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 "Time Dilation Re-visualized."
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, Time Dilation & Light.                                Another interest: Movies Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments

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

May 24, 2017 - I'm still waiting to see if the editor at the journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity is going to assign it to some peer reviewers or reject it for some reason.  It's only been 9 days, but seems like longer.  Meanwhile, the comment I posted to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group is still pending approval after about two weeks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Doppler Shift of Electromagnetic Radiation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of 45 top physics journals

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

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

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

May 15, 2017 - Hmm.  One of the first things I do every morning is check my web site logs.  Looking at the access log for yesterday, I saw that I had an unusual number of first-time visitors to this web site, including one from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Naperville, Illinois.  I can only wonder what caused the surge.  I typically get 1, 2 or 3 first-time visitors every day, but yesterday these 10 were all first-time visitors:
12:04 p.m.           Bilbao, Spain  
12:38 p.m.           Bayern, Germany     
1:11 p.m.             Palo Alto, CA       
2:32 p.m.             Denver, CO    
2:33 p.m.             Grimstad, Norway    
3:30 p.m.             Naperville, IL      
4:21 p.m.             Richmond, BC, Canada
4:42 p.m.             Dayton, OH          
8:35 p.m.             Montreal, Canada    
10:19 p.m.           Toronto, Ontario    
Other than that they all occurred in the afternoon (my time), I couldn't see any pattern to them, however.  There was no surge in readers of my papers, nor did the comment I tried posting to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group get out of the "pending approval" stage, where it has been for over a week. 

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

Paper #1
                            Status #1  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Busy busy busy.  And it is totally fascinating work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

That's Not in My American History Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something is very wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Tramp Abroad

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

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

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

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

Comments for Sunday, April 30, 2017, thru Sunday, April 30, 2017:

April 30, 2017 - The past week was another extremely busy week for me.  On Wednesday I kept thinking it was Sunday, since so much had already happened in the week (and because I don't go to the gym on Wednesdays or Sundays).  I still find it hard to believe that it was just six days ago that I received the second request for revisions to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  It seems like that was at least 3 weeks ago. 

The changes are ready to be sent out tomorrow.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, I wrote comments here about things that had happened.  On Thursday afternoon, I received an email from a scientist-professor at a major university in Europe who stated he would endorse my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate for posting to arXiv.org.  In fact, I received notice from arXiv that I had been endorsed before I received the email from the scientist-professor, and I spent a few minutes wondering who had done it.  I didn't think about the scientist-professor, because my endorsement request to him had been sent out over a week earlier, and I'd written it off as a "no response."

The email contained some fairly nice compliments and referred to the conflict between "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" and the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" this way:

You touch on the aporia between § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's paper of 1905 from a different point of view. 
"Aporia" was a word that was unfamiliar to me (and I see that my spell checker doesn't even recognize it), so I had to look it up.  It means:
an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.       
He was saying that sections § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's 1905 paper appear to be contradictory.  Those sections are:
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
The mathematicians with whom I have argued have said the same thing using different words, but they didn't explain the contradiction - and neither did the scientist-professor.  So, when I find some free time, I'm going to have to study those two sections and Einstein's book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, which seems to contain easy-to-read descriptions or restatements of those sections in layman's terms.  It appears that, if I want to know what the contradiction is, I'm going to have to figure it out for myself, since no mathematician seems to be able to explain it except in terms of complex mathematical equations.    
On Friday morning, I also received an email from the scientist whose book I finished proof-reading on March 13.  It appears his book has been accepted by the publisher and it will now go into their editing process.  So, when it comes out (supposedly in October) I will certainly mention it on this web site.

And, although I have tried to avoid getting into arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, there were some arguments that I just could not ignore.  Yesterday, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller made this comment to me out of the blue:
You probably still think Trump is doing a Fabulous Job as President don't you ???
Huh!  I responded with this comment:
Here are some of my published thoughts about Trump:

My web site has a lot more.  
But David (Lord Kronos Fuller) refused to go to the link and instead he simply responded:
I didn't read it, you just want your Neanderthal virus like thoughts broadcasted into other people's heads.
You're just like Trump, a Bullshitter running his mouth.
Healthcare just like Time Dilation IS COMPLICATED..... who would have thought ???
And, of course, I had to respond.  I wrote this:
I agree with everything you say about Trump, but from my point of view it is you who is spouting nonsense because, like Trump, you seem to think with your emotions instead of with your brain.  If someone disagrees with you, instead of discussing the points of disagreement, you attack the other person with personal insults.  That is pure Trump tactics. 

Trump thinks he is smarter than everyone else (and that is why he is a billionaire), so everyone who disagrees with him (and doesn't have as much money as he has) must be dumb. 

You act just like Trump.  Will Trump ever sit down with Democrats to try to resolve differences?  Probably not.  That would be acknowledging that he could be wrong on some things and the Democrats could right.  He would never acknowledge that.  You also seem incapable of acknowledging that you could be wrong.  Instead, you want others to figure things out, because you believe that they will eventually conclude that you are right.  
I had actually been wondering if the mathematicians I've been arguing with are Trump followers, since they seem to think like Trump - emotionally, not logically.  But it seems the world is not that simple and straight-forward.  They may seem as closed-minded and as illogical as Trump, but for some reason I cannot fathom, at least one of them is not a Trump supporter.  He did respond to my comment, but, of course, without admitting he was wrong about me supporting Trump:
No Ed.....
I Only Attack you because you are ignorant Stupid & Arrogant enough to think you can decipher Time Dilation with ZERO Knowledge of the Remainder of Physics.

I don't attack & disagree with everyone, just you.
I let the argument end there.  I searched back through his responses to comments from other people posting in the thread, but I couldn't find any where he insulted the others he disagreed with.  However, they were all basically arguments over mathematical formulas and how the formulas should be interpreted.  So, that probably proves something, but I'm not sure what.

I awoke this morning thinking that tomorrow when I return the latest changes to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity to the journal that is currently  reviewing it,  I should ask them if they would have any objection to me putting the paper on arXiv.org.  I assume he wouldn't have any problem with it, but I still do not fully understand why some journals seem to want authors to first put their papers on arXiv.org.  It would, of course, give me something to refer to when I discuss the paper with others, but I don't understand how a publisher would consider that to be a good thing.

Maybe someday I'll figure that one out.

Comments for Sunday, April 23, 2017, thru Saturday, April 29, 2017:

April 27, 2017  - Hmm.  For some reason, I decided to do a Google search for "Religio Mathematica."  It's a term I've been using a lot lately, and I think I was just wondering if it would properly translate into "the religion of mathematics" or not.  To my surprise, up popped a journal paper titled "Religio Mathematici: Presidential Address Delivered Before the Mathematical Association of America, September 7, 1921 " by David Eugene Smith, published in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 28, No. 10 (Oct., 1921), and in The Mathematics Teacher in December 1921.

In the document, Smith actually suggests that mathematics is a kind of religion in that it has laws that seem to have been handed down by God.  He doesn't propose that anyone go out an covert the heathen, but he talks about mathematics as if he was talking about the word of God.

To me it's kind of creepy, but it also gives me some ammunition when I claim that arguing with a mathematician is like arguing with a religious fanatic.  All they can do is cite scripture and call you a "non-believer" and tell you that you need to study their scripture.  They cannot explain anything, because they do not understand anything.  All they know are memorized slogans and laws that are unquestioned and unquestionable.  

The 46-page paper I mentioned in my April 25 comment turned out to be just more incomprehensible mathematical crap, a point by point dissection of Albert Einstein's short but excellent 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory."  In his paper, hhe mathematician argued that everything Einstein says is wrong.  But his arguments weren't really about what Einstein wrote, they were about his interpretations of what Einstein wrote.  And I cannot see how he could possibly arrive at such interpretations.  Nor do I expect he will be able to explain his interpretations. 

It's really weird.  It's like something out of science fiction, something like "Brave New World" by Aldous  Huxley, where everyone is "conditioned" (brainwashed) at an early age to believe as the masters want them to believe.  But how do you communicate with such people if they are programmed to think you are just too stupid to understand "the truth"?

April 26, 2017 - One of the changes the potential endorser I mentioned yesterday suggested I make to my paper "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" was to include some reference to the Sagnac Effect.

Wow!  Yes indeed!  I really need to mention the Sagnac Effect in my paper.  I spent a couple hours yesterday trying to track down a free copy of the paper Regarding the Proof for the Existence of a Luminiferous Ether Using a Rotating Inteferometer Experiment by Georges Sagnac, since I don't want to spend money to buy a copy from the publisher.  I couldn't find a copy.  This morning, however, I awoke wondering if Wikipedia provided a link to it.  I checked, and yes they do.  Click HERE

I'd read the Wikipedia article before, and I had also read an on-line article titled "The Sagnac Effect: Does it Contradict Relativity?," plus a few other articles.  But I'd evidently forgotten about them.  It's a fairly simple lab experiment that confirms what I've been saying about Einstein's Second Postulate!  It confirms my understanding of the postulate and it disproves the mathematicians' version. 

Here's an illustration from Wikipedia:
Sagnac Effect
It's similar to the standard method for measuring the speed of light in a lab, with some very important differences.  The light is emitted by the "light source" through a "half-silvered mirror."  The mirror deflects half of the photons at a 90 degree angle and allows the other half to continue in a straight line.  The result is that half of the photons travel clockwise between the mirrors at the corners of the square shown above to reach the detector, and the other half of the photons travel counterclockwise.  The experiment was done to determine if there would be any difference in the speed of light due to the Earth's movement through the hypothetical aether as the Earth orbits the Sun.  If there was, one direction should be faster than the other.  In that way, it is very similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment.  And it produces the same result: there was no difference.

But, what if you put the whole apparatus on a rotating disk with the center of the disk in the center of the square?  And what if you then rotate the disk at high speed?  One source explains the results this way:
If we now rotate the disk clockwise at velocity v, we find that the blue beam arrives back at the detector before the red beam – in fact, the difference in  the  velocity  of  light turns out to be 2*v, because the blue beam travels at C+v and the red beam at C-v.
Sagnac's results showed that light traveling in the same direction as the rotating square was red shifted and light traveling in the opposite direction was blue shifted.  And the difference was the speed of rotation.  It is experimental proof that the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" is wrong.  An observer looking toward the light coming from the clockwise direction will measure it arriving at c + v while another observer measuring the light coming from the counterclockwise direction would measure it arriving at c - v.  Different observers measure light traveling at different velocities.   It's exactly what happens when a stationary police officer uses LIDAR gun to measure light emitted back from a speeding car.  The light arrives at c plus the speed of the car.

A little additional research caused me to stumble upon the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment, which I should probably also use as a reference in my paper.  It showed that light moving against the rotation of the earth spinning on its axis traveled at c + v, while light moving with the rotation of the earth on its axis traveled at c - v, and light moving north or south just traveled a c.

So, why hasn't this been used to show that the Mathematicians' All Observers Theory is wrong?  The source previously cited says,
Well, the problem is this – from the point of view of special relativity, there are no preferred frames of reference, there are only relative frames of reference, so we can’t argue that frame B is better than frame A without defeating the underlying premise of the theory. In special relativity (SR), the position of the observer is supposed to be arbitrary.
Further, on the relativistic notion that ”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light”, as had seemingly been proven by the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Sagnac experiment shows that this can in fact be done. Also, observer A can determine that it is he who is rotating, and not his surroundings.
They aren't looking at Einstein's Emitter Only Theory, they are looking at the Mathematicians' All Observers Theory and arguing that the experiments show Einstein's theory to be wrong.  They are proving themselves wrong and arguing that they are proving Einstein wrong!

What this shows me is the point where the disagreement between Einstein and the mathematicians occurs.  Einstein was a scientist trying to understand how the universe works.  He found that different people can see things happening at different times.  He wondered why, and that led to his discovery of time dilation.  Person-A measures things happening in at a specific rate, and Person-B measures the same things happening at a different rate.  Why?  Time passes at a different rate for Person-A than for Person-B.  Simple.  Easy peasy.

But mathematicians do not accept the reality of time dilation.  To them it is just an "illusion."  Moreover, in mathematics everything is reciprocal.  If A = B, then B = A.   Therefore, it all depends upon who is the "preferred observer."  If Person-A measures things happening at one rate and Person-B measures things happening at a different rate, it is "arbitrary" as to who is right.  If Person-B is the "preferred frame of reference," then Person-B is right.  If Person-A is the "preferred frame of reference," then Person-A is right. 

But, Einstein says they are BOTH right.  Time just passes at a different rate for Person-A than for Person-B due to differences in motion or location.  It's not much different from being on different sides of the street while watching a parade.  I see the parade going from left to right, and you see it going from right to left.  Who is right?  We're BOTH right.  But to mathematicians there must be a "preferred frame of reference," otherwise their calculations could be wrong.

Mathematicians are saying that E=mc2 and mc2=E.  In other words, there is no difference between putting a log on a fire to add heat to a room than taking heat from the room to create a log in the fireplace.  Either one can be just an "illusion," depending only on your "preferred frame of reference."

This fits very well with a quote from Einstein: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Now I have to figure out how to say that in a "scientific paper."

April 25, 2017 - I'm really starting to feel overwhelmed.  The changes I was requested to make to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity seem to be fairly minor, but I'm not going to send the revised paper back until next Monday, May 1.  That will give me plenty of time to think things over to make certain the changes (and the rest of the paper) are as good as I can make them.

This morning I received an email from a scientist who I had asked to endorse my paper "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" for arXiv.org.  He said he was willing to do so, but he suggested I make some changes first - to help the paper get past the arXiv moderators.  And he also sent me a 46-page paper he wrote about Einstein's Second Postulate and asked for my thoughts about it.  Since we don't really agree on how the Second Postulate should be interpreted, my comments will probably include a lot of suggestions that he might be wrong.  But, that may very well be what he is looking for.  Ideally, it is what any scientist would want from a critique, but it seems extremely rare for anyone to welcome anything other than praise.

I've temporarily given up on arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  But, I am making a copy of the arguments for possible use in the book I might write some day.  Here's a typical argument from yesterday, resulting from my attempt to discuss the steps involved in a police officer using LIDAR to measure a speeder's velocity as described in my paper about Einstein's Second  Postulate:
Me:   Step 2 is the arrival of the photons at the speeder's car at (c + v)

Other guy: [car at (c + v)] is TRASH, (c+v) Negates all of Relativity....

Me: No, it doesn't.  It just negates the "MATHEMATICIANS' ALL OBSERVERS THEORY" of relativity.  READ MY PAPER!
Other guy: If [car at (c + v)] then there would be NO REFLECTED PHOTON TO CALCULATE THE VELOCITY

Me: There obviously IS a NEW photon to calculate velocity, so you are clearly misunderstanding something.

Other guy: [car at (c - v)] is Much More Workable if the Car was Always considered to be at the event horizon, trying to Accelerate away form the event horizon.  Your Brain is Filled with TRASH

Me: There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.  Your brain is evidently filled with memorized TRASH that is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is confusing you.

Other guy: (There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.)  FOOOOOL !!!  There is Always an Event Horizon Between The Future & The Past ....   This EVENT HORIZON is called the "PRESENT"  What a Stupid Donkey you are.  My Mother's Donkey is Smarter than you ...
I'm talking about something that seems very simple and straight-forward, but he's complicating things beyond comprehension.  I didn't really want to ask him for his explanation of how any of what he said fits into the simple task of a police officer checking a speeder's velocity, since his response would certainly be just more personal attacks.

When I get some of the things done that have a vastly higher priority, I may start another discussion on that forum and try to focus it on how LIDAR works in a very simple situation like that described in my paper.
But first, I have to make some tweeks to my paper on Time Dilation, and then I have to read the paper the potential endorser sent me.

Busy busy busy.

April 24, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning, I didn't receive any responses to my two outstanding requests for arXiv.org endorsers.  The only email I received was from the scientific journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  The reviewer asked for a few additional changes. 

I'm glad I didn't have to wait until the end of June to get a response, as I was expecting.  But, the requested changes are difficult to decipher.  So, I'll have to think about what to do.

I'm really overwhelmed with things I need to do.  I've been trying to organize all the papers and books I downloaded during my research and saved into folders in my computer during the past year or so.  I've been trying to maintain listings that describe each paper and book (one listing for arXiv papers (184 items), another listing for viXra papers (27 items) and third listing for "miscellaneous" papers (368 items)), but the listings only include about 60 percent of what I actually downloaded and saved.  Going through the folders to update the listings with the things not yet described, I found I have different versions of several books, and I have some things that I really really need to find time to read.

Meanwhile, I've been spending a little time each day arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  Since the arguments are mostly personal attacks, all that is accomplished by arguing there is to make me all the more certain that my papers are valid and worthwhile.  But, occasionally someone asks a meaningful question that requires me to think a bit before responding.        

April 23, 2017 - Wow!  What a busy week!  I think I've finished all the research required for my scientific papers.  Now I just need to focus on getting them published.  Yesterday, I put the 3,000 word version of my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" on this web site at the link HERE.  I was planning on adding it to viXra.org, but I decided that wasn't a good idea.  I have the 7,024 word version on viXra.org, and I think that's all I really need to have there.

I still do not understand why scientific journals like the idea of having authors put their papers put on ArXiv.org before they send them to the journals.  Last week I was researching the journal called "Reports on Progress in Physics."  At the top of their web site they say,

Reports on Progress in Physics now offers an accepted-manuscript service, meaning your research can be downloaded and cited within 24 hours of acceptance.
It appears that they have started a "service" that will compete with arXiv.org and viXra.org.  Why?!  What purpose does such a service serve?  Reading further, they seem to indicate that such web site allows people to argue about the content of papers.  And then, perhaps, publishers can get some idea as to whether a paper has merit or not.  Evidently the editors cannot rely on their own judgment.

Digging deeper into their guidelines for authors, I found this rule:

4. The length of the article should be between 20000 and a maximum of 25000 words, including an allowance of 250 words for each illustration.
A 20,000 word minimum?  Could they possibly have meant 2,000 words?  I suspect not.  My paper is just under 5,000 words.   

It's all very bizarre to me.  But I'm on their turf, so I have to figure out how things operate in this world of "getting published."

I want to put the 7,000 word version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate on arXiv.org, but I keep stumbling into pitfalls.  I need an "endorser."  I thought that I just needed to find someone who is "Qualified to endorse," and ask them to do so for me.  Not so.  It turns out I need to find an "endorser" who is qualified to endorse in the specific "section" of arXiv.org where I want to place my paper.

On Thursday, I sent off three email requests for endorsement, along with copies of my 7,024 word paper.  All three potential endorsers were located in different countries.  The one in Spain replied that he couldn't endorse for the astrophysics section.  The other two (in former Soviet Union countries) evidently just saw that I didn't know what I was doing and didn't respond.  I'd used the endorsement request form that I got last year when I was thinking of putting a paper about Time Dilated Light on arXiv.org.  I didn't notice that it was only valid for the astrophysics section.

So, I figured out how to get an endorsement form for the physics section, which seemed to be the best section for my paper, and I sent it off to that same potential endorser in Spain.  He responded that he couldn't endorse for the physics section, either.  The only section into which he has published papers is the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) section.  Groan!  Does my paper fit into the gr-qc section?  What difference does it make?  It appears that all papers submitted to arXiv.org go into the same file, but each is coded with a "section" so that people looking for new papers on some topic can go straight to the section that most likely contains what they are looking for.

So, I obtained an endorsement form for the gr-qc section and sent it off on Friday afternoon.  I haven't received any response.  I'm hoping that that endorser just doesn't respond to work emails on the weekends.  But, it's possible he also gave up on me and got tired of responding to my invalid endorsement requests.

So, while waiting, I need to go through recent papers in physics section to see if any were written by people who can endorse for that section.  But they would also need to have written a paper about something related to Einstein's Second Postulate, and not something opposed to what I wrote.  Otherwise, what basis would I have to ask them to endorse for me?

An alternative idea is to search for all recent papers which mention Einstein's Second Postulate and, if they turn out to be "qualified to endorse," I can check to see if my paper is compatible with what they wrote.  I did that and found one author whose paper is compatible and who is qualified to endorse, but apparently he can "only" endorse for astro-ph.GA, astro-ph.SR, math.HO, physics.atm-clus, physics.atom-ph, physics.bio-ph, physics.comp-ph, physics.flu-dyn and q-bio.QM.   Not for physics!  Should I ask him if he will endorse my paper for the "Solar and Stellar astrophysics" (astro-ph.SR) section?  Does it really belong there?  I dunno.  I'll keep searching.  But, it probably won't hurt to try asking him.  He's in Japan, so I can try this afternoon.

Meanwhile, I have to also search for another scientific journal to which I can submit my paper. 

Yesterday morning, I made the mistake of asking people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity forum for advice.  They wouldn't even talk about the problem of finding an endorser, they would only talk about how they didn't believe what I wrote in the version of my Second Postulate paper that I put on viXra.org, because they have their own theories.  And, of course, they attacked me personally for not accepting their theories.


Uh oh.  I just clicked on a link HERE and found this:

Why viXra?

In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as arXiv.org, was founded at Los Alamos National Laboratories. In the early days of the World Wide Web it was open to submissions from all scientific researchers, but gradually a policy of moderation was employed to block articles that the administrators considered unsuitable. In 2004 this was replaced by a system of endorsements to reduce the workload and place responsibility of moderation on the endorsers. The stated intention was to permit anybody from the scientific community to continue contributing. However many of us who had successfully submitted e-prints before then found that we were no longer able to. Even those with doctorates in physics and long histories of publication in scientific journals can no longer contribute to the arXiv unless they can find an endorser in a suitable research institution.

The policies of the administrators of Cornell University who now control the arXiv are so strict that even when someone succeeds in finding an endorser their e-print may still be rejected or moved to the "physics" category of the arXiv where it is likely to get less attention. Those who endorse articles that Cornell find unsuitable are under threat of losing their right to endorse or even their own ability to submit e-prints. Given the harm this might cause to their careers it is no surprise that endorsers are very conservative when considering articles from people they do not know. These policies are defended on the arXiv's endorsement help page

A few of the cases where people have been blocked from submitting to the arXiv have been detailed on the Archive Freedom website, but as time has gone by it has become clear that Cornell has no plans to bow to pressure and change their policies. Some of us now feel that the time has come to start an alternative archive which will be open to the whole scientific community. That is why viXra has been created. viXra will be open to anybody for both reading and submitting articles. We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.

It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific. However, it will also be a repository for new ideas that the scientific establishment is not currently willing to consider. Other perfectly conventional e-prints will be found here simply because the authors were not able to find a suitable endorser for the arXiv or because they prefer a more open system. It is our belief that anybody who considers themselves to have done scientific work should have the right to place it in an archive in order to communicate the idea to a wide public. They should also be allowed to stake their claim of priority in case the idea is recognised as important in the future.

Hmm.  I don't really care how much attention my paper gets.  I just want it to be on viXra because some journal publishers seem to require it.  So, the physics "category" or "section" is fine for me, but if it's the default category, who would want to be an endorser for it?  That probably explains why I haven't found anyone who deliberately puts their papers in that category. 


Today's statistics for my scientific papers on viXra.org shows that 23 people have accessed my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, up from 9 yesterday morning. It's undoubtedly the result of the discussion on the Google forum.  I see there is also one comment on viXra about my Second Postulate paper.  It's the first comment I've gotten on that web site.  The comment simply says:
Not very helpful

I also see there are some arguments awaiting my response on the Google forum this morning.  I'll have to respond, but I'll try to make it short, so that I can get back to work on finding and endorser and finding a scientific journal which will at least look at my paper. 

One of these days, I really must write a book about all this.   

Comments for Sunday, April 16, 2017, thru Saturday, April 22, 2017:

April 20, 2017 - Well, that didn't take long.  In my email inbox this morning, I found a rejection letter from the scientific journal to which I sent my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate yesterday.  The editor stated,
Manuscripts that question well-established physical principles are outside the purview of [our journal] and should be submitted to a more specialized journal for consideration.
So, they have nothing to say about the validity of the material in my paper, they just don't publish anything that is controversial.  Hmmm.

I suppose I should have expected that.  The paper I wrote says that physics teachers are teaching crap about physics, and I sent it to a journal that is run by physics teachers for physics teachers.

So, I'll try someplace else.  The journal that has my paper on Time Dilation definitely does print articles that "question well-established physical principles."  But I don't want to have to wait three months for a response.  I'm going to use them as my last resort option. 

Maybe I'll try another journal that is run by physics teachers.  In an ideal world, physics teachers would be the ones most interested in knowing whether what they are teaching is valid or not.

Nah.  I'll try to find a monthly journal that might publish controversial papers.

I woke up this morning wondering about something I read on that scientific journal for teachers web site.  They state:

Authors are encouraged to upload their manuscripts to their personal Web sites and to e-print servers
Why?  Obviously, there's something about this process that I do not understand.  But, I just submitted the 7,024 word version to ViXra.org, and it's already available there.  I've also put the pdf version on my own web site at the link HERE.  Tomorrow, I plan to submit and upload the 3,000 word version that I sent to a top-ranked journal and got rejected there.  I'm still not sure if I should upload the latest version or not.  I'll have to think about it and see if I can get some advice.  I'll also have to check to see if I can find any likely "endorser" on ArXiv.org.  I'm not very hopeful about that.  But I just sent an email to a potential endorser in the Republic of Georgia and another in the Czech Republic.  Meanwhile, I'll try to find a potential endorser closer to home.  

Busy busy busy.

April 19, 2017 - I just submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to a scientific journal.  They say they'll get back to me about it in ten days or less, which is a lot better than waiting 3 months as I am for information about my paper on Time Dilation.  I also received acknowledgement of receipt at 10:41 a.m., less than a minute after submitting it, instead of having to wait a week and then send an email asking if they received it, as was the case with the revised submission of my Time Dilation paper.  

I finished putting the paper into LaTeX format yesterday afternoon and then printed out a pdf copy.  This morning I proof-read that paper.  I found a slew of minor problems, mostly having to do with LaTex coding, and made those changes.  I hadn't replaced a lot of apostrophes, so the paper had a lot of "Einsteins" instead of "Einstein's."  Plus, I'd totally failed to notice that I needed to add an apostrophe to "c = c + v" to make it "c' = c + v" in all the places it appeared in a large quote I used (the same quote I used in my April 16 comment).

The journal did ask me to supply some potential reviewers, but it was not a requirement.  So, I was able to skip over that part.  It wasn't even a requirement to supply a cover letter, so I didn't supply one.  I wasn't sure what to say.  And I didn't want any cover letter to give any kind of wrong impression. 

The 14-page double-spaced paper has NO illustrations.  It's just 4,880 words of text (including the references).  The illustrations I had been using (and spent a LOT of time creating) were all too cartoony, which didn't seem appropriate for a deadly serious paper that states that most physics teachers around the world are teaching total crap.

I tried to figure out some way to add something more about Time Dilation to the paper, since it is mathematicians' refusal to accept the reality of Time Dilation that is the cause for all their screwball misinterpretations of Einstein's Second Postulate, but I decided it was better to just supply a mountain of experimental evidence to prove the mathematicians are wrong, and to quote Richard Feynman on the subject of experiments.  Here's how I phrased it in the paper:
Physicist Richard Feynman once said that it does not make any difference how beautiful your theory is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who developed the theory, or what your name is, "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
If you look around the Internet for that quote, you'll find many different places where the first part of it is stated as:

Feynman misquote

However, that is not really what Feynman said.  A YouTube video of that part of his lecture is on-line HERE, and a transcribed version is on page 150 of a hardcover book I have in my library that is titled "The Character of Physical Law," and which I used as a reference.  Here's what Dr. Feynman actually said,

Feynman quote

I couldn't use his actual words, because he talks of "guesses" instead of "theories."  If you understand what he was saying, the two words become interchangeable, but out of context they would require a lot of explanation.  So, I just put quotes around the words he actually spoke.

Now I just have to wait to see what happens.  As I see it, there's no way the journal can say that my paper is "wrong," so if they reject it they'll have to find some other reason. Time will tell if they can find some reason.

April 18, 2017 - Okay.  Late on Sunday afternoon I had a good first draft of the new version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  So, I then tried to figure out how to create the LaTeX version requested by the scientific journal to which I plan to send it.   I finally gave up and finished for the day.

On Monday, I awoke thinking I need to create backup versions of everything and put them in my safe deposit box, not just of my scientific papers, but everything I have on my laptop computer.  Surprisingly, it took me about 2½ hours to fill up a 32GB flash drive, and I couldn't fit everything on it.  But it held everything I deemed to be important.  It took 50 minutes to just save my file of audio books!

When I had the backups completed, I started again on trying to figure out how to create a LaTeX version of the paper.  I went through about 150 different sample templates on Overleaf, which the scientific journal recommended as a web site to use for LaTeX coding, but none of their templates exactly matched what the journal required.  Then yesterday afternoon, I tried using Overleaf's "blank page" template and loading into it all the LaTeX code for the "sample paper" the journal provided on their web site.  That worked.

So, I started the conversion.  It is a slow and tedious process.  For example, if I have a sentence in WORD that reads like this:
Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"
Just copying and pasting that into LaTeX format doesn't work.  It produces this in the final version:
Einstein tried again to tell him, Thats NOT correct!"
To fix it, first you need to use two accent marks as the left quote mark and then two apostrophes for the right quote mark.  The LaTeX code then looks like this:
Einstein tried again to tell him, ``Thats NOT correct!''
You need to re-enter the apostrophe in "That's," because copying and pasting it doesn't work.  Then you need to add code to tell LaTeX which words need to be in italics and which words need to be in bold, like so:
Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, ``That's \textbf{NOT} correct.''
But that just gives me this in the final version:
Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"
And that's as far as I got yesterday.  One of the first things I need to figure out today is how to produce a word that is both in italics and in bold.  Everything I've tried so far just produces an error message.  So, I'm going to have to do some research.

I considered sending them the version of my paper that is just in WORD format, the version I wrote, but then I'd have to worry that they might just turn down the paper because it is not in LaTeX format, which the say they greatly prefer.


Ah!  Found it!  When you use this LaTeX code:
Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, ``That's \textbf{\textit{\underline{NOT}}} correct!"
You get this:
Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"
And that is exactly what I wanted!  Whew!

April 16, 2017 - I spent the last few days making various revisions to my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity, and doing research.  The research was to find articles published by the journal to which I plan to send the paper when it is done.  I found some articles, but they weren't particularly important to my case.  Checking the references used in those articles, I found other articles that were a bit more relevant, but they weren't published in my target journal.  The changes I was making to my paper were to incorporate into my paper the articles I'd found.  The idea was that my paper/article might be more acceptable to the journal if I use some of their articles as references. 

Then yesterday morning I realized something.  I needed to totally overhaul my paper.  I needed to write a paper that specifically addresses the issues of concern to the readers of the scientific journal that is my target.  That meant I needed to present my evidence as if it was a case being presented to a jury consisting of editors of that particular scientific journal.  I needed to show how Einstein explained his Second Postulate, then how the mathematicians explain the Second Postulate, then I needed to explain where the two interpretations are in direct conflict with one another, and then I would explain in detail all the evidence that undeniably confirms that Einstein's version is the only correct version. 

But, I have to be careful.  The key to understanding everything is Time Dilation, but I can't make the paper be about Time Dilation.  The paper I have awaiting a second review at another journal is about Time Dilation.  This new paper has to be almost exclusively about Einstein's Second Postulate.

Interesting, while searching for arguments I can use in my paper, I found another very interesting college text book.  The book I found explains in detail how the mathematicians evidently arrive at their misunderstanding about the second postulate.  It is done the way the author of the book does it.  The text book is authored by Dr. Peter J. Nolan, it is titled "Fundamentals of Modern Physics," and it says this at the bottom of page 1-22 and into page 1-23:
Postulate 2 says that the velocity of light is always the same independent of the velocity of the source or of the observer. This can be taken as an experimental fact deduced from the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, Einstein, when asked years later if he had been aware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, replied that he was not sure if he had been. Einstein came on the second postulate from a different viewpoint. According to his [Einstein's] first postulate, the laws of physics must be the same for all inertial observers. If the velocity of light is different for different observers, then the observer could tell whether he was at rest or in motion at some constant velocity, simply by determining the velocity of light in his frame of reference. If the observed velocity of light c’ were equal to c then the observer would be in the frame of reference that is at rest. If the observed velocity of light were c’ = c - v, then the observer was in a frame of reference that was receding from the rest frame. Finally, if the observed velocity c’ = c - v, then the observer would be in a frame of reference that was approaching the rest frame. Obviously these various values of c’ would be a violation of the first postulate, since we could now define an absolute rest frame (c’ = c), which would be different than all the other inertial frames.
I added that whole paragraph to my paper and put my comments about it in brackets after the sections highlighted in red above.  Einstein's Second Postulate says absolutely NOTHING about what an observer might see.  It is ONLY about what the emitter of the light sees and measures.  The Michelson-Morley experiment proves just the opposite of what Dr. Nolan suggests it proves.  Also, the point to Einstein's first postulate is that an observer cannot tell if his measurements are different from someone else's by simply doing a measurement in his own frame of reference.  He must compare his results to the results found by someone else in a different frame of reference, which seems to be something the mathematicians absolutely refuse to do because of what is says in the start of the next paragraph in Dr. Nolan's book (which I didn't include in my paper, because it is all about Time Dilation): 
The second postulate has revolutionary consequences. Recall that a velocity is equal to a distance in space divided by an interval of time. In order for the velocity of light to remain a constant independent of the motion of the source or observer, space and time itself must change. This is a revolutionary concept, indeed, because as already pointed out, Newton had assumed that space and time were absolute.  A length of 1 m was considered to be a length of 1 m anywhere, and a time interval of 1 hr was considered to be a time interval of 1 hr anywhere. However, if space and time change, then these concepts of absolute space and absolute time can no longer be part of the picture of the physical universe.
Yes, indeed.  Time must change.  Time is not absolute.  And the concept of absolute time "can no longer be part of the picture of the physical universe."  But how do we change the minds of the mathematicians who refuse to accept that time is not absolute?  The only way I can see to do that is to get my papers about Time Dilation and the Second Postulate published.  It won't accomplish anything overnight, of course, but it will be a start.

Meanwhile, this morning, I noticed a new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  The thread is titled "Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory."  In the first post in the thread, the author Pentcho Valev quotes from the same book I quoted from in my (B) comment on April 2.  I've been noticing that he seems to be reading this site and making comments without actually mentioning this site.  Instead of blaming the mathematicians for their misinterpretations of Einstein's theories, Pentcho Valev blames Einstein for the misinterpretations and for his own misinterpretations.  Here is his entire second post in the thread he started last night:
Insofar as the constancy/variability of the speed of light is concerned, there are only two consistent theories:

1. The (original) ether theory - incompatible with the principle of relativity.

2. Newton's emission theory of light - compatible with the principle of relativity.

One of the above theories is wrong, the other is true, but both are consistent. Einstein's special relativity is both inconsistent and idiotic (entails the idiotic centaur called "spacetime").
As you can see, he gets everything wrong, and he blames Einstein for his own problems.  Newton's emission theory of light is NOT compatible with the principle of relativity.  Einstein specifically stated that the speed of light does NOT combine with the speed of the emitter, which is what "Newton's emission theory of light" states.    BOTH of the theories Valev describes are wrong.  And neither one of those theories is compatible with Einstein's theories.  But, if Pentcho Valev reads this, I do not expect he will change his mind.  He seems on a mission to prove Einstein wrong, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that all he's doing is proving himself wrong.

But sometimes he finds interesting links.  And you can never tell where a good idea might come from, so I'll continue to check his posts from time to time.

I hope to have my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate ready to submit in a few days.  It's currently in Docx format, but the target journal greatly prefers that the paper be submitted in LaTeX format.  I did that once before, back in September of last year, so it shouldn't be a problem.  It will just take a little extra time.

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

© 2017 by Ed Lake