Archive for ed-lake.com
December 2016

Comments for Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016, thru Saturday, Dec. 31, 2016:

December 31, 2016 - Hmmm.  Between yesterday morning and this morning, seven people accessed my paper titled "What is Time?

Back on April 21 of this year, I started keeping a record of how many people read my papers.  The total number of people who had accessed my paper on "What is Time?" as of that date was 69.  Since then, there's never been a day when more than 3 people downloaded the paper.  Most days there were no downloads. Yesterday, the total number of downloads was 115.  This morning the statistics say:
Unique-IP document downloads: 122 times
I have no idea where those seven downloads came from.  There were no new downloads of the other papers I have on ViXra. org.  Yesterday, on a Google discussion forum thread titled "Time Travel Is Not Possible," I posted a message that said only,
Actually, Time Travel is routine.  Every second of every day I travel one second into the future.  Chances are you do too.
That post got a lot of reaction, including  a couple posts that were actually very complimentary.  But, no one mentioned looking at my scientific paper on "What is Time?" or any other paper of mine.  And no links were mentioned.  So, if that is where the downloads originated, the discussion and posting of links must have been done in emails or via Facebook messages.  There's nothing in the thread.

The first time I posted to Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum was 6 days ago, on Christmas Day.  This morning I see nothing of interest there, and the only responses to my other recent posts are insults and name calling.  I'm not sure, but I think that little distraction may have run its course.

December 30, 2016 - I just finished proof-reading chapter 9 of the book a scientist acquaintance of mine is writing.  It's a very interesting read.  The planned publication date is in the second half of next year.  Meanwhile, I continue to argue on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I also received a half dozen Facebook messages from people who read that discussion forum, but who do not participate in the discussions.  They evidently do not like being insulted and ridiculed if you disagree with the True Believers who dominate that discussion group.

I'm also seeing a minor surge in people reading my scientific articles on ViXra.org.  I assume it is the people who read the Google forum doing a search to find out more about me.  But it could be people who have been asked to review my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  I hope so, but doubt it.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Time Dilation is the key to resolving all kinds of scientific disputes.  It separates scientists into two groups: (1) those who believe in facts, evidence and the Scientific Method, and (2) those who believe in Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics where facts and evidence mean nothing if the mathematical equations look cool.    

December 28, 2016 - Hmm.  Someone on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum pointed out another error in my thinking about the twin paradox.  I was thinking that if the traveling twin was moving at 99.5% of the speed of light, where a year for him would be 10 years for his brother back on Earth, the traveling twin could look back and see the Earth orbiting the Sun every 36.5 days, instead of every 365 days.

Someone pointed out to me that that would be true when totals were computed for the entire trip, but because the traveling twin was moving away from the Sun and Earth at 99.5% of the speed of light, light from the Sun and Earth would have to catch up with him.  Therefore, on his outbound trip he would see the Earth make only a small fraction of one orbit around the Sun, and on his return trip - when he was heading back toward the Earth and Sun, he would see the Earth make a complete orbit around the Sun about every 17 days.  

Interestingly, I think that is also another instance where the common misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity comes into play.  On his outbound trip, the traveling twin would measure light to be arriving at c - v.  On his return trip, he would measure light to be arriving at c + v.   Both situations are in violation of the erroneous theory that the movement of an observer does not affect how the speed of light will be measured, it will always arrive at c.

I also have no idea if anyone reading this comment understands what I'm saying or cares about it.  But it is very fascinating for me.     


December 27, 2016 - I was going to write a comment for this site yesterday, but I became overwhelmed with other things.  The scientist whose book I am proof reading sent me chapters 1-3 last Wednesday, and I sent my proof notes to him on Friday.  He then sent chapters 4-6 on Saturday morning, and I sent my proof notes on those chapters to him yesterday.  It's a very interesting book, and I am looking forward to reading more of it.  He says he'll send me chapters 7-9 tomorrow.  I think he's currently working on chapter 11 or 12, so things will slow down very soon.

While I was waiting for him to send me chapters 4-6, I got an idea for the science paper I have
tentatively titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate of Special Relativity."  I visualized some illustrations I would need to create.  The illustrations truly demonstrate that "a picture is worth a thousand words," since  just visualizing them made my jaw drop open as I realized how clear they would make things that are so difficult to describe in words.  Now, I just need to find the time to get onto Corel Draw to create the illustrations. 

Meanwhile, on Sunday (Christmas) I found a link to a Google discussion forum on the subjects of science, physics and relativity.  Curious, I scanned through it and found several discussions about Time Dilation.  So, naturally, I had to sign up to join the forum.  And, I posted some comments.  The discussions continued through yesterday.  This morning I created a new post on the subject of "Time Dilation Deniers," since it can be difficult to find new comments in the other threads where I joined discussions already in progress.  (I probably just need to become accustomed to how things work.)

Oops.  Gotta go.  I see someone just posted a very long comment about me and what I said yesterday.  I'll need to reply to that.

December 25, 2016 - I hope everyone is having a very merry Christmas.  If you aren't a Christian, I still hope you are having a very merry Christmas.


Comments for Sunday, Dec. 18, 2016, thru Saturday, Dec. 24, 2016:

December 22, 2016 - Hmm.  Someone just asked me to proof-read a book he's writing.  I agreed to do it.  It will get my mind off of time dilation for awhile, hopefully allowing me to view the subject afresh when the proof-reading is done in a week or two.

December 20, 2016 - Waiting to see if some science journal is going to publish your scientific paper can be very tense and exiting - for the person who wrote the paper.  But to everyone else it is probably as exciting as watching paint dry - particularly when it seems a near certainty that nothing is going to happen in the next couple weeks, and maybe not for several weeks after that.

While waiting, I keep wanting to write a comment about President-elect Trump for this web site.  But, I don't really have much to say that hasn't been said better on Saturday Night Live.  I keep thinking that Trump seems like someone who will declare, "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe."  Those are words that put my teeth on edge.   How do you deal with someone who doesn't care about facts and evidence?

Continuing on the subject of facts and evidence, there's news today that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 probably didn't crash in the area where they have been searching for the past two years.  Instead, it likely crashed somewhat north of the current search area.  

Proposed MH370 search
                  area

The New York Times says that the countries paying for the search have all agreed that they will not start searching any new area unless some solid evidence is found pointing to that area.  The "evidence" pointing to the new area seems to be mostly the notion that since MH370 wasn't found where they have been searching, the plane must be somewhere else, and the new area is the most likely area.

According to CBS News,

The countries involved - Malaysia, Australia and China - agreed in July that the $160 million search will be suspended once the current effort is exhausted unless new evidence pinpoints the plane’s exact location.
I'd certainly like to see them find MH370.  They've found plenty of wreckage that was carried with the prevailing currents thousands of miles to be deposited on beaches in Madagascar, Africa and islands in that area.  So, there is no doubt that the plane crashed in the sea to the east.  Finding the the actual remains of the plane would provide a lot of critical information about what happened.  Did the pilot commit suicide and kill all of his passengers at the same time?  That's the most likely explanation.  But there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who have other theories.  I'd like to see what their reactions are when solid evidence is found.  How will they argue against the evidence in order to retain their conspiracy theories?  Will they argue, "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe"?

Probably.

Meanwhile, I've got a small mystery on my hands.  Someone is trying to POST WordPress files onto my web site.  I say "someone" even though the effort seems global, involving many sites in many countries.  Here are sections from some examples I found on my web site log this morning:

176.126.252.12 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:24 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
176.126.252.12 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:24 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
176.126.252.12 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:25 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
82.221.129.96 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:26 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
82.221.129.96 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:26 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
82.221.129.96 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:27 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
82.221.129.96 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:27 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
94.242.246.23 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:28 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
94.242.246.23 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:29 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/
94.242.246.23 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:29 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/


Each line above is just the first few fields in the line.  Note that all ten POST attempts occurred within 5 seconds, evidence that they are coordinated by one person.  There were six such groups of post attempts on my log, spaced out across the day.  The entire full first line of the above group on my log file would look like this (except that I've highlighted one section in red):
176.126.252.12 - - [19/Dec/2016:03:57:24 -0600] "POST /wp-content/themes/elegance/lib/scripts/dl-skin.php HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/34.0"
The IP address 176.126.252.12 evidently belongs to a hacker in Romania. 
The IP address 82.221.129.96 evidently belongs to a hacker in Iceland.
The IP address 94.242.246.23 evidently belongs to a hacker in Luxemburg.

All three run Windows NT 6.1; rv:34.0 on their computer, or, much more likely, its one computer somewhere that just uses IP addresses from other countries.  As further evidence of that, here's another full log line from later in the day:
108.175.11.230 - - [19/Dec/2016:18:12:35 -0600] "POST /wp-content/plugins/wp-post-frontend/js/plupload-2.1.2/examples/upload.php HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/34.0"
IP address 108.175.11.230 belongs to a hacker in Kansas City, Missouri.  In the past I've been attacked many times by a hacker in Kansas City who uses many different IP addresses.  All of yesterday's attempted POSTs could be that same guy.  Other evidence (see my June 7, 2015 comment) indicates the guy in Kansas City has connections to China.  But, that's just what the facts and evidence say.  Either way, he was blocked and didn't do any harm.

December 18, 2016 - I've been sorting through all the physics and astrophysics journals to see which of them might be suitable for my article on "Time Dilation without Relativity," if the journal that has it now turns it down for no good reason.  The full list consisted of 1,255 journals.
 
After I eliminated all the non-English-language journals, the journals which only reported on meetings and conferences, and all the journals that were for specific fields unrelated to the topic of my paper, like optics, acoustics, quantum electronics, nuclear physics, photonics, thermal science, colloid science, etc., etc., I was left with a list of only about 40 journals. 

When I researched those 40 one by one, I found that #8 on the list only accepted articles that were at least 70 pages long, and no longer than 150 pages.  My article is just 5 or 6 pages long when single spaced.  And that seems to be the length that most journals prefer.   

I also found 5 journals that are "open access" journals where the author pays to have his article published.  Surprisingly, some of them were very highly ranked.  But they are also high priced.

Reviews of Modern Physics, for example, is ranked #2 on the full list, which means it's supposedly the 2nd most influential physics journal in the world.  It charges $2,900 to publish an article.
 
Applied Physics Reviews is #19 on the list.  They charge $2,200 to publish an article.

New Journal of Physics is #83 on the list.  They charge $2,000 to publish an article.

Frontiers of Physics is #210 on the list.  They charge $3,000 to publish an article.

Physics Research International is #888 on the list.  They charge $750 to publish an article.

That reminded me of the "open access" journal that a local physics professor told me about back in July.  It was titled "
Journal of Nature and Science," and they charge only $99 to publish an article.  I wasn't interested in paying anyone to publish my article, so I never even checked them out.  But now that I had the lists of the most influential journals, I wondered how "Journal of Nature and Science" ranked on those lists.  I found they weren't on the list of physics journals, so I wondered if they were on the list of 29,713 science journals.  They weren't on that list, either.  An on-line article HERE probably explains why.

I haven't finished researching all the journals, but I've already found about a half dozen journals I can try.  There may be more, but that's enough for now.  If the journal that has my paper now turns it down, then I can do more research.  Or I can do more research after I try a half dozen journals and get turned down by them all - assuming that they all turn it down for some vague reason that has nothing to do with the correctness of my reasoning or my observations, and none of them turn it down for any solid reason.

This morning I awoke in a positive mood, wondering about something I hadn't thought a lot about before:  If one of those journals does publish my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," what paper would I follow it with?  I.e., what paper would I submit to that same journal for their next issue?  The answer is obvious:  it would have to be a cleaned-up version of the paper I wrote back in February, "What is Time?"  Unfortunately, the current version of that paper is a long ways from being "professionally done."  Back then, I was writing "scientific papers" for use in arguing with people on the Internet.  I wasn't even thinking about trying to get the papers published.  Writing things down was just a way to organize my thoughts.  And putting the paper on a web site was a way to avoid the need to type long passages and arguments over and over.

The first time I tried submitting a paper to a scientific journal was just five months ago, in July.  The first paper I submitted was about "Time Dilated Light".  Wow!  That seems like it was a long, long time ago, even thought it has been just five months.  I've learned so much since then, particularly about how to submit papers to scientific journals.  I've totally stopped arguing with people on the Internet, and I'm now totally focused on getting my scientific papers published -- or at least getting some "professional" reviews of my observations.  I want to know if I'm right or wrong.

So, while I'm waiting for a response to my latest submission, I might try a total overhaul of "What is Time?" to make it more suitable for submission to a scientific journal.  That would mean putting my papers about "The Twin Paradox in Our Real Universe" and "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate of Special Relativity" on hold for awhile.  Neither of those papers is anywhere near as exciting and controversial as "Time Dilation without Relativity" (or "What is Time?)."  However, if either of those two papers was already finished, it would be a paper I could submit to some other journal tomorrow, since they about very different subjects - particularly "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate of Special Relativity." 

In short, I have no idea what I'm going to work on.  But I definitely need to re-read "What is Time?" to see if it can be turned into a true scientific paper.


Comments for Sunday, Dec. 11, 2016, thru Saturday, Dec. 17, 2016:

December 15, 2016 - Well, you live and learn.  Me, too.  This morning, I decided it was time to check out science journals to try to determine to which journal I should submit my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" if the journal that currently has it turns it down for no good reason.

I did a Google search for top science journals and found a web site that ranks 29,713 of them in order by how influential they are (i.e., how often papers in the journal are cited by papers in other journals).  Fortunately, the site provides a way to download the list in Exel spread sheet format, so I didn't have to go through the entire list to find out where the journal that has my paper is on the list.  I sorted the list alphabetically to find the journal that has my paper and discovered isn't even ranked in the top 50% of the most influential.  Ah well.

I submitted it to that journal because it was a journal to which my local library system subscribes, and because they published a lot of articles related to time dilation that I studied during my research (because my local library subscribes).

Interestingly, Nature magazine is only #12 on the list.  And Science magazine is far below that at #45.   But the top of the list is dominated by journals about topics such as immunology, biology, genetics and biochemistry.  None of those would be suited for my paper. 

So, I did another Google search, this time for the top physics journals, and found a web site that lists 1,255 of them when you include astrophysics.  The journal that has my paper isn't in the top 50% on that list, either.  But it's clear that the bulk of the journals there, too, are for specific areas of physics where my paper wouldn't belong (fluid mechanics, photonics, quantum electronics, etc.).  Then, of course, you have to eliminate journals that are published in languages other than English. 

But it still looks like I'll have plenty of choices if I'm turned down and have to try again elsewhere.

December 13, 2016 - Hmm.  This morning I found another paper by Daniel Y. Gezari, the NASA scientist who wrote the paper I mentioned in my December 11 comment.  The paper I just found is titled "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector" and was seemingly written before the other paper.  The first version of the paper I just found was released to the public on December 18, 2009.  The other paper was released to the public on December 20, 2009 - two days later.

What makes this so interesting is that the first paper seems very open to the idea that the movement of an observer will combine with the speed of light to give a "relative speed" that is greater than c if the observer is moving toward the source (or lower than c if the observer is moving away from the source of the light). It says on page 2:
The experimental validation of the invariance of c is plagued by misconceptions and errors of interpretation. There is a common misconception that Einstein’s second postulate says that c is invariant to ‘motion of the source and motion of the observer’ and it is incorrectly presented this way in most textbooks. But the second postulate says nothing about the observer: “Light is propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” (Einstein 1905).
That is almost exactly what I have been saying! 

One can almost visualize the author releasing his first paper on Friday and then immediately getting jumped on by fellow NASA scientists who disagree with it.  However, the first paper uses the second paper as a reference, indicating that they were written concurrently.   The "Conclusion" section of the first paper also cites the second paper (highlighted in green below) as well as calling for more testing to confirm that movement by an observer can affect the measured speed of light (highlighted in red below).
Considering the weakness of the present experimental support for the invariance of c — the fact that observations of moving sources cannot discriminate between special relativity and the old ether hypothesis, the absence of speed-of-light measurements with moving detectors, the lack of experimental validation of the equivalence of source and observer motions, doubts about the interpretation of the classical ether-drift experiments, concerns about the applicability of the modern isotropy experiments, and the fact that all of the unambiguous tests of special relativity in the photon sector have produced null results — it cannot yet be claimed that the local Lorentz invariance of c has been convincingly validated by observation or experiment. It would be prudent to critically re-examine and strengthen the present experimental basis for the special theory of relativity in the photon sector. At least one of the five relativistic optical effects predicted by the special theory of relativity should be confirmed by direct observation; the most significant of these would be the invariance of c to motion of the observer. To this end we have made a two-way lunar laser ranging measurement of the speed of light with a moving detector (Gezari 2009) and we are pursuing one-way laser ranging observations outside the Earth’s atmosphere (Gezari et al. 2010) as well as ultra-fast pulse timing measurements in the laboratory (Gezari et al. 2010).
So, I have to conclude the Gezari is arguing some nuanced variation of my argument.  And I haven't yet found the exact point where we start to disagree, but it probably has to do with Time Dilation.

While doing further research, I found that I'm not the only one to have noticed Gezari's papers.  On November 25, 2014, A. A. Faraj had a paper published in The General Science Journal titled "The LLR Experiment: An Analysis of the Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c."     It's "Concluding Remarks" section includes this;
the reported result of the LLR experiment strongly supports the notion that the measured values of the velocity of light depends on the actual values of the velocity of the measuring observer.

And it should be obvious, therefore, that the LLR experiment provides clear experimental evidence against the official statements of Einstein's special relativity concerning the relative speed of light.
So, it agrees with me in the part highlighted in red, and I disagree with it about the second part. 

The paper also includes a "References" section with a bunch of references where others seem to have published opinions about the NASA experiment.  I haven't had time to read them.  At the moment, I'm nearly overwhelmed with all the new information I'm coming across.  There just aren't enough hours in a day to study them in detail as quickly as I would like.

But they all re-enforce my view of how things work.       


December 12, 2016 - Sigh!  I awoke this morning realizing that my explanations about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity cannot fit into the paper I tentatively titled "The Twin Paradox in a Real Universe."  It would just confuse any reader expecting to read only about The Twin Paradox.  He would find that the second half (or final 2/3rds) of the paper was almost entirely about the Second Postulate, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Twin Paradox.  I merely discovered something about the Second Postulate while writing the paper.

So, I'm going to have to write another paper, tentatively titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate of Special Relativity."  And I'm going to have to write it first.  It is vastly more important than the paper about the Twin Paradox.  Moreover, it should be suitable for printing in almost any physics journal, while the paper about the Twin Paradox would fit only a few journals which seem to encourage articles arguing about different aspects of the Twin Paradox (including the journal that is currently reviewing "Time Dilation without Relativity)."

Writing a paper about the Second Postulate will also allow me to think it through and organize my thoughts.  Right now I find it CRAZY that so many scientists have a totally bizarre misunderstanding of the Second Postulate which they cannot verify with any evidence, while it seems very easy to show evidence that they are wrong -- but no one has done so.


December 11, 2016 - I've been working on a new paper tentatively titled "The Twin Paradox in a Real Universe."  As I stated a few days ago, it's basically just a rewrite of my May 31, 2015 paper "Time Dilation Re-Visualized," which was a retelling of the "Twin Paradox" using a pulsar as a clock, so the twins could both see the same clock at the same time.

However, near the end of the paper, one of the twins performs an experiment that produces results I didn't anticipate.  And now that experiment is turning into a major point of the paper. 
It has also caused me to do a lot of research, mostly digging through scientific papers which mention Einstein's second postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  Somehow, it seems that the bulk of the world's scientists have a totally mistaken interpretation of that postulate.

Groan!  I really do NOT want to get into another scientific area where I have to claim that most of the world's scientists are mistaken.  But that seems to be where I have ended up.  I wrote about it in my comments dated November 22 and December 8, and I don't want to repeat myself.  But I found a YouTube video that illustrates the situation very nicely: 



Here's a frame from that video:

Einstein's Second
                  Postulate

The speaker is Professor Michel van Biezen, who appears to teach at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.  He's telling his students that, if two space ships are approaching each other, and the space ship on the left (observer-A)  is shining a light toward the space ship on the right (observer-B),  both observers will see the light traveling at the speed of light, i.e., 186,000 miles per second.  I disagree with that.  Prof. van Biezen also explains that Observer-A will not see the light traveling away from him at the speed of his space ship plus the speed of light.  That part is correct and is how I interpret Einstein's Second Postulate. 

But then Prof. van Biezen goes on to tell his students that Observer-B will not see the light coming toward him at 186,000 miles per second plus the speed of Observer-B's space ship.  Somehow, magically, the light will slow down so that Observer-B will see the light coming at him at only 186,000 miles per second.  Prof. van Biezen doesn't explain why or how this happens, he just explains that that is how he interprets what Einstein wrote and therefore it must be true.

At the 40 second mark in the video, Prof. van Biezen explains that a lot of people find this very difficult to believe, "even very intelligent people."  He makes that point over and over in the video.  But he explains nothing to make it more easy to understand, he just says over and over that it is what Einstein wrote. 

But that is NOT what Einstein wrote.  That is evidently just how some scientists misinterpret what Einstein said -- apparently a LOT of scientists.  Einstein said that TIME will slow down for Observer-A due to his velocity (96% of the speed of light.)  Therefore, when Observer-A shines a light out the nose of his space ship, the speed of that light per second that Observer-A will see will be measured using Observer-A's very long Time Dilated seconds

Einstein said nothing about the speed Observer-B will see that same light traveling.  He only said that if Observer-B shined a light out of the nose of his space ship, he would also see the light traveling at 186,000 miles per his seconds.  And the same for any other observer emitting light. 

On the whiteboard behind him, Prof. van Biezen wrote "As measured in any inertial reference frame, light propagates through space at velocity c independent of the velocity of the source."  What that means is that the velocity of the source cannot be added to the velocity of light.  If Observer-A is the source, the speed of his space ship cannot be added to the speed of the light he emits.  His light will  still just travel at 186,000 miles per second.

However, if Observer-B sees the light coming toward him, and Observer-B is traveling toward the source of the light at high speed, Einstein says nothing about such a situation.  In that situation, Observer-B would see the light coming at his ship's velocity PLUS the speed of light.  (The light will seem extremely blue-shifted.)  The light is traveling at the speed of light.  Observer-B's speed cannot affect the actual speed of light coming from some other source.  That makes no sense.  Prof. van Biezen is just misunderstanding what Einstein wrote.  And, evidently, so are countless other scientists and professors.  And they do not explain, they just say it is how they interpret what Einstein wrote, so it must be true - even if it makes no sense to a lot of other people.

I spent a large part of last week looking for EVIDENCE to support their beliefs.  I found none.  I found a couple papers which claim to confirm the belief, but the experiments they cite have a stationary Observer-B, so they prove nothing.  I also found a couple papers which challenge the misinterpretation, but those papers try to explain the error as resulting from some natural phenomenon, not just a bizarre misinterpretation of what Einstein wrote. 

Back in September, 
I found a paper by a NASA scientist who has experimental evidence disproving this misunderstanding.  Unfortunately, the NASA scientist argued that the evidence must be wrong, because it goes against what he and all those other scientists and professors believe.  This morning I went hunting for that paper on ArXiv.org and found it.  Version #3 is still available.  It says:
Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light.
In other words, NASA bounced a beam of laser light off of a reflector on the moon, and the returning light beam was measured to travel at the speed of light plus the speed that the Earth was turning on its axis toward the reflector.  By any standard, that experiment disproves what countless scientists believe, and what Prof. van Biezen is teaching.  But it wasn't presented that way in the NASA paper.  In my paper I'll present it that way.

And, it's 11:30 a.m., which is a hour past the time I normally post my Sunday comment.  So, I'll stop here.  It seems a good place to stop anyway.


Comments for Sunday, Dec. 4, 2016, thru Sunday, Dec. 10, 2016:

December 9, 2016
- Yesterday's comment contained errors.  I suppose I could just go back and correct the errors and pretend I never made them, but making errors is part of the learning process, so they're nothing to be ashamed of.

I awoke this morning realizing I'd made errors yesterday.  (In reality, I awoke without realizing anything.  But it was too early to get up, so I just laid there thinking.  And while thinking, I realized that I made some errors yesterday - and in my May 31, 2015 paper.  I figured out a way to simplify the problem.)  Here's what I came up with:

Assume that I'm in my car on a side road that connects with Highway 41.  On the highway I see army trucks moving north, traveling from Fort Able down south to Fort Baker up north.  I see one truck pass every minute, each traveling at exactly 50 miles per hour.  I sit there and watch for ten minutes and see ten trucks pass. 

I then turn onto Highway 41 and head south at 50 miles per hour.  Now the trucks are passing me at our "closing speed" of 100 miles per hour.  I'm going 50 mph, they're going 50 mph in the opposite direction.  A truck passes me every 30 seconds.  I drive south for 10 minutes and 20 trucks pass me.

I them make a U-turn across the divider and head north at 50 miles per hour.  I am now traveling at the same speed as the trucks.  So NO trucks pass me.

After driving north for 10 minutes without a single truck passing me, I turn off onto that same side road.  In 20 minutes, I saw 20 trucks pass me.  That's the same number of trucks that would have passed me in 20 minutes if I'd have stayed on the side road and hadn't made the trip south.

So, 20 trucks passed me when I was going south, and zero trucks passed me when I was going north.  Total trucks that passed me in 20 minutes: 20.  The number of trucks that would have passed me if I had been standing still: 20.

In my paper I wrote that while heading toward a pulsar at 99.5% of the speed of light, I would count the pulses coming at me at about twice the rate they came when I was standing still.  That was basically correct.  But then I wrote that on the return trip I would count about half the number of pulses I would count when standing still.  That was wrong.  I would count zero pulses.  I don't know what I was thinking, but I clearly wasn't thinking about the truck analogy.

So, now I feel comfortable using the pulsar example to explain some basic facts about Time and Light in my new paper "The Twin Paradox in a Real Universe."    

December 8, 2016
- I awoke this morning with a terrific idea for another paper, which would also make a great new addition to my book.  It's basically a major rewrite of my May 31, 2015 paper "Time Dilation Re-Visualized."  The new version will probably be titled "The Twin Paradox in a Real Universe."  That should have been the title of the May 2015 paper.

I also awoke realizing I made a serious error in the May 2015 paper.  I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this on page 4:
The only thing that was measured differently during Homebody's voyage was that, while traveling toward the pulsar, the pulses from the pulsar arrived at an average rate of 2 per second. And while traveling on the return trip, the pulses arrived at an average rate of one every 2 seconds. However, once again there were exactly 31,553,280 pulses measured by both the device on earth and the device on the space ship during the experiment.
If you are traveling toward a pulsar at 99.5% of the speed of light, where 1 second on your space ship is 10 seconds of Earth time, why would the pulses from a pulsar arrive only twice as fast as if you traveling perpendicular to the pulsar?  What was I thinking?  I'm now thinking that the pulses would come at about 10 per second.  And when traveling away from the pulsar, the pulses would come at about 1 every 100 seconds.  I could be wrong.  I'll have to think about it.  But what it does that is exciting to me is it attacks all the misconceptions about Einstein's second postulate in his Special Theory of Relativity.  That postulate reads as follows:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
And, as I wrote in my November 22 comment, people have spun that postulate to mean things it was never meant to mean.  Here's an example misinterpretation from an Ohio State University Professor:
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the source.
Einstein's 2nd postulate simply states that the relative velocity of the emitting body does not add to the velocity of light emitted by that body, i.e., if the emitting body is coming toward you at 1,000 meters per second, the speed of its light will not be c plus 1,000 meters per second.  But many people have inexplicably twisted it to say that all observers looking at a beam of light will see that light traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of their own motion relative to the source of the light.  That's preposterous.  I've read that students tell their teachers it is preposterous, and the teachers tell the students that they have to believe it anyway, or they'll get a failing grade.

If you are traveling toward a pulsar, the pulses will arrive at a faster rate than if you are traveling away from the pulsar.  It's not exactly the same as measuring the speed of light, but the net result or effect is the same.  Every observer will see the number of pulses per minute change in accordance with their own velocity.

So, now I've got to stop writing about it here and start writing that new paper.

December 7, 2016 -
This morning, I received an email from the science journal to which I'd submitted my article "Time Dilation without Relativity."  The email said to "see attachment(s)," but there were no attachments.  If the editor meant the text of the email, which was just information about the journal, it could be that he was referring to some need to register with the magazine before sending in articles.  So, I registered.  Now I have to wait to see if he re-sends his email with some attachments, or if what he wanted was for me to register.  Or if he meant something else entirely.  Maybe the attachments were reviews turning down the article.  Who knows?  I'll just have to wait.  

ADDED NOTE: Ah!  Whew!  At about 11:30 a.m. I received the exact same email note from the chief editor of that science journal, except that this time he included the attachment.  It turned out to be a letter thanking me for submitting the paper, saying he'd review it to determine its suitability for the journal, and his request that I notify him if three months have passed and I still haven't received his review.  Okayyy.  I guess I can do that.

I'd been assuming that the missing attachment was a rejection letter.  So, I'm very happy to wait to see what happens.  And I'm going to assume I won't have to wait 3 months.

December 5, 2016 -
Okay, I dood it.  I just sent my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" to a scientific journal.  If they turn down the paper, they supposedly will give me their reasons for doing so.  It's a quarterly journal, and they just released their December issue, so, if they decide to publish the paper, it won't be available until their March issue.

Now comes the waiting.  Will they accept it or won't they?  If they don't, will they provide some good scientific reasons for turning it down, or will they turn it down for vague reasons that are of no help to me at all?  Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I'll have to try to get back to work on other papers or on my book, or both. 


December 4, 2016
- I've been revising and revising and revising my paper about "Time Dilation without Relativity" all week.  I've probably read it over about fifty  times, typically making minor changes every time.  I'm planning to send it to a scientific journal tomorrow.  I have no idea how their particular reviewing system" works, so I have no idea how long it will take to get a response. 

I think the new paper is very readable and easy to understand, perhaps more so than any previous paper I've written.  The references are impeccable, the science is undeniable, yet it could be extremely upsetting and controversial to much of the scientific community - particularly physicist-mathematicians.  Best of all, the scientific argument I make in the paper is fundamental and doesn't really require accepting any other argument first.  If you accept that Time Dilation is real (as hundreds of experiments have proved), then everything else in the paper follows logically and undeniably.

If the journal to which I'm sending the paper doesn't want to publish it and doesn't give any meaningful reason for turning it down, I'll probably try sending the paper to a bunch of other journals - one by one, of course.  The journal's web site, however, seems to say that they give reviewer feedback on all papers they receive.  I hope so.

One source I found says that there are 12,000 science and social science journals published around the world.  But, I'll probably only try four or five.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do while waiting for a response from the journal.  I should get back to working on my book.  The basic idea for my latest paper came from working on the book.  The title of the paper is the same title I used on a paper I wrote in October, but the content of the new paper is very different.  It was rewritten from scratch and presents the facts in a totally different way.

Maybe I should start working on a chapter for my book, a chapter which I can title "
The Absurdity of 'Light Clocks.'"  Light clocks (theoretical clocks which bounce a photon back and forth to measure time) is another screwball notion that Professor Brian Green uses in his on-line course on "Space, Time and Einstein" at WorldScienceU.com.  And I saw the idea of "light clocks" was being used in at least a half dozen scientific papers I read last week.  It's another popular idea that has a fundamental flaw that some scientists seem to ignore.

This is all probably very boring to readers of this web site.  People who have never tried to get something published seem to have no idea of how the process works.  They cannot imagine anyone trying year after year to get a paper or book published with no success.  They would just give up after the first try.  Or, if they knew he difficulties, they wouldn't even try to get published at all.  Worst of all, they seem to think that if a paper isn't immediately accepted and published, then it probably isn't any good and the writer is probably a lousy writer. 

I keep recalling the recent movie, "The Man Who Knew Infinity," which was about a super-intelligent Indian mathematician who tried for years to get his papers published, but couldn't get anything published until he went to Trinity College at Cambridge, England, and attracted the attention of some top professors who helped him get published.

The term "Publish or perish" also comes to mind.  Wikipedia says this:
Frequent publication is one of the few methods at scholars' disposal to demonstrate academic talent. Successful publications bring attention to scholars and their sponsoring institutions, which can facilitate continued funding and an individual's progress through a chosen field. In popular academic perception, scholars who publish infrequently, or who focus on activities that do not result in publications, such as instructing undergraduates, may lose ground in competition for available tenure-track positions. The pressure to publish has been cited as a cause of poor work being submitted to academic journals.
That may explain all the crap I saw in the articles I've been reading.  They're just made-up, nit-picking arguments because the writers have nothing new to publish.
 
I've been writing as a hobby all my life.  I was writing short stories when I was a kid, occasionally sending them off to magazines to see if they would be published.  None of them were.  In my adult life, I wrote six or seven books which I and a top literary agent tried to get published, but to no avail.  I finally had to publish some of them myself. And I wrote about ten screenplays which a Hollywood agent tried to sell for me, with no success.   

So, I may not have had any success so far in getting officially published.  But as a hobby, writing is an endless area of total fascination and enjoyment.  I can get fully absorbed in writing all day long.  It's not my fault that non-writers cannot understand it. 

Who else but a writer who loves writing would write comments for a web site every week, often many times per week, accumulating enough written material for a dozen books, and just keep on writing and writing?


Comments for Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, thru Saturday, Dec. 3, 2016:

December 2, 2016 - I've been very busy lately working on preparing another scientific paper for submission to another scientific journal.  The paper is a rewrite of "Time Dilation Without Relativity," incorporating some thoughts I had while I was writing the Introduction and opening chapters for my new book.  The scientific journal is one I found while reading those 76 papers from the www.BadgerLink.net web site. 

The journal publishes quarterly and costs $55 a copy.  It has very strict rules on formatting.  While following those rules I realized that it was probably a very bad idea to include Wikipedia articles as references on my previous papers.  So, when I wrote about how the 391 atomic clocks used by 69 different institutions around the globe to determine International Atomic Time were found to all be ticking at different rates due to gravitational time dilation, I didn't use Wikipedia as the reference in the new paper, I used the book that Wikipedia uses as a reference:  TIME: From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics.

book on time

I found it very interesting that the book sells for $706.59 per copy.

Meanwhile, this morning someone sent me an article about Albert Einstein that wasn't among the hundreds I've recently browsed.  The article is titled "When Einstein Tilted at Windmills" and it's from Nautilus magazine, which doesn't appear to be a magazine that ever showed up in my research before.

It's an interesting article and contains this interesting paragraph:

Following Mach’s lead, Einstein wanted to assert that motion was not defined by reference to absolute space, but only relative to other motion. Unfortunately, the laws of physics seemed to suggest otherwise. The laws of electromagnetism, in particular, insisted that light had to travel at 186,000 miles per second regardless of the observer’s frame of reference. But if all motion was relative, the light’s motion would have to be relative too—traveling 186,000 miles per second in one reference frame and some other speed in another, in blatant violation of electromagnetic law.
And then this very interesting paragraph:
It all dawned on Einstein then: It was possible for all observers to see light moving at exactly 186,000 miles per second regardless of their own state of motion. The light’s speed is a measure of how much distance it covers in a given amount of time. But time changes depending on your state of motion. So even if you’re moving relative to the light, time itself will slow down precisely long enough for you to measure light’s speed at the very one required by Maxwell’s equations.
That's not exactly how I would phrase things, but the result is the same.  I'd say: the speed of light depends upon the speed of the emitting source (which is the same speed at which the observer is moving).  Or as one source at the University of California - Riverside puts it:
the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it.
Now I just need to find a way to use that comment in my paper by referencing some scientific paper or book, instead of a www.ucr.edu web page.

It isn't in the current version of the paper.  But, I'd certainly like to use it.

"An artist never really finishes his work, he abandons it." - Paul Valery.












© 2016 by Ed Lake
RETURN