Ed Lake's web page

If you want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.

Welcome to Ed Lake's web site!

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

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.

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.

Comments for Sunday, April 23, 2017, thru Saturday, April 29, 2017:

April 25, 2017 - I'm really starting to feel overwhelmed.  The changes I was requested to make to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity seem to be fairly minor, but I'm not going to send the revised paper back until next Monday, May 1.  That will give me plenty of time to think things over to make certain the changes (and the rest of the paper) are as good as I can make them.

This morning I received an email from a scientist who I had asked to endorse my paper "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" for arXiv.org.  He said he was willing to do so, but he suggested I make some changes first - to help the paper get past the arXiv moderators.  And he also sent me a 46-page paper he wrote about Einstein's Second Postulate and asked for my thoughts about it.  Since we don't really agree on how the Second Postulate should be interpreted, my comments will probably include a lot of suggestions that he might be wrong.  But, that may very well be what he is looking for.  Ideally, it is what any scientist would want from a critique, but it seems extremely rare for anyone to welcome anything other than praise.

I've temporarily given up on arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  But, I am making a copy of the arguments for possible use in the book I might write some day.  Here's a typical argument from yesterday, resulting from my attempt to discuss the steps involved in a police officer using LIDAR to measure a speeder's velocity as described in my paper about Einstein's Second  Postulate:
Me:   Step 2 is the arrival of the photons at the speeder's car at (c + v)

Other guy: [car at (c + v)] is TRASH, (c+v) Negates all of Relativity....

Me: No, it doesn't.  It just negates the "MATHEMATICIANS' ALL OBSERVERS THEORY" of relativity.  READ MY PAPER!

Other guy: If [car at (c + v)] then there would be NO REFLECTED PHOTON TO CALCULATE THE VELOCITY

Me: There obviously IS a NEW photon to calculate velocity, so you are clearly misunderstanding something.

Other guy: [car at (c - v)] is Much More Workable if the Car was Always considered to be at the event horizon, trying to Accelerate away form the event horizon.  Your Brain is Filled with TRASH

Me: There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.  Your brain is evidently filled with memorized TRASH that is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is confusing you.

Other guy: (There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.)  FOOOOOL !!!  There is Always an Event Horizon Between The Future & The Past ....   This EVENT HORIZON is called the "PRESENT"  What a Stupid Donkey you are.  My Mother's Donkey is Smarter than you ...
I'm talking about something that seems very simple and straight-forward, but he's complicating things beyond comprehension.  I didn't really want to ask him for his explanation of how any of what he said fits into the simple task of a police officer checking a speeder's velocity, since his response would certainly be just more personal attacks.

When I get some of the things done that have a vastly higher priority, I may start another discussion on that forum and try to focus it on how LIDAR works in a very simple situation like that described in my paper.

But first, I have to make some tweeks to my paper on Time Dilation, and then I have to read the paper the potential endorser sent me.

Busy busy busy.

April 24, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning, I didn't receive any responses to my two outstanding requests for arXiv.org endorsers.  The only email I received was from the scientific journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  The reviewer asked for a few additional changes.

I'm glad I didn't have to wait until the end of June to get a response, as I was expecting.  But, the requested changes are difficult to decipher.  So, I'll have to think about what to do.

I'm really overwhelmed with things I need to do.  I've been trying to organize all the papers and books I downloaded during my research and saved into folders in my computer during the past year or so.  I've been trying to maintain listings that describe each paper and book (one listing for arXiv papers (184 items), another listing for viXra papers (27 items) and third listing for "miscellaneous" papers (368 items)), but the listings only include about 60 percent of what I actually downloaded and saved.  Going through the folders to update the listings with the things not yet described, I found I have different versions of several books, and I have some things that I really really need to find time to read.

Meanwhile, I've been spending a little time each day arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  Since the arguments are mostly personal attacks, all that is accomplished by arguing there is to make me all the more certain that my papers are valid and worthwhile.  But, occasionally someone asks a meaningful question that requires me to think a bit before responding.

April 23, 2017 - Wow!  What a busy week!  I think I've finished all the research required for my scientific papers.  Now I just need to focus on getting them published.  Yesterday, I put the 3,000 word version of my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" on this web site at the link HERE.  I was planning on adding it to viXra.org, but I decided that wasn't a good idea.  I have the 7,024 word version on viXra.org, and I think that's all I really need to have there.

I still do not understand why scientific journals like the idea of having authors put their papers put on ArXiv.org before they send them to the journals.  Last week I was researching the journal called "Reports on Progress in Physics."  At the top of their web site they say,

Reports on Progress in Physics now offers an accepted-manuscript service, meaning your research can be downloaded and cited within 24 hours of acceptance.
It appears that they have started a "service" that will compete with arXiv.org and viXra.org.  Why?!  What purpose does such a service serve?  Reading further, they seem to indicate that such web site allows people to argue about the content of papers.  And then, perhaps, publishers can get some idea as to whether a paper has merit or not.  Evidently the editors cannot rely on their own judgment.

Digging deeper into their guidelines for authors, I found this rule:

4. The length of the article should be between 20000 and a maximum of 25000 words, including an allowance of 250 words for each illustration.
A 20,000 word minimum?  Could they possibly have meant 2,000 words?  I suspect not.  My paper is just under 5,000 words.

It's all very bizarre to me.  But I'm on their turf, so I have to figure out how things operate in this world of "getting published."

I want to put the 7,000 word version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate on arXiv.org, but I keep stumbling into pitfalls.  I need an "endorser."  I thought that I just needed to find someone who is "Qualified to endorse," and ask them to do so for me.  Not so.  It turns out I need to find an "endorser" who is qualified to endorse in the specific "section" of arXiv.org where I want to place my paper.

On Thursday, I sent off three email requests for endorsement, along with copies of my 7,024 word paper.  All three potential endorsers were located in different countries.  The one in Spain replied that he couldn't endorse for the astrophysics section.  The other two (in former Soviet Union countries) evidently just saw that I didn't know what I was doing and didn't respond.  I'd used the endorsement request form that I got last year when I was thinking of putting a paper about Time Dilated Light on arXiv.org.  I didn't notice that it was only valid for the astrophysics section.

So, I figured out how to get an endorsement form for the physics section, which seemed to be the best section for my paper, and I sent it off to that same potential endorser in Spain.  He responded that he couldn't endorse for the physics section, either.  The only section into which he has published papers is the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) section.  Groan!  Does my paper fit into the gr-qc section?  What difference does it make?  It appears that all papers submitted to arXiv.org go into the same file, but each is coded with a "section" so that people looking for new papers on some topic can go straight to the section that most likely contains what they are looking for.

So, I obtained an endorsement form for the gr-qc section and sent it off on Friday afternoon.  I haven't received any response.  I'm hoping that that endorser just doesn't respond to work emails on the weekends.  But, it's possible he also gave up on me and got tired of responding to my invalid endorsement requests.

So, while waiting, I need to go through recent papers in physics section to see if any were written by people who can endorse for that section.  But they would also need to have written a paper about something related to Einstein's Second Postulate, and not something opposed to what I wrote.  Otherwise, what basis would I have to ask them to endorse for me?

An alternative idea is to search for all recent papers which mention Einstein's Second Postulate and, if they turn out to be "qualified to endorse," I can check to see if my paper is compatible with what they wrote.  I did that and found one author whose paper is compatible and who is qualified to endorse, but apparently he can "only" endorse for astro-ph.GA, astro-ph.SR, math.HO, physics.atm-clus, physics.atom-ph, physics.bio-ph, physics.comp-ph, physics.flu-dyn and q-bio.QM.   Not for physics!  Should I ask him if he will endorse my paper for the "Solar and Stellar astrophysics" (astro-ph.SR) section?  Does it really belong there?  I dunno.  I'll keep searching.  But, it probably won't hurt to try asking him.  He's in Japan, so I can try this afternoon.

Meanwhile, I have to also search for another scientific journal to which I can submit my paper.

Yesterday morning, I made the mistake of asking people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity forum for advice.  They wouldn't even talk about the problem of finding an endorser, they would only talk about how they didn't believe what I wrote in the version of my Second Postulate paper that I put on viXra.org, because they have their own theories.  And, of course, they attacked me personally for not accepting their theories.

Sigh.

Uh oh.  I just clicked on a link HERE and found this:

## Why viXra?

In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as arXiv.org, was founded at Los Alamos National Laboratories. In the early days of the World Wide Web it was open to submissions from all scientific researchers, but gradually a policy of moderation was employed to block articles that the administrators considered unsuitable. In 2004 this was replaced by a system of endorsements to reduce the workload and place responsibility of moderation on the endorsers. The stated intention was to permit anybody from the scientific community to continue contributing. However many of us who had successfully submitted e-prints before then found that we were no longer able to. Even those with doctorates in physics and long histories of publication in scientific journals can no longer contribute to the arXiv unless they can find an endorser in a suitable research institution.

The policies of the administrators of Cornell University who now control the arXiv are so strict that even when someone succeeds in finding an endorser their e-print may still be rejected or moved to the "physics" category of the arXiv where it is likely to get less attention. Those who endorse articles that Cornell find unsuitable are under threat of losing their right to endorse or even their own ability to submit e-prints. Given the harm this might cause to their careers it is no surprise that endorsers are very conservative when considering articles from people they do not know. These policies are defended on the arXiv's endorsement help page

A few of the cases where people have been blocked from submitting to the arXiv have been detailed on the Archive Freedom website, but as time has gone by it has become clear that Cornell has no plans to bow to pressure and change their policies. Some of us now feel that the time has come to start an alternative archive which will be open to the whole scientific community. That is why viXra has been created. viXra will be open to anybody for both reading and submitting articles. We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.

It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific. However, it will also be a repository for new ideas that the scientific establishment is not currently willing to consider. Other perfectly conventional e-prints will be found here simply because the authors were not able to find a suitable endorser for the arXiv or because they prefer a more open system. It is our belief that anybody who considers themselves to have done scientific work should have the right to place it in an archive in order to communicate the idea to a wide public. They should also be allowed to stake their claim of priority in case the idea is recognised as important in the future.

Hmm.  I don't really care how much attention my paper gets.  I just want it to be on viXra because some journal publishers seem to require it.  So, the physics "category" or "section" is fine for me, but if it's the default category, who would want to be an endorser for it?  That probably explains why I haven't found anyone who deliberately puts their papers in that category.

Sigh.

Today's statistics for my scientific papers on viXra.org shows that 23 people have accessed my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, up from 9 yesterday morning. It's undoubtedly the result of the discussion on the Google forum.  I see there is also one comment on viXra about my Second Postulate paper.  It's the first comment I've gotten on that web site.  The comment simply says:
Gar-bage

I also see there are some arguments awaiting my response on the Google forum this morning.  I'll have to respond, but I'll try to make it short, so that I can get back to work on finding and endorser and finding a scientific journal which will at least look at my paper.

One of these days, I really must write a book about all this.

 Comments for Sunday, April 16, 2017, thru Saturday, April 22, 2017: April 20, 2017 - Well, that didn't take long.  In my email inbox this morning, I found a rejection letter from the scientific journal to which I sent my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate yesterday.  The editor stated, Manuscripts that question well-established physical principles are outside the purview of [our journal] and should be submitted to a more specialized journal for consideration. So, they have nothing to say about the validity of the material in my paper, they just don't publish anything that is controversial.  Hmmm. I suppose I should have expected that.  The paper I wrote says that physics teachers are teaching crap about physics, and I sent it to a journal that is run by physics teachers for physics teachers. So, I'll try someplace else.  The journal that has my paper on Time Dilation definitely does print articles that "question well-established physical principles."  But I don't want to have to wait three months for a response.  I'm going to use them as my last resort option.  Maybe I'll try another journal that is run by physics teachers.  In an ideal world, physics teachers would be the ones most interested in knowing whether what they are teaching is valid or not. Nah.  I'll try to find a monthly journal that might publish controversial papers. I woke up this morning wondering about something I read on that scientific journal for teachers web site.  They state: Authors are encouraged to upload their manuscripts to their personal Web sites and to e-print servers Why?  Obviously, there's something about this process that I do not understand.  But, I just submitted the 7,024 word version to ViXra.org, and it's already available there.  I've also put the pdf version on my own web site at the link HERE.  Tomorrow, I plan to submit and upload the 3,000 word version that I sent to a top-ranked journal and got rejected there.  I'm still not sure if I should upload the latest version or not.  I'll have to think about it and see if I can get some advice.  I'll also have to check to see if I can find any likely "endorser" on ArXiv.org.  I'm not very hopeful about that.  But I just sent an email to a potential endorser in the Republic of Georgia and another in the Czech Republic.  Meanwhile, I'll try to find a potential endorser closer to home.   Busy busy busy. April 19, 2017 - I just submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to a scientific journal.  They say they'll get back to me about it in ten days or less, which is a lot better than waiting 3 months as I am for information about my paper on Time Dilation.  I also received acknowledgement of receipt at 10:41 a.m., less than a minute after submitting it, instead of having to wait a week and then send an email asking if they received it, as was the case with the revised submission of my Time Dilation paper.   I finished putting the paper into LaTeX format yesterday afternoon and then printed out a pdf copy.  This morning I proof-read that paper.  I found a slew of minor problems, mostly having to do with LaTex coding, and made those changes.  I hadn't replaced a lot of apostrophes, so the paper had a lot of "Einsteins" instead of "Einstein's."  Plus, I'd totally failed to notice that I needed to add an apostrophe to "c = c + v" to make it "c' = c + v" in all the places it appeared in a large quote I used (the same quote I used in my April 16 comment). The journal did ask me to supply some potential reviewers, but it was not a requirement.  So, I was able to skip over that part.  It wasn't even a requirement to supply a cover letter, so I didn't supply one.  I wasn't sure what to say.  And I didn't want any cover letter to give any kind of wrong impression.  The 14-page double-spaced paper has NO illustrations.  It's just 4,880 words of text (including the references).  The illustrations I had been using (and spent a LOT of time creating) were all too cartoony, which didn't seem appropriate for a deadly serious paper that states that most physics teachers around the world are teaching total crap. I tried to figure out some way to add something more about Time Dilation to the paper, since it is mathematicians' refusal to accept the reality of Time Dilation that is the cause for all their screwball misinterpretations of Einstein's Second Postulate, but I decided it was better to just supply a mountain of experimental evidence to prove the mathematicians are wrong, and to quote Richard Feynman on the subject of experiments.  Here's how I phrased it in the paper: Physicist Richard Feynman once said that it does not make any difference how beautiful your theory is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who developed the theory, or what your name is, "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science." If you look around the Internet for that quote, you'll find many different places where the first part of it is stated as: However, that is not really what Feynman said.  A YouTube video of that part of his lecture is on-line HERE, and a transcribed version is on page 150 of a hardcover book I have in my library that is titled "The Character of Physical Law," and which I used as a reference.  Here's what Dr. Feynman actually said, I couldn't use his actual words, because he talks of "guesses" instead of "theories."  If you understand what he was saying, the two words become interchangeable, but out of context they would require a lot of explanation.  So, I just put quotes around the words he actually spoke. Now I just have to wait to see what happens.  As I see it, there's no way the journal can say that my paper is "wrong," so if they reject it they'll have to find some other reason. Time will tell if they can find some reason. April 18, 2017 - Okay.  Late on Sunday afternoon I had a good first draft of the new version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  So, I then tried to figure out how to create the LaTeX version requested by the scientific journal to which I plan to send it.   I finally gave up and finished for the day. On Monday, I awoke thinking I need to create backup versions of everything and put them in my safe deposit box, not just of my scientific papers, but everything I have on my laptop computer.  Surprisingly, it took me about 2½ hours to fill up a 32GB flash drive, and I couldn't fit everything on it.  But it held everything I deemed to be important.  It took 50 minutes to just save my file of audio books! When I had the backups completed, I started again on trying to figure out how to create a LaTeX version of the paper.  I went through about 150 different sample templates on Overleaf, which the scientific journal recommended as a web site to use for LaTeX coding, but none of their templates exactly matched what the journal required.  Then yesterday afternoon, I tried using Overleaf's "blank page" template and loading into it all the LaTeX code for the "sample paper" the journal provided on their web site.  That worked. So, I started the conversion.  It is a slow and tedious process.  For example, if I have a sentence in WORD that reads like this: Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!" Just copying and pasting that into LaTeX format doesn't work.  It produces this in the final version: Einstein tried again to tell him, Thats NOT correct!" To fix it, first you need to use two accent marks as the left quote mark and then two apostrophes for the right quote mark.  The LaTeX code then looks like this: Einstein tried again to tell him, Thats NOT correct!'' You need to re-enter the apostrophe in "That's," because copying and pasting it doesn't work.  Then you need to add code to tell LaTeX which words need to be in italics and which words need to be in bold, like so: Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, That's \textbf{NOT} correct.'' But that just gives me this in the final version: Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!" And that's as far as I got yesterday.  One of the first things I need to figure out today is how to produce a word that is both in italics and in bold.  Everything I've tried so far just produces an error message.  So, I'm going to have to do some research. I considered sending them the version of my paper that is just in WORD format, the version I wrote, but then I'd have to worry that they might just turn down the paper because it is not in LaTeX format, which the say they greatly prefer. Sigh! Ah!  Found it!  When you use this LaTeX code: Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, That's \textbf{\textit{\underline{NOT}}} correct!" You get this: Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!" And that is exactly what I wanted!  Whew! April 16, 2017 - I spent the last few days making various revisions to my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity, and doing research.  The research was to find articles published by the journal to which I plan to send the paper when it is done.  I found some articles, but they weren't particularly important to my case.  Checking the references used in those articles, I found other articles that were a bit more relevant, but they weren't published in my target journal.  The changes I was making to my paper were to incorporate into my paper the articles I'd found.  The idea was that my paper/article might be more acceptable to the journal if I use some of their articles as references.  Then yesterday morning I realized something.  I needed to totally overhaul my paper.  I needed to write a paper that specifically addresses the issues of concern to the readers of the scientific journal that is my target.  That meant I needed to present my evidence as if it was a case being presented to a jury consisting of editors of that particular scientific journal.  I needed to show how Einstein explained his Second Postulate, then how the mathematicians explain the Second Postulate, then I needed to explain where the two interpretations are in direct conflict with one another, and then I would explain in detail all the evidence that undeniably confirms that Einstein's version is the only correct version.  But, I have to be careful.  The key to understanding everything is Time Dilation, but I can't make the paper be about Time Dilation.  The paper I have awaiting a second review at another journal is about Time Dilation.  This new paper has to be almost exclusively about Einstein's Second Postulate. Interesting, while searching for arguments I can use in my paper, I found another very interesting college text book.  The book I found explains in detail how the mathematicians evidently arrive at their misunderstanding about the second postulate.  It is done the way the author of the book does it.  The text book is authored by Dr. Peter J. Nolan, it is titled "Fundamentals of Modern Physics," and it says this at the bottom of page 1-22 and into page 1-23: Postulate 2 says that the velocity of light is always the same independent of the velocity of the source or of the observer. This can be taken as an experimental fact deduced from the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, Einstein, when asked years later if he had been aware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, replied that he was not sure if he had been. Einstein came on the second postulate from a different viewpoint. According to his [Einstein's] first postulate, the laws of physics must be the same for all inertial observers. If the velocity of light is different for different observers, then the observer could tell whether he was at rest or in motion at some constant velocity, simply by determining the velocity of light in his frame of reference. If the observed velocity of light c’ were equal to c then the observer would be in the frame of reference that is at rest. If the observed velocity of light were c’ = c - v, then the observer was in a frame of reference that was receding from the rest frame. Finally, if the observed velocity c’ = c - v, then the observer would be in a frame of reference that was approaching the rest frame. Obviously these various values of c’ would be a violation of the first postulate, since we could now define an absolute rest frame (c’ = c), which would be different than all the other inertial frames. I added that whole paragraph to my paper and put my comments about it in brackets after the sections highlighted in red above.  Einstein's Second Postulate says absolutely NOTHING about what an observer might see.  It is ONLY about what the emitter of the light sees and measures.  The Michelson-Morley experiment proves just the opposite of what Dr. Nolan suggests it proves.  Also, the point to Einstein's first postulate is that an observer cannot tell if his measurements are different from someone else's by simply doing a measurement in his own frame of reference.  He must compare his results to the results found by someone else in a different frame of reference, which seems to be something the mathematicians absolutely refuse to do because of what is says in the start of the next paragraph in Dr. Nolan's book (which I didn't include in my paper, because it is all about Time Dilation):  The second postulate has revolutionary consequences. Recall that a velocity is equal to a distance in space divided by an interval of time. In order for the velocity of light to remain a constant independent of the motion of the source or observer, space and time itself must change. This is a revolutionary concept, indeed, because as already pointed out, Newton had assumed that space and time were absolute.  A length of 1 m was considered to be a length of 1 m anywhere, and a time interval of 1 hr was considered to be a time interval of 1 hr anywhere. However, if space and time change, then these concepts of absolute space and absolute time can no longer be part of the picture of the physical universe. Yes, indeed.  Time must change.  Time is not absolute.  And the concept of absolute time "can no longer be part of the picture of the physical universe."  But how do we change the minds of the mathematicians who refuse to accept that time is not absolute?  The only way I can see to do that is to get my papers about Time Dilation and the Second Postulate published.  It won't accomplish anything overnight, of course, but it will be a start. Meanwhile, this morning, I noticed a new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  The thread is titled "Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory."  In the first post in the thread, the author Pentcho Valev quotes from the same book I quoted from in my (B) comment on April 2.  I've been noticing that he seems to be reading this site and making comments without actually mentioning this site.  Instead of blaming the mathematicians for their misinterpretations of Einstein's theories, Pentcho Valev blames Einstein for the misinterpretations and for his own misinterpretations.  Here is his entire second post in the thread he started last night: Insofar as the constancy/variability of the speed of light is concerned, there are only two consistent theories: 1. The (original) ether theory - incompatible with the principle of relativity. 2. Newton's emission theory of light - compatible with the principle of relativity. One of the above theories is wrong, the other is true, but both are consistent. Einstein's special relativity is both inconsistent and idiotic (entails the idiotic centaur called "spacetime"). As you can see, he gets everything wrong, and he blames Einstein for his own problems.  Newton's emission theory of light is NOT compatible with the principle of relativity.  Einstein specifically stated that the speed of light does NOT combine with the speed of the emitter, which is what "Newton's emission theory of light" states.    BOTH of the theories Valev describes are wrong.  And neither one of those theories is compatible with Einstein's theories.  But, if Pentcho Valev reads this, I do not expect he will change his mind.  He seems on a mission to prove Einstein wrong, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that all he's doing is proving himself wrong. But sometimes he finds interesting links.  And you can never tell where a good idea might come from, so I'll continue to check his posts from time to time. I hope to have my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate ready to submit in a few days.  It's currently in Docx format, but the target journal greatly prefers that the paper be submitted in LaTeX format.  I did that once before, back in September of last year, so it shouldn't be a problem.  It will just take a little extra time.

 Comments for Sunday, April 9, 2017, thru Saturday, April 15, 2017: April 12, 2017 - Yup.  The paper about Einstein's Second Postulate that I submitted to a scientific journal at 10:09 a.m. yesterday morning was rejected at 4:14 a.m. this morning (10:14 p.m. last night London time).  So, it took them less than 24 hours to reject it.  All they sent was their standard rejection form letter, the exact same form letter I received in response to my two prior submissions. Looking at my web site logs, I also see I had two visits from a regular visitor in Putney, England, last night, at 9:57 p..m. and 10:19 p.m., just before and just after the rejection.  Putney is a 38 minute tube ride from the offices of the scientific journal that turned down my paper.  It's probably just a coincidence, but who knows?  They may simply have considered my web site comments to be "unprofessional."  So, today I spent most of the morning formatting the 7,000 word version of the paper for submission to a lesser-ranked scientific journal, the next one  on my list.  Then, *^&^#$@%%, as I went through the umpteen different steps you have to go through to submit the paper online, I hit the umpteenth step which said that it was a requirement that I supply the names and credentials for 3 reviewers who I recommend to review the article. I didn't have any such names. And there is no way around that requirement. So, I had no choice but to move on to the next scientific journal on my list. It has a 5,000 word limit. And they want the names in the references section to be in a different format that most others ask for, they want authors names described as "Alfred Einstein" or "A. Einstein," not "Einstein, A." There's no chance that I'll get the paper ready today. But, I should be able to get most of the changes done, then I'll sleep on it and probably submit tomorrow. April 11, 2017 - Two days ago, after I finished putting my Sunday comment on this web site, I went back to work on the scientific paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity that I've been working on for the past few months. By suppertime, I had a 7,000 word version that I thought was ready for submission to a scientific journal. I just needed to sleep on it and take a fresh look at it in the morning. On Monday morning, I awoke wondering if I could cut the 7,000 word version (with 7 illustrations) down to less than 3,000 words and 5 illustrations or less, so that I could submit it to a top-ranked journal that requires all articles to be 3,000 words or less with 5 illustrations or less. I spent all day on it. By suppertime on Monday, I had a version with just under 3,000 words and only 4 illustrations. Again, I needed to sleep on it and take a fresh look at it in the morning. This morning, I took a fresh look at it, I made some changes I had thought about overnight, and I submitted it to that top-ranked journal. It is now in their system waiting for an editor to read it. I've submitted papers to this journal before, but those papers were unprofessional in that they used web sites as references and they addressed topics that required acceptance of Time Dilation as a real phenomenon before you could accept what I'd written in the papers. It took me awhile, but gradually I realized that I had to write papers that proved that Time Dilation was real before I could write papers that assumed Time Dilation was real. And using web sites as references is a BAD idea. My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," which is awaiting a second peer review at a different scientific journal, uses solid references and undeniable evidence to prove that Time Dilation is real. And the paper on Einstein's Second Postulate that I just submitted doesn't require that the reader accept Time Dilation as being real, it's only about two different interpretations of Einstein's Second Postulate, one of which (as a minor side issue) assumes Time Dilation is real and one which does not. The paper provides solid, undeniable evidence that the interpretation that assumes Time Dilation is real is the only interpretation that can be considered to be correct. I still have the 7,000 word version, and I can submit it elsewhere if the journal that just received the 3,000 word version turns it down without providing any solid reason for doing so. They didn't provide any reasons for turning down my two previous submissions, other than to say the papers didn't provide any solid new information to the scientific community. I had to figure out for myself exactly what the problems were. The best thing about that journal is that they publish weekly, so I can expect a response in less than a week. It took 4 days to get a response to my first paper, and just one day to get a response to my second paper. So, if they turn down this one for the same standard reason, I can have the 7,000 word version in the hands of a different journal the next day. It's difficult for me to see how they can turn it down, since I make a solid and incontrovertible argument about an incredibly important problem. But, while looking for other highly-ranked journals where I could submit the paper, I found a top journal that has Professor Brian Greene as its chief editor. Without mentioning his name, my paper says that what Professor Greene teaches about Time Dilation, Relativity and the Second Postulate is WRONG. While it's possible that Professor Greene might be open to any argument that shows what he is teaching is totally wrong, I think my paper would be more likely accepted by a chief editor who is logic based, not mathematics based, and who hasn't made a career of presenting his mathematical arguments to the world. I've got my fingers crossed. April 9, 2017 - On Wednesday, something suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't really thought about before. I was working on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, and I suddenly wondered about police radar guns and how they work. They're used every day to catch speeders, and I knew they sent out radio wave signals and measured the Doppler shift in the return signals to determine how fast a vehicle is moving, but how exactly do they work - step by step? I did a little research and, after thinking it through, I realized that the way they work is in exact accord with Einstein's Second Postulate and directly contradicts the way Einstein's Second Postulate is taught in most colleges and universities. I also learned that, starting a couple decades ago, most police departments have been replacing their radar guns with "lidar" guns. Lidar guns use pulses of light to measure the distance to an oncoming vehicle. It can calculate the speed of the incoming vehicle by how far the vehicle traveled during the time between two pulses from the lidar gun. Stepping through the process, I realized that the way they work also directly contradicts the way Einstein's Second Postulate is taught in most colleges and universities. And probably high schools, too. So, I felt that I had no choice but to overhaul my paper to include my findings. (I saved a copy from prior to the overhaul, of course, just in case I find something that makes me reconsider the overhaul.) Yesterday, while looking through the references I use in the Second Postulate paper, I found a quotation I'd forgotten about. Einstein wrote this to his friend Paul Ehrenfeld in early 1912: "You are one of the few theoreticians who has not been robbed of his common sense by the mathematical contagion." Wow! "Robbed of his common sense by the mathematical contagion?" I've been calling it a religion, not a disease. Einstein must have been really frustrated with mathematicians misinterpreting his theories. I then dug up the rest of the letter and found he somewhat explains his thoughts regarding the Second Postulate. He's responding to something Ehrenfeld wrote him, so the letter is only one side of the conversation, but Einstein explained how it took time for him to realize that “the constancy of c exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source” was the way light works. In other words, the speed of light is a constant only for the emitter, just as he says in his Second Postulate (the way HE wrote it). And Einstein says that previously, “I was convinced that all light is defined by frequency and intensity alone, completely independent of whether it comes from a moving or resting source. Further, it did not occur to me to consider that deflected radiation might behave differently with regard to propagation from radiation newly emitted at the point in question.” But gradually he realized he was wrong. Reflected/deflected light does behave differently. He goes on to say, “All one can bring up in support of the hypothesis of the independence of the velocity of light from the state of motion of the light source is its simplicity and practicability.” So, of course, I had to add those quotations to my paper. Then I found a book by Richard C. Tolman titled "The Theory of the Relativity of Motion," which was published by The University of California Press in 1917. On page 22 it contains a very interesting illustration that Tolman also used in a paper titled "The Second Postulate of Relativity" published in 1910. Here is the explanation that goes with the above illustration: S is a source of light and A and B two moving systems. A is moving towards the source S, and B away from it. Observers on the systems mark off equal distances aa' and bb' along the path of the light and determine the time taken for light to pass from a to a' and b to b' respectively. Contrary to what seem the simple conclusions of common sense, the second postulate requires that the time taken for the light to pass from a to a' shall measure the same as the time for the light to go from b to b'. Such a consideration makes the path obvious by which the theory of relativity has been led to strange conclusions as to the units of length and time in a moving system. In reality, common sense provides the right answer, and Einstein's version of his own Second Postulate says nothing about what Observers A and B will measure. It only says that S will measure light moving away at c regardless of whether S is moving or not. The mathematician-created description above produces total nonsense. Since Observer A is moving toward the source of light, Observer A will measure the speed of light coming at c plus his speed. Since Observer B is moving away from the source of light, Observer B will measure the speed of light coming a c minus his speed. There are no "strange conclusions," and everything works according to common sense. Moreover, it is demonstrated hundred or maybe thousands of times per day with police radar and lidar guns. The mathematician-created Second Postulate is taught in schools all over the world. It's used in countless text books and scientific papers. It's incredible! I can't understand how they can believe such nonsense! Simple experiments will prove them wrong, but the only experiments they perform are ones which they can interpret to support their beliefs! It really is like religious dogma -- or a contagious disease that teachers use to infect their students! However, I can see that ranting about it here is not accomplishing anything. I need to finish my paper on the subject and submit it to a physics journal. I'm setting a goal to submit it on Monday, April 24. But, if I can just focus on it instead of constantly stopping to study new books and papers I come across, I may be able to get it done by the 17th.  Comments for Sunday, April 2, 2017, thru Saturday, April 8, 2017: April 6, 2017 - This afternoon, while returning home after my regular workout at the gym, I finished listening to CD #16 of the 16-CD set I burned some time ago for "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind" by Yuval Noah Harari. WOW! What a terrific book! It may be the best book I ever listened to while driving from place to place in my car. I'd never heard of it before I "borrowed" it from my library, but it was evidently a New York Times bestseller in 2015. It's got a lot of interesting material worth quoting in it, so I decided to reserve a Kindle copy from my library. Then a few days after reserving it, I wondered if there might be a pdf copy available on the Internet. I did a search and, sure nuff, I found a copy. So, I cancelled the reserve. The pdf copy I have says that it was first published in Hebrew in 2011, and then translated into English and published in England in 2014. For some reason, it has no page numbers, but Chapter 14 is titled "The Discovery of Ignorance" and begins on page 212 of the pdf file. It has this on the first page: The last 500 years have witnessed a phenomenal and unprecedented growth in human power. In the year 1500, there were about 500 million Homo sapiens in the entire world. Today, there are 7 billion. The total value of goods and services produced by humankind in the year 1500 is estimated at$250 billion, in today’s dollars. Nowadays the value of a year of human production is close to $60 trillion. In 1500, humanity consumed about 13 trillion calories of energy per day. Today, we consume 1,500 trillion calories a day. (Take a second look at those figures – human population has increased fourteen-fold, production 240-fold, and energy consumption 115-fold.) I thought it was just a history book when I started reading it, but it is much more than that. It's also a philosophy book, since it examines how humans have changed over the years as we've made one discovery after another, as we started organizing ourselves into larger and larger groups, and as our priorities and daily needs have changed. Here's another quote from the next page: Prior to the sixteenth century, no human had circumnavigated the earth. This changed in 1522, when Magellan’s expedition returned to Spain after a journey of 72,000 kilometres. It took three years and cost the lives of almost all the crew members, Magellan included. In 1873, Jules Verne could imagine that Phileas Fogg, a wealthy British adventurer, might just be able to make it around the world in eighty days. Today anyone with a middle-class income can safely and easily circumnavigate the globe in just forty-eight hours. The book delves into how the formation of companies changed the world and how we all started out knowing how to do just about everything we needed to do, we were hunter-gatherers who knew how to hunt, how to make tools for hunting, and how to stay alive as long as possible. Today we have no clue how to make most of the things we use every day, and we cannot survive without the work done by others. Here's another quote, this one from page 301 of the pdf file: In European medieval cities there was usually a single clock – a giant machine mounted on top of a high tower in the town square. These tower clocks were notoriously inaccurate, but since there were no other clocks in town to contradict them, it hardly made any difference. Today, a single affluent family generally has more timepieces at home than an entire medieval country. You can tell the time by looking at your wristwatch, glancing at your Android, peering at the alarm clock by your bed, gazing at the clock on the kitchen wall, staring at the microwave, catching a glimpse of the TV or DVD, or taking in the taskbar on your computer out of the corner of your eye. You need to make a conscious effort not to know what time it is. The book is also about all the damage we are doing to our world and how we are wiping out one species of animals after another while we also destroy land and pollute waters. It's a book I highly recommend. April 4, 2017 - Ah! This morning I found an email in my inbox from the chief editor at the scientific journal to which I sent my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity." He told me I could "rest assured" that he had received my revised paper and that he had turned it and my comments over to the peer-reviewer who had commented favorably about it. Hmm. I hadn't expected that. I'd assumed that he would turn the paper over to both peer reviewers, including the one who didn't think it would be of interest to the readers of their journal. I'm not sure what will happen next, but I assume the peer-reviewer will make some additional suggestions for improvement. Or the peer-reviewer will - for some reason - decide that the paper should be rejected. Or, possibly and hopefully, the peer reviewer will say it is ready for publication. Time will tell. I cannot ask any further questions for 3 months - until June 27. This morning, I was also expecting an email from my health club. When it didn't arrive, I checked my filter logs to see if it may have been rejected by one of the filters I have in place for the email address I show at the top of this site. I didn't find the email I was looking for, but I did find that someone had sent me an email about something related to my quest for scientific answers. The email was rejected because it had an equal sign (=) in the subject. That is generally an indicator of a spam email. In the past 6 days, 16 emails were rejected because they had an equal sign in the subject. Here's that part of the log: I used a red pen to blot out part of the guy's email address, but it's clear that the email said something about "Fascination_of_Physics" and that is followed by the name "Jacquelin." There's no way for me to un-delete the email to get a better look at it. So, I did a Google search for - Fascination of Physics Jacquelin - and found a book titled "The Fascination of Physics" by Jacqueline D. Spears and Dean Zollman. I also found a web site where I could download the entire book in pdf format for free. And I did so. It turns out to be a book I'd seen pieces of before, but I'd only seen certain chapters and was unable to find the title and author. I mentioned that in a comment here on March 28. And the guy who sent the email may have simply been providing the information I was looking for. If so, I thank him. However, he's a guy who generally disagrees with me and viciously attacks me and everything I write, so his email may have included some kind of attack. Either way, he did me a favor and I appreciate it. (He's a regular reader of this web site, so he'll read this comment. I'm not about to respond to him via email. I gave up on that kind of contact a decade ago.) Unfortunately, the book is in image form and cannot be searched for key words. But somehow Google finds key words in the book if you search for them. That's how I found the chapters from the book in the first place. It's got a lot of great illustrations and looks like a good read. And it might make a good reference in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. Meanwhile, if anyone knows the name of the author and what book the Chapter 3 at this link is from, I'd appreciate getting an email with that information (and without an equal sign in the subject). April 3, 2017 - I just sent off an email to the scientific journal that has my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" to see if they received the updated version I sent them a week ago. I assume they most likely did, but they didn't send any acknowledgement of receipt. However, I cannot live with that assumption while also knowing that they may not have received the paper, and I could end up waiting for three months for a response that is never going to arrive. Meanwhile, I've concluded that the screwball interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate that I wrote about in yesterday's (B) comment may just be that one author's misunderstanding. It could be that every author who misinterprets or disagrees with Einstein has own unique reasons for disagreeing. If I tried to include descriptions of their misunderstandings in my paper about the Second Postulate, it would turn into a psychology paper as I try to psychoanalyze what they were thinking when they made their mistakes. So, I'm not going to dissect their misunderstandings. I'll just show that they are wrong and display and describe the proof that they are wrong. Maybe someday, when I write a book about all this, I'll dissect the various misinterpretations and try to categorize them. Maybe. April 2, 2017 (B) - I spent a couple hours this afternoon trying to put together a better version of this graphic from page 148 of the book "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffman: That's the actual size of the image in the book, apparently. If I try to enlarge it, all the lines and the printing get blurry. So, I had to try to create a version that can be more easily seen. Here's what I got on my first attempt: Obviously, it needs work. But, it's good enough for me to use here to explain how the author of the book uses his illustration to describe his interpretation of Einstein's First and Second Postulates to the Special Theory of Relativity. The illustration is supposed to show that even though Spaceship-A is moving toward the star at 20% of the speed of light, and Spaceship-B is "at rest" (not moving relative to the star), if they measure the speed of light they create on their spaceships, and the speed of light coming from the star, all the waves of light will appear to move at the same rate. The author says on page 148: The principle of relativity applies to the interior experiments and requires that similar interior experiments in your spaceship and mine will give similar results. So far, so good. His space ship is B, and mine is A. He then writes: I light a lamp in the forward part of my spaceship and measure the speed of the light waves as they move toward the rear. You perform the same sort of experiment in your spaceship. By Einstein’s second principle, which says that the motion of light is independent of the motion of its source, the light waves from the star, the light waves from the lamp in my spaceship, and the light waves from the lamp in your spaceship will all keep abreast of one another as they move toward the rear. So when I measure the speed of the waves from my lamp, I am also measuring the speed with which the light waves from the star go by me. And the same holds for you. That is absurdly untrue. Since he is not moving relative to the star, he will measure the speed of light he emits as being the same as the light from the star. However, I'm moving at 20% of the speed of light, so while the light I emit will be measured by me as moving at c, the light coming from the star will travel past me at c + 20%. The author believes otherwise. He explains: Since you are rushing toward the star at one-fifth the speed of light, we are likely to conclude that you will find the light from the star, and thus also the light from your lamp, rushing toward you not at the speed of light as measured by an observer stationary with respect to the star—me—but with that speed augmented by your own speed of approach to the star. The light from the star would then pass you with a speed one-and-one-fifth times the speed with which it passes me. Therefore the interior light from your lamp would also pass you with a speed one-and-one-fifth times the speed with which the interior light from my lamp passes me. But this conclusion has to be false. It conflicts with Einstein’s first postulate, the principle of relativity. For in measuring the speed of the light from our respective lamps, you and I are performing identical interior experiments and should therefore get identical results. If I find the speed of waves from my lamp to be c kilometers per second, so too must you. And, because of the exterior aspect of the experiment, you must therefore find the light waves from the star passing you at this same speed c—despite the fact that you are rushing toward the star. He's saying that according to Einstein, because we get identical results in tests we perform aboard our different spaceships, the light from the star must also show the same speed. I.e., light from the star must pass him at the same speed it passes me, even though I am moving and he is not. In reality, Einstein wrote nothing about the light from the star. What Einstein wrote was that the author and I do indeed get identical results when we measure the speed of light we create aboard our ships. He measures it at c aboard his space ship and I measure it as c aboard my space ship, even though he is "at rest" and I am moving at 20% of the speed of light. Why? Because, when light is emitted it travels at the speed of light at the location where the light was emitted. Here's Einstein's Second Postulate: 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 "empty space" is the vacuum chamber in which our light travels during the experiment. The "emitting body" is the "lamp" that created the light. There's nothing in the Second Postulate about how light from a star would be measured as it passes by my moving space ship. The author just interprets the First Postulate as having some meaning there. Here, once again, are his last two sentences from the last time I quoted him: If I find the speed of waves from my lamp to be c kilometers per second, so too must you. And, because of the exterior aspect of the experiment, you must therefore find the light waves from the star passing you at this same speed c—despite the fact that you are rushing toward the star. What "exterior aspect of the experiment"? Evidently, the author believes that the "experiment" also involves the star. He compared the speed of light he emitted to the speed of light from the star and got identical results. Both traveled at c. Therefore, he believes the FIRST postulate says that I must get the same results when I measure the speed of light I emit and compare it to the speed of light from the star - even though I am moving. Einstein was talking only about the simple experiment within the ship. The author is including the light from the star as part of the experiment. That's a complete misunderstanding of Relativity. The point of Relativity is that we think everything is normal and measure the same in our own Frames of Reference, but when we make comparisons we find that things are very different. I can see how he got an incorrect understanding of Einstein's postulates, but how many others made that same absurd mistake? Unfortunately, the others generally do not explain themselves the way Banesh Hoffman did. So, I cannot be certain that they arrived at their wrong answers by the same route. But I find it very interesting, nevertheless. I just don't yet know how I can use it in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. I'll have to think about it. April 2, 2017 (A) - Uh oh. It is Sunday morning, and I am supposed to have a comment ready to display on this web site, as I have every Sunday for the past two years - and for 13 years before that on my anthrax site. But, I don't have anything ready. So, I'm going to have to "wing it." Here goes: Every morning when I get on my computer, before I do anything else (such as writing comments) I check, view and file my web site statistics and access logs, I check the statistics for my anthrax blog and my current blog, and then I see what is new on various web sites. One of the web sites I check every day is NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive site. This morning's photo was particularly awesome: If the picture is a good one, I save a copy. The above picture is the 1,070th I've saved. I also check The Huffington Post web site to see what crazy things are happening in the world. This morning I noticed that a judge has approved a civil law suit claiming Donald Trump incited a riot during his presidential campaign. The Huffington Post web site is a great place to find out what's happening with the Trump Presidency. I also check to see if anyone has read any of my scientific papers in the past 24 hours. And the last routine task I've been doing each morning for the past month or so is check the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum to see what new topics they may be discussing since I stopped posting there. This morning I noticed a new thread titled "The Simplest Refutation of Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate." It was created by someone named "Pentcho Valev," who has a screwball notion about Einstein's theories and constantly posts links to new places where he has found things which he believes support his beliefs. They don't support him, but some of the things he finds are interesting nevertheless. This morning, he found a book titled "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffman. And he produced a long quote from it, which Valev believes supports his beliefs. The book looked interesting, and it has apparently been around since 1983. So, I did a search to see if there was a free pdf copy available on the Internet. Yup. Found one. And I found a terrific illustration and section which I can use as a very good reference in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. I'd like to show the illustration and quote here, but the illustration needs work to make it clear, and the quote would have to be several pages long. So, I decided against it. Pentcho Valev also cited a source I already had in my files, an article titled "How Did Einstein Discover Relativity" by John Stachel. It has a quote that is similar to the one in the book, but shorter, so I can show it here: Einstein seems to have wrestled with the problems of an emission theory of light for some time, looking for a set of differential equations describing such a theory that could replace the Maxwell-Lorentz equations; and trying to explain a number of optical experiments, notably the Fizeau experiment, based on some version of the emission theory. He could not find any such equations, and his attempt to explain the Fizeau experiment led him to more and more bizarre assumptions to avoid an outright contradiction. So he more-or-less abandoned this approach (you will soon see why I say more-or-less), after perhaps a year or more of effort, and returned to a reconsideration of the Maxwell-Lorentz equations. Perhaps there was a way of making these equations compatible with the relativity principle once one abandoned Lorentz's interpretation via the ether concept. But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Like the book that Valev cited, this article goes through the logic the author uses to explain Einstein's First and Second Postulates, NOT the logic Einstein used. And the author says: I cannot ask you to accept my conjectures after all of my warnings at the outset of this paper, but will be content if you say "Si non è vero, è ben trovato," "If it isn't true, it's well contrived." I don't know if it is "well contrived," but it is certainly "contrived" in a way that agrees with many other sources from authors who could not understand Einstein's First and Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity and just "contrived" their own interpretations. When their versions turned out to be illogical, they blamed it on Einstein. So, the morning has been productive (and it's only 10:20 a.m.!). I've got a new book to use as a reference, and I've now completed what is probably at least my 676th Sunday comment. (If I get some free time someday, I may figure out the exact number.)  Comments for Saturday, April 1, 2017, thru Saturday, April 1, 2017: April 1, 2017 - Since it is April Fool's Day, it seems appropriate for me to write a comment about President Trump. While checking the news this morning, I noticed an article on BuzzFeed.com titled "Trump Held An Executive Order Signing Ceremony, Then Walked Away Without Signing Anything." It appears that President Trump was going to sign a couple bills that he feels will help American manufacturing companies, but when a reporter asked him about Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser who has offered to testify on the Trump campaign's ties with Russia in return for immunity from prosecution, Trump just walked out of the room without signing anything. He sent Vice-President Pence back to get the unsigned papers, apparently so he could sign them out of view of the reporters. Meanwhile, of course, photographers were capturing every moment on still photos and on video. There's a video of the whole thing in the article. It's also interesting to read the comments from readers below article. As of this moment there are 62 comments, but they're still coming in, since the article was only posted 11 hours ago. Some typical comments: How embarrassing for America to have that spoiled toddler in a suit representing us. If he could just forget to sign every single one till 2020, that'd be great. He won't last until the midterms, never mind 2020. In Vegas, 5 bucks will get you 3 that he wont make it to the end of his term. He...He can't even handle taking questions? And he is leading our country? This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. So to me it looks like he was heading for the door BEFORE the reporter even started to ask the question. He literally had no intention of signing anything at this signing ceremony. This is less a presidency and more a Gong Show. It does look like Trump just wanted to get out of the room and either forgot why he was there or didn't care. I checked other news articles about the incident. CNN has a video that shows Trump talking about going to sign the orders, but it stops before the walk-out. Slate.com has another video, which really makes it seem like Trump just forgot why he was there. The Washington Post's video also makes it seem like Trump just forgot or didn't care. He seems to be just going through the motions. An Australian news organization headlines it this way: "Donald Trump forgets to sign executive orders." The comments after that article are worth reading, too.  Comments for Sunday, March 26, 2017, thru Friday, March 31, 2017: March 31, 2017 - Grumble grumble. The scientific journal that supposedly has the revised version of my paper about "Time Dilation without Relativity" never acknowledged receipt of my email with the revisions. Am I supposed to assume that the email went through okay? Who would make such an assumption? Not me. I'll wait until Monday, and if I haven't heard anything by then, I'll ask them. Meanwhile, I think I've finished my research to find papers and books which I can use as references for my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. While searching the Internet for any mention of the Second Postulate, I found a whole raft of college lecture notes and study materials related to Chapter 26 of some book: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~humanic/p1201lecture22.pdf http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~xbrll/Ch_26.pdf http://www.pa.uky.edu/~cao/NOTES-SPRING06/ch26_lecture-1-S06.pdf http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~strauss/phys2424/S99/L26.pdf http://fcis.aisdhaka.org/personal/chendricks/IB/Giancoli/Giancoli%20Ch%2026%20Spec%20Relative.pdf http://www.mosineeschools.org/faculty/rlind/lecturenotes/chapter26.pdf http://nuclearbologna.com/nuclearbologna/PHYS_140_150_Lectures_files/PHYS150-Ch26.pdf http://www.physics.wayne.edu/~alan/2140Website/Lectures/Lecture13.pdf http://faculty.coloradomtn.edu/jeschofnig/class/class_jeschof/phy2ch26.htm http://it.stlawu.edu/~jahncke/clj/cls/104/Relativity.pdf http://www.physicsinmotion.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CH-26-SPECIAL-THEORY-OF-RELATIVITY-15.pdf http://www.webassign.net/question_assets/buelemphys1/chapter26/chapter26_problems.pdf http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~knutson/phy208/relativity.pdf http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/EssentialPhysics/chapter26/menu_chapter26.html https://www.giancolianswers.com/giancoli-physics-7th-edition-solutions/chapter-26 http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=chapter-26-special-theory-of-relativity https://www.coursehero.com/file/10460216/Chapter-26-Solutions/ http://www.webassign.net/question_assets/buelemphys1/chapter26/section26dash3.pdf https://www.slideshare.net/myrodeheaver/chapter-26-relativity http://www.webassign.net/question_assets/buelemphys1/chapter26/chapter26_summary.pdf And then to my surprise, I was able to locate and download as a pdf file the entire 1,158 page college text book to which all those links above apparently refer. (None of the links actually mention the name or authors of the book.) Not only that, I was able to locate the seventh, eight and ninth editions of the text book, so I could compare them to see if what they say about the Second Postulate is the same in all the editions. It is. 26.3 Einstein’s Principle of Relativity In 1905 Albert Einstein proposed a theory that explained the result of the Michelson–Morley experiment and completely altered our notions of space and time. He based his special theory of relativity on two postulates: 1. The principle of relativity: All the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. 2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c 5 2.997 924 58 3 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light. That is NOT what Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper. It's a total distortion of what Einstein actually wrote. But it is consistent with what is written in many scientific papers and in some other college text books I've found. I'm claiming that they are all wrong. I'm fully aware that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and I think I have more than enough. I just need to get the paper written, so that I can submit it somewhere. And I need to clear my mind of everything else to do that. That's very difficult to do when you don't know what has happened to a previous paper, or when you have to wonder about what else you can write about, because you have established a pattern of writing comments for a web site every Sunday and several times during the week. March 28, 2017 - While I'm waiting for acknowledgement of the receipt of my revised paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," I've been finishing up the organizing of papers I've found and filed away during my research. This morning I had about 8 papers left to evaluate when I found a copy of what appeared to be another college text book which teaches the mathematicians' screwball version of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity. The book is simply titled "Special Relativity." I found a complete 108-page pdf copy of it on Stanford University's web site. And the pdf indicates some connection to the University of Sussex. It may be where the author went to school. Another link indicates he has a PhD and was holding seminars at the University College in London in 2009. Another link indicates that the author is currently a staff physicist at CERN in Switzerland. Amazon, however, indicates that it is a self-published book. And, since the book is self-published, I cannot use it as a reference. Too bad. It has some dandy things for me to quote. Probably even more frustrating is the chapter of a book I found at this link https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Chapter3.pdf on the Kansas State University's web site. It has some really great quotes starting on the bottom of page 59 and going through most of page 60. However, I cannot figure out what the title of the books is. Or who wrote it. I can find and read other chapters of the book by simply changing the chapter number in the link. But none provide the title of the book or the name of the author. What is most puzzling is that when I search for quoted passages from the book, the only place I can find those passages are in those same pdf files. &*$@%$%$#!!  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 journals.  Nature 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: 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. 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. 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.   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. 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. 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. 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.   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. 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.

Other interests: