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

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

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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

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

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

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

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

just trying to figure things out.

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

My Latest Comments

Comments for Sunday, February 18, 2018, thru Saturday, Feb. 24, 2017:

February 18, 2018 -  It's difficult to describe how fascinating the arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have become for me, particularly the arguments I've been having with "tjrob137," who has an email account at Fermilab, but he says he does not work for Fermilab.  (He plays "word games," so that could just mean he works at Fermilab but for some other organization, such the University of California at Riverside, where has a web page.)  He once prowled my web site and wrote about it, and my logs indicated that his prowling was done from a computer in the vicinity of Fermilab.

The key cause of our arguments, however, is that he
doesn't seem to understand anything except mathematics, and he seems totally incapable of explaining anything except in mathematical terms.

At one point in an argument during the past week, he wrote: 

Logic is a subset of math. But what I said has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with that, because the world is NOT math or logic, it just IS.  Physics is also neither math nor logic, and is the systematic effort to MODEL how the world works.

Moreover, your "logic" is FLAWED -- you do not consider all of the aspects of the experiments you think you understand (but don't).
Sometime later, after arguing that think that I understand Einstein's theories and how "tjrob's" beliefs conflict with those theories, I wrote:
So, I'm on the side of Einstein who felt that the universe IS logical.
And "tjrob137" responded:
He was wrong, too.

Note the non-logical aspects of the world are not related to relativity, they are related to quantum mechanics, which Einstein never accepted -- we know he was wrong in that. YOU are even more wrong than him, because he at least understood the math and physics underlying relativity, while you CLEARLY do not.
So, he is clearly saying that there are aspects of quantum mechanics which are not logical.  And that doesn't bother him at all.  Of course, I think Einstein was right in never accepting Quantum Mechanics.  QM is all about mathematical models, not about what is happening in reality. 

Then I asked this about the recent Italian experiment where they compared the "tick rates" of one clock atop a mountain against the tick rates of another clock at the bottom of the mountain ("Tjrob137" believes the tick rates are the same in both locations, and it is the "signals" that travel down the mountain to the observing station that cause the apparent tick rate difference):

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you talking about "signals" that must travel at  the speed of light to get information about moving clock #2 to the location of stationary clock #1?  And the "signals" that must travel at the speed of light to get information about higher clock #1 to the location of  lower clock #2?
His reply:
Then he added:
How can you possibly compare clocks that are SEPARATED???? -- by sending SIGNALS corresponding to clock ticks from one clock to the other, and comparing the rate of the signals to the rate of the clock. 
There is no question that in GR, gravitational redshift is an effect ON THE SIGNALS, NOT THE CLOCKS. All your popular articles that say different do not affect this, because they have simplified the discussion in a way that is tantamount to being wrong.  
So, he was definitely saying that the clock atop the mountain and the clock at the bottom of the mountain both tick at the same rate, but the "signals" sent down the mountain for comparison are affected by gravity, and those "signals" travel at a different rate than the signals from the clock that is sitting at the bottom of the mountain.  So, it isn't that the clock on the mountaintop is running faster, it is that the speed of the "signals" traveling down to the lower clock make it seem that the clock at the top of the mountain is running faster.

In another argument, "tjrob137" argued that "signals" travel faster along a optical fiber cable if the input end of the cable is lifted a foot than if the entire cable is laying parallel with the surface of the earth.  He says that is what was behind the difference in readings of the two clocks in the 2010 NIST experiment.  It wasn't that one clock was 1 foot higher than the other clock, it was that the "signals" from the higher clock had to travel downward, and thus went faster.

I went to bed Friday night thinking about "tjrob137's" arguments, trying to figure out some way to explain to him how TOTALLY NUTS his beliefs were.  I awoke on Saturday morning with a way to do it (I hoped), and I posted this message to him:

Let me try to explain the difference between your argument and mine.  Instead of using tiny fractions, I'll use whole numbers.  And the situation is like the one in Italy that was in the news this week.

My argument: Time and clocks tick at a faster rate atop a mountain than at the bottom of the mountain.

Your argument: Time ticks at the same rate in both places, and it is the rate of the "SIGNALS" traveling through the fiber optic cable that runs from the top of the mountain to the bottom that causes the difference in clock readings.

My argument:

From my frame of reference at the bottom of the mountain, the clocks at the top of the mountain tick 10 times (10T) per 1 unit of my time (1U), while the clocks at the bottom of the mountain with me tick 5 times (5T) per 1 unit of my time (1U).  

The "signals" coming down the cable from the top of the mountain travel at the constant speed of light, c.  It takes 10 ticks (10T) of MY clock at the bottom of the mountain for each tick to arrive from the top of the mountain.

So, I count the signals coming down from the top of the mountain, and I see that every 1U of my time I get 10T from the mountain top clock.  c is constant, so the arrival times are constant.  Meanwhile, my clock at my level shows 5T every 1U of my time.

Conclusion, time ticks at twice the speed at the top of the mountain than it does at the bottom of the mountain.

You claim this is not so.  As I understand it, you claim the "SIGNALS" traveling from the top of the mountain down to me move FASTER THAN c, causing the discrepancy.  You claim the clock at the top of the mountain also ticks 5T per 1U, the same as my clock.

But, according to your argument, signal #1 (the first tick of their clock) would take 10T to get from the top of the mountain to me while the second tick would take 8T, the 3rd would take 6T, the 4th 4T, etc.  That causes me to see 10 ticks arriving in 1 unit of my time, DOUBLE the number of ticks I measure on my clock.  

The problem with your belief, of course, is that the 5th tick would have to arrive at my location instantly, i.e., with no travel time.  And the 6th tick would arrive before it was sent, and the same with all the rest of the ticks.  The whole scheme is illogical.

But you claim that even if it is illogical, it is true and it is to be believed.

Richard Feynman famously said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

What experiments show signals from the top of the mountain arriving at the bottom of the mountain BEFORE they were sent from the top of the mountain?

The Italian experiment shows my version is correct.  Because c is constant, the signals arrive at regular intervals.  
I sent that message on Saturday at 11:03 a.m.   "Tjrob137" didn't respond yesterday.  Looking at the thread this morning, I see there are now 470 posts in it, and there have been three posts by "Tjrob137" since my post, the last one at 4:37 yesterday afternoon, but none are a response to what I wrote.

I can probably write the same ideas I wrote above but much simpler and much shorter.  Every time I explain things to "tjrob137" I understand those things a bit better, and I can simplify my explanations a bit more.  The problem is, however, that my explanations are logic based, and "tjrob137" doesn't believe in logic, he believes in mathematics.  So, if something is totally illogical, he doesn't care.  He'll believe it anyway.  And, if he gets tired of arguing with me, he'll just stop posting.  He won't try explaining his beliefs in a different way.

I've tried to get "tjrob137" to discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment, which didn't use cables to connect one observing location to another.  His response was:
Hafele and Keating compared ELAPSED PROPER TIMES of clocks, not clock rates. 
And that was that.  "Proper times" has some meaning to him that he won't explain.  Nor will he explain how comparing elapsed times for two clocks ticking at different rates is somehow totally unrelated to comparing tick rates.

Comments for Sunday, February 11, 2018, thru Saturday, Feb. 17, 2017:

February 16, 2018 (B) - Yesterday, someone brought another news article about Time to my attention.   It's titled "Some Physicists Think Time May Be Slowing Down — and Will Eventually Stop."  The article doesn't make much sense to me, and it seems to have been dreamed up by mathematicians who promote String Theory, which is a theory that cannot be proved or disproved, so it seems like a total waste of time to me.  What scientific purpose does it serve?  As I see it, it's just a meaningless "mathematical construct" that mathematicians love to play around with like some computer game.

And the article doesn't seem to provide any meaningful description of how time works in this "mathematical construct."  So, there wasn't much I could say about it.  However, I noticed that the idea was dreamed up at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain.  That I found to be very interesting, since I've been noticing a lot of visits to my web site from one or many people in Bilbao, Spain.  There are lots of one-time visits, but I haven't analyzed them to determine if they represent many people visiting one time, or if they represent a single visitor who moves from location to location around Bilbao and visits many times.  It's one of the lesser "mysteries" that keep making each day  more interesting than the previous day. 

February 16, 2018 (A) - The "Gym TV Mystery" that has been bugging me for months reached a new level of intensity yesterday.  I was on the treadmill at about 1:45 p.m. when four of the seven TVs on the wall in front of me suddenly went dark and just showed the screen saver that indicates the TV is on but the cable connection has been turned off.  I immediately jumped off treadmill and when into the next room where the manager was sitting at his desk.  I jerked my thumb in the direction of the TVs on the wall, and he immediately knew what I was indicating.  He nodded and headed to the back room.  I waited, and after he had been in the back room for a moment or two, the TVs all showed their normal cable channels again.

While waiting for the manager to return, I had a moment to think.  On Monday the TVs had turned off at 12:35 p.m. while I was walking into the cardio room.  (See my February 12 (A) comment.)  On Tuesday, the TVs turned off at 1:35 p.m. while I was on one of the Exercycles.  I don't go to the gym on Wednesdays, so I don't know what happened on that day.  And on Thursday, as described above, the TVs turned off at 1:45 p.m. while I was on the treadmill.  Three times in a row the TVs had turned off while I was in the gym.

When the manager returned, I asked him if the TVs were just turning off while I was in the gym, or do they turn off at other times, too.  He said they turn off at other times, too.  (I'm evidently just the only member who mentions it to him.)

We talked a bit about how the TVs and cable boxes work, and he kept talking about how a "timer" was turning off the TVs.  I couldn't figure out how that is possible.  Someone has to set a timer to turn the cable connection off at some specific time.  Who was setting the timer to turn off?  And WHY?  Or did someone just tell the manager that it was a "timer" problem and the manager was simply repeating that to me, without having a clue as to what kind of "timer" was involved or what it did?  I suggested to him that someone could be "messing" with him.   He nodded.  But I didn't want to take up too much of his time, so I just went back to my exercises.

Now I'm thinking about when the problem started.  It started in late October.  Several of the TVs when dark and stayed dark for over a week before I mentioned it.  The manager evidently called Spectrum, and Spectrum turned the TVs back on, but someone set the screen size on all of the TVs to show a "squished picture."  (See my January 30 comment.)  That lasted for months, until I showed the manager undeniable proof that the TVs were not "supposed to be that way."  Meanwhile, a week or two after the first time the TVs went dark and were than turned back on again, some of the TVs went dark again and remained dark for a week or so.  Then a week or two later, same thing.  That's when I started telling the manager whenever I saw the screens go dark.  And now some of the TVs evidently go dark almost every day at different times.

So, what's going on?  I'm still gathering clues.  Is it just a coincidence that there is a "movement" afoot to get gyms to turn off the TV channels that Donald Trump doesn't like (CNN specifically)?  Is it just a coincidence that a rival gym opened up in my town about 6 months ago, and it is located right across the street from the Spectrum store and service center?  I need to know what kind of "timer" they are talking about and what it is supposed to do.  I'll probably have to wait again for the TVs to turn off again while I'm there before I can work the question into a conversation with the manager.   'Tis a puzzlement.

ADDED NOTE: While I was at the gym this afternoon, the cable connection turned off once again to some of the TVs.  But, before it did, there was a message on the screen.  I saw it once before, but I don't wear m glasses while exercising, so I couldn't read it.  Same thing this time, but I was able to make out a bit more of it than the previous time.  It said something to the effect that, due to lack of activity, the cable connection was going to turn off unless someone pressed any of the buttons on the cable box. 

Aha!  So, it IS a "timer" problem.  It's some kind of timer that shuts down the cable connection if no one has done anything with it in 24 hours.  It's probably a "power saver" option or something to that effect.  And it can probably be easily changed.  But the manager was busy with something, so I'll wait until the next time the problem occurs.  Then I'll try to explain the problem as I see it.

February 15, 2018 - While I was lying in bed this morning waiting for it to be time to get up, it occurred to me that I should check to see what other news stories there might be about the Nature Physics "Geodesy and metrology with a transportable optical clock" article.  (See yesterday's comment.)  So, after breakfast this morning I did a Google news search for "Geodesy" and found two articles worth mentioning:  The first is from Science Daily and it titled "Portable optical clock used to measure gravitation for the first time."  The article says,
The transportable clock was driven in a vibration-damped and temperature-stabilised trailer to the French Modane Underground Laboratory (LSM). Operated by Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Grenoble-Alpes University, the multidisciplinary lab is located in the middle of the Fréjus road tunnel between France and Italy.

There, the team measured the gravity potential difference between the exact location of the clock inside the mountain and a second clock at INRIM -- located 90 km away in Torino, Italy, at a height difference of about 1,000 m.

The accurate comparison of the two clocks was made possible using a 150 km long optical fibre link, set up by INRIM, and a frequency comb from NPL, to connect the clock to the link. Researchers from Leibniz Universität Hannover also determined the gravity potential difference using conventional geodetic techniques, and the two measurements were shown to be consistent.
Unfortunately, there's nothing in those paragraphs or in the entire article that I would highlight in red.  It says nothing about exactly how "the gravity potential difference" was determined.  And that is the key point of contention between me and the mathematicians.  I say that the lower clock ran slower, and that is how they measured the "gravity potential difference."  The mathematicians argue that time moves at the same rate everywhere, and all accurate clocks run at the same rate everywhere, so there can be no clock that "ran slower."  There was just some magical "signal" that made it seem that the lower clock "ran slower."

The second article is from ScienceAlert.com and is titled "For The First Time, a Portable Atomic Clock Has Been Used to Measure Gravity."  It has something worth highlighting in red:
The technology involved in atomic clocks is breathtaking. They keep track of the extremely regular oscillation of atoms trapped by lasers to keep the most accurate time possible, allowing it to be measured to the 18th decimal place.

The most accurate atomic clock ever built using strontium atoms contained in a lattice of lasers - what is known as an optical lattice atomic clock - won't lose or gain a second for 15 billion years. That's longer than the current age of the Universe.

The strontium atoms are cooled to a temperature just above that of absolute zero, trapped by the interference pattern of two laser beams. The laser excites the atom, which causes it to oscillate.

The new portable atomic clock, also a strontium optical lattice developed by researchers at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstal in Germany, is not quite as accurate as the 2015 record-breaker. It has an uncertainty of 7.4 × 10−17.

But it's accurate enough to measure gravitational redshift, as the international team of researchers has just discovered.

We know that gravity affects matter. We know that it affects light. And, yes, it also has an effect on time - where gravity is stronger, time moves slower.
Looking at all the messages that were posted to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum overnight, I see they are "more of the same."  We had been talking about the NIST experiment where they showed that a clock lifted just one foot higher than another clock ran faster.  And we'd been talking about the Hafele-Keating experiment which showed that moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks.  Tom Roberts disbelieves both of those experiments and argues,
In particular, did the NIST experiment "bring the clocks together" to
"compare" them? -- of course not. Because it did NOT compare the clocks, it compared SIGNALS FROM THE CLOCKS, which you would know if you bothered to actually read the reports, not just articles written for popular consumption.
And when I asked "WHAT SIGNALS??!?!?!?!?!?!?" Tom replied,
The SIGNALS they actually compared.    
And he concluded his post with this,
Your fantasies and mis-reading of popular but inaccurate reports does
not change either the experimental method or results.  
He's evidently totally incapable of explaining what "signals" he's talking about, but I suspect that in this new experiment, he will admit that he's talking about the "signals" that get transmitted along the 150 km optical fiber cable connecting the two clocks.  He wants the two clocks to be side by side when they show the difference in tick rates.  But, of course, if they are side by side, they will show the same tick rates.  It is because one is higher than the other that they show different tick rates.  But, evidently, Tom's argument is that the clocks are actually ticking at the same rate, it is just the "signals" that are used to compare the clocks that cause the difference.   I think he means the "signals" have to move at the speed of light, so if you are looking at one clock, the "signals" from the other clock will have to get to you via a cable at the speed of light, and that delay is what all the fuss is about.  Therefore, the people who designed the experiments are all incompetent, since they didn't take into account the time it takes for those "signals" to move from point to point at the speed of light.

As I see it, the experiments are like taking videos of two clocks in two different locations and then comparing the videos.  The speed of light cannot cause the difference in what the videos record. 

Hmm.  The speed of light cannot cause any difference.  But a video shot near a black hole should run at a vastly faster speed when shown back on earth, because "30 frames PER SECOND" has a vastly different value near a black hole than back on earth. 

Sigh.  It's time for me to start working on replies to the posts that were made overnight.

February 14, 2018 - This morning someone sent me links to two recent articles that fit perfectly into the arguments I'm involved with on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.   The first link is to a Los Angeles Times article from yesterday titled "Scientists take an atomic clock on the road and use it to measure the height of a mountain."  It says,
This week, scientists described a major step forward in using time to determine height above sea level. For the first time, they took an optical atomic clock out of the lab. Their liberated device was brought into the French Alps.

By comparing the tick rate of the portable atomic clock on a mountain with a similar clock in a lab in Torino, Italy, the researchers were able to show that the altitude difference between the two locations was roughly 1,000 meters, or 3,280 feet.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, time moves differently depending on where you are in a gravity field.

For example, a clock on top of a tall mountain — far from the center of the Earth — will move a tiny bit faster than a clock at the base of that mountain, where the gravity is stronger.

It's not a mechanical error. Time itself actually passes faster at the top of the mountain.
The article contains the second link, which is to the original article from two days ago as published online by the scientific journal Nature Physics.  It is titled "Geodesy and metrology with a transportable optical clock."  It says the same thing as the Los Angeles Times article, but using physics jargon and adds lots and lots of technical details.  For example, the article says,
The test site chosen for our demonstration of chronometric levelling11 with optical clocks was the Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane (LSM) in France, with the Italian metrology institute INRIM in Torino serving as the reference site. The height difference between the two sites is approximately 1,000 m, corresponding to a fractional redshift of about 10–13.
So, they already knew what the height difference was.  They then just confirmed it with the atomic clocks.   The article uses this illustration:

using time to measure the height of a

and it says under the illustration,

The red line shows the expected variation of the Sr clock transition frequency due to the relativistic redshift.
Presumably, "the red line" is actually two red lines, (1) the diagonal red line in the left chart showing zero altitude and (2) the second diagonal red line in the right chart showing a 1,000 meter altitude.  There's another "red line" that connects the second bar in the bar chart atop the mountain to the second bar in the bar chart at the bottom of the mountain.  That supposedly also represents a 150 km long cable connecting the two locations.  (You'd think that a paper with 24 authors could be more clear, but maybe it is difficult to read because it had 24 authors.)

The articles neatly dispute the claims by "tjrob137" who endlessly argues that time does NOT tick at different rates at different altitudes or at different speeds.  He claims that is just lies that many scientists feed to the ignorant public because the public is too dumb to understand real physics.  According to "tjrob137," in "real physics," there are some magical "signals" that somehow change everything that is observed.  The problem is that "tjrob137" cannot explain how those magical "signals" work except via mathematical jargon I cannot decipher. 

I posted a comment advising "tjrob137" of the LA Times and Nature Physics articles.  Presumably, he will just consider the LA Times article to be nothing but more lies fed to the ignorant pubic, and there will be something in the Nature Physics article that he can use to argue that it confirms his belief that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, and it is only the magical, unexplainable "signals" that only he understands that make it seem otherwise. 

The thread now has 309 comments in it, and it seems less and less worthwhile to continue to participate.  I'm curious to see how "tjrob137" and "paparios" react to the LA Times and Nature Physics articles, but, other than that, I think it may be time to get back to work on some article about all this - or maybe a book. 

February 13, 2018 - Ah!  Wow!  The arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum made actual progress this morning.  We were arguing about the Hafele-Keating experiment, which involved flying four atomic clocks around the world, twice, first traveling eastward and then traveling westward.  Before the flights, they compared the clocks to a "stationary" atomic clock.  The mathematicians claim the experiment proved nothing, because no one did any comparisons while the clocks were moving.  So, they argue you cannot claim the clocks were "running slow" while moving if no one did any measurements while they were moving to prove they were running slow.

LOGIC, of course, says that the clocks must have been running slow while moving, because they showed less time had passed when the comparisons were made to the "stationary" clock after the flights.  But the mathematicians do not accept logic.  They believe math IS logic.  And they have no math which shows the clocks were running slow while moving.

Several mathematicians hit me with that reasoning at the same time.  It means we may be at an impasse.  One of the mathematicians actually argued that scientists are lying when they tell people the clocks were running slow while flying on the airplanes.   I'm still trying to find out WHY he believes the scientists are lying to the public.  He seems to think the public is too stupid to understand physics, but that doesn't explain the need to lie.    

February 12, 2018 (B) - The arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum continue to rage.  Some of them are extremely interesting.  For example, today when I complained that "tjrob137" (also known as "Tom Roberts") wasn't explaining his bizarre claims, one of the people on my "Do Not Reply" list, "Odd Bodkin," posted this: 
I love it — just love it — when people like this insist that everyday folk have an entitlement to a compelling explanation at their level.
I couldn't reply, of course, but I could respond by writing a comment to someone else.  So, I wrote this to Tom Roberts, who often seems to feel the same way as Odd Bodkin:
Is that what Tom Roberts and Paparios also believe?  That "everyday folk" like me are NOT ENTITLED to any kind of "compelling explanation" at "our level"?

Then that is how you see our problem here, isn't it?  You simply cannot LOWER yourself to explain anything at the "everyday folk" level?
It certainly makes it look like you simply cannot explain anything because you do not UNDERSTAND anything.  As Einstein supposedly said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."  
So far,  no response to that from Tom Roberts.  But someone else who is on my "Do Not Reply" list posted this:
If someone is on your "Do Not REPLY" list, then
DO NOT REPLY, idiot. Androcles!
Since he's on my "Do Not Reply" list, I couldn't reply and explain that replying is not always the same as responding.
February 12, 2018 (A)
- When I walked into the "cardio room" in my gym at 12:35 p.m. this afternoon, I noticed that about 4 of the 7 TVs  on the wall were showing a "no signal" message that moved around on the screen, indicating that the cable connection was turned off.  So, the cable connection had been turned off shortly before I entered the cardio room after changing clothes.  The "no signal" message displays for only about 10 minutes before the TV turns off automatically.

The gym manager noticed it at the same time, probably because he noticed me entering the room and then looked at the TV to see if there was anything wrong.  (Last week I'd finally convinced him that his TVs were all set to the wrong picture size, and he finally had someone correct the problem.)  So, he got up from his desk and went into a back room to turn the cable boxes on again. 

That made me wonder if the cable boxes were supposed to be set to turn off at 12:30 A.M., after the gym closed, and instead someone had set them to turn off at 12:30 P.M.  I asked the young woman behind the counter about it.  She told me, "The timer turns off the TV's."  I responded, "Yes, but who sets the timer?"  That question had never occurred to her.  She had no idea who did it.

I'm thinking that someone thinks that a.m. is "daytime," and p.m. is "nighttime," and that's why they set the timer to turn off at 12:30 p.m.  The gym is open 24 hours, except on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights, when they close around 11 p.m.  Today is Monday, so the cable timer could still have been set for weekend hours.  I'll wait to see if it happens next Monday, or the Monday after that, before I try to explain the problem to the gym manager.  He's totally non-technical and admits he has no idea how the timer is set.

February 11, 2018 -  While I haven't been mentioning it in my comments here, the arguments I'm having on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have been raging fast and furious all week.   It isn't just me against everyone else on the forum.  There have been a couple people who argue the same things I argue, but with a slight twist of one kind or another.   "Kenseto" is the prime example.  He doesn't support me, but he argues the same things I argue using different terminology.  For example, here is part of a discussion about different speeds at which points on Earth travel around the center of the Earth:
Me: Milwaukee moves at 800 mph, Miami moves at 950 mph, and London moves at 650  mph.  Do you deny those speeds?

Tom Roberts: No, relative to the ECI.
Me: Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different lengths for their seconds?
Tom Roberts: Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.

Kenseto: No, clocks in relative motion do not accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. The reason is that a cycle of the Cs 133 atom has different TIME content in different frames. The SR math says so.....one second in observer A’s clock is worth (equal) 1/gamma seconds on B’s clock.
So, Kenseto and I agree, but Tom Roberts didn't respond to Kenseto.  Tom Roberts just stopped posting.  If he posts again, he'll probably ignore Kenseto's comment and just argue with me and some later post of mine.  And he'll claim that I am the only one who believes that clocks tick at different rates in different frames of references.

The thread that had only Pentcho Valev's originating comment in it when I first responded to Valev's comment on February 2, now has 118 comments from 21 different people. And it doesn't show any signs of being anywhere near a conclusion.  I probably posted about a quarter of those 118 comments.  I'm saving a copy of the discussion, since it is interesting and shows how the mathematicians think.  Many posts, of course, were nothing but personal attacks against me.  But you have to expect that if you post anything that conflicts with the beliefs of the mathematician-physicists on the forum.

This morning I see there were six posts overnight.  Mostly they are just bickering between other people.  Here's one interesting example:
Paul B. Anderson: All GPS clocks are synchronous in the non-rotating Earth centred frame (ECI).

Koobee Wublee: This in not true.

Paul B. AndersonI challenge you to tell us in which frame GPS-clocks and UTC [Coordinated Universal Time] clocks are synchronous.

mlwo...@wp.plThey are just synchronous, poor idiot. 
Paul B. Anderson is in Norway, and one comment from him this morning is addressed to me.  It's going to take me awhile to figure out how to respond, since his comment looks at things from a different angle than usual.  I'll start on it as soon as I finish the comment I'm writing here at this moment.

Oops.  I got involved in a different problem resulting from my web site host changing things.  I had to work on that and totally forgot that I hadn't posted this comment.  So, I'm posting it.  If I forgot anything, I'll update it later.

Here's an interesting and somewhat typical comment from one of the guys on my "Do Not Reply" list, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller, who seems upset with how I replied to Paul B. Anderson:

STUPID ASS ED DONKEY..... the orbiting satellite clock and ground based stationary clocks ARE CONNECTED THROUGH THE PROPERTIES OF THE VACUUM YOU STUPID DONKEY’S ASS.

The orbiting clock is skewed by VELOCITY
The ground base clock is skewed by the earth’s acceleration of gravity

“The Vacuum” connects the two clocks.

You’re Stupid

"'The vacuum' connects the two clocks"?  I have no idea what he's talking about, but since he's on my "Do Not Respond" list, I'm not going to try to find out.

Comments for Sunday, February 4, 2018, thru Saturday, Feb. 10, 2017:

February 9, 2018 - I awoke this morning thinking about GPS satellites and how they must disprove the mathematicians "All Observers" version of Einstein's Second Postulate.  But, I think I'm going to have to create some kind of illustration to help explain it.  The illustration would be something like this:



OA and OB are two orbiting GPS satellites moving west to east around the Earth. X is where I am located on Earth at 8 a.m., and I am also moving west to east as the Earth spins on its axis, but at a different velocity than the velocity of the two satellites.  Y is where I am at 8:00:01 a.m. when I receive the 8 a.m. signal from the OB satellite.  I receive it first, because it arrives at c+v where v is my speed toward the OB satellite (the emitter).  Z is where I am at 8:00:02 a.m. when I receive the signal from the OA satellite.  It arrives later than the OB signal because I am traveling away from the OA satellite and the light arrives at c-v, where v is my speed away from the OA satellite.  

So, at 8:00:03 a.m., my GPS system tells me where I was at 8:00:00 a.m.  (In reality, it is more like 8:00:00.000003 a.m. and 8:00:00.000000 a.m.)  The system cannot tell me where I am, since that would require some prediction of where I will be a millionth of a second in the future when the signal arrives.

The system can tell me where I was at 8:00:00 a.m. because the clocks on the two satellites are synchronized with my clock.  8:00:00 a.m. is the same on all three clocks.  (Actually, you need 3 or 4 satellites to make things work, but that would complicate the illustration and explanation unnecessarily.)  And, of course it is known that the signals from the satellites to my GPS system travel at c, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.  If you know the speed of the signal and the length of time the signal traveled, you can determine the distance traveled.  And knowing the distance traveled allows the system to calculate/triangulate where I was on the surface of the Earth at 8:00:00 a.m.

If, however, the mathematicians were right, and if light travels at the same speed for ALL OBSERVERS, regardless of their movement relative to the source of the light signals, then how could the GPS system work?  Both signals would have to arrive when I am at position Y, even though the signal from OA would have had to travel a greater distance in the same amount of time.  The only way that would work is if light traveled instantaneously (at infinite speed).  And if that were true, you couldn't measure distances by how fast light gets from point to point. 

I can probably find better ways to explain this, but I'm going to have to think about it a bit.

February 8, 2018 - I don't remember exactly what I was looking for, but a couple days ago I found a scientific paper titled "One-Way Speed of Light Relative to a Moving Observer" by Stephan J. G. Gift.  It's also HERE.  Although I was intrigued by the title, it took awhile before I found the time to read it.  Wow!  It says what I have been saying about the screwball way that many colleges teach Einstein's Second Postulate.  And Stephan Gift uses the GPS system to show that what the colleges teach is wrong.  Here's the abstract:
The one-way speed of light relative to a moving observer is determined using the range measurement equation of the Global Positioning System. This equation has been rigorously tested and verified in the Earth-Centred Inertial frame where light signals propagate in straight lines at constant speed c. The result is a simple demonstration of light speed anisotropy that is consistent with light speed anisotropy detected in other experiments and inconsistent with the principle of light speed constancy. This light speed anisotropy was not observed before because there has been no direct one-way measurement of light speed relative to a moving observer.
"Anisotropy" is defined as "the property of being directionally dependent, which implies different properties in different directions, as opposed to isotropy."  In other words, "speed of light anisotropy" means you get a different measurement of the speed of light in one direction (heading toward the source) than you do in another (heading away from the source).   And that is "inconsistent with the principle of light speed constancy" which (according to mathematicians) says the speed of light is measured to be the same in all frames of reference, whether you are moving toward the source or away from the source. 
In the discussion section, Gift summarizes his paper this way:
The elapsed times determined in equations (7) and (13) indicate that the light transmitted from station A takes longer to arrive at station B when station B is moving away from A than towards it. Following from this equations (8) and (14) indicate that for an observer moving at a constant speed v relative to the ECI [Earth-Centered Intertial] frame, the speed of light from a source fixed in the ECI frame relative to that moving observer is c - v for the observer moving away from the source and c + v for the observer moving towards the source.
Essentially, what Gift is saying in his paper is that GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous orbits, so they orbit around the earth at a different rate than the earth spins on its axis.  That means that, when your car's GPS system (and the earth under it) is moving toward a satellite, the signal from the satellite arrives at c + v, and your car's GPS system (and the earth under it) is moving way from the satellite, the signal from the satellite arrives at c - v.  He writes:
These changed light speed values c + v observed in an inertial frame directly contradict the principle of light speed constancy which requires constant light speed c that is independent of the motion of the observer.
The "principle of speed of light constancy" is probably what Stephan Gift was taught in college.  It is the mathematicians' misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate that can be found in many many college physics textbooks.  That's a problem with Gift's papers.  He's blaming Relativity for errors, when he should be blaming mathematicians and the incorrect version of Relativity they teach in many (if not most) colleges and universities.

Stephan Gift's paper says he works in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of Engineering, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. 
I wondered what else he had written.  I found a copy of "The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics" which has this as its abstract:
The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer, is shown to be invalid.
And, I found "Light Speed Invariance is a Remarkable Illusion."  Then, I checked my library and found maybe a dozen other papers by Stephan Gift on the same and similar subjects.  And I found a few others elsewhere.  

I don't know when I'll get the time to read them all, but the most interesting part of the process might be to check the references that Gift uses and cites.  I'd certainly like to find a lot of other people who have been arguing the same things I've been arguing.  It also looks like Gift gave up on writing papers several years ago.  I wonder why.  Did he realize that he was criticizing Relativity and Einstein's Second Postulate when he should have been criticizing the mathematician's misinterpretation of Relativity and the Second Postulate? 
I may have to research that, too.

February 5, 2018 - I was somewhat relieved this morning to see that the arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum had degenerated into arguments and personal attacks between other posters, with no comments addressed to me.  So, I went back to work on the new web page (or paper) I'm trying to write about Einstein's First and Second Postulates. 

I began by reading what I'd already written.  I'd written an explanation of why Einstein thought his Second Postulate was "only apparently irreconcilable with" the First Postulate.  But, I found I wasn't certain that I agreed with what I'd written on that subject.  That made me wonder if others on the Internet had addressed the question of why Einstein felt the Second Postulate "was only apparently irreconcilable with" the First Postulate.  So, I did a Google search for "Einstein Postulates Irreconcilable."  Surprisingly, my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate was the first item on the list provided by Google.  But, even more of a surprise was the second item on Google's list.  It was a link to a discussion from October 2012 between Pentcho Valev, "tjrob137" and some others who had also participated in yesterday's Google forum discussion.  The discussion was titled "Einstein's 1905 Postulates Irreconcilable After All."  So,
they've been arguing the same argument for over 5 years!

In 2012, I was working on my book about the 2001 anthrax attacks and I hadn't even started to think about Relativity, Einstein's Postulates, or Time Dilation.  I hadn't even yet started my interactive blog.  My first comment there was dated October 9, 2014, and it was about buying a new laptop computer (the computer I'm currently using to write this comment).  I didn't post anything about Time Dilation until I posted "Time Dilation Explained" on April 15, 2015, which has a link back to my Time Dilation page on this web site that was started on March 23, 2014.

Anyway, the 2012 discussion I'd found begins with this post by Pentcho Valev:

A stationary source sends a light pulse towards a stationary observer/receiver. Then the source starts moving towards the observer and sends another pulse. The two pulses are physically different, judging from the different frequency they will have at reception, and the difference is obviously created BEFORE reception. What does the difference consist in? Two answers are conceivable:

(A) The speed of the second pulse (relative to the observer) is higher than the speed of the first. Needless to say, this is fatal for relativity.

(B) The wavelength of the second pulse is shorter than the wavelength of the first. This is also fatal for relativity but for a different reason. If the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the source (as is the case with sound waves), then the principle of relativity is violated - the motion of the light source towards the observer is not equivalent to the motion of the observer towards the source. As the source changes its speed, various wavelengths travel between source and receiver. This does not happen when the receiver changes its speed.
It seems Pentcho Valev has found the "irreconcilable" point.  But, as usual, he's misinterpreting everything.  First, as I see it, Einstein was saying that the two pulses mentioned in Pentcho's first paragraph are NOT "physically different" even though they would have a different frequency at reception

Pentcho's (A) comment is wrong, since Relativity is all about how measurements will be the same when viewed within a frame of reference, but they will be different when a comparison is made between different frames of reference.  The Second Postulate says nothing about what an outside observer will measure.

Pentcho's (B) comment is also wrong.  The wavelength will be the same when the emitter is stationary as when the emitter is moving.  That is because the emitter does not emit "waves," it emits photons which travel in a wave-like manner.  And, as stated in Einstein's Second Postulate, those photons will travel at c, independent of the motion of the emitter.

The sections of Pentcho's (B) comment that I highlighted in bold and in bold red are his key misunderstandings.  The first part suggests that Einstein in some way suggested that all motion is reciprocal, which is nonsense.  The section I highlighted in bold red says that Pentcho believes that when the light source moves the wavelengths change.  That is not true.  Pentcho also says "This does not happen when the receiver changes speed."  That may be the point of "apparent irreconcilability."  When the receiver changes speed, the measured incoming wavelengths will also change.  The actual wavelengths do not change, but when the observer is moving toward the source of light, it will appear that the wavelengths are shorter, and when the observer is moving away from the source of light it will appear that the wavelengths are longer.

Pentcho (and mathematicians) seem to believe that the First Postulate says that all frames of reference will measure the same things whether it is inside or outside of their frame of reference.

That is NOT what the First Postulate says.  The First Postulate says,
the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
That says that the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid in all local frames of reference, i.e., it won't make any difference if you are stationary
or moving at a steady rate.  You will get the same results to any experiment you perform inside your inertial frame of reference

The Second Postulate says,
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
That might be "apparently irreconcilable" with the First Postulate because it says the emitting body can measures things different from the receiving body.  But that is only true if you do not understand Relativity, which is mostly about Time Dilation.  And the rest of Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity is about explaining how time moves at different rates depending upon how fast you are moving.  And it is about how we can both measure things to be the same inside our individual frames of reference, but if we were to compare the length of a second in your frame versus my frame, unless we were stationary relative to each other, we would find that they are different.  Therefore, our measurements are actually different.  

The key to the misunderstandings seems to be that Einstein dismisses the idea of an "ether" that is stationary and can therefore be used to measure all velocities relative to the "ether."  Yet, he says that velocities are NOT reciprocal, they are relative to TIME.  The faster you move the more time slows down for you. 

Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity was written before the evidence of the Big Bang was found.  As I see it, all motion is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.  Everything moved outward from that point and then began spinning.  Einstein seems to have believed that the motion of objects had some relationship to the lengths of objects, and that things (specifically "rods") become shorter when moving faster.  No evidence of any kind has been found to support that notion, but it seems it is still referred to as "space-time."

I think I understand Relativity, and I think I understand where Pentcho Valev and so many others misunderstand Relativity.  The problem, as usual, is how to discuss our two points of view intelligently so that we can arrive at a mutual understanding.  Pentcho and the others do not seem willing to do that.  They just state their views and attack anyone who disagrees with their views.   

February 4, 2018 -  Hmm.  As I sat down to begin work on this Sunday comment yesterday afternoon, I suddenly realized I have to be more careful in how I quote Albert Einstein.  When responding to a post by "Pentcho Valev" on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum last week, I had quoted this sentence about Velocity Time Dilation from Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity:
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
I received two responses that repeated what mathematicians tell me every time I use that quote.  "Steve BH," with whom I never exchanged posts before, wrote:
Einstein got this one wrong, and realized why later.

At sea level water flows to an equal level of gravitational minus centrifugal potential called the “geoid.” On the geoid clocks all go the same rate, as equatorial bulge lifts moving clocks out of the g field by just enough to compensate for their rotational speed.

Clocks on the geoid all go slower than clocks in interplanetary space. And clocks above sea level have an offset between these extremes. Clocks at elevation thus must offset before the contribute to global atomic time.

Clocks in orbit also must compensate for both motion and g potential, which cancel (with respect to geoid) at a distance of 1.5 Earth radii but not below or above that orbit. GOS clock are at 4.2 radio so the higher potential wins in their offset compared to sea level.
And a physicist from Fermi National Labs who posts as "tjrob137" wrote:
The earth is not a perfect sphere (as Einstein implicitly assumed). The earth is an oblate spheroid, and anywhere on the planet at mean sea level (i.e. the geoid), clocks will remain in sync.
I was talking about Einstein's theory, and they are talking about how that theory is wrong in practice.  Einstein was right if you consider the earth to be a perfect sphere.  But the earth is not a perfect sphere.  It is slightly flattened at the poles, which means the pull of gravity is greater at the poles than it is at the equator because the poles are closer to the center of the earth. 

Earth slightly flattened at the poles 

The image above shows the earth to be 42 kilometers greater in diameter at the equator than at the poles.  We know that gravity time dilation is greater the closer you are to the center of the earth, i, e., Time runs slower at the bottom of a mountain than at the top of the same mountain.  And the shape of the earth means that being at the equator is like being atop a mountain 21 kilometers high, while being at the poles is like being at the bottom of that same mountain. 

So, gravitational time dilation is less at the equator than at the poles, while, as Einstein stated in his 1905 paper, velocity time dilation is greater at the equator than at the poles.  The mathematicians claim the two forces exactly cancel each other out.  I can't dispute that.  And I'll have to stop using that quote from Einstein, since it always generates the same argument and derails the discussion of time dilation.

However, I'll continue to disagree with "tjrob137" on something else he wrote:

Clocks do NOT "tick faster or slower", they ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of how they might be moving (relative to anything), or where they might be located (e.g. at any gravitational potential). For a cesium atomic oscillator that rate is 9,192,631,770 Hz, BY DEFINITION.
I responded to the above comment the way I always respond to such arguments from "tjrob137":
And, "hz" means "hertz" which is "the SI unit of frequency, equal to one cycle PER SECOND."  Which means that if your SECOND is longer because you are moving, you still get 9,192,631,770 Hz, but it is not the same rate you get when you are stationary, even though you get 9,192,631,770 Hz then, too.  The length of a SECOND is different, therefore the cycle rates are different.  That is what Relativity is all about.
I see now I shouldn't have written "cycle rates are different."  I should have written "cycle periods are different" or "cycle lengths are different."  That would have made things clearer.  It is also what time dilation is all about.  You get the same speed PER SECOND in multiple "frames of reference," and you get the same number of cycles, but the length of a second can be different in different "frames of reference" because the length of a "cycle" is different.  

I asked "tjrob137" this question:

Do you deny that IN THEORY, movements at those speeds would have different lengths for their seconds?
And he responded,
Yes, I deny that. Because EVERY clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate, and the second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs133 hyperfine transition.
That's not a denial.  It's evidence that he misunderstands.  I responded:
Yes, the SECOND is defined that way, and the SECOND is longer when you are moving or are closer to a gravitational mass.  So, you still get the same number of cycles, but during a SECOND OF A DIFFERENT LENGTH.  So, the rate of time is different even though you get the same measurement in both places.  As stated before, that is what Relativity is all about.  
So, that time I was talking about "cycles" instead of a "rate."  As part of that same discussion, "tjrob137" also wrote:
Note however, that when one COMPARES SIGNALS from clocks that are moving differently (relative to each other), or are located at different gravitational potentials, one observes Doppler shift and/or "gravitational time dilation" in the SIGNALS.

        It is manifestly impossible to directly compare such clocks,
        one can only compare SIGNALS from them.
I've tried in vain to get him to explain what he means by "SIGNALS."  What "signals" did Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating get from the four atomic clocks they hauled around the globe on commercial aircraft in 1971, flying first in one direction and then in the opposite direction?  "tjrob137" refuses to explain, but it appears he believes that "signals" (whatever they are) speed up when they are going toward the earth and slow down when going away from the earth.  

And that was where the the conversation ended on Friday.  "tjrob137" posted nothing further on Saturday nor up until I posted this comment on Sunday, and I have no reason to believe he will restart the conversation.

However, this morning there was a new comment by Pentcho Valev at the end of the thread.  Pentcho doesn't respond to comments.  He posts new comments without mentioning any previous comments.  His new comment provides a lot of quotes from a bunch of links, with Pentcho's misinterpretations of the quotes.  He is always blaming Einstein for misinterpretations people have of Einstein's papers.  And that is what he did this morning.  Here is his entire comment:

------ start quote ----

So in 1905 Einstein concluded that the moving clock runs slower, and this was going to become "the traveling twin remains younger" later. But the conclusion was non sequitur - it didn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The situation was dangerous - at that time scientists were still not brainwashed by the Einsteinian propaganda.

In 1918 Einstein almost admitted the failure of special relativity but informed the scientific community that his general relativity did solve the problem:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."  http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

The "homogeneous gravitational field" was an idiotic hoax of course. So idiotic that nowadays most Einsteinians avoid any discussion of it. Yet some do teach it, euphemistically:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."  https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."  http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Pentcho Valev
----- end quote -----

Those are some very interesting links.  The prime reason I check all of Pentcho Valev's posts is because he sometimes finds extremely interesting links that I'd never seen before.  His link to Einstein's 1918 paper Dialog about objections against the theory of relativity is a very good example. (If I had seen it, I'd never made a copy of it before.)  I'll have to study it when I find some time.  But, as I replied to Pentcho, it is an imaginary discussion between a "critic" and a "relativist," so, while quoting from it is technically "quoting Einstein," it isn't like quoting a statement from Einstein.  It's like me saying "John says Joe is crazy," and someone else saying Ed said "Joe is crazy."  Yeah, technically I said that, but I was quoting someone else.

Until this morning, I had saved only 1 file by David Morin, the same Chapter 11 file Pentcho cites.  The chapter shows that Morin teaches the "mathematician's all observers theory," and he makes the same silly misinterpretations of Einstein's theories that so many other mathematicians make.  Inexplicably, Morin also switches the postulates around, so what Einstein gave as his first postulate, Morin gives as the second postulate.  And Einstein's second postulate is Morin's first postulate.  Plus, Morin uses too much mathematics for my tastes.  Pentcho's post provided the title of the book.  It's titled "Introduction to Classical Mechanics - With Problems and Solutions."  And since Professor Morin teaches at Harvard University, his book might be a good source to quote in my papers which describe the nonsense being taught in colleges around the world.

The quote from the "Physics Girl" video has a different kind of screwball misunderstanding.  "Her clock runs slower" can mean that "her clocks runs slower than it was running before" or it can mean "her clock runs slower than the other twin's clock."  There's no situation where the stationary twin's clock "runs slower" than the moving twin's clock.  Excluding malfunctions, that isn't even possible.

The hubpage link is to an "article" that is nothing more than a blog comment.  It totally misinterprets Einstein.  There is no situation where "
the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself."  In Einstein's version of Relativity, people enclosed in different frames of reference may think they are stationary while they are actually moving, but as soon as they look outside, they see there is a difference between their "frame of reference" and someone else's "frame of reference."  (Like seconds being longer or shorter.)  Einstein doesn't imagine any situation where two space ships pass each other in empty space and they cannot tell which one is moving.  That is a situation dreamed up by mathematicians to argue their screwball beliefs about Einstein's theories.  Einstein lived in our REAL universe where people know they are in moving spaceships because it cost billions of dollars and tons of fuel to put them in that moving spaceship.    

Lastly, I previously used John D. Norton's writings as prime examples of how physics books misinterpret Einstein -- until I found better examples elsewhere.

So, posting a comment to the Google discussion forum wasn't a total waste of time.  I learned from it, and I got some new sources to use in papers I hope to write.  I do not expect Pentcho Valev to respond to what I wrote, but he might post something with some more interesting links.  I'm hoping that "tjrob137" will want to argue about the length of a second, but I doubt that he will.  If he posts anything further to that thread, it will probably just be some personal attacks.

ADDED NOTE:  Ah!  At about 2 p.m. this afternoon, "tjrob137" did indeed post a reply.   He posted this personal attack:

The situation is considerably more complicated than it is possible for
you to understand, because you have carefully kept yourself ignorant of
basic physics. It simply is not possible to construct a SELF-CONSISTENT theory based on the notions you espouse. And, of course, GR is in complete disagreement with your claims -- in GR every clock ALWAYS ticks at its usual rate.

        That is, every clock advances by 1 second whenever the
        metric integrated over its worldline increases in path
        length by 1 second -- the correspondence between world
        and model is EXCELLENT. You have NOTHING but your own
        blather, and misreadings of some articles.
Which brings us back to the experiment at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) which showed that a second becomes longer when you raise a clock by just one foot.  When I showed that article to "tjrob137" in previous  discussions he simply argued that the people at the NIST do not know what they are doing, since they evidently do not take into account the "SIGNALS" that somehow change everything.     

Comments for Thursday, Feb. 1, 2018, thru Saturday, Feb. 3, 2018:

February 2, 2018 (B)
- Hmm.  When I went to the gym this afternoon, I found that they had fixed the aspect ratio on 6 of the 7 LG TVs on the wall in the "Cardio Room."  The screen images now fill the entire screen without any black bars at the top and bottom.  (See my January 30 comment.)  And they had also turned on the TVs showing CNN and ESPN, which had been turned off for a couple weeks.  Only the TV tuned to NBC was still off.  (It could be broken.)  However, the 5 Samsung TVs hanging from the ceiling still showed the black bars, including the TV showing CNN, which was turned on once again.  So, I've made some progress.  Everyone now knows that the vertically squeezed image is NOT "the way things are supposed to be."

Interestingly, half way through my session at the gym, the LG TV showing the Fox channel turned off.  I mentioned it to the manager, and to my stunned surprise he went into a back room that I didn't know existed and switched that TV back on again. He said it was a problem with "the timer."  Evidently, the TVs are connected to timers which turn them off when the gym closes at night and turn the TVs back on again when the gym reopens in the morning.  So, all someone has to do to turn off CNN is putter around with the timer.  Did the manager know about the timer before, or did he learn about it when the "Tech guy" fixed the aspect ratio on the LG TVs?  I dunno.  But, I certainly learned a lot about how things work.  And I'll know what to do when someone turns off CNN again.

February 2, 2018 (A)
- Groan!  I couldn't control myself this morning, and I posted a comment to the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  It's the first time I've posted there in well over a month, although I check it every day.

This morning, a regular constant poster to that forum, Pentcho Valev, posted a comment that said,

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:

Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous but idiotic "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:
I had to respond, since just two days ago I found that map showing how different places on planet Earth move at different rates depending upon their latitude(And this morning I found the original source for the image below.)

relative velocities on a spinning
Using this map, you can search for where your line of latitude crosses the black curve to determine the speed you're spinning in the cosmos.

I didn't realize it then, but the map is a terrific argument against the belief by some mathematicians that "all movement is reciprocal."  I.e., when I move away from you it is the same as if you move away from me.

The map shows that movement is NOT reciprocal on a globe.

So, I responded to Valev's post with this:

Pentcho Valev's "conclusions" are INCORRECT.  His "conclusions" assume that all movement is reciprocal.  It's not.  All movement is relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred.  So, relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, Clock A moved and Clock B did not move.  

Pentcho Valev also misunderstands relativity.  Relativity says that within Clock-A's "frame of reference," everything seems normal.  Time seems to tick at at its normal rate.  And the same with Clock-B in its "frame of reference."  Everything seems normal, and time seems to tick at its normal rate. BUT, if you compare the length of a second in one frame versus the other, Clock-A's frame of reference has a longer "second" because it moved.  Time slows down when you are moving.

In that same 1905 paper, Einstein wrote: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

In other words, a clock at the equator ticks more slowly than a clock at the poles, because the clock at the equator is moving around the earth at 1,040 miles per hour, while the clocks at the poles are just standing still while turning in place.

There's an interesting article at this link:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546864/How-fast-YOU-spinning-Earths-axis.html

Using the map at that link, you can see how almost every place on Earth between the equator and poles experiences time ticking at a different rate.  Milwaukee is moving at 750 mph.  Miami is moving at about 900 mph.  London is moving at 620 mph.  Singapore is moving at 1,040 mph.  However, no one in London realizes that their clocks are ticking faster than clocks in Miami.  Everything in their frame of reference seems "normal."  But, if you COMPARE one frame to the other, you will see that the clock in Miami is ticking slower than the clock in London (by a few trillionths of a second).

Pentcho Valev's ridiculous argument claims that from Miami's point of view, London is moving slower, and from London's point of view, Miami is moving slower.  That is ABSURD.  How can that be possible on a spinning globe?

Movement is NOT RECIPROCAL.  Therefore time dilation is NOT RECIPROCAL. 
Now I'm waiting to see what kind of argument they can come up with to justify believing that a person in London will see the person in Miami as moving slower, while the person in Miami will see the person in London as moving slower.  That is not possible on a spinning globe, and yet, as Einstein wrote, "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference."  So, even though a second is longer in Miami, both will get the same results in local experiments.  It is only when they compare the length of a second in Miami versus the length of a second in London that they will realize that the experiments did NOT show the same results.

Added note:  The first response was, of course, from someone on my "do not reply" list who merely attacked me as being "
uneducated and uninformed," and who wrote nothing about the validity of my comment.

Comments for Sunday, Jan. 28, 2018, thru Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2018:

January 31, 2018
- Hmm.  This morning I decided I needed to create an Exel spreadsheet with numbers I commonly use when writing about physics.  For example, how many kilometers per second do you have to be traveling before 1 second for you will equal 10 seconds for some stationary individual?  The answer is roughly
298,290 kilometers per second.  The problem has been that every time I want to use that number I have to recalculate it using an on-line time dilation calculator.  So, I'm putting the number (or a more precise number) in a spread sheet that I will retain.   Now I just have to remember where the spreadsheet is located. :-)

During the process of looking for key numbers (how fast the Sun goes around the Milky Way Galaxy, etc.), I found an article titled "How fast are YOU spinning on Earth’s axis right now? Infographic reveals the precise speed your country is moving at as the planet rotates."  The article contains this interesting graphic:

latitude to speed around earth's axis

Under the graphic it says, "Using this map, you can search for where your line of latitude crosses the black curve to determine the speed you're spinning in the cosmos." 

That becomes important when you talk about Time Dilation, because Einstein wrote this in his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies:
Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.
So, if you know Milwaukee is at 43 degrees north latitude, the map shows you that latitude almost exactly matches to the "Tangential Speed" of 750 mph.  If you are at the equator, your speed around the earth's axis will be 1,040 mph.  If you are at the poles it will be zero.  Everywhere in between it will be somewhere between zero and 1,040 mph, and Time will tick at a different rate at every different latitude.  Cool!  I wish I'd found that map long ago.

January 30, 2018
- Yesterday, I took my camera with me to the gym, and, between about 3 and 3:15 p.m., I took two dozen pictures of their 12 TVs from different angles.  Prior to going to the gym, I had set my DVR (Digital Video Recorder) at home to record Fox News from 3 to 4 p.m.  That would and did allow me to compare pictures of the TVs at the gym to pictures of the exact same Fox News show on my TV at home.  Here's one result:

TV comparison
The backgrounds in the pictures are a bit darker than I would have preferred, but you can clearly see the black band on the screen at the top of the image in the upper photo, particularly where the yellow light is being reflected off the glass.  There's another black band at the bottom of the screen.  All 12 of their TVs have those black bands.  I've been trying to convince them that those black bands aren't supposed to be there.

The picture I took of my TV at home shows no black bands.  That is clearest when looking at the upper left corner where light reflects off the frame and the glass, and there is definitely no gap between the TV image and the frame.

I printed out black and white versions of these images and gave them to the manager of the gym.  I also pointed out that the trees on the right side of the images on the screens are the same distance from the frame in both shots.  That means both pictures are the same width.  And both are 16x9 screens.  Therefore, the upper picture must be compressed (or "squished") vertically to make room for the black bands.

I think I convinced him.  We'll see what happens next.  I've done all I can do to show them that their 12 TVs are all showing "squished" images and have been doing so since November 3.

TVs at my gym
Above is a shot I took of 11 of the 12 TVs at my gym.  Seven TVs are mounted on the far wall and 5 are hanging from the ceiling.  I couldn't find a position where I could get all 12 in the same shot.  The 12th TV showing Fox News is mounted on the wall off of the right side of the picture.  Four of the screens are dark, because someone turned off the cable connection.  I put white numbers on them.  1 = ESPN, 2 = CNN, 3 = NBC and 4 = CNN. 

If the manager can persuade their "Tech guy" to fix the size of the images on the screens, the "Tech guy" will hopefully and presumably turn on those 4 TVs at the same time.  Then I'll wait to see if someone turns them off again.  If they do, then I'll bring that "mystery" to their attention.  Who keeps turning off CNN (and NBC) and why?  Whoever is doing it has done it three times since October.  I think I know why it was done (Trump hates CNN and so do his supporters), but I have no idea who did it.  

January 29, 2018 (C)
- While I was at the gym this afternoon, someone posted a very interesting comment on my interactive blog.  It contained a link to a video titled "10 Times Michio Kaku Arguments Blew Our Minds":

I haven't yet watched the whole video, but the first two segments are about Einstein's conflicts with Quantum Mechanics, and those two segments fascinated me.  Michio Kaku says Quantum Mechanics is "right" even though Einstein said it is "stupid."  I would say that Quantum Mechanics "works," so it is assumed to be right.  But Einstein could also be right, and all we are doing today is waiting for the right technology to come along to show Quantum Mechanics may have been right in what it calculated, but it was totally wrong in its description of how the universe works.

Added note: Quantum Mechanics mathematicians are also content to say that light "sometimes acts like a wave" and "sometimes acts like a particle," and they contentedly use different mathematical formulas for the different situations.  To a scientist or physicist or me, that is just plain STUPID.  We need to understand how light actually works.

January 29, 2018 (B)
- Uh oh.  For the past week or two, I've been working on a new "paper" about Einstein's First and Second Postulates as defined in his 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."  I began by writing how I understand what Einstein wrote.  I quote Einstein and then I explain the same things in simpler terms, terms I would use. 

The second part of the "paper" is an analysis of what is written about the First and Second Postulate in 5 different highly recommended physics books.  I used the five books listed in an on-line article titled "Five Highly Recommended Physics Textbooks."  (I put the word "paper" in quotes because I haven't actually been writing it as a scientific paper in .docx WORD mode.  I've been writing it as a web page, in .html format.  My thought was that I'd first put the full version on this web site with all the links and all the interesting quotes, and then I'd strip it down to a shorter .docx version with fewer quotes and references instead of links.  It's still in web page mode.)  Here are the five books on the list:

1. University Physics with Modern Physics by Young, Freedman & Lewis Ford

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

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

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

5. The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman
Writing the web page version turned out to be a wildly educational experience.  Three of the listed books (#1, #2, and #4) use what I've been calling "The Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," i.e., the mathematicians' distorted version of  Einstein's postulates.  Then I discovered that one of the books (#3 on the list) has what I consider to be Einstein's version of the two postulates.  It explains things the way I explain things.  I think I may have found it before, but I'd somehow lost track of which book it was (or maybe there's another text book somewhere that also agrees with Einstein). 

To make things even more interesting, it appears that the authors of book #3 changed their minds at some point in the past.  The link in the article goes to the 9th edition of the book.  I also found the 10th edition, which says the same things.  Then I found the 8th edition, and it uses the mathematicians' version.  So, I had to study the 9th edition to see if I could figure out why they changed things.  I couldn't.

Then I got to book #4 on the list.  It also uses the "all observers" version, but it phrases things differently, and it cites a scientific experiment as justification for using that version.  The experiment is the Kennedy Thorndike experiment from 1932.  I couldn't recall ever reading about that experiment before.  But, I was extremely interested in any experiment that supports the "all observer" theory.

I found a copy of the Kennedy-Thorndike 1932 paper on line.  It's titled "Experimental Establishment of the Reality of Time."  As far as I can tell, it does not support the "all observers" theory, since it never uses the word "postulate," and it uses the word "postulated" only once and in a different context.  But, the paper definitely supports time dilation.  I'm still studying it to see if I can determine why Randall D. Knight feels it supports his beliefs.  It might also contains something I can use in my arguments.  The problem is that the 1932 terminology is very obscure.  For example, it repeatedly refers to "pencils" of light, as in "a pencil of homogeneous light" in the second sentence of the paper.  So, a lot of deciphering is required.

Then I got to book #5 on the list.  And there my mind was thoroughly "blown."  Richard Feynman doesn't use the word "postulate" anywhere in the book, as far as I can tell.  The entire book is on-line HERE.  But there is a separate web page for every chapter.  Chapter 15 is titled "The Special Theory of Relativity," and it doesn't contain the word "postulate."  Nor does Chapter 8 on "Motion" or Chapter 17 on "Space-Time," or any other chapter which seems relevant.  Plus, there are two other books in the set, neither of which seem relevant to the issue.

So, I studied Chapter 15.  While Feynman doesn't use the word "postulate," he does explain things about time dilation and light.  And, he explains those things in a way they have never been explained to me before.  He wrote (with me highlighting a few phrases in bold):
Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. ... according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c - u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed—they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments in detail, to show exactly what was done and what was the matter; something was the matter, of course, something was wrong with the equations of physics. What could it be?
Using the speed of light to determine the speed of a car (or rocket ship)?  That was not the way I'd been looking at things, but I knew it was how they looked at things in the Kennedy-Thorndike and the Michelson-Morley experiments.   So, suddenly I was looking at things from a very different angle.  For a moment, I thought that the "all observers" theory might be right after all.  But, then after thinking about what Feynman wrote for awhile, I began to realize it's a different angle on things, but it doesn't change everything.  It just makes it more important for me to clarify what I am saying versus what the mathematicians are saying.

And that's where I am now.  Hopefully, I'll be done in the next year or two.  But, maybe it won't take that long. 

January 29, 2018 (A)
- I just finished listening to part 4 of the 4-part audio book version of "I'll Mature When I'm Dead," by Dave Barry.

I'll mature when I'm dead

I was listening to CD #4 in the 4-CD series when I pulled into my garage yesterday afternoon.  I figured I had between 5 and 10 minutes left on that last CD, but I didn't want to sit in my car to listen to it.  So, I just turned it off.

This morning I turned on the MP3 version in my computer, skipped to where I'd left off, and finished listening to what turned out to be the last 4 minutes.

It was a very funny and enjoyable book.  Unlike the previous Dave Barry audio book I'd listened to, this one didn't require that you read it to enjoy the humor.  It was perfect for listening.  And while being very funny, it was also somewhat educational.  It has a lot about crime and criminals in Miami (Barry was a columnist for the Miami Herald), it has stuff about stupid politicians, it has a section about writing screenplays, it includes a brief but hilarious reading of a "vampire novel," it has a section about getting a vasectomy, a section about paying for a daughter's wedding, etc., etc.  I highly recommend listening to it.

So, when I get into my car this afternoon to go to the gym, I'll eject that last CD and put in the first CD of the next audio book in the queue.  It's a very different kind of book, but hopefully it will be another good listening experience.

January 28, 2018
- The discussion I was having on the Facebook closed group, Science, Philosophy and Psychology Discussion, seems to have come to an end.  But it was a very good discussion while it lasted.

It began with someone asking "What is Time?"  Lots of people posted responses before I entered the conversation.   Most of the responses either said that time was an "illusion" or that it's just a "measurement."  Then I posted my theory:
Time is particle spin. Sub-atomic particles are like little clocks that tick at a specific rate when stationary in open space. When the particles are made to move, like when part of a space ship, the spin slows down, and time slows down. Clocks on the space ship slow down, you age slower, metal rusts slower, everything that is on the space ship goes slower.

It's called "time dilation." The slowing of time is also caused by putting the particles closer to a large gravitational mass. Time ticks slower at the bottom of a mountain than it does at the top of a mountain.

It's a fascinating subject. 

That comment got six "Likes" and one "Wow!"  And it also got some interesting responses, to which I responded in turn. One of the more interesting responses was from Fasesin Hezekiah Sunny who wrote:

Your posts are really interesting! Which makes me think time is determined by motions of the spheres. But I wonder what happens to time if all of these motions were to stop?? Or is it impossible for all of motions to stop???

And I responded to him:

Time doesn't stop when motion stops. Time runs at its FASTEST speed when motion stops. Sub-atomic particles spin fastest when the particle is stationary in space.

Time stops when your motion reaches the speed of light and when gravity reaches the intensity found in Black Holes.
Then after a lot of back and forth on various aspects of time, someone named Andrew Pennington asked me:
Ed Lake is the speeding up and slowing down of time, as you describe, large enough to affect differences in ageing within humans. I mean if I spend my life constantly on the go vs someone very sedentary, will I be visibly or measurably younger than them after 80 odd years??  
And I responded,
No the speeding up of time is only really noticeable when you are going over 90% of the speed of light, and no one so far has gone even 1% of the speed of light.

There's a Time Dilation calculator at this link: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993

It says that if you travel at 298290 kilometers per second (99.5% of the speed of light), you will age 10 times slower than people on Earth. For every day you age, people on Earth will age TEN days.

If you travel at 28160 kilometers per hour, which is how fast the people on the International Space Station travel, for every second you age, people down on earth will age one second plus 1 billionth of a second.

Scott Kelly's twin brother Mark was on Earth while Scott spent nearly a year on the ISS. During that year, Mark aged 5 thousandths of a second more than Scott Did. Here's a story about it: https://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html
I got a nice complimentary response to that.  After some more exchanges with various people, someone called "John Osborne" posted this:
May one ask how your investigation related to the fact that we are moving in more than 8 directions at the same HC Time at high velocities.Did you calculate a Resultant and base your conclusions on this or what?
And I responded,
All the movements of the earth spinning on its axis, of the earth orbiting around the sun, of the sun orbiting around the Milky Way galaxy do not add up to a significant fraction of the speed of light. And since it is extremely difficult to use all those numbers in routine calculations, it's better to just use a stationary point instead of a moving spot on earth. That is what the calculator does. And that is what I did. The answers are not significantly different from what you'd get if you used all the various motions. If you want to argue the differences, that's up to you. Generalities are better for explanations on Facebook pages.
And John Osborne responded,
Stationary Point?Where would that point be located?All is moving All is changing in our universe to the best of our knowledge.
And I responded with another part of my theory,
That "stationary point" would be where the Big Bang occurred. From that "stationary point," everything exploded (moved) outward. And at that point, all matter should be evenly distributed in all directions, thus gravity would be the same in all directions.

Unfortunately, the HYPOTHETICAL point where the Big Bang occurred is outside of our VISIBLE universe, because there was no light during the first moments after the Big Bang, and also no time because there were no particles.
And then John Osborne ended our discussion by posting this:
May we agree that a probable process was 1The Slngular 2 QF 3 BB / RE.At the commencement of which HC time t equal zero.This indicates that in HC terms t may equal a minus quantity before BB / RE commenced. May one also indicate that whereas light generally travels in a straight line the motions that our bodies experience are not straight lined.Therefore we may not discount them in our investigations.Prehaps one may take up other points later.
So, he was evidently a mathematician, and I'd put him into a position where he could only respond with mathematical abbreviations and memorized phrases.

But, while all those discussions were going on, a totally different kind of discussion was going on.  Someone called "Tracy Love," whose bio says he is "Dr. Love" who formerly ran a chiropractic clinic in Arkansas, posted this message after my very first comment:

Well I must say, your comment on time is more interesting than mine.
And I responded:
It's an EXTREMELY interesting subject for me.
And Dr. Tracy Love responded:
I bet it gets you lots of significant others...huh?
I didn't know if that was some kind of snide remark or just a creepy remark, but I responded cordially:
It gets me into a LOT of arguments with people who think time is an "illusion" or who think that time cannot change speeds, even though many many experiments show that time does change speeds. And, of course, Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity says that time runs slower at the equator than at the North Pole, which means time runs slower in Miami than it does in Atlanta (because the spin of the earth is faster when you are nearer the equator).
The mention of Einstein must have triggered something in Dr. Love, because his next comment was:
Einstein worked in patent offices stealing technologies for the benefit of the Corporation of the Inner City of London. His oddball theories helped safeguard the monopolies of the Corporation. Information is a strategic political monopoly and the Corporation keeps a profile on every person on Earth.
Oooo.  A conspiracy theory!  And a personal attack on Einstein!  I didn't want to get into arguing against personal attacks, so I wrote:
I don't comment on personal attacks. I only comment on whether the science is correct or not.
Dr. Love wasn't ready to let the matter drop, however.  He then wrote:
What is perceived as attack in fact goes to "motive". If you discount motive you can't understand the "why".
Against my better judgement, I responded to that message, too.  I wrote:
Motives are generally a matter of opinion, unless the person explains his motive. Opinion versus opinion arguments are a waste of time.
And Dr. Love then wrote:
Your mental "orientation" reminds me of the Rotary Club motto (the Freemasons have tried to get me to join Rotary for decades). Rotary motto goes something like this..."before you say anything, consider these things...1) is it the truth, 2) will it promote good will among all concerned, 3) will it hurt anyone's feelings, 4) in summary, if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything". Keeping science secret is a nice thing...to the Corporation. If you can be loyal to this motto you can function as a Freemason...making it look like all is well in the world run by the secret society. Most of all...keep the mysteries of science secret. That just isn't my way, Ed. Now, I have had my free speech for the past two years about science and now I will retire to my other hobbies, creating music and, of course other entertainment.
That ended our discussion.  I didn't respond further.  "The Corporation"?  Evidently, he was talking about "the Corporation of the Inner City of London," whatever that is, but which he mentioned in his earlier comment.  I did a Google search for it, and I found quite a few links about it.  Perhaps the most interesting was an article from 2014 titled "Three Corporations run the world: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City."  It begins with this paragraph:
World events most of which are ‘engineered’ leave a trail that leads to the architects. We next discover that there are 3 cities on earth that come under no national authority, they have separate laws, they pay no taxes, they have their own police force and even possess their own flag of ‘independence’. These 3 cities control the economy, military onslaughts and the spiritual beings of those in powers. The 3 cities are actually corporations and they are the City of London, District of Columbia and the Vatican. Together they control politicians, the courts, educational institutions, food supply, natural resources, foreign policies, economies, media, and the money flow of most nations as well as 80% of the world’s entire wealth. Their ultimate aim is to build a totalitarian rule on a global scale where people will be divided into rulers and the ruled after they have depopulated the world to numbers they wish to rule over. What we need to understand is that the world does not work according to what we have been led to believe. We are drowning in misinformation.
Groan.  So, Dr. Love is another conspiracy theorist who believes a conspiracy theory I thought had died away two hundred years ago.

It doesn't make me wonder if there is such a conspiracy, but it does make me wonder if the conspiracy theorists might someday take over the world.  There seems to be enough of them to do it. 

Comments for Sunday, Jan. 21, 2018, thru Sunday, Jan. 27, 2018:

January 26, 2018 - Yesterday, someone sent me a link to an interesting YouTube video about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 four years ago.

It doesn't provide any new information, and it isn't clear when the video was created.  But, it explains the situation nicely and it is interesting to follow the plane's route on a map or globe, since it clearly shows that the disappearance could not be an accident because the plane changed direction several times. 

About a week ago, an American company started another search for the aircraft.  I wrote about it in my January 11 comment.

January 25, 2018 - I awoke this morning thinking I might have solved the greatest mystery in the history of the universe.  Or maybe not. 

For the past couple days, I've been working on a paper about Einstein's two postulates and the arguments about them, plus how the two postulates relate to Time Dilation.  I've been trying to simplify the first and second postulates, and relativity, down to its bare essentials.  I've got that part of the paper done.  Now I'm going through physics text books to quote how they distort the first and second postulates to mean something other than what Einstein said and wrote.  While doing that, I realized that the third part of my paper would have to be about whether the misquotes and distortions are intentional or not.  Do the authors think Einstein was wrong, or do they think that Einstein just didn't explain things clearly?  Or are they deliberately distorting what Einstein wrote in order to promote the Quantum Mechanical view of the universe?

Last week, someone calling himself "Anonymous" posted some comments to my interactive blog, comments stating how he had never read anything about Einstein disagreeing with mathematicians, much less that the disagreement went on for 50 years.  He said, there was nothing in his biographies about any such arguments.  "Anonymous" was right.  But, we were talking about arguments over the meaning of the First and Second Postulates.  That's not what the arguments were really about.  The arguments were about the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.  There is page after page about that subject in his biographies. 

I think the misunderstandings about the First and Second postulates stem from a disagreement about the nature of Time.  I'm not sure what the disagreement between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity is all about.  I'll have to do more research on it.  Articles on the subject usually just say that Relativity is about how the large scale universe works, and Quantum Mechanics is about how particles and atoms work, and the two concepts are somehow irreconcilable.  It seems to have something to do with the nature of Time.  I don't quite understand that, since time slows down for particles just as it slows down for everything larger when going fast.  That has been proven with muons and other particles

I was hoping to get back to work on that paper this morning, but then, as I was going through my morning routine of checking various things on the Internet, I saw someone had asked the question "What is Time?" on the closed group, Science, Philosophy and Psychology Discussion.  You have to be a member to even see what is posted there.  I'm a member, so I responded.  And I got a terrific response to everything I posted.   So, I spent some time on it.  And there might be a lot more comments when the "night shift" comes on (when people who only get on Facebook in the evening start viewing that thread).

Meanwhile, of course, I keep thinking about the problems with the TVs at my gym.  And every day there seems to be another mystery of some kind that briefly grabs my attention.  (Who in Houston is accessing this site every day from a different IP address?  And how is that done?)  Sigh.

January 23, 2018 - Sigh!  Once again, someone turned off the two TVs at my gym that have been showing CNN.  It's the 3rd time in the past 3 months.  I don't know if there's any way to find out if it is part of the campaign to get gyms to turn off CNN or if the guy who runs the gym just doesn't like CNN.

I talked with him yesterday about how the TV images on their 12 LG TVs all have black bars across the tops and bottoms, but he seemed to think that it must be normal, since no one else mentioned it.  I got the model number of the remote control they use, and I found a 152-page LG instruction manual on the Internet.  But, I can't reproduce the problem on my Sony TV, so I can't define the exact solution.  It looks like a problem I'm just going to have to forget about.  It isn't worth all the effort I'm putting into it to find a solution.  Out of curiosity, I stopped in Best Buy yesterday to see what the 21x9 screens look like, but they don't have any identified that way.  Some screens look wider than others, but none looks significantly wider.  They had about 35 TVs on all at once.   None, of course, had black bars across the tops and bottoms of the screens.  So, how can anyone think the black bars are "normal"?   Sigh.  

January 22, 2018 - In a response to the comment I wrote yesterday, I received an email this morning reminding me that my cable box remote control can probably be programmed to also be my TV remote control.  That way I can use one remote control for both.   I knew that.  My cable box remote control is supposed to be a "Universal remote control," which can supposedly be used to operate my TV, my cable box, and certain functions of my BluRay player.  But, is it easier to pick up one remote control and push two or three buttons than to pick up one remote control, push a button, then pick up a second remote and push another button?   Researching the question, I found the cartoon below, which shows having multiple remote controls to be a problem.
too many remote controls

Then I found the cartoon below, which seems to show having multiple remote controls to be an easily met challenge.
too many remote controls

My feeling is that I am too busy trying to understand the universe, and I don't really have the time to try to understand a universal remote control.  A universal remote control solves a problem that I don't have.

Right now, I have a much bigger problem in trying to figure out why so many people misunderstand the First and Second postulates in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.  How can I convince them they are wrong if they cannot discuss the subject except in mathematical terms?  I cannot convince them using mathematics.  The problem doesn't have to do with mathematics, it has to do with LOGIC.  Their misunderstanding is NOT LOGICAL.  Neither is their argument that mathematics IS logic.

Back when I was working on this problem in order to write my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, I collected dozens and dozens of papers and books on the subject.  I tried to organize them in a file in web page format that I never put on the Internet.  Since then, I've collected dozens and dozens of additional papers and books that aren't included in the web page.  Looking through some of them, I see all sorts of misunderstandings.  For example, on page 15 of Wolfgang Rindler's Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological, it says this:
So the only function of the second postulate is to fix the invariant velocity.
And on page 61 it says this:
We have seen how Einstein’s second postulate (the invariance of the speed of light) seems to violate common sense and certainly violates Newtonian kinematics.
The Second Postulate isn't about the "invariance" of the speed of light!  It is about how the speed of the emitter does not affect the speed of light (because there is a maximum speed at which light can travel).  And it makes perfect sense, common or not!  Here, for the umpteenth time, is what Einstein wrote (translated into English):
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
That is so simple and clear.  How can physicist after physicist, author after author, turn that into something it does NOT say??!!!  And when you argue with them, they claim it may be what Einstein wrote, but it's not what Einstein meant. So, it becomes an opinion versus opinion argument about whether or not Einstein meant what he wrote, or did he mean to write what the mathematicians believe he meant?  Opinion versus opinion arguments are a total waste of time.

Sigh.  This is totally fascinating to me, but how do I convince people that Einstein meant what he wrote and what he wrote makes perfect sense, while the beliefs of the mathematicians do NOT make sense?  I tried that with my paper about the Second Postulate, but maybe I can argue it in some different way.  

I'm going to dig through all those papers and books to see if I can find a pattern to them or something that will undeniably show who is right and who is wrong.

January 21, 2018 - In the past few days, I've learned two lessons about what Carl Sagan meant by "common sense" in his book "The Demon-Haunted World." (See my January 18 comment.)  The first lesson I learned at the gym.  The second I learned in a discussion on my interactive blog

I've mentioned in previous comments on this web site the problems I've noticed with the TVs at my gym.  At my gym, there are 12 TVs, 7 mounted high on the wall in front of the rows of Exercycles and treadmills, and 5 more hanging from the ceiling about midway between the wall and the last row of treadmills.  They show seven different networks (TBS, ESPN, CNN, ABC, FOX, NBC and FOX News).  Since November 3, all 12 TVs have been using the wrong screen size.  (I mentioned this in my December 31 comment.)   All the TVs show black bars at the top and bottom of the picture.  Like so:

tv with black bars on top and bottom

Everything these days is transmitted for today's 16x9 TV screens.  So, "normal" TV shows should fill the entire TV screen, like so:

16:9 TV image
You should only see black bars on the top and bottom if you viewing a CinemaScope movie or if you have an old TV with a narrower screen.  Like so:
Cinemascope black bars
Those black bars should NOT be there for normal stuff on CNN, NBC, ABC, etc.  The TV screens at the gym are 16x9 screens just like the one I have at home, and I don't have the black bars on my screen at home when I view CNN or the other networks.
I hadn't mentioned it to the gym management because I didn't want to make a pest of myself.  I had previously complained about them turning off CNN and NBC, and they had to call Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable) to come in to turn CNN back on.  (They never did turn NBC back on.)  And they seemed to claim that they had to call Spectrum for all problems with the TVs. 

Then on Friday of last week, as I sat down on the Exercycle in front of the TV showing CNN, I noticed that 4 of the 7 TVs on the wall were dark.  None of the TV screens had been dark 20 minutes earlier when I was on the treadmill.  The one showing CNN wasn't dark, so it was not a problem for me, and I didn't tell anyone.  Then, about ten minutes into my 20 minutes on the Exercycle, the young woman who was tending the reception desk by the door came into the room carrying a remote control, and she turned on each of the 4 TVs that had been off.

BOING!  They had a remote control for the TVs!!  They did not have to call Spectrum.  Of course!!  I then realized that they probably only had to call Spectrum to change channels.  The controls for the channels provided by Spectrum were inside the wall somewhere, but the remote control for the TVs was available to the gym personnel.  I have two remote controls for my TV at home, too.  I have the remote control for the cable box, and I have a remote control for the TV.  The remote control for the cable box changes channels, the remote control for the TV turns the TV on and off, it adjusts the sound - and it also adjusts the picture shape and size

Since the young woman was right in front of me, I waved her over and pointed to the TVs to tell her that the screen size was wrong on all the TVs.  She just smiled pleasantly and told me that that was something they'd have to call Spectrum about.  I didn't want to argue with her, so I just let her go about her business.

When I was finished on the Exercycle, I wondered about the TVs hanging from the ceiling behind me.  I walked back to look at them, and sure enough, three of those TVs were still off.  Simple LOGIC had made me think that if most of the TVs on the wall had somehow been turned off, then some of the TVs hanging from the ceiling had also probably been turned off.  Or was it "common sense"? 

Then, when I'd finished my workout, showered, dressed and was on my way out the door, I stopped by the front desk and asked if I could look at the remote control for the TVs.  The young woman obediently handed it to me.  It was very different from the TV remote I have at home.  The one I have at home has a "WIDE" button that adjusts the screen size.  The one at the gym had no such button, but it did have a big button labeled "MODE" that isn't on my remote control.  Would that be the button to adjust the screen size?  I didn't know, and I didn't want to ask if I could experiment with it.  At that moment, one of the men from the gym came to the desk to get something from a drawer, and the young woman told the man that I thought that the screen images were all the wrong size.  The guy smiled condescendingly and said that they'd call Spectrum about it.  And he left.  So, did I.  But, before I did, I informed the young woman that three of TVs hanging from the ceiling were still off.  Her jaw dropped open, probably because she hadn't thought to check them.

It was a lesson in "common sense" as the term was used by Carl Sagan.  Their "common sense" was telling them that no one else was complaining about the screen size, so I must be mistaken.  Their "common sense" was telling them that the screen size was some technical matter that was handled by Spectrum, and Spectrum certainly must know what they are doing, so I must be mistaken.  My "common sense" (i.e., LOGIC) was telling me that CNN and the other networks do not transmit two different sized images.  I knew that I was using the right size image on my TV at home, the gym had the same shaped TV screens, so the gym must be using the wrong size image.

When I got home, I tried to find the instruction manual for their TV remote control on the Internet, but I couldn't find any that has a big "MODE" button.  So, I need to identify the model of the TV and/or the model of remote control they use at the gym to research it further.  Meanwhile, I'll just keep my mouth shut.

And that brings us to the other lesson in "common sense" that I learned on my interactive blog.

The guy I'm arguing with on my blog (he uses the "Anonymous" option for identification), thinks it is "common sense" that if dozens of college textbooks claim that all observers will measure light to be arriving at the same speed, regardless of their own motion, then that must be true.  And, if I disagree, I have to be wrong.  And my paper on the subject must also be wrong, regardless of all the experiments I list which show that I am correct.  It is just "common sense" that all those physics books cannot be wrong.

Plus, "Anonymous" believes that if Einstein disagreed with the mathematicians about their "all observers theory," Einstein's biographers would certainly have mentioned it.   That's just common sense. 

I have a hardcover copy of "Einstein: The Life and Times" by Ronald W. Clark on a bookshelf against the far wall behind my computer right now.  It has no mention of the Second Postulate problem, and it doesn't even have the word "postulate" in the index.  I explained to "Anonymous" that a biographer writes about what he has researched, and the "all observers" argument was probably something he didn't want to put into a popular biography, even if he was aware of it or understood it.  And I provided references to Einstein's lectures and letters where Einstein mentioned his problems with mathematicians.

The problem, as I am now beginning to understand it, is that I'm battling against "common sense."  And using logic to show that "common sense" is wrong on the subject of "the mathematicians' all observers theory" just makes no sense to those who use "common sense" to determine what is right and what is wrong.  And it doesn't matter how many experiments I provide which undeniably confirm that the "mathematicians' all observers theory" is wrong.  If it is one person against many others who are obviously intelligent, "common sense" says the many others who are obviously intelligent are right.  So, the only thing that will change the minds of people who are using "common sense" is to provide a lot of information showing that many other people agree with me.  Showing that I agree with what Einstein himself has written isn't enough.  Other people have to have found the same thing.  "Common sense" says that if one group of intelligent people disagrees with another group of intelligent people, then something can and should be done to resolve the conflict, because both groups cannot be right.  
I'm going to have to identify others who agree with me.  I've found a few documents which support Einstein's interpretation of his own Second Postulate against the mathematicians' interpretation.  I've even exchanged emails with some of them, but they seem reluctant to battle "the establishment" which these days seems to be controlled by the editors who run arXiv.org.  That means I have to find papers and books that got published without first going through arXiv.org.

And I'm going to find some way to locate the instruction book for the remote control used for the TVs at my gym.  I just found this on the Internet:

TV screen sizes

The middle column is for the TV's I and my gym have.  It is for today's 16:9 TVs.  The column on the right is for old 4:3 TVs.  The column on the left is for newer widescreen 21:9 TVs.  The TVs at the gym must be set for 21:9 images used on new 21:9 TVs, so the images look like the center image on the top row. 

And this reminds me of the last time I visited my sister and her husband.  They had problems getting rid of the dark lines and couldn't understand why there should be ANY dark lines on their TV.  So, when they got dark lines on the sides like the center column bottom row because it was an old TV show, they tried to adjust the TV to get rid of them.  The same with CinemaScope movies, which have dark lines at the top and bottom, but are NOT squeezed as is the case with the TVs at my gym.

I never before realized how complicated this is.  I wonder how many people voted for Trump because they figured "Make America Great Again" meant going back to when all TVs were the same size, and things weren't so complicated.

Comments for Sunday, Jan. 14, 2018, thru Sunday, Jan. 20, 2018:

January 19, 2018 - Yesterday afternoon, someone who read the comment I wrote yesterday morning about Carl Sagan's use of the term "common sense" posted a comment to my interactive blog.  Here's part of what "Anonymous" wrote:
Tell me, Mister Lake, what does your research tell you about what Einstein was saying from 1905 to the year of his death in 1955 (He was a Prof. in Zurich, Prague, Berlin and then Princeton)? Did he say that ALL the other academic professors of physics over that half century had misinterpreted his ideas and were teaching their students, undergrads and grads, "nonsense"? If not, why not?
I responded by telling "Anonymous" that for the last 50 years of his life, Einstein endlessly complained about the way the mathematicians were misinterpreting his theories.  And he wrote books and papers further clarifying his theories. 

"Anonymous's" question, however, prompted me to do some more research.  I recalled reading one college physics text book which agreed with Einstein against the mathematicians, but I couldn't immediately find the notes I made about it.  Instead, I found an interesting article by someone named Steven Wykstra where Wykstra argues much of what I've been arguing about Einstein's Second Postulate.  The article (or letter) is titled "On Einstein's Second Postulate" and is from
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 27, Issue 3, 1 September 1976.  It seems to be a 3-page article, but I've only managed to access the first page.  That first page begins with this:
In a recent note Kenneth Schaffner has argued that Einstein shifts from one form of the second postulate (or 'light postulate') to another in the course of his 1905 paper.  The second postulate formulated by Einstein in his introductory section (hereafter "the second postulate-1"), Schaffner takes to be the "I.L.V. hypothesis", according to which the velocity of light is independent of motion of the light source.  That which Einstein gives as his second postulate in his second section (hereafter "the second postulate-2"), Schaffner claims is the stronger "C.L.V. hypothesis", which asserts that the speed of light is a constant which is independent not only of the motion of the light source, but also of the state of motion of the observer's frame of reference.  In an earlier article to which Schaffner refers, Adolf Gründbaum has similarly interpreted the second postulate to be the C.L.V. hypothesis.

I believe this exegisis [i.e., "interpetation'] of the second postulate-2 to be mistaken for the following reasons.
Wykstra then goes into his reasons for rejecting Schaffner's version, which are the same reasons I have.  Judging from that page, this is an argument that has been going on for awhile.  And I've also had a college professor tell me that Einstein's phrasing in the "introductory" part of his 1905 paper conflicts with Einstein's phrasing in the "second section," and it has been a constant source of argument for decades.  But, I can't get anyone to point out exactly where the "second section" conflicts with what's in the introductory" section.  They always tell me it's obvious and I should find it myself, or take some college courses to help me understand the obvious.  I suspect it is in the form of a mathematical equation.

This morning, I'd hoped "Anonymous" would have more to say, but he seems to have gone away.  However, he helped me realize that I need to keep better track of the arguments, and I specially need to keep better track of the arguments by people who agree with me.  It will help when people think I'm the only person arguing that what most colleges teach about the Second Postulate is nonsense.

January 18, 2018 - I keep thinking about this paragraph from Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World" which bothered me greatly when I first read it:
No physicist started out impatient with commonsense notions, eager to replace them with some mathematical abstraction that could be understood only by rarefied theoretical physics. Instead, they began, as we all do, with comfortable, standard, commonsense notions. The trouble is that Nature does not comply. If we no longer insist on our notions of how Nature ought to behave, but instead stand before Nature with an open and receptive mind, we find that common sense often doesn’t work. Why not? Because our notions, both hereditary and learned, of how Nature works were forged in the millions of years our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. In this case common sense is a faithless guide because no hunter-gatherer’s life ever depended on understanding time-variable electric and magnetic fields. There were no evolutionary penalties for ignorance of Maxwell’s equations. In our time it’s different.
Sagan used the term "common sense" in a very different way than the way I use it.  I use it to mean something that is logical.  Sagan seems to use it to describe something that is believed.  Unfortunately, I've never questioned anyone who used the term "common sense" to find out exactly what they meant by it.  But, I did encounter a lot of people on discussion forums who argued that there are a lot of things in physics that do not agree with common sense.  And when asked to provide examples, they always provided examples that were illogical to me but logical to them, the prime example being that light travels at c for all observers.  They use it the way it is used in college text books.  Here's an example from page 11 of Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction, by J. B. Kennedy:
At the start, with the police car at a standstill at the side of the road, the speeding car zips away at 150 kilometres per hour. As the police car reaches 30 kilometres per hour, the speeding car travels only 120 kilometres per hour faster. As they accelerate, the relative speed of the fugitive drops down further and further, and finally dwindles to zero as the police catch up and race alongside flashing their lights. This is common sense. If the speeding car goes at 150 kilometres per hour and the police are chasing at 130 kilometres per hour, then their relative speed is 20 kilometres per hour.

But light is not commonsensical. Light races away from any
standing or moving body at the same speed. The speed of light relative to any moving body is a constant.
And here's how "common sense" is used on page 12 in the 6th edition of the college text book Modern Physics, by Paul A. Tipler and Ralph A. Llewellyn:
Although each postulate seems quite reasonable, many of the implications of the two together are surprising and seem to contradict common sense. One important implication of these postulates is that every observer measures the same value for the speed of light independent of the relative motion of the source and observer.
When you provide many experimental results which show that light travels at c + or - v for someone who is moving toward or away from the source of light (as I do in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate), they just start calling you names and declaring that you are stupid.  They cannot argue the logic, and they simply claim the experiments were flawed.  To me, they are simply misreading what Einstein wrote about his two "postulates" in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity.  And they are repeating what they memorized in school, without really understanding anything.

Here's the only time I use the term "common sense" in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate:
Einstein says nothing about what others may observe or measure for the speed of light, since their movements do not actually affect the speed of the light they observe. However, 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. That is totally in tune with common sense. How could an observer affect the speed of light he didn’t create? That would make no sense.
I did a Google search for common sense vs logic, and found that a lot of people want to know the difference.  And, there seems to be a standard reply:
Logic is used to reach a conclusion using the most accurate route available to us mankind. Common sense however is not always accurate and can sometimes be based on assumptions, social acceptance and no facts. logical thinking is a process which should involve no facts based on emotion.
That doesn't say what "common sense" is.  It just says it is not always accurate.  Neither is logic, even though it is "the most accurate route available."  Is "common sense" sometimes based on "assumptions, social acceptance and no facts," or would that be better described as beliefs that are devoid of common sense?

I'd never really thought about scientists and physicists possibly having a different definition of "common sense" than I have.  Now I can see I'll have to be careful about using that term.

January 16, 2018 - At about 10:15 this morning, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle: "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.  (I have read many other books by Carl Sagan, and I have several on a bookshelf behind me, but this one I don't recall every hearing of before I spotted it on the list of available science-related Kindle books at the library.)

The Demon-Haunted World

While it was an extremely interesting book, it was also very frustrating at times, because Sagan repeatedly wrote at great length about things that are of little or no interest to me (witchcraft trials, alien abductions, religious visions, etc).  And then he'd switch to some scientific subject of great interest. 

I highlighted a lot of passages, enough to turn into a 24-page .DOCX file when copied from the MyClippings.txt file in the Kindle.  Here are two passages that can be used as examples of what the book was all about:
Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise.
Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.
Ah, yes.  That's something I've seen many times in my arguments with True Believers of many kinds.  I also highlighted this passage:
In 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished.
That's the only mention of Flat Earthers in the book.  But what it says about people who believe in alien abductions and religious visions can be applied equally well to Flat Earther beliefs.  Here's another quote from the book:
Only 9 percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.
The book is absolutely fascinating in parts, one really great example being when it used as an example of "scientific thinking" the things that Native American and aboriginal trackers did (as seen in countless movies): determining how fast an animal or person was moving and how long ago he passed by, based upon the foot or hoof prints left behind in the dirt.  That was a science that someone figured out centuries ago and passed on from generation to generation. 

It's also fascinating when Sagan describes our system of government and how it was developed by a scientist, Thomas Jefferson.  It's based not only upon the consensus of the people, instead of upon the wishes of some dictator, it's also based upon doing experiments.  This passage is from one of the final chapters in the book (unfortunately, passages highlighted on a Kindle aren't identified by page number but by some cryptic "location" number and time):
It is a fact of life on our beleaguered little planet that widespread torture, famine, and governmental criminal irresponsibility are much more likely to be found in tyrannical than in democratic governments. Why? Because the rulers of the former are much less likely to be thrown out of office for their misdeeds than the rulers of the latter. This is error-correcting machinery in politics. The methods of science—with all its imperfections—can be used to improve social, political, and economic systems, and this is, I think, true no matter what criterion of improvement is adopted. How is this possible if science is based on experiment? Humans are not electrons or laboratory rats. But every act of Congress, every Supreme Court decision, every Presidential National Security Directive, every change in the Prime Rate is an experiment. Every shift in economic policy, every increase or decrease in funding for Head Start, every toughening of criminal sentences is an experiment.
It's a 457-page book in print form. It seemed a lot longer, due to all the material that was of little or no interest.  Normally, I would just read from my Kindle during breakfast and lunch, but I wanted to finish this book, so yesterday and this morning I spent hours on my couch reading.  My Kindle is now set to start on a new and shorter book that I hope will not contain so much unwanted material.

January 14, 2018 (C)  - I keep waking up each morning thinking about writing a scientific paper titled "The Logic of Light," but then I get distracted into other things.  I've already started working on the paper about 8 or 10 times.  Each time I start by approaching the subject from a different angle.  Then I realize there are things I need to explain before I can write about what I'm currently writing about.

Now I'm thinking I need to begin by explaining and defining "the problem."  The problem, once again, is that colleges and universities around the world are teaching nonsense.  They are teaching students that two waves of light energy can cancel each other out via a process they call "Destructive Interference."  But there are two major problems with that:

1. "Destructive interference" implies that the light energy is destroyed, and the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be destroyed.

2. When attempting to justify the absurdity of problem #1, physic teachers explain that "destructive interference" does not really destroy energy, because the energy is somehow transferred to another wave via "constructive interference."  But, the facts say light is NOT a wave.  It is a particle.

Interestingly, this is clearly a MAJOR controversy.  I'm definitely not the first to identify the problem.  A Google search for "destructive interference" and energy conservation finds dozens of articles where the question is being asked and the answers always seem to be variations of gibberish.  One guess is that the kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy.  Another guess is that the destruction of energy in one wave becomes the construction of energy in another wave.  A third source argues basically the same as the previous argument, but does it with mathematics.  A fourth explanation basically has the teacher saying he doesn't know, but he thinks it has something to do with the source of the light. A fifth source has a combination of all of the above.  A sixth source seems to suggest that the equipment doing the experiment plays a role in the destruction and somehow preserves the energyA video on the subject seems to suggest that it's all magic, the energy from the destroyed wave is magically transferred to the heightened wave.

Having defined the problem, my paper would then have to clarify that light is NOT a wave, it is a particle that moves in a wave-like pattern.  I can cite many experiments which make that clear, plus I can cite and quote Richard Feynman making it very clear.   And, of course, no one knows how the energy of a particle can be transferred to another particle when all the particles in the experiment are known to always have the same amount of energy.

The next part of the paper would then have to define what is actually happening,  based upon experimental results and logic.  I can visualize it, but the problem is to put it down in words.  The words have to make the answer very clear, so clear that no one can intelligently challenge the logic or the answer.  (There will certainly be countless people who will simply not accept it, and will just call me an idiot.)

The biggest problem I have is that physicists performing the "double-slit experiment" never seem to address some key questions:  First, what happens to all the light that enters the experiment but does not get "destroyed" via "destructive interference" and also does not end up as bright lines on the wall? 

If the answer is that all the non-destroyed light does end up as bright lines on the wall, the second question then becomes: How did all the light get to the wall if there are obstacles in the way (like closed slits and the wall that contains the two slits)? 

The single-photon double-slit experiments seem to indicate that the same amount of light hits the wall when one slit is open and when two slits are open.  How did all the light photons get through the remaining slit?  Imagining the light as a wave instead of as a photon doesn't answer the question.

My paper has to try to answer that question.  And, I'm not totally certain I have the answer ... yet.

January 14, 2018 (B) - I had to go to the grocery store this afternoon, and since the store is right across a narrow street from my local Barnes & Noble book store, I decided to once again see if they had Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury in stock.  There was nothing in the windows and nothing on any shelves or tables at the front of the store.  (They did have a small table covered with other books about Trump, that wasn't there on my previous visit.)  So, I asked the clerk behind the Customer Service counter when they expected to receive copies.  He replied that they've receive several small shipments, but they sell out almost immediately.  We were both amused by the phenomenon.

Additionally, on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert Friday night, they mentioned that Amazon has another book titled "Fire and Fury: The Allied  Bombing of Germany, 1942-1945" that is selling extremely well because people are buying it thinking that it is the "Fire and Fury" that everyone is talking about. 

And, when I checked Amazon's web site to look for that WWII book, I found that Amazon has a new "book" on sale that is titled "Fire & Fury?: Profiles of Intelligence: Michael Wolff - A Biographical Look into the Mind of a Fake News Punk," and it was supposedly authored by I. M. Stu Pido.  It was published 4 days ago, on January 10, by
Citizens Revealing Ethicless & Apathetic Media (PAC) (C.R.E.A.M. PAC).  ("PAC" stands for "Political Action Committee".)
scam book

The description of the "book" provided by the "author" doesn't say much, but it contains this information about C.R.E.A.M. PAC:

Citizens Revealing Ethicless & Apathetic Media (PAC) is a political organization formed for the purpose of addressing the social, civic, legal, political and constitutional consequences of the media that provides for the citizens of the United States. Our focus is to evaluate reporting that we feel is ethicless and apathetic. Five general initiatives are utilized to accomplish this goal: 1) Identification, 2) Reporting, 3) Education, 4) Issue Advocacy and 5) Representation.
It also says this about the "book" that is supposed to consist of 254 pages:
Our lawyers require that we advise you that this book is almost blank and contains precisely 5294 words.    
I'm not sure what the purpose of the book is, but using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, you can see that the entire book appears to be page after page that contains only this:

This page intentionally left blank due to lack of evidence
on the subject matter. 

Copyrighted Material 

That's 18 words.  Divide 18 into 5294 and you get 294, so they must have counted all the words on the copyrights page and the phony table of contents.

I can imagine some people are buying the $24.99 paperback just to have it as a "conversation piece."  However, I cannot imagine why anyone would buy the Kindle version they sell for $9.99.

Needless to say, I find this all very interesting. 

January 14, 2018 (A)
- Yesterday afternoon, while running errands, I finished listening to CD #17 in the 17-CD set of the audio book version of "The Geography of Genius: A Search for the World's Most Creative Places from Ancient Athens to Silicon Valley" by Eric Weiner.

Geography of Genius

It was an absolutely terrific book to listen to while driving.  I'm not sure if I found it in the travel section or in the science section of my library's web site.  It fits well in both. The author travels to eight different locations around the world to study and talk about the "geniuses" who lived there.  The only "complaint" I might have is that there were many occasions when I wished I had a printed version of the book in front of me so that I could highlight some interesting passage that was just read to me.  There's a lot in the book that is worth remembering and quoting.  I searched the Internet and found a free .epub version of the book, which doesn't allow highlighting, but, when I returned home, if I remembered what passage I wanted to highlight, I could find it in the .epub version and copy and past from it into a .DOCX files of "notes."

Here's the first passage I made a note of:
Some use genius to describe a very smart person—someone with a high IQ—but that is overly narrow, and misleading. Plenty of people with extremely high IQs have accomplished little, and conversely, plenty of people of “average” intelligence have done great things. No, I am speaking of genius in the creative sense—as the highest form of creativity.
And here's another:
Francis Galton may have gotten much wrong, but his definition of genius, though typically sexist, points to something important: “A genius is a man to whom the world deliberately acknowledges itself largely indebted.” Admittance to the club of genius is not up to the genius but to his peers, and society. It is a public verdict, not a private assertion. One theory of genius—let’s call it the Fashionista Theory of Genius—states this unequivocally. Admission to the club of genius depends entirely on the whims, the fashion, of the day. “Creativity cannot be separated from its recognition,” says psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the main advocate of this theory. Put more bluntly, someone is only a genius if we say so.
So, the book isn't about people who were super smart, it's about people who were very creative ("creative geniuses"), who were recognized for being creative, and who changed the world via their creations.  The book is also about where these creative geniuses lived, and how where they lived seems to have affected their creativity.  The author makes a good case for certain locations at certain times being very conducive to creative thinking.  Specifically the author visits eight places: Athens, Greece (Plato & Aristotle); Hanzhou, China (Su Tungpo); Florence, Italy (Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo); Edinburgh, Scotland (David Hume); Calcutta, India (Rabindranath Tagore); Vienna, Austria (Mozart, Freud and Einstein); and "Silicon Valley" (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg), which is the area around Palo Alto, Mountain View and Sunnyvale, California. 

At the end of the book the author sums up what qualities it seems a geographical location must have in order to spawn geniuses.  He calls them the "Three Ds"; disorder, diversity, and discernment. Disorder is necessary to shake up the status quo, to create a break in the air.  Diversity, of both peoples and viewpoints, is needed to produce not only more dots for the genius to connect to solve a problem, but also different kinds of dots.  And discernment is basically the ability to tell a good idea from a bad idea.

I don't keep a whole book's worth of CDs in my car.  I keep only the CD I'm listening to in the player, and behind the visor I keep the next CD in line.  I finished "The Geography of Genius" while at a stop light as I was outbound on the way to run errands.  So, I ejected it. The CD I took from behind the visor, the next book in my listening queue, is a humor book, I'll Mature when I'm Dead, by Dave Barry.  It's an audio book I had once put at the bottom of the queue, but, as I was about to finish Geography of Genius, I moved it to the top.  Maybe I did it just to create disorder or to have a little diversity, or perhaps I decided I wasn't in the mood for another serious book.   The other two books I've burned onto CDs are relatively serious: My Week with Marilyn, by Colin Clark (8 CDs) and Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by Yuval Noah Harari (17 CDs).   I'll Mature when I'm Dead is only 4 CDs.  So, if I made a mistake, it will be a short mistake.

Other interests:

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

January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 2018
February 2018

© 2017 by Ed Lake