Archive for
September 2017

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 24, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 30, 2017:

September 29, 2017 - Groan!   I've really got too many things going on at once.

Two days ago, I found I couldn't send out any emails via my normal method of using my browser software.   I spent at least a half hour on the phone with Spectrum (previously known as Time Warner Cable) trying to resolve the problem. They determined it wasn't anything in my computer, it was something in one of their servers.  It also appears that I am doing things the way businesses do things, not the way typical email users do things.  I'm using a browser program to access my emails instead of accessing them directly from my Internet provider.  Businesses typically use their own business programs to send and receive emails. 

Yesterday, I tried sending out an experimental email and, again, it didn't work.  Same problem.  So, I called Spectrum again.  They're still working on it.  They have two "problem ticket numbers" assigned.  I must have spent over an hour on the phone with them as we went through my browser software to narrow in on the problem.  I can send out emails by going to and signing in there.  I can also send emails by going to and signing in there to use my email address.  Or, I can go to and signing in there to use my email address.  The problem is that I then have to figure out how to get copies of those emails into my browser system where all my previous emails are filed. 

When I use my browser system, all copies are filed in various files by person or by company name.  Those files contain hundreds of emails (tens of thousands in my old computer) that I've filed away.

Anyway, my point is that that was taking up a lot of time while I was trying to focus on arguments I was having
on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  This morning I discovered that there was something about GPS satellites that I didn't understand when I wrote yesterday's comment. 

Yesterday, I wrote "
In reality, of course, all 30 GPS clocks have to be reset by 38 microseconds every day due to Time Dilation."  That is wrong.

In reality, the clocks on GPS satellites have been modified to run slower than ground clocks in order to avoid the need to reset them by 38 microseconds every day.  It doesn't change anything in the arguments, but it was a mistake and I have to go through my papers to make sure I didn't make the same mistake in them.

I'm also learning that I need to create a reference file for each person I'm arguing  with so that I can make sure I'm arguing the right argument.  The situation is very similar to arguments I had with "anthrax truthers."  Every one of them had a different theory about who sent the anthrax letters in 2001.  It appears that every person I'm arguing with on the Google forum has a slightly different argument about Time Dilation and/or Relativity.  I'd been categorizing them all as "Time Dilation Deniers."  But it appears now that each one has his own variation on that theme.  I just have to figure out what each specific variation is.  Sigh.  Or maybe I should get back to work on my papers.  But, I've learned a great deal in the past few days, so I think I really need to continue with the debates.  I just need to do it - somehow - in a different, better way.  

September 28, 2017 - Yesterday, the arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum finally produced something worthwhile.  Two key disagreements were pinpointed and identified.

Disagreement #1:  The math cult believes that two clocks in two different coordinate systems are "synchronized" by simply setting them to the same time.  In reality, and as I see it, that just "synchronizes" them for an instant, and then they will immediately become out of sync once again as one clock ticks faster than the other due to Time Dilation.

Disagreement #2:  The math cult believes that GPS satellites contain "imperfect" clocks that simply need to be reset every day.  They argue that Time Dilation doesn't have anything to do with the reason they have to be reset.  In reality, of course, all 30 GPS clocks have to be reset by 38 microseconds every day due to Time Dilation.  As I see it, it is absurd to argue that all 30 clocks are "imperfect" and just happen to get out of sync by the same 38 microseconds every day.

Disagreement #1 says they totally misunderstand Time Dilation and its causes.  And they totally misunderstand Relativity.  It also tells me that I'm right in disagreeing with them.  They can only discuss the subject by citing mathematical dogma.  They do not understand anything except mathematical dogma. 

Disagreement #2 shows how they rationalized things to justify their beliefs.  What are the odds of 30 atomic clocks being "imperfect" by the same amount every day for decades, and that amount is the exact amount Einstein predicted would be caused by Gravitational and Velocity Time Dilation?  Here is exactly what "Danco" wrote in a post overnight:

No two clocks have perfectly matched rates, just due to inevitable differences in constructions, etc.  But we can synchronize any two clocks with each other, albeit only for the instant of synchronization, and then they begin to drift apart because of unequal rates.  But this drifting due to imperfect construction has nothing to do with the subject at hand [i.e., Relativity].
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this "finding."  But, I see one of the people I was arguing with (Paul B. Anderson) has stated this morning that he's not going to argue with me anymore.  That's another tactic they use when it is becoming clear that they cannot defend their beliefs. 

Looking through all the posts made overnight, I don't see any that aren't just tedious and boring arguments about definitions of words.  So, what I think I'm going to do is start a new thread about the two disagreements described above, and I'll try to focus the new arguments on the exact two areas where we disagree.

September 27, 2017 - I'm currently involved in a bunch of fairly interesting arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  I really wanted to write a comment here about it yesterday, but I just couldn't break away from the arguments.  I see there are 12 messages waiting this morning, so I'm writing this comment before I start responding to them.

One thing I learned yesterday was that I shouldn't have called my "do not respond" list by that name.  Some guy on the list mentioned something interesting, and I made a comment about it to someone else.  So, the guy on the "do not res
pond" list attacked me for reacting to his post after I said I wouldn't do that anymore.   To him (at least for the purpose of starting another argument),  the word "respond" means "react."  So, I've given my list a new name.  It is now my "do not reply" list.

The comment the guy made was about Einstein's 1905 paper and how Einstein described a test to see if clocks at two locations were synchronized.  The guy said the test involved using a reflector to bounce light off of the second location.  The quote I used in my paper on "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" didn't contain the word "reflect" or "reflector."  So, I mistakenly argued that Einstein didn't say anything about any reflector.  The guy then quoted the passage where the word "reflected" was used:

Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” $t'_{\rm A}$.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

\begin{displaymath}t_{\rm B}-t_{\rm
                      A}=t'_{\rm A}-t_{\rm B}. \end{displaymath}

Hmm.  That's very interesting.  I decided to analyze it to see what it really says in plain English using meaningful numbers.   Here is what it means:
Light is emitted from Clock-A at 5:30 a.m.  (tA) 
The light reflects from Clock-B at 5:32 a.m. (tB) back toward Clock-A. 
It arrives at Clock-A at 5:34 a.m. (t’A)

The clocks are synchronized if 5:32 a.m. (tB) minus 5:30 a.m. (tA) equals 5:34 a.m. (t’A) minus 5:32 a.m. (tB).

It does:
2 - 0 = 2 
4 - 2 = 2. 
That's a better example to use than what I used in my paper.  It shows the point I wanted to make more  clearly.  If the clocks are synchronized, that method will work to prove it.  But what would happen if the clocks are NOT synchronized?  And how do you synchronize the two clocks in the first place?

If the clocks are not synchronized, you can get something like this:

Light is emitted from Clock-A at 5:30 a.m.  (tA) 
The light reflects from Clock-B at 5:32 a.m. (tB) back toward Clock-A. 
It arrives at Clock-A at 5:35 a.m. (t’A)

The clocks are NOT synchronized if 5:32 a.m. (tB) minus 5:30 a.m. (tA) does NOT equal 5:35 a.m. (t’A) minus 5:32 a.m. (tB).

It does not:
2 - 0 = 2 
5 - 2 = 3. 
What is most interesting is that such a test would prove that the mathematicians' "All Observers Theory" is just plain wrong.  The reason the clocks are not synchronized in the above example is because light going back to Clock-A after being reflected off Clock-B has to catch up with Clock-A as it moves away from the source of the light.  So, instead of hitting Clock-A at the 5:34 a.m. mark, the light didn't catch up with Clock-A until it was 5:35 a.m.  That means that Clock-A is "an observer" who measured light arriving at c - v, where v is Clock-A's velocity.   If the speed of light was the same for "all observers" the test wouldn't work at all.  No matter how fast or slow one clock is moving relative to the other, they would always have to be synchronous


So, now it's time for me to jump back into the arguments to see how they will try to prove me wrong.

September 25, 2017 - The argument I'm having on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum just had its 132nd post.  It's averaging about 40 posts per day.   I'm arguing with 4 different people, 3 of whom seem reasonable and a 4th ("Poutnik") who seems to understand nothing but mathematical theory. Meanwhile, of course, there are others who do nothing but hurl personal insults which I just ignore.   Added note:  As I was working on this comment, "Poutnik" started launching personal insults.  So, he's now on my "do not respond" list.

A lot of the arguments have to do with the "length" of a second, which I'm beginning to feel I should refer to as the "duration" of a second.  I explained how the duration of a second can be different on the top of a mountain versus at the bottom of the mountain due to Gravitational Time Dilation, but we keep getting stuck on arguments about phrasing.  It's like they have memorized phrases from some text book, and if I do not recited the exact same phrase in the exact same way it is in the textbook, they cannot understand what I'm saying.

I'm rapidly getting tired of the discussion.  My time would certainly be better spent if I got back to working on a paper about the wave-vs-particle dispute over the nature of light.   But, I also want to consolidate my notes on the book I just finished,
"The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.  I started reading the 313 page book on page 160 after a search for some term took me there.  I was using my laptop which allows me to highlight things in different colors and make notes.  Then, when I got to about page 262, I switched to reading it on my Kindle, and began at page 1.  When I got to page 160, I switched back to my laptop and finished the book there.  There's a LOT of interesting stuff in the book that I need to organize in some way so I can easily refer to it when the occasion demands. 

I also keep wanting to mention that the mouse for the laptop I use for updating this web site and for most of my on-line work suddenly failed the other day.  The left button suddenly stopped working when I was in the middle of doing some kind of research.  It took me at least 15 minutes to figure out what happened.  I thought the computer had stopped responding.  I could still move the arrow around, and I could right-click when I needed to, but nothing happened when I did a left-click.  It was really weird trying to figure out what was wrong.  I did it through a process of elimination, trying about a dozen other ideas first.  But, I suppose it's hard to understand if you haven't had an identical experience.  I used the mouse from another computer to verify I'd solved the problem.  Then I went out and spent $13.99 for a new mouse.

I suppose I could also mention that I downloaded and saved 84 episodes of "The Lucy Show" into my DVR over the weekend.  It was a "weekend binge" on the "Decades" network.  I don't know when I'll get the time to watch them, since I have a viewing backlog just as I have a reading backlog and a writing backlog.

September 24, 2017 - Yesterday, I finished reading a really terrific physics book published in 1938: "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.  

The Evolution of Physics

It is virtually devoid of mathematics and very carefully explains all or most of the aspects of Relativity that seem to confuse many people.  It looks to me like Einstein was tired of having the mathematicians constantly distort his theories, so he partnered with Infeld to write this book.  Or maybe Infeld convinced Einstein that he needed to write a book for the layman that wasn't filled with complex mathematics.  The book was written in English by Infeld, who was an assistant to Einstein at the time.  But it clearly expresses the ideas of Einstein.

When I quoted from the book in an argument with a math cult member on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, the math cult member dismissed the book this way:

First, for your info, it's well known that the popular book "Evolution of Physics" was written almost entirely by Infeld.  Einstein had very little to do with the writing of it, agreed to put his name on it to help Infeld raise money, and was not happy with how the book turned out.  This doesn't mean every word in the book is wrong, but just be aware that when you quote from that book you are quoting Leopold Infeld, not Albert Einstein.
So, I had to do research to see if I could find any statement anywhere in which Einstein is quoted as being "not happy with how the book turned out."  I couldn't find anything.  But I found a lot of other materials which support what Einstein and Infeld say in the book.  (And of course, what is said in the book is in total agreement with how I interpret the important papers that Einstein wrote.)

The book is 313 pages long, and it has this on page 291:
"Fundamental ideas play the most essential role in
forming a physical theory. Books on physics are full
of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought
and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every
physical theory. The ideas must later take the mathematical
form of a quantitative theory, to make possible
the comparison with experiment."
That goes directly against what the math cult argues.  The math cult seems to believe that math is where theories begin.  Or maybe they believe that math is all there is.  It is difficult to get them to explain exactly what they believe.

But, when I went hunting for some source which might support the idea that Einstein was "not happy" with The Evolution of Physics, I found a paper written by Einstein alone titled "Induction and Deduction in Physics."  It was written in 1919 and is only two pages long, but the quote below supports the quote above while also stating the same things in a very different way:
The truly great advances in our understanding of nature originated in a manner almost diametrically opposed to induction. The intuitive grasp of the essentials or a large complex of facts leads the scientist to the postulation of a hypothetical basic law, or several such basic laws. From the basic law (system of axioms) he derives his conclusion as completely as possible in a purely logically deductive manner. These conclusions, derived from the basic law (and often only after time consuming developments and calculations), can then be compared to experience, and in this manner provide criteria for the justification of the assumed basic law. Basic law (axioms) and conclusions together form what is called a "theory." Every expert knows that the greatest advances in natural science, e.g., Newton's theory of gravitation, thermodynamics, the kinetic theory of gases, modern electrodynamics, etc. all originated in this manner, and that their basis has this, in principal, hypothetical character. So, while the researcher always starts out from facts, whose mutual connections are his aim, he does not find his system of ideas in a methodical, inductive way; rather, he adapts to the facts by intuitive selection among the conceivable theories that are based upon axioms.
One web site I found provides this example of deductive reasoning:
"All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.
And it also provides two examples of inductive reasoning:
An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.
It seems to me that mathematicians use inductive reasoningThey argue that the speed of light is measured as 299,792,458 meters per second atop a mountain and is measured as 299,792,458 meters per second at the bottom of the mountain, therefore the speed of light is the same everywhere.

It was through deductive reasoning that Einstein came to realize that the speed of light might NOT be the same everywhere if the length of a second is not the same everywhere.  As Einstein (and Infeld) wrote:  "Thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory."  And you have to have the idea that time may not be the same everywhere before you can figure out a way to use mathematics to help confirm the idea.

When using both methods of reasoning, you're supposed to assume that it is possible that your conclusions might be wrong.  In other words, you are supposed to keep an open mind about what you conclude.  But that seems very rare in today's world.  I'm trying to find someone who can voice an intelligent argument that my understanding of Einstein's theories is wrong.  All they can do is argue that I disagree with their inductive reasoning and their math. 

As of this morning, there are 46 posts to my Google forum thread titled "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle."  About 25 of them are nothing but personal attacks.  One that isn't says this about my paper on "What is Time?":

There isn't a SINGLE DAMN FORMULA in that Paper ???
What the Hell Ed?
Evidently, he cannot conceive of a scientific paper that isn't just one big mass of mathematical formulae.  Unfortunately, that seems to be the same view some editors of scientific journals have.     

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 17, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 23, 2017:

September 22, 2017 - This morning I received an email informing me that my paper "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" is now available on at this link:  

So, of course, I immediately created a new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum to see what others might have to say about it.

This morning I also received an email from journal #8 turning down my paper on Time Dilation because the "paper does not contain enough new results to warrant refereeing."  So, once again they say nothing about the validity of what is said in the paper.  It seems they are not interested in new ways to view old results from old experiments, they are only interested in NEW results from new experiments.  Which means, of course, they wouldn't be interested in the paper I just put on, either, since that paper is also about viewing old test results in a new and correct way.

That will probably be my last attempt to get a scientific paper published.  I have ideas for at least two more papers I want to write, and then I probably just put them all into a self-published book. 

September 21, 2017 - At about 10:05 a.m. this morning, I submitted my latest scientific paper "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" to  If my past experience holds true, it should be available on-line later today.  If so, I'll modify this comment to add the link.

The paper hits some of the same points I hit in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, except that this new paper examines the misunderstandings and confusion about Einstein's Second Postulate, and tries to explain where all the misunderstandings and confusion come from.  It seems it can be explained as a simple understanding of a word: principle.

Here's one definition of the word "principle" from an on-line dictionary that I didn't use in the paper:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:the principles of modern physics.
And what is a "theory"?  A "theory" can be an argument that a "fundamental, primary or general law from which others are derived" is totally wrong or just an illusion.  In his 1905 paper, Einstein first calls the "Principle of Relativity" a "conjecture," a word which is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."  That seems very different from a "principle."  And it often seems that mathematicians argue that a "principle" is "a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works," and therefore no one can challenge or argue with a "basic truth."

The paper is just a "first draft."  I'm a long way from being totally satisfied with it.  But, I need to take a break from it, and I want to see what the folks on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have to say about it.

I don't know if I'll ever try to get it published.  Mostly I wrote it just to clarify my own thoughts on how the whole "crisis in physics" got started.  And I wanted to write about some things Einstein wrote in his 1905 Special Relativity paper that seem to leave no room for dispute over what Einstein "really meant."

September 20, 2017 - When I checked the status of my paper on Time Dilation this morning, the status had changed.  The web site run by the physics journal that has the paper had been showing the status as "Under Review" since August 2nd.  As of this morning, the status is "Awaiting ED Decision."

I assume that "ED" stands for either "Editor" or "Editorial Director."  And what kind of decision are they waiting for?  I have to assume it is a decision on whether to (1) ask me for revisions to make it more suitable for printing in their journal, or (2) to publish it as is, or (3) to reject the paper.   I'll just have to wait to find out.  Presumably, I won't have to wait very much longer.

This morning, a new post to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum contained a phrase I suddenly realized I've been seeing a lot lately: "the crisis in physics."  So, I did a Google search for "crisis in physics."  One article near the top of the list was from National Public Radio (NPR) titled "Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?"  It's a VERY interesting article from June 2016 about a book by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin that had just been published.  The article says:
Smolin and Unger believe this crisis is real — and it's acute. They pull no punches in their sense that the lack of empirical data has led the field astray. As they put it:
    "Science is corrupted when it abandons the discipline of empirical validation or dis-confirmation. It is also weakened when it mistakes its assumptions for facts and its ready-made philosophy for the way things are."
Thus, the goal of The Singular Universe and The Reality of Time is to take a giant philosophical step back and see if a new and more promising direction can be found. For the two thinkers, such a new direction can be spelled out in three bold claims about the world.
 Their "three bold claims about the world" are:
1. There is only one universe.
2. Time is real.
3. Mathematics is selectively real.
Those are also my "bold claims," although I'd rephrase them to this:
1.  The "visible universe" is just part of "the Big Bang Universe."
2.  Time and Time Dilation are real.
3.  Mathematics is just a tool, not holy writ.
Browsing through their book, however, it seems to be more of a philosophy book than a science or physics book.  I could be wrong, though.  The authors seem to argue their theories, which are not the same as my theories.   Chapter 5, which is by Unger, is titled "The Mutability of the Laws of Nature."  But, instead of being about how our defined laws of nature change as we learn more about how Nature works, it seems to be an argument that the laws of nature could have been different when the universe was younger.  That may be true, but who cares?  How do you prove such a thing?  Right now, I only care if the "defined laws of nature" as we currently view them are correct.  Or is there something we do not yet understand - like how Time works?  Have we defined the laws of nature correctly?

Some seem to believe that we do not define the laws of nature, we discover them.  And once discovered, they are immutable.  But we know from our history that laws we once thought were "immutable" were actually mutable, because we misunderstood things when we created and defined the laws.       

And that happens to be the theme of the paper I'm currently working on.  It's close to being a good first draft.  I just need to stop being distracted by things I find while doing research.  It took me about two hours to write this comment.  Those are two hours I could have spent working on my paper.

September 18, 2017 - Hmm.  Each morning I browse though the topics on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum to see if anything interesting is being discussed.  This morning, I noticed a post containing a link to a YouTube video by Neil deGrass Tyson from which the poster, Pentcho Valev, partially transcribed some statements by Tyson:
"One of the towering great achievements of the human mind in our understanding of the universe is Einstein's theories of relativity. It makes only two assumptions: That the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement and no matter in what direction you are moving or how fast. You always get the same measurement for the speed of light. That's Assumption 1 which by the way the experiment has shown to be true. Assumption 2: The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another. Those are the only two tenets that you have to buy into."
Here's a screen capture I made from a point early in the video:
Neil deGrass Tyson

The image shows the same claim as "assumption #1" in the transcription, just phrased slightly differently.  It's the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" in its simplest form.   I knew from watching Tyson on TV that that was how he understood things, but I didn't have a good link to such a statement.  Now I do.  (Nevertheless, I'm a fan of Tyson.  He's correct about most things.  He just goes off the track when talking about time dilation and the speed of light.)

In my Sunday comment yesterday, I mentioned that I had already browsed through the book of lectures by Richard Feynman that was #5 on the list of "5 Highly Recommended Physics Textbooks," and I made no further comment on that book.  Then, after I'd finished posting my Sunday comment, I browsed through volume1 of Feynman's 3 volumes of lectures to see if I should have included something from it.  (Volumes 2 & 3 are mostly on topics of little interest to me.)  The problem is, Feynman doesn't provide any short quotes I can use to show he agrees with Einstein and I, and he disagrees with the mathematicians.  If I want to show what he thinks about the mathematicians' absurd argument that "all motion is relative," I have to copy a fairly large section from Section 16-2:
To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous so-called “paradox” of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul’s clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter’s point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mu-mesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a “paradox” only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, “Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can’t we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet.” But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship—the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on—while Peter felt nothing.

So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an “absolute” sense, and it is certainly correct.

There's an even longer quote in section 15-4 about Time Dilation which the mathematicians also claim isn't real because "all motion is relative."  And there's a long quote in section 15-6 about two observers seeing light travel at different rates, but there aren't any small quotable pieces of it that mean anything without the providing whole long quote.   Sigh.

September 17, 2017 - I spent most of my computer time last week quaworking on a new paper about the The Principle of Relativity versus The Theory of Relativity.  The new paper contains some variations on some of the same arguments I used in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  And it used some of the same references.  So, last week I decided to see if I could find some new references. 

It occurred to me that I didn't know how the college physic text books I used as references were ranked.  Are college physics text books ranked?  I did a Google search for "the best college physics textbook."  One physics website has a list of "5 Highly Recommended Physics Textbooks."  The 5th book on the list is a book of lectures by Richard Feynman, which I already had.  And I'd browsed through 3 different editions of #3 on the list, but I hadn't examined the others on the list: 
#1. University Physics with Modern Physics by Young, Freedman & Lewis Ford

#2.  Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by Douglas C. Giancoli

#3. Fundamentals of Physics by David Halliday, Robert Resnick and Jearl Walker

#4. Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach by Randall D. Knight 

#5. The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman
Browsing through the #1 book on the list, which is 1,551 pages followed by many more pages of appendixes, tables and indexes, I found some very quotable information in Chapter 37, which begins on page 1268.   On page 1269 it says:
Einstein's first postulate, called the principle of relativity, states: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of referenceIf the laws differed, the difference would distinguish one inertial frame from the others or make one frame somehow more "correct" than another.   
Hmm.  That sentence I highlighted in red shows that the book is off on the wrong track.  The laws are the same in all inertial frames, BUT when you compare results between frames, the results you get from the same laws can be different - primarily due to different rates of Time Dilation. 

Later on that same page the authors distort Einstein's Second Postulate this way:
Einstein's second postulate states: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference and is independent of the motion of the source.
No, that's not exactly true, and it's definitely not what Einstein's second postulate states.  The speed of light in a vacuum will be measured to be the same in every inertial frame where it is created, but it may not be measured to be the same when measured in a different frame from the frame where it was created or emitted.  Only when the two frames are stationary relative to each other will the speed of light sent from each frame to the other be measured to be the same.

On the next page the authors use illustrations to show how an outside observer will see light traveling at the same speed as the emitter saw it.  And the authors conclude:
This result contradicts our elementary notion of relative velocities, and it may not appear to agree with common sense.  But "common sense" is intuition based on everyday experience, and this does not usually include measurements of the speed of light.
In other words, you have to accept it as true if you want to pass the course, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.  And, presumably, if the student argues that it isn't what Einstein wrote, he'll be told that it may not be what Einstein wrote, but you must believe that it is what Einstein meant.

I printed out most of Chapter 37.  I haven't had time to read all of it yet. 

Browsing through textbook #2 on the list, which is over 1,300 pages, I found these versions of Einstein's First and Second postulates on page 957:
First postulate (the relativity principle): The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.

The first postulate can also be stated as: There is no experiment you can do in an inertial reference frame to tell if you are at rest or moving uniformly at constant velocity.
The second postulate is consistent with the first:

Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
These two postulates form the foundation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It is called “special” to distinguish it from his later “general theory of relativity,” which deals with noninertial (accelerating) reference frames (Chapter 44). The special theory, which is what we discuss here, deals only with inertial frames.
Then it says,
The second postulate may seem hard to accept, for it seems to violate common sense. First of all, we have to think of light traveling through empty space. Giving up the ether is not too hard, however, since it had never been detected. But the second postulate also tells us that the speed of light in vacuum is always the same, 3.00 X 108m/s, no matter what the speed of the observer or the source. Thus, a person traveling toward or away from a source of light will measure the same speed for that light as someone at rest with respect to the source. This conflicts with our everyday experience: we would expect to have to add in the velocity of the observer. On the other hand, perhaps we can’t expect our everyday experience to be helpful when dealing with the high velocity of light.
I also browsed through textbook #4 on the list above.  It's over 1,300 pages.  On page 1027 there is an illustration that I'd very much like to show here, but I'm afraid of violating some copyright.  There's no problem quoting text, but using images is a different situation.

The illustration shows a woman, Amy, on the left shining a flashlight at Cathy who is in the middle of the illustration on bicycle peddling fast toward Bill, who is on the right shining another flashlight at Cathy.  The
following text goes with that illustration:
All experimenters, regardless of how they move with respect to each other, find that all light waves, regardless of the source, travel in their
reference frame with the same speed c.  If Cathy's velocity toward Bill and away from Amy is v = 0.9c, Cathy finds, by making measurements in her reference frame, that the light from Bill approaches her at speed c, not at c + v = 1.9c.  And the light from Amy, which left Amy at speed c, catches up from behind at c relative to Cathy, not the c - v = 0.1c you would have expected.

Although this prediction goes against all shreds of common sense, the experimental evidence for it is strong.  Laboratory experiments are difficult because even the highest laboratory speed is insignificant in comparison to c.
The evidence is "strong," but "experiments are difficult"???  In reality, all the experiments say it is NONSENSE.  But, of course, the student must nevertheless accept it as true if he or she wants to pass the course, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.  And, presumably, if the student argues that it isn't what Einstein wrote, he or she will be told that it may not be what Einstein wrote, but you must believe that it is what Einstein meant.  

It reminded me of some news articles I read recently about the problems colleges and universities are having with hiring physics teachers.  Click HERE, HERE and HERE.  Who wants to teach dogma that conflicts with common sense?  And are the teachers willing to teach dogma the kind of teachers we need and want?

How did schools and universities get into this idiotic situation?  The paper I'm writing suggests that it is simply that they don't seem to know the difference between a principle and a theory.  Dictionaries define a principle as "a fundamental truth or law."  The on-line Cambridge Dictionary has this definition: "a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works."

If something is a "basic truth" or a "fundamental truth" or a "law," it appears that the authors of physics books feel that it cannot be questioned.  Unfortunately, that means they do not understand the meaning of the word "theory."  That same Cambridge Dictionary has this definition of "theory": "something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation."

In other words, a theory can be a challenge to or a questioning of a principle.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a "systematic or scientific explanation" for why Galileo's Principle of Relativity is an illusion.  It is a challenge to and a questioning of Galileo's "principle."  The "principle" is in need of an modification or overhaul to make it a more "reasonable explanation for facts."

It's really not that difficult to understand.  All you need to do is get rid of most of the math and look at things logically.  And they should probably stop putting discussions of Relativity near the end of books that are over a thousand pages in length.  Who wants to challenge the idiotic dogma being taught by professor when you are near the end of a course?

As I stated above, I have browsed three different editions of textbook #3 on the list.  On page 1254 of the 8th edition it says these are the "postulates of the special theory of relativity":
1. The principle of relativity: The laws of physics must be the same in all inertial reference frames.

2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value, c = 3.00 X 108 m/s, in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light. 
And it has the following paragraph of explanation:
The first postulate asserts that all the laws of physics—those dealing with mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, thermodynamics, and so on — are the same in all reference frames moving with constant velocity relative to one another. This postulate is a sweeping generalization of the principle of Galilean relativity, which refers only to the laws of mechanics. From an experimental point of view, Einstein’s principle of relativity means that any kind of experiment (measuring the speed of light, for example) performed in a laboratory at rest must give the same result when performed in a laboratory moving at a constant velocity past the first one. Hence, no preferred inertial reference frame exists, and it is impossible to detect absolute motion.
That last sentence is, of course, just an opinion or interpretation by the authors.  It is not anything stated by Einstein.

On page 1023 of the 9th edition and on page 1117 of the 10th edition it says this about Einstein's Second Postulate:
2. The Speed of Light Postulate: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.

We can also phrase this postulate to say that there is in nature an ultimate speed c, the same in all directions and in all inertial reference frames. Light happens to travel at this ultimate speed.
Note that this is VERY different from what was in the 8th edition.  It says nothing about the velocity of the observer.  And it says nothing about any "preferred inertial reference frame."

It appears that the authors decided for some reason to omit some of their personal interpretations in the newer versions of their text book.  Hopefully, there are others writing physics text books who are also finding reason to more closely examine what Einstein actually said and wrote and to leave out their own personal interpretations and beliefs.

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 16, 2017:

September 14, 2017 - For the record, while driving home from doing some chores yesterday afternoon, I finished listening to CD #16 of the 16-CD set for "The Daily Show (the AudioBook): An Oral History as Told by Jon Stewart, the Correspondents, Staff and Guests."

The Daily Show - audio book

It was a very enjoyable listening experience.  I probably watched every single episode of "The Daily Show" during the nearly 17 years Jon Stewart was host.  The audio book is narrated by a team of actors, not the original cast members, celebrities and politicians who made the actual statements.  It is like a reading of  a transcript of an week-long discussion between Jon and the people who worked on "The Daily Show," plus many of the people he interviewed over the years.  And it is also sort of a history book of many of the events that happened in the years, from sometime in 2000 to sometime in 2016.  9/11 happened in their second year.  George W. Bush seemed like the most bumbling, ignorant President the country had every seen, until Donald Trump became the all time champ.  The book explains how "The Daily Show" influenced politics, changed late-night TV, and also changed the way regular news shows operated.  I highly recommend the book.  And the audio book was perfect for listening while driving. 

September 13, 2017 - This morning I received an email advising me of a different way to look up IP (Internet Protocol) addresses to find the location of the computer assigned that address.  Somewhere in some previous comment on this web site I had mentioned that I used to look up locations for IP addresses.  The email said:
While it does the job overall, I found another tool to be a far better alternative. I thought other users might also appreciate it if you update your page. 
The emailer suggested as the "far better alternative." 

So, I tried using both methods to look up the same IP address.  The first IP address I tried produced New York City as the IP location via both methods.  But the second IP address I tried ( produced different results.  Ip2location said the IP was located in Antwerp, Belgium.  Vpnmentor said the IP was located in Brussels, Belgium.  Hmm.  Unfortunately, I had no way to determine which was correct.  So, I had to find a way.

I suspected that Antwerp was right, and Vpnmentor was just providing the capitals of foreign IP addresses, not the actual city were the IP was located.  I tried looking up IP  Ip2location gave me Humberstone, England.  Vpnmentor gave me London, England, about 110 miles from Humberstone.  Again vpnmentory had given me the country's capitol.  So, I tried  a few other foreign IP addresses, but they didn't follow that pattern.  Some gave me different cities via the different methods, some gave me the same cities.

So, I tried my own IP address.  Ip2location gave me my home town.  Vpnmentor gave me "Delafield (Cushing Park Business Center), Wisconsin," which Google Maps says is 53.5 miles away from where I'm actually located.  That was enough to show me that I was using the better IP locator package.

But, I wanted a bit more proof.  So, I tried IP, which I knew from their web site HERE was Cambridge University in Coton, England.  And that is what Ip2location gave me.  However, Vpnmentor inexplicably gave me Bedford, Tennessee.  To make certain, I examined the source code for an email I once received from Stephen Hawking's staff, and I found the IP address used to send the email:  Ip2location shows the location of that IP address as Cambridge University.  Vpnmentor shows it as Bedford, TN.

Case closed. is far better.

September 11, 2017 - Hmm.  It appears that the editor of the journal (#8) that has my paper on Time Dilation was on vacation or out ill last week.  This morning after I did my morning routines, I pondered whether to send journal #8 another email or not.  I finally sent them an email asking about the status of my paper, and I addressed the email to "editor" instead of the specific editor who initially acknowledged receipt of my paper back on August 2.

Then I read some of Einstein's book
The Evolution of Physics for awhile.  The part I was reading was about things that do not particularly interest me, so decided to do some research about light waves and particles for awhile.  Then, just before I shut down to go to lunch, I received a response from Journal #8. 

The response stated that they had received my paper, that it was "under peer review," and that they would inform me of a "final decision" as soon as possible.

OKAY!  So, they have reviewers who are actually reading it, and I should be getting some peer reviewer thoughts about the paper sometime soon.  I suppose, the "final decision" might turn out to be that they do not want to publish it, but they should provide reasons why.

In the afternoon, after lunch and after I did some chores, I turned on my computer once again and found I had another email from the same editor at Journal #8.  At first I thought they might have made their "final decision."  But, no, it was a response to the email I sent them last week.  So, the editor was catching up on work not done last week.  The email said basically the same thing as the first email, just phrased differently.

So, I'll continue waiting.  And I won't be sending them any more emails until around October 2, if I haven't heard from them by then.  

September 10, 2017 - I keep accumulating facts and evidence which show that the way physics is taught in colleges and universities these days is totally wrong - specifically the so-called "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which I addressed in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  Selected from many examples, here is how Einstein's Second Postulate is presented on page 888 of the 9th edition of College Physics by Raymond A. Serway and Chris Vuille:
The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
And here's how  it is described on page 91 of the eleventh edition of a college text book titled "Foundations of Astronomy" by Michael Seeds and Dana Backman:
Second postulate: The speed of light is a constant and will be the same for all observers independent of their motion relative to the light source.
Of course, that is NOT Einstein's Second Postulate.  And no matter how many different college text books show the Second Postulate that way, it is not what Einstein said or wrote or meant.  Here is Einstein's Second Postulate:
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. 
Einstein makes it very clear that only the emitter of the light (or an observer who is stationary relative to the emitter) will see the light traveling at c.  Einstein says absolutely nothing about what some other observer will see.  In fact, his whole point is that they may not measure the light as arriving at c.

In his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies which introduced his Theory of Special Relativity to the world, Einstein described how to determine if someone else is stationary relative to you.  Basically, if two entities consider themselves to both be stationary, they can confirm it by each sending a light signal to the other at exactly the same time.  If the light signals take exactly the same amount of time to go in both directions, then the two entities are not only stationary relative to each other, but their clocks are also synchronous.

Here is how Einstein put it:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
And later on the same page, he continues:
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
Although Einstein didn't do it in his paper, the test for being synchronous and stationary can be easily illustrated like so:
At a pre-selected instant in time, A sends a light signal to B and B sends an identical light signal to A.  They then compare their readings.  If they sent and received the signals at exactly the same time, they are stationary relative to each other, and their clocks are synchronized.  If the readings differ, they are not stationary relative to one another. 

It would have been nice if Einstein had described why and how the movement of one entity would cause the speed of light to differ.  But he didn't.  For example, he could have written: If A is moving toward stationary B, and they simultaneously send out light signals, the results will look like this for the signal sent by A:
The movement by A did not affect the light signal it emitted to reach stationary B.  This is because of Einstein’s Second Postulate: “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”  The emitting body is A, and movement by A will not change the speed of the light it emits.  It will always be c (just as his Second Postulate stated).

However, the reverse is not true.  When light is emitted from stationary B toward moving A, it can be depicted like this:
B sent the light signal when A was at Location-A, but because A was moving toward the oncoming light signal, A encountered the signal at Location-A2.  The light traveled at c, but because A was moving toward B, A encountered the signal as if light had traveled at c+v, where v is the speed of A toward B.  And, of course, the situation where A is moving away from B will look like this:
The light traveled at c, but because A was moving away from B, A encountered the signal at Location-A2, as if it had traveled at c-v, where v is the speed of A away from B. 
So, A and B would know they are not experiencing a common or synchronous time.  They may not know who is moving, but they know someone is moving relative to the other.

This is totally in agreement with Einstein's Second Postulate, but it is in total disagreement with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  When moving A is the observer receiving the light emitted by stationary B, he will never receive it arriving at c.  A's motion will always affect the speed of light he receives from an emitter that is not "stationary" relative to him.  So, "all observers" will NOT observe the same speed of light.

The only question is: Why can't the mathematicians and the math cult see this?  How can they argue their beliefs while claiming their beliefs are in agreement with Einstein?  Einstein was making it clear that he disagreed with the mathematicians.  How can physics teachers all over the world teach something that is wrong while at the same time falsely claiming it is what Einstein stated?  It is virtually the opposite of what Einstein stated!

In 1925, Einstein wrote a book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory," in which he seems to have attempted to make mathematicians understand that they were not saying the same things he was saying.  But the book was filled with mathematics and was horrendously complicated, with plenty of ways for people to misinterpret things if they want to.  Plus, the original was in German, which meant that it had to go through a translator to get a version in English.  That also complicated the situation for those who read the book in English.

Then, in 1938, Einstein co-wrote "The Evolution of Physics" with Leopold Infeld.  It was written in English, with Infeld doing the editing.  It was virtually devoid of mathematics, and it was published by Cambridge University Press.

On page 166 it says something the mathematicians do not seem able to comprehend (Einstein and Infeld used the abbreviation "c.s." to mean "coordinate systems." I've replaced "c.s." with "coordinate systems" in brackets because the full spelling helps make things clearer for everyone.):
Let us consider the case of two [coordinate systems] starting from a known position and moving uniformly, one relative to the other, with a known velocity. One who prefers concrete pictures can safely think of a ship or a train moving relative to the earth. The laws of mechanics can be confirmed experimentally with the same degree of accuracy, on the earth or in a train or on a ship moving uniformly. But some difficulty arises if the observers of two systems begin to discuss observations of the same event from the point of view of their different [coordinate sytems]. Each would like to translate the other’s observations into his own language.
The two observers of two systems get the same results to experiments done in their own coordinate systems (frames of reference), but if they compare or discuss those results, they will find they actually were not the same.  Usually it is because the length of a second is longer in the coordinate system that is moving, so anything involving time will have a different rate of measurement in one coordinate system versus the other.

On page 175, Einstein and Infeld describe a thought experiment which really had my mind working overtime.  They begin two pages earlier by describing the experiment using sound waves instead of light photons.  On page 175 they start talking about the same experiment using light.  But they complicate the situation by having an "ether" surround everything.  So, their explanation spends a lot of time disproving the notion of an "ether" surrounding everything.  Like so many explanations in physics, they do not just explain what is actually happening, they spend a lot of time explaining what is NOT happening that was once thought to be happening.

It is not until page 186 that they describe how things really work:
Our new assumptions are:

(1) The velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all [coordinate systems] moving uniformly, relative to each other.

(2) All laws of nature are the same in all [coordinate systems]  moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The relativity theory begins with these two assumptions.
So, taking those assumptions back to their thought experiment, we have a situation where there are observers in two different coordinate systems that are NOT "moving uniformly, relative to each other."  So, light will NOT be seen to travel at the same speeds in both coordinate systems.

The experiment involves having a man in a rapidly moving room (like on a space ship) that has a transparent side so that an observer in a stationary position somewhere can theoretically look into the room.    

The guy in the fast moving room turns on a light bulb in the center of the room.  He observes the light from the bulb illuminate the front wall and the rear wall at the same time.  The guy who is stationary, however, does not see that.  He sees the light illuminate the rear wall first, and then the front wall.


It is because of something I described in detail in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.   When the guy in the space ship turns on the light, the light travels at c toward both walls.  However, because the forward wall is moving away from the point of emission at v (the velocity of the ship), the light photons take longer to get to the wall.  The photons arrive at the wall at c-v.  The atoms in the wall then send back new photons to the observer standing in the center of the room.  And because the observer is moving toward the point where the new photons were emitted, his eye receives the photons traveling at c+v.  The c-v speed of the original photons going in one direction and the c+v speed of the new photons going in the other direction mean that the speed of the ship is canceled out: c+v-v = c.

The reverse holds true with the rear wall.  The original photons reached the rear wall at c+v and the new photons were returned at c-v.  So the observer on the ship sees everything as happening normally.  He turned on the light bulb, and the front wall was illuminated at the same time as the rear wall.

But the outside observer saw something very different.  He was stationary and not moving with the ship.  So, he saw the photons hit the front wall at c-v and the rear wall at c+v.  The new photons emitted by those walls traveled at c to reach his eyes.  The rear wall was illuminated first, then the front wall.       

I can only wonder what the math cult would say about this.  It's virtually a certainty that they will heatedly disagree, and they will argue that all movement is reciprocal and all observers see the same speed of light.  But, would they also argue that Einstein was wrong?  Or would they argue that I was misinterpreting what Einstein clearly wrote?

I've got to finish reading The Evolution of Physics, and I've got to do more work on some new papers before I start arguing with the math cult again.

Busy busy busy. 

Comments for Friday, Sept. 1, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 9, 2017:

September 8, 2017 - Hmm.  I just stumbled across something very interesting that is going to change my immediate plans. 

I've been finding it difficult to get through some of the physics books I've been trying to read, not because they are difficult to read, but because they either go off into promoting the "same for all observers" theory of light, or because they go off into areas of physics that are not currently of any interest to me.

This morning, after finishing my daily chores, I tried to get back to working on a paper I've been writing about "length contraction."  I found it slow going, and I decided to see if there was some book in my personal library that I should be reading to help the describe and explain what I want to describe and explain about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity - and length contraction.  So, I began browsing through my personal library.

I came across a book titled "A Primer of Special Relativity" by P.L. Sardesai, and even though it was very heavy into mathematics, there were some parts that seemed very interesting.  But it was difficult to find those parts.  They were few and far between, separated by long sections of heavy mathematics. Then I noticed a book reference on page 5 that was even more interesting:
Einstein A. and Infeld L.: The Evolution of Physics (Simon and Schuster New York)
It was a 1936 book by Einstein that I didn't have in my collection?  I thought I had them all!  I did a quick Internet search and found a free pdf copyHoly cow!!!  It's virtually devoid of mathematical equations!  Skimming through it, I couldn't find a single equation!  And when I did a search for the word "observer" to see what it might say about the mathematician's "same for all observers" theory of light, I found the word "observer" first appears on page 161 of the 335 page pdf file. And from that point on it seemed to have a great deal to say about the subject of how different observers observe the speed of light. 

So, that's what I'm going to be doing for most of the rest of the day, reading The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.  

September 7, 2017 - I still haven't heard anything from the journal that has my paper on Time Dilation.  I'm wondering if I made a mistake in addressing my email inquiring about the status of my paper to the specific editor who acknowledged receipt of the paper back on August 2.  If that editor is ill or on vacation, my email will likely just sit waiting for that editor to return. 

I have no choice but to wait a week and try again next Monday.  The status of my paper on their web site remains at "Under review."

There's no way to tell if the delay in responding is a "good sign," even though in theory the only "bad sign" is if the paper is rejected immediately.  I just don't know what to make of it.

I've been keeping busy by working on a new paper.  However, I'll save details about that paper for my Sunday comment.  It started out like it would be a breeze to get through and finish, but this afternoon I began working on the key point of the paper, and I came to a screeching halt as things became wildly complicated.  I need to think things over to get back my ideas on how to simplify the matter.  I think much better and more clearly in the mornings.  Maybe tomorrow morning I'll wake up with everything laid out simply and clearly and just waiting for me to type it into the paper.  Maybe.          

September 6, 2017 - I finally got fed up with the endless bickering over word definitions and how things must be phrased on a thread on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and I decided to stop posting there for awhile.  The thread is titled "Pentcho Valev's biggest misunderstanding."  Here are the statistics as of this morning:

Google forum

I started that thread on August 18, which was just under three weeks ago.  Now it has 507 posts in the thread, about a third of which consist just of name calling and personal attacks against me for arguing something that conflicts with the beliefs of mathematicians.  (The thread titled "A question to Ed Lake" just asked a question that had been asked and answered several times in the thread I created: Doesn't the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment show that the speed of light is seen  by ALL observers to arrive at c and not at c+v or c-v?  The answer is "no.")

A couple days ago I described arguing with mathematicians as being like arguing with people from some other planet.  But, now I'm thinking it is more like arguing with people who belong to some cult.  I've been watching the A&E series about Scientology, and there are many similarities.  If you disagree with the cult, you are an enemy of the cult.  The cult recites memorized slogans and terms and cannot discuss anything except in those memorized slogans and terms. Common sense says that the beliefs of the cult are just plain wrong, but they cannot even comprehend that there can be any other way of viewing things.  They are doing great harm, but they believe everything they are doing is good.

I suppose one reason I got fed up with arguing with members of the "math cult" is that I'm still waiting to learn the status of my paper about Time Dilation.  I haven't received any response to my Labor Day email asking about the paper's status.  The web site run by the journal that has the paper still says it is "Under review."  That makes it difficult to focus on other things, but I'll give it a try.

Yesterday, there were also four attacks on this web site, with hackers attempting to post things to the site that do not belong on the site.  Most of them have to do with WordPress problems.  I still have dozens of different computers around he world trying every day to access (GET) a non-existent WordPress wp-login.php file from my web site.  And immediately following each GET is a valid GET for the main page of this site.  It throws off my statistics, showing that I have a lot more visitors to this site than I really do.  Those visits were by some computer bug, not by any human. It seems to be a real problem for WordPress web sites, but I'm not a WordPress web site.  I don't have anything to do with WordPress.  It's another annoyance that keeps me from focusing on writing new papers.

Meanwhile, NASA's "Astronomy picture of the day" web site has a beautiful photo of the recent solar eclipse:

solar eclipse and a mountain climber
It was even more interesting to me because I'd recently been arguing with members of the math cult about whether such a picture represents a "real" comparison of the diameters of the sun and moon to the height of the man, or if it is just an "illusion" that the man's height seems about half the diameter of the sun and the moon.  The math cult doesn't have any words to describe such a situation other than to say it is totally valid and "correct" from the "frame of reference" of the camera.  And they believe there is supposed to be some other "frame of reference" from the other side of the sun where the diameter of the sun and moon would be viewed as half the height of the man. 

I really need to get to work on one of my new scientific papers.  I can't do that while writing this comment, so this is the end of today's comment. 

September 4, 2017 - Yesterday, I learned a very enlightening lesson about how mathematicians view science.  An individual in Norway named Paul B. Anderson posted a message to the thread I've been watching on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and the message contained a bunch of interesting links.  Several of the links went to unpublished articles by Mr. Anderson.  One titled "An illustration of mutual time dilation" really attracted my attention.  I don't know how long the link will continue to work, but right now you can access the article by clicking HERE.

The article begins with this:
The scenario
. Let's have two clocks which are synchronized according to Einstein's procedure in each of two inertial frames of reference.
. Let the clocks be a proper distance d from each other in their respective frames.
. Let the frames move with the relative speed v.
Note that in Part One of "the"scenario" he has two synchronized clocks in two frames of reference.  Part Two just says the two clocks are some distance apart.  But then Part Three says the two clocks are now moving at some speed away from or toward each other (i.e., at a speed "relative" to each other).

What that showed me is that he inexplicably jumped from having two clocks that were STATIONARY in their frames of reference to having the two clocks MOVING relative to each other.  And then he proceeds to argue that because the two clocks are moving relative to each other, Time Dilation will be "mutual" or "reciprocal" because there is  no way to tell who is actually moving faster than the other.  Clock-A could be moving away from stationary Clock-B at 10,000 kph, or Clock-B could be moving away from stationary Clock-A at 10,000 kph,  or Clock-A and Clock-B could both be moving away from each other at 5,000 kph.

That's the way mathematicians appear to view things.  In observation #1 the clocks are stationary, and in observation #2 the clocks are moving.  And there is no way to tell which clock is moving or how fast.  HOW the clocks got from being stationary to being moving is not part of the problem and is of no concern to the mathematicians. 

In reality (and in SCIENCE), of course, HOW the clocks got to be moving is the key to everything.  But science is very much about CAUSE and EFFECT, which the mathematicians consider to be meaningless, worthless and just part of some philosophy.

If you CAUSE one of the clocks to move, you KNOW that that clock is moving and the other is still stationary.  And you know the "relative" speed is actually one clock's speed away from the other.  Therefore the clock that is moving will experience Time Dilation and the clock that is stationary will not.  It's as simple as that.  Yet, it seems incomprehensible to mathematicians. They can only view situation A and situation B, they cannot think about how one situation developed into the other. 

Talking with mathematicians is like talking with people from some other planet.  I have one mathematician arguing over and over that time differences between two clocks can only be viewed as 12:02 p.m. < (is less than) 12:05 p.m., there can be no way of knowing HOW two clocks that were once synchronous turned into having one clock show that less time has passed than another clock.  And they don't care!   
It's really fascinating to me.  It's like visiting another world.

BTW, I just sent an email to Journal #8 which has had my paper on Time Dilation for one month and two days.  (The journal is not published in the United States, so Labor Day shouldn't be a holiday for them.)  I asked them the status of the paper.  Now I'm waiting for a response.  I don't think they'll respond by saying, "Oh, yes!  We threw that paper in the garbage a month ago.  I forgot to notify you.  Sorry about that."  But I am very curious as to what they might actually say.

September 3, 2017 - I've got a busy day ahead of me.  I see three very long posts, each with many multi-part questions waiting for me on the thread I've been watching on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  One batch of questions is from "danco," another is from "rotchm" and the third batch is from "Paul B. Anderson" whose email address indicates he is in Norway.

Yesterday's arguments pointed something out to me that I may not have fully realized before: When mathematicians argue that Time Dilation does not cause time to "run slow," and that Time Dilation only causes measured moments of time to be farther apart (an argument I find hilarious), they are probably thinking of Time as being nothing more than a "concept."  And, a concept cannot "run slow."  Interestingly, that is the argument I use in my paper on Time Dilation to argue that Time cannot be just a "concept."  If I can cause time to "run slower" for an object by simply lowering the object to be closer to the center of the earth, or by moving it faster through space, then Time cannot be just a concept.  It must be a property of matter.

My paper on Time Dilation, by the way, has been at journal #8 for one full month as of yesterday.  Journal #8's rules say I should not ask about the status of the paper until they've had it for at least a month.   So, tomorrow or Tuesday I'll be sending them an email asking about its status.  All their web page has said for the past month is that it is "Under Review."  I don't expect them to publish it, but the fact that they have had it for a month and haven't rejected it is cause for some very very very very very cautious optimism.

The subject matter in my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate was hot topic in yesterday's arguments on the Google forum.  This morning I awoke realizing I need to do some immediate research.  In Internet arguments I had long ago about Einstein's Second Postulate and the fact that light can be measured by an outside observer to be c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer, caused some people to refer to the Sagnac effect and the Michelson-Gale experiment as supporting their side of the argument.  So, I researched those experiments and realized they supported my side of the argument.  And, I used them in my paper about the Second Postulate.  But this morning as I was laying in bed waiting for it to be time to get up, I realized (1) that I never bothered to try to understand how people who believe light is measured to travel a c by ALL OBSERVERS could have interpreted the experiments as supporting their views.  Nor (2) do I have at my fingertips explanations for exactly what the experiments by Georges Sagnac and Albert Michelson and Henry Gale proved. 

I remember that Georges Sagnac set up this 1913 experiment to prove the existence of the aether that Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity had discarded.  And I remember that in 1925 Michelson and Gale basically just repeated the Sagnac experiment on a much grander scale, using the spin of the earth instead of a spinning disk.  But I'm not prepared to argue exactly how the original purpose of those experiments relate to Einstein's Second Postulate.  I know I'm right, because I laid out the experiments step by step in my Second Postulate paper.  However, yesterday I made the mistake of citing the Wikipedia article about Michelson-Gale as a reference, and the article doesn't really say anything about Einstein's Second Postulate.  Nor does the Wikipedia article on the Sagnac effect.  Neither articles even uses the word "postulate."  So, it appears Sagnac and Michelson-Gale set out to confirm something, which they evidently did confirm, and while doing so they also confirmed my (and Einstein's) version of the Second Postulate.  But, I do not have anything to cite as proof of that - other than what is in my Second Postulate paper.

Sigh.   I often wonder if anyone reading this web site cares about these matters, or if they just check this web site every day or a few times a week to see if I might have written something new about the anthrax attacks of 2001, which is clearly the only thing that some of the regular readers of this web site care about.  I've moved on, and I find Time Dilation and arguments over the speed of light to be a thousand times more fascinating than arguments over the anthrax attacks ever were.  And the reason I write down all these details is so that I can refer to them and remember them if I need to do so in the future.  I have no idea if anyone else can find them interesting.

And that is today's comment.  Now I'll do a bit of research and then get to work on responding to all the questions waiting for me on the Google forum.               

September 2, 2017 - I've got a few minutes before I will be shutting down my computer for the night, after a long day of arguing with mathematicians on the thread I've been watching on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum So, I might as well write a comment. 

I keep trying to change the arguments to be about something that can be resolved, and I'm getting nowhere. 

One of my favorite sayings is: If at first you do not succeed, try a different method.  So, today, instead of arguing about mathematics and mathematicians' points of view, I tried to change the arguments to be about experiments.  But, it hasn't had much results.  The mathematicians argue that there are experiments which verify their claims, but they do not cite or name any such experiments.  They just claim there are "experiments" that are so common that no one bothers to write them down or even call them "experiments."  They are everyday events.  But their descriptions of these "everyday events" are just more claims about how mathematicians view the universe to work.

I went out on a limb and stated that there is NO experiment which will show Time Dilation to be reciprocal.   As it says in my paper about Time Dilation, if a scientist atop a mountain measures his time as running faster than time as measured by another scientist at the bottom of the mountain, the scientist at the bottom of the mountain will agree.  He will not and cannot claim that his time runs faster than the time measured at the top of the mountain.  And here is no way that any mathematicians can create a REAL situation where time will run faster at the bottom of the mountain.

I can't even get the mathematicians to agree that that time can run "faster" or "slower."  They will just argue that clocks will be show a different time now than they will one hour from now, but that doesn't mean time "flows."  And, if time doesn't "flow," it cannot go faster or slower.  It's just 4:14 p.m. right now, and ten minutes from now it will be 4:24 p.m.  Period.  There was no "flow" of time between the two observations.  There are just two separate observations. 


I've been making copies of the conversations for a long time.  They could make a good addition to a book about the difference between how mathematicians view Relativity and how Einstein and I view Relativity.

© 2017 by Ed Lake