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!
 
email
                  address

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
                cover
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
                  detective
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,
p
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, March 26, 2017, thru Friday, March 31, 2017:

March 27, 2017 - Okay.  At 9:08 a.m. this morning, I re-submitted my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" to the scientific journal that I originally sent it to on December 5, 2016, and which they responded to on March 6, 2017.  I made all the changes requested by the logic-oriented peer reviewer, and I explained why I couldn't agree with the opinions of the mathematics-oriented peer reviewer that my paper wouldn't be of interest to readers of their journal.

Now it is once again a matter of waiting.  Will it again take three months to get a response, as it did with the first version?  Who knows?  But I have no choice except to wait and see.  I'm also curious about whether they assign the revised paper to different peer reviewers or to the same ones.  And will I get another mathematician as a peer reviewer?  Or two mathematicians?  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I'm continuing to work on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  Mostly I'm looking for additional papers to use as references.  And I'm organizing my findings so I won't have to repeat the research every time I learn there is something else I should mention in my paper.

Yesterday I found four college text books that use the mathematicians' version of the Second Postulate.  I need to do a bit more research on one of them.  I found a pdf file of Chapter 3 the book, which I think is titled "Special Relativity."  I know the publisher (Wiley), but I haven't been able to verify the title, and I can't find the publication date of the book or how many pages are in the book.  Here's what it says in Chapter 3 on page 83:

Einstein agreed with Galileo that the laws of physics must be the same for all observers, but he added a second requirement: that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. The speed of light is not relative, as had been expected by those who went before him, but invariant. He set these two principles down as requirements for development of theoretical physics. They are known as Einstein’s two postulates of special relativity:
1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial (non-accelerated) frames of reference.
2. The speed of light has a constant value for all observers regardless of their motion or the motion of the source.
That is NOT what Einstein's Second Postulate says.  It is what mathematicians mistakenly argue that Einstein really meant, instead of what Einstein actually wrote on 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.
My research is finding explanations for how the mathematicians turned what Einstein wrote about "the emitting body" into a screwball notion about "all observers."  It appears the mathematicians can't figure out why Einstein created that Second Postulate, since they believe the First Postulate says all that needs to be said.  And they evidently won't listen to anyone who can explain things to them, since such explanations would require them to re-think their mathematical equations. 

Of course, I'm also finding a few sources (including college text books) which agree with Einstein (and me) and disagree with the mathematicians, but it seems for every one of those I find, I find ten which use the mathematicians' theory.


The research is very interesting.  I've probably got all the references I need, so further research may not be necessary. 

On the other hand, how do you know when you have "too many facts"?


March 26, 2017 - The revised version of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is all set to be re-submitted to the scientific journal, including the cover letter which explains what I changed and where I agreed with the peer reviewers and where I didn't.  I'll do the re-submission tomorrow.

The paper is probably TWICE as meaningful as the original.  It really hits home on all the key points now.  And it makes several really powerful new points.  Among other things, it really debunks the mathematicians' totally absurd belief that Time Dilation is reciprocal, i.e., that if Observer-A sees time running slow for Observer-B, Observer-B will also see time running slow for Observer-A.  It's an absurd argument that has nothing to do with reality, but it appears to be what an incredible number of mathematicians believe.   

Meanwhile, my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate is also taking shape.  But, I've probably got at least a month's worth of work on it to make it ready for submission.  Plus, on Saturday morning I realized I haven't been thinking about where I will submit it.  I've only been thinking that I'd try a higher ranked journal that seems more likely to respond in less than three months.

But I never picked an actual journal as my target.  And yesterday I also realized that it might be a very good idea if my paper included some scientific papers from that same journal as references.  That could require a LOT of research.  

Back in December, I did some research and I produced a computerized list of journals I could try.  The original full list included journals on biology, botany, materials science, photonics, particle physics and many other sciences, plus it includes many journals that are printed in languages other than English.  So, from a full list of 1,254, I ended up with a list of less than 40 journals.      

The top journal on my list is Nature Physics, which I gather is a physics journal produced by Nature magazine.  It is ranked #6 by that web site that ranks scientific journalsNature Physics has a nice "Guide to Authors" page which seemed to indicate that I could at least get to the first referee, but then I looked at their "Brief guide for submission to Nature Physics" and saw this:
Articles: an abstract of approximately 150 words, unreferenced; main text of no more than 3,000 words and 6 display items (figures, tables). As a guideline, Articles allow up to 50 references. Section headings should be used and subheadings may appear in 'Results'. Avoid 'Introduction' as a heading
Uh oh.  My paper looks like it's going to be about 5,000 words in length (maybe more), and it currently has 13 "display items."

Besides, in all my research into arguments about Einstein's Second Postulate, I couldn't recall I ever coming across an article from Nature Physics.  Yesterday, just for the heck of it, I did a Google search for - "second postulate" nature physics - and at the top of the list are two articles from Nature magazine about the Second Postulate.  The first, which costs $32 to obtain and is from 1966, doesn't look particularly interesting.  The second is from 1963 and also costs $32,  but it doesn't seem to be of any value to me.  I don't need references that agree with me, since if everyone agrees with me, there is no need to write a paper.  I need references that disagree with me, so that I can prove them wrong.  The paper says this in the abstract that I can read for free:

THE following is a preliminary report of an investigation performed to test directly, in a terrestrial experiment, the second postulate of special relativity, which states that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source.   
The second postulate actually says,
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
That's pretty much the same thing.  So, it is of no use to me.  The articles I need for references say something like this,
The second postulate of relativity is seen to be merely the combination of these two principles, since it states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless both of the motion of the source of light and of the observer.[2]
The reference I use for the above quote is as follows:

[2] R.C. Tolman, The Second Postulate of Relativity, Physics Review, Series I, XXXI (1) (1910)

I have two more recently published references that also refer to "all observers" seeing the same speed of light, but I could use more - particularly some from the journal to which I will submit my paper.

The next journal on my list requires a paper that is at least 70 pages long.  Mine will be about 17 pages (single spaced).

The next Journal on my list was Physics Review X.  But when I checked it out, I found that it charges a minimum of $2,900 to publish an article.  But it's also ranked #9 on how much impact it has on scientists.  And they charge the same price as #2 on the ranked list, Reviews of Modern Physics.  That posed a new question for me:  How do referees and peer reviewers view references from "open access" journals?

I've been ignoring "open access" journals for publication of my articles because I wanted to publish in a "regular" journal, plus I'm not about to pay $100 to have my article published, much less $2,900.  As a result, I didn't even think about using articles from "open access" journals as references.  There doesn't appear to be anything against it in Nature Physics' submission guidelines.

Hmm.  When I tried to access a paper about the Second Postulate on the Reviews of Modern Physics web site, I found that I have to pay $25 for it.  So, they are NOT "open access."  They charge the author to publish the article AND they charge the reader to read the article.  The same with Physics Review X.  Checking further, I found that New Journal of Physics, which is ranked #83, and Frontiers in Physics, which is ranked #210, also charge authors and readers, but they also have a few "open access" articles available for free.  I didn't find any "open access" articles that would be of value to me.

Live and learn.   

But, I found two journals to try.  Both publish monthly, so I shouldn't have to wait three months for a response.  It's just a matter of deciding which to try first.

Now I just need to finish the paper.

Groan!  I just found out that both journals I've chosen require that all illustrations be in .tif format.  Mine are in .jpg format.  It's simple enough to convert a .jpg file to a .tif file, but will the results be the same as if I created .tif files to begin with?  I dunno.  Most of the images I created are fairly crude, anyway, which probably means I'll have to re-create all the illustrations.  Groan!


Comments for Sunday, March 19, 2017, thru Saturday, March 25, 2017:

March 23, 2017 - This morning someone sent me a link to a New York Times article titled "A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals."  I researched "open access" journals years ago when I was arguing with people about the anthrax attacks of 2001.   I argued that open access journals were virtually worthless, since they seemed to publish anything from anyone, just as long as that person was willing to pay the publication fee, which could be anywhere from $80 to $2,900 for an article.  But several well-known scientists argued against me, saying that there were some "good" open access journals, and that they published very worthwhile materials.

I won't be dealing with any open access journals as I try to get my papers on Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate published.  However, I can see the appeal of open access journals.  If I wanted to pay to have my papers published, they would already be published.  Instead, I'm going the "scholarly" route and working only with regular, well-established scientific journals.  And that means waiting for three months for a peer review, and then waiting for another three months for another peer review, and maybe so on and so on.

I haven't posted any comments here for the past couple days because I've been extremely busy adding some references to my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  One of the reviewers recommended it.  I had added the one reference the reviewer recommended, but until two days ago I failed to realize that if I cite a lot of papers that argue that Time Dilation is just an "illusion," I'll be creating a "controversy," since my paper says their papers are wrong.  And I explain why their papers are wrong, using solid evidence to prove it.  In addition to creating controversy, I also provide readers who don't know much about Time Dilation with the information they need to see the importance of my analysis.

The reason it is taking me days to add eight or ten references is because I have to read dozens of papers to find the right ones to use.  I have been saving copies of papers on the subject of Time Dilation for a long time, probably a couple years, but the listing I maintain of the 168 papers I saved from arxiv.org is only about 75% complete, and the listing I maintain of the 284 papers I saved from other sources is only about 80% complete.  Here's what an entry from that listing looks like:

ID: Time-Dilation-misc-07.pdf

TITLE: The Implications of Relativistic Time Dilation on the Nature of Physical Time: A Non-Newtonian Interpretation of Special Relativity

AUTHOR: Ben Wright McGee

EMAIL:

MAGAZINE: KronoScope

DATE: January 2007

COMMENTS: I read most of this paper.  It reads well at first, but then gets into a theory that makes no sense to me.  From the Introduction: “In the thousands of years since the words, “Is time a real thing or not real?” were inscribed by the philosopher Aristotle, very little progress has been made toward a concrete, tenable answer. In even the most modern analyses of physics and time, it is not unusual to find passages suggesting the time phenomenon to be an object of natural science in its own right. Indeed, some even go so far as to claim, “. . . [T]he most difficult problems of the Natural Sciences require a revision of the time concept for their solution” (Buccheri, Saniga, and Stuckey 2002). This apparent knowledge deficit relating to time may be a result of the decline of the science of epistemology during the 20th century, due likely to its murky proximity to philosophy.”
Is that a paper I want to use as a reference?  It requires that I study it a bit to see if it argues for or against what I'm saying.  And it's only 1 paper out of roughly 450 that I need to check out.  Plus the paper cites another paper that I haven't previously checked out.  It looks like I probably should.  And then I have to categorize the papers further according to what what basis they have for their argument against Time Dilation.  That is very tedious and time-consuming work.

March 20, 2017 - I awoke this morning thinking about another point I needed to make in my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  The previous version didn't point out that Time Dilation is not reciprocal.  This morning, I added a section to the paper where I address that point.

In my many arguments with mathematicians, they always viewed Time Dilation as an illusion seen by different observers in fantasy universe that is totally empty except for one observer on a space ship passing another observer on a space ship. Neither observer can tell who is moving.  There is nothing else in the universe to use as a "stationary" point or as a reference to tell who is moving.  As a result, each observer can argue he is stationary while the other observer is moving.  Or vice versa.  And, according to the mathematicians, each will see the clocks aboard the other ship as running slow. They cannot explain why.  That's just the way the mathematics work.  It means that Time Dilation is reciprocal, it affects both parties the same way. 

In our real universe, however, things are very different.  With the proper equipment, a scientist in his lab at the bottom of a mountain can see that his clock is running slower than a clock being used by a scientist in a lab at the top of the mountain.  And the scientist at the top of the mountain will agree that his clock is running faster than the clock next to the scientist at the bottom of the mountain.  Time Dilation is definitely not reciprocal.

In my paper I also point out that there is a theoretical stationary point in our real universe where time runs at its maximum speed and light travels at its maximum speed.  That point is the point where the Big Bang occurred.  It's the stationary point from which all movement began, with everything moving outward in all directions.  At that stationary point, gravity would be equal in all directions. 

Mathematicians have been arguing for centuries about whether or not there is an "aether" that is stationary and which can be used to measure the movement and speed of everything else.  Maybe they should start arguing about whether or not they can use the theoretical stationary point where the Big Bang occurred as the point from which all movement and speed is measured.

This morning I finished revising the paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity." I dated it next Monday.  Before I resubmit it, I still have to finish writing the cover letter where I explain how I used some suggestions from the peer reviewers and didn't use others, providing explanations for why I didn't take the suggestions I didn't use.

I've also been thinking that I might send the revised paper to a different journal, one which would presumably give me peer reviews without a three month wait.  If it got turned down at that other journal, I could still re-submit it to the same journal that just reviewed it -- as long as I meet their revisions deadline of June 28.  But, I don't have a "better" journal in mind.  So, I probably won't do that.  

Of course, tomorrow morning I could suddenly realize that there is something else I need to add to the paper.  But, for now, I think it is done.  And I really want to focus on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  There is absolutely nothing preventing me from submitting that paper to a different journal. 

If mathematicians don't like my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," they'll go absolutely berserk when they read my paper on the Second Postulate.

March 19, 2017 - I've been trying to restrain myself, but I keep thinking I need to write a comment about President Donald Trump's screwball claim that he was wiretapped by President Obama.  It's just one straw too many.  So, here's my comment. 

According to an article in Friday's Washington Post:
In the days since Trump’s tweets alleging the wiretapping were posted, the White House has called for a congressional investigation, declined to comment, dodged questions, pointed to media reports that don’t contain the information aides say they do and analyzed the president’s use of quotation marks — all while doubling down on his claim without providing any evidence.
While doing research, I found this cartoon:

Trump Cartoon 001

I keep thinking that President Trump simply cannot think logically, he only thinks emotionally.  Evidence obviously has no meaning to him.  Only his beliefs have meaning.  If there's no evidence of wire tapping, that just means the FBI hasn't looked hard enough to find the evidence that Trump believes must exist.

How can President Trump believe the evidence must exist?  Because some staffer comment or news article or email or idea convinced him to believe it.  And once he believed it, it becomes an emotional conclusion.  What he believes cannot be wrong, since that would mean he is not as smart as he thinks he is.

Trump Cartoon 002


There is no middle ground for those who think emotionally.  Those who think emotionally must be right, and the only acceptable alternative is that the world must be conspiring against them to maliciously argue something is wrong that must with absolute certainty be right.  If something they argued for turns out to be a failure, it is always the fault of those ignorant and malicious people who disagreed with them.
Trump Cartoon 003

This topic has special meaning to me because I spent over a decade arguing with people who believed that Muslims sent the anthrax letters, even though all the evidence clearly said the letters were sent by an American scientist.   And those True Believers are still out there arguing the same things they argued ten years ago.  No facts or evidence will ever change their minds.  And, of course, they have no facts or evidence to support their beliefs.  As with Trump, they want the FBI to find the facts and evidence for them.  They are just absolutely certain that there is evidence out there somewhere that will confirm their unshakable beliefs.

It also seems that if these True Believers have one totally unsupported belief, they also have others.  And they are totally certain about all of them.  The absurd claims were probably never more absurd than when Trump argued that millions of people voted illegally in the election he won.  
Trump Cartoon 004
From my observations, it appears that Trump was elected by people who think the way he does, people who think emotionally, not logically.  Were they driven by a hatred of foreigners, a fear of foreigners or a hatred of the government in general?  Maybe a bit of all three.   All that appears certain is that were "fed up" and wanted to elect a fast-talking game show host to straighten out the situation.  Trump told them what they wanted to hear, and they believed him.

Trump Cartoon 005

Another thing that Donald Trump has made very clear is that he had absolutely no idea how complicated politics can be.  He was probably the only person in America who thought that replacing "Obamacare" would be a simple task.

Trump Cartoon 008

I'm reminded of a comment in Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer"which said

the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  "He cannot be convinced, but only converted."

I have a paperback copy of Hoffer's book somewhere in my library, but I couldn't find it when I looked for it yesterday.  (It's probably behind some other book.)  But I quickly found a free pdf copy on the Internet.  Searching through it for the word "convert," I found this full quote:
The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause. But he finds no difficulty in swinging suddenly and wildly from one holy cause to another. He cannot be convinced but only converted. His passionate attachment is more vital than the quality of the cause to which he is attached.
I also found this quote which seems very much to apply to President Trump:
Both by converting and antagonizing, he shapes the world in his own image.
And this quote also seems to apply to President Trump:
The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse.
So, we can assume that as more and more of Trump's absurd beliefs get shot down and debunked by people citing facts and evidence, the more Trump will become convinced that he is right and the world is conspiring against him.

Trump Cartoon 007

Doing a Google search for the words "Trump" and "impeach" I was provided with 16,900,000 results.  Among those results, I found a web site called "impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org" which is looking for people to sign their petition to impeach President Trump (and to donate to their cause).  There are also a lot of other sites out there with petitions to impeach Trump.   I also found a Time Magazine article titled "Congress Can Remove Donald Trump From Office Without Impeaching Him."  And a Bloomberg.com article titled "Trump's Wiretap Tweets Raise Risk of Impeachment."  According to one source, Congressman Jerrold Nadler has already set in motion a plan to impeach Trump.

Of course, if Trump were to be impeached, that would mean that Vice President Mike Spence would become President.  Some consider that to be a worse situation: It's better to have an incompetent President than an evil President. 

Personally, I think it is more likely that Donald Trump will resign before the end of his four-year term than that he will be impeached.  If he doesn't find being President the "fun" and the boost to his ego that he thought it would be, and if he constantly suffers setbacks in his plans, he could just "throw in the towel" and say "The hell with it."  He'd blame others for his failures, of course.
 
Trump Cartoon 006

On the other hand, if President Trump manages to start a war somewhere, that would mean all bets are off.  

Whew!   I'm glad I got that off my chest.  I've been wanting to write a comment about Donald Trump for weeks, even though I try very hard to avoid thinking about him.  The problem is: He's on the TVs they have at the gym where I work out four times a week.  I seem to work out at the exact same time that Trump's spokesman Sean Spicer gives his daily news briefing.

Trump Cartoon 010

When I get home, the evening news every night seems to have some story about Trump's latest screwball tweet.  And The Late Show with Stephen Colbert always has some hilarious comments about the Trump absurdities.

It's all very hilarious.. But, at the same time it isn't very funny at all.

And, now that I've got that off my chest, maybe I can get back to working on my scientific papers.


Comments for Sunday, March 12, 2017, thru Saturday, March 18, 2017:

March 16, 2017 - Browsing through the books and papers I downloaded yesterday, I find that nearly all of them appear to be about "the philosophy of science," which might be considered to be a third warring party in the battle for control of scientific opinion about Relativity and Time Dilation.  It seems to be a 3-way war between scientists, mathematicians and "philosophers of science."  All three groups have the other two as enemies.

Scientists are trying to understand how the universe works.

Mathematicians think the universe is a mathematical equation.

Philosophers of Science sit around a philosophize about what the other two groups are doing and whether or not it is worthwhile or has any meaning.

A couple of the downloads might turn out to be of value.  All I need is the time to dig through them to find the golden nuggets that might possibly be there.

March 15, 2017 -  Hmm.  The Internet never ceases to amaze me.  This afternoon, I was studying the dozen pages from the book "Causal Physics: Photons by Non-Interactions of Waves" that I'd printed out because a peer reviewer of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" suggested I cite the book somewhere in my paper.  That led me to to do a Google search for "scientific explanations," which led me to the book "Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World" by Wesley Salmon.  Since that book was first published in the 1980s, I wondered if it was available for free on-line.  So, I searched for it.  I couldn't find a free copy of it anywhere, but I found and downloaded free pdf copies of some related books and materials:
"Scientific Explanation," edited by Philip Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon (543 pages)

"Four Decades of Scientific Explanation" by Wesley C. Salmon (256 pages)

"Reality and Rationality" by Wesley C. Salmon (300 pages)

"Probability and Causality: Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon" (380 pages)

"Scientific Explanation"by Erik Weber, Jeroen Van Bouwel and Leen De Vreese (100 pages)

"Scientific Knowledge" by James H. Fetzer (335 pages)

"Boyle on Fire: The Mechanical Revolution in Scientific Explanation" by William R. Eaton (214 pages)

"Aspects of Scientific Explanation" by Carl G. Hempel (516 pages)

"Beyond Kuhn - Scientific Explanation, Theory Structure, Incommensurability and Physical Necessity" by Edwin H.-C. Hung (158 pages)

"Causality and Scientific Explanation" by William A. Wallace (301 pages)

"Scientific Procedures" by Ladislav Tondl (283 pages)

"Scientific Nihilism: On the Loss and Recovery of Physical Explanation" by Daniel Athearn (571 pages)
And a 14-page scientific paper out of some book:
"Inquiry and Scientific Explanations: Helping Students Use Evidence and Reasoning" by Katherine L. McNeill and Joseph Krajcik
Groan!  I don't know if any of books and papers will help me explain the science of Time Dilation without Relativity, and I don't know if those books and papers relate to the disputes between philosophers and scientists or not, but copies of them are  now in my computer awaiting the future occasion when I'll have the time to study them to see what they are all about.   

March 14, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, the IRS accepted my income tax filing as okay, and this morning I was notified that the State of Wisconsin did the same for my state taxes.  So, I'm officially done filing my 2016 income taxes.

A quick check of Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum finds nothing more interesting than this brief discussion between "Ralph" and "Gary":
Ralph: OK, I know we all regard little gary as the epitome of the classic village idiot and one of this NG's most persistent irritants. ...but what you don't know is that in spite of his lack of general intelligence, he has a brilliant memory.
little gary can remember right back in time, so much so that he can
clearly recall swimming through a hole in an old condom, while on the back seat of a stolen Ford Wagon parked outside a black single's bar in lower Soho.
Gary: I am very flattered by Abysmally-Stupid Ralphie-boy's attention.  His ad hominem attack can only mean that my arguments have taken a devastating toll on his abysmally-stupid DirtyBaThWater.  Actually, it was no great problem refuting it because it is so abysmally stupid.  I'm also flattered that he even remembered me since his attention span is that of a two-year-old.
So, I began studying the Preface and pages 239 through 243 of a book that one of the peer reviewers of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" suggested that I might read and cite as a reference: "Causal Physics: Photons by Non-Interactions of Waves."  While the title suggests it is a very technical book about waves and photons, which it is, it is also a book about the unending conflict between mathematicians and observational scientists.  Just as I argued last week, it argues that it is time for a better mathematical model of the workings of the universe to be developed, since the current space-time model is clearly dysfunctional, even if countless mathematicians are dedicated to protecting and saving it.

The author, Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri who is a Research Professor at the University of Connecticut, promotes IPM-E, which is the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology as opposed to MDM-E, which is Mathematical Data Modeling Epistemology.  He wrote in his book's Preface:
Current theories emphasize modeling measurable data, rather than facilitating visualization of, or mapping, the ontological (actual) interaction processes going on in nature.  Technology inventions require successful emulation of physical processes allowed by nature in novel ways, or in novel combinations, irrespective of our deficiencies in developing the complete or the final theory for any relevant phenomenon.
In other words, we need to use new technologies to help us understand how the universe really works instead of just accepting some current mathematical model as the ultimate truth.  Here's another quote from the Preface:
So, the primary thrust of this book is to draw close attention to the invisible ontological interaction processes behind various optical phenomena so we can emulate them more efficiently and knowledgeably in spite of limitations of our theories.  Such an attempt immediately reveals that process-based understanding of superposition effects (SE) as experienced by detectors is dramatically different from the mathematical superposition principle (SP).  SE is a physical phenomenon.  SP is an interaction-free mathematical construct.
My problem is going to be to figure out how to use Professor Roychoudhuri's book as a reference without getting into explaining all the acronyms and convoluted descriptions he uses.    

March 13, 2017
- OKAY!!  I just finished doing my income taxes, I finished proof-reading the last chapter of the scientist's book yesterday afternoon, and that takes care of all the high-priority things I had to do before getting back to work on my scientific papers.

And it snowing outside, with what looks like about 6 inches already on the ground, so I'll be skipping my regular trip to the gym this afternoon.  That also means I don't have anything else to do except work on those scientific papers.

I'll start right after lunch.


March 12, 2017 - I've mentioned in past comments that, back before Christmas, a scientist acquaintance of mine asked me to proof-read a book he is writing.  He's already got an agent, and he's got a publisher waiting for the book he has contracted to write.  So, he's been busy writing it, first sending me three chapters at a time from the 12 chapters he'd already written.  When I had proof-read those chapters and sent them back, he'd immediately send three more.  After finishing the first 12, he'd then send me three more chapters at a time as he finished them.

A month ago, he stopped sending chapters, and I figured he was just having a hard time writing the latest chapters.  Then, on Thursday, the scientist sent me the last seven chapters of the book as one big batch. 
So, that put a temporary hold on me doing my taxes and on my work on my scientific papers.

I read through the seven chapters on Friday, making notes, mostly just about  typos and a few misspellings, but occasionally making a suggestion about rephrasing something to make it more clear.  Yesterday, I started reading through the chapters again, this time more slowly.  And, I began returning the chapters and my notes to him one by one.  This morning, I have only the final chapter left to finish, and then I can think once again about doing my taxes.

Meanwhile, I've managed to avoid posting anything to the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, although I have been checking it each morning to see if there was anything happening that was worthy of my attention.  There's been nothing.  It seems to be mostly mathematicians arguing with other mathematicians about which mathematical formula best fits some problem, plus a bunch of trolls who do nothing but attack the whole idea of Relativity.  And another group of individuals who each have a different variation on the Theory of Relativity they want to tell the world about and get the world to accept.

At night, while watching TV, and in the mornings while laying in bed waiting for it to be time to get up, I've been thinking about my scientific papers.  More than ever, I feel I'm right about what Einstein wrote, and the interpretations by the mathematicians are just plain illogical.  The primary problem I have is figuring out how to best present my case.  I have to shoot down the mathematicians without directly attacking or insulting them.  That's sometimes difficult to do, but I've managed to do it fairly consistently when arguing with mathematicians on the Google forum.  As I've said before, it's like arguing with True Believers.  If you disagree with them in any way, they will take it as a personal attack on them on their beliefs, and they'll come back at you with every vicious personal attack they can muster.

So, I'll have be very clear and logical as I argue that their Fixed Speed of Light model of the universe, which is a distortion of what Einstein presented in his papers on Special and General Relativity needs to be replaced by the Variable Time and Speed of Light model of the universe that Einstein actually presented.

My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" presents the evidence which clearly shows that the mathematicians' theories need to be reconsidered, and my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate will be a step by step tear-down of the mathematician's invalid and illogical interpretations of Einstein's First and Second Postulates to his Special Theory of Relativity.  Unfortunately, I'll have to leave it to the mathematicians to come up with a replacement mathematical model for the universe.  Mathematics is definitely not my forte. 

So, I've got a lot of work to do.  

But first I need to finish proof-reading that final chapter of the scientist's book.

And then I have to do my income taxes.


Comments for Sunday, March 5, 2017, thru Saturday, March 11, 2017:

March 9, 2017 - After thinking it over a bit, I decided that there's nothing for me to be concerned about in the writings of Paul Marmet and David Lazer (see yesterday's comment).  The issue they address is the problem with how Physics is taught in colleges and universities today, not the problem I describe in my papers, i.e.,  the different interpretations of Einstein's Theories of Relativity.  

I also awoke this morning thinking about a way to argue against the points made by mathematicians on the Google forum and particularly the mathematician who peer reviewed my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  Their argument is that their mathematical equations work, therefore their theory is correct.  The only way they'll accept any claim that their theory is wrong is if you prove their mathematical equations are incorrect.  And there is no way to do that.

The mathematical theories of Plato and Aristotle had the Earth as the center of the universe with dozens of geocentric transparent spheres moving the planets and stars around in the night sky.  No one could prove their theory wrong by proving their mathematics were wrong because their mathematics weren't wrong. The whole idea was wrong.

It took a new idea, a Sun-centered solar system, to convince scientists that the geocentric model was invalid.  The mathematical equations for the geocentric universe still worked, but the mathematical equations for the heliocentric system also worked, they were simpler, and they better explained actual observations.

So, there's no way to use mathematics to prove the mathematicians' horrendously complex mathematical model of spacetime with a fixed speed of light is wrong.  It has to be replaced by a better idea that better fits observations and experiments and involves a very different mathematical model.  As I see it, that idea is Einstein's original idea of varying local time and a variable speed of light.  It is far better explanation of the workings of the universe than the mathematicians' distortion of Einstein's idea using fixed time and a fixed speed of light.  
   
Presenting a new idea is difficult enough.  Presenting an old idea and arguing that it is being and has been misinterpreted by mathematicians for over a hundred years is the task I have before me.  But, I think I can make the logic convincing to scientists who believe in logic.  If I can't convince the mathematicians who believe that math is logic, maybe I can convince them that Einstein's original mathematical model could be fun to explore.  

But first I need to do my income taxes.

March 8, 2017 -  I began this day by telling people on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum that I'm not going to be able to argue there for awhile, probably for at least a few months.  I need to focus on making changes to my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" so that I can resubmit it to the science journal that yesterday provided me with two "peer reviews." 

Interestingly, in one of the overnight posts to the discussion thread titled "The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable," someone mentioned the name "
Paul Marmet."  I had to research him and found that in a paper titled "The GPS and the constant velocity of light" published in 2000, Paul Marmet appears to argue many of the same things I am arguing today. 

Further research found a paper by Marmet titled "Explaining the Illusion of the Constant Velocity of Light."  And then I found a treasure trove of information about him, including the fact that Marmet died in 2005, the fact that f
rom 1990 to 1999, Paul Marmet was a Visiting Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa.  He was a Senior Research Officer at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, from 1983 to 1990.  Etc.   There's also a list of papers he wrote, but none of the links work.  However, I can use the titles to find the papers elsewhere.

For example, I found he wrote a self-published book titled "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution," which can be read for free on-line.  The Preface of the book begins with this:

        When I chose to study physics, I thought that science was always rational. Modern physics has certainly failed to fulfill those expectations. For example, I found that the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation does not allow us to believe in the real existence of matter and that the law of causality is not applied in quantum theory. David Layzer gave one of the most honest descriptions of modern physics when he said that modern physics is merely a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements. Unfortunately, his statement is true.
        Physics can be studied from many different points of view. Its aim can be to make numerical predictions of some phenomena or to present a rational way of explaining physical observations. These are two quite different aspects.
I couldn't have said it better.  But David Layzer is another name I'd never heard of.  Researching him, I found an article about him in the Harvard Crimson which says,
"Virtually all of the difficulty comes from the fact that science and math are atrociously taught in school," Layzer says. "Most people come to Harvard with a view of science that is completely distorted. It is as if science has to do only with memorizing formulas. This is as if people were taught about art by painting by numbers, so that you've taken away spatial organization and made it a mindless assembly."

"Science is the outgrowth of questions about the world: it's about why some things are smooth, rough and hard, and others melt," Layzer continues. "The way it is taught today turns off many creative people who are best equipped to be serious students of science."

I'll have to study Marmet's and Layzer's papers to see if we fully agree or if he has a different theory that just initially appears to be the same as mine.  (I can already see Marmet and I disagree on how red-shifting works.)  And I'm not sure how to use their papers as references in my papers if we're saying the same things.  It might look like I am stealing their ideas.  Hopefully, reading their papers will help me figure out how to deal with them.

March 7, 2017 (B) - @@$#^^#!%**!!!  This morning I received a response from the science journal that has had my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" since December 5.  It had two "peer reviews" of my paper attached and instructions on what to do next.  It makes me wonder how long those reviews were sitting around waiting for me to send an email.

The first reviewer recommended rejecting my paper because he didn't find my arguments to be convincing.  He then goes on to state his own beliefs using mathematical equations.

The second reviewer has some complimentary things to say and recommends some changes to make the paper better and more acceptable.

I suppose it's possible that they were waiting for a third reviewer to "break the tie." 

The managing editor says in his instructions that I have to either revise the paper or make a convincing argument about why no revisions are necessary.  However, in either case, I must resubmit the paper by June 28.  

Now, I have to figure out what to do next.  I'll probably do my taxes.

March 7, 2017 (A) -  On Sunday, right after writing a comment here about not being able to focus on watching movies, I received an email promotion from RedBox telling me I could rent 2 movies from them for $1 each per day.  So, I rented "Captain Fantastic" and "Denial," the only two movies at my local Redbox that I hadn't seen but thought I might possibly want to watch - or at least find out if I wanted to watch them or not.  I didn't really expect to be able to sit through either one of them.

First I watched "Captain Fantastic."  As I watched, I kept telling myself that I should give up on it, but I kept watching.  It turned out to be pretty good and well worth the dollar I paid to view it.

Then I watched "Denial."  I fully expected to turn it off after 10 or 15 minutes, since I knew it was about the Holocaust and Holocaust deniers, and I figured it would be far too grim and depressing for me in my current state of mind.  But, WOW!  What a terrific movie!  I enjoyed every minute of it.  It was even very funny in parts.  It may be the best movie I've seen in years, or maybe it just seemed so great because it was so much unlike what I expected.

Yes, it was about a holocaust denier, a true story that took place from 1996 to 2000.  However, it was mostly about the British legal system and the need to prove that the holocaust denier was indeed a denier - a denier of the truth.  Here's how the IMDB describes it:
Based on the acclaimed book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier," DENIAL recounts Deborah E. Lipstadt's (Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz) legal battle for historical truth against David Irving (Cannes Award winner Timothy Spall), who accused her of libel when she declared him a Holocaust denier. In the English legal system in Defamation, the burden of proof is on the accused, therefore it was up to Lipstadt and her legal team to prove the essential truth that the Holocaust occurred.  
And that is why the movie was so fascinating.  It was about proving that a True Believer and conspiracy theorist was deliberately lying.  I wasn't thinking about how we have a True Believer conspiracy theorist as President right now.  I was thinking about all the arguments I've had with True Believers and conspiracy theorists over the past 16 years.  What I've found is that they may believe what they say (which would technically and legally mean they aren't lying), but they will freely lie to make an argument against anyone who disagrees with them.

I spent over a decade arguing with one such True Believer and Denier.  He's still arguing that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were committed by Muslims and not by the man the FBI and DOJ accused of the crime: Dr. Bruce Ivins.  Interestingly, he's currently trying to get President Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence to re-open the anthrax investigation.  Here is what the conspiracy theorist "Accuracy in Media" web site said about it on Feb. 27:

President Donald Trump is currently engaged in a feud with the FBI over “illegal leaks” that he wants investigated and stopped.

Trump has a right to be concerned, even alarmed. And he certainly has a right to know the full extent of the corruption that ran rampant in the Bureau during its investigation of the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, known as Amerithrax. The gross mishandling of the case serves as an example of how not to conduct a national security investigation involving weapons of mass destruction. It is also a warning that something similar—or perhaps more catastrophic—could happen again unless changes are made at the FBI involving monitoring the activities of jihadist groups on American soil.

We noted at the time that the anthrax letters, which were mailed to American media organizations and two senators, featured the phrases “Death to America,” “Death to Israel,” and “Allah is God.” These were indications that an Islamic extremist had written them. But the FBI dismissed these obvious leads as a diversion intended to falsely blame radical Islam and focus attention away from the real perpetrator, supposedly a right-winger with a military background.

and

The independent investigators, including historian Kenneth J. Dillon, a former Foreign Service officer and intelligence analyst, and attorney Ross Getman, an expert on al Qaeda’s biowarfare program, are asking President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence to reopen the anthrax mailings investigation. This could lead, Dillon argues, to exonerating an innocent man, identifying the real al-Qaeda perpetrator, and getting to the bottom of what went wrong in America’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

In 2002, then-Rep. Pence wrote a letter asking why international links weren’t being probed in the anthrax mailings.

If you attempt to discuss the facts and the evidence with these True Believers and conspiracy theorists, they will bury you in meaningless bulls**t, and they seem to have no problem with distorting the truth or even lying to make their arguments. 

That is how the denier in the movie "Denial" gets tripped up.  He may have believed what he was saying, but he was such a True Believer that he had no problem lying when he needed to make a point. 

I learned long ago that there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer.  But you can learn a lot about the "truth" by arguing with them.  And that is what I'm doing as I argue with the mathematicians who truly believe that their bizarre interpretations of Einstein's theories are what Einstein really meant, instead of what Einstein actually wrote.


March 6, 2017 - Yesterday, someone who calls himself "Pentcho Valev" posted a series of quotes from scientific articles on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  While his purpose was to argue that scientists who formerly accepted Einstein's theories now "run from Einstein," the articles at the links he provided show a very different picture.  They show that mathematicians - particularly those involved with Quantum Mechanics - have a major conflict with Einstein's theories.  Of course, everyone knows about the conflicts between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, but those conflicts always seemed to be about position and velocity.  Here's a quote from the book "The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos" by Leonard Mlodinow, that I finished reading on February 23:
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.  
The articles Pentcho Valev posted seem to argue that the conflict actually centers on TIME, the subject I've been talking and arguing about for the past few years.

Here are some interesting quotes and their sources:

"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
Source: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. Or hop in a rocket and use fuel rather than gravity to accelerate through space, and time dilates; you age less than someone who stayed at home.

"Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity requires reconciling their absolute and relative notions of time."
Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
"Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
Source: https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
"In quantum theory, a “master clock” ticks away somewhere in the universe, measuring out all processes. But in Einstein’s relativity, time is distorted by motion and gravity, so clocks don’t necessarily agree on how it is passing – meaning any master clock must, somewhat implausibly, be outside the universe."
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331150-400-cosmic-uncertainty-does-time-go-both-ways/
"Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331150-400-cosmic-uncertainty-does-time-go-both-ways/ 
"On one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time."  "On the other hand, time in general relativity is dynamical and local. Hence, it is not an absolute time.”  
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610057

There are probably a lot more such quotes that I could find if I had a reason to look for them.  But the ones I've already found have served their purpose for me.  They showed the "Mathematics Gang" that I am not alone in opposing their beliefs about time.

BTW, at 9 a.m. this morning, I sent an email to the science journal that has my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" asking about the status of my paper.  I'm now awaiting a response.

March 5, 2017 - I just experienced a bit of Time Dilation.  The last three months were probably the longest three months in the history of the universe.  They certainly felt that way to me.  I submitted my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" to a scientific journal three months ago today, on December 5, 2016.  I haven't heard a word about it in 3 months, and the journal's "rules" say that no one should inquire into the status of their paper until at least 3 month after submission.

So, tomorrow I'll ask them about it.

I'm assuming they'll tell me it is still in a queue awaiting assignment to some reviewer(s).   I'm also assuming that they won't be able to tell me when I can expect it will be assigned to some reviewer(s).   From what I can tell by visiting their web site, it seems they are just getting around to reading papers submitted in October 2016.  So, I might have to wait another three months before they'll even tell me if they are rejecting my paper or are considering it for publication.

On the positive side, I think I'm making significant progress on another scientific paper tentatively titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity."  Last week, I think I greatly improved the paper by referring to the beliefs of the mathematicians as "an alternative theory" instead of "a misunderstanding," which reviewers might see as unfair and one-sided.  I then gave a name to their theory.  I call it "The All Observers Theory," which says that all observers measure light to be moving at the same speed, a theory which is in disagreement with "The Emitter Only Theory" where only the emitter measures light to move at his local speed of light, and everyone else measures the speed of light using a different time frame.

I have two other papers in the works, "What is Time?" and "Time Dilated Light," but months ago I came to the conclusion that those papers basically require that my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" be published first, since they build on the same idea -- that Time Dilation is a real, natural phenomenon and not just an illusion.   

Since the "Second Postulate" paper can stand alone and doesn't build on any previous paper, I can submit it somewhere as soon as I finish it.  I'll definitely submit it to a different journal, one where I hopefully will get a faster response.

But first I have to finish it.  Yesterday, or the day before, Tom Roberts in the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion group mentioned a scientific finding that I'd never heard of before (or maybe I just couldn't recall it), the "annual Doppler effect."  Wikipedia says only this about it: "In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the annual Doppler effect, the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth."

It seems to be undeniable evidence that the movement of an outside observer will affect the speed of light the observer measures.  In the spring, when the Earth is moving toward a star near the ecliptic plane, the light from the star will be blue shifted.  In the fall, when the Earth is moving away from that same star, the light from the star will be red shifted.  The problem now is to find the paper that Hermann Vogel and Julius Scheiner published about their observations.  All I've been able to find so far are one-line mentions of it on Wikipedia, in the astronomy book Wikipedia uses as a reference, and in a few other astronomy books.  However, I'm continuing the research as I write this comment.

It is all very fascinating for me.  I'm finding it very difficult to think about anything else.  In the evenings when I normally watch movies, I'm now watching old TV shows which do not require that I pay much attention, and my mind can easily drift to thoughts about Time Dilation and the Second Postulate.
  Last week I "binge-watched" about 7 or 8 episodes of "The Twilight Zone" each night, episodes I had downloaded into my DVR from a "Twilight Zone Marathon" the sci-fi channel ran back in July.  Plus, some nights for a change of pace, I'd watch one episode of Season 4 of "Stargate SG-1" from my DVD collection, and maybe listen to the audio commentary track for that episode.  Before binge-watching "The Twilight Zone" I binge-watched Season 3 of "Stargate SG-1."

As I was typing the above comment, people were arguing about red-shifting and the speed of light on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  Most of it is Greek to me, but maybe I'll be able to decipher some of it -- when I'm not hunting for the paper Vogel and Scheiner wrote in 1887.


Comments for Wednesday, March 1, 2017, thru Saturday, March 4, 2017:

March 2, 2017
- Hmm.  The latest edition of New Scientist magazine has an article titled "Cosmic uncertainty: Is the speed of light really constant?"  Unfortunately, the version at the above link is only the first part of the article, and it doesn't say very much.  You need a subscription or you need to buy a copy to read the rest. 

I've got an article awaiting peer review that says that the speed of light is NOT really a constant.  While it would be nice to have some support, it is also a bit unnerving to see other articles appear that seem to say what I'm trying to say in a new and original article.  I don't want my article to be obsolete before it is published.

March 1, 2017
- Wow!  Using red- and blue-shifting of light waves as an argument for a variable speed of light is really becoming interesting.  It's also becoming so complicated that I have to sit and study what I'm writing for a long time to make certain it actually does make sense.

Late yesterday afternoon, I responded to a couple comments on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum.   The first comment, from Kenseto stated:

Moron the PoR [Principle of Relativity?] says that every observer measures his sodium source to have wavelength of 589 nm.
To which "Odd Bodkin" replied,
Liar, it says absolutely nothing like that.
Since I've made it a policy to never respond to anything that "Odd Bodkin" writes, I waited for Kenseto to post something else, and I then I responded with this:
Of course, this is just a very good and OBVIOUS demonstration that an observer moving toward a source of light will see the light arriving at c + v, where v is the observer's velocity (AND the amount of blue shift).  If the observer is moving away from the source of the light, the light will arrive at c - v, where v is the observer's velocity (AND the amount of red shift).

The sodium wave length remains at 589nm.  And, of course, the speed of light remains at 299,792,458 meters per second.  But, because the FREQUENCY of the arriving waves increases or decreases as a result of our motion, we measure and perceive a blue shift or red shift.
That comment was pretty much ignored, but then the Fermilab scientist posting as "tjrob137" wrote this in response to someone else's post:
To you and kenseto I say again: wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of light, it is rather a relationship between the light and the apparatus that is measuring it.  The light is not changing, but THE WAY DIFFERENT INERTIAL FRAMES MEASURE ITS WAVELENGTH does change.
And I responded with this:
You are contradicting YOURSELF.  First you say "wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of light" and then you say "The light is not changing."

Wavelength IS an intrinsic property of light.

When the waves go though "the apparatus that is measuring it," the waves will be their correct length ONLY if the apparatus and the source of the light are both "at rest" in the same frame of reference.

If the source of the light is moving away from the measuring apparatus, the wave length will be MEASURED as being longer.  I.e., red shifted.

If the source of the light is moving toward the measuring apparatus, the wave length will be MEASURED as being shorter. I.e., blue shifted.

If the measuring equipment is moving away from the source of the light, the wave length will be MEASURED as being longer.  I.e., red shifted.

If the measuring equipment is moving toward the source of the light, the wave length will be measured as being shorter.  I.e., blue shifted.

If the measuring equipment and the source of the light are moving in the same direction at the same speed, the wave length will be measured as "normal."
To my surprise, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller agreed with me.  He posted this:
Yes .... it would appear Honest Roberts would be "playing both sides of the Aether Fence" in utilizing both "The Relative Velocity of the Detector & the Relative MOMENTUM of the Photon"
But for some reason he also tried to change the subject, adding some comment about the Pound-Rebka experiments which had nothing to do with anything.  So I responded,
Let's stick with the problem at hand and not change the subject.

If the source of the light is moving relative to the measuring apparatus, they are NOT AT REST in the same frame of reference.  They can be viewed as being in DIFFERENT frames of reference.  In the source's frame, the wave length of sodium is its normal 589nm.  If the light is coming toward the measuring apparatus's frame of reference, the wave length of sodium will be measured to be LESS THAN 589nm.

Nothing changed except the frame of reference.  

However, if an observer in the apparatus's frame of reference measures the wave length of sodium light emitted in HIS frame of reference, he will measure it as 589nm.

So, he measures the sodium light he creates in HIS frame of reference as having a wave length of 589nm, AND he measures the sodium light coming from another frame as arriving with a wave length of LESS THAN 589nm.  He describes that light as being "blue shifted."

But he ALSO ARGUES that the speed of light from another source is not affected by HIS movement.  It will still arrive at 299,792,458 meters per second.

How does the LIGHT travel at c while his measuring apparatus says that the light WAVES are arriving at c - v, where v is EITHER his velocity, the source's velocity, or BOTH?

Answer: He states an ABSURD BELIEF that the wave length somehow changes.
That's where the discussion stands at the moment.  I had to do a lot of thinking before posting that last comment.  I had to be sure I wasn't contradicting something I had written in the past.   In the past, I repeatedly argued that there is no way to measure the speed of light coming from a distant star or distant frame of reference.  So, we cannot be certain that light coming from a distant star is coming at 299,792,458 meters per second.  But it seems that most physicists assume that speed to be a "universal constant" which is the same regardless of the source, instead of only being a "universal constant" for anyone measuring the speed of light created in their own frame of reference.  And they are then forced to argue that the wave length of light somehow changes without changing the speed of light.  How can that be?  They don't know.  They just babble about it being how the Theory of Relativity works.

Every day I am just amazed at how simple "reality" is, and how ridiculously complex people make things in order to force them to fit their misunderstandings of Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
 


Comments for Sunday, Feb. 26, 2017, thru Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017:

February 28, 2017 - Since I'm not involved in any arguments at the moment, I printed out copies of Richard Tolman's papers (see yesterday's comment) and this morning I laid down on a couch and read them, highlighting passages with a yellow marker and underlining particularly interesting passages with a red pen.

It's difficult to draw any conclusions, since my ideas about relativity are based upon the passage of Time being dependent upon motion and gravity, and Tolman's ideas seem to be based upon the notion that because there is no aether through which the earth is moving, there is no way to tell who is moving and who is not.  Tolman has the mathematician's view of reality in that he sees no way to tell if a wall is moving toward your car or if your car is moving toward the wall.  If you cannot tell who or what is moving, you cannot have time be dilated in actuality due to movement.  Tolman also appears to argue that it isn't time that is slowed, it is distance that is lengthened.

If Tolman were alive today, he'd probably argue as the "Mathematics Club" argues, and here's a direct quote from Tolman's 1909 paper on "The Principle of Relativity and Non-Newtonian Mechanics" : 
"Thus to each observer it seems that the other's clock is running too slowly."
But what about the NIST paper which shows that one observer can view two clocks and see that one is ticking slower than the other due to time dilation?

Interestingly, while I'm not involved, there's an argument going on in the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum about measuring the wave length of sodium light.  Someone who calls himself "Kenseto" is arguing that everyone measures the wavelength of sodium light to be 589 nanometers (nm) in their own frame of reference, but when they measure the wavelength of sodium light coming from a outside source it will come at either slightly less than 589 nm or slightly greater than 589 nm.  That must mean that the speed of the sodium light is variable.  "S
o we end up with variable incoming light speed and universal wavelength of the source."

Michael Moroney countered by arguing, "
We will measure the wavelength of a
sodium source moving toward us as having a wavelength shorter than 589 nm, one moving away from us having a wavelength longer than 589 nm. Astronomers call this 'blueshift' and 'redshift'."

To which "Kenseto" responded, "E
very observer measures his sodium source to have wavelength of 589 nm."  And "That means that A and B each measures the wavelength of his own sodium source and each finds a value of 589 nm."

Kenseto's argument seems to be that when sodium light changes wavelength it is because sodium light changes speed while the wavelength remains the same. 

That's my argument, too.  Only I view it as further evidence that the mathematicians' screwball beliefs about Einstein's Second Postulate are wrong.  It is evidence that an outside observer will see light arriving at c + v, where v is the observer's speed.  When we see light from a star or galaxy is red shifted, it means we are moving away from that star or galaxy.  Light is coming to us at c, but since we are moving away from the source, we observe it arriving at c minus our velocity.  In other words,
c + v = blue shifted light
c - v = red shifted light
I hadn't included this in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, but now I see that it is very important that I use it.  The problem is, I don't know how anyone could view this any other way.  But, obviously they do.  

The "Mathematics Gang" seems to be arguing that the speed of light is fixed and cannot change, therefore it must be the wavelength that changes. 

Kenseto argued, "
Moron.....I said that the source wavelength of sodium is 589 nm. The incoming sodium light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and that's why it has a different wavelength.  The problem is: You can't use this new measured wavelength and frequency to determine the incoming speed of light. Why? Because the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and the observer will measure all light sources in his frame to have speed of c.
"If you want to determine the speed of incoming sodium light using the measured incoming wavelength you need to use the following equation:
c'=c(source wavelength 589/measured incoming wavelength of sodium light)."

If I try to decipher Kenseto's argument , he seems to be arguing that an observer "will measure all light sources in his frame to have speed of c," and thus they assume that the wavelength changed.

It's an interesting argument, and I somewhat agree with Kenseto, but I'd phrase things differently, so I'm staying out of that argument.  Meanwhile, I can check to see how "red shift" and "blue shift" are defined by the "experts".  Some examples:

Redshift is defined as the change in the wavelength of the light divided by the wavelength that the light would have if the source was not moving — called the rest wavelength:

Redshift = (Observed wavelength – Rest wavelength)/(Rest wavelength)

Source: http://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html
In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Sound can only move so fast through the air – about 1,200 kilometers per hour (about 750 miles per hour).  As the train rushes forward and blows its horn, the sound waves in front of the train get squished together.  Meanwhile, the sound waves behind the train get spread out.  This means the frequency of the sound waves is now higher ahead of the train and lower behind it. Our brains interpret changes in the frequency of sound as changes in pitch.  To a person on the ground, the horn starts off high as the train approaches and then goes low as the train recedes.

sound waves

As a car moves, sound waves in front of it get squished up while those behind get spread out. This changes the perceived frequency and we hear the pitch change as the car goes by.

Light, like sound, is also a wave stuck at a fixed speed – one billion kilometers per hour – and therefore plays by the same rules.  Except, in the case of light, we perceive changes in frequency as changes in color.  If a lightbulb moves very rapidly through space, the light appears blue as it approaches you and then becomes red after it passes.

Measuring these slight changes in the frequency of light lets astronomers measure the speed of everything in the universe!

red and blue shift

Just like sounds from a moving car, as a star moves away from us, the light becomes redder. As it moves towards us, the light becomes bluer. Credit: Wikipedia

Source: http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-a-redshift

How can this not be seen as solid proof that light will be perceived by an outside observer (like us here on Earth) as arriving at c plus our speed?   Is it considered to be just another "illusion," where the light isn't really arriving at c + v or c - v?  It just appears that way?

February 27, 2017 - Hmm.  The arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum have turned into arguments between other people, with nothing for me to comment upon.  Mostly it is just name calling and stating opinions, but I'll continue to watch the discussions in case something of value is said.

So, this morning I decided to work on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  I began by doing a Google search for "Second Postulate" and found a paper on WikiSource titled "The Second Postulate of Relativity" by Richard Chace Tolman that was written in 1910.  A further search found a version of the same article that appears to have been photocopied right from the journal Physical Review.  I was somewhat surprised to see these descriptions of the First and Second Postulates in the paper:
The first postulate of relativity adds the idea that a motion of the source of light towards the observer is identical with a motion of the observer towards the source.  The second postulate of relativity is seen to be merely the combination of these two principles, since it states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless both of the motion of the source of light and of the observer.
Whaaa?  That's not what the Second Postulates says at all!  That's what the "Mathematics Gang" I argue with on Google say.  And that interpretation of the First Postulate seems the same as arguing that the motion of a wall toward my car is the same as the motion of my car to the wall.

I did a Google search for "Richard Tolman Abert Einstein disagree" (without the quotes) and found this photograph of Einstein and Tolman together:

Albert Einstein and Richard Tolman

The photograph was accompanied by a Los Angeles Times article from 1932 that says,
Dr. Richard C. Tolman, professor of mathematical physics, brought these facts to light this evening when he addressed more than fifty distinguished scientists, including Dr. Albert Einstein, at the California Institute of Technology.

The seminar leader exhibited several mathematically correct models of self-perpetuating universes in the form of blackboard equations.

Dr. Einstein accepted Dr. Tolman’s invitation to interrupt the discussion at any time. After the “father of relativity” had commented in German for more than ten minutes, Dr. E. C. Watson suggested that Dr. Tolman interpret Einstein’s comments. “Oh, I think everyone here understood Dr. Einstein,” retorted Dr. Tolman as he glanced apprehensively about the lecture hall. A gale of laughter convulsed the audience.
The word "disagree" doesn't appear in the article.  But the article certainly gives the impression that Einstein said something in German that disagrees with Tolman, and Einstein was then laughed at by the audience.  I tried to find out more about the relationship between Tolman and Einstein, but I found almost nothing.   Tolman is described on Wikipedia as "an American mathematician physicist."  That certainly fits with my arguments.   

I'm going to have to study the Tolman paper in greater detail.  At first glance,  he seems to argue the speed of the source cannot be combined with the speed of light (which I agree with), but then he argues that lengths and distances (specifically the length of a centimeter) somehow change for the outside observer.  He seems to argue that the wavelength of the light changes because the length of a centimeter changes, and that is what causes the outside observer to see light traveling at c instead of his velocity plus c.  That fits somewhat with my ideas, but I'll have to study his paper in greater detail to see exactly where we agree and disagree.   I also found Tolman's paper on "The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics," which is from 1909 and is used as a reference in his 1910 paper.  I'll have to study that paper, too.  Groan!  That's not what I was planning to do today. 

On the other hand, those two papers could be exactly what I've been looking for.  They might make perfect references to use in my paper on the Second Postulate, and they seem to be Tolman's explanation of how he interpreted Einstein's theories and why he believed what he believed.  That is something I don't seem to be able to get from any living mathematician.

I just need to find the time to study them carefully.


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 43.229.26.166.  That is a web site in Gurgaon, India.  The rest check out to be from:
36.234.19.146 = Taiwan
5.32.50.66 = United Arab Emirates
76.3.136.179 = Las Vegas, Nevada
71.83.129.50 = Los Angeles, California
115.132.39.32 = Malaysia
217.132.49.142 = Israel
180.183.214.219 = Thailand
155.133.63.7 = 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:

     (A)->->->->->->-><-<-<-<-<-<-(B) 

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:

     (A)->->->->->->->O->-><-<-<-<-<-(B)

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:
LOL
ROTFLMAO
THAT IS POUND REBKA  with CCTV    😝
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.









Other interests:

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

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


            
© 2017 by Ed Lake