Ed Lake's web page
clipper cover
If you want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.
Welcome to Ed Lake's web site!

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

My latest comments are near the bottom of this page.
You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

A Crime Unlike Any Other book
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "The Reality of Time Dilation".
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "What is Time?"

My interests are writing, books, movies, science, psychology, conspiracy theorists,
hotography, photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz, blues, and ...

just trying to figure things out.

Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
A major interest: Fact Finding
                                  I have a fascination with Time and Time Dilation.                                Another interest: Movies Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments

Comments for Sunday, Nov. 12, 2017, thru Saturday, Nov. 18, 2017:

November 15, 2017 - Every morning, when I first turn on my computer, I go through a routine of checking my email accounts, collecting visitor data about my web sites and blogs, checking on my book sales, and then I check various forums and news outlets to see what is going on in the world.  One of the places I check is the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook page.  For some reason, very little ever gets posted there.  I have a post about one of my papers that has been awaiting approval from the moderators for probably close to a year.  While there, I look at the "Notifications" informing me about people's birthdays and new posts in other Facebook groups to which I belong.  This morning, there was a notification of a new post to the Science, Technology and Society Discussion Corner Facebook page.  The post was about a recent meeting of Flat Earthers

The post linked to an article titled "Flat Earthers from around the world descend upon NC for convention."  It's about a 2-day convention of "hundreds" of Flat Earthers that took place last week in Cary, NC.  Every single one of the attendees appears to be a conspiracy theorist, somehow totally convinced that the government and scientists are lying to them about the earth being a globe.  But far more interesting to me was a YouTube video mentioned in the Facebook thread.  It was made by a guy who explains why he doesn't believe the Earth is round.  He uses GPS satellites as part of his explanation.  It's really interesting, since the guy happily demonstrates all of his bizarre misunderstandings.

And there are 1,864 comments about the video which, as of this moment, has had 85,568 views.  A lot of the comments seem to be from other Flat Earthers.  Unfortunately, a lot are also from people who are not Flat Earthers, but who also have very little understanding of science.  In some ways, it is the ignorant arguing with the ignorant.

While watching that video, I noticed there were a bunch of other videos made by other Flat Earthers explaining the reasons they do not believe the Earth is round.  The next video I checked was by a guy who claims to be a satellite engineer, who disguises his voice, and who claims to be afraid that he'll be killed for blowing the whistle on all the people who are lying about the Earth being round and about where the satellites are located.


He inexplicably believes that the flat Earth is covered by some kind of dome which reflects all radio and light signals back to Earth.  So, there is really no need for the satellites he helped build.

Perhaps the most interesting video I watched is titled "Satellites Are Fake - Just Another NASA Hoax":

It has had 249,238 views and is followed by 7,175 comments.  It's a conspiracy theory video, sometimes claiming that the Masons are behind everything, and it's all a massive conspiracy to get money from you via taxes to pay for things that do not exist and which are totally impossible.

I glimpsed at a bunch of other videos arguing similar things.  Many of them are really bizarre.

Then, after about two hours of watching such videos while writing the above comment, I remembered that I was supposed to be working on my paper about "Photon Fusion."  And I remembered that I awoke this morning planning to write another comment about "Photon Fusion" and how my analysis suggests that it is a natural process that probably goes on all the time, not just during "Double Slit" experiments.  There also doesn't appear to be any evidence of "Photon Fission," where a photon would be divided into two less energetic photons by some equally simple natural process.  That poses a very interesting question of whether photons can combine and combine until they become Gamma rays.  Then what?  It's all interesting to think about, but I really need to focus on the paper and try to keep it limited to what appears to actually happen during Double-Slit experiments instead of what college teachers and their text books claim happens. 

I suppose I should also mention that I don't think there is any kind of conspiracy.  I'm trying to figure out how so many intelligent people can believe things that make no scientific sense.  And, if I'm wrong, I want people to explain to me where I'm wrong.   But, it seems no one can explain anything.  Instead, what I get is people telling me I need to take the college courses they take, read the books they read, and then I'll believe as they believe.            

November 14, 2017 - After writing Sunday's comment, I continued to think about the nonsensical beliefs many physicists have about light wave "interference."  So, I researched the term "interference" in a bunch of college text books.  I didn't find anything helpful, but I did find a few things that were very interesting.  One text book provided the "confirmed" finding that when an atom emits a photon, the atom recoils, just the way a gun recoils when firing off a bullet.  I found the following information on page 52 of the 4th edition of a college textbook called "Optics" by Eugene Hecht:  
A number of experiments have directly confirmed the quantal nature of the emission process. For example, imagine a very dim source surrounded, at equal distances, by identical photodetectors each capable of measuring a minute amount of light. If the emission, no matter how faint, is a continuous wave, as is maintained classically, all the detectors should register each emitted pulse in coincidence. That does not happen; instead, counts are registered by detectors independently, one at a time, in clear agreement with the idea that atoms emit localized light quanta in random directions.

Furthermore, it has been confirmed that when an atom emits light (i.e., a photon), it recoils in the opposite direction, just as a pistol recoils when it fires a bullet.

The first paragraph provides more evidence that light is a photon (i.e., a unit or quanta of light) and not a wave.  The second paragraph describes how an atom recoils when it emits a photon.  The second paragraph also indicates that light is a photon, not a wave, since if an atom emitted a wave like a ball dropped into a pond (or in three dimensions like a bomb exploding in the air), the wave would spread out equally in all directions and there could be no recoil.

That brought back to mind the image of an atom emitting a photon (from a web page about how light bulbs work):

how atoms emit light 

And, as I was laying in bed this morning waiting for it to be time to get up, I started thinking about what I wrote on Sunday. 

If two photons hit an atom from different directions, I stated that the energy could not be destroyed (as "destructive interference" suggests), since energy can only be converted into another form, it cannot be destroyed.  I suggested that the energy from the two photons would be converted into a single photon with twice the energy.  This morning it occurred to me that that process could be called "photon fusion."  It's a term I have never heard.

This morning I did a Google search for "photon fusion".  I found a web page where someone else asked if anyone had ever heard of the term.  One person had, and he provided a link to an article from 2006 titled "Photon 'fusion' boosts solar cell performance."  The article says (with my highlighting in red),

Using a combination of two light-active materials, the scientists have for the first time manipulated normal light, such as sunlight, to combine the energy in photons with particular wavelengths (Physical Review Letters, October 4, 2006).
Hmm.  What I wrote on Sunday says that the same thing happens when light photons coming from different directions hit an atom on a wall, as has been done in virtually all of the countless "double slit" light wave experiments performed since Thomas Young first did it in 1801.

(Added note:  Hours after writing the first version of this comment, I began to wonder if the term "photon fusion" appears in any papers on arXiv.org.  So, I did a search.  I found 88 papers that contain the term.  A scan through about twenty of them picked at random found that they all pertained to complex results from experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which is near Geneva, Switzerland.  Plus, all 88 papers were in the "High Energy Physics" category, which suggests that all the papers were written by people working with colliders, mainly or exclusively at CERN.) 

So, at least I know that "photon fusion" is possible.  It seems everyone else is just looking at it from a wrong angle (no play on words intended).

And I made a mistake, too.  On Sunday, I wrote:

Logically, the atom could emit a single photon of higher energy, which would put it into a range that is not visible to the naked eye, such as heat energy.
I was somehow thinking that if you combined two photons of light that have at a 500nm "wavelength," you'd get a photon with a 1,000nm "wavelength."  That would put it in the infrared (heat energy) range.

wavelengths of light

But, of course, that is wrong.  Such combined wave lengths would have HALF the energy of the individual photons that fused, not TWICE the energy.  So, instead, when two 500nm photons fuse, the atom would emit one photon in the 250nm range, the ultraviolet range.  It's still not "visible" light, so the theory still holds true.   But it is just not "heat energy," which is infrared energy. 

That means that the so-called "light wave interference pattern," shown below as produced in a double-slit experiment, is very misleading.  It only shows the visible light being emitted by the atoms in the wall.

interference pattern  

If you have some kind of ultraviolet light detector, the dark lines between the bright lines on the wall should show atoms there are emitting UV light. 

It should be easy to prove - for someone who has the necessary equipment.  I don't.  I wonder if anyone has ever done it.

When I do research to see if anyone has done it, all I find is information about "superposition," which is the belief that two light waves that meet between the double-slits and the wall that shows the "interference pattern," will somehow combine into a merged wave.

Sigh.  It seems like there's enough here to put into a scientific paper.  I'll start working on it this afternoon.  But, of course, no journal would ever publish such a paper.  They would need the paper to have experimental evidence (probably with all the mathematics) showing that the dark lines are indeed areas where the atoms are emitting UV light.

What I have, instead, is an example of theoretical physics.  It could be right, it could be wrong.  All it needs is to have someone with the right equipment to prove it one way or the other.

November 12, 2017 - I'm still trying to write a scientific paper about the Wave Theory of Light versus the Particle Theory of Light.  However, there are so many angles to the topic that it is difficult to find the right place to start.

On Wednesday, I thought that I might break the topic down into smaller topics, and then address each smaller topic separately.  I still think it's a good idea, but it's not as easy as I thought it might be.  For example, one reason some people believe that the universe is filled with some kind of "ether" (or "aether") is because they believe that you cannot have "waves" unless some "disturbance" is traveling through some kind of "medium."  They know that sound travels as "disturbance" waves through air (a "medium") and through water (a different "medium').  With light waves, that "medium" is thought to be the "ether," some kind of invisible and undetectable substance that fills space.  They believe the "ether" must be there if light consist of waves. 

Another reason they believe in the "ether" seems to be because they need it to be "stationary" in order to have something they can measure all other movements against.  They need a stationary "preferred" frame of reference.

To me, that stationary, "preferred" frame of reference is the point where the Big Bang occurred.  Everything moved outward from that stationary point, and all matter is presumably evenly distributed in all directions from that point, so the pull of gravity is equal in all directions from that point.

I see no reason to believe that the "ether" exists.  All the facts seem to indicate it does not exist.

For me, the most annoying belief about light waves is that they "interfere" with one another when light comes from multiple directions.  Those who believe this always use water waves to illustrate such "interference."

interferening waves     
But clearly this does not happen with light waves.  There's no evidence that if you have light from two (or a hundred) different sources crossing paths that the waves will somehow interfere with one another.  If you have a hundred lights on a Christmas tree, do the light waves from the various bulbs somehow interfere with each other in some way as they meet each other in the air of the room.  No.  Light "waves" (or photons) of different colors can pass through each other or travel together without causing any kind of "interference" pattern.  When we put light from the sun through a prism, we find that such light consists of many different colors, each with a different wave length, all traveling together.  If light consists of waves like waves in water, how can you have waves of light with dozens of different wavelengths all travel together and arrive at the prism at the same time, with each still having its original wavelength?

The only "proof" of light-wave "interference" is what is seen in "double slit" experiments where light of a specific wave length is emitted through two different slits in a barrier to produce an "interference pattern" on a wall. 

double slit experiment

Note that the illustration above indicates that the "Destructive Interference" and the "Constructive Interference" occur between the barrier and the screen.  It says that the light waves interfere with one another as they travel from the two slits in the barrier to the screen.  But we know that isn't true.  If it were, we should see the "interference" in some form happening all around us. 

In reality, all the "interference" must happen when the "waves" (or photons) hit atoms in the wall.  You get different results depending upon the angle at which the "waves" (or photons) hit the atoms in the wall.  The illustration below shows light "waves" hitting a wall at two slightly different angles, one angle producing a dark spot ("destructive interference") and the other angle producing a bright spot ("constructive interference").

interfering light waves 

What the illustration above does not show is that, in order to see the pattern, the wall must emit light back to your eye.  We know that when a photon hits an atom in the wall, the photon is momentarily absorbed.  The atom then immediately finds it cannot hold the extra energy and instantly emits a totally new photon in some random direction. 

If we assume that your eye is at the location marked by (a) or (b) in the above illustration, the light must be emitted by atoms in the wall in order to reach your eye.  And the light emitted by the wall must travel through other light "waves" or photons moving toward the wall in order for you to see it.  And there clearly is no interference when this happens. 

The point is: Light waves and/or photons from two or more different sources do NOT interfere with one another as they travel from point to point.  They only  "interfere" when they hit an atom in the wall virtually simultaneously.

How can a spreading water-like wave hit an individual atom?  It can't.  It seems totally illogical to believe that a single water-like wave can hit a single atom.  But a photon certainly can.

As I envision it, what happens when two photons (or waves) hit a single atom at the same time depends upon the angle of arrival.  In order for two photons from a common source to hit an atom at different angles, the photons cannot move in a straight line but must move in a wave-like pattern, like so:

photon wave pattern 
This allows two photons from the same source to hit a single atom from different angles.  Like so:

two identical photons hitting an

What happens next seems to depend upon the type of photon and the type of atom.  The so-called "destructive interference" cannot destroy the photons, since energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed into a different kind of energy.  Logically, the atom could emit a single photon of higher energy, which would put it into a range that is not visible to the naked eye, such as heat energy.  So, it would show a dark pattern on the wall, but the wall would feel warm.  That seems to explain the dark lines on the wall.

If the photons hit the atom at the same angle, the atom will evidently emit two identical photons and it will show "constructive interference" as a bright pattern on the wall.

If two photons hit at slightly different angles, you should get what is seen in the first illustration above: a different intensity of light depending upon how many photons are being re-emitted that are identical to what was absorbed and how many photons are being converted to higher-level energy such as heat.  The illustration below shows the same kind of "interference pattern."  There are bright lines and dark lines, and the edges of the lines are fuzzy, not clear, since they are a blend of light and dark.

interference pattern

Hmm. Instead of working on my paper, I've worked on this comment as if I was working on my paper.  One difference is that this comment is going to get "published" on this web site, whereas if it was written for a scientific paper, it would probably just end up as version #47 in a folder containing many versions.  Another difference is that I probably won't rewrite this version.  I'll just leave it as representing my thinking as of this moment.  I could very easily change my thinking five minutes from now.  If I do, then I'll have to decide if I want to revise this comment or not.

Comments for Sunday, Nov. 5, 2017, thru Saturday, Nov. 11, 2017:

November 9, 2017 - The last time I heard from that group that is or was putting together a TV documentary series about the anthrax attacks of 2001, they said they expected to pay me a visit in early November.  They also said they'd give me two week's notice before showing up at my door.  They haven't given any such notice, and we're well into early November.  So, I'm just going to assume that they aren't going to be paying me any visit until next spring, if at all.  I could contact them and ask them about the status of their project, but I think it is easier to just wait to see what happens.  I don't want to put them on the spot of having to tell me that I won't be in their "pilot" episode.  Or maybe the whole idea just didn't pan out.  That's show biz.

I'm still trying to write a scientific paper about the wave theory of light versus the particle theory of light, but I'm having a really hard time getting organized.  I've got one 26-page paper of pieces and starts, and another 30-page paper of pieces and starts, but there's no real organization to either of them.  The problem is that there are so many different ways to view the issue.  Plus, every time I start writing, I end up doing some research which uncovers another angle that I feel I need to examine. 

Yesterday, when I got hung up on how to organize the paper, I finished winterizing my apartment (putting plastic over the windows, air-conditioner and balcony door), and I laid down on my couch once again to finish listening to another audio book on my MP3 player.  It was "The Lost Continent: Travels in Small-Town America" by Bill Bryson.

The Lost Continent by Bill Bryson

It's an abridged BBC radio version of the 384 page original, although I didn't know that when I "borrowed" it from the library. It was just 2 hours and 19 minutes long.

It's probably a good thing that I didn't pick the unabridged audio version that is available elsewhere.  While Bill Bryson is becoming one of my favorite authors, The Lost Continent was very mean-spirited in parts.  America-born, Bryson lived in England for ten years before deciding to return for a visit to his home down of Des Moines, Iowa, and take a long drive around America to see how things had changed while he was gone.  According to the Amazon description:

his hopes of finding the American dream end in a nightmare of greed, ignorance and pollution.
It is not as bad as all that, and it is very funny in parts.  However, when he describes trying to understand Southern accents, it is more ridicule than humor.  And he clearly prefers the English and European practice of restoring old buildings instead of tearing everything down and constructing new buildings as we tend to do in America.  When he talks about "ignorance," he talked about how he found the typical American didn't know who Thomas Hardy was.  That hit home, since I recalled the name and believed Hardy was a writer, but I didn't recall any more than that.  Researching Hardy this morning, I find that I don't really want to know any more than that.  Hardy wrote some famous books that I never read (Tess of the d'Urbervilles and Far from the Madding Crowd) and have no interest in reading.  So, if Bill Bryson looks down on me because I haven't read those books, that's not something that's going to keep me up at night.  The humor in Bryson's books is the reason I read them.  I have several more audio books by him in my listening queue.  I still look forward to listening to them, even if I didn't particularly like Bryson's superior attitude in The Lost Continent. 

November 7, 2017 - During breakfast and lunch, I've been reading a book on my Kindle about explorers, a book that makes a very interesting point about explorers of every type, geographical, cultural and scientific: They are all driven by curiosity.

It strikes home because I'm constantly driven by curiosity.  I've wandered alone around Tokyo, Bangkok, Nakhon Phenom, Hong Kong, London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Paris, Málaga, Torremolinos, Rome, Naples, Florence, Venice, Madrid, San Juan, St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. Kitts, St. Maarten and cities and towns in 44 of the 50 United States.  A web page I found this morning lists 4 types of "explorers."  Type 4 is a "wanderer" who is just curious.  That's me.

I spent about 11 years studying every aspect of the anthrax attacks of 2001 simply because I was fascinated by it and curious.  There were many scientific aspects to the case that aroused my curiosity.  And the crazy theories people had about the case were endlessly fascinating.  I've always been interested and curious about science.  And now I'm curious about physics.  How can colleges and universities teach total nonsense like the mathematicians' All Observers Theory?  And why haven't scientists and physicists figured out whether light is a wave, a particle or something else?  Why is it still "a mystery" after 200 years of arguing about it?

This morning I awoke thinking I should focus my paper on why light is NOT a particle nor a wave, instead of whether it IS a particle or a wave.  Light is NOT a wave, like waves on a pond or sea, because the waves can pass through each other undisturbed.  Waves on a pond cannot pass through each other.  They interact.  Light is NOT a particle, like a grain of sand or dust, because the particles do not collide when traveling in opposite directions.  Light supposedly consists of "photons," but photons cannot be particles like other particles.  You can crash particles into each other in a particle accelerator, but apparently you cannot crash photons into each other.  It doesn't seem logical that photons can pass through each other since they do collide with walls and solid objects.  So, they apparently have the ability to avoid some collisions by deflection.

And that suggests that photons pass through glass by deflection, not the way electrons pass through wires, by being absorbed and recreated.

Of course, I could be wrong.  I'm curious to find out if I am or not.   

November 6, 2017 - I'm trying to get back to work on my paper about whether light consists of particles or waves.  This morning, while doing some research, I found a YouTube video that explains the situation nicely:

The video makes no attempt to resolve the question.  And it seems that that is the way the problem is viewed: It's an unresolved question.  And no one seems interested in resolving it.

Of particular interest to me in the video was the explanation at about the 2:00 minute mark where they stated that light "cannot be made up of tiny atom-like particles" because they would crash into one another when they crossed paths.  But isn't that something that waves always do?  Don't waves always crash into each other when they cross paths?  How can that be an argument against light consisting of particles?

And, too, light particles aren't "atom-like."  They are incredibly tiny compared to atoms.  In theory, kazillions could cross paths in a room without any collisions at all.  Light can supposedly travel through water and glass without colliding with anything.  Dozens of sources describe it as being like a person entering a crowded room from one door, moving through the crowd by weaving back and forth to avoid collisions, and exiting via another door.  The weaving back and forth "slows down" the light while it is crossing the room (i.e., it takes longer to travel a specified distance), but it returns to full speed when it exits and moves in a straight line again.  Why wouldn't two beams of particles of light avoid collisions the same way?

Researching further, I found a video in which scientist Michio Kaku says that light doesn't weave around things as it moves through glass or water, it crashes into one atom which creates a new photon which crashes into the next atom which creates a new photon which crashes into the next photon, and on and on until the light exits the glass.  Who is right?  I dunno.  I need to do further research. 

When trying to find answers, sometimes you just find more questions.

November 5, 2017 - I'm still doing research and bouncing around ideas on how to change or rewrite my paper about "Time Dilated Light," and how to organize my new paper about the Wave Theory of Light versus the Particle Theory of Light in order to make the points I want to make.  So, being unable to decide on what changes to make or which paper to work on, yesterday I laid down on the couch once again and finished listening to another audio book on my MP3 player.

The book consisted of just 3 MP3 files, totaling only 2 hours and 34 minutes of listening time.  It was "City of The Soul" by William Murray.

City of the Soul
Of the many places I've visited in my life, Rome was definitely one of the cities I liked best.  I visited it twice, as I recall, back in the 1970s or 1980s.  The first time was on a TWA tour of 3 capitals: London, Paris and Rome.  The second time was on a TWA tour labeled "Italy by Train," which began in Rome, then via trains to Naples and Pompeii, then to Florence, to Venice (probably my favorite city to visit), and the tour ended in Milan.  (Instead of returning to the U.S. with the others on the tour, I rented a car and spent a few days visiting Nice, Cannes and Monaco, before returning to Milan to get a later flight.)  All together, I spent maybe a week in Rome. 

I had a problem right away while listening to the audio book.  I needed a map to see where things were located.  I dug through a box of maps I had collected during my visits to other countries, but for some inexplicable reason, I didn't seem to have a map of Rome.  I have maps of probably two dozen other cities, but not Rome.  (I may just have misplaced it.)  So, I opened my small laptop on the coffee table next to the couch and used it to find the places mentioned by the author.  Then, a few times, I "toured" the area using Google Maps' "street view" option.  When the author talked about the "baboon" statue after which the Via del Babuino ("Street of the Baboon") was named,
I found a lot of pictures of the statue (It's not a really statue of a baboon, it's a statue of a mythical creature that is half man and half goat), but I couldn't visualize it as a "Roman Statue" you would come upon while walking down Via del Babuino.

Statue on Rome's Via del Babuino

I'd never visited that particular area.  The statue's location didn't seem to be identified on any map.  So, I used Google Maps' "Street View" option to go hunt for the statue.   It was like looking through my computer to see the street as I "walked" from Piazza del Spagna (where the "Spanish Steps" are located) toward Piazza del Popolo, checking both sides of the street.  And then I found it.  It is definitely not like any other "Roman Statue" I had ever seen.  And it's difficult to understand why a major Roman street would be named after it.
Via de Babuino statue

You could easily walk right past the statue without noticing it.  It's up against the wall of a restaurant, maybe fifteen feet from where the Google camera passed by.  It's certainly nothing "special" in appearance.  But, it was very interesting to look for it that way.

I wouldn't recommend "City of the Soul" to people who have never been to Rome.  There are probably hundreds of better books about the city.  But, if you already like Rome and have a few hours you need to kill in some way, it's an available option.  I enjoyed listening to it, even though there were parts that had only to do with the author's life there (including family problems and the death of his mother) and nothing to do with touring the city.  The author is an Italian-American journalist who lived in various parts of the city for around 50 years.

I awoke this morning once again thinking about the scientific papers I want to revise and write.  There are a lot of things I still need to visualize and get clear in my mind, particularly gravitational redshifting.  Wikipedia says,

In astrophysics, gravitational redshift or Einstein shift is the process by which electromagnetic radiation originating from a source that is in a gravitational field is reduced in frequency, or redshifted, when observed in a region at a higher gravitational potential. This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation—if one is outside of an isolated gravitational source, the rate at which time passes increases as one moves away from that source.
I can't make any sense of that.  If you view light as particles instead of waves, then "reduced in frequency, or red shifted" simply means the particles are farther apart.  And then it doesn't matter where you are located when you observe it.  The particles will always be farther apart.  As I visualize it, redshifting is not the "result of gravitational time dilation."  The reverse might be true: Redshifting might somehow be the result of Time Dilation.  However, it seems more likely that redshifting and gravitational Time Dilation are separate phenomena both caused by the same thing: gravity.

I just need to focus and think it through.

Comments for Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2017, thru Saturday, Nov. 4, 2017:

November 3, 2017 - While I was pumping away on the Exercycle at the gym yesterday afternoon, the TV that normally shows CNN but which has been dark for over a month, suddenly started showing a moving sign that said the TV was on but there was no input signal.  After a minute or two, a picture appeared on the screen, but it was CBS.  Then, a few minutes later, it changed to CNN.  There wasn't anyone around me visibly changing channels, as far as I could tell.  I could only guess that they were working behind the wall on which the bank of 7 TVs were mounted.   So, I am once again able to watch CNN while on an Exercycle.   And the TV in the bank of 5 TVs that hang from the ceiling behind the Exercycles for viewing by people on the last two rows of treadmills, that had also been dark, is now also working again, and I was right, it does show CNN. 

So, now I guess I'll watch to see if that guy who was ranting at CNN shows up again.  I haven't seen him since CNN was turned off.  Maybe that is what the management of the gym is also doing.  He may have joined just for a week, solely for the purpose of trying to get them to turn off CNN.  It will be interesting to see if he shows up again.

Meanwhile, this morning I read through my first "scientific" paper, which was titled "Time Dilated Light," and I started modifying it.  But, I think it's going to take a lot more than fixing a few sentences.   It appears I'm going to have to rewrite the entire paper.  The current version certainly doesn't reflect my current thinking.   I'm not going to delete it from ViXra.org, since it does show what I was thinking early last year.  However, I have deleted the link to the version that I had on this web site. 

November 2, 2017 - This morning I remembered something else I'd seen recently that related to the hundred-year-old debate over whether light is a wave or a particle.  It wasn't about visible light, though.  It was about cosmic "rays." 

Last week, astronaut Scott Kelly was on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and he talked about how cosmic "rays" cause astronauts to see tiny flashes of light when they close their eyes while out beyond Earth's atmosphere.  There's a YouTube video of that interview.

They start talking about it at the 3:30 minute mark.  It seems easy to explain if  light (and cosmic "rays") are particles and the flashes are "
the result of actual photons of visible light being sensed by the retina" (quoted from Wikipedia), but how could anyone use the wave theory of light to explain such a phenomenon? 

I wondered if that might be an argument worth mentioning in my paper about Wave Theory vs Particle Theory.  I couldn't make up my mind, so I turned off my computer, laid down on the couch in the living room, and I finished reading a book I have on my Kindle.  The book is "Physics for Future Presidents; The Science Behind the Headlines" by Richard A. Muller. 

Physics for Future Presidents

The book contained a lot of interesting details about things that would be very important for a President to know, but mostly it seemed to be about how things are never as simple as they seem.  (Donald Trump should have learned that lesson by now.)  The author writes about atomic weapons and how they differ from one another.  He writes about energy problems and the advantages and disadvantages of oil, coal, and nuclear power.  He writes about the 9/11 terrorists investigating the possibility of using crop duster aircraft as flying bombs before they settled on hijacking commercial airliners. (I always advocated that point of view against the ridiculous idea that the 9/11 terrorists would were going to use the crop dusters to spray anthrax over some city (which would have required a LOT of anthrax that was never found anywhere)).

The last few chapters of the book are mostly about global warming.  What the author says is that while it seems a virtual certainty that global warming is being aggravated by humans burning too much fossil fuels, it is not 100% certain, and if the President says something is a "certainty" that is only 90% likely, he's likely to do his agenda more harm than good.  Many Americans do not seem able to cope with things that are not 100% certain (President Trump being a prime example).  If they are not 100% safe, then they are in danger.  If there is a .0001% chance that they might be killed by terrorists, that is too big a chance.  They don't want to risk it. 

It was an enjoyable book, and definitely worth reading, but, instead of science and physics books, I think I'm going to focus on humor, history and travel books for awhile.  I downloaded a few and put about ten more "on reserve" at the library.  And I've already started reading history book on my Kindle, I'm listening to a travel book on my MP3 player, and while driving I'm listening to a humor book I burned on CDs.    

November 1, 2017 - I've been thinking a lot lately about working on my paper about the Wave Theory of Light versus the Particle Theory of Light, but I also know I need to get my apartment ready for winter.  A few days ago, I needed to make a decision: Which should I do?  So, what I did was lay around on my couch and finish listening to the 10-part audio book version of "I Must Say: My Life as a Humble Comedy Legend" by Martin Short.

I Must Say

As near as I can tell, I paused in listening to it on my MP3 player while working out at the gym sometime in mid-2016.  That's about when I decided that listening to audio books while at the gym was not the best way to spend my mental time there.  It was better if I just spent my time thinking while on the treadmill and the Exercycle, because I wanted to work on some scientific papers.  The first thing I do when I get to the gym is spend 30 minutes walking 1.6 miles on the treadmill.
And, for some reason, I get some of my best ideas while on the treadmill. 

Anyway, the MP3 player showed I had stopped listening to Short's book when I was about to start Part-7.  I decided to restart from Part-6.  This morning, while doing monthly backups of all my computer files, I finished Part-10.

The book is very funny in parts, and that is undoubtedly why I "borrowed" it from the library.  It was in their "Non-fiction Humor" section.  But it's also an autobiography, and the last three chapters are very sad, since they are largely about the author's ordeal of losing his wife to cancer.  But, it was still worth my time to finish listening to it, since the alternative would have been to winterize my apartment.  I plan to get to work on that this afternoon.

Even while listening to Short's book, I kept thinking about the Wave Theory of Light.  On the way home from the gym yesterday, I rented a DVD movie from RedBox, and last evening I watched a dubbed version of a Russian sci-fi film titled "The Guardians."  Coincidentally, it had a big scene involving hauling a gigantic "antenna" the size and shape of Tokyo Skytree from one place to another in downtown Moscow.  Someone needed the tall antenna in the new location for some sci-fi reason involving radio signals.  I could only wonder about other such tall structures and how they are used to hold antennas so that radio waves can travel farther, the Empire State Building being the best example. 

Perhaps even more coincidentally, after the movie was over I watched last night's episode of "NCIS," which just happened to be largely about a murdered short wave radio enthusiast who was also in the Navy.  A large part of NCIS solving the murder was the result of the short wave radio supposedly having a range of only about 60 miles.  Therefore, they were able to track down another short wave radio enthusiast who had the clue needed to solve the murder.

My understanding of short wave radio is that the signals bounce off of atoms in the ionosphere and therefore can travel all the way around the world -- or at least to very great distances, far greater than 60 miles.   The reason for building tall antennas is for radio waves of longer lengths, which only reach shorter distances because you have to be in the transmitter's "line of sight" to receive the signals.  That means that the higher the transmitter antenna, the farther the radio waves will travel before the curvature of the earth causes the waves to head off into outer space.  They do not bounce off the ionosphere.  

I assume the NCIS show was written by someone who knew about CB radios and CB radio enthusiasts and thought CB radios were still as popular as they were in the 1960s and 70s, before cell phones turned out to be much easier to use.  So, instead of just throwing out the script, they changed it to be about short wave radio enthusiasts - perhaps thinking that very few in their audience would even know about short wave radios and how they are for long range communications.  Thus they also wouldn't know that shortwave radio is virtually dead in the U.S.

Anyway, it was like the universe was telling me that I need to work on my paper about the ridiculous Wave Theory of Light (which includes radio waves).

But first I need to winterize my apartment. 

Comments for Sunday, October 29, 2017, thru Tuesday, October 31, 2017:

October 29, 2017 - It's another one of those Sundays when I have absolutely nothing prepared for my Sunday comment.  So, I'll have to write something from scratch.

My paper about analyzing Paul Langevin's so-called "Twin Paradox" is going nowhere.  I think the problem may be that I never had a specific goal in mind when I started working on it.  As I recall,
I began with the idea - derived from GPS clocks - of sending along a clock that would tick at Earth rate, while leaving behind a clock that would tick at spaceship rate.  So, both parties would know how fast or slow time was passing or the other person.  That might shoot down the mathematicians who believe that Time Dilation is reciprocal, and that each party will see time slowing down for the other person.

But, I ended up
just reading and studying Langevin's 1911 paper while looking for interesting things in it that I might comment upon.  The paper is 16 pages long, the "Twin Paradox" part of it doesn't appear until page 13, and then it isn't about any twins.  It is about a "traveler" who rockets off into space at a speed where one  year for him is one hundred years for people back on Earth.  So, when he returns after traveling for two years on the spaceship, people on Earth will have recorded the passage of two hundred years.  There is no interesting explanation of how Time Dilation works.  It just works, and a moving traveler experiences time pass more slowly than someone who is not moving - or not moving as fast.  Langevin writes more about signal wavelengths and how long antennas must be when traveling at relativistic speeds in order to capture the long wavelengths, and he writes more about other problems seen in 1911 for sending messages from Earth to the spaceship and from the spaceship to Earth, than he does about Time Dilation. 

On the next to last page of his paper, Langevin wrote:
In addition, we have good reason to think that, if a projectile arrived back at the Earth at a velocity of this order, the Earth would not even be aware of its arrival, and that the projectile would come to a stop only when it had reached a certain depth in the earth, without even leaving a hole at the point on the surface through which it would have passed.
He's saying that when you are traveling at 99.995% of the speed of light you will consist of little more than electromagnetic waves, and thus you can pass through most solid materials with ease.  He says nothing about the BIG difference of having an electromagnetic wave pass through solid matter and having quadrillions of electromagnetic waves all hit a tiny piece of solid matter at the same time.  How can I write a paper that poses more questions than it answers?

What I've been doing for the past few weeks is starting the paper over and over again.  I've got lots and lots of "starts" that go nowhere.   And it seems clear that nothing that I've written so far is going to change anyone's mind about anything.

So, maybe it is time to go back to working on my paper about the wave theory of light vs the particle theory of light.  It seems ABSURD that scientists are content with using wave theory when it solves a problem and using particle theory when wave theory doesn't work.  Why haven't they figured out how light really travels and what it looks like?  Is it because they only work with mathematics and do not attempt to view the question logically?  There must be some logical reason that light photons get diffracted when passing near an object. 
dif·frac·tion -dəˈfrakSH(ə)n -noun
  1. the process by which a beam of light or other system of waves is spread out as a result of passing through a narrow aperture or across an edge, typically accompanied by interference between the wave forms produced.
In the 1938 book Einstein wrote with Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics,  they wrote this in italics on page 126:
In optics we have to decide in favour of the wave theory against the corpuscular theory of light. Waves spreading in a medium consisting of particles, with mechanical forces acting between them, are certainly a mechanical concept. But what is the medium through which light spreads and what are its mechanical properties? There is no hope of reducing the optical phenomena to the mechanical ones before this question is answered. But the difficulties in solving this problem are so great that we have to give it up and thus give up the mechanical views as well.
So, there must be a medium through which "waves" travel?  And this "medium" must exist in vacuum chamber in a laboratory, as well as throughout space?  Why?

Evidently, the answer is that you cannot have "waves" unless you have some "medium" in which the "waves" travel, like water waves and air waves.  But if light is a particle, then you do not need a "medium," you need some explanation for why the particles travel in a "wave-like" pattern.  And you need to explain diffraction.  It seems no one can do that with particles.
Maybe I just need to better understand the problem.  And the way to do that is to get back to work on my paper about "the problem."

So, as of this moment, that's the plan.

Comments for Sunday, October 22, 2017, thru Saturday, October 28, 2017:

October 26, 2017 - When I'm on the exercycle at the gym, there are 7 large flat-screen TVs high on the wall in front of me.  For the last month or more, 2 of them have been turned off, specifically the one that shows CNN and the one that shows NBC.  The other TVs on the wall in front of the exercycles show TBS, ESPN, ABC, FOX and FOX News.  The one with FOX News is at the far end, away from the exercycles, so I can't watch it (unless I want to exercise on one of the step machines, which I don't want to do).  All that I can watch are sports, old TV shows and soap operas.  So, I watch nothing.

It took me awhile to wonder if it was political.  Have they turned off CNN and NBC because Donald Trump doesn't like those networks?  I asked the manager why CNN was turned off, and he told me the set wasn't working.  However, there are 5 other flat-screen TVs hanging from the ceiling where they can be seen from the back two rows of treadmills.  One of those TVs is also turned off.  I can't be certain, but I think it is also the one that was set to show CNN.  So, both of the TVs that show CNN just happen to be the only ones that don't work?

A couple months ago, when CNN was still working, there was some old, grumpy codger who would come to the gym while I was there and he'd exercise on one of the machines in front of the 7 TVs.  And he'd occasionally start ranting at the one showing CNN, complaining that CNN was picking on Trump whenever they showed the latest stupid thing that Trump had done.  So, I have to wonder: Did the gym management turn off CNN because others like that grumpy codger were disturbing the other patrons?  I go to the gym right after lunch, which is probably one of the slowest times of the day for them.  I wonder if there are others who were ranting at CNN during the busier times.  That could have caused them to turn off CNN.  And probably NBC, too.

I was tempted to contact my local newspaper to suggest it as a news story, but I think they may be Trump supporters, too.

Right after typing the above comment, an idea occurred to me.  I quickly did a Google search for "CNN turned off at gyms" and found a link to a Reddit comment: "
Just called my gym and asked them to turn off CNN. They said they would SWITCH all big screens to something non-political! ASK YOUR GYM TO #TURNOFFCNN."  And virtually all the responses that follow that comment are viciously anti-CNN and pro-Trump.

Continuing through the search results, I found a Huffington Post story titled "A Gym Just Banned Cable News Because People Kept Fighting."  It's about a gym in Pennsylvania.  And then I found a news story from England titled "Kansas gym BANS its TVs showing CNN and Fox News because members keep arguing and fighting over politics."

Sigh.  That seems to be the answer.  And I guess I'll just have to live with it.  

Meanwhile, I'm really getting frustrated with the paper I'm writing about the Twin Paradox.  The math is really boggling my mind.  I'm doing the math so that I can have actual numbers to use while describing how long it would take for messages transmitted hourly from Earth to be received on a space ship going 99.995% of the speed of light.  Would the messages be received at regular intervals or would the intervals between messages get larger and larger as the spaceship got farther and farther from Earth?  I keep thinking it must be the latter, but then it seems that, no, they will arrive at regular intervals.  I just need to find the right way to do the math in order to get the right answer.  But, before I can do that I have to visualize what's happening.  And it seems that one day I'll visualize it one way, and the next day I'll visualize it the other way.

One thing is for certain, though.  I need to stop writing comments about it until I'm absolutely certain which way is correct.  

October 24, 2017 - Today, I had to go back to Sunday's comment and remove this part of it:
At first they'll [the messages from Earth will] still arrive years apart (Earth time), but gradually they'll arrive closer and closer together.  Message 45 should arrive a little over 2 years (Earth time) after message 44 arrived.  But, on the spaceship where time passes 100 times slower than on Earth, message 45 will arrive a little over 8 days after message 44 arrived.
While I was working out at the gym this afternoon a bunch of things occurred to me.  First, I realized that while a spaceship is traveling away from Earth, messages from earth will arrive at c - v, where v is the speed of the space ship.  That's why the person on the space ship only received 44 hourly messages during the hundred Earth years he was traveling at 99.995010548264% of the speed of light.  And, of course, that is in direct conflict with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  The messages arrived at the spaceship at a steady rate, one message every 8.35 days (as days are measured on the spaceship).  They didn't arrive farther and farther apart during the outbound trip.   Nor do they arrive closer and closer together during the return trip.    

On the way home, the messages will arrive at c + v, where v is the speed of the spaceship.  If I've done the math correctly (the odds are that I probably haven't) that means that the time between hourly messages received during the return trip will be 7 minutes and 11 seconds.  I'll have to double check and verify that, but it seems the messages will arrive at a stead rate of one hourly message every 7 minutes and 11 seconds, and one daily message every 2 hours and 48 minutes as measured on the spaceship where time runs 100 times slower than on Earth where the messages were sent daily.

I'm using a spreadsheet program to do the calculations.  I'll double check everything, but I think it's going to be another undeniable situation where the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" is shown to be nonsense.    According to that theory, there are no c + v or c - v calculations, and regardless of the speed or direction of the spaceship, it will always receive light signals arriving a c.   

I think I can also see where the misconception comes from.  If the space ship is traveling at a speed where 1 second aboard the ship is 100 seconds back on Earth, that means if they measure the speed of light in their "frame of reference" aboard the ship using standard equipment for measuring the speed of light, they will measure it as traveling at c.  But that is a measurement in a "frame of reference" where 1 second is the same as 100 seconds back on Earth.  They get c only because their atomic clock is running 100th the speed of a clock on Earth.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the messages traveling at the speed of light that they will be receiving.  Those messages will appear to be arriving much slower than the speed of light when moving away from the source, and much faster than the speed of light when moving toward the source.

I feel like my mind is nearly boggled.  I'll have to continue working on the numbers to verify them (and re-verify them) before I finish the paper I'm writing about the so-called "Twin Paradox."  But this latest realization has really made the paper seem a lot more worthwhile.

October 23, 2017 - Hmm.  Someone who has been following the investigation of the anthrax attacks of 2001 for as long as I have just sent me an email with a link to a podcast (and a link to a transcript of the podcast) where someone from the CDC interviews a CDC pathologist who worked on the case.  It is from the CDC's "MMWR" which means "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report."  Evidently, it is something that First Responders routinely read. 

The podcast is only about 9 minutes long, but it does contain a tidbit of information that was new to me.  It says that the first victim after the Florida case (Tom Brokaw's assistant) insisted that she be tested for anthrax when the lesion on her chest became black and crusty and wouldn't go away.  The transcript says,
This patient had actually heard about the case in Florida. She was previously tested for anthrax, it was negative, but she went back to the public health department and said, “I want to be tested for anthrax.” So they took a skin biopsy and sent it to our laboratory. And that’s when we confirmed that it was actually cutaneous anthrax and raised the concern at that point if it was an intentional release.
Previously, I think news reports suggested that it was her doctor who decided to test for anthrax.  But, it has been 16 years since it happened, and it's difficult to remember details like that.   

October 22, 2017 - I had another little "epiphany" on Wednesday.  I was working on a new paper tentatively titled "Analyzing Langevin's Twin Paradox."  (I previously mentioned it in my October 15, 2017 comment.)  It's basically just an analysis of Langevin's 1911 paper "The Evolution of Space and Time" which presented the "Twin Paradox" to the world, even though it never uses that term.  

While working on that paper, I suddenly had this realization of how gravitational time dilation works.  It works different from velocity time dilation, but I'd been viewing the two dilation processes the same way - as simply the slowing of particle spin, which still seems to be true.  However, I'd realized that velocity and gravity do not slow down particle spin the same way.  They just have the same slowing effect on particle spin.  As I visualize and understand it, velocity time dilation is caused by particle spin bumping up against the natural maximum speed of light.  Gravitational time dilation, of course, has nothing to do with the maximum speed of light.  I didn't really understand how it worked.  Then, on Wednesday, suddenly I did.  It had nothing to do with the paper I was working on, so the idea must have been bouncing  around in my sub-conscious as an "unsolved problem" for months or even a year or more.  And suddenly the pieces fell into place.  I quickly made some notes, realizing that I'll have to modify my paper on "Time Dilated Light," which I haven't even looked at in over a year.  Should I write it as a modification to that paper, or as a new paper?  Right now, I'm thinking of it as a modification.  That paper definitely needs some major modifications.  And I'll probably have to re-title it to "Gravity Dilated Light."

What I realized was that light only travels at its maximum velocity in a vacuum.  It slows down in air.  It slows down in water.  And, reportedly, it
goes back to its higher velocity as soon as it leaves the air or water and returns to free space again.  But light that is "gravitational redshifted" supposedly has a "longer wavelength" when it escapes from the area of heavy gravity.  And it never goes back to its "normal" wavelength.  Moreover, it is only determined to have a "longer wavelength" because it has a lower frequency, and mathematicians see a direct one-to-one relationship between wavelength and frequency.   However, if light consists of particles instead of waves (which experiments show to be undeniably true), then "lower frequency" actually means the photons or particles are farther apart.  And that means they must have been slowed down. 

The problem now is to put that into a "scientific paper."  In doing so I might find that there is some logical problem that hasn't yet occurred to me.  Only time will tell.  I have no one I can ask about it.  Mathematician-physicists will just call me names, insult me, and tell me I need to take the same math courses they took in college.  Physicists (if I knew any or how to contact them) don't seem to have the time to discuss it, and, even if they did, it appears they wouldn't want to get into a situation where they'd be pitted against the angry, dogma-citing mathematician-physicists who do not like to have their sacred equations questioned.

I'm going to let the idea gestate for awhile as I go back to work on my Twin Paradox paper.  I'm analyzing the problem described in Langevin's paper of sending a person at 99.995% of the speed of light into space and then sending him daily reports of what is happening on Earth while he's gone.  And the traveler will send daily reports back to Earth.  How long will it take the daily reports to catch up with the traveler, and how often will the reports arrive from the traveler if he is getting farther and farther away every day, are questions which involve a lot of math.  However, it won't be math as seen in typical scientific papers, the math will involve numbers instead of symbols and equations, and I'll be explaining how you use one number to get to another.  Here's an example paragraph:

Since the traveler is traveling at nearly the speed of light, every signal from a wireless transmitter on Earth will have to catch up with him, and the farther away he gets, the longer it will take a signal to catch up.  At 99.995010548264% of the speed of light, twenty-four hours after departure (assuming no acceleration is needed to get to the specified speed), the traveler will be 60x60x24=86,400 seconds from earth at 299,777.5 kilometers per second, or 25,900,776,000 kilometers away.  Pluto, when it is closest to Earth, is just 4.28 billion kilometers away.  So, the traveler will be roughly 6 times farther away than Pluto when he has traveled just 24 Earth hours. And 24 Earth hours later, he will be another 25.9 billion kilometers away.

At the rate the person in the spaceship is traveling, one day for him will be equal to 100 days back on Earth.  So, for every daily message he sends to Earth, the Earth will be sending him 100 messages.  But, according to Langevin, he's going so fast, and it takes so long for the messages to catch up with him, that he'll receive only 2 days of messages by the time he gets to to his turnaround point a hundred light years out in space.  He's going to be traveling 1 spaceship-year outbound and another spaceship-year coming back, while people on Earth will be living through 200 Earth-years.

He'll be just 2 years older when he gets back to Earth.  Langevin didn't have any 230-year-old twin waiting for his 32-year-old brother.  He just wrote about a traveler and people on Earth.  It's fascinating stuff - for me - and I'm trying to recalculate Langevin's numbers.  He says the traveler will receive only 2 days worth of messages from Earth during his outbound trip.  If messages are sent to the space ship from Earth every hour after the space ship departed, my computations show that the traveler will receive only 44 hourly messages during his outbound trip.  So Langevin was giving us a number rounded to the nearest day.  The 45th hourly message will arrive while the traveler is on his way back.

Langevin wrote:

During the return journey, conditions will be reversed.  Each of them will see the other living at a singularly accelerated rate, two hundred times more quickly than normal, and during the year for which the return journey will last for him the explorer will see the Earth perform the actions of two centuries; it can thus be seen that on his return he will find the Earth two hundred years older.

Again, Langevin is rounding his numbers.  Except for those first 44 hourly messages received during the outbound trip, all the hourly messages sent from Earth during the 100 outbound-years (minus 44 hours) and 100 inbound-years will arrive while the traveler is on his way home.  The problem is to find the best way to use these numbers in a scientific paper.  For some reason, Langevin has the people on Earth and the person on the space ship "see" each other living "two hundred times more quickly than normal."  I'll just have them receiving messages sent hourly and daily.  That way there should be less confusion between the time delay in receiving incoming messages and Time Dilation where time is 100 times slower on the spaceship than on Earth.  And the only way anyone can "see" time running at a different rate for someone else is when the traveler looks out the window of his spaceship and sees the Earth rotating around the Sun every 3.65 days - according to all the clocks on the spaceship.  

Meanwhile, I keep wanting to get back to work on my paper about the Wave Theory of light versus the Particle theory of light.  I just can't understand why it isn't a top priority for the whole scientific community to figure out which is correct.  It appears that mathematicians currently have control of such things, and they are evidently perfectly content to use wave theory math when it gives them good results and to use particle theory math when wave theory math doesn't work.  To me, that is just plain STUPID, since, to me, science is all about solving mysteries.  And whether light is a wave or a particle is a "mystery" that should have been fully solved decades ago.  It seems to be the key to solving a lot of other "mysteries" as well.

Unfortunately, I'm not in charge of setting up scientific research priorities.   

Comments for Sunday, October 15, 2017, thru Saturday, October 21, 2017:

October 20, 2017 - While on my way home from the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #4 of the 4-CD set for the audio book version of "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry" by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Astrophysics for People in a Hurry

It was a very enjoyable book, even though there were parts of it that were of little interest to me, and there were other parts that were of great interest but which went by so quickly there wasn't time to think about what I'd just heard.  Plus, I'm really working hard on some scientific papers I'm writing, so that was also on my mind, making it difficult to listen to the book while also paying full attention to my driving.  Since it looks like the work on the papers is going to take awhile, I decided that the next book I'll be listening to while driving (which I began about a minute after finishing Tyson's book) will be less serious.  I started listening to a book about writing for comedians.  That's about as different as they come.   

October 18, 2017 - When I checked my email inbox this morning, I found two emails from ViXra.org sent last night at 6:10 PM informing me that the newly revised versions of two of my papers were now on-line.  The latest version (version #5) of my paper on The Reality of Time Dilation is at this link:
The latest version (version #2) of my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle is at this link:
When I checked the total number of unique views for each paper, I found that in the past 24 hours 5 new viewers had read the Time Dilation paper and 2 new viewers had read the Relativity paper.   I'm not sure how they were made aware of the changes.  As of this morning, vixra.org does not yet list the new versions as "Recent Submissions" on their "All Submission Categories" page.  And if the viewers follow my web site, they shouldn't be "new" viewers - unless vixra keeps track of "unique viewers" to each version of each paper.  I guess it's going to be another one of "life's little mysteries."

October 16, 2017 - The first thing I did this morning after completing my "on-line morning chores" was to submit the revised version of my paper on Time Dilation to viXra.org.  It will be version-5 when it appears on that site, probably later today.  In yesterday's comment I described the changes I made.

After submitting that paper, I immediately began working on a revision to my paper on "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" to include some things I mentioned in my September 27 comment.  I completed those changes and submitted the revised paper.  It will be version-2 when it appears.

I not only made changes to those papers but I also changed the physics sub-category in which they would be included.   Here's the list of viXra.org physics sub-categories:

                            physics categories
I'd previously placed the papers in the "Physics - Astrophysics" sub-category, not because I felt that was where they belonged but because that was the sub-category that is displayed when you choose a category.  I thought it meant "Physics & Astrophysics" instead of "Category Physics, sub-category Astrophysics."  Picking the right sub-category wasn't easy.  Judging only by the sub-category names, none looks perfect.  I finally chose to put them in the "Relativity and Cosmology" sub-category.  As defined on ViXra.org, that sub-category includes "classical physics of special and general relativity including cosmology and application in astrophysics."  Plus, it is the most popular of the sub-categories, with 2,629 papers in it as of this moment, nearly double the 1,365 papers in the Astrophysics sub-category.  (The second-most popular physics sub-category is "Quantum Physics" with 1,974 paper as of this moment, but my paper definitely does NOT fit in that sub-category.)        

If the new versions appear on viXra.org later today, I'll revise this comment to say so.  Meanwhile, with that off my mind, I can now work on a new paper about GPS clocks and the so-called Twin Paradox.

October 15, 2017 - I finally managed to make the changes to my paper on Time Dilation to correct what I'd written about the way GPS clocks work.  After I describe how Gravitation Time Dilation causes GPS clocks in orbit to run 45 microseconds faster per day, and Velocity Time Dilation causes them to run 7 microseconds slower per day, the version of the paper that is currently on viXra.org says,
As a result, the atomic clocks aboard each of the GPS satellites must be adjusted by 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38) or the whole GPS system would become worthless in a few days.
The new version that I will be uploading tomorrow says,
As a result, the atomic clocks aboard each of the GPS satellites were modified before launch to run 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38) slower than ground clocks, so that when they are in orbit, they will be synchronous with ground clocks.  Otherwise the whole GPS system would become totally worthless in a matter of days.
I also found that I'd modified the paper so many times while preparing different versions for different journals, that I needed to go through the entire paper line by line to make sure it is as good as I can currently make it.  The revised paper will include a lot of other minor changes, mostly just to make things more clear.

The next item on  my To-Do list was supposed to be to revise my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle to quote a section of the synchronization TEST from Einstein's 1905 paper and to step through the mathematics procedure instead of just generally describing the process.  But, making the change to the Time Dilation paper made me think more about the GPS clock modification.  If they can fix a clock to run slower on the ground so that it will be synchronous with ground clocks when in orbit, that technique can be used to help explain the so-called "Twin Paradox" (which is actually NOT a paradox to anyone except mathematicians). 

So, I decided to start working on a totally new paper titled something like "The Twin Paradox and GPS Clocks."  If you build a clock that runs 10 times faster than earth clocks when the clock is on earth, that clock will be synchronous with earth clocks when it is on a space ship going 95% of the speed of light.  And that would debunk all the idiotic nonsense generated by mathematicians about how each observer will see the other's clock as running slow.    

So, yesterday I started working on that new paper.  One of the first things I did was go looking for the paper by Paul Langevin which originated the so-called "Twin Paradox" thought experiment.  I'd decided I'd probably want to quote from it in my paper, plus I was curious about what it actually says.  The paper from 1911 was originally written in French.  Its English title is "The Evolution of Space and Time."  I did a Google search for that title and found a version created and translated by Wikisource.  But I wasn't sure that it would be a good idea to use a paper created by Wikisource as a reference. 

The only other English language version I could find was at the link HERE.  Instead of a pdf file, which I'd been hoping to find, it is a series of 16 jpg images of the individual pages.  So, I thought about turning the 16 images into a pdf file.  But I wouldn't be able to copy and paste quotes that way.   However, I knew of a source where I could do an OCR (Optical Character Recognition) scan of each jpg page to create a .txt file.  So, I tried it for the first page.  Here's what one paragraph near the bottom of the first page converted to:

Neither apaee nor time exiate a priori: ior every moment in time and ion every degree oi refinement oi our theoriee ahout the phyaieal world, there is a correeponrling eoneeptien oi apacc and time. The mechanietio theory thecld ' and L ‘ theory it u ' a new one. hut there in nothing to juatiiy our eeying that this will he the de~
initive one.
Hmm.  That was no good at all.  However, when I copied the entire jpg for that first page and plunked it into a WORD docx page, it pasted as a very small jpg file in the upper left corner, taking less than a 9th of the page (a third of the width and a third of the length).   I wondered if the size of the jpg image affected the OCR results.   So, I created a much larger version of the jpg image and ran that through the OCR scan program.  The same paragraph shown above then converted to this:
Neither space nor time exists a priori: for every moment in time and for every degree of refinement of our theories about the physical world, there is a corresponding conception of space and time. The mechanistic theory introduced the old conception. and the electromagnetic theory is now demanding a new one, but there is nothing to justify our saying that this will be the dew
flnitive one.

Ah!  That is greatly improved, perfect except for a period that should be a comma, and a screw-up on a hyphenated word, simple errors which I can fairly easily fix.   Then I wondered how that paragraph compares to the Wikisource translation.  Here's the same paragraph as translated by Wikisource:
There is neither space nor time à priori: to every moment, every level of perfection of our theories of the physical universe corresponds a conception of space and time. Mechanics implied the old conception, electromagnetism requires a new one, and nothing permits us to say that this is the definite one.
Wow!  That is a very different translation.  "Definitive" is very different from "definite," and the original French version uses the French word "dèfinitive."  I decided I will stick with the 1973 published translation by J. D. Sykes. 

But, I'm not sure what I'll quote.  The paper is very interesting in that it was written a year before anyone started manufacturing radios for use by the general public, and 9 years before the first radio news broadcast.  So, signals mentioned in the paper are sent using "wireless telegraphy" instead of "radio."  The paper explains how wireless telegraphy signals would be received from a ship going about 99 percent of the speed of light toward a distant star, where the wavelength of the signals would supposedly (if you believe in the wave theory of light) be extremely long on the outbound trip, and extremely short on the return trip.  Moreover, it would take a hundred years to get all the signals from the outbound trip, but just a year or so to get the signals from the return trip because the ship would be traveling nearly at the same speed as the signals on the way back.  And then it explains how the person on the ship would age much more slowly than someone on earth. 

The Time Dilation part of the paper seems to be in total agreement with Einstein and in total disagreement with the beliefs of many mathematicians.  That is probably why mathematician call it a "paradox," likely meaning "
a self-contradictory and false proposition" rather than "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth."  

Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what the paper prior to the Langevin paper in the on-line volume was all about.  It looks like a brief biography of part of Langevin's life, and it has this quote from Langevin on the first page:
Scientific effort is neither arbitrary nor isolated, since science itself is merely a slightly more advanced form of common sense. Scientific work proceeds in the same way as all human work and can be pursued only by maintaining contact with all the resources of the human collectivity.  It necessarily follows from this that we should not allow the result of our eflorts to be confined to a few minds. The things that are today common knowledge among the majority of men were, fifty years ago, the prerogative of a few intellects, and this progression will continue unceasingly because scientific knowledge is one of the stages in the collective adaptation of thought to facts.
A man after my own heart.  The first part that I highlighted in red is definitely going to appear somewhere in my new paper, and I might include it in revisions to other papers where I write about how modern university physics text books declare that Relativity is contrary to "common sense" but then state that the nonsensical interpretation of Relativity presented in the text books must be accepted and believed anyway.

Comments for Sunday, October 8, 2017, thru Saturday, October 14, 2017:

October 12, 2017 -  This morning, I finished organizing my collection of papers downloaded from arXiv.org.  There are about 200 papers in the collection.  I created a spreadsheet in order by the ID number of the paper, then columns for the title, the author(s) and a priority number I assigned.  That allowed me to sort the whole list by priority and by author, putting the papers I currently think are most interesting at the top of the list.  (Priority #40 is reserved for 19 documents that are about "flyby anomalies," which I think may have something to do with the "mathematician's all observers theory.)  Here are the first 46 items on the sorted list:

Spreadsheet list
                            of papers from arxiv.org

The File IDs in red are those for which I also have created annotated versions (versions where I went through the paper highlighting passages and making notes).  The first item on the list was one I just finished reading during breakfast this morning.  I'll modify the priority codes as I go through the papers, giving the papers which have quotable and usable information a lower number, and giving papers which contain nothing of interest a high number.  I basically just skimmed through the papers when I was saving them, rarely bothering to read large parts of any of them.  And I doubt that I actually studied more than 2 or 3 of them.

While I was collecting the papers, I made notes about each paper in a WORD docx file that I still have in support of the spread sheet. 

Here's a page from the 55-page listing:

                              document list 

My plan when I started organizing the papers was to find scientists who might be willing to be "reviewers" for a paper I wanted to submit to a physics journal.  But that no longer seems like a viable idea.  In the latter half of 2016, I contacted a few authors on the list to ask their opinion of my Time Dilation paper.  Looking through those emails today, it seems like everyone has a slightly different idea about Time Dilation, and they are only interesting in getting their own ideas and papers published, not helping others get their papers published.  Evidently, physics can be a "cutthroat" business.

So, I'm not exactly sure what to do next.  I might try contacting the authors of some of the papers to explain how I disagree with something in their paper to see if a good discussion can come from it.  Or, if they make a good argument in their paper, I might contact them to discuss details or their reasoning.  I had the start of some good discussions last year, but I evidently wasn't ready to continue them when the physicist I was arguing with disagreed with me.  I'm ready now.

October 11, 2017 - I awoke this morning at 5 a.m. with my mind going a million miles an hour as I tried to make sense of what I wrote yesterday about "Einstein's Mistake" regarding a "clock synchronization procedure," and the arguments I had on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum about that "clock synchronization procedure."  I couldn't fall back to sleep because I kept trying to figure things out. 

The first thing I did this morning (after my "morning chores") was to read (and reread and reread) the section of the book
"Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius" by Hans C. Ohanian, to see if I could find exactly what Ohanian considered to be "Einstein's mistake" regarding synchronizing clocks in Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.  On page 90 the book says,
Einstein proposed to achieve an exact synchronization of clocks at different locations by sending light signals back and forth between the clocks.  For instance, consider a clock in Berne and a clock in Lucerne, 60 [kilometers] to the east [in Switzerland]. Then Einstein's proposal is to send a light signal at, say, 12:00 exactly, on a straight line from Berne to Lucerne ..., and bounce it back to Berne immediately. The Berne clock will tell us that the light signal returns at 12:00 plus 0.0004 seconds; that is, the light signal took 0.0004 seconds for this round trip. Obviously, it must then have taken 0.0002 seconds to get to Lucerne, and if the Lucerne clock is synchronized with the Berne clock, the Lucerne clock must have shown 12:00 plus 0.0002 seconds when the light signal arrived. If it did not, its synchronization is wrong, and the clock must be advanced or retarded by the amount it deviated from 0.0002 seconds.
Okayyyy, so far so good, if you accept that Einstein was just writing about how to temporarily synchronize two clocks, not about how to determine if a distant clock is measuring time (ticking) at the same rate as a local clock. 

Then, on page 93 the book says,
EINSTEIN'S SYNCHRONIZATION PROCEDURE relies on the implicit assumption that the speed of light between the locations of the two clocks is the same in each direction: same speed from Berne to Lucerne and from Lucerne to Berne. And Einstein emphasized this meant that with the clocks synchronized by his procedure, it was not possible to perform a logically meaningful test of the constancy of the speed of light.
Ohanian doesn't quote the section of his 1905 paper were Einstein "emphasized" what the procedure meant, but it could be this sentence from page 5:
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
And then Ohanian implies that Einstein not only stole his ideas from others, he also played a "parlor trick" in his 1905 paper.  Ohanian writes about sending voice signals aboard a moving ship and how the movement of the ship affects how fast the voice signals move.  Then on that same page 93 Ohanian says,
Einstein had deliberately designed his synchronization procedure to hide the effect of the speed of the Earth on the speed of light, because he thought that this was the clever and right thing to do. In essence, Einstein's synchronization procedure was a parlor trick to make the speed of light appear constant, regardless of what the speed "really" is.
In other words, Ohanian believes that sending a light signal from west to east, from Bern to Lucerne, Switzerland, will cause the light to move faster than when going against the spin of the earth, i.e., when going east to west from Lucerne to Bern.  So, if you send light signals in both directions, the effects will cancel each other out.  Going west to east you have light traveling at c + v, where v is the speed of earth's rotation, and when going east to west you have light traveling at c - v.  According to Ohanian, it's a "parlor trick" to claim the speed of light is "constant" while, in Ohanian's reality, the differences in light speed are hidden by the procedure. 

Ohanian explains that you can detect the differences in the speed of light by having two clocks synchronized together in Bern, and then sending one of the clocks very slowly to Lucerne.  That way, "Einstein's synchronization procedure" will be shown to be "fraudulent" because the results of the procedure can be compared to the synchronized clocks already in place.  I.e., you will see that light traveled faster going west to east and slower going east to west.        

On page 95 the book says, 
And this was Einstein's big mistake: He forgot that besides synchronization with light signals there are other synchronization procedures - such as synchronization with transported clocks - by means of which it is possible to detect his trick and expose it as fraudulent. Synchronization by light signals does not permit us to check whether the one-way speed of light is really constant. But synchronization by other procedures permits us to check whether the one-way speed of light is really constant.
Of course, Einstein's Second Postulate as stated on page 1 of his 1905 paper is as follows:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
So, according to Einstein, Professor Ohanian's beliefs are nonsense.  Light emitted in Bern toward Lacerne cannot and does not travel at the speed of earth plus the speed of light (c + v) because light travels at c regardless of or "independent of the state of motion of [the source of the light, a.k.a.] the emitting body."  And the same with the light sent back.  (Note: This is different from the Michelson-Gale experiment which was about an observer detecting a different speed of light, not a body emitting a different speed of light.)

Professor Ohanian attacks Einstein over and over in the section of the book that I quoted from, and since Professor Ohanian clearly misunderstood Einstein's 1905 paper, I'm not sure that reading the rest of his book would be a good way to spend my time.  I may skim through it, but I don't see any value to reading it from cover to cover.  It seems clear Professor Ohanian doesn't understand what he's writing about.

I had planned to write something about the arguments on the Google forum, but I've already spent all morning on this comment, it's lunch time, and I can always write more tomorrow.  So, that's the end of this comment.

October 10, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning, while doing my "morning chores" (checking emails, web site statistics, overnight news, blog postings, etc.), I came across an article from Discover Magazine titled "Einstein's 23 Biggest Mistakes," which led me to another Discover Magazine article titled "The Master's Mistakes" and a book titled "Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius."  The first article and the book list this as Einstein's FIRST mistake:
1. 1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity. 
I'd argued about his "mistake" endlessly on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I didn't see any mistake.  And the mathematicians on the forum didn't see any mistake, either.  We disagreed because, as I saw it, Einstein's procedure was a test to see if two clocks in different reference frames were synchronized or not.  As the mathematicians on the forum saw it, it was a procedure for synchronizing clocks in different reference frames.  I argued that that would be a "procedure" that could never work.  So, if viewed their way it can be considered to be a "mistake," but it's not a mistake if viewed my way.

The "procedure" (or "test") begins near the top of page 3 of Einstein's 1905 paper with this sentence:
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.
And it ends with this sentence on the same page:
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.”
Clearly it is not a procedure to synchronize clocks, it's a procedure to TEST if clocks in different places are synchronized or not.  Or it is a definition of what the term "synchronous stationary clocks" means.

I browsed through the book on "Einstein's Mistakes" and found this on page 87:
Finally, on a beautiful spring day in Berne. in the middle of May 1905, Einstein suddenly came upon the idea that the solution to the puzzle of the speed of light lay hidden in the procedures used to measure time. He was, once again, discussing this puzzle with his friend Michele Besso, an engineer also working at the patent office. when he was struck by an inspiration.  He later recalled, "A storm broke loose in my mind, .. and "Suddenly I understood where the key to the problem lay.  The next morning, when he again met Besso, he was so excited that instead of greeting Besso with the usual "Griiezi," he blurted out. "Thank you. I've completely solved the problem." And he explained, "An analysis of the concept of time was my solution. Time cannot be absolutely defined, and there is an inseparable relation between time and signal velocity." He pointed at one of Berne's clock towers and then to the distant clock tower of the neighboring town of Muri to exemplify for his friend his crucial idea about the synchronization of clocks at different locations.

IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT that Einstein came upon the idea that synchronization plays a crucial role in the speed-of-light puzzle. An obsession with clock synchronization had swept across Europe.
I'll have to read more of the book to see if it explains exactly what the "mistake" is.  The "mistake," as I see it, is that mathematicians believe it is a procedure to synchronize clocks.  That is absurd to me.  At best, the TEST can be used to SET two clocks to the same time (e.g., 8:43 a.m.) at a given moment, but from that moment on the clocks will tick at different rates if they are in different frames of reference.  So, the clocks will immediately become UNsynchronized.

Today, we can build special clocks that will be synchronized when they are moved to a different frame of reference, as they do with clocks to be put aboard GPS satellites (such clocks are built to run slower on earth so they will be synchronized with earth clocks when in orbit where time runs faster), but there is no hint that Einstein was even thinking of such a construction procedure in 1905 when he wrote his paper.       

October 9, 2017 - I woke this morning realizing something: I've been dividing physicists into three general categories:
1.  The mathematician-physicists who firmly disagree with me.
2.  The silent middle.
3.  The physicists who agree with some of what I'm saying.
When I first started writing scientific papers about my understandings of Relativity and the speed of light, I had everyone in just one category: Possible Helpers.  I tried to discuss the first of my papers with local college professors, but only one responded.  He said my paper was outside of his areas of expertise.  I tried some non-local scientists and college professors.  No one responded.

When I tried sending my papers to scientific journals, they got turned down for one technical reason or another: mostly that my papers just weren't "the type of paper" they publish.  Or the papers present no new experimental data. 

Then I learned about
arXiv.org.  When I wanted to try submitting my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to arXiv.org, I saw I needed to have an "endorser," i.e., someone the people at arXiv.org consider "qualified to endorse" a new submission.  Their web site tells you if an author of a paper on their site is "qualified to endorse" other people's papers or not.  I looked through dozens of papers on arXiv.org to see if I could find anyone who seemed to have views similar to mine.  I tried a couple people, and one agreed to endorse my paper.  ArXiv.org not only turned down my paper, they essentially turned down all other papers I might want to submit to them in the future.

So, I tried some more journals.  Meanwhile, I started arguing with people on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  That's when I started realizing that physicists appear to fall into those 3 categories (and probably some sub-categories).  I was arguing with those in category #1.  There were a few who seemed to fall into category #3, but they all had their own particular views of things, so their support wasn't really very helpful.  They didn't argue that I was right, they argued their own theories which had elements similar to mine. 

I only have the "feeling" that category #2 exists.  I assume they are just too busy to argue on discussion forums, but they do submit papers for publication.

I temporarily gave up on submitting papers to physics journals after my paper on Time Dilation got turned down for the 8th time.  What I didn't mention on this site was that I had investigated one particular journal for submission of my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, but I never actually submitted it because the journal required that I provide the names and credentials of 3 reviewers who might favorably review my paper for them.  I didn't have any such reviewers.

Then, this morning, I woke up realizing I'd gotten off on the wrong track.  The physicist who endorsed my paper for arXiv.org just might be willing to be a "reviewer" for that same paper if I submitted it to a journal.  There would certainly be no harm in asking.  He might even suggest some others who would be willing to review my paper.  If not, I might be able to find some by going through the papers on arXiv.org and elsewhere to find authors who argue some of the same things I argue.  Duh!  

I should have realized that long ago.  The biggest problem might be that I really HATE imposing on people to ask favors of them.  And I have no idea what would happen if I gave a journal their name.  Can the physicist simply say they are too busy to review my paper?  Or do they have to do a lot of work to review it?  Or is it just a formality to make sure I have people who are willing to endorse it, and that it isn't a paper that no self-respecting physicist would ever endorse?

Whatever the answers are, it's something I need to check out.

October 8, 2017 - The last time I looked for people who might agree with my interpretation of Einstein's theories was when I was looking for an "endorser" so I could try putting my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate on ArXiv.org.  That was back in April and May of this year.  I found someone who was willing to endorse my paper, but he also suggested I mention the Sagnac effect and the Michelson-Gale experiment in the paper, which I immediately added.  That endorser (a professor at a famous college in Germany) also wrote me:
You touch on the aporia between § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's paper of 1905 from a different point of view. What you call “Mathematicians’ All Observers Theory” is indeed a consequence of the Lorentz transformation based on Voigt's untenable postulate c=const for all observers. It has nothing to do with Einstein's second postulate that is in disagreement with the LT, as you observe and argue.
The "aporia" ("an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory)" in Einstein's paper has constantly caused those on the Google forum to argue that the Second Postulate I quote from § 1 is contradicted somewhere in § 3, and they argue that section 3 has the correct version.  I need to translate Einstein's 1905 paper entirely into my own terminology before I can figure out exactly what it is that those mathematicians see. 

That German professor also sent me a paper in which he argues his own theories, which appear to be similar to yet somewhat different than mine, but which require a lot of deciphering before I'll fully understand what he is arguing.

That will probably be the case with others who have written papers which seem to contradict the mathematicians' version of Relativity.

That professor also provided me with a link to an organization of scientists who are fighting against the policies at Arxiv.org:  http://www.archivefreedom.org/
It has a lot of links and information I never bothered to check out.  Now may be the time.  One link is very interesting.  It leads to a published paper titled "New Ideas in Science" which has this abstract:

The pace of scientific work continues to accelerate, but the question is whether the pace of *discovery* will continue to accelerate. If we were driving in the wrong direction - in the direction where no new ideas can be accepted - then even if scientific work goes on, the progress would be stifled. This is not to suggest that we are in quite such a disastrous position, but on the other hand, all is not well.
While I know I need to contact authors, physicists and scientists who argue the same things I argue about Time Dilation and the speed of light, I continue to be fascinated by those who argue against my interpretation of Einstein's theories.  After stumbling across Prof. Claes Johnson's "physics illusion 11" a couple days ago, I had to see if I could find them all.  I did.  There are 14 of them (although #1 and #9 seem to be very similar, as do #2 and #13):
1: Gravitational Attraction as Instant Action at Distance
2: Photons as Light Particles
3: Explanation of Michelson-Morley Null Result
4: Elementary Particles, Quanta and Wave-Particle Duality
5: Particles as Force Carriers
6: Gravitational Force Between Each Pair of Particles
7: What You See Is What There Is
8: Input and Output of Maxwell's equations
9: Instant Action at Distance Not Physical Nor Needed
10: Fabric of Curved Space-Time
11: Lorentz Transformation as Holy Doctrine of Physics
12: Modern vs Classical World
13: Light as Stream of Photon Particles
14: Gravitational Motion by Instant Action at Distance
I also see he criticizes Global Warming in links on his blog, claiming it is not mathematically correct.  Meanwhile, on his blog pages he also provides some interesting quotes:
For when propositions are denied, there is an end

of them, but if they bee allowed, it requireth a

new worke. The Essais of Sr. Francis Bacon, London, 1612

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell

Nothing is created by coincidence, rather there is reason and necessity for everything. Leukippus, 5th Century BC.

Those quotes work both ways.  If society is drifting further from "the truth," it is the non-mathematicians who are the ones who are hated and getting attacked.  That is certain the case on the Google discussion forums where I argued my understandings of Einstein's theories.

Are there also forums or newgroups where non-mathematicians dominate?  I don't think so, but I can't be sure.  If there are such newsgroups, they aren't very popular. 

When I first started arguing about the anthrax attacks of 2001, I did so on Usenet newsgroups.  But, I've forgotten how to access such newgroups directly.  I only know how to access them via Google.  I found a link that indicates there are a LOT of interesting newsgroups out there.  Here is what it says about one of them:

alt.sci.physics.new-theories is an open forum for discussion of any topics related to conventional or unconventional physics.  In this context, "unconventional physics" includes any ideas on physical science, whether or not they are widely accepted by the mainstream physics community.
Right now, I have no idea how to get to that newsgroup the "normal" way (via the link in the quote).  As stated above, I can only get to it via Google: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  Doing so, indicates it isn't as interesting as the title suggests it is.

I'm sure accessing Usenet newsgroups directly is very simple, but I forgot the "trick."  I need to find some time to think about it.

But my most immediate chore is to update my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle to show that atomic clocks used on GPS satellites are set to run slow by 38 nanoseconds per day before launching, they aren't adjusted by 38 nanoseconds every day as the paper now says.  And there are some other changes I want to make, too.

Busy busy busy.

Comments for Sunday, October 1, 2017, thru Saturday, October 7, 2017:

October 7. 2016 (B) - While pulling into my garage after running some errands this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #7 in the 7-CD audio book version of "You Are Not A Gadget" by Jaron Lanier. 

You are not a gadget

When I "borrowed" it from my local library, I thought it was some kind of popular science book.  It is that, but it also gets into a lot of other areas, everything from music to computers to medicine.  While I did listen to it all the way through, I was often lost when the author wrote about music, particularly digitizing music by using a midi.  It wasn't until I finished the book that I looked up "midi" to see what it was.   It doesn't really help me understand what the author was saying about it, but there were many other things discussed in the book.  Maybe The New York Times review says things better than I can:

Now, in his impassioned new book “You Are Not a Gadget,” Mr. Lanier expands this thesis further, looking at the implications that digital Maoism or “cybernetic totalism” have for our society at large. Although some of his suggestions for addressing these problems wander into technical thickets the lay reader will find difficult to follow, the bulk of the book is lucid, powerful and persuasive. It is necessary reading for anyone interested in how the Web and the software we use every day are reshaping culture and the marketplace.
I can't say that I "thoroughly" enjoyed listening to it, but there were enough interesting ideas in it to keep me listening through 7 CDs. 

October 7, 2017 (A) - Yesterday, I was thinking about calling my Internet Provider to complain once again that my email problem still hadn't been fixed, but before doing that, of course, I needed to verify that it hadn't been fixed.  I tried sending myself an email.   It worked.  So, the problem is fixed.  Whew!  What a relief.  The "work-around" procedures were really tedious and annoying.   Plus, I will probably be sending out a lot of emails in the next month or more as I try to make contact with people who, based upon their papers and books, appear to mostly agree with my understandings of Relativity and Time Dilation.

October 6, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, I got fed up once again and stopped posting to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  It was all turning into opinion versus opinion arguments (i.e., just contradicting one another without trying to resolve the disagreements).  

I thought I was making progress in talking about how one observer may see something different than another observer, because one is observing an illusion.  In a way, that view was what got me interested in science.  We see the sun moving across the sky, but, in reality, that is an illusion.  The sun is virtually motionless and it is we on earth who are moving as the earth spins on its axis.  I found that to be fascinating as a kid.  The same with illusions of perspective, like in the photos I've shown here where a human appears to be nearly the same size as the sun or moon.  Or the illusion when you are on a plane and the attendant is pouring you a cup of coffee, that you and the plane and the attendant and the coffee are not really all moving at 500 mph.  It was all like watching a magician, only Mother Nature was the Magician.  Other kids seemed to enjoy being fooled by magicians.  Or they didn't care.  I was fascinated with how the magician did his tricks.  I'm likewise fascinated by how Nature does her "tricks" when she creates such illusions.    

However, the mathematicians on the Google forum HATE the word "illusion."  It implies something is "not real."  And, to them, everything is "real."  There are no "illusions" in physics or nature.    

The example I used on the Google forum was having an observer lean out the window of a moving train and drop a rock.  He sees the rock fall straight down, which I considered to be an illusion.  An observer on the embankment next to the train will see the rock follow a parabolic trajectory as it moves with the train, loses speed and falls to the earth.  That, to me, is what really happens.  

To the mathematicians on the Google forum, both views are equally validNeither is an "illusion."  If you are on the train, the rock really does fall straight down.  If you are on the embankment, the rock really does fall in a parabolic trajectory.  To call one view an "illusion" is to say that the mathematics are somehow wrong in that situation.  It was hopeless to try to get them to see things from my point of view.  And you can't get them to understand anything if you argue from their point of view.

This morning, I wanted to find some illustrations to help describe that train experiment for this comment, so I did a Google image search for "dropping object from moving train experiment."  One image I found was pretty much what I wanted, but it's very large, you have to click HERE to see it full size:

dropping something from a moving train

Another result I got was a link (click HERE) to a web blog run by a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Claes Johnson, which has this title at the top of the blog page:

Physics Illusion 11: Lorentz Transformation as Holy Doctrine of Physics

Wow!  That seemed to be exactly what I could have used when arguing on Google's forum, particularly when I read through the page and found this:
And there we are today with the Lorentz transformation as a Holy Doctrine of Modern Physics of the same stature, and mysticism, as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the Catholic Church. But a Lorentz transformation is just a very simple linear coordinate transformation and as such cannot reveal deep truths of physics, while the Holy Trinity may well represent a deep truth of religion.

Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant, but not Lorentz invariant, and so in Einstein's hands Newtonian mechanics had to be sacked, according to the Doctrine of Lorentz Transformation. Instead a wonderful magical world of space contraction and time dilation was born from the Doctrine, but of course inheriting the unphysical nature of the Lorentz transformation and thus only a world of illusions without the reality of Newtonian mechanics. 
But, the author of the web site is Swedish and his words have been translated into English, plus the author is a mathematician, so he tends to explain everything in mathematical terms.  I'll have to study the page to see if it says anything that can really help me in my arguments.  The fact that he believes in "space contraction" doesn't help.

When I did a Google search for the exact phrase "physics illusion" to find more of Prof. Johnson's "illusions," I found instead dozens of references to a book titled "Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?"  Browsing the book I found it is easy to read and seems to say a lot of what I've been saying.

When I did a Google search for "physics illusion" AND "Johnson," I found the rest of his "illusions."  And I found one blog page where he says,

Real physics must be some form of computational process, since if not it can only be magical.
So, he's definitely not on my side.
Those findings suggest that I really should be looking for people who agree with me, instead of constantly arguing with mathematicians who will never agree.  If I can find people who agree with me, maybe they'll have some suggestions on how to get my papers published.

But, I also need to make some minor revisions to my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle.  First things first.

October 4, 2017 - Ah!  I was just informed that the book about the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I proof-read chapter by chapter last spring and summer is now on Amazon's web site for pre-ordering, and it is also on the publisher's web site.  Here's what the cover looks like:

Scott Decker's book

It will be officially released on April 8, 2018.  Here's one of the reviews on the Amazon site:

A remarkable scientific whodunnit that peels back some of the biggest mysteries surrounding the case known as Amerithrax. From his own experiences as a lead investigator, Scott Decker paints an intimate and chilling portrait of the hunt for the elusive killer behind history’s worst bioterrorist attack.
Since I proof-read it, I guess it can also be added to the list of books I read this year.

I also received an email that informed me the TV interview they want me to do about the anthrax investigation won't happen in October.  They are now looking for it to happen in early November.

October 3, 2017 - I've been so busy arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum that I kept postponing checking on the status of that TV project about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  The last email I received from them was dated August 15, and the last time I mentioned it on this web site was on August 23.  I sent them an email this morning inquiring about the status of the project, which reminded me of my email problem.  I had to go to mail.twc.com to send the email.  I still cannot send emails my "normal" way via my browser software.  So, I have to carbon copy myself in order to get a copy into my email files.  They responded that the project was still on, and they were trying to get someone else in my general area to interview.  I guess they don't want to drive their TV van all the way from NYC to Wisconsin just to do one local interview. 

Meanwhile, I spent about 2½ hours this morning responding to four different people writing 5 different messages to me on Google's forum.  It is all boiling down to the fact that they cannot view science from the point of view of a human "observer."  They can only view science as mathematical equations.  But Einstein wrote about what human observers would see in two different locations.

In one post I also wrote about a very interesting hypothetical situation.  We have already generally agreed that clocks to be used aboard GPS satellites are set before they are launched to run 38 microseconds slower per day than earth-based clocks.  That way, when the clocks are in orbit where time ticks faster, they will tick at the same rate as the earth-based clocks.

I realized that that same "fix" can be used to set clocks that will be sent on a rocket ship that will travel at 95% of the speed of light  At that speed, clocks aboard the rocket ship will tick at 1/10th the rate of clocks back on earth.  So, if they are set to tick ten times faster than normal while here on earth, they will tick at the earth rate when going 95% of the speed of light.  That means that they will have a clock aboard the ship that is ticking ten times faster than all the other clocks aboard the ship because it is "synchronized" with earth clocks.

Ooooo.  That is a devastating argument to all those physicist-mathematicians who endlessly argue that Time Dilation is "reciprocal" and people aboard the space ship will see earth clocks as running slower just as people on earth see the space ship clocks running slower.  I'm awaiting a response from the physicist-mathematicians on the forum.

It's also something else I should probably add to my paper about Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle.    

October 2, 2017 - I had a little "epiphany" this morning.  Epiphany is defined as:
a: (1) :a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something
(2) :an intuitive grasp of reality through something (such as an event) usually simple and striking
(3) :an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure
b :a revealing scene or moment
I'd been arguing with "Dancourian" about definitions of the term "coordinate systems."  I was looking for definitions in books which match Einstein's definition.  Then I suddenly realized, the only definition of "coordinate system" which has any relevance to Relativity is Einstein's definition.  And in all of his writings, he defines "coordinate systems" as being locations where certain laws of mechanics hold true.  For example, a "coordinate system" can be located aboard a moving train while a different "coordinate system" can be located on the embankment next to the moving train. 

Then I realized something else.  "Dancourian" and I had discussed how GPS satellites are built to run 38 nanoseconds slower per day while they are on earth, so that when they are placed in orbit where time runs faster, the GPS clocks will then run at the same rate and synchronize with earth clocks.

That presents an interesting situation:  If you have a GPS clock still located on earth running 38 nanoseconds slower per day than an earth-based clock, and if you used that GPS clock to measure the speed of light, it would NOT measure it to be the same speed as when you use the earth-based clock.  The earth-based clock would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per second.  The GPS clock would measure the speed of light to be faster than that, because the GPS clock runs slower while on earth and measures a second to be of a longer duration.  So light will travel more meters during the longer second.  

That also means that when the GPS clock is in orbit where it is "in sync" with the earth-based clock, if it was brought aboard a space ship in that same orbit, it would measure a different speed of light than the earth based clock.  The clocks would be synchronous, but the speed of light is not controlled by the clock, it is controlled by nature.  And the speed of light would be 299,792,458 meters per second only for an unmodified clock in orbit.  

I've got to find a way to add that to my paper on "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle."

October 1, 2017 - Hmm.  It's 10:15 a.m. on a Sunday morning, and I'm just starting to write my Sunday comment.  Usually I manage to get started on it on Saturday.

My email problem continues.  Yesterday, while looking through my email files, I found a "draft" of an email I was preparing to send in June of 2016 to the author of an article published in the January 2016 issue of Forbes magazine titled "Is Time Dilation Real?"  For some reason, I never sent the email.  The email was a request to discuss Time Dilation with the author, who was an assistant professor of astronomy in England at the time.  I'd probably already learned by that time that no professional astronomer or physicist wants to discuss Time Dilation with someone they do not know, and that's why I never sent it.

When I mentioned the article on the
Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, it was immediately dismissed by "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" because
That is a Story for Laymen that have no physics back ground.  The story was in FORBES not a physics journal
Fuller is on my "Do Not Reply" list, so I wrote this in a response to "Paparios" who asked why I had posted that link:
It is being dismissed as "a Story for Laymen that have no physics background," which implies that it is in some way untrue.  That poses the question: Are physicists lying to laymen, or are mathematicians claiming so in order to justify their own screwball beliefs?
And the answer from Fuller was:
It is much more complicated than it seems you will ever be able to understand.
Then "Paparios" wrote:
Who is disputing that time dilation exists? Now, the girl conclusion next is quite misleading and clearly show the sloppy language some scientists use when trying to reach to the general public.  
I couldn't make any sense of the first part of the second sentence and asked him to clarify.  "Paparios" responded:
Is there something you do not understand? The young assistant professor is not writing a scientific paper, where the phrase: "And anyone who uses a GPS, or the 'My Location' option on Google Maps, is making direct use of the fact that time dilation is real." would be most certainly rejected by reviewers, because is not even wrong.
At that point, I gave up on trying to understand what he meant by "the girl conclusion next."  I'll just assume he was dismissing the article because it was written by a woman, in addition to the fact that it wasn't published in a recognized scientific journal, which, to him, evidently makes it not worth even mentioning, much less reading.  Plus, it appears that he sometimes writes in Spanish and uses a translation program to convert his writings into English.  When he does that, there's a "Translate Message to English" line at the top of his post.  But, on the "girl conclusion next" post there was no such line.

Several people on the forum repeatedly argue that Time Dilation does not exist, but they do not use those exact words.  They bury their arguments in a lot of cryptic mathematical jargon.

In the arguments on the Google forum, however, people do sometimes provide interesting links.  Here's a link to a YouTube video about learning how to argue:

The Monty Python sketch contains one actual point of interest.  At about the 1:50 minute mark, Michael Palin says that John Cleese is just contradicting him, and "An argument is not the same as a contradiction."  Cleese, of course, contradicts him, saying "Yes, it is."  Then Palin says, "An argument is a series of statements to establish a proposition."  And, "An argument is an intellectual process; contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of what the other person says."

A lot of what I was calling "arguments" on the Google forum have really been just contradicting or "gainsaying."  I was dismissing those arguments as being just "opinion versus opinion" arguments.  So, I learned a different way to state that such "arguments" are not really worthwhile.

Meanwhile, someone calling himself JanPB wrote this on the Google forum:

You may have noticed that here the word "mathematician" is used as a slur by cranks and on sci.math the word "physicist" is used a slur. Cute :-)
On a different forum mathematicians use the word "physicist" as a "slur"??  I'd never hear that before, and I asked if it was true.  Someone else responded that it is true.  Unfortunately, I have no easy way to confirm it.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out a way to explain that Relativity isn't about what the mathematicians believe it is about.  Einstein addresses the same problem in his book "The Evolution of Physics," but when I quote from that book, the mathematicians dismiss the book as having been co-written by Leopold Infeld, and therefore they do not accept that Einstein actually wrote such things.   
And I see that a mathematician/physicist who works at Fermi lab posted this at 9:40 a.m. this morning:
Ed Lake has proven he is impervious to discussions that point out his obvious mistakes, probably due to his inability to read. So I won't bother. 
And someone named "Ned Latham," who I don't think has ever posted in any thread I've been posting in before, responded to the Fermilab mathematician:
The NG would be better off is you didn't bother to post at all, Roberts.  You're a liar, an abuser, and a weasel, and you "argue" using logical fallacies. As has been said before, you might be a physicist but you most certainly are *not* a scientist.
I think that's the first time someone on that forum has defended me by going after someone who attacked me.  Latham's post includes four other interesting attacks on the Fermilab mathematician/physicist.   Some are really pointed jabs.

Interestingly and along the same lines, a couple days ago, someone who calls himself "Python" and who is on my "Do Not Reply" list wrote:

I have to admit that, as a crank, Mr Lake has some kind of uniqueness and originality (which is not usual here, where all the bunch of idiots Seto, Wilson/Rabbidge, late Androcles, etc. spout the same kind of nonsense for ages).
And  "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" wrote:
I think Ed is a plant from the mainstream physics community as a purposeful disruptive influence.
Since Fuller is also on my "Do Not Reply" list, I never asked him what is the difference between his "community" and the "mainstream physics community."  I suspect the difference is that the "mainstream physics community" accepts that Time Dilation is real, while the other unnamed "community" consists mostly of mathematicians who can only use mathematical equations and mathematical jargon to argue that Time Dilation is not real.

It's now 11:50 a.m., so I spent the entire morning writing this comment.  Sigh.  It's also the first of the month, so I have to backup my files later today.  And, when I finish with that I'll have to figure out how to respond to "Dancourian," who keeps asking me to define "coordinate system" for him, since his definition doesn't seem to agree with mine.  Actually, our definitions do agree, but "Dancourian" uses the term in one way and Albert Einstein used it in another way.  "Dancourian" won't except how Einstein defined it in "The Evolution of Physics," of course, because that book was co-written by Leopold Infeld, so I'll have to find some other place where Einstein wrote basically the same things. 

Sigh.  Is it worth it?  I don't know.  But I'm learning a lot in the process. 

Other interests:

fake picture of snow on
                    the pyramids
 Click HERE for an analysis of this fake photo.

January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017

© 2017 by Ed Lake