Archive for ed-lake.com
May 2017

Comments for Sunday, May 28, 2017, thru Wednesday, May 31, 2017:

May 31, 2017 -  While waiting for news about the two science papers I have submitted to two different journals, I've been doing looking through all the papers and books I accumulated during the past couple years, trying to organize them in some way.  While doing so, I cannot help but think about those two papers of mine.

Paper #1, Time Dilation Without Relativity, is about all the experimental evidence which shows that Time Dilation is a real natural phenomenon, even though mathematicians will argue that time is a universal constant and cannot "dilate" or slow down.

Paper #2, An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, is about all the experimental evidence which shows that a moving observer heading toward a stationary light source will see that light as traveling at the speed of light plus his own velocity, even though mathematicians will argue that the speed of light is a "universal constant" and everyone must see it traveling at the same speed regardless of their own motion.

The mathematicians point of view makes no sense unless you inexplicably believe the universe operates like a mathematical equation and there is no such thing as "cause and effect."

How can anyone believe such a thing?  Because they are taught it in school, and if they argue against it they will receive a failing grade?  Plus, their teachers tell them that everyone knows that it seems illogical, but that is the nature of Relativity, and you just have to accept it as true even if it seems illogical.

What amazes me is that I can find very few people who are also arguing to have the mathematicians stop teaching nonsense.  If experiments show it is nonsense, how can it be taught?  Why aren't people marching in the streets to stop it?  I can't believe that it is simply because no one wants to argue with the people who seem to be in charge.  Is it because the mathematicians argue with the total certainty of True Believers, while scientists tend to argue with logic and reasoning based upon experiments and evidence which they accept might possibly be shown to be wrong if someone comes up with a different experiment which provides different evidence via different logic and reasoning?

That also seems to be the same problem that is affecting our country right now.  The President seems about to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, evidently because he doesn't believe in Global Warming.  He doesn't believe in facts and evidence if his gut tells him they could be wrong.  And the scientists will admit that they could be wrong, although they'll also say that the odds of them being wrong are very very small. 

It is difficult to argue uncertainty against total certainty.   I can be totally certain that the mathematicians are wrong because all the experiments and evidence show they are wrong, but I can't be 100% certain that I am right.  Their being wrong doesn't automatically make me right.  We could both be wrong.  Just because I don't see any way I can be wrong could just mean that I haven't examined all the possibilities, because I don't know what all the possibilities are.     
It's a hellofa way to run a universe if you ask me.  ;-)

May 30, 2017 - Okay!  At 10:12 a.m. this morning, I submitted my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity to a highly-ranked physics journal.  And I've received notification that it is in their system.  They provide a link to a web page where I can check its status.  It's a monthly journal, so the response should theoretically be three times faster than a quarterly journal.

One of the final required steps in the submission process was to supply two names of suggested reviewers for the paper.  I don't personally know anyone who would be willing to review the paper, so I typed in "Stephen Hawking" and "Neil deGrasse Tyson."  It went through okay.  As I stated in my Sunday comment, I do not expect that the journal will publish the paper, since what the paper says is contrary to what the Editor in Chief teaches in his physics classes.  But, it might go through, and, if not, I might get an interesting explanation for the turn-down.

I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I've had TWO physics papers out for "peer review" and publication at the same time. 

I feel tempted to write a paper titled "Mathematics versus Reality in Physics."  My research and my discussions with mathematicians has made it clear where they are wildly screwed up in their thinking.  They are totally certain that the universe works mathematically, and therefore everything is reciprocal.  If A = B + C, then C + B = A.  And that is what "Relativity" means to them.  One side of the mathematical equation is equal to the other side.  

It appears that, to mathematicians, cause and effect are alien concepts.  Time Dilation is just an "illusion."  If you shine a light at me, I'll see the light traveling at the same speed that you see it traveling, even if you are stationary and I am moving at high speed toward you or away from you.   And all the countless experiments that prove otherwise are just misunderstandings by people who do not understand mathematics.  Yes, it makes no sense, but that is the nature of Relativity, it makes no sense but you're supposed to accept and believe it anyway.

So, while I'm waiting to see if my two papers make it into the first peer review step, I'm going to try to organize all the articles and books I downloaded and saved while doing the research.  There are 415 items in the "Miscellaneous" folder where I put everything that didn't come from arXiv.org or viXra.org.  My 79-page detailed .docx list of contents for that folder probably doesn't include more than 60 percent of the items.  I'm very curious to find out how many books are in that folder.  I was really amazed to discover that I could download free pdf copies of physics books that are used in classrooms around the world.  So, when I browsed a book to see if it was something worth reading or not, the first thing I would do is save a copy.  And there was never a reason for deleting anything.  I suspect I have multiple copies of a few of the books, different editions and the same book from different sources.  Maybe I'll create a spreadsheet with columns for title, author(s), type (book or article), number of pages, my file number, and some ranking and/or brief description.

Maybe I'll also look for the next journal to try for each of the two papers.

It's better than just sitting around waiting.

May 28, 2017 - Yesterday, I finished creating a new version of my scientific paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  It includes 9 new illustrations, all very different from the illustrations I used in the first version I put on viXra.org on April 20.  Also, while that April version was 4,884 words, the new version consists of 6,903 words, including the references.  Basically, it is the third version I put on viXra with a couple new sections that include the new illustrations and new explanations of how various experiments work that supposedly measure the speed of light.

I'm not going to put the new version on viXra until I've exhausted all efforts to get it published.   I still do not fully understand the process of putting scientific papers on viXra or arXiv.  I assume all or some versions of a paper will have to be deleted when some journal agrees to publish it and demands that the paper be removed from all web sites while they control the copyrights.  But, while I know deleting a paper is not a problem on viXra.org, I recall reading on arXiv.org that they do not allow deletions once a paper is accepted there:

if you intend to submit, or have submitted, your article to a journal then you should verify that the license you select during arXiv submission does not conflict with the journal's license or copyright transfer agreement.
Does that mean that people put papers on arXiv.org with no intention of ever trying to get the paper published?  If they plan to try to get it published, how can they agree to arXiv.org's terms without knowing what the rules are at all the journals they plan to try?  Something in that still makes no sense to me.

But, while it makes no sense, it isn't a problem for me, since I cannot and have no intention to submit any more papers to arXiv.org.

My immediate problem is finding a journal that fits with my paper and my rule of not paying to get my papers published.  I've pretty much decided on what journal to try next.  It's a highly-ranked journal that has a well-known college physics professor as its editor in chief.  And since my paper says that college physics professors are teaching crap, I think the odds of getting it published at that journal are very slim.  But, if I don't try, I'll always be wondering if they would have published it.  Plus, they'll always be able to claim they would have been wildly pleased to have published it if I had only sent it to them.

It's a monthly journal, which means I should get a response a lot faster than at a quarterly journal.  They also prefer to have the article typeset with LaTeX, which means I'll be learning how to put illustrations into a LaTeX formatted article.  That's something I've never done before. 

I'm also getting pretty adept at using paint.net to create illustrations.  It took me awhile to create the 9 illustrations I added to the Second Postulate article, but most of that time was spent on re-doing illustrations over and over as I thought of better ways to illustrate ideas and figured out different and better ways to create the illustrations.  I can create a beautiful illustration in a 1,000 pixel by 1,000 pixel format, but when it gets reduced to about 250 by 250 pixels to fit in a single column of a journal article, a thick line that was 3 pixels wide totally disappears. So, you either have to create an illustration that reduces correctly to smaller sizes, or you have to create different size illustrations. 

I'm currently planning to submit the article on May 30.

Meanwhile, I've been wanting to mention a movie I recently watched for the second time.  I rented "The Big Short" from RedBox on March 15 of 2016.  I thought it was a terrific movie, and when I saw the Blu-Ray version on sale for $5.96 on Black Friday, I bought a copy and put it on a shelf.  Then, two days ago, I finally took it off the shelf and watched "The Big Short" for the second time.

The similarities to the situation with my scientific papers are amazing to me.  The movie is about the housing market crash of 2008.  But it's also about some people who saw that the US mortgage securities market was an overstretched bubble just waiting to burst.  They saw it was built on false information, buzz words that no one understood, and total trust in people who were totally untrustworthy.  The people who saw the problem were laughed at by nearly everyone.  But, they turned out to be totally correct.  Near the beginning of the movie, this Mark Twain quote is shown on the screen:
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.   
So, I'm not likely to get into trouble if I don't fully understand Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, but it seems there are a lot of people who believe they know for sure what it means, who are out teaching students and the rest of the world what they believe, but who appear to be totally wrong

I just need to get my paper published so we can all find out for certain who is right and who is wrong.


Comments for Sunday, May 21, 2017, thru Saturday, May 27, 2017:

May 25, 2017 - After studying numerous papers and videos, I think I now know enough about how interferometers work to describe something about them in my paper about disagreements over Einstein's Second Postulate.  Strangely, the best video I found explaining how interferometers work doesn't have a sound track.  It's totally silent.  Here it is:



Unfortunately, you have to understand something about how interferometers work in order to understand the video.  But it nicely answered questions I had that no other video I'd previously found seemed to bother to explain.  It nicely shows how by adjusting one or both of the mirrors you adjust how the light waves coincide or conflict when they hit the display screen.  You can measure the wavelength of the light by adjusting of the mirrors.  Moving the mirror a half a wavelength farther away from or closer to the light source and display screen determines if the two waves will conflict or coincide.  The question I had that wasn't answered by any other video was: What do you see on the screen if both light beams are in sync?  The video shows that you get a bright spot of light on the screen.  When the beams of light are out fully of sync and the crest of one wave is matched with the trough of another wave, you get nothing on the screen. 

That, of course, poses the question: Where does the light go when you have a perfect interference pattern with the crest of one wave matching the trough of the other wave.  There's a video below that attempts to answer that question:

   
Perhaps the most interesting part of that very confusing video is how - by just pressing on the tabletop - the light pattern is changed.  Pressing on the tabletop causes enough movement in the position of the equipment on the table to change the way the light waves move and/or the distance they have to travel.

While writing this comment I found a third video HERE that isn't quite as confusing and muddled as the one above, plus it does an excellent job of showing what the "interference pattern" of circles or lines on the display screen (like the one below) represent.

Interferometer interference pattern

The center dark circle represents two light waves conflicting with each other and producing no visible light.  The red circle around it represents a change in angle between the lens and the display that is 1/2 of a wavelength at the source, just enough to have the crests of one wave match the crests of the second wave, and the result is a visible red circle of light.  The next dark line results from another slight change in angle which again causes crest to match with trough, producing no visible light.  So, when the angle lets crest match crest, you get a red circle.  When the angle causes the crests of one wave pattern to line up with the troughs of another wave pattern, you get a dark circle. 

Fortunately, I don't really have to explain how interferometers work in my paper.  I just have to explain how they can be used to show that an observer will see light coming from some source as arriving at c + v, where v is his own speed, in direct conflict with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which argues that everyone sees light as arriving at c, regardless of how you are moving.

I'm still puzzled over how such a BIG error can be believed by so many people without anyone doing as I'm doing and writing a paper about how RIDICULOUS their beliefs are - and how countless experiments show they are totally wrong. 

I'm really feeling that no one wants to argue with the mathematicians.  It seems like they only understand math and can't explain anything except in mathematical terms.  So, they argue that YOU must learn the math that they learned or you cannot understand what they believe they understand perfectly.  And, if you aren't willing to learn the math, then you are evidently just satisfied with your own ignorance and just not worth discussing the problem with.  
  
May 24, 2017 - I'm still waiting to see if the editor at the journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity is going to assign it to some peer reviewers or reject it for some reason.  It's only been 9 days, but seems like longer.  Meanwhile, the comment I posted to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group is still pending approval after about two weeks.

A couple days ago, I noticed a newspaper opinion piece about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  It was in the Orange County Register, the author was Carl Cannon of RealClearPolitics.com, and was titled "Comey, Mueller bungled big anthrax case together."  It was also on the Daily Breeze.  I expected it to be some conspiracy theory article, but Cannon acknowledges that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer and merely complains about how Comey and Mueller spent so much time focused on Steven Hatfill.  The Washington Examiner also printed a brief summary of Cannon's article and titled it "Remember the botched anthrax investigation."  I didn't mention those articles earlier, because they didn't seem worth mentioning.  They still don't, but yesterday someone bought a paperback copy of my book about the anthrax attacks, so I figured I should mention it anyway.  The article probably generated the sale.

I'm still working on revising my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  The changes do not affect much of the paper, but I'm spending a great deal of time doing research into how interferometers work while also trying to create some good illustrations to help explain them.    

May 22, 2017 - After I completed writing yesterday's comment, I went hunting for MIT text books in order to find out what they might say about Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  I found at least a dozen books, some of them text books, some of them just printed by MIT Press, but none said anything worth quoting on the subjects I was interested in.  This morning, however, I found a book that was of interest.  I wondered about those lectures by Professor Walter Lewin.  Exactly when were the lectures given?  MIT's web site seemed to suggest they were given in 1999.

I did a Google search for Walter H. G. Lewin and found that Wikipedia has a page about him.  He taught at MIT for 46 years, from 1966 until he retired in 2009.  He came out of retirement in 2012 and started doing filmed lectures for a Japanese company.  The on-line lectures were filmed in 2013.  Wikipedia says he also wrote a book "For the Love of Physics" that was published in 2011.  Ah!  Checking my sources, I found a pdf copy of the book.  And I found that it says this on page 269 of the paperback edition (with my highlighting):
Einstein argued in his theory of special relativity that space and time constituted one four-dimensional reality, spacetime. He postulated that the speed of light was constant (300,000 kilometers per second). Even if a person were approaching you on a superfast train going at 50 percent of the speed of light (150,000 kilometers per second), shining a headlight in your face, you and he would come up with the same figure for the speed of light. This is very nonintuitive, as you would think that since the train is approaching you, you who are observing the light aimed at you would have to add 300,000 and 150,000, which would lead to 450,000 kilometers per second. But that is not the case — according to Einstein, 300,000 plus 150,000 is still 300,000!
So, he argues the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," even though the description I used yesterday for his Lecture #23 disputes that theory.  This morning, I tried sending him an email at his MIT address, but it didn't work.  He was involved in a sex scandal there a few years ago, and evidently MIT no longer has anything directly to do with him.  Too bad.  I'd really like to find someone who can discuss Einstein's Second Postulate intelligently.  

May 21, 2017 - I'm beginning to feel a bit overwhelmed again.  I thought my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate was all set to be submitted to some physics journal, but then I recalled the Pound/Rebka experiment, which I do not mention in the paper.   I probably should mention it, even though Pound and Rebka didn't prove what they thought they proved.  Plus, I really really would like to find a paper about a 1955 Russian experiment which measured the speed of light coming from the left and right sides of the sun. 

Here is what it says about the Russian test on page 16 of Martin Gardner's book "Relativity Simply Explained":
One famous test was made by Russian astronomers in 1955, using light from opposite sides of the rotating sun.  One edge of our sun is always moving toward us, the other edge always moving away.  It was found that light from both edges travels to the earth with the same velocity.
But the book contains no reference for that comment, nor does it even mention the names of the Russian astronomers.  The same with another "popular" science book that also mentions that Russian test.  And a Google search finds only those two books, and no other mention of the "Russian test."

But what really put things into the "overwhelming" category was a discussion I had on the Facebook "Science, Philosophy and Psychology Discussion" group where, on May 8, I posted a link to my Second Postulate paper.  I'd thought the brief discussion generated by my post had died out, but then on Friday, someone suddenly posted this comment:
I STILL don't see anything from MIT about it? How do you account for that?
I politely explained the slow but steady progress I was making with submitting my papers, and then I added
I assume MIT teaches what everyone else teaches, because they don't know any better.
But, as soon as I had posted that comment I started wondering about MIT.  They are basically an engineering school, and engineers should have a very different view of test results than what many or most mathematician seem to have.

So, I started searching for what the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has to say about time dilation and Einstein's second postulate.  The first item of interest I found was some "lecture notes" by Scott Hughes dated 15 March 2005.  Those notes have this as the Second Postulate:
2. The speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.
That's not what Einstein's Second Postulate says, but it isn't necessarily wrong, either.  It all depends upon how you view "frames of reference."

I then found another set of "lecture notes" dated December 5, 2004.  Those notes have this as the Second Postulate:
Postulate 2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same value c.
That is also not what Einstein's Second Postulate says, but, once again, it isn't necessarily wrong.  It just doesn't say anything about different observers. 

Yet another set of lecture notes from the summer of 2008 has this as the Second Postulate:
2. The speed of light is the same for “everybody.” 
Also not Einstein's Second Postulate, but not necessarily wrong, either.

I kept digging, and I found some videos of lectures given in 2013 by Professor Walter H. G. Lewin, including Lecture #23 which is about the Doppler Effect.  That was close enough to what I was looking for, so I started watching and listening.  Part of the description of the lecture said,

2. Doppler Shift of Electromagnetic Radiation:

Electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light, c, in vacuum. If a source of light has a velocity component towards you, the frequencies that you will observe will be higher than those of the emitted radiation, and the received wavelengths will be shorter (blue-shift) than the emitted wavelengths. If the source is receding from you the received wavelength is longer (red-shift).
In other words, if you are an observer and the light source is moving, light will reach you at c + v, where v is the velocity of the light source.  That supports what I wrote in my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate: It is true according to "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" which says that the speed you will observe can include the motion of the emitter, but it is not true according to the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which claims that all observers will see light arriving at c regardless of the movement of the source or the observer.  However, it appears it is not true according to the 1955 Russian test. 

So, I listened to and watched the lecture.  Prof. Lewin begins by talking about sound waves and how they change frequency (or "pitch") if the source is coming toward you or going away from you.  And he does some demonstrations to prove it.  Then, at the 8 minute mark, he starts talking about light waves.  He says,
I now want to change to electromagnetic waves.  Electromagnetic waves travel with the speed of light, which is 300,000 kilometers per second.  And if you want to treat that correctly, you would have to use Special Relativity.  In the case of sound, I stressed repeatedly that you in the audience should not move, but that the sound source is moving.  In the case of electromagnetic radiation, when you deal with the speed of light, you don't have to ask that question.  It is a meaningless question in relativity to ask whether you are moving relative to me or whether I am moving relative to you, it doesn't matter.  All that matters in Special Relativity is the relative motion.  So, you can always think of yourself as standing still and make the source of electromagnetic radiation move to you or away from you, relative to you.
Who is moving may be meaningless mathematically and in "Relativity" as the Professor discusses it, but it definitely has meaning in reality.  In the fantasy world of mathematicians where only you and I exist in totally empty space, it may not matter or make any difference if I am moving away from you at 25,000 miles per hour or if you are moving away from me at 25,000 mph.   But, in the reality of our real universe it makes a great difference  If the Earth is behind me while I am moving away from you at that speed, I will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere in an hour, while, if you are moving away from me, you will be reaching the moon in a few days.

In reality, if you are moving toward me and emitting light toward me, you will measure the light traveling at c.  If I am moving toward you, on the other hand, I will measure the light you emitted as coming toward me at c + v, where v is my speed.

In reality, if I am stationary while watching a pair of rotating binary stars, the light from the star moving away from me will be red-shifted and the star that is moving toward me will be blue-shifted, as one would expect.  However, if I am also moving away from those rotating binary stars, then the light from the star that is moving away from me will be additionally red shifted, and the star that is moving toward me will be less blue shifted compared to when I was standing still.  And, if I'm moving toward the binary star that is coming toward me, its light should be additionally blue shifted, and the binary star that is moving away from me as I move toward it may not be red or blue shifted at all at some point in its orbit.  While we are definitely moving relative to one another, we are also moving relative to the rest of the universe.  So, in reality it does matter who is moving, even if a mathematician typically doesn't care.   

At the 13 minute 30 second mark, Professor Lewin says something else that was extremely interesting to me.   He says,
In astronomy, in optical astronomy, we cannot measure the period or the frequency of optical light.  All we can measure is the wavelength.
I've been arguing with mathematicians that you cannot measure the speed of light coming from stars.  They've been arguing that you can.  The statement above says I  am right.  Not only can't you measure the speed of light, you cannot even measure the frequency of light waves coming from some distant source.

I cannot use transcribed quotes from an on-line lecture as a reference in my paper, so I need to find a text book or documented source that says that.  It also requires a minor change to my Second Postulate paper, because my paper currently implies that if you can measure the wavelength, you can also measure the frequency by simply assuming that the speed of light is c

There were other interesting things I noticed on MIT's web site, but they'll have to wait for me to comment on them until after I've studied them further.


Comments for Sunday, May 14, 2017, thru Saturday, May 20, 2017:

May 20, 2017 - DAMMIT!!  This morning I received another email from that Canadian journal claiming they haven't received the previous emails I sent them telling them I withdraw my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  The latest email is different in that it says (with my highlighting in red):
if we do not hear from you by May 25, we will withdraw your paper from publication in [our journal].
So, even if they do not receive my latest email, they will still withdraw it.  That's a relief.  I looked through the previous emails they sent me to see if I could find other email addresses.  I found one and sent my latest response to both addresses. One address was to the "editor" and the other was to "admin."   It seems like the latest ones I sent to "admin" are not getting received, or they are claiming they are not getting received.  I never had any problems with earlier emails sent to "editor."  Obviously, I should have been sending my emails to both addresses, instead of just to the one who sent me the email.

It's still a lousy way to run a business.

Okay.   About an hour after I sent the email, the editor sent a response stating
Following the instructions contained in your e-mail of 20 May 2017, I would like to inform you that the above paper has been withdrawn from publication in [our journal].
Whew!  Finally!  They sent the notification as a formal .doc letter with their letterhead.  Maybe that is what they wanted from me.  But, more likely, it was sending the withdrawal email to the "editor" that did the trick.  I got the feeling that the "editor" really wanted to publish the paper, but the "admin" wanted $508 from me.  The "admin" assumed I was just trying to negotiate for a lower fee, and ignored any emails which might smell of a negotiating tactic.  But that's just the feeling I got.  I'll never know exactly what was going on there.

May 17, 2017 - This morning I finished what turned out to be a major overhaul of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate in order to incorporate five newly created illustrations.  The paper now has 6,157 words, so it is still a long ways from the 8,000 word minimum required by a scientific journal where I had been thinking of submitting the paper. 

This morning I created a list of the top 45 science journals in the astrophysics and physics fields.  Here it is:

List of journals #1

The full list contains 227 journals, but the first part of the list gives an idea of the problems I have in finding the right journal for my papers.  The red X's in the leftmost column indicate journals that aren't in the field of physics where my paper would fit.  Example: #20 - Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.  The red M's in the leftmost column indicate journals which focus on mathematics.  My papers have virtually no mathematics. On the right side of the the Title column, I added notes indicating other problems, such as printing costs (which I won't pay), word limits (my longest paper is 6,100 words, my shortest is 3,400 words), and journal which only print articles from authors they invite to write for them.  As you can see, that leaves just 7 out of the 45, and 2 of those seem to be in a language other than English.  I have a note that another seems to be a pay-to-publish journal (but I haven't yet dug through their web page to find exactly how much they charge) and another has an Editor in Chief who is a well-known mathematician-physicist university professor who I have argued is teaching crap.  So, that just leaves just 3.

Those 3 could also be wrong for me, but I just haven't yet dug through their web sites to find the problem.  The journal that currently has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity is in the top 100.  Someone suggested I try the journal that is #220 on the list, but I'd like to work through the list from the top down. 

So, the next task on my list of things to do is to find the right journal for my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  Along with way, I'll probably learn a lot more about how the scientific journal publishing business works.  


May 16, 2017 - Hmm.  One of the first things I do every morning is check my web site logs.  Looking at the access log for yesterday, I saw that I had an unusual number of first-time visitors to this web site, including one from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Naperville, Illinois.  I can only wonder what caused the surge.  I typically get 1, 2 or 3 first-time visitors every day, but yesterday these 10 were all first-time visitors:
12:04 p.m.           Bilbao, Spain  
12:38 p.m.           Bayern, Germany     
1:11 p.m.             Palo Alto, CA       
2:32 p.m.             Denver, CO    
2:33 p.m.             Grimstad, Norway    
3:30 p.m.             Naperville, IL      
4:21 p.m.             Richmond, BC, Canada
4:42 p.m.             Dayton, OH          
8:35 p.m.             Montreal, Canada    
10:19 p.m.           Toronto, Ontario    
Other than that they all occurred in the afternoon (my time), I couldn't see any pattern to them, however.  There was no surge in readers of my papers, nor did the comment I tried posting to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group get out of the "pending approval" stage, where it has been for over a week. 

Meanwhile, the status of my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity remains unchanged.  It has only been 24 hours, but it is still in the hands of an editor, meaning the editor has not yet decided if the paper should be sent out for peer review.  Here is what it shows on the status page for my paper:

Status of my
                  scientific paper

So, I'm just going to continue revising my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to include illustrations.  It isn't just a matter of plunking in some illustrations.  The illustrations need to be explained, and that results in changing the way a lot of other things are explained.  In some ways, "a picture is worth a thousand words," but in other ways a picture can provide a different way of looking at things, which can generate an additional thousand words of clarification.

I also found that I needed to really understand how an interferometer works.   I need to understand it well enough to explain in a few words what takes pages of explanation elsewhere.  But, it is all very interesting, and I have no deadlines, so I can study things at my leisure.

May 15, 2017 - At 9:07 a.m. this morning, I submitted my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity to a major scientific journal that is well known for publishing controversial articles.  I was a little stunned when I reached a web page during the submission process which has a line at the bottom which says "The charges are $1,150 per article."  However, the charges seem to only apply if you want your article to be printed in color.   I made it clear in my response comment that I do not want the color option (the paper has no illustrations) and that the $1,150 cost per article would therefore not apply to me.  And, I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere else on the web site that the charges only apply if you want your article printed in color. 

Here is what they said in a form-letter email telling me that the submission process was successfully completed:

If it is deemed suitable for our journal, it will be sent for peer review and we will endeavour to send you a first decision within three months

If your manuscript is not considered suitable for our journal (to be decided by the editorial board), we will let you know as soon as possible.
Well, at least I won't have to wait for three months to learn that they rejected it.  And they provide a status web site which I can check to see what is happening with the paper.

Meanwhile, I awoke this morning realizing that I definitely need illustrations in my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  I need to carefully explain the difference in measuring the speed of light the standard way, by bouncing photons off a mirror inside a vacuum chamber, versus measuring the speed of light by checking the wave frequency.  My paper about the Second Postulate doesn't indicate that there is a difference, and there definitely IS a difference in what experimental results would show.  Merely explaining that difference might be worth a paper all by itself.  But, I'll be including it in a paper that is about much much more.  It's just going to take awhile to create the illustrations and to make the change to the text.

Yesterday, a scientist at Fermilab (which is located just west of Chicago) wrote a comment about me and my Second Postulate paper on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity Discussion forum where I've been discussing my papers.  Here is his entire comment with only his name removed:

I have looked at this paper. I can predict that no reputable peer-reviewed physics journal will publish it, because it makes so many very basic errors, and its basic approach is just plain wrong -- he attempts to distinguish what he thinks is an "emitter only theory" from what is taught in many classes; the error is LAKE'S, and Einstein's ACTUAL theory is not at all "emitter only" (quite the opposite, because he EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of
light is c in EVERY inertial frame, not just that of the emitter).

As I have said before, Ed Lake cannot read, and this paper displays that repeatedly. I'll only point out a few places where it is just plain wrong, and in direct conflict with Einstein's 1905 paper.

Lake titles section II "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory", but that is a
falsehood, and this "emitter only theory" is PURE FABRICATION on the part of Ed Lake, Einstein had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

To start with, Lake uses the WRONG STATEMENT of Einstein's postulates -- he used Einstein's INTRODUCTION to them, not the actual statements (which are in section I.2). Lake claims "Einstein said nothing about what any other observer might see or measure." which is true for the introduction, but BLATANTLY FALSE for the
paper itself -- Lake OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper.

For instance, in Section I.3 Einstein says "We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c", and then does so by considering a spherical wave in the "stationary system", concluding "The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system."

Lake claims "The emitting body’s velocity (referred to as v) cannot be added to the speed of light being emitted, since c + v would produce a speed greater than the maximum that light can travel." -- he OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper, as in section I.5 Einstein derives the equation for the composition of velocities, and says "the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light". So the emitting body's velocity is NOT "added to the speed of light being emitted", it is COMPOSED as Einstein showed, and the result of the composition is c.

Lake claims "an observer approaching the source of light will measure the light to arrive at c + v, where v is his velocity, and if the observer is moving away from the source of the light, he will measure the light to arrive at c – v" -- this is ENTIRELY DUE TO LAKE, and is INCONSISTENT with what Einstein said in his paper: Einstein showed that the (vacuum) speed of light is c relative to both his "stationary system" and his "moving system", and since these are both
arbitrary, relative to ANY inertial system.

Lake completely missed the basic point of Einstein's paper, and claims:
When Einstein wrote that the Second Postulate “is only apparently irreconcilable with” the First Postulate, he seems to have been referring to the fact that while the observer standing next to the emitter measures light he emits as moving at a speed that is independent of his own speed, that fact does not necessarily apply to light he may measure coming from another source outside of his frame of reference.
This is completely wrong, and Lake is just fantasizing, not reading Einstein's paper. Einstein was discussing the APPARENT inconsistency between his two postulates: until this paper people assumed the PoR required Galilean invariance, and that is indeed inconsistent with Einstein's second postulate -- the paper shows that there is no inconsistency when one uses Lorentz invariance.  Einstein showed the OPPOSITE of Lake's claim: that an observer will measure the (vacuum) speed of light to be c, regardless of whether it is emitted by a source at rest in the observer's frame, or moving relative to it. Indeed this is the statement of Einstein's second postulate, which Lake has OBVIOUSLY NEVER READ:

   2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of coordinates
      with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
      stationary or by a moving body.

As Lake is so profoundly confused, I'll spell it out: consider the observer's frame  to be the "stationary system". This second postulate then says the observer will measure light to propagate at c in his frame, even when the source of the light is not at rest in his frame. So it DOES apply "to light he may measure coming from another source outside of his frame of reference".

Lake's paper is hopeless. He needs to learn how to read, and then needs to actually READ and LEARN about the subject before attempting to write about it.
I am showing the entire comment because it consists entirely of personal attacks and arguments that his interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate is correct and my interpretation is wrong, which is just his opinion.

My paper is about all the experiments which have confirmed that "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and that the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" is incorrect.  No where in his post does the Fermilab physicist even mention those experiments and what they showed.

In previous discussions where I tried to get him to discuss experiments, he would change tactics and argue that the experiments do not show what the scientific papers claim they show.  Basically, he'd argue that the experimenters were all incompetent, although he would never use that term in that way.  He would argue that the experimenters were all misled by "signals" that somehow negate the test results.  And when I tried to get him to explain to me how those "signals" work, he'd just tell me I am too stupid to understand, since his explanations would consist of mathematical jargon and formulas, and it's evidently not possible (for him) to provide any explanation in plain English.

That is why I stopped posting there (for now).  It's all just opinions and personal attacks.  Plus, of course, I'm pretty much done with my research (or so I think at this moment) and I have a lot of other things to do, like revising the Second Postulate paper to include illustrations and a description of the differences in the two different ways of measuring the speed of light.

Busy busy busy.  And it is totally fascinating work.

May 14, 2017 - I guess it is time to seriously get down to business.  I think I've done enough research to be certain that my papers are based on solid logic and solid science.  I've argued enough with people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum to know that they have no more worthwhile things to say.  They have started acting like obnoxious 12-year-olds, calling me names and playing stupid games like complaining that the links to the statistics for my papers on viXra.org do not work.  (They deliberately scrambled parts of their copies of the links to make certain they would not work.)  It is all reminiscent of the years I spent arguing with conspiracy theorists and True Believers about the anthrax attacks of 2001.   Plus, I see this morning that they've all turned to arguing with each other.  There is no reason for me to interrupt.  

Putting links to one of my papers on Facebook accomplished little.  All I got was lots of people clicking on "like" and a few comments about how much Richard Feynman is admired.  (I mentioned him in my comment about my paper.)  Plus, the one Facebook group where I was really hoping to get some helpful comments (Astrophysics and Physics) still hasn't accepted it.  After 6 days, it still shows as "pending approval." 

And the emails from that Canadian journal have stopped, so I'm going to assume that they have finally accepted the fact that I withdrew my paper.

That means I can focus on submitting the two papers to other scientific journals.  I've decided on a journal to try for my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  But, that journal prefers that all articles be submitted in LaTeX format.  I'm becoming fairly adept at doing that by formatting things using LaTeX via Overleaf.com, but it still takes a long time to get things coded properly.  I know the basic steps, but I haven't memorized all the different codes that are used for sections, references, italics, boldface, etc.

For awhile I thought I was almost ready to submit my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate somewhere, too.  However, yesterday I learned that, while a scientific paper I mention and reference in my paper was written by a NASA scientist, and it was about using a reflector that NASA left on the moon, the actual experiment described in the paper was done by the University of California - San Diego, not by NASA.  No one would ever get that from reading the paper.  It doesn't even mention the University of California.  So, I'll have to change what my paper says about who did the experiments -- which should be a relatively minor change.  Interestingly, it seems to mean that UCSD is probably teaching nonsense about Einstein's Second Postulate even though they've done experiments which confirm that they are teaching nonsense.  I also keep thinking I should add some explanatory graphics to my paper.  Those would take some time to create.

I've also been wondering if I can combine the two papers into one paper.  There is one highly ranked journal that I'd like to try, but they have an 8,000 word minimum for articles (with a 12,000 word maximum).  My Time Dilation article is about 3,500 words, and my Second Postulate article is about 5,500 words.  I've decided to submit the Time Dilation paper to a journal tomorrow or the next day, depending upon how long it takes me to get the LaTeX formatting done.  So, I'll have to wait to see what the results are before I can seriously think about combining the two papers.  The idea is intriguing, though.  Both papers are about experiments which show how the universe works, and how scientists are not paying any attention to what countless experiments prove.  Plus, the problems described in both papers stem from a common source - the  mathematicians' belief that Einstein's theories of relativity are about everything being reciprocal.  I.e., that there is no way to tell who is moving when two objects pass each other in space.  In real life we can tell.  But it seems you'll never get a mathematician to accept that it is a fact that a car crashed into a tree, since he'll argue that it is just as likely that the tree crashed into the car.  If you argue that the car was moving and the tree wasn't, he'll immediately start ranting about how the earth is moving, too.  It is turning on its axis, it is moving around the sun, and it is moving with the sun around the universe.  So, everything is moving, which means the tree could have crashed into the car.

That is the kind of argument I have been getting on the Google forum for months.  They also believe time dilation is reciprocal, even though experiments show that to be total nonsense. 

So, I've got a lot of work lined up.  As soon as I upload this comment, I'll get back to work on converting my Time Dilation paper to LaTeX format.  It really looks nice when typeset for that journal.


Comments for Sunday, May 7, 2017, thru Saturday, May 13, 2017:

May 10, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon I received an email from that Canadian physics journal where I had submitted my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity and then withdrew the paper when I was informed it would cost me $508 to have it published.  They said they hadn't received any response to their previous emails and wanted to know if I intended to withdraw my paper.  I kept telling myself to ignore the email, but then I sent them a one-sentence email saying that I was repeating my previous statement that I wanted to withdraw the paper.  Then I started kicking myself for responding.

The problem is that I cannot tell if they are scamming me or not.  They could just want to know if I'm going to submit changes for their next issue.  Or they could be setting me up for some kind of claim that I broke a contract of some kind.  I do not like the deceptive way they operate, but I cannot find any solid evidence anywhere that they are not a "respectable" journal.  Wikipedia says a couple citation services dropped them in 2015, but several other citation services still measure their impact factors.  I have no idea what that means.

However, if I want to submit the paper somewhere else, I need to be certain that the Canadian Journal doesn't still consider it to be "under review."  All the science journals insist that papers you send them must not be under review anywhere else.  I'm definitely learning a lot about how the science journal publishing process works, but I feel like I'm learning it the hard way.

A few minutes ago, I added a comment about my Second Postulate paper to another Facebook group, Science, Technology and Society Discussion Corner.  It is a public group with 23,675 members.  The comment I posted to the closed group Science, Philosophy and Psychology Discussion generated some friendly and polite comments, but mostly they just said the paper was too far out of their areas of expertise for them to discuss it.  The comment I posted to the
Astrophysics And Physics" public group (which has 83,089 members) is still "pending" and hasn't yet appeared there for people to read.

I also did a few other things this morning, but they are too "far out" for me to describe them here at this time.  
 

May 9, 2017 - I feel somewhat less "overwhelmed" now that I have "finished" writing my two papers.   And, it helps that I've received no more "threatening emails" from that Canadian journal that was about to publish my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity when I suddenly learned they would charge me $508, and I withdrew the paper.  In theory, I can now focus on getting that paper and my paper An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity published elsewhere (some place that doesn't require money "to offset printing fees").

Yesterday, while doing my regular routine on the treadmill at the gym, I suddenly wondered what reaction my papers would get on the various science groups to which I belong on Facebook.  So, when I got home, I submitted a comment to the "Astrophysics And Physics" public group (which has 83,089 members) and to the "Science, Philosophy, and Psychology Discussion" closed group (which has 7,995 members).  The comment is still "Pending approval" on the first group, but it went through immediately for the second group.  This morning I see it received 4 "likes" and one comment about how Richard Feyman (who I mentioned in my post) was one of the favorite scientists of the person writing the comment.

That's the problem with Facebook and with the Google group where I've been discussing my papers for awhile.  People who approve of what you write do not write comments.  On Facebook they just click on "like" and on the Google group they evidently just remain silent.  No one wants to get into frustrating and angry arguments with the people who seem to do nothing but spend a lot of time insulting posters, calling them names, and generating unresolvable opinion versus opinion arguments.  And those people seem to write 99% of the posts to discussion groups on the Internet. 

I have lots of plans for what to do next, but I'll have to wait to see what I actually do before I'll know which "plan" I actually went ahead with.

May 8, 2017 - This morning I submitted a corrected version of my paper An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity to viXra.org, and it is already available at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256  Just click on version #3.  The corrections to what I wrote about lidar guns turned out to be relatively minor.  They only involved changes to a few pages near the end of the paper.  And, of course, as soon as I made the changes I realized that I needed to make another change.  Somehow I failed to use page numbers in the paper.  But, I'm not going to create a new revision just to add page numbers.  I'll wait for some other problem that needs to be corrected to be brought to my attention. 

I think it is notable that I found the lidar gun error myself.  I found it while trying to explain things to someone in a different way.  I wouldn't have found the error if I wasn't arguing with people on the Google  Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  The disagreements they have with the paper are mostly just nonsense and opinions, but the process of arguing causes me to view things from different angles, and that is a good thing. 

I'm still making copies of all the arguments.  I still think they may make a good section to a book I might write someday about all this. 

But, the writing of a book is still a ways way.  I still need to explore some different methods of bringing my papers to the public eye.  What schools are teaching about Einstein's theories is definitely WRONG, what they are teaching is WRONG, and something should be done about it.        


May 7, 2017 (B) - %#@^%**@!!!!   Nuts!  I just learned that police lidar guns do NOT work the way I described their workings in my paper about the Second Postulate.  They COULD work that way, but they don't.  I found a YouTube video HERE that describes how LIDAR works.  So, I'll have to modify my paper.  RADAR guns do measure speeds the way I described, but LIDAR guns measure distances and then compare one distance to another.  They do not base their speed calculations on the time between pulses.  However, I think the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments could have done things the way I described a LIDAR gun as working.  I'll have to check further.

No one on any forum explained my error to me, of course.  I found it by doing research in order to respond to their absurd arguments. 

May 7, 2017 (A) - On Friday, I added my paper Time Dilation without Relativity to viXra.org.  This is the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v4.pdf

It's basically the version I was about to get published at that Canadian scientific journal when I learned that they would charge me $508 for printing it, and I ended the agreement.  The only real change is that I removed the French version of the abstract, which that particular journal required. 

The paper is probably at least ten times more controversial than my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, which is at this direct link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v2.pdf

I put links to both papers on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum and asked if anyone could recommend a journal to try that doesn't charge for publishing papers.  Someone recommended a Swiss journal that is ranked 1025 out of 1254 by a web site that tracks such things.  I added it to the spread sheet I'm using keep track of possible submission targets, but I'm going to look for a higher ranked journal before making any more submissions.

I'm really bumbling around in territory that is totally unfamiliar to me, and I want to avoid making any more mistakes.  In discussions on that Google forum I'm being told that it is common practice for some scientific journals to charge a fee to offset printing costs, as that Canadian journal attempted to do.  Typically, the college or business where the author works will pay the fee.  But then someone else told me they have had many papers published without every paying a dime. 

The fact that some "regular and respected" scientific journals charge money for printing costs does NOT mean they are "open access" journals, which also charge money to print your article.  The difference seems to be that the "regular" journals that charge money also charge the readers for subscriptions and/or for each article.  The "open access" journals provide articles to readers on-line for free, and get all of their money from the authors.   

My Time Dilation paper is 14 pages long, with 3,942 words.  My Second Postulate paper is 20 pages long, with 5,586 words.  I've been making notes on the spreadsheet I use to evaluate scientific journals.  Here are how some are ranked and some of my notes:

RANK
TITLE
COMMENT
2
Reviews of Modern Physics
They charge $2,900 to publish an article.
6
Nature
They have a 3,000 word limit.
8
Advances in Physics
They have a 70 page minimum size.
14
Reports on Progress in Physics
They have a 20,000 word minimum size.
19
Applied Physics Reviews
They charge $2,200 to publish an article.
27
Physical Review X
They charge $2,900 to publish an article
33
Physical Review Letters
They seem to charge to publish an article.
83
New Journal of Physics
They charge $2,000 to publish an article.
178
Applied Physics Letters
Charges $115 per page, $20 per article.
210
Frontiers of Physics
They charge $3,000 to publish an article.
312
Physics Today
A magazine, not a journal.
357
Journal of Physics D
They charge $60 per page.
411
Journal of Applied Physics
Charges $60 per page, $20 per article
888
Physics Research International
They charge $750 to publish an article.
 
What bothered me the most was that the Canadian journal sent me what seemed to be threatening letters claiming that I was trying to negotiate a reduction in the fee in violation of our "signed contract."  I keep waiting for another seemingly threatening letter to appear in my inbox.

I've got some ideas for new things to try starting on Monday.  Among them is to try to contact scientists who seem to be in the same boat as I am, scientists who have published papers which seem to argue against the common belief that Time Dilation is reciprocal, or against the preposterous idea that the speed of light is measured to be the same by everyone, regardless of their own motion.

And I'm looking for a discussion or explanation about why schools are teaching total nonsense.  If my analysis is wrong, where is it wrong?  Arguing with mathematicians gets me nowhere.  They just argue that I am too dumb to understand how time dilation works and how the speed of light is measured.  They argue that I need to study what they study, memorize what they have memorized, read what they have read, take the physics courses they have taken, and then I will believe as they believe.  And, if I don't, that just proves I want to remain as dumb as I am.  The problem is: One reason I got into this whole debate is because my physics teacher was teaching crap

A lot of this is just absolutely fascinating to me.  I thought the disagreements over Time Dilation were fascinating, but the dispute over how Einstein's Second Postulate should be interpreted is in the area of totally unbelievable.  I've been reading Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory," which seems to be Einstein's way of trying to simplify the whole subject.  He uses almost no mathematics, but, on the other hand, he uses some very convoluted explanations that could easily be greatly simplified.  I'm tempted to write a greatly simplified version of each short chapter (I think each chapter could probably be simplified into a single paragraph) to use in arguments where mathematicians claim that Einstein meant something other that what he actually wrote in his 1905 paper.

It's also fascinating that the arguments over the Second Postulate appear to have been going on for a hundred years without resolution.  And I think my paper could resolve the matter!  All I need is to get the mathematicians to discuss it in layman's terms, not in mathematical equations.  Or I need to get some big names on my side to get a good public debate started.

My situation isn't helped by the fact that yesterday I saw in the news that one of the banks I use was just shut down by the federal government.  It isn't my main bank, but it is where money from my book sales gets transferred.  Supposedly, the "brick and mortar" building where I go will simply have a different name on Monday.  I suppose it is also something that is very interesting, but it isn't something I have time to think about at the moment.     

Sigh! 


Comments for Monday, May 1, 2017, thru Saturday, May 6, 2017:

May 5, 2017 (B) - On my way to the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #7 in the 7-CD set of the audio book version of "That's Not in My American History Book: A Compilation of Little-Known Events and Forgotten Heroes" by Thomas Ayres.

That's Not in My American History Book

It was a very enjoyable book, with a lot of fascinating information about how things that everyone believes are totally untrue.  George Washington didn't have wooden teeth.  Betsy Ross didn't make the American flag.  Belle Star was just a local drunk and not a bandit queen.  Etc. Etc.  I really enjoy listening to books being read to me while I'm driving.  As soon as I finished the book mentioned above, I put in the first CD of 15 CDs for another book.  

May 5, 2017 (A) - Uh oh.  I received an email from the scientific journal Physics Essays this morning that included an invoice for $508 for their planned printing of my article in their June issue.  I sent them a reply that I withdraw my article and do not wish to have it published in their journal, nor will I produce the final version that they require for printing, thereby voiding any agreement.  Their invoice also included this in red:
PLEASE NOTE: The present estimate of the page charges is based on the length of the manuscript that we have. The final invoice will be based on the actual number of printed pages.
So, they could easily spread the article out over more pages and charge me more money.  They also include a page from their web site that mentions that they charge $127 per page.  The page is titled "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND EDITORIAL POLICY" and it does indeed have this sentence buried near the bottom of the page: "Page Charges: $127 per printed page to off-set the cost of publication."  I failed to notice it.

But, the article hasn't been printed, plus they require me to make format changes before they will print, changes I will not make, and I have withdrawn my request to have the article published.  So, we'll see what happens next.  I can certainly afford the $508, but it is now a matter of principle. 

Meanwhile, I noticed that there were two first-time visitors to this web page from Cornell University Yesterday.   The arXiv.org situation is another one I stepped into without realizing it.  At least with that one no one is demanding money. 

May 4, 2017 (B) - Hmm.  Someone just sent me information about a lawsuit filed against arXiv.org and Cornell University that is currently underway. They also sent me a link to an interesting web site called "Archive Freedom."  That web site says this about arXiv.org:
Presently hosted at Cornell University under the direction of physicist Paul Ginsparg, it blocks certain physicists from posting their papers to this archive.  The arXiv administrators maintain a list of physicists whom they have blacklisted or ostracized so that any paper those individuals attempt to submit is systematically rejected regardless of its scientific content.  Usually these blocked papers have already been accepted for publication in reputable peer refereed science journals or in other cases are undergoing review for journal publication which indicates that these papers are serious and well thought out. The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates!  One characteristic that these ostracized physicists share in common is that they have written or published papers in the past which propose new ideas that challenge traditional physics dogma.  In other cases their published works just happen to run counter to the particular theory preferences of the small political clique administering the archive.
Wow!  I'm glad that I'm not alone in this.  I'm in the company of Nobel Laureates!  I'm also glad my life and career do not depend upon getting published or getting a paper put on arXiv.org.

For a day that started out kind of bad, this day is really turning out very well.  I find this all to be hysterical.

May 4, 2017 (A) - When I turned on my computer this morning, there was nothing in my email inbox.  The journal Physics Essays didn't respond to my email, so that particular attempt to get my paper Time Dilation without Relativity published has come to an end.  And I'll probably never find out exactly what happened.  I'm just going to assume that it was their way of turning my  paper down, by making it my decision to not continue the process.  That way they do not have to provide a reason for turning it down.

At 9:44 a.m., while writing this comment to say there was also no email from arXiv.org, an email from them appeared in my inbox.  The arXiv.org moderators rejected my paper.  Here is their explanation:
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined its content and form to be in need of significant review and revision. Our moderators are not referees and do not provide reviews or suggestions for improvement with their decisions. You will have to seek feedback from another forum. 

arXiv is a forum for professional members of the scientific community.  Our moderators have requested that you respond to the following before submitting further articles:

1.  Do you have a conventional publication record?  In what field?  Please provide us with a current list of publications.

2.  What is the precise nature of your institutional affiliation?
So, they do not provide any explanation for why they turned down my paper. And, before they'll even consider another paper from me, they will want to know my credentials for writing scientific papers.  If I'm not a professional member of the "scientific community," then my paper will not be published there.   I'm not.  I have no prior publication record.  And I have no affiliation with any institution.  I'm an analyst and an inventor, not a professional scientist.  I've merely had a life-long interest in science, and I'd like to point out a major problem with the way physics is taught today.

So, that is that.  I can still try to get the paper published somewhere, and I probably will try, just to see what happens, but I'll have to continue putting my papers on viXra.org, where they do not ask for credentials or endorsers.  (I just submitted the latest version of the Second Postulate paper to viXra.org.  It appeared THERE as I was finishing writing this comment.)

When the rejection from arXiv.org appeared in my inbox, I was in the process of writing a long comment about something I found yesterday that supports my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  

Yesterday I spent some time going through all the "miscellaneous" papers and books I had downloaded and saved in a "folder" while doing my research, adding brief descriptions of the documents to an index file I maintain.  The index still doesn't list about 30% of what I actually downloaded and saved.  So, I'm trying to bring it up-to-date.

Yesterday, I found two pdf copies I'd saved of a book titled "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner.  Neither version was in the index.  One copy is a non-searchable pdf file of page images, the other is a searchable pdf file.  I found the non-searchable version first, then found a searchable version and never deleted the unsearchable version.  I'm mentioning this book because it is one of the few that I have found which agrees with the "Einstein Emitter Only Theory" I describe in my Second Postulate paper. 

Here is Einstein's Second Postulate as Einstein wrote it in his 1905 paper (after translation into English, of course):
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 here is Martin Gardner's version from page 34 of his book:
2. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed.
It's not exactly the same, but it carries the same meaning:  The speed of the emitter (i.e., source) does not affect the speed of light.

On page 1-22 of the college text book "Fundamentals of Modern Physics" by Peter J. Nolan, there is this distorted version of Einstein's Second Postulate:
Postulate 2: The speed of light in free space has the same value for all
observers, regardless of their state of motion.
Interestingly, Professor Nolan then goes on to describe the implications of what I call "The Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" this way:   
Postulate 2 says that the velocity of light is always the same independent of the velocity of the source or of the observer. This can be taken as an experimental fact deduced from the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, Einstein, when asked years later if he had been aware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, replied that he was not sure if he had been. Einstein came on the second postulate from a different viewpoint. According to his first postulate, the laws of physics must be the same for all inertial observers. If the velocity of light is different for different observers, then the observer could tell whether he was at rest or in motion at some constant velocity, simply by determining the velocity of light in his frame of reference. If the observed velocity of light c’ were equal to c then the observer would be in the frame of reference that is at rest. If the observed velocity of light were c’ = c - v, then the observer was in a frame of reference that was receding from the rest frame. Finally, if the observed velocity c’ = c + v, then the observer would be in a frame of reference that was approaching the rest frame. Obviously, these various values of c’ would be a violation of the first postulate, since we could now define an absolute rest frame (c’ = c), which would be different than all the other inertial frames.

The second postulate has revolutionary consequences. Recall that a velocity is equal to a distance in space divided by an interval of time. In order for the velocity of light to remain a constant independent of the motion of the source or observer, space and time itself must change. This is a revolutionary concept, indeed, because as already pointed out, Newton had assumed that space and time were absolute.
What Professor Nolan is teaching is clearly very different from what Einstein wrote and argued.

Martin Gardner, however, got it right.  On page 16 of his book, he wrote:

If a bullet is fired straight ahead from the front of a moving jet plane,
the ground speed of the bullet is faster than if it were fired from a gun held by someone on the ground. The ground speed of the bullet fired from the plane is obtained by adding the speed of the plane to the speed of the bullet.  In the case of light, however, the velocity of a beam is not affected by the speed of the object that sends out the beam. This was strongly indicated by experiments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and has since been amply confirmed, especially by recent tests on the decay of neutral pi mesons. One famous test was made by Russian astronomers in 1955, using light from opposite sides of the rotating sun. One edge of our
sun is always moving toward us, the other edge always moving away. It was found that light from both edges travels to the earth with the same velocity.  Similar tests had been made decades earlier with light from revolving double stars. Regardless of the motion of its source, the speed of light through empty space is always the same: about 299,800 kilometers (186,300 miles) per second.

Do you see how this fact provides a means by which a scientist (we will call him the observer) could calculate his own absolute motion? If light travels through a fixed, stationary ether with a certain speed, c, and if this velocity is independent of the velocity of its source, then the speed of light can be used as a kind of yardstick for measuring the observer's absolute motion.  An observer moving in the same direction as a beam of light should find the beam passing him with a speed less than c; an observer moving toward a beam of light should find the beam approaching him with a velocity greater than c. In other words, measurements of the velocity of a beam of light should vary, depending on the observer's motion relative to the beam. These variations would indicate his true, absolute motion through the ether.
Nolan says that the speed of light is the same for all observers, Gardner says that the speed of light is not the same for all observers.  Nolan says that if the speed of light was not the same for all observers, then you would be able to tell if you are moving or not by measuring the speed of light.  Gardner says, yup, you can tell if you are moving or not by measuring the speed of light.  And I say in my paper that is what countless experiments show to be true.

Interestingly, Dr. Peter J. Nolan is a professor of physics.  Martin Gardner was a "popular" science writer, meaning that what he wrote was for general audiences, not for physicists.  And most of what I've found that supports my argument is rejected by mathematicians because it is "popular" physics, not their professional version of physics.  There is something very very wrong with that.  When I tell people on discussion forums that it means that physicists are lying to the public, the mathematicians argue that no one is "lying," it is just that the general public is too stupid to understand the reality of physics.

Something is very wrong.

My motto is: If at first you don't succeed, try a different method.

So, I'm going to have to go about finding an explanation for the clear difference between "Einsein's Emitter Only Theory" and the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" by some different method.  I may still search for a publisher, but I'm also going to search for scientists who have produced papers that agree with Einstein to see if they can help me understand this situation.
  And, most importantly, maybe they can recommend a scientific journal that will publish something that doesn't require lying to the general public.

May 3, 2017 - Hmm.  There was no email from the scientific journal Physics Essays in my inbox this morning.  So, it appears they will not be publishing my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity, and the editing process is over.  I still do not understand what is going on.  They are supposedly a reputable journal.  I found them because my local library subscribes to Physics Essays, and it's a journal that appears to have no qualms about printing controversial articles.  Wikipedia says nothing negative about them.  I simply cannot understand how they can suddenly ask for $127 per printed page when their web site says absolutely nothing about being a pay-to-publish journal.  They stated in their letter to me that their "About this Journal" web page states that there will be a pay-to-publish charge.  But it doesn't.  And neither does their "Authors' Information" page.  I sent them another email this morning, with pdf copies of those two pages.  But, I do not expect any response.

Meanwhile, this morning I saw nothing about my Einstein's Second Postulate article on arXiv.org.  It was supposed to be on the site today.  Checking the links in past emails, I learned that my Second Postulate article is "on hold." There's also a link to an explanation for "on hold":

Submissions may be put on hold for a variety of reasons, ranging from questions about proper classification, pending moderator approval, presentation issues, copyrighted PDF, etc., to editorial concerns. Most of these do not require any further input from the submitter and will be dealt with in due course. arXiv urges submitters to be patient. Due to the large volume of submissions, it may take several days before a resolution is reached.
So, I guess I'll just have to wait.

I can understand the article being "on hold" while they study it.  It is probably the most controversial article they have ever received.   

May 2, 2017 - Okay.  Things are starting to get serious now.  This morning I received an email from the journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity. They said they have "conditionally accepted" my paper for publication, but they will publish it only if I can get it ready according to their standards by May 8, which is six days from now.

They sent a whole slew of rules, but it's really just a form letter, so I don't know how much of it applies to my paper.  One of the rules is that the paper must be in doc format, not docx.  That's not a problem, WORD 6 can transform the paper into doc format.  The only major problem I see is that the abstract has to be translated into French by some actually French-speaking human being, and not by Google's automated translator, which is how I translated the abstract I used in the paper.  I'll have to figure out how to get the abstract translated.

So, that's what I'll be doing for the next few days.

Before getting into that, however, I submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to arXiv.org.  I should know by tomorrow whether they will put it on their web site or not.   I also noticed that once a paper is put on arXiv.org, it cannot be fully removed.  That was part of the agreement.

I also noticed this in the instructions from the journal that has my Time Dilation paper: 
It is understood and agreed that, once you receive my final letter of acceptance of your paper, and therefore its copyright is transferred to this journal, you will remove it from any electronic public depository where it might be presently displayed.
That seems to answer my question about whether it would be okay or not for me to put the Time Dilation paper on arXiv.or.  It would NOT be okay.  And, since I cannot remove the Second Postulate paper from arXiv.org (assuming they accept it), I cannot submit it to that particular journal.  OR, there may still be some important things about this whole process that I do not understand.

SHIT!!!!!!!  Things just went blooey!  I found that one of the rules for publishing my paper in that scientific journal is that I pay $127 per published page!  I had not read that rule anywhere before.  And checking back through their web site, I can find nothing that even remotely suggests any such fee!  I don't know what's going on, so I had to email them to try to get an explanation.  I tried calling but just got voice mail.  I left an angry message. 

I suppose it's possible that they sent me a wrong form letter, one intended for some "open access" journal they also publish.  I suppose it's also a possibility that they decided against publishing the article and this is their way of turning me down at the last minute.  I suppose it's also possible that the publishing company went out of business and sold everything to some con artists.  I hope it is all some kind of misunderstanding.     

May 1, 2017 - This afternoon, while eating lunch, I finished reading my Kindle copy of "A Tramp Abroad" by Mark Twain.  I think it took me at least a month of breakfasts and lunches to read it. 

A Tramp Abroad

The book is record Twain's funny and diverse observations and insights while on a fifteen-month walking trip through Central Europe and the Alps.  Written around 1876, the humor is mostly droll or wry and satirical, often going on and on for page after page about getting lost on a mountain trail while in the middle of a group of dozens of tourists and maybe a hundred servants, guides and porters.  Or waking up in the middle of the night in a strange hotel room and blundering around for hours in the dark while trying to figure out where things are.  There are whole chapters about the peculiarities of the German language and about the lack of flavor in German food.  It was an enjoyable read.  I'm not sure what book I'll read next.  It might be another Mark Twain book, or it might be some science book.  I'll have to see what is still in the queue.  The main requirement for books I read during breakfast and lunch is that they do not require me to remember what happened yesterday or that morning.  They have to be non-fiction books that can be read in 15 or 20 minute sessions without fear of losing track about what is going on.

This morning, I sent the second revised version of my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity to the journal that asked for the revisions.  I don't know how long it will be before I hear from them, but there's nothing I can do but wait.  Hopefully it won't take months.  Also hopefully, they won't ask for any more revisions.   I am totally new at the scientific journal publishing process, so I have to assume that it is still possible that they can still simply decide to reject the paper for some vague or unspecified reason.  I also tagged a question at the end of the cover letter, asking them if it was okay for me to put a version of the paper on arXiv.org.  I can't imagine asking such a question about a short story, screenplay or novel.

I also spent about 30 minutes this morning writing an email in response to another email I received from a scientist who I'd previously asked to endorse my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  He's still trying to convince me that my paper is totally wrong.  However, very little of what he writes is comprehensible to me.  It's all math, scientific jargon and meaningless references to various theories and scientific experiments.  I think he's trying to communicate, but its like talking with a Martian.  We seem to have absolutely no common frames of reference. 

I've got a new version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate ready to submit to arXiv, but I'm going to sit on it for at least one more day.  I woke this morning realizing that something I'd written in the paper was wrong.  I don't know if anyone would have caught it, but making the corrections this morning really clarified a very complex aspect of Relativity for me.  It also made me wonder if I don't need some new illustrations.  But I don't know what kind of illustrations would clarify things.  It seems like I'd need a movie to make things clear, since it is about moving emitters and moving mirrors and how sending a beam of light from place to place while moving differs from tossing a ball from place to place while moving.  I'll probably submit the paper without illustrations and add the illustrations if and when I figure out the best way to create them.  












© 2017 by Ed Lake
RETURN