misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate that mathematicians have created.

I was on page 71 of the 221 page pdf file for "Farewell to Reality" when I realized\discovered I'd read it before.  But, the second read was worthwhile.  It made me realize one thing:  While I have had a lifelong LOVE for science, I have almost NO interest in physics.  Here's a definition of "physics":

the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.
I really have only two interests that relate to physics: how does Time work? and how does light work?  My paper on Time Dilation describes my understanding of how Time works.  But, I still have a lot of questions about how light works.  One thing that re-reading Baggott's book did for me was to identify some points about light which I need to clarify before I can be confident that I understand it well enough to write about it in a scientific paper. 

In the pdf version of Baggott's book, I highlighted this passage on page 67, which I didn't highlight in the Kindle version:
Light travelling towards a gravitating object will be blueshifted as the effects of gravity grow stronger.
Doesn't that mean that nearly all light coming from distant stars will be BLUEshifted when viewed here on Earth?  Is there any evidence of this?  Isn't the Big Bang Theory based upon the observation that nearly all light reaching Earth from distant galaxies is REDshifted?  Wouldn't Baggott's statement mean that the Hubble will view stars far less blueshifted than a telescope on Earth?

Here's another passage from page 65 of the pdf file that I didn't highlight when I read the Kindle version:
In an elevator that is rapidly accelerating upwards, a beam of light emitted from one side of the elevator would strike the other side slightly lower down, because in the time it takes for the light to travel from one side to the other, the elevator has moved upwards.
The author doesn't seem to realize that statement (which I believe is correct) is in direct conflict with something he wrote on page 61 where he describes a "light clock" which has a beam of light going straight up and down (which I believe is incorrect) as viewed by someone on an imaginary train traveling at more than half the speed of light.

Here's something I wrote about Baggott's book in my Oct. 23, 2016 comment:
The author wrote a lot of things with which I would tend to agree, but he also says a few things with which I do not fully agree.  And sometimes we are in total disagreement.      
That's the same opinion I have now. 

I'm not sure if I'm going to finish my second read of Baggott's book or not.  Probably not.  At least not right now.  What I read in the first 4 chapters has made me see that there's something I need to research.  Baggott (like Paul Marmet) claims that Einstein said things that I do not think Einstein said.  And I think the disagreement stems from what seems to be our totally different views about Time Dilation.  They view Time Dilation as a reciprocal "illusion" where I see time for you going slower than time for me, and you see time for me going slower than time for you.  I say, and the experimental evidence says, that if I see time going slower for you than for me, you will agree with that observation, because Time dilation is REAL, not a reciprocal "illusion."  Baggott's and Marmet's claims about what Einstein said appears to be based upon what I consider to be their misunderstandings of Time Dilation.

I'm pretty certain I understand how Time works, but I definitely need to clarify my thoughts about how light works.  That is where I disagree with Baggott and Marmet (and nearly all the mathematician-physicists in the world).  I don't see how they can possibly be right, but I don't understand the subject well enough for me to use experimental evidence to show exactly where they are wrong.

June 4, 2017 - While I still seem to be downloading and saving at least one book every day as a byproduct of the research I'm doing, and I'm still a long way from completely organizing my folder of scientific books and articles, I've decided I need to start reading some of the books I've found.  On Thursday, I read what I could of Paul Marmet's book "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution":

The Absurdities of Physics

Published by
Éditions du Nordir on January 1, 1993, the hardcover version for sale on Amazon.com for $42.24 consists of only 144 pages. There's no "Look Inside" option, so I can't tell what the size of the print is, but it's probably fairly large.  The version that I read is the version that is on-line at Paul Marmet's web site HERE.  It doesn't contain chapters 5, 6 and 7 and says that those chapters were "removed by the author."  The Preface, Chapters 1 through 4 and Chapter 8 are on the site in .html format.  I wanted to do highlighting and make notes, so I copied each chapter and converted it to pdf format before saving it in a folder in my computer.  The Preface consists of 3 pages, Chapter 1 = 16 pages, Chapter 2 = 9 pages, Chapter 3 = 15 pages, Chapter 4 = 6 pages, and Chapter 8 =  4 pages, which comes to a total of 53 pages.

That's not a very large "book," but it was an extremely interesting read.  In fact, I highlighted more than half of the Preface, and probably a third of Chapters 1 and 4.  For example, I highlighted this from the first page of my pdf file for the Preface:
When we deal with physics, we must ask: Do rules other than the ones imposed by mathematical logic exist? Yes, there are in physics some elements that do not exist in mathematics. Physics deals with concepts such as mass, length, time and energy. These concepts correspond in our mind to images different from the ones represented by mathematical relations. They have a different representation in our mind because they must be submitted to external tests. They have to comply with observational results. There is no equivalence in mathematics. A mathematical demonstration never implies any experimentation. Mathematics simply deals with the calculation of relations between those concepts.
And I highlighted this from page 2 of the Preface:
Mathematics allows the calculation of things that cannot exist. Here are some examples. Physically, it does not make sense to consider negative or imaginary masses although mathematics can calculate them.
and this:
We also try to find a cause for any physical phenomenon. However, the physical cause of the phenomenon is irrelevant in mathematics.
That last one above was really important to me, since it fitted with what a reviewer suggested I mention in my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  How can any scientist ignore cause and effect?   Answer: a scientist can't, but a mathematician can.  Here's part of a discussion I had on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum:
Me:  If A = B, then B = A.  In REAL LIFE, things are NOT reciprocal. There is CAUSE AND EFFECT.  

Other guy: Cause and effect have nothing to do with relativity, so this is non sequitur.

Me: Cause and effect are WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT.  We have different views of WHEN things happen, and the CAUSE of those different views is TIME DILATION.
Here's an interesting quote from Chapter 1 of Marmet's book: 
The contradictions found in modern science are so absurd that most physicists assume that somebody must certainly have solved them long ago. The degree of indifference of most physicists about these contradictions is phenomenal.
Is that what is going on?  Is that why college professors are teaching nonsense?  Is it simply that they assume if it was nonsense, someone would have pointed that out and made corrections long ago?

From what I've observed, that seems to be the case.  It's not what they tell you, of course.  They just tell you to study more about physics and you will find the answer somewhere.  They do not add, "Things simply cannot be as ridiculous as they appear."

Here's a quote from Immanuel Kant that is used in Chapter 1:
"Causality is the basis of all scientific work. Causality is the condition that renders science possible."
And here is another interesting passage from Chapter 1:
     During their undergraduate studies, physicists are gradually taught to accept interpretations that appear more and more surprising (absurd). They are misled by the fact that the equations used in physics lead to predictions that are compatible with observations. Physicists are taught to believe that when an equation gives a correct prediction, it proves that the model is correct (even if the model is absurd). Furthermore, they claim that, since the working model is absurd, one must conclude that Nature is absurd.
     The philosophy of science and the lack of causality are subjects almost completely avoided in classrooms where physics is taught.
I could go on and on.  Paul Marmet explains virtually all the screwball arguments I had with mathematicians on the Google forum and other forums before that.  The mathematicians do not believe in experimental evidence, and they do not believe in cause and effect.  The only believe in mathematics.  It really is Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics.  It is about belief, not about facts and evidence.  Facts and evidence are heresy if they disagree with established beliefs. 

In Chapter 4, Marmet discusses the problem of reality versus mathematics.  In the "philosophy" of mathematics, something is "real" only if it is observed.  It becomes real when it is observed.  There was no universe before there was a person to observe the universe.  The universe has no independent existence aside from our observations of it.  It makes no sense, but it is what they believe.  

Again, I could go on and on.  But it's all there available for anyone to read.  It's the explanation for why physics-mathematics professors are teaching nonsense.  They're teaching nonsense because mathematics has no mechanism for determining whether something is real or not.  Adding up the number of unicorns in an imaginary universe is simple mathematics, and it makes no difference if unicorns are real or not.

During that past few days, I also did some research about Paul Marmet the person.  I knew that before he died in 2005 he was an assistant professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.  But I didn't know that he has another book that is also on-line.  It is titled "Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics":

Einstein vs Classical Mechanics

It's 200 pages long in the hardcover edition, which costs $39.95 on Amazon.com, and was published by
Newton Physics Books on January 1, 1997.

Unfortunately, while his other book makes things very clear for me, this second book does nothing but make it clear that Paul Marmet had some very strange misunderstandings, too.  This is from page 2 of the Preface to his second book:
Einstein's relativity assumes new mathematical hypotheses and ignores completely the concept of models to describe physical reality. Einstein supposed that time and space can be distorted and that simultaneity is relative but he did not give any serious description of what this really means physically. In Newton's time, physical descriptions of phenomena were accompanied by mathematical equations giving quantitative predictions corresponding to those physical descriptions. Einstein's relativity claims that nature can be described with mathematical equations without any physical description. There is a complete abandon of all the physical models that made physics understandable in Newton's time.
In reality, Einstein did a lot of explaining with "physics models," his clocks being the very first example.  If you have two clocks that are synchronous, and if you move one of them, the clock that was moved will then no longer be synchronous with the other clock, it will "lag behind."  He also used trains a lot to describe how things look different from different perspectives.

I haven't yet thoroughly studied Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, but I think the problem may be that Einstein didn't know exactly what causes Time to run slow for something that moves.  He only knew that it did.  Time slowing down explained effects that had been observed without knowing the exact cause of the effects.

So, that fits right in with my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  Einstein considered Time Dilation to be a real, natural phenomenon.  He didn't know exactly what caused it, but he could predict the effects using mathematics.  What we need to do now is something that scientists seem to be avoiding: we need to study what physically causes time to slow down when an object moves.  In other words: How does Time work? 

Before scientists can understand how time works, however, they have to stop thinking of it as just a "concept," and the mathematicians have to understand that time does actually slow down when an object moves.  It is NOT just an "illusion."

Meanwhile, I'm going to try to read a book Paul Marmet used as a reference:
"Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth" by Jim Baggott.  It certainly starts out well.  It has this in the Preface:
      There is as yet no observational or experimental evidence for many of the concepts of contemporary theoretical physics, such as super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the multiverse, the universe as information, the holographic principle or the anthropic cosmological principle. For some of the wilder speculations of the theorists there can by definition never be any such evidence.
      This stuff is not only not true, it is not even science. I call it ‘fairytale physics’. It is arguably borderline confidence-trickery. 
I think I highlighted over a 30% of the first chapter.  It's about "Reality, Truth and the Scientific Method," and it has some really interesting material in it, including this quote from science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick:  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

The problem with "reality" is defining it.  Baggott writes this in Chapter 1:
To repeat one last time, reality is a metaphysical concept — it lies beyond the grasp of science. When we adopt specific beliefs about reality, what we are actually doing is adopting a specific philosophical position.
When we invoke entities that we can’t directly perceive, such as photons or electrons, we learn to appreciate that we can’t know anything of these entities as things-in-themselves. We may nevertheless choose to assume that they exist.
That is definitely a BIG part of the problem.  We can logically deduce from experiments that photons and electrons must exist, but we do not yet have any way to actually see them.  So, it becomes a matter of philosophy as to what position you take on how such things work.  And that puts the subject into opinion versus opinion territory.

Chapter 1 of Baggott's book also contains this:
In 2009, Britain’s Science Council announced that after a year of deliberations, it had come up with a definition of science, perhaps the first such definition ever published: "Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence." 
That's a very good definition of "science."  But what is the definition of "physics" when experiments and evidence have no meaning?  Maybe the book will have an answer.  At the moment, I'm only about half way through Chapter 2, and the book has 12 Chapters.

Comments for Thursday, June 1, 2017, thru Saturday, June 3, 2017:

June 1, 2017 -  Yesterday afternoon, I received an email from the journal that has my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, notifying me that the paper had been assigned to an editor.  The previous status was that the paper had been received.  The current status shown on their web site is that it is "With Editor":

Status of
                            2nd Postulate paper

The next update will hopefully be that it has been assigned to a reviewer.  If that doesn't happen, the email informed me that I should wait at least a month before I contact them to ask why the status hasn't changed.  If it does happen, then I'm supposed to wait at least six to eight weeks after the change before asking why it is still with a reviewer and what the true status is at that point.

I awoke this morning thinking I should write another paper titled "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!"  In yesterday's comment, I wrote this:

What amazes me is that I can find very few people who are also arguing to have the mathematicians stop teaching nonsense.
The first version I typed of that sentence had "no one who is" instead of "very few people who are." After typing the first version, I remembered writing something about someone else who saw the problem.  It was in my March 8 comment.  It was about physics professor Paul Marmet and his self-published book "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution."  And in that same March 8 comment, I also wrote about David Layzer and an article in the Harvard Crimson which indicated that Layzer also saw that something was wrong with the way students are currently being taught science and physics.

This morning I remembered that I didn't just suddenly discover Einstein's theory of Time Dilation and how it is a real phenomenon.  It is the way it is explained in "popular science" articles everywhere.  Check the articles HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.  It is what I've been reading all my life!  It wasn't until I started arguing with mathematicians and others on the Internet that I learned that many or most mathematicians believe Time Dilation is just an illusion.  In total disagreement with all the experiments, they argue that you will see time running slower for me while I will see time running slower for you, proving it is just an illusion.  In reality, I will see time running slower for you when you are at the bottom of a mountain and I am at the top, and at the same time you will see time running faster for me, just as is explained in "popular science" articles.   

The same situation applies to the Second Postulate to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.  Einstein did NOT say that all observers will see light traveling at the same speed, as mathematicians argue.  The way I argue the Second Postulate is also the way it is explained in "popular science" articles everywhere.  Usually, however, it is in "popular science" articles about General Relativity like the ones HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.  Yet, in college and university classrooms everywhere, teachers teach what experiments show to be untrue

Months ago, when I asked some mathematicians why the popular science articles say one thing while the mathematicians say something else, their basic argument was that physics is too complicated for ordinary people.  So, physicists tell the public one thing while telling each other something totally different.

But I know that is NOT true.  What is happening is that scientists tell the public what they have proved via experiments, and mathematicians tell each other that it is all just nonsense.  That wouldn't be a problem if the mathematicians weren't also teaching their nonsense to students.  And that would be what my article "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!" would be all about.

But where would I submit such an article?  It would seem more appropriate for a psychology journal than a physics journal.  How the hell did we get into such a situation?  Why aren't more people screaming their heads off about it?

Sigh.  I think I need to just take some deep breaths and maybe focus on organizing my collection of downloaded physics books and articles.  I downloaded several new books this morning.  I was checking out the activity on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and saw that Pentcho Valev had just started a new thread titled "The Good Thing About Einstein's Relativity" which contains a link to a pdf copy of a 307 page book titled "The Rationality of Science" by W. H. Newton-Smith.  So, I had to download a copy of it, which means I had to update the two indexes I maintain for stuff I've saved.  Is the book worth reading?  I dunno.  I've got at least 50 other books I need to examine first.  But, since the book looked like it might be worth reading, I looked for other books by Newton-Smith and downloaded his book "Logic: An Introductory Course," which might even be of greater interest.  And something led me to a book titled "Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth" by science writer Jim Baggott.  Sigh

Comments for Sunday, May 28, 2017, thru Wednesday, May 31, 2017:

May 31, 2017 -  While waiting for news about the two science papers I have submitted to two different journals, I've been doing looking through all the papers and books I accumulated during the past couple years, trying to organize them in some way.  While doing so, I cannot help but think about those two papers of mine.

Paper #1, Time Dilation Without Relativity, is about all the experimental evidence which shows that Time Dilation is a real natural phenomenon, even though mathematicians will argue that time is a universal constant and cannot "dilate" or slow down.

Paper #2, An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, is about all the experimental evidence which shows that a moving observer heading toward a stationary light source will see that light as traveling at the speed of light plus his own velocity, even though mathematicians will argue that the speed of light is a "universal constant" and everyone must see it traveling at the same speed regardless of their own motion.

The mathematicians point of view makes no sense unless you inexplicably believe the universe operates like a mathematical equation and there is no such thing as "cause and effect."

How can anyone believe such a thing?  Because they are taught it in school, and if they argue against it they will receive a failing grade?  Plus, their teachers tell them that everyone knows that it seems illogical, but that is the nature of Relativity, and you just have to accept it as true even if it seems illogical.

What amazes me is that I can find very few people who are also arguing to have the mathematicians stop teaching nonsense.  If experiments show it is nonsense, how can it be taught?  Why aren't people marching in the streets to stop it?  I can't believe that it is simply because no one wants to argue with the people who seem to be in charge.  Is it because the mathematicians argue with the total certainty of True Believers, while scientists tend to argue with logic and reasoning based upon experiments and evidence which they accept might possibly be shown to be wrong if someone comes up with a different experiment which provides different evidence via different logic and reasoning?

That also seems to be the same problem that is affecting our country right now.  The President seems about to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, evidently because he doesn't believe in Global Warming.  He doesn't believe in facts and evidence if his gut tells him they could be wrong.  And the scientists will admit that they could be wrong, although they'll also say that the odds of them being wrong are very very small. 

It is difficult to argue uncertainty against total certainty.   I can be totally certain that the mathematicians are wrong because all the experiments and evidence show they are wrong, but I can't be 100% certain that I am right.  Their being wrong doesn't automatically make me right.  We could both be wrong.  Just because I don't see any way I can be wrong could just mean that I haven't examined all the possibilities, because I don't know what all the possibilities are.     
It's a hellofa way to run a universe if you ask me.  ;-)

May 30, 2017 - Okay!  At 10:12 a.m. this morning, I submitted my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity to a highly-ranked physics journal.  And I've received notification that it is in their system.  They provide a link to a web page where I can check its status.  It's a monthly journal, so the response should theoretically be three times faster than a quarterly journal.

One of the final required steps in the submission process was to supply two names of suggested reviewers for the paper.  I don't personally know anyone who would be willing to review the paper, so I typed in "Stephen Hawking" and "Neil deGrasse Tyson."  It went through okay.  As I stated in my Sunday comment, I do not expect that the journal will publish the paper, since what the paper says is contrary to what the Editor in Chief teaches in his physics classes.  But, it might go through, and, if not, I might get an interesting explanation for the turn-down.

I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I've had TWO physics papers out for "peer review" and publication at the same time. 

I feel tempted to write a paper titled "Mathematics versus Reality in Physics."  My research and my discussions with mathematicians has made it clear where they are wildly screwed up in their thinking.  They are totally certain that the universe works mathematically, and therefore everything is reciprocal.  If A = B + C, then C + B = A.  And that is what "Relativity" means to them.  One side of the mathematical equation is equal to the other side.  

It appears that, to mathematicians, cause and effect are alien concepts.  Time Dilation is just an "illusion."  If you shine a light at me, I'll see the light traveling at the same speed that you see it traveling, even if you are stationary and I am moving at high speed toward you or away from you.   And all the countless experiments that prove otherwise are just misunderstandings by people who do not understand mathematics.  Yes, it makes no sense, but that is the nature of Relativity, it makes no sense but you're supposed to accept and believe it anyway.

So, while I'm waiting to see if my two papers make it into the first peer review step, I'm going to try to organize all the articles and books I downloaded and saved while doing the research.  There are 415 items in the "Miscellaneous" folder where I put everything that didn't come from arXiv.org or viXra.org.  My 79-page detailed .docx list of contents for that folder probably doesn't include more than 60 percent of the items.  I'm very curious to find out how many books are in that folder.  I was really amazed to discover that I could download free pdf copies of physics books that are used in classrooms around the world.  So, when I browsed a book to see if it was something worth reading or not, the first thing I would do is save a copy.  And there was never a reason for deleting anything.  I suspect I have multiple copies of a few of the books, different editions and the same book from different sources.  Maybe I'll create a spreadsheet with columns for title, author(s), type (book or article), number of pages, my file number, and some ranking and/or brief description.

Maybe I'll also look for the next journal to try for each of the two papers.

It's better than just sitting around waiting.

May 28, 2017 - Yesterday, I finished creating a new version of my scientific paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  It includes 9 new illustrations, all very different from the illustrations I used in the first version I put on viXra.org on April 20.  Also, while that April version was 4,884 words, the new version consists of 6,903 words, including the references.  Basically, it is the third version I put on viXra with a couple new sections that include the new illustrations and new explanations of how various experiments work that supposedly measure the speed of light.

I'm not going to put the new version on viXra until I've exhausted all efforts to get it published.   I still do not fully understand the process of putting scientific papers on viXra or arXiv.  I assume all or some versions of a paper will have to be deleted when some journal agrees to publish it and demands that the paper be removed from all web sites while they control the copyrights.  But, while I know deleting a paper is not a problem on viXra.org, I recall reading on arXiv.org that they do not allow deletions once a paper is accepted there:

if you intend to submit, or have submitted, your article to a journal then you should verify that the license you select during arXiv submission does not conflict with the journal's license or copyright transfer agreement.
Does that mean that people put papers on arXiv.org with no intention of ever trying to get the paper published?  If they plan to try to get it published, how can they agree to arXiv.org's terms without knowing what the rules are at all the journals they plan to try?  Something in that still makes no sense to me.

But, while it makes no sense, it isn't a problem for me, since I cannot and have no intention to submit any more papers to arXiv.org.

My immediate problem is finding a journal that fits with my paper and my rule of not paying to get my papers published.  I've pretty much decided on what journal to try next.  It's a highly-ranked journal that has a well-known college physics professor as its editor in chief.  And since my paper says that college physics professors are teaching crap, I think the odds of getting it published at that journal are very slim.  But, if I don't try, I'll always be wondering if they would have published it.  Plus, they'll always be able to claim they would have been wildly pleased to have published it if I had only sent it to them.

It's a monthly journal, which means I should get a response a lot faster than at a quarterly journal.  They also prefer to have the article typeset with LaTeX, which means I'll be learning how to put illustrations into a LaTeX formatted article.  That's something I've never done before. 

I'm also getting pretty adept at using paint.net to create illustrations.  It took me awhile to create the 9 illustrations I added to the Second Postulate article, but most of that time was spent on re-doing illustrations over and over as I thought of better ways to illustrate ideas and figured out different and better ways to create the illustrations.  I can create a beautiful illustration in a 1,000 pixel by 1,000 pixel format, but when it gets reduced to about 250 by 250 pixels to fit in a single column of a journal article, a thick line that was 3 pixels wide totally disappears. So, you either have to create an illustration that reduces correctly to smaller sizes, or you have to create different size illustrations. 

I'm currently planning to submit the article on May 30.

Meanwhile, I've been wanting to mention a movie I recently watched for the second time.  I rented "The Big Short" from RedBox on March 15 of 2016.  I thought it was a terrific movie, and when I saw the Blu-Ray version on sale for $5.96 on Black Friday, I bought a copy and put it on a shelf.  Then, two days ago, I finally took it off the shelf and watched "The Big Short" for the second time.

The similarities to the situation with my scientific papers are amazing to me.  The movie is about the housing market crash of 2008.  But it's also about some people who saw that the US mortgage securities market was an overstretched bubble just waiting to burst.  They saw it was built on false information, buzz words that no one understood, and total trust in people who were totally untrustworthy.  The people who saw the problem were laughed at by nearly everyone.  But, they turned out to be totally correct.  Near the beginning of the movie, this Mark Twain quote is shown on the screen:
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.   
So, I'm not likely to get into trouble if I don't fully understand Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, but it seems there are a lot of people who believe they know for sure what it means, who are out teaching students and the rest of the world what they believe, but who appear to be totally wrong

I just need to get my paper published so we can all find out for certain who is right and who is wrong.

Comments for Sunday, May 21, 2017, thru Saturday, May 27, 2017:

May 25, 2017 - After studying numerous papers and videos, I think I now know enough about how interferometers work to describe something about them in my paper about disagreements over Einstein's Second Postulate.  Strangely, the best video I found explaining how interferometers work doesn't have a sound track.  It's totally silent.  Here it is:

Unfortunately, you have to understand something about how interferometers work in order to understand the video.  But it nicely answered questions I had that no other video I'd previously found seemed to bother to explain.  It nicely shows how by adjusting one or both of the mirrors you adjust how the light waves coincide or conflict when they hit the display screen.  You can measure the wavelength of the light by adjusting of the mirrors.  Moving the mirror a half a wavelength farther away from or closer to the light source and display screen determines if the two waves will conflict or coincide.  The question I had that wasn't answered by any other video was: What do you see on the screen if both light beams are in sync?  The video shows that you get a bright spot of light on the screen.  When the beams of light are out fully of sync and the crest of one wave is matched with the trough of another wave, you get nothing on the screen. 

That, of course, poses the question: Where does the light go when you have a perfect interference pattern with the crest of one wave matching the trough of the other wave.  There's a video below that attempts to answer that question:

Perhaps the most interesting part of that very confusing video is how - by just pressing on the tabletop - the light pattern is changed.  Pressing on the tabletop causes enough movement in the position of the equipment on the table to change the way the light waves move and/or the distance they have to travel.

While writing this comment I found a third video HERE that isn't quite as confusing and muddled as the one above, plus it does an excellent job of showing what the "interference pattern" of circles or lines on the display screen (like the one below) represent.

Interferometer interference pattern

The center dark circle represents two light waves conflicting with each other and producing no visible light.  The red circle around it represents a change in angle between the lens and the display that is 1/2 of a wavelength at the source, just enough to have the crests of one wave match the crests of the second wave, and the result is a visible red circle of light.  The next dark line results from another slight change in angle which again causes crest to match with trough, producing no visible light.  So, when the angle lets crest match crest, you get a red circle.  When the angle causes the crests of one wave pattern to line up with the troughs of another wave pattern, you get a dark circle. 

Fortunately, I don't really have to explain how interferometers work in my paper.  I just have to explain how they can be used to show that an observer will see light coming from some source as arriving at c + v, where v is his own speed, in direct conflict with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which argues that everyone sees light as arriving at c, regardless of how you are moving.

I'm still puzzled over how such a BIG error can be believed by so many people without anyone doing as I'm doing and writing a paper about how RIDICULOUS their beliefs are - and how countless experiments show they are totally wrong. 

I'm really feeling that no one wants to argue with the mathematicians.  It seems like they only understand math and can't explain anything except in mathematical terms.  So, they argue that YOU must learn the math that they learned or you cannot understand what they believe they understand perfectly.  And, if you aren't willing to learn the math, then you are evidently just satisfied with your own ignorance and just not worth discussing the problem with.  
May 24, 2017 - I'm still waiting to see if the editor at the journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity is going to assign it to some peer reviewers or reject it for some reason.  It's only been 9 days, but seems like longer.  Meanwhile, the comment I posted to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group is still pending approval after about two weeks.

A couple days ago, I noticed a newspaper opinion piece about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  It was in the Orange County Register, the author was Carl Cannon of RealClearPolitics.com, and was titled "Comey, Mueller bungled big anthrax case together."  It was also on the Daily Breeze.  I expected it to be some conspiracy theory article, but Cannon acknowledges that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer and merely complains about how Comey and Mueller spent so much time focused on Steven Hatfill.  The Washington Examiner also printed a brief summary of Cannon's article and titled it "Remember the botched anthrax investigation."  I didn't mention those articles earlier, because they didn't seem worth mentioning.  They still don't, but yesterday someone bought a paperback copy of my book about the anthrax attacks, so I figured I should mention it anyway.  The article probably generated the sale.

I'm still working on revising my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  The changes do not affect much of the paper, but I'm spending a great deal of time doing research into how interferometers work while also trying to create some good illustrations to help explain them.    

May 22, 2017 - After I completed writing yesterday's comment, I went hunting for MIT text books in order to find out what they might say about Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  I found at least a dozen books, some of them text books, some of them just printed by MIT Press, but none said anything worth quoting on the subjects I was interested in.  This morning, however, I found a book that was of interest.  I wondered about those lectures by Professor Walter Lewin.  Exactly when were the lectures given?  MIT's web site seemed to suggest they were given in 1999.

I did a Google search for Walter H. G. Lewin and found that Wikipedia has a page about him.  He taught at MIT for 46 years, from 1966 until he retired in 2009.  He came out of retirement in 2012 and started doing filmed lectures for a Japanese company.  The on-line lectures were filmed in 2013.  Wikipedia says he also wrote a book "For the Love of Physics" that was published in 2011.  Ah!  Checking my sources, I found a pdf copy of the book.  And I found that it says this on page 269 of the paperback edition (with my highlighting):
Einstein argued in his theory of special relativity that space and time constituted one four-dimensional reality, spacetime. He postulated that the speed of light was constant (300,000 kilometers per second). Even if a person were approaching you on a superfast train going at 50 percent of the speed of light (150,000 kilometers per second), shining a headlight in your face, you and he would come up with the same figure for the speed of light. This is very nonintuitive, as you would think that since the train is approaching you, you who are observing the light aimed at you would have to add 300,000 and 150,000, which would lead to 450,000 kilometers per second. But that is not the case — according to Einstein, 300,000 plus 150,000 is still 300,000!
So, he argues the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," even though the description I used yesterday for his Lecture #23 disputes that theory.  This morning, I tried sending him an email at his MIT address, but it didn't work.  He was involved in a sex scandal there a few years ago, and evidently MIT no longer has anything directly to do with him.  Too bad.  I'd really like to find someone who can discuss Einstein's Second Postulate intelligently.  

May 21, 2017 - I'm beginning to feel a bit overwhelmed again.  I thought my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate was all set to be submitted to some physics journal, but then I recalled the Pound/Rebka experiment, which I do not mention in the paper.   I probably should mention it, even though Pound and Rebka didn't prove what they thought they proved.  Plus, I really really would like to find a paper about a 1955 Russian experiment which measured the speed of light coming from the left and right sides of the sun. 

Here is what it says about the Russian test on page 16 of Martin Gardner's book "Relativity Simply Explained":
One famous test was made by Russian astronomers in 1955, using light from opposite sides of the rotating sun.  One edge of our sun is always moving toward us, the other edge always moving away.  It was found that light from both edges travels to the earth with the same velocity.
But the book contains no reference for that comment, nor does it even mention the names of the Russian astronomers.  The same with another "popular" science book that also mentions that Russian test.  And a Google search finds only those two books, and no other mention of the "Russian test."

But what really put things into the "overwhelming" category was a discussion I had on the Facebook "Science, Philosophy and Psychology Discussion" group where, on May 8, I posted a link to my Second Postulate paper.  I'd thought the brief discussion generated by my post had died out, but then on Friday, someone suddenly posted this comment:
I STILL don't see anything from MIT about it? How do you account for that?
I politely explained the slow but steady progress I was making with submitting my papers, and then I added
I assume MIT teaches what everyone else teaches, because they don't know any better.
But, as soon as I had posted that comment I started wondering about MIT.  They are basically an engineering school, and engineers should have a very different view of test results than what many or most mathematician seem to have.

So, I started searching for what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has to say about time dilation and Einstein's second postulate.  The first item of interest I found was some "lecture notes" by Scott Hughes dated 15 March 2005.  Those notes have this as the Second Postulate:
2. The speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.
That's not what Einstein's Second Postulate says, but it isn't necessarily wrong, either.  It all depends upon how you view "frames of reference."

I then found another set of "lecture notes" dated December 5, 2004.  Those notes have this as the Second Postulate:
Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same value c.
That is also not what Einstein's Second Postulate says, but, once again, it isn't necessarily wrong.  It just doesn't say anything about different observers. 

Yet another set of lecture notes from the summer of 2008 has this as the Second Postulate:
2. The speed of light is the same for “everybody.” 
Also not Einstein's Second Postulate, but not necessarily wrong, either.

I kept digging, and I found some videos of lectures given in 2013 by Professor Walter H. G. Lewin, including Lecture #23 which is about the Doppler Effect.  That was close enough to what I was looking for, so I started watching and listening.  Part of the description of the lecture said,

2. Doppler Shift of Electromagnetic Radiation:

Electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light, c, in vacuum. If a source of light has a velocity component towards you, the frequencies that you will observe will be higher than those of the emitted radiation, and the received wavelengths will be shorter (blue-shift) than the emitted wavelengths. If the source is receding from you the received wavelength is longer (red-shift).
In other words, if you are an observer and the light source is moving, light will reach you at c + v, where v is the velocity of the light source.  That supports what I wrote in my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate: It is true according to "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" which says that the speed you will observe can include the motion of the emitter, but it is not true according to the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which claims that all observers will see light arriving at c regardless of the movement of the source or the observer.  However, it appears it is not true according to the 1955 Russian test. 

So, I listened to and watched the lecture.  Prof. Lewin begins by talking about sound waves and how they change frequency (or "pitch") if the source is coming toward you or going away from you.  And he does some demonstrations to prove it.  Then, at the 8 minute mark, he starts talking about light waves.  He says,
I now want to change to electromagnetic waves.  Electromagnetic waves travel with the speed of light, which is 300,000 kilometers per second.  And if you want to treat that correctly, you would have to use Special Relativity.  In the case of sound, I stressed repeatedly that you in the audience should not move, but that the sound source is moving.  In the case of electromagnetic radiation, when you deal with the speed of light, you don't have to ask that question.  It is a meaningless question in relativity to ask whether you are moving relative to me or whether I am moving relative to you, it doesn't matter.  All that matters in Special Relativity is the relative motion.  So, you can always think of yourself as standing still and make the source of electromagnetic radiation move to you or away from you, relative to you.
Who is moving may be meaningless mathematically and in "Relativity" as the Professor discusses it, but it definitely has meaning in reality.  In the fantasy world of mathematicians where only you and I exist in totally empty space, it may not matter or make any difference if I am moving away from you at 25,000 miles per hour or if you are moving away from me at 25,000 mph.   But, in the reality of our real universe it makes a great difference  If the Earth is behind me while I am moving away from you at that speed, I will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere in an hour, while, if you are moving away from me, you will be reaching the moon in a few days.

In reality, if you are moving toward me and emitting light toward me, you will measure the light traveling at c.  If I am moving toward you, on the other hand, I will measure the light you emitted as coming toward me at c + v, where v is my speed.

In reality, if I am stationary while watching a pair of rotating binary stars, the light from the star moving away from me will be red-shifted and the star that is moving toward me will be blue-shifted, as one would expect.  However, if I am also moving away from those rotating binary stars, then the light from the star that is moving away from me will be additionally red shifted, and the star that is moving toward me will be less blue shifted compared to when I was standing still.  And, if I'm moving toward the binary star that is coming toward me, its light should be additionally blue shifted, and the binary star that is moving away from me as I move toward it may not be red or blue shifted at all at some point in its orbit.  While we are definitely moving relative to one another, we are also moving relative to the rest of the universe.  So, in reality it does matter who is moving, even if a mathematician typically doesn't care.   

At the 13 minute 30 second mark, Professor Lewin says something else that was extremely interesting to me.   He says,
In astronomy, in optical astronomy, we cannot measure the period or the frequency of optical light.  All we can measure is the wavelength.
I've been arguing with mathematicians that you cannot measure the speed of light coming from stars.  They've been arguing that you can.  The statement above says I  am right.  Not only can't you measure the speed of light, you cannot even measure the frequency of light waves coming from some distant source.

I cannot use transcribed quotes from an on-line lecture as a reference in my paper, so I need to find a text book or documented source that says that.  It also requires a minor change to my Second Postulate paper, because my paper currently implies that if you can measure the wavelength, you can also measure the frequency by simply assuming that the speed of light is c

There were other interesting things I noticed on MIT's web site, but they'll have to wait for me to comment on them until after I've studied them further.

Comments for Sunday, May 14, 2017, thru Saturday, May 20, 2017:

May 20, 2017 - DAMMIT!!  This morning I received another email from that Canadian journal claiming they haven't received the previous emails I sent them telling them I withdraw my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  The latest email is different in that it says (with my highlighting in red):
if we do not hear from you by May 25, we will withdraw your paper from publication in [our journal].
So, even if they do not receive my latest email, they will still withdraw it.  That's a relief.  I looked through the previous emails they sent me to see if I could find other email addresses.  I found one and sent my latest response to both addresses. One address was to the "editor" and the other was to "admin."   It seems like the latest ones I sent to "admin" are not getting received, or they are claiming they are not getting received.  I never had any problems with earlier emails sent to "editor."  Obviously, I should have been sending my emails to both addresses, instead of just to the one who sent me the email.

It's still a lousy way to run a business.

Okay.   About an hour after I sent the email, the editor sent a response stating
Following the instructions contained in your e-mail of 20 May 2017, I would like to inform you that the above paper has been withdrawn from publication in [our journal].
Whew!  Finally!  They sent the notification as a formal .doc letter with their letterhead.  Maybe that is what they wanted from me.  But, more likely, it was sending the withdrawal email to the "editor" that did the trick.  I got the feeling that the "editor" really wanted to publish the paper, but the "admin" wanted $508 from me.  The "admin" assumed I was just trying to negotiate for a lower fee, and ignored any emails which might smell of a negotiating tactic.  But that's just the feeling I got.  I'll never know exactly what was going on there.

May 17, 2017 - This morning I finished what turned out to be a major overhaul of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate in order to incorporate five newly created illustrations.  The paper now has 6,157 words, so it is still a long ways from the 8,000 word minimum required by a scientific journal where I had been thinking of submitting the paper. 

This morning I created a list of the top 45 science journals in the astrophysics and physics fields.  Here it is:

List of 45 top physics journals

The full list contains 227 journals, but the first part of the list gives an idea of the problems I have in finding the right journal for my papers.  The red X's in the leftmost column indicate journals that aren't in the field of physics where my paper would fit.  Example: #20 - Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.  The red M's in the leftmost column indicate journals which focus on mathematics.  My papers have virtually no mathematics. On the right side of the the Title column, I added notes indicating other problems, such as printing costs (which I won't pay), word limits (my longest paper is 6,100 words, my shortest is 3,400 words), and journal which only print articles from authors they invite to write for them.  As you can see, that leaves just 7 out of the 45, and 2 of those seem to be in a language other than English.  I have a note that another seems to be a pay-to-publish journal (but I haven't yet dug through their web page to find exactly how much they charge) and another has an Editor in Chief who is a well-known mathematician-physicist university professor who I have argued is teaching crap.  So, that just leaves just 3.

Those 3 could also be wrong for me, but I just haven't yet dug through their web sites to find the problem.  The journal that currently has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity is in the top 100.  Someone suggested I try the journal that is #220 on the list, but I'd like to work through the list from the top down. 

So, the next task on my list of things to do is to find the right journal for my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  Along with way, I'll probably learn a lot more about how the scientific journal publishing business works.  

May 15, 2017 - Hmm.  One of the first things I do every morning is check my web site logs.  Looking at the access log for yesterday, I saw that I had an unusual number of first-time visitors to this web site, including one from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Naperville, Illinois.  I can only wonder what caused the surge.  I typically get 1, 2 or 3 first-time visitors every day, but yesterday these 10 were all first-time visitors:
12:04 p.m.           Bilbao, Spain  
12:38 p.m.           Bayern, Germany     
1:11 p.m.             Palo Alto, CA       
2:32 p.m.             Denver, CO    
2:33 p.m.             Grimstad, Norway    
3:30 p.m.             Naperville, IL      
4:21 p.m.             Richmond, BC, Canada
4:42 p.m.             Dayton, OH          
8:35 p.m.             Montreal, Canada    
10:19 p.m.           Toronto, Ontario    
Other than that they all occurred in the afternoon (my time), I couldn't see any pattern to them, however.  There was no surge in readers of my papers, nor did the comment I tried posting to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group get out of the "pending approval" stage, where it has been for over a week. 

Meanwhile, the status of my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity remains unchanged.  It has only been 24 hours, but it is still in the hands of an editor, meaning the editor has not yet decided if the paper should be sent out for peer review.  Here is what it shows on the status page for my paper:

Paper #1
                            Status #1  

So, I'm just going to continue revising my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to include illustrations.  It isn't just a matter of plunking in some illustrations.  The illustrations need to be explained, and that results in changing the way a lot of other things are explained.  In some ways, "a picture is worth a thousand words," but in other ways a picture can provide a different way of looking at things, which can generate an additional thousand words of clarification.

I also found that I needed to really understand how an interferometer works.   I need to understand it well enough to explain in a few words what takes pages of explanation elsewhere.  But, it is all very interesting, and I have no deadlines, so I can study things at my leisure.

May 15, 2017 - At 9:07 a.m. this morning, I submitted my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity to a major scientific journal that is well known for publishing controversial articles.  I was a little stunned when I reached a web page during the submission process which has a line at the bottom which says "The charges are $1,150 per article."  However, the charges seem to only apply if you want your article to be printed in color.   I made it clear in my response comment that I do not want the color option (the paper has no illustrations) and that the $1,150 cost per article would therefore not apply to me.  And, I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere else on the web site that the charges only apply if you want your article printed in color. 

Here is what they said in a form-letter email telling me that the submission process was successfully completed:

If it is deemed suitable for our journal, it will be sent for peer review and we will endeavour to send you a first decision within three months

If your manuscript is not considered suitable for our journal (to be decided by the editorial board), we will let you know as soon as possible.
Well, at least I won't have to wait for three months to learn that they rejected it.  And they provide a status web site which I can check to see what is happening with the paper.

Meanwhile, I awoke this morning realizing that I definitely need illustrations in my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  I need to carefully explain the difference in measuring the speed of light the standard way, by bouncing photons off a mirror inside a vacuum chamber, versus measuring the speed of light by checking the wave frequency.  My paper about the Second Postulate doesn't indicate that there is a difference, and there definitely IS a difference in what experimental results would show.  Merely explaining that difference might be worth a paper all by itself.  But, I'll be including it in a paper that is about much much more.  It's just going to take awhile to create the illustrations and to make the change to the text.

Yesterday, a scientist at Fermilab (which is located just west of Chicago) wrote a comment about me and my Second Postulate paper on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity Discussion forum where I've been discussing my papers.  Here is his entire comment with only his name removed:

I have looked at this paper. I can predict that no reputable peer-reviewed physics journal will publish it, because it makes so many very basic errors, and its basic approach is just plain wrong -- he attempts to distinguish what he thinks is an "emitter only theory" from what is taught in many classes; the error is LAKE'S, and Einstein's ACTUAL theory is not at all "emitter only" (quite the opposite, because he EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of
light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter).

As I have said before, Ed Lake cannot read, and this paper displays that repeatedly. I'll only point out a few places where it is just plain wrong, and in direct conflict with Einstein's 1905 paper.

Lake titles section II "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory", but that is a
falsehood, and this "emitter only theory" is PURE FABRICATION on the part of Ed Lake, Einstein had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

To start with, Lake uses the WRONG STATEMENT of Einstein's postulates -- he used Einstein's INTRODUCTION to them, not the actual statements (which are in section I.2). Lake claims "Einstein said nothing about what any other observer might see or measure." which is true for the introduction, but BLATANTLY FALSE for the
paper itself -- Lake OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper.

For instance, in Section I.3 Einstein says "We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c", and then does so by considering a spherical wave in the "stationary system", concluding "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system."

Lake claims "The emitting body’s velocity (referred to as v) cannot be added to the speed of light being emitted, since c + v would produce a speed greater than the maximum that light can travel." -- he OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper, as in section I.5 Einstein derives the equation for the composition of velocities, and says "the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light". So the emitting body's velocity is NOT "added to the speed of light being emitted", it is COMPOSED as Einstein showed, and the result of the composition is c.

Lake claims "an observer approaching the source of light will measure the light to arrive at c + v, where v is his velocity, and if the observer is moving away from the source of the light, he will measure the light to arrive at c – v" -- this is ENTIRELY DUE TO LAKE, and is INCONSISTENT with what Einstein said in his paper: Einstein showed that the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to both his "stationary system" and his "moving system", and since these are both
arbitrary, relative to ANY inertial system.

Lake completely missed the basic point of Einstein's paper, and claims:
When Einstein wrote that the Second Postulate “is only apparently irreconcilable with” the First Postulate, he seems to have been referring to the fact that while the observer standing next to the emitter measures light he emits as moving at a speed that is independent of his own speed, that fact does not necessarily apply to light he may measure coming from another source outside of his frame of reference.
This is completely wrong, and Lake is just fantasizing, not reading Einstein's paper. Einstein was discussing the APPARENT inconsistency between his two postulates: until this paper people assumed the PoR required Galilean invariance, and that is indeed inconsistent with Einstein's second postulate -- the paper shows that there is no inconsistency when one uses Lorentz invariance.  Einstein showed the OPPOSITE of Lake's claim: that an observer will measure the (vacuum) speed of light to be c, regardless of whether it is emitted by a source at rest in the observer's frame, or moving relative to it. Indeed this is the statement of Einstein's second postulate, which Lake has OBVIOUSLY NEVER READ:

   2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of coordinates
      with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
      stationary or by a moving body.

As Lake is so profoundly confused, I'll spell it out: consider the observer's frame  to be the "stationary system". This second postulate then says the observer will measure light to propagate at c in his frame, even when the source of the light is not at rest in his frame. So it DOES apply "to light he may measure coming from another source outside of his frame of reference".

Lake's paper is hopeless. He needs to learn how to read, and then needs to actually READ and LEARN about the subject before attempting to write about it.
I am showing the entire comment because it consists entirely of personal attacks and arguments that his interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate is correct and my interpretation is wrong, which is just his opinion.

My paper is about all the experiments which have confirmed that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and that the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" is incorrect.  No where in his post does the Fermilab physicist even mention those experiments and what they showed.

In previous discussions where I tried to get him to discuss experiments, he would change tactics and argue that the experiments do not show what the scientific papers claim they show.  Basically, he'd argue that the experimenters were all incompetent, although he would never use that term in that way.  He would argue that the experimenters were all misled by "signals" that somehow negate the test results.  And when I tried to get him to explain to me how those "signals" work, he'd just tell me I am too stupid to understand, since his explanations would consist of mathematical jargon and formulas, and it's evidently not possible (for him) to provide any explanation in plain English.

That is why I stopped posting there (for now).  It's all just opinions and personal attacks.  Plus, of course, I'm pretty much done with my research (or so I think at this moment) and I have a lot of other things to do, like revising the Second Postulate paper to include illustrations and a description of the differences in the two different ways of measuring the speed of light.

Busy busy busy.  And it is totally fascinating work.

May 14, 2017 - I guess it is time to seriously get down to business.  I think I've done enough research to be certain that my papers are based on solid logic and solid science.  I've argued enough with people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum to know that they have no more worthwhile things to say.  They have started acting like obnoxious 12-year-olds, calling me names and playing stupid games like complaining that the links to the statistics for my papers on viXra.org do not work.  (They deliberately scrambled parts of their copies of the links to make certain they would not work.)  It is all reminiscent of the years I spent arguing with conspiracy theorists and True Believers about the anthrax attacks of 2001.   Plus, I see this morning that they've all turned to arguing with each other.  There is no reason for me to interrupt.  

Putting links to one of my papers on Facebook accomplished little.  All I got was lots of people clicking on "like" and a few comments about how much Richard Feynman is admired.  (I mentioned him in my comment about my paper.)  Plus, the one Facebook group where I was really hoping to get some helpful comments (Astrophysics and Physics) still hasn't accepted it.  After 6 days, it still shows as "pending approval." 

And the emails from that Canadian journal have stopped, so I'm going to assume that they have finally accepted the fact that I withdrew my paper.

That means I can focus on submitting the two papers to other scientific journals.  I've decided on a journal to try for my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  But, that journal prefers that all articles be submitted in LaTeX format.  I'm becoming fairly adept at doing that by formatting things using LaTeX via Overleaf.com, but it still takes a long time to get things coded properly.  I know the basic steps, but I haven't memorized all the different codes that are used for sections, references, italics, boldface, etc.

For awhile I thought I was almost ready to submit my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate somewhere, too.  However, yesterday I learned that, while a scientific paper I mention and reference in my paper was written by a NASA scientist, and it was about using a reflector that NASA left on the moon, the actual experiment described in the paper was done by the University of California - San Diego, not by NASA.  No one would ever get that from reading the paper.  It doesn't even mention the University of California.  So, I'll have to change what my paper says about who did the experiments -- which should be a relatively minor change.  Interestingly, it seems to mean that UCSD is probably teaching nonsense about Einstein's Second Postulate even though they've done experiments which confirm that they are teaching nonsense.  I also keep thinking I should add some explanatory graphics to my paper.  Those would take some time to create.

I've also been wondering if I can combine the two papers into one paper.  There is one highly ranked journal that I'd like to try, but they have an 8,000 word minimum for articles (with a 12,000 word maximum).  My Time Dilation article is about 3,500 words, and my Second Postulate article is about 5,500 words.  I've decided to submit the Time Dilation paper to a journal tomorrow or the next day, depending upon how long it takes me to get the LaTeX formatting done.  So, I'll have to wait to see what the results are before I can seriously think about combining the two papers.  The idea is intriguing, though.  Both papers are about experiments which show how the universe works, and how scientists are not paying any attention to what countless experiments prove.  Plus, the problems described in both papers stem from a common source - the  mathematicians' belief that Einstein's theories of relativity are about everything being reciprocal.  I.e., that there is no way to tell who is moving when two objects pass each other in space.  In real life we can tell.  But it seems you'll never get a mathematician to accept that it is a fact that a car crashed into a tree, since he'll argue that it is just as likely that the tree crashed into the car.  If you argue that the car was moving and the tree wasn't, he'll immediately start ranting about how the earth is moving, too.  It is turning on its axis, it is moving around the sun, and it is moving with the sun around the universe.  So, everything is moving, which means the tree could have crashed into the car.

That is the kind of argument I have been getting on the Google forum for months.  They also believe time dilation is reciprocal, even though experiments show that to be total nonsense. 

So, I've got a lot of work lined up.  As soon as I upload this comment, I'll get back to work on converting my Time Dilation paper to LaTeX format.  It really looks nice when typeset for that journal.

Other interests:

fake picture of snow on
                    the pyramids
 Click HERE for an analysis of this fake photo.

January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

© 2017 by Ed Lake