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, Feb. 26, 2017, thru Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017:

February 26, 2017 - I think I'm getting a better understanding of the thought processes of the members of the "Mathematics Gang."  I've said before that they only seem to understand mathematics, therefore they can only explain things in mathematical terms.  I believe that I, on the other hand, view things as a scientist views them, by looking at facts and evidence as seen in our world.

Here's a brief summary of one conversation I had on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum, in a thread titled "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?":

I began by paraphrasing Isaac Newton, arguing that in our universe an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity unless it is acted upon by an outside force.  

"Rotchm" responded by arguing "
Consider a brick wall. You jump in a car and travel at 50mph towards it.  The wall now has speed 50 mph towards you. What force caused that wall to suddenly approach you?"

I responded, "
If I jump in a car and travel at 50 mph toward a wall, in my universe I am moving toward the wall, the wall is NOT moving toward me. Therefore, NO force caused the wall to move toward me."

Rotchm responded, "
Why isn't it then 50 + 1000 mph (speed of the equator wrt EC) ? Or why not 50 + 67000 MPH (orbital speed of the earth). Why must the 50 mph be the "real" one?"

Today I probably could come up with a much better response, but at that time I responded by saying he was arguing "mathematical gibberish."

And someone calling himself "
Python" responded with this: "What you call 'mathematical gibberish' is the foundation of physics for almost four centuries, Mr Lake. You'd better learn what Galileo, Newton, and other did before pretending studying Einstein's work. "

So, we got nowhere.  In mathematics, a wall hitting my car at 50 mph is just as valid as my car hitting a wall at 50 mph.  And when I try to talk about the "real world," the response is always that in the "real world" everything is moving and therefore there is no way to prove whether the wall hit my car or my car hit the wall.

That same argument is what first got me into discussions about relativity, years ago.  The mathematicians love to talk about two space ships passing each other in an empty universe.  With no outside frame of reference, how can the spacemen tell who is moving and who is standing still?  Each will see his own ship as standing still and the other ship as moving.  And that was argued to be the essence of relativity.  There is no way to know who is moving and who is not.

I argued that our "real universe" is NOT empty, there are countless objects that can be used as a reference to tell who is moving and who is not.  The essence of Einstein's theories of relativity is that wh
at we each observe and measure is our own personal view, not a reality upon which everyone can agree.  But walls have no point of view.   To the mathematicians, however, every object is moving and has its own point of view, so there is simply no way to tell what is really moving or how fast it is moving.

And nothing I can say will convince them that that is NOT the only way to view things.  After all, I can argue, we DID compute fuel requirements to send a space probe to Pluto and the numbers worked fine.  A very different amount of fuel would have been needed to bring Pluto to the space probe.  And the engines would have to be placed differently.

The mathematician's response to that is that I just do not understand physics.

I probably could have constructed a better argument if I wasn't arguing with several people at the same time and trying to argue as fast as I could.

Sometimes, when I reach the point in discussions with mathematicians where they refuse to even attempt to explain their beliefs, I quote Albert Einstein:
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
And the "Mathematics Gang" will sometimes respond with this quote from Richard Feynman:
"If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."
Interestingly, last week someone sent me an email about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  The writer seemed to want to side with the mathematicians in that an outside observer would also measure the speed of light coming at 299,292,458 meters per second.  He could not add his velocity to the speed of the oncoming light.

That caused me to re-imagine the situation by having two baseball players running toward each other while one throws a ball to the other. 

Suppose the pitcher and an outfielder are running toward each other and both are running at 5 mph.  The pitcher throws the ball to the outfielder at 45 mph.  The ball's speed is  pitcher's running speed plus his throwing speed of 40 mph.  The oncoming outfielder catches the ball which arrives as if it was traveling at 50 mph, the pitcher's speed, the throwing speed plus the outfielder's speed.  

That's the way things work with baseballs here on Earth.  The speed of light is different in that there is a fixed speed at which light can travel.  If we assumed that a baseball also has a fixed speed, that speed in the above analogy would be 45 mph.  It would mean that if the pitcher ran at 10 miles per hour, his throwing speed would be 35 miles per hour.  Together, they would still equal the fixed speed of 45 mph.  If the pitcher was standing still instead of running, he would then throw the ball at 45 mph.  The pitcher's momentum or energy and the ball's momentum or energy always total a throwing speed of 45 mph.

The outfielder's movements, however, have no effect on the pitcher's throwing speed or the amount of energy or momentum expended by the pitcher, or the fixed speed.  If the outfielder stands still, the thrown ball will arrive at 45 mph.  If the outfielder runs toward the pitcher at 5 mph, the ball will arrive at 50 mph.  If he runs toward the pitcher at 10 mph, the ball will arrive at 55 mph.  If the outfielder runs away from the pitcher at 10 mph, the ball will arrive at 35 mph.  The fixed speed is not changed by anything the outfielder does.

Only the pitcher is expending energy to make the ball move.  So, only the pitcher is encountering the rule about the fixed speed.  But, just like the wall hitting the car, mathematicians seemingly cannot envision the energy that is needed to make the ball, the car and the light wave to move.  All they can envision is a mathematical equation which must work equally well in both directions.  One "observer" cannot have powers that the other observer doesn't have.  They evidently view that as a violation of Einstein's First Postulate:  "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

The First Postulate says that if the pitcher throws the ball, he cannot throw it faster than 45 mph, and if the outfielder throws the ball, he cannot throw it faster than 45 mph.  The "equations of mechanics" hold good in those two situations.  The "equations of mechanics" do NOT hold good if the laws of electrodynamics are violated by trying to argue that the person who throws the ball expends the same amount of energy to move the ball as the person who catches it. 

And that is also the way light works.  What the outside observer measures can be very different from what the emitter measures.  All the experiments which are used to claim otherwise only measure the speed of the pitcher and the speed of the ball, not the speed of the outfielder.

The best instance of a real measurement of how the speed of the outfielder (i.e., the outside observer) does not affect the speed of the ball (i.e., the speed of light) is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment performed by NASA in 2008.  In that experiment, a pulse of laser light was sent by a ground station to a reflector on the moon.  The reflector (the pitcher) bounced the pulse (the ball) back to the ground station (the outfielder) which was moving toward the reflector due to the rotation of the earth.   The abstract in the NASA scientist's paper stated:
Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements.  
In other words, the ball was measured to exceed the throwing speed by the exact speed the outfielder was moving toward the pitcher.

What is most interesting about the NASA paper is that the author cannot understand how his experiment can disagree with what the mathematicians and what he believes to be true.  The experiment disagreed with the NASA scientist's beliefs!!!   He evidently also could not understand this quote from physicist Richard Feynman:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
There have been other NASA projects where they had similar results.  Those projects are said to have produced "anomalies."

This morning I see that the physicist who works at Fermilab is arguing this about the NIST experiment where NIST scientists observed clocks ticking at different rates when one was higher than the other:

It simply is not possible to observe two clocks at different locations without using SIGNALS. The the effect of gravitation is not on the clocks, but rather on how those signals are measured.
And, of course, he won't explain what the "SIGNALS" are, nor how gravitation can affect the signals differently when the clocks are identical and record their times on internal microchips.  

So, I'm arguing with scientists at NASA and Fermilab.  If the person who has the best credentials is automatically the person who is right, then I'd be wrong.  That may be what the scientist at Fermilab argues, but he's really arguing with the scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), not with me.  I'm just explaining how the NIST experiments disprove the Fermilab scientist's mistaken beliefs.

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 19, 2017, thru Saturday, Feb. 25, 2017:

February 23, 2017 (B) - While eating lunch this afternoon, I finished reading a book on my Kindle: "The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos" by Leonard Mlodinow.  It's the same book I listened to on CDs in my car and finished on January 3.  I decided then to get the Kindle version from my local library so I could actually read it and copy certain passages from it.  Here are four of the passages I copied:
What we each observe and measure is therefore no more than our own personal view, not a reality upon which everyone can agree. That is the essence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

Refusing to accept quantum theory as the final word, Einstein never stopped believing that it would eventually be replaced with an even more fundamental theory that would restore the traditional concept of cause and effect. In 1905 he had published his three papers, each of which changed the course of physics; for the rest of his life he tried in vain to do it again—to reverse what he had started. In 1951, in one of his last letters to his friend Michele Besso, Einstein admitted he had failed. “All these fifty years of pondering,” he wrote, “have not brought me any closer to answering the question, What are light quanta?”

Quantum theory says that objects don’t have precise properties such as position and velocity, and what’s more, if you try to measure them, the more precisely you measure one, the less precisely you can measure the other. In everyday life, we certainly do seem to be able to measure position and velocity as precisely as we wish. This seems to contradict the uncertainty principle, but when you run through the math of quantum theory, you find that the masses of everyday objects are so large that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant for the phenomena of daily life. That is why Newtonian physics worked well for such a long time—it was only when physicists began dealing with phenomena at the atomic scale that the limits of the Newtonian promise become apparent.

Objects do have definite values for quantities like position and velocity, he [Einstein] believed, but quantum theory just cannot handle them. Quantum mechanics, Einstein said, though undeniably successful must be an incomplete embodiment of a deeper theory that restores objective reality. Though few other than Einstein shared that belief, for many years it was a possibility that no one could rule out, and Einstein went to his grave thinking he would someday be vindicated.
Unfortunately, I don't think those passages will resolve any of the disputes I'm currently involved in.

February 23, 2017 (A) - I awoke this morning thinking that it was time to stop arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  Yesterday's arguments were all repetitive nonsense and personal attacks, nothing worthy of a response.

Then, this morning I checked the discussion thread I'd created about "Time Dilation Experiments Versus Disbelievers" and found two posts in response to comments I had made early yesterday, posts that were from someone who is evidently a physicist at Fermilab.  Both of his comments contained statements that were clearly wrong, in my opinion, but one contained comments that I could easily SHOW and PROVE to be wrong, so I had to respond. 

He had argued that I has misread the paper on "Optical Clocks and Relativity" written by scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).  As usual, it was just his opinion or CLAIM without any support.  He claimed a 75-meter-long cable was used in a gravitational time dilation experiment and thereby invalidated the results of the experiment.  So, I quoted from two different parts of the NIST paper to show he clearly and undeniably misunderstood what was written.  The cable was used in the velocity time dilation experiment and was an essential part of that experiment.  It was not used in the gravitational time dilation experiment.

He also argued that scientists cannot look at atomic clocks that measure differences in time and see a difference.  I found an Encyclopedia Britannica illustration of an atomic clock and the digital display device that scientists can use to look at the time being measured by the atomic clock:

atomic clock digital readout
I assume he will now argue that the image is a cartoon and not a photograph, or that it is just an illustration created for the public that doesn't represent how the equipment really works, since that would be too complicated for the hoi polloi.

Or, more likely, he will just stop posting and reappear to argue the same things some time in the future.   If so, I may just ignore him at that time.  But, right now I'm really awaiting to see if and how he will respond to what I just posted.

Added note:  There was a posted message from him this afternoon, but it was just a response he wrote to his own comment, adding some additional comments that only demonstrate that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a mathematical model and real life.

I also keep thinking of the TV series "Eureka," which I've been binge watching for about a month.  It's about an ordinary guy (like me, except he happens to be the local sheriff) who works in a town full of government employed geniuses who are constantly causing their scientific experiments to wreak havoc on the town.  The geniuses always seem to stand around scratching their heads while the sheriff has to figure out what happened and how to fix things.  I can relate.

February 21, 2017 - I awoke this morning realizing that the paper I've been writing about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity needs to be revised and delayed.  I cannot simply state that there is a "Law of Nature" that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and therefore light emitted from a moving spaceship cannot travel at the speed of the spaceship plus the speed of light.  I need to explain WHY nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  Why is it a "law"?

The answer to that goes back to Time Dilation and the question "What is Time?"  And that means I need to get my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" published first.  That will set the stage for a paper on "What is Time?"  And then I have a paper already written about how light works.  I need to get that paper published.  Then the stage will be set for a paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.

Sigh!   I've got a lot of work to do.  And everything depends upon getting the first paper published.  The first paper is about undeniable evidence showing that Time Dilation is a real, natural phenomenon.  And that is where the arguments begin.  The mathematicians argue that time dilation is "just an illusion."  They argue that time cannot "run slow," it can only be a different velocity at one point in time versus another point in time.  One mathematician even argued, in effect, that the scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) must be incompetent if they believe that their 2010 experiment actually confirmed that time speeds up for an object when that object is moved farther from the center of the Earth.

It's almost as much a psychology problem as it is a physics problem.  I need to know how to change people's minds.  To do that I need to talk about evidence and force them to reject or ignore the evidence just because it conflicts with their beliefs.  That will separate them from the scientists who believe as Richard Feynman believed, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

My theory (which is my interpretation of Einstein's theories) agrees with experiments.  The misinterpretation of Einstein's theories that mathematicians argue and believe does not agree with experiments.           

February 20, 2017 - I check my access logs every day to see who has been visiting this web page.  For quite a while I've been noticing that there are a lot of attempts to access a non-existent file named "wp-login.php."   Every time an attempt is made, they get a 404 ("no such file") response.  There is no such file on my web site.  Here's what a sample from my Saturday morning log file looked like with the nine wp-login.php file entries underlined that were logged between midnight and 2:18 a.m.:

web site log

Yesterday, I did a Google search for "wp-login.php" to see what I could learn about that file.  I found a web site that says this:

There have now been several large scale WordPress wp-login.php brute force attacks, coming from a large amount of compromised IP addresses spread across the world since April 2013.

A large botnet of around 90,000 compromised servers has been attempting to break into WordPress websites by continually trying to guess the username and password to get into the WordPress admin dashboard.

Hmm.  I don't have a WordPress web site.  So, why are they bothering me?  And how long have they been bothering me?  I checked my log file for January 1, 2016 and there were no such entries.  I checked December 1, 2016.  Yes, there were such entries.  I finally narrowed the search down to mid-August 2016.  I saw attempts to POST a wp-login.php file to my site, and a lot of other related hack attempts.  Soon afterwards, the constant searches for wp-login.php began and have apparently continued ever since.

Checking the IP addresses to see where the posts come from, the first one on the sample page above is  That is a web site in Gurgaon, India.  The rest check out to be from: = Taiwan = United Arab Emirates = Las Vegas, Nevada = Los Angeles, California = Malaysia = Israel = Thailand = Poland
There might be some way to block the attempts, but they are effectively being blocked by the fact that there is no such file on my site.  And, I've got too many other things to do.  So, I'll just let it continue until they either go away or they create a real problem of some kind.

But, I can't help but wonder about all these people working to hack into web sites while a bunch of other people keep calling me with crank threats of various kinds.  Things didn't used to be this way.  Maybe we should hire back Agnes the telephone operator.  She'd screen out all this nonsense before it got to me, and I wouldn't have to even think about it.

February 19, 2017 - Wow!  It was a very busy week for me.  I kept wanting to write some kind of comment about what was going on, but then I'd get a new idea for a way to try to communicate with the "Mathematics Gang" on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  And, of course, I'd fail.  But, I'd found other ways to explain things, which meant I'd taught myself something.

When I use Einstein's actual words to shoot down their arguments, here is a typical response from the thread about "Measuring Time and Light":
Forget what E [Einstein] said; forget how he worded it. Some words had different meanings back then, and more so for the translations. All this has been cleaned up since and given its correct current English meaning.  
All they will discuss is their BELIEFS about what Einstein "really meant."  And when I point out that all the experiments show that they are wrong and what Einstein said is actually right, they misinterpret the experiments, too.  And then they attack me for not seeing what they see.

And the whole argument gets repeated over and over and over. 

At one point in the arguments with the "Mathematics Gang" about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity, I realized how simple the problem really is.  Here is the Second Postulate from page 1 of his 1905 paper:
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The "Mathematics Gang" and many (possibly tens of thousands of) others argue that what Einstein really meant was:
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of any observing body.
To show how totally WRONG their beliefs are, I tried using a simple illustration using key strokes, since the Google forum does not allow the use of actual illustrations.  I typed this:


And I described the illustration as Space Ship-A shining a beam of light forward as it approaches Space Ship-B at a velocity of .2c.  Meanwhile, Ship-B is traveling toward Ship-A at .2c.  The EMITTER's (Ship-A's) velocity cannot add to the speed of light, since that would violate a "law of nature," the light would travel faster than the speed of light.  And nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  So, the light Ship-A emits would travel at "a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body," just as Einstein stated in his Second Postulate.  

Ship-B, however, would measure the oncoming light as arriving at 1.2c, their velocity plus the speed of the light.  They are not the emitter.  Their velocity doesn't affect or change the speed of light.  It's just mathematics

That is the essence of the dispute over the Second Postulate.  The "Mathematics Gang" somehow believes that if Ship-A's velocity cannot be added to the speed of light, then Ship-B's velocity cannot be added to the speed of light, either.   

The "Mathematics Gang" wouldn't discuss my illustration without knowing what the speeds were "relative to."  They started using Ship-A's speed as a positive number, and Ship-B's speed as a negative number, so the speed of one ship could not be relative to the other ship.   They also argued that I cannot add speeds of light together because it's against their interpretation of the Second Postulate.

So, I change the "illustration" to this:


And I explained that the two ships are approaching each other while traveling toward a spot between Saturn and its innermost ring.   Their velocities are relative to the ring.  The "Mathematics Gang" refused to discuss that illustration and went into all sorts of mathematical gibberish as their reason.

I'd like to incorporate their arguments into a scientific paper about the Second Postulate, but, unfortunately, I can't use an asinine argument on a Google forum as a reference in a serious scientific paper.  However, I've made copies of the discussions in case I might want to incorporate parts of them into a book someday.

Interestingly, this morning I see three people who I've never seen post before have jumped to my defense.  And the "Mathematics Gang" immediately started attacking all three of them with vicious insults.  Sigh. 

Coincidentally, on Tuesday evening I rented and watched "Arrival," which is an excellent movie about a scientist/linguist trying to communicate with aliens from a distant world who speak a language so different that humans cannot even repeat the vocals, and the written language is all partial circles with raggedly sections, like Spanish moss growing on a hula hoop.  It is nearly indecipherable.  But the central character of the movie gradually makes headway.  After arguing with the "Mathematics Gang," I could really empathize with the central character of that movie.

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 12, 2017, thru Saturday, Feb. 18, 2017:

February 14, 2017 - This morning, I decided to refer to the group of physicist-mathematicians who attack me on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum as the "Mathematics Gang."  The problem with fighting this "gang" is that everyone who disagrees with the has a theory or cause of his own.  I'd thought that "Robert Winn" and I were beginning to see eye to eye, but suddenly he stopped posting messages to me and instead ranted this in another thread he had created:
I had a good job with a secure future.  Science shut down an entire industry.  It was called the lumber industry.  That does not make me hate scientists.  It just shows me how stupid they are.  Now let me give you the mathematics again.  In 1910 more than 3.5 million acres of trees burned in the western United States in the worst forest fires anyone had ever seen  about fifteen miles from where I grew up, a town of a thousand people burned to the ground.  You could still see where they houses had been.  It was a terrible tragedy.  

So a hundred years later, what is the situation?

Scientists have taken over the world.  Scientists took over the government and shut down the lumber industry to save the trees because they determined that a species of owl was declining in population.  How many trees are burning per year now?

Seven million acres per year.

You can get the statistics right on your television.  Betty White appears in an advertisement warning people that vehicles dragging chains on the highways can cause forest fires.  Seven million acres of trees burn every year now because of forest fires.  

That does not mean I hate scientists.  It means that I am aware that they are among the most stupid people on earth.  

So be honest.  Didn't you believe that scientists were saving the spotted owl?  

I never believed that scientists were saving the spotted owl.  Did you ever sit down and compute how many little spotted owls burn up in their nests every time you have one of these 500,000 acre forest fires?  Just a few months ago, we watched terrible fires in the state of Tennesee---in the month of November.  When I was growing up, the Forest Service used to have controlled burns in November because a forest fire was hard to start in that month.  I worked for a while as a firefighter for the Forest Service.  We used to fight forest fires in the month of August and put them out.  

So scientists impress me about as much as the scientific firefighters of today.  I can tell they do not know how to do what they say they are trying to do.  That does not mean I hate them.  I just think they are incompetent.  There is a difference between hating someone and thinking they are incompetent.     

Um ... okay.  That's not an argument I want to get into.

Meanwhile, another poster who calls himself "
Pentcho Valev" and who has problems with the "mathematics gang" provided a link to an interesting video:

The lecturer is Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy who appears to teach physics at Forman Christian College in Lahore, Pakistan.   Pentcho Valev and I seem to agree that what Prof. Hoodbhoy is teaching is nonsense.  The problem is, Pentcho Valev argues that it Einstein is behind this nonsense, and I argue that it is mathematicians who MISINTERPRETED Einstein who are behind it.

So, as I stated at the beginning of this comment, it appears that I'll never be able to get a group together to argue against the "Mathematics Gang" because everyone who opposes the "gang" has his own specific theory and cause.

Sigh.  I've certainly been in that position before.

February 13, 2017 - Hmm.  The guy I mentioned yesterday, who calls himself "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum started a new thread last night titled "Is Ed Lake a Fancy A.I. Troll Bot ????"   So far, he's been the only one to post to it, and what he posted isn't specifically about me, it's just a comment about an article on theverge.com titled  "Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist asshole in less than a day." 

It appears that "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller," "Odd Bodkin,  "tjrob137" and "rotchm" have staked out Google's forum as their private turf.  And they don't like outsiders coming onto their turf to argue against their beliefs.  They particularly do not like that I do not use their mathematics-based lingo.  In a post yesterday evening, "Odd Bodkin" wrote:

Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics terms.
If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses in that exchange is YOU."
To which I replied,
In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can ask, "Head?  What do you mean by 'head'?"  And he will be able to EXPLAIN, "I mean 'the toilet'."  He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet."  That would only show that the sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others.  And if the captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. 

In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the town before coming to town.  And the stranger realizes he is in a town full of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible
But, not everyone is a "jerk" on the forum.  I've been having a constructive discussion with someone called "Robert Winn" who appears to genuinely want to understand certain things about time dilation.  We've been discussing it for a few days without anyone calling anyone names.  This morning I saw that he'd posted this confusing statement in response to something I wrote about how time ticks faster the farther you are from the center of gravity:
If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock.
I misunderstood the statement at first, but then I decided to lay out the situation in the simplest terms I could come up with to make certain I understood what would be happening in a gravitational time dilation situation:
If I have a clock at street level that measures a "slow" second, a clock on the 100th floor of the building next to me will be 1000 feet higher and will tick at a faster rate, being farther from the center of gravity.

In other words, 1 second on the street will equal 0.999999998 seconds on the 100th floor.  A second will be shorter on the 100th floor.

So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the ground level, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 0.999999998th of a second on the 100th floor or slightly FASTER.

Looking at things from the reverse angle, 1 second on the 100th floor will equal 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level.

So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the 100th floor, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level or slightly SLOWER.  

If the frame of reference is the slower clock (i.e., the ground level clock), light is going FASTER in the frame of reference of the faster clock. 

Using "frames of reference" confuses things, it doesn't clarify things.  It simplifies things to use one frame of reference for the experiment, the frame of reference of the person doing the experiment.
And now I'm waiting or a response.   The mathematicians will probably argue that I didn't use complex mathematical terms in the above comment, as they demand from everyone posting to any thread on "their" forum.  And I'll respond that I created a new thread to get away from them, but they invaded the thread and started attacking me anyway.  So, it is them invading my territory, not me invading their territory.

I'm also thinking of starting a thread titled "How Time Dilation Works," which would start with the explanation about clocks on different floors of a building I reproduced above.   It's an explanation that I'd certainly like to discuss with someone.

I'll just have to wait and see what happens overnight.  Most people seem to post in the evenings, probably because they work during the day.  I post during the day and watch TV in the evenings.  I need the downtime to relax, otherwise I'd be up all night thinking about how to respond to some argument.

February 12, 2017 - I checked the latest "received" and "accepted" dates for some more papers sent to the scientific journal that has my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  Here they are in order by date received:
1.  Received: September 14, 2016; Accepted: January 19, 2017
2.  Received: August 23, 2016; Accepted: January 10, 2017
3.  Received: June 28, 2016; Accepted: January 5, 2017
4.  Received: June 22, 2016; Accepted: January 12, 2017
5.  Received: May 7, 2016; Accepted: January 31, 2017
6.  Received: January 11, 2016; Accepted: January 28, 2017
That's not very encouraging.  They received my paper on December 5, 2016.  If they are only now finishing papers from September, it could take another three months for them to peer review my paper!  Unfortunately, the rules say I cannot even ask them about the progress of my paper until after March 5 (three months after they received it). 

The problem is: I don't know if they've even assigned my paper to any peer reviewers.  It could just be sitting in a middle of a file of papers as they add newly received papers to the bottom of the file and once per month take papers off the top of the file to give to reviewers.

I keep feeling that maybe I should have sent it to a different journal, but I don't know that some other journal wouldn't work the same way.  And then I'll also read something that tells me I did send it to the right journal, because they seem to like to publish articles that are about relativity and are highly controversial.

Meanwhile, I'm still arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  I'm finding that there are people on the forum who agree with me, but that doesn't give us anything to argue about, so our discussions generally go nowhere. On the other hand, I'm now arguing on four different threads.  So, I'm arguing with different people than before.  That's producing interesting arguments. 

I also learned that I need to use the right words.  When talking about adding together the speed of light emitted by Object-A and the velocity of Observer-1, I need to use the term "closing speed."  "Closing speed" refers to two separate moving objects.  I'd been using "combined speed" and "composite speed," which can mean the speed of the emitter combined with the speed of light it emits.  

This morning I see a whole bunch of posts awaiting responses from me.  One of them (from "
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller") asked me to describe my thoughts on how to determine if the speed of light emitted in one location is the different from the speed of light emitted at another location.  I'd never laid out the steps before, but I did in response to that request.  Here are the steps as I defined them:
1.  Set up the standard equipment to measure the speed of light on the ground floor of a building.  The equipment includes an atomic clock.

2.  Set up the standard equipment to measure the speed of light 100 (or 10) meters higher in the same building.  The equipment includes an atomic clock.

3.  Set up TV equipment so an observer can view both clocks simultaneously.  

4.  Verify that the higher clock is ticking faster than the lower clock in accordance with general relativity.

5.  Place a third atomic clock next to the atomic clock used in the ground floor test.  Verify that the two clocks are synchronous.

6.  Raise the third atomic clock to be level with the higher test equipment.

7.  Verify that the raised clock agrees with Einstein's equations and is now ticking at the SAME rate as the atomic clock with the higher equipment.

8.  Measure the speed of light in both locations.

9.  Verify that both locations show the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL SECOND using the atomic clock with the equipment.

10.  Publish a paper describing the experiment and how it demonstrates that light emitted at different altitudes will travel at that different velocities due to the length of a second being different at the different altitudes.

11. Accept the Nobel Prize.
The response from David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller was just his opinion:
Of course, it is nothing like the Pound-Rebka experiment other than that they had two experiments at different heights in a building.  There was no measurement of time at the two locations, nor did they measure the speed of light at the two locations where the light was emitted.  They falsely assumed that the speed of light was the same in both locations and changed only because light was "falling" from the top of the building in one test and struggling against gravity to get to the top of the building in the other test.   

I'm not going to get into any opinion versus opinion argument.  So, maybe I'll be able to break away and get back to working on my scientific papers.  Maybe.

I feel I should also note that I began watching episodes of "Star Trek Voyager" back in June when the local "Heroes & Icons" cable channel began airing all five "Star Trek" series in order, six episodes of each series per week.  The 172nd and last episode of "Star Trek Voyager" aired on Tuesday.  And the next day they started airing the whole series over again.  I'd also watched  all 98 episodes of "Star Trek Enterprise," which ended and began over again months ago.  I watched more than half of the 173 episodes of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," which completed their run on Wednesday, even though I found it generally boring.  I have the original "Star Trek" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" on DVDs, so I can watch them again any time I want.    

I'm also watching Season 3.5 of "Eureka," and Season 3 of "Star Gate SG-1," which I have on DVDs.  So, I guess I qualify as a "science fiction fan."

I usually watch movies in the evenings, but lately I've been thinking so much about the paper I submitted for publication, and the other papers I'm in the process of writing, and the arguments I'm involved with on the Google forum, that I find it difficult to concentrate on a movie.  It's easier to watch a TV show, particularly a TV show that I've already seen, so that I don't really have to pay much attention and I can let my mind wander to other things.

I really really need some news about my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" so I can move on to the next step, whatever that might be.

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 5, 2017, thru Saturday, Feb. 11, 2017:

February 9, 2017 - While returning home from working out at the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to the 2-CD audio book version of "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics" by Carlo Rovelli.

Seven Brief Lessons on Physics

In book form it is only 88 pages, and the audio book lasts less than 2 hours.  Rovelli narrates the book himself, and he has a very thick accent (which sounds more German than Italian).  While it was an interesting book, it was often hard to follow when listening to it in 10 or 15 minute increments as I drove here and there around town.  I'll have to sit down on a couch and listen to the whole thing in one sitting someday. 

Meanwhile, I was responding to so many different people on the Google forum on Science, Physics and Relativity that I got a notification that I was exceeding the posting limit and that I had to wait awhile before posting again.  Plus, I was running into problems apparently caused by the thread being so long (now over 540 posts).  So, I tried starting a new thread titled "Measuring Time and Light."  We'll see how it goes.

February 7, 2016 - The discussions on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum are turning into mostly personal attacks and rantings about personal beliefs and opinions.  I'm trying to get a discussion going on either the Hafele-Keating experiments or the bizarre notion expressed by "tjrob137" and "Odd Bodkin" that the physics intelligentsia are lying to the general public about how "moving clocks run slow" when, actually (according to "tjrob137" and "Odd Bodkin"), clocks just change from one observed time to another. 

In hopes of spurring more discussion on this topic, I wrote:
Since they ALL seem to be lying about clocks "running slow" during time dilation, I'm wondering if the mathematical intelligentsia communicate via some news letter or something.  How do they all know to spout the same lies?

Here's an article from Nature magazine which says "time slows down for moving objects": http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100923/full/news.2010.487.html

Here's a web page from Boston University that says "Moving clocks run slow": http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html

Here's an article from the University of California Riverside about clocks running slow: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/movingClocks.html

Here's a lesson from the University of Virginia the explains how clocks run slow: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html

Here's a web page provided by the Max Planck institute on "moving clocks go slower": http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins

Here's an article from physics.org: http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=77

Here's a YouTube video from the World Science Festival titled "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks Tick Slower"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE

Here's a web page from the University of Oregon about clocks ticking slower: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec06.html

I could go on and on, but I'm wondering how you think all these people coordinate their lies about clocks running slow.  And why are college professors teaching this "lie" to their students?  
I seriously doubt that I'll get any kind of intelligent discussion going on that topic.  It seems that they only understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything except in terms of mathematics.  Maybe I'll be able to shift my focus back to the scientific papers I'm working on.

February 6, 2017 - I'm still arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  It's really getting bizarre. 

"Rotchm" argued:
Consider a brick wall. YOU jump in a car and travel at 50mph towards it.  The wall now has speed 50 mph towards you. What force caused that wall to suddenly approach you? 
And I responded,
It seems that physicists should be hired by drunk drivers who crash their cars in to trees.  The physicist could argue in court that it was the tree that crashed into the car, and therefore the owner of the property upon which the tree stands should be sued for reckless endangerment.

If you have no interest in what CAUSED the accident, then that would work just fine.  Apparently physicists and mathematicians do not care about CAUSES.  But the rest of the world does.
They seem to be trying to argue that the world of physics is the only real world.  And in the world of physics, a tree can crash into a car just as easily as a car can crash into a tree.  Try as I might, I cannot get them to discuss the real world.

Meanwhile, "tjrob137" argued,
The resolution of this [our debate] is staring you in the face but you refuse to recognize it: the "length of a second" does not vary, and is the same in all inertial frames. 
I responded,
No it is NOT.  The length of a second is DIFFERENT in all reference frames.  That is what relativity is all about.  Time slows down (i.e., the length of a second becomes longer) when an object moves.
"Tjrob137" also argued,
This is actually REQUIRED by SR [Special Relativity]: the PoR [Principle of Relativity?] says that the laws of physics that govern the ticking of a given clock must be the same in all inertial frames, so the tick rate of that clock MUST be the same in all inertial frames.
And I responded,
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!   The length of a second is NOT A LAW.  It is a VARIABLE.  The laws of physics are the same regardless of the length of a second or the speed of light.  At the top of a mountain the length of a second will be shorter than at the bottom of the mountain, but (to quote Einstein) the "same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."  Changing the length of a second does not change an equation or a law.
"Tjrob137" also argued,
As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, "time dilation" in SR simply CANNOT be modeled as "moving clock run slow" (even though all too many casual authors state it that way). That's because in SR "time dilation" is MUTUAL: for inertial observers A and B, A measures B's clock to run slow, and B measures A's clock to run slow. This is due to the way these particular GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS work, and cannot possibly be due to EITHER clock A or B "slowing down".
And I responded,
Then let's discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment where Hafele and Keating took four atomic clocks with them on two trips around the world.  The clocks ran SLOW due to their velocity, and the clocks ran FAST due to their height when in airplanes.  They calculated the expected changes in the clocks ahead of time, and the results were within the margin of error when they did the measurements after the end of the experiments.

Your arguments SEEMS to be that the clocks did not run slow or fast DURING the experiments, they just MAGICALLY changed upon completion of the experiments. 

Is that really what you believe?
Since "tjrob137" seems to only post in the evenings, there probably won't be a reply until tomorrow.  I'm very interested in what his replies might be.  If the past is any judge, he'll just stop posting for awhile and maybe start the same argument over again in a week or so. 

Studying his words, maybe the key is the part of a sentence that I highlighted red.  He needs to create a mathematical model of the situation in order to understand it, and there is no way to have something "running fast" in a mathematical model.  And there seems to be no way to get him to think about what is happening without reference to a mathematical model.  Hmm.  I'll have to think about that and write another response. 

February 5, 2017 - Wow!  What a busy week!  Nearly every day I spent hours arguing on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I decided it was better than just sitting around, watching TV and eating trail mix. 

I was arguing in the discussion thread titled "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?"which had only 7 posts on January 21, and as of this morning it has 303.  Since I'm arguing with at least 4 different people, I wondered how many posts were mine.  I did a count this morning and found that I have 75 posts in the thread, which is about 25% of the total.
  (17 more posts were done after I did the count.)

There were some VERY interesting arguments.  Since the people I'm arguing with seem unable to explain anything, I'm trying very hard to figure out what they are thinking.  And then I have to figure out a way to confirm it.

For example, it seems very clear that "tjrob137" believes that "time dilation" is an effect of the speed of light.  I.e., if you are farther from Clock-A than from Clock-B, it will take longer for light to reach you from Clock-A.  As a result, Clock-A will appear to you to show a time that is slightly behind that of Clock-B.  And that, he apparently believes, is how time dilation works.

We argued long and hard about the 2010 NIST experiment where they raised a clock by 1 foot and were able to measure the difference in the rate of time between the two levels.  "Tjrob137" would repeatedly twist things to argue that the clock MUST have been at different distances from the observer or the measuring equipment for that to happen.  The idea that time runs slower at the lower level than at the higher level is totally incomprehensible to him.

And it seems to be totally incomprehensible to the other three participants, too.  We argued for HOURS about what the expression "runs slow" means.  Time cannot "run slow," they argued.  It can only be different for one reading than for another.  To assume that time can somehow "run slow" to cause the difference is inconceivable. 

When I provided quotes from Einstein saying or implying that time "ran slow"  due to the movement of the clock or object, they would tell me that Einstein was wrong.  And they'd claim that everyone now knows he was wrong.

When I did a Google search "moving clocks run slow" (without the quotes) and provided many sources stating that time dilation causes time to "run slow," they argued that my sources were from the Internet, not from sources they recognize as being correct. 

I'm not sure what "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" thinks about it, since he seems to spend most of his time writing nasty insults about me.  However, it seems that there is one thing that "tjrob137," "rotchm" and "Odd Bodkin" agree upon, and that is that clocks do not "run slow" during time dilation.  There is only a difference between time measurements.  And they will not even address the question of what causes the difference in time measurements.  

According to "rotchm," "cause" is not a word or term used in physics.  He wrote, "The word 'cause' is not (operationally) defined. The concept of 'cause' is not needed, and does not appear in the models. I suggest you read the many *many* treatises of 'cause' in the philosophy literature and how it applies (or not) to physics & science."

It seems to be the primary difference between the mathematicians and scientists.  Mathematicians do not ask what causes 2 plus 2 to equal 4.  It just does.  They also do not ask what causes the time on a clock that moved to show a different time than on a clock that was not moved.  They are only interested in the results, which is t' < t.  One time is slower than another time.  No one cares why or what caused the difference.

And the idea that Clock-A ran slower while it was moving is just plain absurd.  Time does not run slower.  Time always runs at the same rate everywhere. 

It might be interesting to try to get them to discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment where Joseph Hafele and Ricard Keating first computed how time would slow down due to velocity time dilation and speed up due to gravitational time dilation if they flew around the world in an airplane. 
Hafele and Keating first did the calculations based upon Einstein's equations, and then they actually flew around the world twice with four atomic clocks on commercial airliners, first traveling east and the second time traveling west.  Their calculations very closely matched the actual time differences measured by the atomic clocks. 

"Tjrob137," "rotchm" and "Odd Bodkin" will have to argue that while the clocks showed different times, time did not actually speed up or slow down while the clocks were being transported.  What caused the difference?  They don't care about causes. 

Interestingly, "rotchm" also believes that when you copyright a scientific paper or any kind of book or article, you copyright the format, not the words and ideas.

And "Odd Bodkin" believes that a car can be going 50 miles per hour and be standing still at the same time.  How?  Evidently he believes everything is an illusion.

I see there are THIRTEEN posts by "Odd Bodkin" awaiting my response this morning.  And there are FOUR from "rotchm."  So, I guess I'll have to end this comment and figure out how to respond to those posts.

Comments for Wednesday, February 1, 2017, thru Sunday, Feb. 4, 2017:

February 3, 2017 - While driving around doing some shopping this afternoon, I used the CD player in my car to finish listening to CD #10 of the 10-CD audio book version of "The Eerie Silence: Renewing our Search for Alien Intelligence" by Paul Davies.

An Eerie Silence

It's a very interesting book, looking at the search for alien intelligence from many different angles, including angles I never read or thought about before.  As part of looking at all the different angles, the author had to describe the physics required for the angles - which would be very different if the aliens were zipping around the galaxy in their natural form, rather than sending out robots. 

Unfortunately, since I listened to it in the form of an audio book, I have no notes or highlighted passages to copy and paste here.   The author concludes that it seems unlikely that there is any other intelligent life in the universe, since we haven't heard from them, we've heard only "The Eerie Silence."  And we haven't found life of any kind anywhere else but on Earth.  However, the author would quickly change his mind if we did find bacteria on Mars or a moon of Jupiter.

February 1, 2017 - I think I may finally be starting to understand what "rotchm" is arguing when on Google's science, physics and relativity forum he repeatedly asks me "What is the significance of t' < t?"

He's viewing things as a mathematician.  The equation t' < t simply means that one time (t') is less than another time (t).  It has no more significance than that -- to a mathematician.

But to a scientist, the fact that one time measurement is less than another time measurement means that something CAUSED the difference.  And the scientist wants to know about that CAUSE.  WHY do the times differ?  What CAUSED the times to differ? 

The answer in the situation I'm discussing with "rotchm" is that time slowed down for a clock that was moving, while time did not slow down for a clock that was stationary, and as a result the time shown by the clock that moved (t') was less than the time shown by the stationary clock (t).

So, "rotchm" then asked me to define the term "slowed down."

I responded:
1.  It means the atomic cycles within the clock take longer to complete.
2.  It means it takes longer for the lower clock to measure ONE SECOND of time.
3.  It means any measured unit of time is longer when you are closer to the center of the earth than when you are farther from the center of the earth. 
His response was, in effect, that "slowed down" or "runs slow" are terms used in popular science articles for the hoi polloi (the common people).  Intelligent people (i.e., mathematicians) just say "two values differ."  WHY the "two values differ" is evidently of no concern.  And "slowed down" would apparently have a problem in Quantum Mechanics since it is not a "quanta," a unit of measure.  It implies a gradual change, which cannot be quantified.

It's all very interesting to me.  And arguing on a blog helps pass the time while I'm waiting for news about my scientific paper.

Comments for Sunday, January 29, 2017, thru Tuesday, January 31, 2017:

January 31, 2017 - My brother in-law just sent me a link to a hilarious YouTube video from the Netherlands.  Here's the video:

Here's the blurb that goes with it:

The whole world was watching for the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States: Donald J. Trump. Because we realize it's better for us to get along, we decided to introduce our tiny country to him. In a way that will probably appeal to him the most.
You'll really love it, it's fantastic, it's great.  Okay?

January 30, 2017 - Sigh!  I thought I was being helpful yesterday, when I explained to "Tom Roberts" on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity forum that photons are emitted instantly from atoms, and pulses of light are generally  man-made using shutters, rotating gears or rotating mirrors.  

"Tom Roberts" posted no response overnight.   But, three others did posted their responses.  The first, from "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" complained that I was "VERY rude to Tom Roberts,"  apparently because I don't have better credentials than Tom Roberts, which means that in any debate between us I will automatically be wrong and Tom Roberts will automatically be right.  Fuller added, "You
are like a baby that just learned to stand up in his roll around Walker who is trying to tell Olympic Athletes how to run the 400 meters properly." And he concluded his post with this:
You are a Dick, go away.
The second post was from "rotchm" complaining that I do not argue, I just run away.

The third post was from "Odd Bodkin."  His response began by quoting me:

I was trying to be helpful.  It seems clear Tom Roberts was confusing an "emission" with a "pulse," and I explained the difference.  What is rude about that?  Isn't that the PURPOSE of this forum -- to help one another to understand science, physics and relativity? 
And then "Odd Bodkin" wrote:
On this, I think probably not.
Forums are a lousy place to get a basic education on something like physics or relativity, and most people who come into this forum with barely a whisper of understanding of the subject are told to go away and do some basic homework before attempting foolish speculations.  I think what is often true is that visitors to the forum have read nothing but popularizations that avoid any mathematical treatment at all, in favor of gee-whiz splashiness. These same visitors recoil at the suggestion that they learn some physics the way that any college student learns a little physics -- with dedicated practice of requisite skills.  It's like the fanboys that want to learn how to play their favorite rock classics on guitar, but are horrified when they take guitar lessons and are told to work on scales.
I studied that response for awhile, considering whether I should reply or not.  I decided against responding.  What would be the point?  He's saying, in effect, that I need to argue mathematics instead of using words and logic.  It's a verbose way of saying what "rotchm" says, that the only acceptable response would be in the form of a mathematical equation that disproves his mathematical equation. 

Arguments using logic and words have no meaning to them.  Facts and evidence have no meaning to them.  The very idea that their mathematics could be wrong is incomprehensible to them. 

What's so scary is that it could be the prevailing way of thinking for the majority of physicists and mathematicians, particularly those in teaching positions.    
Hopefully, there are still many scientists who believe in "The Scientific Method" and the role of evidence and logic in scientific thought.   Otherwise, my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will never be published.

January 29, 2017 - Yesterday, I was planning to start writing my Sunday comment, but, before doing so, I decided to check out the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum to see if anything new and interesting was being discussed there.  I found that the thread to which I had been posting until a few days ago was once again a very active thread and a the top of the activity list. 

Looking through the most recent comments in the thread, I found a discussion was underway about the speed of light reflecting off a rotating mirror.  In one post in the thread, "Paul B. Anderson" wrote:

If the speed of the reflected wave is equal to the speed
of the incident wave in the rest frame of the mirror,
and speed transforms according to the Galilean transform,
then the speed of the reflected light from an approaching
mirror will be c+2v where c is the speed of the incident wave
and v is the speed of the approaching mirror.
That posed a couple very interesting questions for me: How does a mirror work?  Will light reflected by a moving mirror travel at the speed of light PLUS the speed of the moving mirror?

I recalled reading something about how a mirror doesn't really "reflect" light, it absorbs the incoming photons or light waves and then emits new photons back at the original source.  If so, that would mean that the mirror was an emitter, and the Second Postulate to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says that  "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."  So, the movement of the mirror will not combine with the speed of light it "emits."

After doing some quick research, I responded to Anderson's comment with this:
As I understand it, when a photon hits the silver atom in the mirror, it is absorbed and the atom obtains excess energy.  The photon or wave momentarily ceases to exist.  To rid itself of the excess energy, the atom emits a NEW and identical photon (or wave) back in the same direction as the incoming photon.

So, the photon or wave is NOT reflected.  The incoming photo (or wave) is absorbed and a TOTALLY NEW photon (or wave) is emitted.

Another key point is: When an atom emits a photon, the photon is emitted INSTANTLY.  

"Instantly" means it picks up no momentum from the movement of the atom.  It's as if the atom was stationary.  The photon is emitted at the speed of light at that location at that instant, and the movement of atom does NOT add to the movement of the photon.

Therefore, the movement of the mirror will NOT combine with the speed of light to create a wave that is faster (or slower) than the speed of light.
And, of course, one of the people ("Tom Roberts") who had been discussing mirrors and the speed of reflected light responded by declaring his opinion that I was wrong.  So, I had to do research and show him a few sources I could easily find which said that he was the one who was wrong:
"How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—and they do that by giving off some more photons."

Source: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/howmirrorswork.html

Other sources which say more or less the same thing:


"Tom Roberts" also argued that a photon is not created instantly.  And I quickly found a source that said otherwise:
"The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existence."

Source: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/137-physics/general-physics/particles-and-quantum-physics/805-how-are-photons-created-and-destroyed-advanced
And that was the end of yesterday's discussion.  This morning all I see is a comment from "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" saying:
Hey Ed
Make Sure to keep Everyone informed how you are Ridiculing & Mocking their Ineptitude on your Little Home Page
I'm not ridiculing or mocking anyone on this web page.  I'm explaining why it is next to impossible to have an intelligent conversation on Internet discussion forums.  There's no way to force people to stick to the subject.  Plus, facts and evidence seem to mean nothing.  Every attempt at an intelligent discussion quickly turns into an opinion versus opinion argument. 

But, at the same time, the arguments really force me to think things through as I try to respond to their claims and opinions.  And, more often than not, as soon as I've typed a response and posted it, I think of a much better way I could have phrased things.  And I think of implications that I hadn't thought about before.

This morning I awoke thinking about the mirror argument.  In several previous arguments I'd provided sources which stated that a photon is emitted instantly by an atom.  But I'd never even thought about how a mirror "reflects" light.  If it somehow turns a photon around and sends it back to the source, how is that done?  I'd never even wondered about it.  But, I can totally understand the concept that a photon is absorbed by a silver atom in the mirror and then the silver atom instantly emits a NEW photon back to the source. 

"Tom Roberts," however, argued against such an idea:

While many such emissions occur in femtoseconds to picoseconds, some atomic and molecular transitions are metastable and have time
constants of microseconds or longer (occasionally MUCH longer -- phosphorescent paint emits light over many hours). This, for instance, is essential to the operation of a laser.
This morning I wondered if this was an area where "classical physics" conflicts with Quantum Physics.  It appeared that "Tom Roberts" was, in effect, arguing that time must be quantified.  There must be a quantum of time involved in reflecting a photon - a femtosecond or a picosecond or something smaller, but something measurable.  It cannot happen "instantly," since that would imply no quantum of time.

But, if it takes a quantum of time to generate a photon, during that quantum of time the developing photon would be moving at the speed of the mirror.  That means the photon would incur the momentum of the mirror.  I.e., the reflected light would travel at c plus the speed of the mirror.  If the photon is emitted "instantly," however, the photon will NOT incur the momentum of the mirror.

I did some research this morning trying to find more about the mirror argument, but all I could find was information about how a rotating mirror was used by Léon Foucault in 1862 to measure the "absolute speed of light."  I'll have to try to find some time to research it further.   It seems that all the rotating mirror did in Foucault's experiment was create measurable pulses.  Measuring the time between the sending and receiving of a pulse provides the speed of light.

Then I realized that "Tom Roberts" may have simply been confusing an emission of a photon with the creation of a pulse.  So, I posted this:
It appears you are confusing an "emission" with a "pulse."  The emission of a photon is instantaneous and "nature made."  The release of a pulse is controlled by man-made equipment.

When an atom emits a photon, it is emitted instantly at the local speed of light.  In most cases, the photon is also emitted in a random direction.  Mirrors are used to resend the photons in a specific direction.

Shutters, rotating gears and rotating mirrors are used to send out light in timed pulses.  A pulse can contain any number of photons.  A "femtosecond laser" is a laser that sends out pulses that are far less than one picosecond (one trillionth of a second) apart.  Even at that rate, a pulse can involve millions of photons.

If you know the time when a pulse was sent, the distance it was sent, and the time the pulse was received, you can calculate the speed of light, i.e., the speed of all the photons comprising the pulse.  

If the light is coming in a constant stream of photons (the way light comes from any star, including the sun) there's no way to tell when the photons were emitted, so there's no way to measure the speed of the photons.  When you detect a photon you destroy the photon, so there is no way to detect a specific photon as it enters a measuring tube AND as it hits the end of the measuring tube.  If you measure two photons, there is no way to know that they were both emitted at the same time. 
That discussion is an example of what keeps me so fascinated.  I see Albert Einstein's description of Time Dilation and Relativity as being relatively simple and straight forward.  But, mathematicians have turned it into something that is mindboggingly complex.  I have repeatedly stated here that Einstein famously once said, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."  Neither do the mathematicians, apparently.

But how can this mess be straightened out?  I'm hoping that my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will be a start in the right direction.  But when will it ever be published?  I'm still waiting ... and waiting .... and waiting.

Yesterday, I also read the latest news on The Huffington Post Web site.   My attention was grabbed by an article titled "A Tremendous Roundup Of Street Art Ridiculing Donald Trump."  The article showed 46 different "street art" images of Trump, mostly from before he was elected President.  The first image was this one:

Trump poster No. 1

Clicking on that image on The Huffington Post web page took me to the Twitter page where The Huffington Post obtained the image.  On that Twitter page I found several more images of Trump, including this one:
Trump cartoon
So, I decided to save the best of the bunch.  I copied 21 of them to a new folder in my laptop.  Here's another one I liked:

Trump poster No. 2

I really need to get to work on my other scientific papers - particularly the one about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  But now I'm wondering: Is there a another paper in the mirror puzzle?   It seems to be a controversy where Quantum Mechanics gives a wrong answer and Classical Mechanics gives a correct answer.  And fairly simple experiments can easily prove which is correct and which is wrong. 

As far as I know, there may already be a hundred papers on that subject.  I've never researched it.  I haven't even checked the Google forum argument to see how it started. 

Too much to do.  Too little time to do it.  Sigh.

Comments for Sunday, January 22, 2017, thru Saturday, January 28, 2017:

January 25, 2017 - Sigh!  Still waiting for news about my scientific paper.

While waiting, instead of working on other scientific papers, I've been arguing on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I've only been posting to the thread titled "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?

The main point of discussion is whether clocks actually slow down when they move and/or when they are close to a large gravitational mass.  Mathematician physicists argue that the clocks do not actually slow down.  They claim it is just an illusion, even if you can see two clocks ticking at different rates right in front of you because one clock is higher than the other.  It's the argument I created a cartoon about a last year:

Arguing time dilation

At one point we started discussing the scientific paper about Time Dilation that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) got published in Science magazine in 2010.  It was about the exact situation depicted in the cartoon.  The NIST scientists set two identical atomic clocks side by side to confirm that they were synchronous, then they raised one of the clocks by one foot.  When they did so, they could see that the higher clock was ticking faster than the lower clock.  And they wrote a paper about it.

On the Google forum, someone named "Tom Roberts" wrote a long post arguing that clocks do not run slower.  The post included this:

In SR [Special Relativity], "time dilation" is NOT due to "moving clocks ticking slower", it is due to the way relative motion affects the COMPARISON of clocks (or of signals from clocks, depending on the physical situation). In both SR and GR this effect is a geometric projection.  (Note that "time dilation" in SR cannot possibly be modeled as "clocks ticking slower", but you ignore counterexamples that are too complex to be described in a sound bite.)
So, I found the article on NIST.gov that the NIST wrote about their Science article and quoted all the sections where the NIST mentioned clocks running slower (or words to that effect):
Quote 1: "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket."

Quote 2: "Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase."

Quote 3: "Similarly, the NIST researchers observed another aspect of relativity—that time passes more slowly when you move faster—at speeds comparable to a car travelling about 20 miles per hour, a more comprehensible scale than previous measurements made using jet aircraft."

Quote 4: "The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster."

Quote 5: "In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter (about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as predicted."

Quote 6: "The second set of experiments examined the effects of altering the physical motion of the ion in one clock. (The ions are almost completely motionless during normal clock operations.) NIST scientists tweaked the one ion so that it gyrated back and forth at speeds equivalent to several meters per second. That clock ticked at a slightly slower rate than the second clock, as predicted by relativity. The moving ion acts like the traveling twin in the twin paradox."
Tom Robert's response was very interesting.  He wrote:
Ed, you have just made a serious mistake.  What you have just done is to declare that the actual scientific paper does not accurately describe the physics of what they demonstrated, and that a news article that fuzzes stuff up for popular consumption does accurately describe the physics of what they demonstrated.  
I responded:
Nonsense.  The article is about the technicalities of the experiment. The article FROM THE NIST.GOV WEB SITE WRITTEN BY NIST PERSONNEL is a plain-language summary of what was done.

You are claiming that the scientific article says one thing and the "plain language" article says something totally different.  That's nonsense.  If you believe that, you need to quote from the Science article and show how the "plain language" article says something totally different.  Just CLAIMING there is a difference means nothing here. 
Instead of providing side by side quotes, Tom Roberts wrote:
I caution you, Ed, that journalist, popularized articles are NEVER meant to be solidly accurate accounts of the physics. They are meant to do one of two things:   - For those who are not any more interested than at the hobby level, it provides just enough of a flavor to satisfy.  - For those who are interested in the subject and would like to know more, it provides inspiration to go find the deeper references for detailed study. 
So, I provided quotes from the Science magazine article which also said that time runs slower for a moving clock (or words to that effect):
Quote 1: "Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter
length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth’s surface of less than 1 meter."

Quote 2: "Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity forced us to alter our concepts of reality. One of the more startling outcomes of the theory is that we have to give up our notions of simultaneity.  This is manifest in the so-called twin paradox (1), in which a twin sibling who travels on a fast-moving rocket ship returns home younger than the other twin. This “time dilation” can be quantified by comparing the tick rates of identical clocks that accompany the traveler and the stationary observer. Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects."

Quote 3: "For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years."

Quote 4: "Here we report the detection of relativistic time dilation due to velocities of several meters per second and, separately, due to a change in height of 0.33 m by comparing two optical clocks based on 27Al+ ions."

Quote 5: "Fig. 3. Gravitational time dilation at the scale of daily life. (A) As one of the clocks is raised, its rate increases when compared to the clock rate at deeper gravitational potential."
Tom Roberts simply ignored those quotes and responded:
All the "Evidence" you THINK you see for variations in the duration of a second is actually evidence that COMPARISONS of clocks can differ. And that can (AND DOES!) happen for reasons other than variations in clocks' tick rates.
Bottom line: relativity is subtle and requires precision in thought and word.  You fall far short of what is required, and what you THINK you "know" about SR  just ain't so.   Regardless of what all too many popularizations of science say, moving clocks do NOT "tick slower" -- this is QUITE CLEAR when one applies the actual theory and not somebody's sound bite.
So, he was declaring that I was just too ignorant of Special Relativity to understand what was going on.  But he did.  That made it an opinion versus opinion argument, which are a waste of time.  No facts or evidence would change his mind.  He would just argue that I was misunderstanding everything.

Interestingly, another participant ("rotchm") in the discussion argued the same thing in a different way.  He wrote:

The empirical data was (simply put) that t' < t.  This means that t' < t. Nowhere in there (or on the display of the clocks) did they see the words "running slower".
Agree with this?
And I responded,
I agree that there is no mention of "running slower" in the mathematical equation.  But LOGIC says that if two clocks are synchronous, then you move one of the clocks, and that causes the time shown by the moved clock to "lag behind" the time shown by the clock that was not moved, then LOGICALLY the clock that was moved MUST have been "running slower" while it was moving.

Logically, there is no other explanation.  

The mathematical expression t' < t only SHOWS the results, it doesn't EXPLAIN the results.  LOGIC EXPLAINS the results.    
I could go on and on.  While those messages were being posted, "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" and others were arguing that
Math = Logic
And I was arguing that math is logical, but it is not logic.  I listed ways famous problems were solved with logic that did not involve math (cavemen learning how to make fire being one example).  It had no effect.  "Rotchm" responded:
Experience (saw a lightning strike & make fire, or saw colliding flintrock or other input they got) gave them the knowledge, the "rules". Based on that, they *learned* to mimic or *deduced* similar acts to reproduce fire. IOW, from some rules (gained by experience) they *deduced* a result & deduced to try out the result. This is precisely the definition of math (and logic).
He's arguing his belief that logic and math are the same thing.  He described the logic processes used by the cavemen and claimed it was math.  And nothing I could say would change his mind.  Math = Logic.  Period.

So, I've decided to give up.  Maybe I'll join some interesting discussion in the future, but for now the arguments are clearly just a waste of time.

While all that was going on, I also proof-read Chapter 16 of the book a scientist acquaintance of mine is writing.  Since it's fairly difficult for me to shift focus from everything else I have going on to proof-reading his book, I asked him to wait until he has 3 chapters done, and then to send me all three at once.  So, it might be a month before I see chapters 17, 18 and 19, and another month before I get the final chapters in the book.   That means (hopefully) I'll be spending more time on writing scientific papers.

January 22, 2017 - Waiting to see if my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will be accepted and published is really altering my whole life.  I find it very difficult to think about anything else.  I can't even focus on watching movies in the evening.  Instead, I watch old TV shows that do not really require me to pay much attention (reruns of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" being a prime example).  And, while watching, my mind is going over different ways to argue different things in different scientific papers that I'll try to get published if this first paper succeeds.

Yesterday, I started wondering if the journal that has my paper has already turned it down and they somehow assumed I know to look somewhere on their web site for the information, instead of waiting for an email notification.  I couldn't find anything to support that nutty idea, but I did find some information about seven papers they recently accepted.  Here's the information I found about those seven papers:

1.  Received: November 4, 2015; Accepted: November 23, 2016.
2.  Received: July 20, 2016; Accepted: November 28, 2016.
3.  Received: April 26, 2016; Accepted: December 1, 2016.
4.  Received: June 24, 2016; Accepted: December 16, 2016.
5.  Received: August 29, 2016; Accepted: December 17, 2016.
6.  Received: September 12, 2016; Accepted: December 23, 2016.
7.  Received: September 20, 2016; Accepted: December 27, 2016.
Based upon that information, they are still going through papers they received in September, and it could be a long time before they get to the paper I submitted on December 5.  The information also suggests that they haven't accepted anything since late December, almost a month ago.  Did it really take over a year for that first paper to go through the editing process and get accepted, or is that 2015 date just a typo?  The pattern indicates the 2015 date is most likely correct.  The pattern also indicates that it takes from just over 3 months to just over a year for a paper to go through the peer-review and editing process.  Groan!  Or, if a paper doesn't need much editing, it could mean that it takes over 3 months just to get through the peer-review process.  Groan!

In other words, I have no clue as to what is actually going on.  I've never been through this process before.  My previous submissions were all rejected within a couple weeks, sometimes within a week.

Yesterday, being unable to focus on my scientific papers, I joined three arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I took a screenshot of the top four topics on the forum.  Here it is:

                            discussion forum - Day 1

I posted a comment to "Moving Clocks Run Slow or ... Fast, Einsteinians?"  It was about my idea of using a pulsar as a "clock," so both twins could see the same clock at the same time, instead of requiring "magic" to let one twin instantly see the other twin's clock across trillions of miles of empty space.  As of shut-down time last evening, there were no responses.

I posted a comment to "If Light Had a 'Frequency' the Pound/Rebka Experiment would have Failed."  It was about the fact that Pound and Rebka didn't measure the wave-lengths or speed of light at the point of emission.  They just assumed that the wave-lengths changed between the emission point and the detection point 74 feet below.  As of shut-down time last evening, there were no meaningful responses.

I posted this comment to "The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics":
The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view.  The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion.  That was a BIG mistake.

Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?

Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.

But, if you do not CARE about what is "real" and your only interest is in creating confusion and "interesting" mathematical puzzles, you can spend the next 100 years arguing that there's no way to tell if the train is moving or if the train station is moving.

And we're all still paying the price for that BIG mistake.
As of shut-down time last evening, there was only one response to my comment about the "biggest mistake."  Here is part of it:
Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster and that moves, too.

So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not know, were we have something not moving.

[yada yada yada]

But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
And my response to that response was (in part):
Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."

Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving.  But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION?  Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
This morning, I see that there have been a lot more responses overnight.  Here's what the top of the list looks like this morning:

                            Discussion forum - Day 2

"Moving clocks" had 7 posts yesterday, this morning it has 25.  "If light had a 'Frequency'" had 2 posts yesterday, this morning it has 15.  "The Worst Mistake" had 8 posts yesterday, this morning it has 18. 

Looking through the posts, I see that many are arguments between other people which do not involve me.  But, I see "Kenseto" posted a comment in the "Worst Mistake" thread in response to my comment that the train is moving, not the train station:
You have no fact or evidence......just unsupported assertions. 
And "tjrob137" (Tom Roberts) posted this in the "Moving Clocks" thread in response to my comment about the length of second being different everywhere:
Nope. There is no such evidence, just stuff you make up.
So, I have a way to waste time for the rest of this morning while I continue to wait to see if my article gets accepted and published.

Also, in my email in-box this morning I received Chapter 16 of the book I'm proof reading.  That will also give me something to do while I wait and wait.

Comments for Sunday, January 15, 2017, thru Saturday, January 21, 2017:

January 19, 2017 - Yesterday, I stumbled across the Pound-Rebka experiments.  I'd undoubtedly heard of those experiments before, but I'd totally forgotten.  I was checking out the latest threads in Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and someone named "Pentcho Valev" posted several links related to those experiments.  The Pound-Rebka experiments appear to be the source of the arguments that Gravitational Time Dilation doesn't exist.  While the experiments do not challenge Velocity Time Dilation, the experiments allegedly show that Gravitational Time Dilation isn't really Time Dilation, it's just the result of "the Doppler effect" or "gravitational red-shifting."  

Researching the experiments further, I found a very informative July 2005 article from the American Physical Society (APS) titled "Focus: The Weight of Light" about the Pound-Rebka experiments.  And I found the three Physical Review of Letters articles in which R. V. Pound, G. A. Rebka, Jr., and J. L. Snider describe their experiments.  The articles are "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance" from 1959, "Apparent Weight of Photons" from 1960, and "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance" from 1964.  Interestingly, none of the three original articles (nor the APS article) even mentions the term "time dilation."

The experiments involved emitting photons of light from atop a tower on the campus of Harvard University and measuring the "Doppler shift" in the wave length of the light when the photons reached a detector 74 feet below the emitter.  Then they did the reverse.  They shot the photons upward to a detector 74 feet above the emitter.  What they claimed to have found was that light changed to a higher frequency when "falling downward" with the force of gravity, and light changed to a lower frequency when "struggling upward" against the force of gravity.

The APS article says,

This was a “major scientific achievement,” says Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis, not only because it was a classic test of relativity, but because of the ingenious experimental design. And there is a practical consequence, he adds. The satellite-borne clocks of the GPS navigational system must be regularly corrected for changes induced by gravitational redshift. So relativity calculations keep every freighter and fighter jet on course.
I can't decipher why they do not use the term "time dilation" nor explain the difference between "time dilation" and "gravitational red-shifting."  But, they seem to be saying that light goes faster and slower depending upon whether it is going upward from the earth or downward toward the earth, so the effect on GPS satellite timing is somehow the same as "time dilation."

To me, the experiments illustrate what I've been saying (and what Einstein wrote): light will travel faster when emitted from the top of a building than when emitted from the bottom of the building, because the top of the building is farther from the center of the Earth's gravitational mass.  If they had measured length of a second and the speed of light at those two locations, they would have found that the speed of light is the same at both locations, but a second is longer at the bottom of the building (due to gravitational time dilation) than at the top of the building,  And that means that, because speed is measured per second, the speed of light is actually faster at the top of the building (where a second is shorter) than at the bottom of the building.

Because their experimental setup only allowed them to measure the frequency of the light waves, not the actual speed of the light waves, their equipment showed that the light moving downward had a higher frequency.  In reality, it didn't.  Wave frequency depends upon the length of a second.  If they had used the length of a second as measured at the top of the building when detecting the photons at the bottom of the building, they would have found no red-shifting (actually, blue shifting in this instance).

Ironically, we can all use those same tests to confirm our very different theories.  To those who apparently do not believe in time dilation (like Pentcho Valev), the experiments showed that there was no such thing as time dilation, only red-shifting.  To  Pound, Rebka and Snider, the experiments evidently confirm Einstein's theories about gravitation while saying nothing about time dilation.  And for me, the experiments confirm "Time Dilated Light" and show that light emitted from the top of a building will travel faster than light emitted from the bottom of a building.  If you use equipment for detecting red-shifting instead of equipment for measuring the speed of light, you will only see red or blue shifting because that is all your equipment was built to detect.  What's needed to confirm my theory is to measure BOTH the length of a second AND the speed of light at two different altitudes, and to COMPARE the measurements.

Interestingly, this appears to be a situation where mathematics can be used to argue a theory that photons speed up as they get closer to the earth and produce blue shifting OR a theory that light is emitted at different velocities at different altitudes, and the only way to determine which theory is correct would be to perform a well-designed experiment using the proper equipment.

January 17, 2017 (B) - I keep thinking about the December 2014 article in Nature magazine titled "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics."  The article was about the debate over whether facts and evidence are required to prove "scientific theories," or whether such theories can be accepted just because they are mathematically elegant.

The Nature article mentions how the public might view such a debate:
This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results — in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution — are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists. Potential damage to public confidence in science and to the nature of fundamental physics needs to be contained by deeper dialogue between scientists and philosophers.
The article was written in 2014, two years before we elected a President who doesn't believe in "climate change" and who doesn't seem to trust evidence OR science.  He appears to have been elected by a public whose motto is: "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe."  That seems to be our new President's motto, too.

And I'm trying to get an article published which says that thousands of physicists are wrong in what they believe, and many (if not most) physics teachers are teaching total nonsense.  Will the public care or accept that those physicists are wrong if the physicists believe as the public believes: that facts and evidence mean nothing if you do not believe the facts and evidence?

Of course, there's no reason to believe people will pay any attention to my article, even if it is published.  The article is about what the facts and evidence say.  And it seems that fewer and fewer people care about facts and evidence.

Another problem is: Those who do not care about facts and evidence are largely closed-minded and belligerent about what they believe.  They attack those who do not believe as they believe.  Meanwhile, those who want and need facts and evidence are largely defenseless against such attacks.  They consider personal attacks to be "counter-productive."  They tend to just quietly wait for the facts and evidence to be accepted.  "Truth will out," they tell themselves.   

Maybe.  But, it looks like it's going to be a long, long, long, long, long wait.

January 17, 2017 (A) -  Malaysian, Australian and Chinese authorities officially ended their search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 today.  According to news reports, the only thing that will get them to resume the search is solid evidence pointing to where the wreckage of the plane is located.

According to The Wall Street Journal,

In the weeks after Flight 370 disappeared, Australian officials said they knew less about the search area than is known about the surface of the moon.

That is still largely the case, but they have now mapped the region’s ocean floor. In the process, the search uncovered previously unknown undersea volcanoes and canyons, at least two shipwrecks dating back as far as the 19th century, along with more mundane objects such as discarded oil barrels.

The search also lent a greater understanding of cold deep-ocean currents that drive Earth’s climate, said Robin Beaman, an Australian marine geologist. “As a data set for the global scientific community there is nothing to match it,” Mr. Beaman said.

It's another area where facts and evidence mean nothing to people who have firm beliefs about what happened to the plane.  And they believe that finding nothing is "solid proof" of their theories - whatever their theories are.

January 16, 2017 - I neglected to mention in my previous recent posts that I saved a copy of the discussion thread titled "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story" that I participated in on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum.  I just went through the copy looking for the part of the discussion that was about the steps in the Scientific Method.  Someone who called himself "Odd Bodkin" asked me if I knew the steps.  I responded by posting the steps:
The Scientific Method is:

  1. Make an Observation.
  2. Form a Question about the observation.
  3. Do research.
  4. Form a Hypothesis.
  5. Conduct an Experiment.
  6. If the experiment fails, go back to step 3.
  7. If the experiment works, analyze the data and draw conclusions.
  8. Communicate the findings (publish a paper).
Odd Bodkin, of course, disagreed .  He listed his own version of steps 4 through 8 and criticized me for having a different list:
  4. Form a hypothesis.
  5. Develop a mathematical model describing the hypothesis.
  6. With the mathematical model, calculate predicted outcomes from
  different initial conditions, which can be tested in observation or
  7. Replicate or discover instances of those initial conditions, and
  measure the outcome.
  8. Compare these measurements to the quantitative predictions of the
  mathematical model describing the theory. If there is agreement, then the hypothesis is inferred to have support from experiment. If there is disagreement, then they hypothesis needs to be abandoned or modified.
  Your 7, 8, 9 are from some grade school book.

When I provided him with a link to the many places on the Internet where my version of "the scientific method" is used, Odd Bodkin dismissed them all with this response:
I had a hunch it was some pop-sci link.
I asked him if he'd gotten his list from a book on mathematics.  He responded:
Nope.  A book on physics.
That discussion took place on January 9.  This afternoon, I wondered if there actually is a physics book which includes those steps as part of the "scientific method."  I did Google searches for sections of what he wrote (HERE, HERE and HERE) and got no results.  So, he either made up the steps or was working from memory instead of copying the steps.  I suspect the former, since I cannot imagine anyone using those steps as "the scientific method."
But it's an interesting glimpse into the way a believer in Religio Mathematica thinks.  There's no attempt to figure things out logically.  Their "method" is to go straight to mathematics.  Naturally, I did a Google search for examples of using the scientific method, and the first example to pop up was an example of using the method to find a lost wallet.  How would you do that using math?  The next example to pop up was a question of whether water freezes faster when sugar is added than if it just pure water.  How would you do that using math?  The next example was a question about whether a light bulb was burned out or not.  How would you do that using math?

That makes me wonder:  What kind of scientific question could anyone have where Odd Bodkin's version of "the scientific method" would work best?  I can't think of any.     

There are other discussions in that thread where bizarre beliefs are stated as if they are absolute certainties.  I also saved other threads from other discussions on other forums.  Sometimes I just have to go back to them to see if people actually said what I remember them saying.  It reminds me of the quote from Leo Rosten:
I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.
And even more amazing is that there seems to be no way to change their minds about anything.
never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/leorosten147863.html

January 15, 2017 - Groan!  I don't have anything ready to post as a comment for today.  So, I'm going to have to write one from scratch. 

Waiting to see what's going to happen with my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is occupying more and more of my time.  It's making it very difficult to think about anything else.  My previous submissions of other papers to various other scientific journals resulted in the rejections typically coming back within a week.  It's been well over a month since I submitted my latest paper.  Does that mean they're truly peer reviewing it, or does it mean that they can't find anyone willing to peer review it?  Have they ever sent back a submission, telling the author, "Sorry, but we cannot find anyone willing to comment on your paper"?

I think the paper is very soundly researched, and the references I used are impeccable, so peer reviewers would have a hard time arguing that I'm wrong in what I wrote.  But, am I right?  The facts and evidence clearly say I'm right, but facts and evidence do not mean much in the realm of science these days.  That means a reviewer may want to say, "I don't care what the facts say, I do not believe Mr. Lake's conclusions, so I cannot recommend publication of his paper." But feeling that way and stating such a thing in writing are two different matters. 

In last week's Jan. 11 comment, I posted links to several scientific articles from prestigious journals which pointed out that many (possibly the vast majority) of physicists in the world today no longer care about facts and evidence.  They only care if the math works and produces exciting projections.  (And that is certainly confirmed by my discussions in the Google discussion group about Science, Physics and Relativity.)  Those articles, however, only talk about the tip of the iceberg, i.e., today's focus on String Theory and Multiple Universes, which are pure mathematical constructs which cannot be proved or disproved.  Thousands of physicists are working on theories that may be total nonsense, but no one will ever be able to prove they are nonsense, because "proof" consists of evidence, and there is no actual physical evidence supporting or disproving String Theory or Multiple Universes or other such theories based solely on mathematics. 

What my papers address are the misunderstandings about physics and science that have been going on for the past 100 years and more as a result of mathematicians distorting and misinterpreting Albert Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.     

My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" says (in effect) that the facts and evidence clearly show that tens of thousands of physicists are wrong in what they believe (and college professors and teachers are wrong in what they teach).  So, how will a reviewer who is such a physicist (or teacher) react to my paper? He cannot use facts and evidence to attack it.  He doesn't believe in facts and evidence.  He only believes in mathematical equations (Religio Mathematica, the Religion of Mathematics), the belief that if the math works, then it must be true and facts or evidence are irrelevant. 

My paper doesn't use any complex mathematics.  It's just about what the facts and evidence say.  Fortunately, while mathematicians no longer seem to believe in facts and evidence, they also seem to realize that countering solid facts and evidence with unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions may not work in the peer review process.  An that may be particularly true at the journal to which I submitted my paper.  In the past it printed many articles about Time Dilation and how it is viewed from various perspectives.

While waiting, I've been working on follow-up papers that I'll submit if the first one gets published.  But, will the first one get published?  I'm fully prepared to submit the first one to other journals if the journal that is currently peer reviewing it turns it down for no good reason.   But what if they turn it down for a good reason?  I can't imagine what that reason would be, but I cannot argue that it would be totally impossible to find one.

It's kind of hard to focus on building the second floor of a house when you cannot be absolutely certain the first floor won't be knocked down by some kid who throws a stone and hits a spot that the known laws of nature say shouldn't exist.

So, I'm waiting.  And waiting.  And waiting.

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

© 2017 by Ed Lake