Archive for ed-lake.com
June 2017

Comments for Sunday, June 25, 2017, thru Friday, June 30, 2017:

June 30, 2017 - Last night I was thinking that today I might be able to complete putting entries into the spreadsheet list of books and papers I have accumulated over the past year or so.  There are 465 items on the list, and I've completed the entries for 370 of them.

Then, this morning, I awoke wondering about an illustration I put into the latest version of my paper about Einstein's 2nd Postulate. On page 12, I have this as "Figure 3" showing what I am temporarily calling a "two-way spectrograph":

two way spectrograph

Would the device work the way I show it to work?  If so, wouldn't it violate a common definition of the FIRST Postulate (a.k.a., the "Principle of Relativity")? Wouldn't it tell you if you were moving or stationary without looking outside of your enclosed lab?  In my June 28 comment I showed two different definitions of the First Postulate.  This device doesn't fit with either description.  Contrary to the Taylor-Wheeler description, this device would "distinguish one free-float frame from from another."  But, contrary to the Peter Nolan description, it doesn't do it by "determining the velocity of light."  It does it by determining the velocity of the device (or the laboratory where the device is located).  But velocity of the device relative to what?   It's not relative to the "aether," since there is no "aether."   Relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred?  I dunno.  There's probably something about the device that would make it impossible to build, or there could be something about spectrographs that I'm misunderstanding.

I need to think about this some more.  Meanwhile, I'll continue updating the entries in my spreadsheet of miscellaneous books and articles.  

June 28, 2017 - I've written in previous comments how I've accumulated a collection of books and articles while doing research over the past year or so.  Whenever I found a new book or article, I would just save it in a "Miscellaneous Papers" computer folder while occasionally making a note on a "list of documents" as to what the book or article is about and why I saved it.

For the past few days, I've been trying to organize that folder by creating a new list of what is in it, a list that is in spreadsheet format. As of this morning I've gone through 235 of them, but the total is now 469, much lower than the 536 items I mentioned two days ago.  So, I am half done.  The 536 number included three sub-folders where books were stored as individual chapters.  As a result those 3 books were counted as 72 items.  Plus, I have .djvu and .pdf versions of numerous books, and on the new list I only count the .pdf version.  Lastly, I often have an "original" .pdf version of a book or paper I downloaded, and I also have an "annotated" version where I have highlighted passages and made notes.

Anyway, I'm half done with creating the spreadsheet list.  As I go through each document while making spreadsheet entries for its title, number of pages, etc., I have come up with some thoughts about new papers that I might write. 

I keep thinking of a paper titled "A Fundamental Misunderstanding About Physics."  It wouldn't be my understanding versus the understandings described in the books and papers, it would be a conflict of understandings between the authors of physics books.  The misunderstanding is about relativity.  Back on June 21 I mentioned the book "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler.  That book states on page 55,
But now exclude all information from outside. Screen out all radiation from the heavens. Pull down the window shade. Then do whatever experiment we will on the movement and collision of particles and the action of electric and magnetic forces in whatever free-float frame we please. We find not the slightest difference in the fit to the laws of physics between measurements made in one free-float frame and those made in another. We arrive at the Principle of Relativity in its negative form:
No test of the laws of physics provides any way whatsoever to distinguish one free-float frame from another.
But, in "Fundamentals of Modern Physics" by Peter J. Nolan, it says this in Chapter 2:
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.
Taylor and Wheeler (and Einstein) say that, according to the Principle of Relativity, if you are inside a closed lab, you cannot tell by doing any physical measurements if you are moving at a constant rate or if you are standing still ("at rest").  Professor Nolan, however, argues that if the speed of light is different for different observers (in different labs), you would know that you are moving, and that would be a violation of the First Postulate (a.k.a The Principle of Relativity).  That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Relativity. 

The whole idea of the Principle of Special Relativity is that you cannot tell (without making comparisons to other locations) whether you stationary or moving at a constant rate.  And you also cannot tell (without making comparisons to other locations) that your test results are different from those done at other locations.  If you measure the speed of light, you will get the same speed of light that everyone else gets.  Everything in your lab and in my lab will appear to work the same way and we all get the same results as everyone else gets.  HOWEVER, when you compare input data (the length of a second being the prime example) to other locations, you will find they are not the same.  Therefore the results are actually different.

While browsing other books, I found other authors making the same argument that Prof. Nolan makes.  It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Relativity.

I've also been thinking of another paper tentatively titled "Measuring versus Understanding."  Mathematicians measure things and do calculations based upon the measurements they made.  But that does not provide any understanding of what was just measured.  Yet, they seem to think it does.

Groan!  I just spent over two hours writing this comment, two hours that probably would probably have been better spent continuing with my analysis and organization of the books and papers I've accumulated.  And organizing is just the first step.  The next step will be to read and study the documents I identified in the organization step as being worth further reading and study.  There are other books which make the same argument Prof. Nolan made, but how many other books are there that make the same argument as Taylor and Wheeler?  The more I can find, the better the argument I can make that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about Relativity and not just a silly misunderstanding by Taylor and Wheeler.

Everyone who writes a book phrases things his own way.  I'm also hoping that by reading how different writers describe how Einstein arrived at his conclusion that Time is variable, I'll be able to write my own description and understand it.  And I'm hoping that my description will be more easily understood than everyone else's. 

Busy busy busy.

June 26, 2017 - I spent a couple hours yesterday morning working through the list of 227 physics journals trying to find the "right" journals for submitting my papers on Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate.  I came to the conclusion that there are only a couple left on the list that seem like possibilities, and neither is truly "right" for either one of my papers. 

So, I spent the rest of the day trying to organize the books, papers and other documents that I downloaded and saved while doing my research.  Of the 536 items I now have in my "Miscellaneous papers" folder, I've sorted through 122 of them, updating a spreadsheet that shows the file name, the type of file (book, article, epub, mobi, etc.), the title, the authors, the number of pages, whether it is a "searchable" pdf or not, and a comments column.  In the comments column I make a note if it is something I should definitely read, and if not, why not.    

This morning I awoke making a decision to pause the submission of my papers for awhile as I think things over.  I also decided to put the latest version of my Second Postulate paper on viXra.org, where it should appear as version #4 later today.  It's 28 pages long and contains 9 illustrations.  It's basically the version that was turned down by Annals of Physics on June 14. 

I also put a "draft" copy of it on academia.edu.  It's never been on that site before, although I've put "final" versions of my other papers there.  The oldest paper I have on viXra.org is the May 31, 2015 version of Time Dilation without Relativity.  I wrote some comments for this web site on that date when I discovered viXra.org and decided to start posting papers there.  The oldest paper I have on academia.edu is Time Dilation Revisualized, which has that same date.  But academia.edu doesn't show prior versions of papers.  And a search through my web site comments shows that I put my first paper on academia.edu on July 18, 2015.  I haven't been paying much attention to academia.edu, so I'm not totally sure how things work there.  I'll have to study it further when I get some time.     

June 25, 2017 - On Friday afternoon, I submitted my revised paper about Time Dilation to the scientific journal Physics in Perspective.  On Saturday morning, I received a rejection email telling me that my paper didn't provide any historical perspective on physics, so it was outside of the scope of their journal.  From my point of view, the fact that scientists have seemed unwilling to discuss Time Dilation with mathematician-physicists for over 100 years is a "historical perspective" that needs discussion.  But I didn't point that out in my cover letter.  All I did in my cover letter was say I hoped they would find the article worthy of publication.

Before submitting the paper to Physics in Perspective, I made some revisions to the paper, mostly just improving the references.  The previous version included 8 references to articles from Physics Essays, which was the first journal I tried and the one that was ready to publish it when they notified me that publication would cost me $508 to offset printing costs, and I withdrew the paper.  In addition to replacing some references with better references and removing 7 of the 8 Physics Essays references, I changed the title of the paper.  When I submitted it to Physics Essays, it was titled "Time Dilation without Relativity."  When I submitted it to Physics in Perspective it was titled "Science, Physics and the Reality of Time Dilation."  I'm seriously considering just titling it "The Reality of Time Dilation" when I submit it the next time.

Physics in Perspective is a journal someone recommended to me months ago.  I hadn't tried it earlier because it is ranked #220 out of 227 physics journals listed HERE, and I had been trying to work through that list from the top down. 

So, once again neither one of my two scientific papers is currently being reviewed anywhere.  But I've got new targets picked for both papers.  Unless I want to try a Romanian, Russian or Chinese journal, the two targets I've picked are the last ones I can find in the top 100.

I'm really getting to detest the research required to find a journal that isn't a "by invitation only" journal, which doesn't charge fees to publish, which doesn't have a word maximum or minimum that eliminates my papers, which doesn't require me to supply names of reviewers, and which doesn't have a narrow focus on some specific area of physics that doesn't include what I wrote about.

I'd also really like to find some time to read some of the books I've downloaded.  But I first need to find the time to organize the books, so that I'll read the most likely to be best ones first.  I must have at least 100 books waiting to be browsed so they can be prioritized, and there could easily be over 150.   

But, before I can organize those books I need to get my two papers into the queue at some journals.  While waiting for the responses I can do other things. 

Oh yeah, one more problem: Formatting the papers for submission.  It seems that nearly every journal has their own requirements about how the papers they will accept are formatted, how references are described, etc.  I've formatted papers using LaTex several times, and I'd gotten pretty good at it.  Then, yesterday, when I tried to figure out how to format it for the journal where I wanted to send my Time Dilation paper - moan! - there were tremendous differences.  They appear to use LaTeX features that no one else uses.  I spent an hour trying to figure out how to format the References section before giving up for the day.  It looks like it's going to take a lot of study.

But, it's not yet 9.a.m. and I've already finished my Sunday comment, so I really have nothing else to do all day.
 


Comments for Sunday, June 18, 2017, thru Saturday, June 24, 2017:

June 21, 2017 - I had planned to work on submitting my papers to different journals today.  But something has been really nagging at me, and I can't get it off my mind.   The best way to get a problem off my mind is to clarify it, and the best way to clarify a problem is to write it down.  So, here goes:  

A couple days ago on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, I mentioned my problem of not being able to figure out how Albert Einstein arrived at his realization that Time slowed down with velocity.  The physicist at Fermilab with whom I'd been arguing then posted this:
I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
I did a quick search and found the entire book "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler was available on-line for free in various formats, including searchable pdf format and Kindle format HERE.  So, I downloaded a searchable pdf copy and began browsing.  I found this on page 55:
          Einstein’s Principle of Relativity says that once the laws of physics have been established in one free-float frame, they can be applied without modification in any other free-float frame. Both the mathematical form of the laws of physics and the numerical values of basic physical constants that these laws contain are the same in every free-float frame. So far as concerns the laws of physics, all free-float frames are equivalent.
          We can tell where we are on Earth by looking out of the window. Where we are in the Milky Way we can tell by the configuration of the Big Dipper and other constellations. How fast and in what direction we are going through the larger framework of the universe we measure with a set of microwave horns pointed to pick up the microwave radiation streaming through space from all sides. But now exclude all information from outside. Screen out all radiation from the heavens. Pull down the window shade. Then do whatever experiment we will on the movement and collision of particles and the action of electric and magnetic forces in whatever free-float frame we please. We find not the slightest difference in the fit to the laws of physics between measurements made in one free-float frame and those made in another. We arrive at the Principle of Relativity in its negative form:
No test of the laws of physics provides any way whatsoever to distinguish one free-float frame from another.
Okay.  That's exactly what I've been arguing.  The LAWS of nature are the same in all references frames.  Browsing further, I found this on page 56:
Notice what the Principle of Relativity does not say. It does not say that the time between two events is the same when measured from two different free-float frames.  Neither does it say that space separation between the two events is the same in the two frames. Ordinarily neither time nor space separations are the same in the two frames.
And this on page 60:
          Different values of some physical quantities between the two frames? Yes, but identical physical laws! For example, the relation between the force acting on a particle and the change in velocity per unit time of that particle follows the same law in the laboratory frame as in the rocket frame. The force is not the same in the two frames.  Neither is the change in velocity per unit time the same. But the law that relates force and change of velocity per unit time is the same in each of the two frames. All the laws of motion are the same in the one free-float frame as in the other.
          Not only the laws of motion but also the laws of electromagnetism and all other Laws of physics hold as true in one free-float frame as in any other such frame. This is what it means to say, "No test of the laws of physics provides any way whatsoever to distinguish one free-float frame from another."
          Deep in the laws of physics are numerical values of fundamental physical constants, such as the elementary charge on the electron and the speed of light. The values of these constants must be the same as measured in overlapping free-float frames in relative motion; otherwise these frames could be distinguished from one another and the Principle of Relativity violated.
          One basic physical constant appears in the law's of electromagnetism: the speed of light in a vacuum, c ~ 299,792,458 meters per second. According to the Principle of Relativity, this value must be the same in all free-float frames in uniform relative motion. Has observation checked this conclusion? Yes, many experiments demonstrate it daily and hourly in every particle-accelerating facility on Earth. Nevertheless, it has taken a long time for people to become accustomed to the apparently absurd idea that there can be one special speed, the speed of light, that has the same value measured in each of two overlapping free-float frames in relative motion.
          Values of the speed of light as measured by laboratory and by rocket observer turn out identical. This agreement has cast a new light on light. Its speed rates no longer as a constant of nature. Instead, today the speed of light ranks as mere conversion factor between the meter and the second, like the factor of conversion from the centimeter to the meter.
So, the speed of light is NOT a "constant of nature."  That's what I have been saying.  It is the same in every reference frame, but it is different if you compare one frame to another.

The book goes on say it again a different way on page 61, stating that the speed of light MUST be the same in every reference frame in order for the LAWS of nature to be the same in every reference frame. 

Then, on page 64, the authors write this about "the train paradox":
 For the observer standing on the ground, the two lightning bolts strike the front and back of the train at the same time. Therefore for him the distance between the char marks on the track constitutes a valid measure of the length of the train.  In contrast, the observer riding on the train measures the front lightning bolt to strike first, the rear bolt later. The rider on the train exclaims to her Earth-based colleague, “See here! Your front mark was made before the back mark — since the flash from the front reached me (at the middle of the train) before the flash from the back reached me. Of course the train moved during the time lapse between these two lightning strikes. By the time the stroke fell at the back of the train, the front of the train had moved well past the front char mark on the track. Therefore your measurement of the length of the train is too small. The train is really longer than you measured.”
Okay.  Right away I see I misunderstood something about Einstein's train and embankment diagram:
Einstein's train-embankment diagram 
I thought that points A and B in the Einstein diagram were just the points where the two bolts of lightning struck, but now I realize they are also the location of the front and rear of the train at the time of the lightning strikes.  Einstein didn't clearly and specifically state that.  Looking back at it now, I see he phrased it this way:
Then every event which takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of the train.
But I didn't get the connection.  And now I still do not fully "get" the connection between time and length/distance.  I can see that physicists measure a meter as being the distance light travels in one second.  The book says on page 59:
Today the meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in the fraction 1/299,792,458 of a cesium-defined second.
And, for some reason that will take me some more time to figure out, the person on the train is saying that meter is longer than that, therefore a second is longer. 

The way I understand things, a second is longer on the moving train because the atomic particles which make up the train (and which are the cause of time) are spinning slower.  They're spinning slower because they have to spin slower because their lateral motion combined with their speed of spin is restricted by the maximum speed of light (and spin and matter).   

I think I can see what Einstein was saying, but I still cannot explain how he could determine the existence of Time Dilation that way.  I need to study it further.  It appears to be a mathematical conclusion that does not relate to reality, which Einstein expressed this way: 

Einstein quote

and this way:


Einstein quote #2

So, as long as I continue to view things the way an analyst or scientist would view things, I may never be able to understand how a mathematician views the same things.

But, I'll continue to try.

Obviously the mathematicians' view is wrong.  And Einstein's logic may have also been wrong, even though he came  up with the right answers.  Scientists knew next to nothing about particles in 1905, so Einstein was working with what he knew and had available to him.  Did he actually believe the length of the train would change, or was it only his way of explaining things? 

Now I understand why I keep reading that no experiment has ever even remotely confirmed that objects change their length in accordance with Time Dilation when moving or when they are  at different altitudes.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  How does "Nature" know the "length" of a cube if it is tumbling through space at half the speed of light?  How does she know which way to reduce the "length" of a spinning iron ball when the cause of Time Dilation is gravity?  And research indicates that the logic seems to say that the length of the moving object, like the length of the train, will only  "appear" to be "foreshortened."  That probably helps to foster the invalid notion that Time Dilation is not real.

This all seems to make my papers more important than ever, particularly my paper on Time Dilation.

June 20, 2017 - Groan!  At the moment, I have no papers being reviewed by any journals.   And I don't have any specific journals selected as targets for my next attempts to get my papers published.  Plus, instead of working on those papers and researching physics journals to target, I've been arguing for two solid days on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.

This morning it all turned into personal attacks and insults, so I've given up on that forum once again - for awhile.  But, before it all turned to personal attacks, there were some very interesting arguments.  As usual, no one on the forum provided any new information, but in the process of arguing against their beliefs and posing questions to ask them, I came to realize some things I'd never noticed before.  One realization stands out.  In one of the arguments, I quoted from Albert Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory."  This is from Chapter 9:

We were led to that conflict by the considerations of [Chapter] 6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment.

In the part of the quote I highlighted in bold red, Einstein is clearly saying that one second for the man walking on the moving train is not equal to one second for someone standing on the embankment next to the moving train. 

I quoted that passage in response to this claim by a Fermilab physicist:
The definition of a second does not change with frame, and _IS_ the same in every frame. "Time dilation" is NOT about "the length of a second varying" or a "clock tick rate varying" -- it is about the GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION involved in making the measurement.
How does a "geometrical projection" make it appear that the length of a second is different in every "frame" when it really isn't?  The Fermilab physicist could not or would not explain himself, of course.  It seems he was just reciting memorized phrases he learned somewhere.  If I were to ask him to explain, he would just tell me I am too dumb to understand.

So, I still need to figure out for myself how Einstein arrived at that conclusion.  The biggest problem is Einstein's method of explaining.  Here is his definition of "time" from Chapter 8 of his book:
     We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. For this purpose we suppose that clocks of identical construction are placed at the points A, B and C of the railway line (co-ordinate system) and that they are set in such a manner that the positions of their pointers are simultaneously (in the above sense) the same. Under these conditions we understand by the " time " of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.
     This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical construction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-body are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of the one clock is simultaneous (in the above sense) with the same position, of the pointers of the other clock, then identical "settings" are always simultaneous (in the sense of the above definition).    
That's the end of the chapter, except for this footnote:
We suppose further, that, when three events A, B and C occur in different places in such a manner that A is simultaneous with B and B is simultaneous with C (simultaneous in the sense of the above definition), then the criterion for the simultaneity of the pair of events A, C is also satisfied. This assumption is a physical hypothesis about the the of propagation of light: it must certainly be fulfilled if we are to maintain the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo.
So, what is his "definition of 'time'?"  There's got to be a shorter way to explain it!  And when he says "in the sense of the above definition," you get the feeling that in some other more important sense the "definition" he just provided (whatever it is) would not be valid. 

I think he's simply saying that "time" is what is defined by identical clocks that are all synchronous when they are working properly in the same location.  Therefore, "simultaneous events" means events which occur at the same time as shown on these identical clocks.

Which leads me to ask: "Okay.  So what?"  The next chapter is about "The Simultaneity of Relativity" and has nothing to do with Time Dilation.

Sigh.  Is Einstein relating Time to the speed of light?  How can he if he claims there is a "law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo"? 

Of course, I've been saying that two different observers, one moving and one stationary, will both measure the speed of light to be the same in their frames of reference, because the length of a second is different in each frame of reference due to Time Dilation.  And that means the speed of light is actually different in the two frames of reference. 

For all I know (and I think it is the case), Einstein and I could be saying the same thing, just using different words and different situations.  But, I cannot get his explanations to fit with my explanations.

Hmm.  I just noticed that a few minutes ago the Fermilab physicist posted a very long response to something I wrote.   And he argues the same thing over and over:
YOU just don't read the experiments and understand HOW THEY WERE ACTUALLY  PERFORMED. NONE of them measure what you claim -- they do NOT compare clocks' tick rates, they compare one clock to SIGNALS from the other clock
and
By repeatedly ignoring ESSENTIAL aspects of these experiment you have confused yourself. The ENTIRE effect is in the SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not in the clocks.
and
The other experiments ALL compare one clock to SIGNALS FROM ANOTHER CLOCK. And the physics PURELY AFFECTS THE SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE MEASURED, not the clocks. In EACH of these experiments, the clocks all tick at the same rate, but the MEASUREMENTS involve SIGNALS which affect the results.

 I repeat: to measure a clock's tick rate you MUST have the
        clock sitting right next to the measuring instrument. NONE
        of these experiments did that, they ALL used SIGNALS
.
and
Yes, many of these authors wrote papers which were not careful to distinguish between "effects on the clocks" and the actual effects on the SIGNALS they used.  But SR and GR are quite clear on this (signals are affected, clocks are not);
So, none of the Time Dilation experiments worked the way the scientists who performed the experiments said they worked.  Only the Fermilab physicist knows the truth: that it was some kind of "signals" that just made it appear that clocks ran slow.  What are these signals?  I've tried to get him to explain, but he just says I'm too dumb to understand (and apparently so are all the scientists who performed the experiments).
 
Sigh.  I need to focus on getting my papers published and stop getting distracted by the unresolveable opinion-based arguments on that Google forum.

June 18, 2017 - Today is another one of those Sundays where I have nothing prepared to post here as my "Sunday comment."  So, I'm going to have to write something from scratch.

I was planning to start working on my Sunday comment yesterday afternoon, but then I noticed an interesting post to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  The title of the thread was "Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics," and it began with a tirade against Einstein for claiming something that Einstein never claimed: that the speed of light was the same for all observers.  That is exactly what my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity is all about.  Einstein never said what the author of the post, Pentcho Valev, claimed he said:
If Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, modern physics is pseudoscience (true science was killed in 1905).

Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate false? Of course, this is obvious. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

Doppler effect #1

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

Doppler effect moving observer

Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula (measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses) is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev 
Of course, this is NOT a violation of Einstein's relativity, it is exactly what Einstein's relativity says is true.  It is a violation of the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  It is the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which claims that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

The thread contained 6 messages by 4 different authors when I posted mine as message #7, telling Pentcho Valev that he got things backwards. 
It was the first time I'd posted a message to that forum in about a month.  A hullabaloo ensued.  This morning it has 71 messages by 16 different authors, about 18 more messages than when I signed off last night.  None are from Pentcho Valev.  From what I've seen in the past, Pentcho Valev just endlessly posts his beliefs and rarely if ever reads the responses.

A lot of the overnight discussion is just people calling other people names, but I see a post from a physicist at FermiLab that is addressed to me, so I'm going to have to respond to that.  But, I'm also going to have to break off from the discussion pretty soon, so that I can get back to work on revisions to my Time Dilation paper.  I must have spent at least an hour yesterday trying to track down a reference.   And I still haven't found it.

On a University of California: Riverside web site, it has this question and answer:

Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same?

The short answer is that it depends on who is doing the measuring: the speed of light is only guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum when measured by someone situated right next to it.    
Editors generally do not like references that are web sites, so I searched around and found the same thing was stated in a book "Velocity of Light and Radio Waves" by K. D. Froome and L. Essen.  But, I failed to note the page the statement was on.  I don't have a copy of that book, so I have to find the page number by doing a search for the statement via Google.  But that requires knowing or finding the exact wording. 

Hmm.  Just now, while I was typing this comment, I received an email from Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, the academic journal where I'd submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  They turned it down.  It wasn't just a "not suitable" turn-down, they specified some reasons for turning it down.  They said it lacked "technical rigour."  And they said that I needed to support my arguments by providing the mathematical equations that would replace the mathematical equations used by mathematicians if my claims were true.  And they argued the same argument that Pentcho Valev argued, that it was Einstein who argued what I say the mathematicians are arguing.  So, they missed the whole point of my paper: logic does not agree with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  They also want me to provide a mathematical argument.  I have no way of doing that.

Sigh.  I think that's enough commenting for today.


Comments for Sunday, June 11, 2017, thru Saturday, June 17, 2017:

June 15, 2017 - I've been complaining about not having a clue as to how the publication process works for scientific journals, and I've been writing here about how I've been bumbling around in the dark just experimenting with submissions to see what happens.  I've been looking for advice on how to best do things, but the only "advice" I've gotten is from the mathematicians on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum who tell me I'm just too stupid to understand anything and that I should give up. 

I didn't fail to notice that someone gave me some advice yesterday.  So, yesterday afternoon, I decided to take that physics journal editor's suggestion, and I submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to an academic journal.  It was relatively easy to do, even though it meant creating a new LaTex type-set version.  The academic journal is owned by the same company that owns the physics journal I tried, so it uses  the same LaTeX code.  All I had to do was change the name of the journal and add the paragraph I wanted to include about Einstein's book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, which shows that Einstein directly contradicts the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."

I finished the changes and submitted the paper via the journal's web site just before supper last night.  This morning, its status is "with editor."

This morning, I also checked the rankings for such academic journals and found that the journal that has my paper is ranked in the top 50, but there are only 128 journals on the ranking list.  I have no clue what the rankings really mean, and the paper is already submitted, so I'm just going to try to focus on getting my paper on Time Dilation ready to submit somewhere else.

Busy busy busy.     


June 14, 2017 - There are three reasons for skipping a few days without writing a comment for this web site: (1) I have nothing new or interesting to say, (2) I can't find the time to write a comment because I'm just overwhelmed with things to do, and (3) I'm overwhelmed with things to do, but they wouldn't be of interest to anyone but me.  I imagine that reading about someone trying to get a scientific paper published is like watching paint dry.  There's nothing interesting about it if you are not the person who is trying to get a paper published.

This morning, I received a rejection email from the physics journal to which I'd sent my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. They turned it down without saying there was anything wrong with the paper.  The editor simply wrote: "I have come to the conclusion that [our journal] is not the appropriate journal for publication of your work."  The email was from the Managing Editor, not the Editor in Chief (who is a well-known physics professor and author).  On the positive side, he suggested a different journal for me to try.  However, it is an academic journal, not a science or physics journal.  That poses the question: If physics professors are teaching crap because it is what physicists believe to be true, is that a teaching problem or a physics problem?  I submitted the paper to a journal for physics teachers, the American Journal of Physics (AJP), back on April 19.  It was rejected the next day because

Manuscripts that question well-established physical principles are outside the purview of AJP and should be submitted to a more specialized journal for consideration.
But, the journal that was recommended might be different.  I'll have to research it.

Meanwhile, yesterday I received the final chapter for the book I've been proof-reading for a scientist acquaintance of mine.  That took a couple hours of my time, but it was an interesting read, and I'm anxiously awaiting the publication of the book, which is tentatively scheduled for October.

And, of course, while all that was going on I've been trying to figure out how to revise my paper on Time Dilation to incorporate some of the things I've learned since I wrote it.  And then I have to find another journal to try with that paper.  

Busy busy busy.  I just wish I didn't feel like I'm bumbling around in the dark.  Is there some simple method to determine which journals are right for my papers?  If there is, I have no clue as to what that method might be.       


June 11, 2017 - Two days ago, I received a spam email from Amazon.com that was fairly interesting.  When I access their web site to browse a book, they must record my IP address and what books I looked at.  Then they sometimes send me an email suggesting I buy the book I looked at, or that I might want to buy some other book that is similar in some way.

On Friday, they sent an unusually long email listing 8 books that they somehow determined might be of interest to me:
"The Higgs Fake - How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee" by Alexander Unzicker

"Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their Credibility"
by Alexander Unzicker

"The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next" by Lee Smolin

"Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law for Unity in Physical Law" by Peter Woit

"Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe" by Roger Penrose

"The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us"  by Noson S. Yanofsky

"A Beginner's Guide to Reality" by Jim Baggott

"Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity" by Carlo Rovelli      
Surprisingly, I was unaware of most of those books, and they are of significant interest to me.  Moreover, when I looked for other books by the same authors, I found six more that might be of equal or even greater interest:
"On Space and Time" by Shahan Majid, Roger Penrose and others.

"The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose

"Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe" by Lee Smolin

"The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time" by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin

"Origins: The Scientific Story of Creation" by Jim Baggott
Now I just have to find the time to read them.  ("The Road to Reality" is 1,123 pages in pdf format!)

It doesn't look like any of them argue that the mathematicians are claiming things to be true that experiments undeniably and demonstrably prove to be false.  The books seem to focus on the concepts that mathematicians have dreamed up (like String Theory) which have no "real" aspects to them, and thus no one can use experiments to prove them to be either real or false.  They are "non-falsifiable" ideas and therefore non-scientific. 

However, a quick browse of Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" finds that Chapter 1 is titled "The Five Great Problems of Theoretical Physics," and there is an explanation starting on page 8 of one of the main "problems" with Quantum Mechanics.  That problem is that Quantum Mechanics doesn't relate to reality.  Quantum Mechanics assumes the universe would not exist if we were not around to observe it.

On page 7 it says,
Since quantum theory was first proposed, a debate has raged between those who accept this way of doing science and those who reject it.  Many of the founders of quantum mechanics, including Einstein, Erwin Shrödinger, and Louis de Broglie, found this approach to to physics repugnant.  They were realists.  For them quantum theory, no matter how well it worked, was not a complete theory, because it did not provide a picture of reality absent our interaction with it.  On the other side were Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and many others.  Rather than being appalled, they embraced this new way of doing science.
The first of the 5 problems with Theoretical Physics is the well-known problem that General Relativity is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics.  The second problem is that quantum mechanics does not relate to reality.  On page 8 it says:
This whole issue goes under the name the foundational problems of quantum mechanics.  It is the second great problem of contemporary physics.
Problem 2: Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.
Lee Smolin suggests several ways the problem might be solved, and then he says near the top of page 9 (with my highlighting):
There are unfortunately not many physicists who work on this problem.  This is sometimes taken as an indication that the problem is either solved or unimportant.  Neither is true.  This is probably the most serious problem facing modern science.
What amazes me is that mathematician-physicists do not seem to care that what they believe can be easily demonstrated to be false.  They do not care that their beliefs can be disproved.  That is what my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate is all about.  It describes the many experiments which conclusively disprove the mathematicians' screwball beliefs about the speed of light.

Browsing through Unzicker's "Bankrupting Physics," I found this in the last paragraph of the Prologue:
While completing my German manuscript, I discovered Sheilla Jones’s The Quantum Ten, an excellent history of quantum mechanics. What really impressed me was how persuasively she explained the way modern theoretical physics has gone astray since the late 1920s.
So, of course, I had to find a copy of "The Quantum Ten."  Browsing through it, I found this on page 5:
At this point, it’s worth adding some clarity to the terms physicists use to talk about quantum science. They often treat the phrases “quantum mechanics,” “quantum theory” and “quantum physics” as if they were interchangeable, which they are not. Throughout this book, “quantum mechanics” is defined as the set of rules for how the physics and mathematics are used to make testable predictions; these rules have been used to unparalleled fruitfulness since their development in the 1920s. “Quantum theory” is defined as the explanation for why the quantum world behaves the way it does; this exercise is still fraught with controversy. “Quantum physics” is the whole package—the mechanics and the theory.
So, I and everyone else really should be talking about the problem with "Quantum Theory," not any problem with "Quantum Mechanics."  Live and learn.

I'm wondering if I should re-write my Time Dilation paper to do the same thing with it as I did with my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate: compare theories.  Time Dilation is a real phenomenon, but mathematician-physicists insist on arguing that it is just an "illusion."  I wasn't aware of the "foundational problems of quantum mechanics" when I wrote the paper.  I was simply wondering why more people weren't looking into the implications of Time Dilation being real after it had been proven real in so many experiments. 

Maybe I'll submit the paper to another journal as it is currently written and, while waiting to see what happens, I'll revise it and give it a new title, something like "An Analysis of the Two Conflicting Theories of Time Dilation."  On the one side we have all the scientists who do experiments which undeniably prove that Time Dilation is real, and on the other side we have mathematician-physicists who continue to argue that Time Dilation is just an "illusion" because their equations cannot deal with reality - particularly reality that involves cause and effect.

Yesterday, I wondered what science journals have to say about the subject of Time Dilation.  I've mostly read what physics journals have to say.  First I looked to see how science journals are ranked.  There are 274 journals in the "Earth and Planetary Sciences" category.  Most are journals I never heard of before, and very few seem even remotely likely to have an interest in an article about Time Dilation.  Then I tried viewing those in the "Space and Planetary Science" field and found 97 journals, mostly in astrophysics.  Time Dilation should be of interest to astrophysicists, but they probably don't care about any controversy between what science says and what physicists say.  Sigh.  It's as Lee Smolin said, "
There are unfortunately not many physicists who work on this problem."

I'll continue researching.  Maybe I'll find the right journal somewhere.


Comments for Sunday, June 4, 2017, thru Saturday, June 10, 2017:

June 9, 2017 - Nuts!  Back on May 15, I submitted my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" to Foundations of Physics, a scientific journal that publishes monthly.  They just turned down the paper for no specific reason.  The rejection they sent me appears to be a form-letter-type email listing various general reasons they turn down manuscripts and then saying,
the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.
It's frustrating to be turned down after the paper was accepted by Physics Essays before I learned that it would cost me $508 to publish there, and I withdrew the article. 

So, I'm going to have to find another journal to try.  Someone recommended a journal that publishes controversial articles like mine, but it is very low ranked.  I think it's better if I just work my way down the ranking list

One high-ranked journal I checked out this morning only publishes on-line.  I've set my goal on getting published in a journal that publishes paper copies.  So, I can come back to that one later if I change my mind.

Another high-ranked journal, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physicsrequires that the article be placed on arXiv.org first. I can't do that.  ArXiv.org not only turned down my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, they pretty much turned down any other paper I might write by stating that they require that I be "a professional scientist," that I already have some published articles, and that I have some affiliation with a scientific institution. 

The only other journal in the top 50 (out of 227) that seems to be applicable is the journal where my article on Einstein's Second Postulate is being considered.  I don't think I should try submitting my Time Dilation paper to that journal until I find out what they think about the Second Postulate paper.  So, it appears I need to hunt through 51-100 group for the right journal to try next.      


June 8, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning I used Google to translate the English word "space" into German, and I got "Platz."  That wasn't what I expected, and I recognized the German word "Platz" from when I was studying German.  So I used Google to translate the German word "Platz" into English and I got "place," which was what I remembered.  However,  when I translated the English word "place" into German, I got "Ort."  And "Ort" also translates to "place."

It still have a large English-German/German-English dictionary on one of my bookshelves.  So, I opened it and looked for the English word "space."  In the dictionary, the equivalent German word is "raum" which means "room" as in "having enough room (or space) to fit something into."  "Space capsule" is "Raumkapsel." "Spaceman" is "Raumfahrer."  There is no German equivalent of "space-time" provided, but the English phrase "to launch a rocket into space" translates to "eine Rakete in den Raum schiessen." 

I found a German-language copy of Einstein's book and then located a spot in the book where the term "space-time" is first used.  It's in Chapter 11.  In the English version it says:
This question leads to a quite definite positive answer, and to a perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time magnitudes of an event when changing over from one body of reference to another.
And in the original German that sentence reads as:
Diese Frage führt zu einer bejahenden, ganz bestimmten Antwort, zu einem ganz bestimmten Verwandlungsgesetz für die Raum-Zeit-Größen eines Ereignisses beim Ubergang von einem Bezugskörper zu einem anderen.
So, "Raum-Zeit" is the German version of "space-time."  "Room-Time" doesn't have any more meaning than "space-time" when trying to figure out what Einstein was saying.  There doesn't seem to be any German word for "location."  Yet, "location-time" fits with the rest of the book (and with experiments) which are about how Time can be different in different locations.  

Now I have to figure out how Einstein determined via logic and gedanken (thought experiments) that Time can be different in different locations depending upon how fast those locations are moving.

June 7, 2017 - Since most arguments I've had with mathematicians are not about the abundant experimental evidence which shows they are wrong, but are instead about whether or not Albert Einstein's Second Postulate is what I claim it is, I decided to read Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory."  I'd browsed through it before, doing highlighting and making some notes, but this time I was determined to read it thoroughly and carefully (at least the first half of it, the part about Special Relativity).

First published in December 1916, the book begins with this:
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.  The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader.
In other words, it is not written for mathematicians. 

Another important factor for me was the fact that it is available for free on the Internet.  I had downloaded a couple 163-page pdf versions from somewhere back in October of last year, browsing through one of them at that time.  When I started organizing my collection of books and papers a couple months ago, I found I had two identical copies, so I deleted one of them.  Yesterday, I saw that there was also 115-page pdf version on-line at marxists.org.  And I also saw that there was a 56-page pdf version on line at gutenberg.org.  It wasn't until this afternoon that I discovered that my 163-page version and Gutenberg's 56-page both originated with the marxist.org version.  (They all have the same contents, just different font sizes and different widths to their pages.)  The Gutenberg version seems to have corrected some typos that are in the other versions, but it's annoying to read because the pages are so wide.

Anyway, this morning I finished reading the first 18 of the 32 chapters.  That's probably all I'll read for now, since those chapters are about Special Relativity and the remaining chapters are mostly about General Relativity.

So far, I've found nothing that disagrees with my interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate, I only found things that disagree with the mathematicians' interpretation.  Most notably, on page 21 of the Gutenberg version it refers to 
the yearly movement of the apparent position of the fixed stars resulting from the motion of the earth round the sun (aberration), and to the influence of the radial components of the relative motions of the fixed stars with respect to the earth on the colour of the light reaching us from them. The latter effect manifests itself in a slight displacement of the spectral lines of the light transmitted to us from a fixed star, as compared with the position of the same spectral lines when they are produced by a terrestrial source of light (Doppler principle).
In other words, we on Earth are "moving observers" watching the light from those stars arrive at c + v (where v is our orbital speed) at the point in our orbit around the sun where we are moving toward the star, and at c - v six months later in the orbit, when we are moving away from the star.  It is usually called "the annual Doppler shift," and refer to in my paper on the Second Postulate.

On page 12 of the Gutenberg version, Einstein describes a situation that can be illustrated as below:

  A---------------------------------------M
---------------------------------------B

If lightning bolts strike points A and B at exactly the same time according to an observer sitting at point M, which is equidistant from A and B, the sitting observer will see and measure that the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously.

If, however, there is an observer at point M who is moving at high speed toward point B and away from point A when the two lightning bolts strike, the moving observer will see and measure the lighting strike from point B arriving first and then the strike from point A.  He will be rushing to meet the oncoming light (c + v) from point B while rushing away from the following light (c - v) from point A.  That is also in direct conflict with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which says that light will travel at the same speed for all observers.

The biggest problem I have with the book is that it is horribly written, and the translation wasn't the best (besides being translated from German into British English instead of American English).  It's horribly written because it seems to spend a hundred words to describe something when ten words would have done much better.  Plus, it is like asking someone to tell you how to get to New York City and having him respond with a long description of the route the original explorers took who first visited that location.  If I want to know about "Relativity," I don't necessarily want to know about all the previous theories which had some connection to Relativity but didn't describe it accurately.  And I don't want to know about all the possible problems I could encounter if I do not take the best route. 

Plus, it seems that either as a result of bad translating or because Einstein wanted to do it for some reason, Einstein uses the word "space" to mean "distance."  When he writes about "space," he's not writing about the empty nothingness between the Earth and Mars, he's talking about the distance between two marks made on the floor of your living room.  It's about coordinates.  So, it appears that when he's writing about "space-time" he is really writing about "distance-time."

On page 9 of the Gutenberg version, Einstein describes the "de Sitter double star experiment" in a way I never saw before.  De Sitter found that the light coming from a rotating double star that was moving toward the Earth did not arrive at c + v where v is the speed of the star.  It arrived at c whether the star was coming toward us or going away from us. (There is no moving observer involved.)  The way Einstein describes the experiment, it showed him (Einstein) that "all light travels at the same speed."  Although its wavelength is longer, red light does NOT travel at a slower speed than blue light.  Both travel at the same speed.  If they didn't, in the double star experiment, where the bright star is periodically hidden by a dark body star, the light from the star when it comes out from behind the dark body would first be seen as all blue and then gradually turn to all red or violet because the blue light would arrive first at the Earth.  That is absolutely fascinating and something I'll probably be able to use in an argument someday.

The biggest problem I have with the book is the way it goes about describing Time Dilation.  The word "dilation" isn't used in the book, of course, just as it wasn't used in the 1905 paper that introduced the concept.  Instead, the book is all about different coordinates in different locations and how they appear to different observers.   I'm going to have to see if I can turn several thousand words of description into a few sentences that say the same thing while making it clear how Time Dilation works.  But, I have to really understand what Einstein wrote before I can do that.

Meanwhile, I'm pondering the idea of writing a paper about how light works.  I just need to thoroughly understand how light works first - before I can write the paper.  I think the question "Is light a particle or a wave?" is answerable. 


June 5, 2017 - Hmm.  Looking at my web site logs, I see that this web site got a lot of visitors via Facebook last night, starting at about 8:45 p.m. Central Time.  But I've received no notification that anyone posted anything to my threads on Facebook, nor did anyone mention me by name using my Facebook link.  It seems that someone on Facebook posted a link to this web site and a lot of people clicked on that link.  I can't tell who or where they are, only that they came to my site via Facebook.   So, if they are reading this message, maybe they'll click on my name link so that I can track things back to a Facebook comment and figure out what is going on. 

Meanwhile, this morning I discovered that I had already read "Farewell to Reality" by Jim Baggott.  I have it on my Kindle, and I wrote a comment about finishing reading it on October 23, 2016.  I also created a 9-page .docx file of the passages I highlighted in the Kindle version.  It includes some of the passages I highlighted in the pdf version yesterday and the day before.

Back in October of 2016, I was still trying to finish my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  I was looking at things from a different angle back then.  I was focused on Time Dilation, not on the bizarre misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate that mathematicians have created.

I was on page 71 of the 221 page pdf file for "Farewell to Reality" when I realized\discovered I'd read it before.  But, the second read was worthwhile.  It made me realize one thing:  While I have had a lifelong LOVE for science, I have almost NO interest in physics.  Here's a definition of "physics":

the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.
I really have only two interests that relate to physics: how does Time work? and how does light work?  My paper on Time Dilation describes my understanding of how Time works.  But, I still have a lot of questions about how light works.  One thing that re-reading Baggott's book did for me was to identify some points about light which I need to clarify before I can be confident that I understand it well enough to write about it in a scientific paper. 

In the pdf version of Baggott's book, I highlighted this passage on page 67, which I didn't highlight in the Kindle version:
Light travelling towards a gravitating object will be blueshifted as the effects of gravity grow stronger.
Doesn't that mean that nearly all light coming from distant stars will be BLUEshifted when viewed here on Earth?  Is there any evidence of this?  Isn't the Big Bang Theory based upon the observation that nearly all light reaching Earth from distant galaxies is REDshifted?  Wouldn't Baggott's statement mean that the Hubble will view stars far less blueshifted than a telescope on Earth?

Here's another passage from page 65 of the pdf file that I didn't highlight when I read the Kindle version:
In an elevator that is rapidly accelerating upwards, a beam of light emitted from one side of the elevator would strike the other side slightly lower down, because in the time it takes for the light to travel from one side to the other, the elevator has moved upwards.
The author doesn't seem to realize that statement (which I believe is correct) is in direct conflict with something he wrote on page 61 where he describes a "light clock" which has a beam of light going straight up and down (which I believe is incorrect) as viewed by someone on an imaginary train traveling at more than half the speed of light.

Here's something I wrote about Baggott's book in my Oct. 23, 2016 comment:
The author wrote a lot of things with which I would tend to agree, but he also says a few things with which I do not fully agree.  And sometimes we are in total disagreement.      
That's the same opinion I have now. 

I'm not sure if I'm going to finish my second read of Baggott's book or not.  Probably not.  At least not right now.  What I read in the first 4 chapters has made me see that there's something I need to research.  Baggott (like Paul Marmet) claims that Einstein said things that I do not think Einstein said.  And I think the disagreement stems from what seems to be our totally different views about Time Dilation.  They view Time Dilation as a reciprocal "illusion" where I see time for you going slower than time for me, and you see time for me going slower than time for you.  I say, and the experimental evidence says, that if I see time going slower for you than for me, you will agree with that observation, because Time dilation is REAL, not a reciprocal "illusion."  Baggott's and Marmet's claims about what Einstein said appears to be based upon what I consider to be their misunderstandings of Time Dilation.

I'm pretty certain I understand how Time works, but I definitely need to clarify my thoughts about how light works.  That is where I disagree with Baggott and Marmet (and nearly all the mathematician-physicists in the world).  I don't see how they can possibly be right, but I don't understand the subject well enough for me to use experimental evidence to show exactly where they are wrong.

June 4, 2017 - While I still seem to be downloading and saving at least one book every day as a byproduct of the research I'm doing, and I'm still a long way from completely organizing my folder of scientific books and articles, I've decided I need to start reading some of the books I've found.  On Thursday, I read what I could of Paul Marmet's book "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution":

The Absurdities of Physics

Published by
Éditions du Nordir on January 1, 1993, the hardcover version for sale on Amazon.com for $42.24 consists of only 144 pages. There's no "Look Inside" option, so I can't tell what the size of the print is, but it's probably fairly large.  The version that I read is the version that is on-line at Paul Marmet's web site HERE.  It doesn't contain chapters 5, 6 and 7 and says that those chapters were "removed by the author."  The Preface, Chapters 1 through 4 and Chapter 8 are on the site in .html format.  I wanted to do highlighting and make notes, so I copied each chapter and converted it to pdf format before saving it in a folder in my computer.  The Preface consists of 3 pages, Chapter 1 = 16 pages, Chapter 2 = 9 pages, Chapter 3 = 15 pages, Chapter 4 = 6 pages, and Chapter 8 =  4 pages, which comes to a total of 53 pages.

That's not a very large "book," but it was an extremely interesting read.  In fact, I highlighted more than half of the Preface, and probably a third of Chapters 1 and 4.  For example, I highlighted this from the first page of my pdf file for the Preface:
When we deal with physics, we must ask: Do rules other than the ones imposed by mathematical logic exist? Yes, there are in physics some elements that do not exist in mathematics. Physics deals with concepts such as mass, length, time and energy. These concepts correspond in our mind to images different from the ones represented by mathematical relations. They have a different representation in our mind because they must be submitted to external tests. They have to comply with observational results. There is no equivalence in mathematics. A mathematical demonstration never implies any experimentation. Mathematics simply deals with the calculation of relations between those concepts.
And I highlighted this from page 2 of the Preface:
Mathematics allows the calculation of things that cannot exist. Here are some examples. Physically, it does not make sense to consider negative or imaginary masses although mathematics can calculate them.
and this:
We also try to find a cause for any physical phenomenon. However, the physical cause of the phenomenon is irrelevant in mathematics.
That last one above was really important to me, since it fitted with what a reviewer suggested I mention in my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  How can any scientist ignore cause and effect?   Answer: a scientist can't, but a mathematician can.  Here's part of a discussion I had on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum:
Me:  If A = B, then B = A.  In REAL LIFE, things are NOT reciprocal. There is CAUSE AND EFFECT.  

Other guy: Cause and effect have nothing to do with relativity, so this is non sequitur.

Me: Cause and effect are WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT.  We have different views of WHEN things happen, and the CAUSE of those different views is TIME DILATION.
Here's an interesting quote from Chapter 1 of Marmet's book: 
The contradictions found in modern science are so absurd that most physicists assume that somebody must certainly have solved them long ago. The degree of indifference of most physicists about these contradictions is phenomenal.
Is that what is going on?  Is that why college professors are teaching nonsense?  Is it simply that they assume if it was nonsense, someone would have pointed that out and made corrections long ago?

From what I've observed, that seems to be the case.  It's not what they tell you, of course.  They just tell you to study more about physics and you will find the answer somewhere.  They do not add, "Things simply cannot be as ridiculous as they appear."

Here's a quote from Immanuel Kant that is used in Chapter 1:
"Causality is the basis of all scientific work. Causality is the condition that renders science possible."
And here is another interesting passage from Chapter 1:
     During their undergraduate studies, physicists are gradually taught to accept interpretations that appear more and more surprising (absurd). They are misled by the fact that the equations used in physics lead to predictions that are compatible with observations. Physicists are taught to believe that when an equation gives a correct prediction, it proves that the model is correct (even if the model is absurd). Furthermore, they claim that, since the working model is absurd, one must conclude that Nature is absurd.
     The philosophy of science and the lack of causality are subjects almost completely avoided in classrooms where physics is taught.
I could go on and on.  Paul Marmet explains virtually all the screwball arguments I had with mathematicians on the Google forum and other forums before that.  The mathematicians do not believe in experimental evidence, and they do not believe in cause and effect.  The only believe in mathematics.  It really is Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics.  It is about belief, not about facts and evidence.  Facts and evidence are heresy if they disagree with established beliefs. 

In Chapter 4, Marmet discusses the problem of reality versus mathematics.  In the "philosophy" of mathematics, something is "real" only if it is observed.  It becomes real when it is observed.  There was no universe before there was a person to observe the universe.  The universe has no independent existence aside from our observations of it.  It makes no sense, but it is what they believe.  

Again, I could go on and on.  But it's all there available for anyone to read.  It's the explanation for why physics-mathematics professors are teaching nonsense.  They're teaching nonsense because mathematics has no mechanism for determining whether something is real or not.  Adding up the number of unicorns in an imaginary universe is simple mathematics, and it makes no difference if unicorns are real or not.
 

During that past few days, I also did some research about Paul Marmet the person.  I knew that before he died in 2005 he was an assistant professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.  But I didn't know that he has another book that is also on-line.  It is titled "Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics":

Einstein vs Classical Mechanics

It's 200 pages long in the hardcover edition, which costs $39.95 on Amazon.com, and was published by
Newton Physics Books on January 1, 1997.

Unfortunately, while his other book makes things very clear for me, this second book does nothing but make it clear that Paul Marmet had some very strange misunderstandings, too.  This is from page 2 of the Preface to his second book:
Einstein's relativity assumes new mathematical hypotheses and ignores completely the concept of models to describe physical reality. Einstein supposed that time and space can be distorted and that simultaneity is relative but he did not give any serious description of what this really means physically. In Newton's time, physical descriptions of phenomena were accompanied by mathematical equations giving quantitative predictions corresponding to those physical descriptions. Einstein's relativity claims that nature can be described with mathematical equations without any physical description. There is a complete abandon of all the physical models that made physics understandable in Newton's time.
In reality, Einstein did a lot of explaining with "physics models," his clocks being the very first example.  If you have two clocks that are synchronous, and if you move one of them, the clock that was moved will then no longer be synchronous with the other clock, it will "lag behind."  He also used trains a lot to describe how things look different from different perspectives.

I haven't yet thoroughly studied Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, but I think the problem may be that Einstein didn't know exactly what causes Time to run slow for something that moves.  He only knew that it did.  Time slowing down explained effects that had been observed without knowing the exact cause of the effects.

So, that fits right in with my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  Einstein considered Time Dilation to be a real, natural phenomenon.  He didn't know exactly what caused it, but he could predict the effects using mathematics.  What we need to do now is something that scientists seem to be avoiding: we need to study what physically causes time to slow down when an object moves.  In other words: How does Time work? 

Before scientists can understand how time works, however, they have to stop thinking of it as just a "concept," and the mathematicians have to understand that time does actually slow down when an object moves.  It is NOT just an "illusion."

Meanwhile, I'm going to try to read a book Paul Marmet used as a reference:
"Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth" by Jim Baggott.  It certainly starts out well.  It has this in the Preface:
      There is as yet no observational or experimental evidence for many of the concepts of contemporary theoretical physics, such as super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the multiverse, the universe as information, the holographic principle or the anthropic cosmological principle. For some of the wilder speculations of the theorists there can by definition never be any such evidence.
      This stuff is not only not true, it is not even science. I call it ‘fairytale physics’. It is arguably borderline confidence-trickery. 
I think I highlighted over a 30% of the first chapter.  It's about "Reality, Truth and the Scientific Method," and it has some really interesting material in it, including this quote from science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick:  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

The problem with "reality" is defining it.  Baggott writes this in Chapter 1:
To repeat one last time, reality is a metaphysical concept — it lies beyond the grasp of science. When we adopt specific beliefs about reality, what we are actually doing is adopting a specific philosophical position.
and
When we invoke entities that we can’t directly perceive, such as photons or electrons, we learn to appreciate that we can’t know anything of these entities as things-in-themselves. We may nevertheless choose to assume that they exist.
That is definitely a BIG part of the problem.  We can logically deduce from experiments that photons and electrons must exist, but we do not yet have any way to actually see them.  So, it becomes a matter of philosophy as to what position you take on how such things work.  And that puts the subject into opinion versus opinion territory.

Chapter 1 of Baggott's book also contains this:
In 2009, Britain’s Science Council announced that after a year of deliberations, it had come up with a definition of science, perhaps the first such definition ever published: "Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence." 
That's a very good definition of "science."  But what is the definition of "physics" when experiments and evidence have no meaning?  Maybe the book will have an answer.  At the moment, I'm only about half way through Chapter 2, and the book has 12 Chapters.


Comments for Thursday, June 1, 2017, thru Saturday, June 3, 2017:

June 1, 2017 -  Yesterday afternoon, I received an email from the journal that has my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, notifying me that the paper had been assigned to an editor.  The previous status was that the paper had been received.  The current status shown on their web site is that it is "With Editor":

Status of my 2nd
                  Postulate paper

The next update will hopefully be that it has been assigned to a reviewer.  If that doesn't happen, the email informed me that I should wait at least a month before I contact them to ask why the status hasn't changed.  If it does happen, then I'm supposed to wait at least six to eight weeks after the change before asking why it is still with a reviewer and what the true status is at that point.

I awoke this morning thinking I should write another paper titled "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!"  In yesterday's comment, I wrote this:

What amazes me is that I can find very few people who are also arguing to have the mathematicians stop teaching nonsense.
The first version I typed of that sentence had "no one who is" instead of "very few people who are." After typing the first version, I remembered writing something about someone else who saw the problem.  It was in my March 8 comment.  It was about physics professor Paul Marmet and his self-published book "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution."  And in that same March 8 comment, I also wrote about David Layzer and an article in the Harvard Crimson which indicated that Layzer also saw that something was wrong with the way students are currently being taught science and physics.

This morning I remembered that I didn't just suddenly discover Einstein's theory of Time Dilation and how it is a real phenomenon.  It is the way it is explained in "popular science" articles everywhere.  Check the articles HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.  It is what I've been reading all my life!  It wasn't until I started arguing with mathematicians and others on the Internet that I learned that many or most mathematicians believe Time Dilation is just an illusion.  In total disagreement with all the experiments, they argue that you will see time running slower for me while I will see time running slower for you, proving it is just an illusion.  In reality, I will see time running slower for you when you are at the bottom of a mountain and I am at the top, and at the same time you will see time running faster for me, just as is explained in "popular science" articles.   

The same situation applies to the Second Postulate to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.  Einstein did NOT say that all observers will see light traveling at the same speed, as mathematicians argue.  The way I argue the Second Postulate is also the way it is explained in "popular science" articles everywhere.  Usually, however, it is in "popular science" articles about General Relativity like the ones HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.  Yet, in college and university classrooms everywhere, teachers teach what experiments show to be untrue
 

Months ago, when I asked some mathematicians why the popular science articles say one thing while the mathematicians say something else, their basic argument was that physics is too complicated for ordinary people.  So, physicists tell the public one thing while telling each other something totally different.

But I know that is NOT true.  What is happening is that scientists tell the public what they have proved via experiments, and mathematicians tell each other that it is all just nonsense.  That wouldn't be a problem if the mathematicians weren't also teaching their nonsense to students.  And that would be what my article "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE!" would be all about.

But where would I submit such an article?  It would seem more appropriate for a psychology journal than a physics journal.  How the hell did we get into such a situation?  Why aren't more people screaming their heads off about it?

Sigh.  I think I need to just take some deep breaths and maybe focus on organizing my collection of downloaded physics books and articles.  I downloaded several new books this morning.  I was checking out the activity on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and saw that Pentcho Valev had just started a new thread titled "The Good Thing About Einstein's Relativity" which contains a link to a pdf copy of a 307 page book titled "The Rationality of Science" by W. H. Newton-Smith.  So, I had to download a copy of it, which means I had to update the two indexes I maintain for stuff I've saved.  Is the book worth reading?  I dunno.  I've got at least 50 other books I need to examine first.  But, since the book looked like it might be worth reading, I looked for other books by Newton-Smith and downloaded his book "Logic: An Introductory Course," which might even be of greater interest.  And something led me to a book titled "Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth" by science writer Jim Baggott.  Sigh











© 2017 by Ed Lake
RETURN