|Comments for Sunday, January 29,
2017, thru Tuesday, January 31, 2017:
January 31, 2017 - My brother in-law just sent me a link to a hilarious YouTube video from the Netherlands. Here's the video:
Here's the blurb that goes with it:
The whole world was watching for the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States: Donald J. Trump. Because we realize it's better for us to get along, we decided to introduce our tiny country to him. In a way that will probably appeal to him the most.You'll really love it, it's fantastic, it's great. Okay?
January 30, 2017 - Sigh! I thought I was being helpful yesterday, when I explained to "Tom Roberts" on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity forum that photons are emitted instantly from atoms, and pulses of light are generally man-made using shutters, rotating gears or rotating mirrors.
"Tom Roberts" posted no response overnight. But, three others did posted their responses. The first, from "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" complained that I was "VERY rude to Tom Roberts," apparently because I don't have better credentials than Tom Roberts, which means that in any debate between us I will automatically be wrong and Tom Roberts will automatically be right. Fuller added, "You are like a baby that just learned to stand up in his roll around Walker who is trying to tell Olympic Athletes how to run the 400 meters properly." And he concluded his post with this:
You are a Dick, go away.The second post was from "rotchm" complaining that I do not argue, I just run away.
The third post was from "Odd Bodkin." His response began by quoting me:
I was trying to be helpful. It seems clear Tom Roberts was confusing an "emission" with a "pulse," and I explained the difference. What is rude about that? Isn't that the PURPOSE of this forum -- to help one another to understand science, physics and relativity?And then "Odd Bodkin" wrote:
On this, I think probably not.I studied that response for awhile, considering whether I should reply or not. I decided against responding. What would be the point? He's saying, in effect, that I need to argue mathematics instead of using words and logic. It's a verbose way of saying what "rotchm" says, that the only acceptable response would be in the form of a mathematical equation that disproves his mathematical equation.
Arguments using logic and words have no meaning to them. Facts and evidence have no meaning to them. The very idea that their mathematics could be wrong is incomprehensible to them.
What's so scary is that it could be the prevailing way of thinking for the majority of physicists and mathematicians, particularly those in teaching positions.
Hopefully, there are still many scientists who believe in "The Scientific Method" and the role of evidence and logic in scientific thought. Otherwise, my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will never be published.
January 29, 2017 - Yesterday, I was planning to start writing my Sunday comment, but, before doing so, I decided to check out the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum to see if anything new and interesting was being discussed there. I found that the thread to which I had been posting until a few days ago was once again a very active thread and a the top of the activity list.
Looking through the most recent comments in the thread, I found a discussion was underway about the speed of light reflecting off a rotating mirror. In one post in the thread, "Paul B. Anderson" wrote:
If the speed of the reflected wave is equal to the speedThat posed a couple very interesting questions for me: How does a mirror work? Will light reflected by a moving mirror travel at the speed of light PLUS the speed of the moving mirror?
I recalled reading something about how a mirror doesn't really "reflect" light, it absorbs the incoming photons or light waves and then emits new photons back at the original source. If so, that would mean that the mirror was an emitter, and the Second Postulate to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity says that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So, the movement of the mirror will not combine with the speed of light it "emits."
After doing some quick research, I responded to Anderson's comment with this:
As I understand it, when a photon hits the silver atom in the mirror, it is absorbed and the atom obtains excess energy. The photon or wave momentarily ceases to exist. To rid itself of the excess energy, the atom emits a NEW and identical photon (or wave) back in the same direction as the incoming photon.And, of course, one of the people ("Tom Roberts") who had been discussing mirrors and the speed of reflected light responded by declaring his opinion that I was wrong. So, I had to do research and show him a few sources I could easily find which said that he was the one who was wrong:
"How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—and they do that by giving off some more photons.""Tom Roberts" also argued that a photon is not created instantly. And I quickly found a source that said otherwise:
"The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existence."And that was the end of yesterday's discussion. This morning all I see is a comment from "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" saying:
Hey EdI'm not ridiculing or mocking anyone on this web page. I'm explaining why it is next to impossible to have an intelligent conversation on Internet discussion forums. There's no way to force people to stick to the subject. Plus, facts and evidence seem to mean nothing. Every attempt at an intelligent discussion quickly turns into an opinion versus opinion argument.
But, at the same time, the arguments really force me to think things through as I try to respond to their claims and opinions. And, more often than not, as soon as I've typed a response and posted it, I think of a much better way I could have phrased things. And I think of implications that I hadn't thought about before.
This morning I awoke thinking about the mirror argument. In several previous arguments I'd provided sources which stated that a photon is emitted instantly by an atom. But I'd never even thought about how a mirror "reflects" light. If it somehow turns a photon around and sends it back to the source, how is that done? I'd never even wondered about it. But, I can totally understand the concept that a photon is absorbed by a silver atom in the mirror and then the silver atom instantly emits a NEW photon back to the source.
"Tom Roberts," however, argued against such an idea:
While many such emissions occur in femtoseconds to picoseconds, some atomic and molecular transitions are metastable and have timeThis morning I wondered if this was an area where "classical physics" conflicts with Quantum Physics. It appeared that "Tom Roberts" was, in effect, arguing that time must be quantified. There must be a quantum of time involved in reflecting a photon - a femtosecond or a picosecond or something smaller, but something measurable. It cannot happen "instantly," since that would imply no quantum of time.
But, if it takes a quantum of time to generate a photon, during that quantum of time the developing photon would be moving at the speed of the mirror. That means the photon would incur the momentum of the mirror. I.e., the reflected light would travel at c plus the speed of the mirror. If the photon is emitted "instantly," however, the photon will NOT incur the momentum of the mirror.
I did some research this morning trying to find more about the mirror argument, but all I could find was information about how a rotating mirror was used by Léon Foucault in 1862 to measure the "absolute speed of light." I'll have to try to find some time to research it further. It seems that all the rotating mirror did in Foucault's experiment was create measurable pulses. Measuring the time between the sending and receiving of a pulse provides the speed of light.
Then I realized that "Tom Roberts" may have simply been confusing an emission of a photon with the creation of a pulse. So, I posted this:
It appears you are confusing an "emission" with a "pulse." The emission of a photon is instantaneous and "nature made." The release of a pulse is controlled by man-made equipment.That discussion is an example of what keeps me so fascinated. I see Albert Einstein's description of Time Dilation and Relativity as being relatively simple and straight forward. But, mathematicians have turned it into something that is mindboggingly complex. I have repeatedly stated here that Einstein famously once said, "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." Neither do the mathematicians, apparently.
But how can this mess be straightened out? I'm hoping that my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will be a start in the right direction. But when will it ever be published? I'm still waiting ... and waiting .... and waiting.
Yesterday, I also read the latest news on The Huffington Post Web site. My attention was grabbed by an article titled "A Tremendous Roundup Of Street Art Ridiculing Donald Trump." The article showed 46 different "street art" images of Trump, mostly from before he was elected President. The first image was this one:
Clicking on that image on The Huffington Post web page took me to the Twitter page where The Huffington Post obtained the image. On that Twitter page I found several more images of Trump, including this one:
So, I decided to save the best of the bunch. I copied 21 of them to a new folder in my laptop. Here's another one I liked:
I really need to get to work on my other scientific papers - particularly the one about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity. But now I'm wondering: Is there a another paper in the mirror puzzle? It seems to be a controversy where Quantum Mechanics gives a wrong answer and Classical Mechanics gives a correct answer. And fairly simple experiments can easily prove which is correct and which is wrong.
As far as I know, there may already be a hundred papers on that subject. I've never researched it. I haven't even checked the Google forum argument to see how it started.
Too much to do. Too little time to do it. Sigh!
|Comments for Sunday, January 22,
2017, thru Saturday, January 28, 2017:
January 25, 2017 - Sigh! Still waiting for news about my scientific paper.
While waiting, instead of working on other scientific papers, I've been arguing on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum. I've only been posting to the thread titled "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?"
The main point of discussion is whether clocks actually slow down when they move and/or when they are close to a large gravitational mass. Mathematician physicists argue that the clocks do not actually slow down. They claim it is just an illusion, even if you can see two clocks ticking at different rates right in front of you because one clock is higher than the other. It's the argument I created a cartoon about a last year:
At one point we started discussing the scientific paper about Time Dilation that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) got published in Science magazine in 2010. It was about the exact situation depicted in the cartoon. The NIST scientists set two identical atomic clocks side by side to confirm that they were synchronous, then they raised one of the clocks by one foot. When they did so, they could see that the higher clock was ticking faster than the lower clock. And they wrote a paper about it.
On the Google forum, someone named "Tom Roberts" wrote a long post arguing that clocks do not run slower. The post included this:
In SR [Special Relativity], "time dilation" is NOT due to "moving clocks ticking slower", it is due to the way relative motion affects the COMPARISON of clocks (or of signals from clocks, depending on the physical situation). In both SR and GR this effect is a geometric projection. (Note that "time dilation" in SR cannot possibly be modeled as "clocks ticking slower", but you ignore counterexamples that are too complex to be described in a sound bite.)So, I found the article on NIST.gov that the NIST wrote about their Science article and quoted all the sections where the NIST mentioned clocks running slower (or words to that effect):
Quote 1: "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket."Tom Robert's response was very interesting. He wrote:
Ed, you have just made a serious mistake. What you have just done is to declare that the actual scientific paper does not accurately describe the physics of what they demonstrated, and that a news article that fuzzes stuff up for popular consumption does accurately describe the physics of what they demonstrated.I responded:
Nonsense. The article is about the technicalities of the experiment. The article FROM THE NIST.GOV WEB SITE WRITTEN BY NIST PERSONNEL is a plain-language summary of what was done.Instead of providing side by side quotes, Tom Roberts wrote:
I caution you, Ed, that journalist, popularized articles are NEVER meant to be solidly accurate accounts of the physics. They are meant to do one of two things: - For those who are not any more interested than at the hobby level, it provides just enough of a flavor to satisfy. - For those who are interested in the subject and would like to know more, it provides inspiration to go find the deeper references for detailed study.So, I provided quotes from the Science magazine article which also said that time runs slower for a moving clock (or words to that effect):
Quote 1: "Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meterTom Roberts simply ignored those quotes and responded:
All the "Evidence" you THINK you see for variations in the duration of a second is actually evidence that COMPARISONS of clocks can differ. And that can (AND DOES!) happen for reasons other than variations in clocks' tick rates.
Bottom line: relativity is subtle and requires precision in thought and word. You fall far short of what is required, and what you THINK you "know" about SR just ain't so. Regardless of what all too many popularizations of science say, moving clocks do NOT "tick slower" -- this is QUITE CLEAR when one applies the actual theory and not somebody's sound bite.So, he was declaring that I was just too ignorant of Special Relativity to understand what was going on. But he did. That made it an opinion versus opinion argument, which are a waste of time. No facts or evidence would change his mind. He would just argue that I was misunderstanding everything.
Interestingly, another participant ("rotchm") in the discussion argued the same thing in a different way. He wrote:
The empirical data was (simply put) that t' < t. This means that t' < t. Nowhere in there (or on the display of the clocks) did they see the words "running slower".And I responded,
I agree that there is no mention of "running slower" in the mathematical equation. But LOGIC says that if two clocks are synchronous, then you move one of the clocks, and that causes the time shown by the moved clock to "lag behind" the time shown by the clock that was not moved, then LOGICALLY the clock that was moved MUST have been "running slower" while it was moving.I could go on and on. While those messages were being posted, "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" and others were arguing that
Math = LogicAnd I was arguing that math is logical, but it is not logic. I listed ways famous problems were solved with logic that did not involve math (cavemen learning how to make fire being one example). It had no effect. "Rotchm" responded:
Experience (saw a lightning strike & make fire, or saw colliding flintrock or other input they got) gave them the knowledge, the "rules". Based on that, they *learned* to mimic or *deduced* similar acts to reproduce fire. IOW, from some rules (gained by experience) they *deduced* a result & deduced to try out the result. This is precisely the definition of math (and logic).He's arguing his belief that logic and math are the same thing. He described the logic processes used by the cavemen and claimed it was math. And nothing I could say would change his mind. Math = Logic. Period.
So, I've decided to give up. Maybe I'll join some interesting discussion in the future, but for now the arguments are clearly just a waste of time.
While all that was going on, I also proof-read Chapter 16 of the book a scientist acquaintance of mine is writing. Since it's fairly difficult for me to shift focus from everything else I have going on to proof-reading his book, I asked him to wait until he has 3 chapters done, and then to send me all three at once. So, it might be a month before I see chapters 17, 18 and 19, and another month before I get the final chapters in the book. That means (hopefully) I'll be spending more time on writing scientific papers.
January 22, 2017 - Waiting to see if my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will be accepted and published is really altering my whole life. I find it very difficult to think about anything else. I can't even focus on watching movies in the evening. Instead, I watch old TV shows that do not really require me to pay much attention (reruns of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" being a prime example). And, while watching, my mind is going over different ways to argue different things in different scientific papers that I'll try to get published if this first paper succeeds.
Yesterday, I started wondering if the journal that has my paper has already turned it down and they somehow assumed I know to look somewhere on their web site for the information, instead of waiting for an email notification. I couldn't find anything to support that nutty idea, but I did find some information about seven papers they recently accepted. Here's the information I found about those seven papers:
1. Received: November 4, 2015; Accepted: November 23, 2016.Based upon that information, they are still going through papers they received in September, and it could be a long time before they get to the paper I submitted on December 5. The information also suggests that they haven't accepted anything since late December, almost a month ago. Did it really take over a year for that first paper to go through the editing process and get accepted, or is that 2015 date just a typo? The pattern indicates the 2015 date is most likely correct. The pattern also indicates that it takes from just over 3 months to just over a year for a paper to go through the peer-review and editing process. Groan! Or, if a paper doesn't need much editing, it could mean that it takes over 3 months just to get through the peer-review process. Groan!
In other words, I have no clue as to what is actually going on. I've never been through this process before. My previous submissions were all rejected within a couple weeks, sometimes within a week.
Yesterday, being unable to focus on my scientific papers, I joined three arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum. I took a screenshot of the top four topics on the forum. Here it is:
I posted a comment to "Moving Clocks Run Slow or ... Fast, Einsteinians?" It was about my idea of using a pulsar as a "clock," so both twins could see the same clock at the same time, instead of requiring "magic" to let one twin instantly see the other twin's clock across trillions of miles of empty space. As of shut-down time last evening, there were no responses.
I posted a comment to "If Light Had a 'Frequency' the Pound/Rebka Experiment would have Failed." It was about the fact that Pound and Rebka didn't measure the wave-lengths or speed of light at the point of emission. They just assumed that the wave-lengths changed between the emission point and the detection point 74 feet below. As of shut-down time last evening, there were no meaningful responses.
I posted this comment to "The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics":
The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view. The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion. That was a BIG mistake.As of shut-down time last evening, there was only one response to my comment about the "biggest mistake." Here is part of it:
Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around theAnd my response to that response was (in part):
Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."This morning, I see that there have been a lot more responses overnight. Here's what the top of the list looks like this morning:
"Moving clocks" had 7 posts yesterday, this morning it has 25. "If light had a 'Frequency'" had 2 posts yesterday, this morning it has 15. "The Worst Mistake" had 8 posts yesterday, this morning it has 18.
Looking through the posts, I see that many are arguments between other people which do not involve me. But, I see "Kenseto" posted a comment in the "Worst Mistake" thread in response to my comment that the train is moving, not the train station:
You have no fact or evidence......just unsupported assertions.And "tjrob137" (Tom Roberts) posted this in the "Moving Clocks" thread in response to my comment about the length of second being different everywhere:
Nope. There is no such evidence, just stuff you make up.So, I have a way to waste time for the rest of this morning while I continue to wait to see if my article gets accepted and published.
Also, in my email in-box this morning I received Chapter 16 of the book I'm proof reading. That will also give me something to do while I wait and wait.
|Comments for Sunday, January 15,
2017, thru Saturday, January 21, 2017:
January 19, 2017 - Yesterday, I stumbled across the Pound-Rebka experiments. I'd undoubtedly heard of those experiments before, but I'd totally forgotten. I was checking out the latest threads in Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and someone named "Pentcho Valev" posted several links related to those experiments. The Pound-Rebka experiments appear to be the source of the arguments that Gravitational Time Dilation doesn't exist. While the experiments do not challenge Velocity Time Dilation, the experiments allegedly show that Gravitational Time Dilation isn't really Time Dilation, it's just the result of "the Doppler effect" or "gravitational red-shifting."
Researching the experiments further, I found a very informative July 2005 article from the American Physical Society (APS) titled "Focus: The Weight of Light" about the Pound-Rebka experiments. And I found the three Physical Review of Letters articles in which R. V. Pound, G. A. Rebka, Jr., and J. L. Snider describe their experiments. The articles are "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance" from 1959, "Apparent Weight of Photons" from 1960, and "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance" from 1964. Interestingly, none of the three original articles (nor the APS article) even mentions the term "time dilation."
The experiments involved emitting photons of light from atop a tower on the campus of Harvard University and measuring the "Doppler shift" in the wave length of the light when the photons reached a detector 74 feet below the emitter. Then they did the reverse. They shot the photons upward to a detector 74 feet above the emitter. What they claimed to have found was that light changed to a higher frequency when "falling downward" with the force of gravity, and light changed to a lower frequency when "struggling upward" against the force of gravity.
The APS article says,
This was a “major scientific achievement,” says Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis, not only because it was a classic test of relativity, but because of the ingenious experimental design. And there is a practical consequence, he adds. The satellite-borne clocks of the GPS navigational system must be regularly corrected for changes induced by gravitational redshift. So relativity calculations keep every freighter and fighter jet on course.I can't decipher why they do not use the term "time dilation" nor explain the difference between "time dilation" and "gravitational red-shifting." But, they seem to be saying that light goes faster and slower depending upon whether it is going upward from the earth or downward toward the earth, so the effect on GPS satellite timing is somehow the same as "time dilation."
To me, the experiments illustrate what I've been saying (and what Einstein wrote): light will travel faster when emitted from the top of a building than when emitted from the bottom of the building, because the top of the building is farther from the center of the Earth's gravitational mass. If they had measured length of a second and the speed of light at those two locations, they would have found that the speed of light is the same at both locations, but a second is longer at the bottom of the building (due to gravitational time dilation) than at the top of the building, And that means that, because speed is measured per second, the speed of light is actually faster at the top of the building (where a second is shorter) than at the bottom of the building.
Because their experimental setup only allowed them to measure the frequency of the light waves, not the actual speed of the light waves, their equipment showed that the light moving downward had a higher frequency. In reality, it didn't. Wave frequency depends upon the length of a second. If they had used the length of a second as measured at the top of the building when detecting the photons at the bottom of the building, they would have found no red-shifting (actually, blue shifting in this instance).
Ironically, we can all use those same tests to confirm our very different theories. To those who apparently do not believe in time dilation (like Pentcho Valev), the experiments showed that there was no such thing as time dilation, only red-shifting. To Pound, Rebka and Snider, the experiments evidently confirm Einstein's theories about gravitation while saying nothing about time dilation. And for me, the experiments confirm "Time Dilated Light" and show that light emitted from the top of a building will travel faster than light emitted from the bottom of a building. If you use equipment for detecting red-shifting instead of equipment for measuring the speed of light, you will only see red or blue shifting because that is all your equipment was built to detect. What's needed to confirm my theory is to measure BOTH the length of a second AND the speed of light at two different altitudes, and to COMPARE the measurements.
Interestingly, this appears to be a situation where mathematics can be used to argue a theory that photons speed up as they get closer to the earth and produce blue shifting OR a theory that light is emitted at different velocities at different altitudes, and the only way to determine which theory is correct would be to perform a well-designed experiment using the proper equipment.
January 17, 2017 (B) - I keep thinking about the December 2014 article in Nature magazine titled "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics." The article was about the debate over whether facts and evidence are required to prove "scientific theories," or whether such theories can be accepted just because they are mathematically elegant.
The Nature article mentions how the public might view such a debate:
This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results — in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution — are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists. Potential damage to public confidence in science and to the nature of fundamental physics needs to be contained by deeper dialogue between scientists and philosophers.The article was written in 2014, two years before we elected a President who doesn't believe in "climate change" and who doesn't seem to trust evidence OR science. He appears to have been elected by a public whose motto is: "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe." That seems to be our new President's motto, too.
And I'm trying to get an article published which says that thousands of physicists are wrong in what they believe, and many (if not most) physics teachers are teaching total nonsense. Will the public care or accept that those physicists are wrong if the physicists believe as the public believes: that facts and evidence mean nothing if you do not believe the facts and evidence?
Of course, there's no reason to believe people will pay any attention to my article, even if it is published. The article is about what the facts and evidence say. And it seems that fewer and fewer people care about facts and evidence.
Another problem is: Those who do not care about facts and evidence are largely closed-minded and belligerent about what they believe. They attack those who do not believe as they believe. Meanwhile, those who want and need facts and evidence are largely defenseless against such attacks. They consider personal attacks to be "counter-productive." They tend to just quietly wait for the facts and evidence to be accepted. "Truth will out," they tell themselves.
Maybe. But, it looks like it's going to be a long, long, long, long, long wait.
January 17, 2017 (A) - Malaysian, Australian and Chinese authorities officially ended their search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 today. According to news reports, the only thing that will get them to resume the search is solid evidence pointing to where the wreckage of the plane is located.
According to The Wall Street Journal,
It's another area where facts and evidence mean nothing to people who have firm beliefs about what happened to the plane. And they believe that finding nothing is "solid proof" of their theories - whatever their theories are.
January 16, 2017 - I neglected to mention in my previous recent posts that I saved a copy of the discussion thread titled "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story" that I participated in on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum. I just went through the copy looking for the part of the discussion that was about the steps in the Scientific Method. Someone who called himself "Odd Bodkin" asked me if I knew the steps. I responded by posting the steps:
The Scientific Method is:Odd Bodkin, of course, disagreed . He listed his own version of steps 4 through 8 and criticized me for having a different list:
4. Form a hypothesis.When I provided him with a link to the many places on the Internet where my version of "the scientific method" is used, Odd Bodkin dismissed them all with this response:
I had a hunch it was some pop-sci link.I asked him if he'd gotten his list from a book on mathematics. He responded:
Nope. A book on physics.That discussion took place on January 9. This afternoon, I wondered if there actually is a physics book which includes those steps as part of the "scientific method." I did Google searches for sections of what he wrote (HERE, HERE and HERE) and got no results. So, he either made up the steps or was working from memory instead of copying the steps. I suspect the former, since I cannot imagine anyone using those steps as "the scientific method."
But it's an interesting glimpse into the way a believer in Religio Mathematica thinks. There's no attempt to figure things out logically. Their "method" is to go straight to mathematics. Naturally, I did a Google search for examples of using the scientific method, and the first example to pop up was an example of using the method to find a lost wallet. How would you do that using math? The next example to pop up was a question of whether water freezes faster when sugar is added than if it just pure water. How would you do that using math? The next example was a question about whether a light bulb was burned out or not. How would you do that using math?
That makes me wonder: What kind of scientific question could anyone have where Odd Bodkin's version of "the scientific method" would work best? I can't think of any.
There are other discussions in that thread where bizarre beliefs are stated as if they are absolute certainties. I also saved other threads from other discussions on other forums. Sometimes I just have to go back to them to see if people actually said what I remember them saying. It reminds me of the quote from Leo Rosten:
I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.And even more amazing is that there seems to be no way to change their minds about anything.
never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/leorosten147863.html
January 15, 2017 - Groan! I don't have anything ready to post as a comment for today. So, I'm going to have to write one from scratch.
Waiting to see what's going to happen with my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is occupying more and more of my time. It's making it very difficult to think about anything else. My previous submissions of other papers to various other scientific journals resulted in the rejections typically coming back within a week. It's been well over a month since I submitted my latest paper. Does that mean they're truly peer reviewing it, or does it mean that they can't find anyone willing to peer review it? Have they ever sent back a submission, telling the author, "Sorry, but we cannot find anyone willing to comment on your paper"?
I think the paper is very soundly researched, and the references I used are impeccable, so peer reviewers would have a hard time arguing that I'm wrong in what I wrote. But, am I right? The facts and evidence clearly say I'm right, but facts and evidence do not mean much in the realm of science these days. That means a reviewer may want to say, "I don't care what the facts say, I do not believe Mr. Lake's conclusions, so I cannot recommend publication of his paper." But feeling that way and stating such a thing in writing are two different matters.
In last week's Jan. 11 comment, I posted links to several scientific articles from prestigious journals which pointed out that many (possibly the vast majority) of physicists in the world today no longer care about facts and evidence. They only care if the math works and produces exciting projections. (And that is certainly confirmed by my discussions in the Google discussion group about Science, Physics and Relativity.) Those articles, however, only talk about the tip of the iceberg, i.e., today's focus on String Theory and Multiple Universes, which are pure mathematical constructs which cannot be proved or disproved. Thousands of physicists are working on theories that may be total nonsense, but no one will ever be able to prove they are nonsense, because "proof" consists of evidence, and there is no actual physical evidence supporting or disproving String Theory or Multiple Universes or other such theories based solely on mathematics.
What my papers address are the misunderstandings about physics and science that have been going on for the past 100 years and more as a result of mathematicians distorting and misinterpreting Albert Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.
My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" says (in effect) that the facts and evidence clearly show that tens of thousands of physicists are wrong in what they believe (and college professors and teachers are wrong in what they teach). So, how will a reviewer who is such a physicist (or teacher) react to my paper? He cannot use facts and evidence to attack it. He doesn't believe in facts and evidence. He only believes in mathematical equations (Religio Mathematica, the Religion of Mathematics), the belief that if the math works, then it must be true and facts or evidence are irrelevant.
My paper doesn't use any complex mathematics. It's just about what the facts and evidence say. Fortunately, while mathematicians no longer seem to believe in facts and evidence, they also seem to realize that countering solid facts and evidence with unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions may not work in the peer review process. An that may be particularly true at the journal to which I submitted my paper. In the past it printed many articles about Time Dilation and how it is viewed from various perspectives.
While waiting, I've been working on follow-up papers that I'll submit if the first one gets published. But, will the first one get published? I'm fully prepared to submit the first one to other journals if the journal that is currently peer reviewing it turns it down for no good reason. But what if they turn it down for a good reason? I can't imagine what that reason would be, but I cannot argue that it would be totally impossible to find one.
It's kind of hard to focus on building the second floor of a house when you cannot be absolutely certain the first floor won't be knocked down by some kid who throws a stone and hits a spot that the known laws of nature say shouldn't exist.
So, I'm waiting. And waiting. And waiting.
|Comments for Sunday, January 8,
2017, thru Saturday, January 14, 2017:
January 11, 2017 - It's becoming harder and harder to find something to write about here. I'm basically in a routine involving waiting for news about my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," while working on two other papers, while proof-reading the latest chapters of the book a scientist is sending me (I'm reading chapters 13 & 14, and he just sent me #15 this morning), and while trying to break away from the arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum which have become counter-productive. (I've stopped posting, but I need to stay stopped.)
I'll still check the forum from time to time. It's a good source for links to articles that can be very enlightening. This afternoon, for example, I found a link to a New York Times article from June 2015 titled "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics." The article says exactly what I've been saying. (I checked this site to see if I've ever mentioned it before, and the results were negative.) The article says,
A few months ago in the journal Nature, two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, published a controversial piece called “Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics.” They criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today’s most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are “sufficiently elegant and explanatory.” Despite working at the cutting edge of knowledge, such scientists are, for Professors Ellis and Silk, “breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.”In other words, if the math works then it must be valid because the math is "sufficiently elegant and explanatory." So, there is no need for experimentation and validation.
Here's another paragraph from the article:
Recall the epicycles, the imaginary circles that Ptolemy used and formalized around A.D. 150 to describe the motions of planets. Although Ptolemy had no evidence for their existence, epicycles successfully explained what the ancients could see in the night sky, so they were accepted as real. But they were eventually shown to be a fiction, more than 1,500 years later. Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?While my papers don't shoot down superstrings and multiverses, they do show how today's mathematicians have led science astray.
Here are the first two paragraphs from a May 2015 article in Prospect magazine titled "What happens when we can't test scientific theories?":
If a scientific theory is elegant, and is consistent with known facts, does it need to be tested by experiment? Scientific knowledge is supposed to be empirical: to be accepted as scientific, a theory must be falsifiable—that is, it must be possible, at least in principle, to empirically disprove it. This argument was advanced in 1934 by Karl Popper, the philosopher, and is generally accepted by most scientists today as determining what is and is not a scientific theory.And here's part of another key paragraph:
Mathematical tools enable us to investigate reality, but the mathematical concepts themselves do not necessarily imply physical reality. Thus evidence in support of a theory has to be experimental or observational, not simply theoretical. Ellis and Silk make this point powerfully, and warn against the notion that “theoretical discoveries [can] bolster belief.” They remind us: “experiments have proved many beautiful and simple theories wrong.”I couldn't have put it better myself.
Coincidentally, I also have a math problem I need to solve for one of the papers I'm working on. I think it's a fairly easy problem to solve. I just need to find the right way to view it. If pulses from a pulsar arrive at 100 per second when the Earth is moving at right angles to the pulsar, how many pulses per second would be measured when the Earth is toward the pulsar at 30 kilometers per second?
I'd thought about writing a comment on the movie "Tenure," which I watched the other day after buying the DVD on sale for $1.99. It's about a college English teacher who has to get a paper published if he wants tenure at his college, and his papers keep getting rejected. The one that does get "published" is published on-line after the journal goes out of business, so it doesn't count. I think it may be the first movie I've seen where the problem of getting a paper published is central to the story. And now I've written a comment about it.
January 8, 2017 - Last week I was once again arguing for long periods with people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum. Some of it is really interesting. And it is definitely educational, since their arguments require a lot of thinking on my part to find a way to explain things to them.
Basically, the arguments are over whether "spacetime" represents reality (their point of view) or whether it is just a mathematical construct that does not truly represent reality (Einstein's and my point of view).
One argument in the "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story" thread made me think about the so-called "Twin Paradox" in a different way. The people I'm arguing with are basically mathematicians who seemingly believe in Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics. Everything turns into an argument about "frames of reference" with them. So, I came up with the idea of having only ONE observer in all the examples of Time Dilation I was discussing, including the so-called "Twin Paradox." Instead of having a set of twins, I had one person (me) and a pair of atomic clocks. I would set the two atomic clocks side by side to make certain they were synchronous, and then I'd take one of the clocks with me on a round trip in the direction of Alpha Centauri at 99.5% of the speed of light. When I returned, the clock I took with me would show ONE year had passed, while the clock I left behind would show that TEN years had passed. There's only one "frame of reference," mine, and only one "observer," me.
The argument from the mathematicians is usually an incomprehensible jumble of words. Here's an example I see waiting for me this morning (out of 20 messages that were posted overnight):
Wrong, the correct explanation is that both clocks followed a different worldline across spacetime, while each of the clocks continue to tick at their designed rate.If I ask them to explain what that means, they'll just tell me that I need to take the courses they take in school, read the books they read, and then I'll believe as they believe and talk as they talk -- or words to that effect. They'll vaguely argue that inanimate objects also have a "frame of reference" and can thus be considered to be "observers" with "frames of reference."
That same example comment waiting for me also contains this:
For sure is your fantasy as you are unable to provide a proof that the tick rate changes with speed or acceleration. By the way extensive tests have shown atomic clock tick rate does not change even with a gravity equivalent to 10^19g.I'll just show him the 2010 NIST experiment where they raised an atomic clock by just one foot and could see the change in tick rate. And they'll probably respond with more gibberish about worldlines and spacetime and how, even though the two clocks are just a foot apart and can be seen to tick at different rates, it really isn't happening. It's just an illusion.
After responding to the half-dozen posts that were addressed to me, I can see that another problem in communication is that some of them are running their responses through a translator. One person keeps posting about "gedanken clocks." That translates to "thought clocks." He was discussing "gedanken clocks" and how they work in "spacetime" and and I was discussing REAL clocks and how they work in our REAL universe.
I really should break off the discussion and get back to work on my scientific papers, but it's all very fascinating to me. They cannot explain anything except in mathematical terms that they seem to have memorized, and they'll just attack me personally if I show they are wrong. And, of course, since they cannot explain anything, all they are really doing is convincing me that I am correct in my understanding of Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity.
Meanwhile, during the past week I finished proof-reading chapters 10, 11 and 12 of the book being written by a scientist I know via the Internet. He's only on Chapter 15, so the chapters will be coming to me at a much slower rate from this point on. (He's going to send me chapters 13 and 14 today or tomorrow. There are 22 chapters in the book's outline that was used to sell it.)
I still haven't heard anything about my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" that is being "peer-reviewed." I suppose I should be encouraged by the fact that it wasn't immediately rejected. But, it's still a long wait, and it could become a lot longer, since they indicated in their letter that I shouldn't contact them about it until I've waited at least 3 months (which means I shouldn't ask about the paper until after March 5).
|Comments for Sunday, January 1,
2017, thru Saturday, January 7, 2017:
January 5, 2017 - Hmm. I'm arguing once again on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion group, in an thread titled "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story." I'd been checking the group to see if there was anything new and of interest, and I hadn't seen anything. Then, yesterday, I saw a message addressed to me from a guy who posts as "tjrob137" but signs his posts "Tom Roberts."
I wrote a reply to his post, and, as in the past, a lot of others responded to my reply, but Tom Roberts wasn't one of them. His last post - prior to yesterdays - was on December 30. So, maybe I can expect something a week from now.
I really need to get back to work on my scientific papers. I've got so many illustrations in my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate that in parts it looks like a children's book where everything is explained in pictures. Ten illustrations probably isn't an unusually high number. Another problem is: right now some of the illustrations look very crude. That probably means I'll have to redo them once I've finished writing the text for the paper. Groan.
January 4, 2017 - During breakfast this morning I finished reading a paperback copy I bought of "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
I'd finished listening to the audio book version back on October 10 and wanted to actually read the book so that I could make notes in it and highlight passages. As I commented on October 10, it is one of the most truly fascinating science books I've ever encountered. During lunch today I'll start reading the Kindle version of "The Upright Thinkers." (See yesterday's comment.)
January 3, 2017 - While returning home from an exercise session at the gym yesterday afternoon, I finished listening to CD #10 of the 10-CD audio book version of "The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos" by Leonard Mlodinow.
While there are some annoying parts to the book, and while the author reads the book as if it was a chore, it was overall excellent and of enough interest for me to reserve and obtain the Kindle version from my local library. I'll start reading the Kindle version as soon as I finish the book I'm currently reading during breakfast and lunch every day, which will probably be sometime this week.
"The Upright Thinkers" contains a lot of interesting quotes I would want to highlight in a paper copy or made a note of in a Kindle copy. It contains a lot of interesting details about famous scientists and their discoveries that I'd never seen, read or heard before.
The annoying part of the book is the author's tendency to repeatedly mention his father's experiences in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII. The author usually does it to make a vague point of some kind, but then he rambles on and on about it. I'll skip over those parts when I read the Kindle version. There's no easy way to skip over them when listening to an audio book.
I also had another problem with the last couple chapters of the book. Leonard Mlodinow is a big supporter of Quantum Mechanics, and he seems to see it as the way to solving all the mysteries of the universe. I totally disagree and see Quantum Mechanics as being partly responsible for the lunacy that is common in science today, where Religio Mathematica (The Religion of Mathematics) has taken the place of facts, evidence and the Scientific Method.
January 2, 2017 - Okay. We made it to January. All the college professors, students or scientists who review scientific papers for scientific journals should be getting back to work either today or tomorrow. I'd adapted myself to not expecting any response on my paper about "Time Dilation without Relativity" prior the January, but January is now here.
Yesterday, I received a fan email about my paper "What is Time?" That was a "first." The writer was from outside the US, and he wrote in imperfect English, but he was very complimentary. I also noticed that 4 more people read the paper. Between yesterday morning and this morning, there was only one additional reader. So, whatever spurred the activity may now be over.
I've been using Corel Draw to create graphics for my new paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity. Here's the graphic I use to illustrate that the speed of light from Source-A (on the left) is added to Observer-B's (on the right) velocity when Observer-B is moving toward the light source.
An extremely large number of scientists belief this is wrong. They somehow believe that light from Source-A will somehow adjust and slow down so that Observer-B will measure it as coming at the the speed of light not at the speed of light plus the speed of Observer-B's ship. And they don't care that that makes absolutely NO sense.
I just wish there was some way to have an intelligent conversation about this, but it appears that when people just believe something they cannot fully explain, they will resort to personal attacks and insults when presented with something that challenges their beliefs. It's something I've encountered countless times over the years, but it still amazes me every time it is demonstrated.
Fortunately, I have solid evidence supporting what I've written, and I can explain everything in great detail. All the other side has is a misinterpretation of what Einstein wrote and an unshakable belief that their misinterpretation is what Einstein "really meant."
January 1, 2017 - I wish everyone a very happy New Year! It should be a very interesting year, with an ignorant con man as President of the United States.