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, April 15, 2018, thru Saturday, April 21, 2018:

April 20, 2018 (B) - While pulling into my garage after driving home from the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #3 in the 3-CD audio book version of "Our Dumb World" by The Onion magazine.

Our Dumb World
It's an hilarious book and exactly what I needed to listen to after the depressing political book that I'd heard before this one.  "Our Dumb World" is a satire, which means there is something in it to offend everyone as it describes one country after another, and many individual States in the United States.  For example, it mentions
Afghanistan, "Allah's Cat Box," the Ukraine, "the Bridebasket of Europe," and the USA's own Nevada, "Where Everyone's a Loser."  One of the last bits that I heard just before pulling into my garage was about Australia, which was originally a British penal colony "because the people of England evidently couldn't think of a worse punishment for their criminals than to send them to a warm and sunny place."

After ejecting the last CD of that book, I inserted CD #1 in a 17 CD set for a book about science and what the future looks like for mankind.   It will probably take me about a month to get through it.  There seems to be only about 42 minutes of listening material on each CD, instead of the normal 70 minutes or so.

April 20, 2018 (A) - I saw something the other day that keeps nagging at me because I keep feeling I should have made a note of it.  I saw a Facebook page about the current state of the art in 3-D printing, where objects are constructed out of plastic or other materials by a relatively inexpensive "3-D printer."  The article showed pictures of some incredibly tiny 3-D objects that had been 3-D printed.  When I went looking for that article today, I couldn't find it, but I found some even more interesting 3-D sculptures by doing a Google image search.  Here's one image I found:

3D printed miniature racing car

It is about 400 nano-meters long, which means you could put a thousand of them end to end and they wouldn't measure a full inch in total.

Here's an interesting sculpture of a woman atop a human hair. 

tiny sculpture atop a human hair

The hair is real.  It is there to show the size of the sculpture.  Here is the same sculpture inside the eye of a needle:

sculpture inside eye of a needle

It doesn't have anything to do with anything I've been writing or thinking about, but I find it fascinating and worth remembering.  Note the scale in the picture above.  It measures out 300 microns, which is a little more than 1/100th of an inch.  And you have to wonder how many sculptures with their fingertips touching would fit inside that space.

April 19, 2018 - Well, I told the folks on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum that I'm going to take a break from posting there in order to focus on writing a couple new scientific papers.  But I awoke this morning wondering about what Einstein would have thought about the #3 dumbest belief in physics: "all motion is reciprocal."  A lot of mathematicians seem to argue that that screwball belief comes from Einstein.   After all, Einstein did write this in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity:
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
There is nothing "stationary" about space.  It is emptiness.  But Einstein never makes clear why not requiring an "absolutely stationary space" does not mean that "all motion is reciprocal."  I can only guess that that particular idiotic idea never occurred to him.  He describes all motion of an object as being "relative" to some other object or location, but he seems to say that experiments show that one object is truly moving while the other is not.  Unfortunately, in the English translations he also seems to to use the word "experience" when "experiments" would be a more meaningful term.  After all, how can you have an "experience" in science without an experiment?    

It appears that Einstein would argue that it is simply "true" that the train is moving, not the embankment.  ("True" is a word that mathematicians hate, and I've probably gotten into hundreds of arguments because I often use the term.)  How does Einstein define "true"?  On page 6 of the pdf copy I have of Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory," Einstein explains:
Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognised manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning. We cannot ask whether it is true that only one straight line goes through two points. We can only say that Euclidean geometry deals with things called "straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of being uniquely determined by two points situated on it. The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves.

It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true."
The above is also an example of the annoying and convoluted way that Einstein explains things.  (And, in the last sentence, why did his translator use the word "constrained" when "compelled" would make things much more clear?)   I would reduce everything that Einstein wrote above to one sentence:
Something is "true" if it agrees with the laws of physics and has been demonstrated to be "true" by experiments. 
The problem then, of course, is that mathematicians have their own screwball interpretations of experiments and of Einstein's postulates.  That means that when I say that something is "true" because experiments have shown it to be "true," they'll argue that I do not understand anything and they have experiments which show their beliefs to be true.

Sigh.  I really need to put all of this into some scientific papers.  

April 18, 2018 - I awoke this morning with another minor Eureka! realization.  I realized the difference between a "coordinate system" and an "inertial frame of reference."  It seems people on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum use the terms interchangeably.  And, because they did, I occasionally did so, too, even though I was never really comfortable in doing so.  Then yesterday, as part of an argument on the forum, I did a Google search for "coordinate system" and Einstein and I found a web site apparently run by the Max Planck Institute which first defines an "observer" this way:
An observer is anyone who casts a mathematical net over time and space, establishing conventions to describe locations in space and points in time.
And then it defines "coordinate system" this way:
All in all, there is a plethora of different possible observers - each with a specific way of imposing mathematical order onto the world. The differences lie not only in the different location of the observers, or their different motions, but in the infinity of variations that is possible for conventions of how to choose space and time coordinates. In fact, in our definition, the term "observer" is equivalent to that of "space-time-coordinate system", or just "coordinate system".
So, an "observer" is basically equivalent to a "coordinate system"? 

When I did a Google search for "frame of reference" and Einstein I got a lot of web locations where "frame of reference" is described as being similar to or the same as "coordinate system."  And that made me realize that while the terms may be similar in meaning, they are definitely not the same thing. 

In fact, defining the terms is something that I will have to do before writing almost anything else in the book I've been planning.  And it will be a key part of the paper I'm writing about Einstein's train-embankment thought experiment.

The train-embankment thought experiment with the lightning bolts is definitely about "coordinate systems."  It's about one observer on the moving train and another observer on the embankment.  And they are viewed as  "coordinate systems" when you compute the differences in what they saw. 

When you talk about a "frame of reference," however, the key word is "frame."  A frame encloses a given space. You are no longer talking about an observer.  You are talking about an enclosed area.  So, if you use "frames of reference" in a train-embankment thought experiment, it becomes a very different experiment.  First, the "frames" become a laboratory inside a moving railroad car, and another laboratory inside an identical railroad car that is parked on a siding next to the tracks the moving train is using.  If you want, you can have a dozen observers inside the "frames," since it is the frame that is key to the experiment, not the observers.  The point is that you can perform an experiment inside one of the frames and you will get the same results you would get if the same experiment was performed in the other frame.  There would be no difference due to the fact that one frame is moving and the other is not.  

It is only when an observer opens a window and looks outside that he would find out which frame he is in.

That makes me wonder if the word "frame" isn't much more clear in German than in English.  A quick search through Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General theory" shows that the word "frame" appears as part of the word "framework" 5 times and only once as "frame" when he mentions ideas "which have already been fitted into the frame of the special theory of relativity."  And in that context, "frame" is a framework of the special theory of relativity.

In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein only uses the word "frame" once, and it is in its plural form.  It is when describing his First Postulate: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."  And clearly that is not about an observer but about an enclosed framework.

Some day, I'll have to examine exactly how Einstein uses "coordinate system" and "frame of reference" in his other writings, but I feel fairly confident that he never used them interchangeably.  And when he used the term, the English translation would more accurately be "framework." 

Live and learn.

April 17, 2018 - I'm really trying hard to break out of the arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  But some of the discussion are truly fascinating and educational.

I've also decided that now is not the right time to work on a book.  I first need to write a couple scientific papers, one tentatively titled "The Two Doppler Effects," which would be about (1) the photon wavelength Doppler effect and (2) the photon frequency Doppler effect, and how each works (as opposed to how college text books claim they work).  The other would be about Einstein's train-embankment "gedanken" (thought experiment), which I wrote about here yesterday and the day before.

Today I looked through scientific papers I had started writing in the past and never finished.  One of them, dated July 27, 2017, is titled "Analyzing Einstein’s Train/Embankment Thought Experiment."  It's 9 pages long, but it will have to be totally rewritten, not because it is wrong, but because it views things from a different angle than I now view things.  I also brings back to mind some issues I'd basically forgotten about, such as Einstein in his book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" describing how a man on the train walks from the rear of the train toward the front at speed w, while the train moves at speed v.  So, his speed relative to the embankment is w+v.  But, if a light is emitted from the back of the moving train toward the front, the light will travel at the speed of light, c, not at c+v.   

He also writes about dropping a stone out of a window in the moving train and how an observer on the train will see the stone fall straight down, while someone on the embankment will see it travel in a parabola from the window to the ground.   Is there a "correct" view?  I guess it all depends upon what is meant by "correct."  The view from the embankment is certainly "correct" in some ways, and the view from the "train" appears to be only "correct" in that it is what the observer on the train saw.  I can imagine a lawyer in court asking, "You saw the stone fall straight down, is that correct?"  And the witness would say, "Yes, that is correct." But is it "correct" in any other way? 

Sigh.  Maybe tomorrow I'll have more time to work on the papers.

April 16, 2018 - Groan!  I'm really feeling overwhelmed.  I recently posted recommendations to my library that they buy Kindle copies of Scott Decker's book "Recounting the Anthrax Attacks" and James Comey's book "A Higher Loyalty."  While I have a signed hard-cover copy of Scott Decker's book, I do most of my book reading during breakfast and lunch, and I like to highlight things.  I don't want to highlight things in the hardcover copy, nor do I want to accidentally splash salad dressing or milk on it.  I mention this to someone, and two days ago, that person sent me a link to a 39 page report titled "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe."  It was written by the Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice.  It looked extremely interesting, but I was in the middle of arguing with people on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, and I didn't want to break my  train of thought.  So, I set the article aside.

Yesterday, I wrote that long comment about Einstein's train-embankment "gedanken," and then I argued about it on the Google forum for most of the day.  I awoke this morning with the idea that I should write a similar comment about what needs to change in order to make the person on the train see the lightning bolts strike simultaneously, while the person on the embankment sees them strike at different times.  All that has to change is that one of the simultaneous strikes has to occur at a different location, a good distance further down the tracks and farther away from the front of the train, not immediately in front of it.  I got up anxious to start writing that comment.

Then, in this morning's emails, I found someone had sent me a link to an article titled "This Philosopher Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity."  It's about a heated debate in 1922 between Albert Einstein and philosopher Henri Bergson, which supposedly caused Einstein to not win a Nobel Prize for his theory of Special Relativity, but instead he got one for his theory about the photoelectric effect.  I created a pdf file of the article so that I could highlight passages, and I studied it.  As I understand it, Bergson was a philosopher who felt that time does not exist except as viewed by humans.  Einstein felt that time existed both psychologically and physically, and time would pass whether humans were there to observe it or not.  It was an interesting article. 

So, now I need to decide if I should get into the arguments on the Google forum again or write a comment about my early morning thoughts.  I'm going to write about my early morning thoughts.  There's nothing very interesting among the overnight posts to the Google forum (except that one comment seems to claim that nothing exists except when viewed by humans).

First of all, I wanted to address the question of whether or not there is any "frame of reference" where the guy on the train (me) sees himself as stationary and the railway embankment as moving.  Yes, of course there is.  That is what my "frame of reference" is all about.  All the seats and the floor and ceiling of my railroad car are moving at the same rate and in the same direction I am moving, so they are all "stationary" relative to me.  And if there was an airplane directly above me, flying in the same direction and at the same speed, it would also be "stationary" relative to me.  And as long as the pilot of the plane was directly above me, we would both see the lightning bolt hit at the front of the train before we saw the lightning bolt hit at the rear of the train. 
But so what?  That doesn't mean we are really stationary.

And it certainly does not mean that the person on the embankment is moving.  The person on the embankment is stationary relative to the earth.  But some reference frame on Mars or near Alpha Centauri will see the earth spinning and moving around the sun, so they will see the embankment as moving.  So what?  It changes nothing.  The train and I will move past the smoking hole where the lightning hit, but the guy on the embankment won't.  So there's no debate over who is moving relative to the point where the lightning bolts hit.  Even the guy on Mars and near Alpha Centauri will agree that the guy on the embankment does NOT move relative to where the lightning bolts hit.  He only moves relative to Mars and Alpha Centauri.  But so does the guy on the train.

Okay, so how can the guy on the train see the lightning bolts hit simultaneously?  As stated above, all you need is to have the B lightning bolt hit much further away in front of the train.  So, like yesterday, we start with a "gedanken" (thought experiment) with me (M) on the moving train and you (Y) on the stationary embankment as we approach each other:

|-------------M-------------| ->

Then, just as you and I pass each other, two lightning bolts strike the train tracks.  But, unlike yesterday's strikes, although the A strike occurs in the same spot, the B strike occurs quite a ways away from the front of the train.

  |-------------M-------------| ->
A|-------------Y-------------|    B

The light (a&b) from strikes A & B moves toward us at the speed of light.  Again, neither of us is yet aware that there were any strikes, since the light has not yet reached either of us.  The only difference is that the b light has further to travel than yesterday.

   |---a---------M------------b|  ->
A|----a--------Y------------|b    B    

The third illustration shows me moving farther away from you while the light from the A &B strikes continues to move toward us.

   |-------a------M------b-----|  ->
A|--------a----Y--------b----|    B    

The fourth illustration shows the light from the A strike reaching you.  So, at that moment you perceive that there was only one lightning strike.  I have not yet seen the light from either strike.

    |----------a----M-----b------|  ->
A|------------aY---------b----|    B

The fifth illustration shows the light from both lightning bolts reaching me at the same time, which would lead me to conclude that they occurred at the same time (and they actually did). 

     |--------------aMb-----------|  ->
A|-------------Y---a b--------|    B

And then, of course, you will encounter the light from the B strike and conclude that there were actually two strikes, which where not synchronous.

       |---------b-----M-a----------|  ->
A|-------------Yb-------a-----|    B

And thus, you can argue that the lightning strikes were not simultaneous, while I can argue that they were.  And, of course, if we sit down and intelligently discuss the situation, we would realize that the strikes were not really simultaneous for either of us.  I just perceived the bolts as hitting simultaneously because of my movement toward one of the lightning strikes.  After our discussions we would both agree that in your frame of reference, the lightning bolts actually did hit simultaneously, but you did not perceive it that way because the light from the B bolt had to travel further to get to you than did the light from the A bolt. 

Like yesterday, today's "gedanken" again had the lightning strikes hitting the earth simultaneously, but this time they were not at equal distances from either of us. There's probably some way that the bolts do not hit simultaneously, yet one of us still perceives that they do, only because of how fast we were traveling in a given direction.  But I don't think I'll have time to examine that "gedanken."  But it poses the question of who says the strikes were simultaneous.  Answer: Einstein says.  Humans do not have to be there when two lightning bolts strike the earth simultaneously.  It still happens.  We can come around later and observe the holes in the ground, their temperature and other remnants that tell us that the two strikes were simultaneous.  And I doesn't matter if philosophers agree or not.

April 15, 2018 - I'm still heavily involved in arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  A couple days ago, I used Einstein's train-embankment "gedanken" (thought experiment) to make a point about an observer encountering light arriving at c+v where v is the observer's velocity.  Since there is no way to use illustrations on that forum, I used typed characters to create a makeshift illustration to help argue my point.  Even that was a problem, since the Google software uses variable width characters, and my point is best made with fixed width characters.

Anyway, below is one such illustration using fixed width characters.  "M" is Me on a moving train traveling a very high velocity (probably around 25% of the speed of light).  "Y" is You standing on the embankment beside the train tracks.   The first illustration shows me moving toward you as the train moves past you.

|-------------M-------------| ->

Then, just as we are next to one another, and I can wave to you as I go by, two lighting bolts (A & B)  strike the train embankment simultaneously just in front of the train, and just behind the train.  The second illustration shows this.

  |-------------M-------------| ->

Neither of us is yet aware of the lightning strikes, since it takes time for the light photons to travel to our positions - even at 299,792,458 meters per second.  In the third illustration I show photons (a & b) from lightning strikes A & B moving toward us.   Meanwhile, I'm moving toward the point where lightning bolt B struck the embankment.

   |---a---------M-------b-----|  ->

In the fourth illustration below, I encounter the light photons from lightning bolt B.  Of course, since I am moving toward the source of light b, I encounter the light at c+v, even though mathematicians cannot comprehend such a thing.  Meanwhile, you have not yet seen the light from either lightning strike.

    |------a--------Mb-----------|  ->

In the fifth illustration below, you encounter the light from BOTH lightning bolts simultaneously and conclude the lightning bolts hit simultaneously.  Meanwhile, I've still only encountered the light from lightning bolt B.  So, as far as I am concerned, there was only one lightning strike.

     |---------a-b---M-------------|  ->

Finally, in the sixth illustration below, I encounter light from lightning strike A, which I perceive as arriving at my location at c-v since I am moving way from the source of the light from that strike.

      |----b---------aM--------------|  ->

This "gedanken" appears to me to be very simple to understand and virtually beyond any argument or doubts.  How could anyone not understand or disagree with what happened in that thought experiment? 

The problem comes from not looking at it from a scientist's point of view, as was done in the presentation above.  The problem also comes from having Me and You initially argue about what we saw without having any understanding of what actually happened.  I would argue that the first lightning strike (B) hit the embankment in front of the train, and then, some time later, the second lightning bolt (A) hit the embankment at the rear of the train.  You would argue that the two lightning bolts hit at the same time.  In physics, this called "The Relativity of Simultaneity." 

Of course, by having the scientist explain what happened, I would nod my head and agree.  Although I saw the lightning bolts hit at different times, and almost everyone else who was not in the exact position you were in would agree with me, in your specific location (and any other position equidistant from the points where the lightning bolts hit) you would have justifiably thought that the lightning bolts hit simultaneously.  And having the scientist explain things, you would agree that it was just your unique perspective that caused that view. 

Only mathematicians would disagree.  They will argue that I could never see light arriving at c+v or c-v.  "Light must always arrive at c!!!!!!!" they would declare and insult anyone who disagrees.  And they would somehow declare that there is some "frame of reference" where I am stationary and the earth and you are moving.  And they would declare that in such a frame of reference, I would see the lightning bolts hit simultaneously.   Then I would argue that that is not possible, and they would argue that they can construct a mathematical model which shows me and the train standing still and the light from the lighting bolts reaching me simultaneously while you on the embankment would see the B lightning bolt hit first, and then the A lightning bolt second.

And I would argue that that shows that the mathematical model they created does not represent reality.  And I would then explain that I looked outside as I passed the point on the embankment where lightning bolt B struck and I saw the charred earth at that point.  Meanwhile, you would acknowledge never having seen or passed that point.  So, clearly, I am the one who was moving.  And you would nod and agree.

And the mathematicians would start hurling insults and calling us names, and they would declare that we must read what they read and take the college courses they take, so that we will believe as they believe - because theirs is the only "true" belief!!!!.  Hallelujah

I'm also seeing that I really need to put this in book and/or paper form.  But, without that argument on Google's forum I may never have come up with such a clear and undeniable illustration of how the Relativity of Simultaneity works.  Even Einstein never mentioned that charred spot on the embankment!  I've seen arguments where others did, but they didn't explain things as clearly.

Comments for Sunday, April 8, 2018, thru Saturday, April 14, 2018:

April 12, 2018 - I keep planning to write a comment here about what is going on in my arguments with mathematicians, but writing comments here is at the bottom of my daily to-do list, and before I get to it I get into another argument, and before I realize it, the day is over and it is time to shut down my computer.

Sometimes the arguments are very interesting and educational, and other times they are exceedingly repetitious and boring. 

This morning I see there are 211 posts in the thread titled  "The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics" that I started on April 7, five days ago.  Only three of the 12 posts made overnight require a response from me.  And none seems particularly interesting.  So, I can let them wait while I write this comment.

In the arguments on the Google forum, I seem to be arguing with people who have memorized slogans and terms, and they cannot discuss anything with anyone who hasn't also memorized those same slogans and terms.

The question we're debating is simple: When a stationary radar gun is fired at an oncoming speeding car, do the radar pulses hit the car at c (the speed of light) or at c+v (the speed of light plus the speed of the oncoming car)?  As I see it, the answer must be c+v.  If the pulses hit the car at c, the gun would register the speed of the car as being zero.

But the mathematicians believe the car is a "stationary frame of reference," which means that the light will arrive at c in that stationary frame of reference.  Sometimes they seem to argue that the car is stationary when the light pulse arrive but moves between the arrival of each pulse.  However, they won't agree to it being phased that way.  At other times they seem to agree that the light arrives at a "closing speed" of c+v.  But when I use the term "closing speed" as what happens when the car meets the pulse from the radar gun, they disagree.  Here is what a newcomer named "Volney" wrote in one of the three comments awaiting my response:

Here is another term you don't understand: "closing speed". Closing
speed is defined as comparing the speed of A with the speed of B in
reference frame C (in which neither A nor B is stationary). An observer would NOT use the term "closing speed" to talk about a photon hitting the observer. If you tried to do that, A would be the photon, B the observer and this takes place in B's frame where B is stationary in B's own frame. So the 'closing speed' would be the speed of the photon (c) plus the speed of B in B's frame (0 by definition) so we get c+0=c.
As I see it, A is the pulse from the radar gun, and that pulse is moving at c.  B is the oncoming car which is moving at v.  And reference frame C, in which neither A nor B is stationary, is the highway.  So, I'm in perfect agreement with his definition.  The misunderstanding seems to be about the term "observer."  I keep telling them that the atoms in the car are the "observers" who encounter the oncoming pulses arriving at c+v.  Evidently, for some unknown reason, he's saying the highway must be the observer.  Or is he?  He doesn't relate the terms he's using to the radar gun argument.  It's like he's just reciting something from memory that he once read somewhere - or was required to memorize in school.

This morning's argument from "tjrob137" says somewhat the same thing:

He is responding to a comment where I wrote: "The radar gun experiment SHOWS that light arrives at the oncoming car at c+v."  And his response is:
No, it does NOT. Because no radar gun actually measures the speed of the light arriving at the oncoming car -- how could it???? -- IT IS NOT AT THE CAR. It is your FANTASY that this is so, and your FANTASY is wrong."
I didn't say anything about the radar gun being at the car.  I was talking about what the experiment showed.  But, how can I explain that to him without getting into another argument over terminology?  Or maybe he'll argue that I am using LOGIC and logic is not valid in physics.

The third post awaiting a response from me is by "SteveBh" who wrote this:

The closing speed has been checked in many experiments and is always c. The closing speed in Einstein's little scenario is c for both the man on the train, and the man on the embankment.
So, he's arguing that Volney's definition of "closing speed" is wrong.  The rest of his comment is a weird misinterpretation of Einstein's analogy about what a man in the middle car of a moving train sees versus what a man on an embankment next to the moving train sees when lightning bolts hit simultaneously in front of the train and behind the train while both men are momentarily next to one another.   "SteveBh" sees things this way:
So both the guy ON the train and the guy ON the embankment/station next to him (ideally right on top of him) have the same experience of having the flashes arrive simultaneously. That has to be true, or else causality would suffer.
That, of course, cannot be.  It would only be possible if the light from the lightning bolts arrived instantaneously.  It doesn't.  Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.  So, the guy on the train moves toward the light while the light is traveling, and thus he encounters the light at c+v.  Meanwhile, the light from behind the train arrives later, arriving at c-v.  For the person on the embankment who is not moving, the lightning bolts would arrive simultaneously.

Here's an illustration of the problem from the Internet (confirming my interpretation):

 Einstein's train thought experiment

The problem is that the illustration doesn't use the equations "c+v" or "c-v", so there will undoubtedly be an argument over my interpretation.  The illustration is from HERE, Texas Christian University's web site.  And from a book.  So, now I suspect the people on the Google forum will argue that those sources are invalid for some reason.  

And now I've written my responses here before posting them on the Google forum.  The three arguments now seem to be far more interesting than they were when I first read them.  I think that is because writing the responses is very interesting and educational.  I'm learning from what I'm writing in response, not from what the mathematicians on Google are telling me. 

April 9, 2018 - When I turned off my computer yesterday afternoon at 5:15 p.m., there were 43 posts in the Google discussion thread I created titled "The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics."  This morning there were 53.  And after I wrote 7 responses to (1) rotchm, (2) SteveBh, (3) Lofty Goat, (4) danco, (5) Edward Prochak, (6) Sylvia Else and (7) kenseto, there were 73 posts in the thread.  David (Kronos Prime) Fuller was posting endless insults and personal attacks while I was posting this very specific question in 5 of my 7 responses:
The radar gun emits pulses at a frequency of 1,500,000,000 Hz.  The pulses that come back from the speeding car are at a frequency of 1,500,000,150 Hz.

The baseball problem is similar, except that the pulses that come back from the baseball are at a frequency of say 1,500,000,120 Hz.

The question: What PHYSICALLY happened to cause the pulses to return at a higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted?
One of the two overnight posts that didn't get my copy-and-pasted question was from Lofty Goat who only asked if I like being "lost" in my discussions on the forum because I didn't speak in mathematical equations.  I responded that I didn't feel "lost."  I could decipher enough to understand what was going on.

The other post that didn't get my copy-and-paste response was from SteveBh who asked,

Well, Ed, then I guess it's a good thing that nobody first tried to develop a "sonar gun" to detect speeders by aiming a sound chirp at them, since obviously THAT would not work at all, right?
And I responded,
The problem with sound waves (sonar) is that they are neither fast enough nor precise enough to measure velocities of really fast moving objects.  The whole system fails if an object is going faster than sound.  Nothing can go faster than light, so (radar) light (radio frequency) photons are used to measure the speed of very fast moving objects.

Since sound travels faster through water than through air, submarines use sonar to locate objects.  I remember a lot of WWII movies where everyone listens to sonar pings hitting the hull of the submarine, and everyone gives a sigh of relief as the pings get farther and farther apart, indicating the the enemy ship is moving away from the submarine.
Then, as I began work on this comment, I suddenly realized that the question I had asked of those five other posters was a bad question to ask.  I don't know if anyone will respond to the question, but what I wrote about sonar pulses made me realize I could write the following answer to my own radar gun question:
The fact that the radio photons return at a higher frequency than the frequency at which they were emitted by the radar gun does not show that the radio photons arrived at the oncoming car at c+v.  They may have arrived at c.  The first photon may have arrived at c and was sent back at c.  Then the second photon may have arrived at c and was also sent back at c.  What changed was the amount of time between the emission of each pulse and the re-sending of that pulse.  The pulses were sent back at a faster rate than they were originally emitted because they were received at a faster rate.   
Of course, if there is less time between pulses, that means that the pulses arrived at c+v, but would the mathematicians think about it that way?  Or would they use the argument I just wrote? 

The next question then becomes: Was the wavelength of each radio photon unchanged when it returned back to the radar gun?  I think it would be changed, but I don't think the radar gun measures wavelengths, it only measures frequency of pulses.  If the returned wavelength was different than the original wavelength, then that would confirm that the light arrived at the oncoming car at c+v.

Nuts!!  The only good element in this is that the people on the forum do not seem able to work things out logically, and if they could, they wouldn't be able to write out a response in ordinary English.  They'd have to write it as a mathematical equation.   But, I'll have to wait to see how they respond.

Meanwhile, I'll have to think of a better question to ask, one that involves changes in wavelength, not just in frequency.

April 8, 2018 (B) - At 4:06 p.m. yesterday afternoon I started a new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  The thread is titled "The #4 Dumbest Belief in Physics."  In the message that I used to start the thread I said much the same thing I said here in my April 5 comment.  There were zero responses on that new Google forum thread when I turned off my computer at 4:15 p.m.  This morning I see 16 responses.

Looking over the 16 responses, I see 6 are from people on my "Do Not Reply" list.  I'll study those anyway, just to see if they contain anything other than the typical personal attacks and insults.  3 are arguments between other posters, which I'll have to check to make sure I understand what they are arguing about.  Three of the responses are from "Paparios" who wrote nothing, he only posted links to five YouTube videos.  All five videos are about the Doppler effect.  I'll have to try to figure out what point he is trying to make. 

I'm aware of the Doppler effect, but they are evidently seeing something in it that I do not see.  I think what they see has to do with the #3 Dumbest Belief in Physics: "All motion is reciprocal."  I think (and hope) radar guns may be able to help disprove that belief, too.  If you are in a speeding police car traveling at 100 mph and use your radar gun to check the speed of the car you are chasing, if that car is also traveling at 100 mph, the radar gun will show its speed as zero.  So, if you had only the radar gun to use to measure speed, it would confirm dumb belief #3.  But, in that situation in our real universe, the police would use their speedometer to measure the speed of the other car.  So, they have a way to disprove dumb belief #3.

What if the other car is going 90 mph or 110 mph?  What would the radar gun show?  It should show that in the first instance, the speeder's car is traveling at minus 10 mph, which means it is traveling towards the police car, and in the second instance it is traveling at plus 10 mph away from the police car.  Again the police can use their speedometer to disprove dumb belief #3.  But, is that the best argument to use when I respond to the people on the forum? 

I also know that the radar gun is the source of the radio pulses being used to measure velocities.  And no matter how fast the police car is moving, the pulses from the radar gun will always travel at cThe speed of the source does not affect the rate of the emitted radio pulses.  So, if the police car is traveling at 100 mph and the radar gun is pointed at a tree, the gun will show the tree to be traveling at 100 mph. 

Hmm.  If the speed of the source was added to the speed of the light, what would happen?  That's going to take a lot more thinking than I have time for right now, so I'll ponder it for awhile.  Right now I need to get onto the Google forum and argue there, instead on continuing to argue here with myself.

April 8, 2018 (A) -  This afternoon, while driving to a grocery store, I finished listening to CD #8 in the 8-CD audio book version of "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by Al Franken.  

Lies and lying liars

The hardcover version was published in 2003 and written while George W. Bush was President.  So, there's a lot in it about "W." 
As I listened to the book, I constantly kept thinking about how similar George W. Bush was to Donald Trump.  I'd forgotten about many of the similarities.  This is from page 347 of the hardcover edition:
as he became president, Bush managed to spend [Bill] Clinton’s surplus of international goodwill in astonishingly short order. He ditched Kyoto, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the germ warfare protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the land mine treaty.
And this is from page 353:
Bush is good at make-believe.  He says what he has to say.  But he gives tax cuts to his supporters, throws business to his cronies, quietly guts environmental protections, and leaves millions of children behind.  He calls himself a compassionate conservative.  That's the biggest lie of all.

The right-wing media racket let Bush get away with it.  When the mainstream media dares to tell the truth about Bush, they're called biased.
Back then, Al Gore was playing the role that Hilary Clinton plays today on Fox News and in the right wing media, i.e., they are being attacked as a way of side-tracking the discussion whenever the President does something wrong and/or stupid.  The biggest difference may be that back then Ann Coulter may have been the most rabid defender of "W," while today she considers Trump to be a "shallow, lazy ignoramus." 

While listening to the book I also couldn't help but recall a book I read on my Kindle in February and March of 2015 titled "Thinking, Fast and Slow."   "Thinking slow" is thinking logically.  "Thinking fast" is thinking emotionally, as you do when you react to a sudden unexpected event or to something you fear or hate.  George W. Bush and Donald Trump never seem to think things through, they both seem to think emotionally, instead of logically, and they seem to have been elected by people who also think emotionally instead of logically.  People who think emotionally are driven by fear and anger, but mostly it seems they are driven by ego and a need to be viewed as the better than their competitors, whoever their competitors are.  They are out to prove that they (and their clan or country) are the better and smarter than any competitor, and they're ready to go to war with anyone or any country that disagrees.    

Until Donald Trump was elected, I always considered George W. Bush to have been our dumbest President.  Now, of course, Donald Trump holds the title of the "all-time dumbest American President," and hopefully he will hold that title forever.

I think I was expecting Al Franken's book to be a lot funnier than it turned out to be, but it was still a good book to listen to while driving.

BTW, I half-believed this headline when I first saw it yesterday: 

Mexico Agrees to Pay for Trump’s Psychiatric Care

But, it turned out to be the title of a satirical piece in The New Yorker.  When talking about Trump it is often it is difficult to distinguish between satire and reality.

Comments for Sunday, April 1, 2018, thru Saturday, April 7, 2018:

April 5, 2018 - I'd like to try to discuss a specific experiment with the people on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, instead of arguing general physics, which is mostly what I've been doing in the past.  So, I've been doing some heavy thinking about which experiment would best demonstrate that light can arrive at c+v when an observer is moving at velocity v toward the light source or at or c-v when the observer is moving from the source.  The problem is, no scientific paper (except my own) ever seems to describe things that way, and virtually every mathematician believes light is always measured as traveling at c regardless of the motion of the observer or emitter.

The "Annual Doppler Shift" discovered by
Hermann Carl Vogel and Julius Scheiner says that light from a star located along the ecliptic arrives at c+v when the earth is moving toward the star in its orbit around the sun, and it arrives at c-v when the earth is moving away from the star.  But I can't find a copy of the paper they wrote, and the comments about it in other books and papers are too general.

The fact that pulses from pulsars along the ecliptic arrive at a faster rate when the earth is moving toward the pulsar and at a slower rate when the earth his moving away from the pulsar as the earth orbits the sun says that the pulses must be arriving at c+v and c-v.  However, none of the many papers on the subject ever uses the terms c+v and c-v, and the authors generally avoid the entire issue by doing all their measurements from the center of the sun.

Daniel Gezari's paper on lunar laser ranging implies c+v when he writes about how light from a mirror on the moon arrives at the earth observatory at c+v due to the rotation of the earth toward the mirror, but Gezari doesn't accept what his own calculations confirmed. 

So, the best "experiment" demonstrating that light arrives at c+v seems to be what happens when police radar guns are used to measure the speed of an oncoming car.  The best web page I could find on the subject is titled "Police Radar and How it Works."  It explains,
First, there is a transmitter, which creates a signal (called a carrier wave) at a specific frequency (of whichever band the radar is designed for). We will use as an example 1.5 Ghz, which means that one and a half billion sine wave pulses are created every second. This signal is not modulated like a signal from a radio station would be.   
That last sentence means that the 1.5 billion pulses each second are evenly spaced in time and are all of the same strength.  A radio station modulates its signal so that you'll hear voice and music instead of just a single endless tone.  "FM" means "frequency modulation," which says they vary the frequency to cause the different sounds. "AM" means "amplitude modulation," which says the pulses vary in strength or loudness to cause the different sounds.

And then the web page about police radar says

This signal is radiated out toward your car. As the signal spreads out, its strength gets weaker and weaker. ... Various radar guns have different spread patterns, but a block away, the pattern may be about 30 feet in diameter. ... If your car passes through any part of the 30-foot diameter circle (actually, cone), the signal will hit it.
And then
A tiny fraction of this energy that is reflected in all directions, happens to be reflected back in the exact direction of the originating radar gun.
The article also says
There is a phenomenon called the Doppler shift, which causes the frequency of any signal radiated from an object (including a reflected signal) to be shifted by a very specific amount. The size of this frequency shift is dependent on the speed of the moving vehicle, and on almost nothing else.
For a car going 100 mph (toward the radar gun), this only represents a frequency shift (increase) of our original signal to 1.500000150 Ghz, a VERY tiny change. ...  So we get an resulting output (difference) signal of about 150 Hz for the 100 mph car. Lower speeds give lower (difference) frequency. Every frequency corresponds uniquely with a specific speed, virtually exactly proportional to vehicle speed.
In summary, radio photons are sent out as evenly spaced pulses at the frequency rate of 1.5 billion pulses per second.  The pulses travel at c, the speed of light.  However, because the target car is moving toward the source of the photons, the radio photons hit the car at c+v, which means the pulses hit the car at a higher frequency rate than the rate at which they were sent.  They hit at a frequency of 1.500000150 billion pulses per second.

The atoms in the vehicle that were hit by the photons then emit new radio photons back to the radar gun at the speed of light, c.  However, the new photons are emitted at the frequency rate received, i.e.,
1.500000150 billion pulses per second.

The radar gun subtracts the return frequency rate from the transmitted frequency rate and gets the difference in frequency rate:
 1,500,000,150 Hz
-1,500,000,000 Hz
                   150 Hz
The web page describes the final results this way:
Since the difference frequency is virtually directly proportional to the target vehicle speed, a simple circuit converts the 150 Hz signal into a readout of 100 mph.
And the web page also uses c+v and c-v like so:
The equation is f(reflected)=f(source) * Sqr.Rt((c+v)/(c-v)), where c is the velocity of light, and v is the velocity of your car.
But I don't know how to use that equation in my arguments.  I'd need someone else to use it in a meaningful argument first.

I also found a web site explaining how radar guns are also used by baseball fans to measure how fast the pitcher is throwing his "fast ball."

baseball radar guns in use

The principles are exactly the same as for police radar guns.

how a baseball radar gun works

I've mentioned police radar in discussions with the people on the Google forum before.  Their typical argument is that, for all we know, the on-coming car could be motionless in space and the radar gun could be moving, since the earth is spinning on it axis, and it's also orbiting the sun and the Milky Way galaxy.  

But that's where Relativity comes in.  In the frame of reference of the stationary radar gun, the oncoming car is traveling at 100 mph.  In the reference frame of the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred, the radar gun may be moving at tens of thousands of miles per hour along with the earth as the earth moves through space, but the car is still moving toward the gun at 100 mph plus or minus the speed of the earth.  There is no reference frame where the car is stationary relative to the gun or moving away from the gun.  And motion is definitely not reciprocal - except in the fantasies of mathematicians. 

This all makes perfect sense to me.  I can probably find other situations where regularly spaced pulses are transmitted at the speed of light and the pulse rate received is different from the pulse rate of transmission, indicating that the photons were received at c+v or c-v rates, which the mathematicians all say is impossible, and so do the textbooks they read in college.

But how can I get an intelligent conversation going on this topic?  If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to explain to me where I'm wrong.  The fact that what I say disagrees with what is in textbooks doesn't change anything if it is clear that the textbooks are wrong.

I wrote about all this in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, but I really want to discuss it with someone who has an open mind.
April 3, 2018 - Hmm.  This morning, I was about to search for something via Google when I noticed the Google home page had this illustration:

Google search image of John Harrison
Obviously, the image had something to do with time -- or clocks.  But what?  A little detective work found that it is a cartoon about John Harrison, who was born on April 3, 1693.  So, today is his 325th birthday.  Harrison is best known for his work on clocks used on ships.  His first invention was the H1, a chronological tool used for determining longitude at sea. After testing the H1 in 1735, Harrison worked on later iterations, the H2 and H3, that improved on the original's accuracy. 

So, it's a good day for me to delve deeper into the question of how time actually works.  And that is what I was doing when I noticed the illustration.

April 2, 2018 - I'm still mostly thinking about Relativity and Time Dilation, but I decided I should add something about Scott Decker's new book to my blog about the anthrax case.  So, this morning I created a new blog page titled "Recounting the Anthrax Attacks."  The previous page was added almost three years ago, on April 8, 2015.

I was very surprised while researching how Scott's book is being promoted to find a YouTube video promoting the book.  The video is very professionally done, and it clearly implies that the book will soon become a TV documentary series or a major motion picture.

However, the video was evidently created by Hollywood agent looking to make such a deal.  I hope it happens.   It would definitely be a movie (or TV series) that I'd watch.  (It evidently has nothing to do with the TV company that contacted me last July and August about making a TV series or a movie about the anthrax attacks.  That company was evidently never able to find the funding to proceed.)

Hmmm.  The idea of making a movie or TV series that depicts Ivins committing the crime poses a very interesting question: How would they depict him writing the letters and addressing the envelopes?

Meanwhile, I found a web source that says this about measuring the speed of light
received from stars while the earth orbits the sun:
He [Hermann Carl Vogel] then went to the Polytechnical School in the city of Dresden, before he enrolled in natural science at the Universit of Leipzig in 1863. By 1865, he was an astronomical assistant at the Leipzig Observatory before he went for his Ph.D. at the University of Jena which he graduated in 1870 when he was the director of the Bothkamp Observatory by recommendation from astronomer Karl Christian Bruhns to whom he was an assistant and his professor Johann Karl Friedrich Zoellner. Here he and his school chum Wilhelm Oswald Lohse (1845 - 1915) began taking photographic images of the spectrum of stars by 1871 when they also found the Sun's rotational period by the Doppler effect of shifted wavelength. To a person who doesn't know what those lines on the spectrum means, it's of no use, but to a person who knows what elements those lines represent, seeing those familiar lines shifted even slightly to the blue or the red side of the spectrum is noticeable. By 1874, he was working at the new Astrophysical Observatory in Potsdam. (AOP) By 1882, he was the director of AOP till his retirement in 1907. By 1888, he and Julius Scheiner were producing such accurate spectral wavelength shift readings that it was made into a paper, "The Determination of Radial Velocities of Stars by Spectrographic Observation". Many others had tried photographic spectroscopy, but he was the first to determine how to do so accurate-enough that he can determine the radial velocities of stars.
I've tried everything I can think of to find that paper I highlighted in red.  I've even translated the title into German and searched for a German version.  No luck.

It seems like the paper should show that light from a star along the ecliptic should arrive at c+v when the earth is moving toward the star, and at c-v when the earth is moving away from the star six months later.  But why can't I find the paper?  Is there some kind of conspiracy to hide such papers?  If so, how did the author of that web page find the paper?  And why do many of the sources that mention the Vogel-Scheiner findings do so without providing any sources, not even the name of the paper?  I might turn into a conspiracy theorist if I can't find it.

April 1, 2018 - I'm really beginning to feel overwhelmed by all the things I want and need to do.  Once again I have nothing prepared for this Sunday comment, so I'm going to have to write it from scratch.

I thought I'd have time to work on writing this comment yesterday, since there was only one post on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum that I felt needed a response from me.  The post was from "rotchm."  "Kenseto" had evidently stopped posting.  So, I spent nearly all morning working on a reply to the post from "rotchm."  That included time to do research to find quotes from Einstein which I used in my response. 

Then, when I was nearly done with my response to "rotchm," suddenly a very long post addressed to me from "tjrob137" appeared in the thread.  And it was filled with bizarre arguments about how easy it is to measure the speed of oncoming light from distant stars, and how light is always measured to be c, regardless of the motion of the observer.   It appears all you have to do is start with a belief that light always arrives at c, then you build a mathematical equation to support that belief.  And you call the process of creating that equation "an experiment."

So, after I posted my response to "rotchm," I spent nearly all yesterday afternoon writing a response to "tjrob137."  That also included doing a lot of research - research that mostly involves finding things I wanted to quote. 

Then, when I was nearly finished with my reply to "tjrob137," I received an email from retired FBI scientist Scott Decker.  The email included as an attachment the final version of his book "Recounting the Anthrax Attacks" in pdf format.  He says he'll send me a hardcover copy as soon as it comes out.

Recounting the Anthrax Attacks

The book will be officially released in hard cover on April 8, a week from today.  I was planning to write a comment here about it next Sunday, but it looks like I'm writing about it today.  I can't believe I began proof-reading it back on December 22, 2016, when he emailed me the first three chapters he had written.  And I finished proof-reading Chapter 23 on March 12, 2017, just after he finished writing that chapter.   It wasn't until December 17, 2017, that I learned that I'm mentioned on the first page of the book.  And it wasn't until yesterday that I was able to read Chapter 24, the Epilogue I had recommended he write after he sent me Chapter 23.  The Epilogue begins with this: 
By November, the Frederick City Police Department made it official: Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins had deliberately killed himself. With Ivins’s death, proving his guilt before a court of law would not be possible, and we realized that doubt would always linger in some minds. But the totality of evidence could not be ignored: Ivins was the anthrax mailer and a serial killer. His motive? For those who investigated the attacks, we are in agreement: the troubled anthrax vaccine and the looming potential of shutting down anthrax research at USAMRIID, bringing an end to his professional life’s work, coupled with an increasingly troubled mind pushed him to murder, using the weapon he understood best. But personally, I do not think he anticipated killing postal workers, and when he did, he stopped mailing his deadly letters.    
That's going to enrage all the True Believers who still have their own theories about who sent the anthrax letters.

Anthrax truthers 
I keep wanting to relate this endless disagreement to the science arguments I'm currently having with mathematicians.  When I talk with the mathematicians it seems that each one has his own unique understanding of Relativity and how light works.  That's what makes it so difficult to resolve the arguments.  I'll be arguing with "rotchm" or "tjrob137" and a half dozen others will join in with their own bizarre arguments.

But, it's going to be interesting to see how well Scott Decker's book sells.  Is anyone (other than the True Believers and conspiracy theorists) still interested in the case?  While there have been lots of other books about the case (including 2 by me), Scott's book is the first book written by an insider in the investigation.  I hope it does well.  I certainly found it to be a fascinating read.    

I wrote a review for it on the Amazon site.  Of course, I screwed it up.  The first line of the review was:
This is the first book about the biggest FBI investigation in history, written by someone on the inside, Scott Decker, who was in charge of the scientific investigation.
Then I saw that it could be read as saying that it is the first book about the case.  It's not of course.  So, I had to go back and remove the comma between "history" and "written."  It's the first book about the case written by an insider.

There are probably other changes I should make, too.  That's what takes me hours to write a comment for the Google forum.  I constantly rewrite and revise what I've written until I'm satisfied.  And then, as soon as I hit "SUBMIT," I see other things I should have written in a different way.  Writing is easy.  It's the revising and re-thinking that takes so much time.

Comments for Sunday, March 25, 2018, thru Saturday, March 31, 2018:

March 30, 2018 - Wow!  I've really been extremely busy for the past few days.  I kept thinking I should write a comment about it, but then I'd get busy again and there would be no time to write a comment.  Basically, all I've been doing is arguing on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity Discussion forum, but the arguments have been extremely interesting.

I've only been arguing with two people, but each exchange sometimes seems to be fifty arguments at once.  I started by describing three experiments from one of my papers which proved that an outside observer can measure light arriving at c+v or c-v, where v is the observer's speed toward or away from the light source.  Then "rotchm" and "kenseto" picked my comment apart and started arguments about each paragraph, and some sentences within the paragraphs.  I responded to most of the arguments.  Then "kenseto" dropped out and only "rotchm" continued to pick apart my responses and start new arguments about virtually every sentence I wrote.  My last comment yesterday took about 2½ hours to write.  If I make a copy of it (including many quotes from prior exchanges) and paste it into a WORD file, it is 8 pages long.  "Rotchm's"  response this morning has deleted big sections of the argument, but it is still 5 pages long if I copy and paste it into a WORD file. 

Interestingly, after I referred to him as a "mathematician," in his new post, "rotchm" wrote: "
I'm also a psychopathologist & work in med labs. But here in this NG, yes, I'm a mathematician."  (Psychopathology is the study of mental disorders.  And I seem to be having a problem getting him to understand reality.)

He is constantly  referring to reference frames.  A couple days ago, he asked,

Is not the speed of any observer zero (wrt his frame)?
And I responded,
It depends upon what you are measuring.  If you are in a lab with the windows closed, then yes, your speed is THEORETICALLY zero.
And the next day he asked,
Are you saying that if you then open the windows, your speed magically  changes from zero to some other value????
And the next day I responded,
No, I'm saying that before you opened the window you had NOTHING to use to determine if you were moving or not.  You had no capability of determining if you were moving or not.  It's Einstein's First Postulate.

When you opened the window, you HAD ways to determine if you were moving or not.

Evidently, this cannot be stated in mathematics.  In mathematics, a formula is a formula, and what can be done in the real world is irrelevant. That is why we cannot agree.  You are talking mathematics.  I am talking about reality.
And "rotchm's" response this morning was ("RF" = reference frame):
Yes I did have something to use to determine my speed: MY RF.
Speed (as position) is ALWAYS relative to a given RF.
Speed is contingent to an RF, else 'speed' doesnt make sense  (and undefined). This is basic stuff ed, which you should know. In experimental physics, we always use RF's (coordinates, coordination procedures)
I cannot make sense of his answer, which seems to be mindless mathematical dogma.  He seems to be saying he has something to use to determine his speed, he has his reference frameAnd I think he's saying that his speed is always zero, and therefore everything else is always moving relative to him. 

In science no one can assume their speed is always zero.  It is virtually never zero.  But in a mathematical model you can assume your speed is zero.  And if you mindlessly believe the dogma, you can also believe it is true.

I had also created a hypothetical situation where he was heading back toward the sun and earth as he returned from a trip to Alpha Centauri, and my question was whether the sun was moving toward him or was he moving toward the sun?  His answer,
In my (constricted) RF, the Sun is getting closer & closer to me. 
So, his speed is zero and the sun is somehow moving closer to him.  Here are a bunch of his other answers with my questions removed:
Yes, my speed is v wrt the sun's RF (syn: as measured by the sun)

In *my* RF, my position is always x'=0, thus my speed wrt my RF is always 0.

But the sun is coming towards *me*, so I will "get home".

In my frame, when I measure the SoL, I still get c.
In the frame of the Sun, the *closing speed* between
the light & me is c + v. Closing speed is not the speed of "something"; it refers to the rate of change of the distance between the "two things"; its NOT the SoL.
So, he acknowledges that light is arriving at c+v, but he calls it the "closing speed," which he says is not the speed of anything, it is the rate of change of the distance between two things.  He doesn't explain why the "closing speed" is in the reference frame of the sun.  And why can't he measure the "closing speed" in his reference frame?  Is it because his speed is always zero and there can be no "closing speed" unless you have two moving objects?

And my question is: Do I really want to ask him and continue the debate? 

Hmm.   Looking at this morning's post from "rotchm," it appears he deleted all of the comments I made yesterday about measuring light frequency.  It seems I may have won that debate.  (The way to tell if you have won a debate with a mathematician is if they stop answering or change the question.)  I'd argued that there is no "red- or blue-shift" in frequency of light from a star.  There is only red- or blue-shift in wavelength.  If a star is coming toward you, you will receive more photons per unit of time than if it was going away from you, and receiving more photons means the star seems brighter than it really is, but there is no blue-shifting in the light.  If you are stationary, the wavelength of the photons you receive will be the same as when they were emitted.  That is because of Einstein's Second Postulate.  The speed of the emitter does not change the speed of the light emitted.  It is always emitted at c.

If you are moving toward the star, however, you will again get more photons per unit of time, making the star appear brighter, plus the wavelength of the photons will be blue-shifted.  The photons will be arriving at c+v, where v is your velocity.  So, you know that you are moving and your speed is not zero.  But "rotchm" will never accept that.

Meanwhile, last night I watched the rerun of the April 15, 2015, PBS "NOVA" episode titled
"The Great Math Mystery" which was subtitled "Is math invented by humans, or is it the language of the universe?"  The program turned out to be fairly neutral on the answer, pointing out that there are a lot of things in nature that have not yet been reduced to mathematical formulas, a prime example being the weather, which involves too many variables and unknowns to turn into a formula.  There as also a moment in the show where they mentioned something that I still do not understand:  how the magnetic and electric fields cause a photon to act like a wave:
a theoretical photon 

I just cannot visualize that even though there is an image before me.  I cannot visualize how it works.   I visualize a photon as a particle that vibrates, moving up and down, and when it travels at the speed of light, that up-down motion turns into a wave-like pattern with the "wavelength" being one up and one down.  That is somewhat like what the image above shows, but there is no particle.

Sigh.  It's now lunch time and time for me to head to the gym.  All I did all morning was work on this comment.  So much to do, so few hours in a day.    

 March 27, 2018 - While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  The book was "The Importance of Being Funny: Why We Need More Jokes in Our Lives" by Al Gini.

The Importance of Being Funny

I'd started reading it eight days ago after finishing a very very depressing book about Donald Trump.  I needed to read something humorous after that.  While the book certainly has funny comments and contains some funny jokes, it is more of a psychology book than a humor book.  It analyzes why we need humor in our lives.  Here's one passage I underlined;
Joking about a “deep topic” or “dangerous topic” is a way of talking about it, examining it in a way that doesn’t scare us, numb us, and rob us of our joy in life. Jokes allow us to dwell on the incomprehensible without dying from fear or going mad. Laughter and joke telling are a way to speak of the unspeakable.
That probably explains why so many comedians are joking about and poking fun at Donald Trump.  It's a way of coping with our fear of what dangers Trump might get us into and what horrors he might commit.  
As the great American philosopher Joan Rivers succinctly put it, “If you can laugh at it, you can live with it.”
The book also has some interesting historical information.  For example:
Historical evidence indicates that the ancient Greeks had been collecting jokes and putting them into “jokebooks” or “jestbooks” since the time of Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BCE). Like all good things that originated in Greece, the tradition of jokebooks migrated to Italy in the time of Caesar Augustus (63 BC–14 CE), and it is said that a scholar named Melissus compiled approximately 150 joke anthologies. Unfortunately, only one book of humor from ancient Roman times has survived. The Philogelos, or Laughter-Lover is a collection of 264 jokes put together in the fourth or fifth century CE. The jokes in the collection are brief and to the point, but happily they still have a certain cachet. For example: “How shall I cut your hair?” a barber asked a customer. “In silence!” replied the wag. And: How does a man with bad breath commit suicide? He puts a bag over his head and asphyxiates himself!
I only highlighted a few of the longer jokes from the book.  Here's one that addresses a favorite subject of mine:
Logic: The Art of Reasoning (Inductive Reasoning: Moving from a Particular to a General)

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are on a camping trip. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up and gives Watson a nudge. “Watson,” he says, “look up in the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions of stars, Holmes,” says Watson.

“And what do you conclude from that, Watson?”

Watson thinks for a moment. “Well,” he says, “astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Homologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I see that God is all powerful, and we are small and insignificant. Uh, what does it tell you, Holmes?”

“Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!”

During lunch I'll start on a science book, which might actually be more of an adventure book.  Either way, it looks like a good one.  (It's definitely not a mathematics book.)

March 26, 2018 - This morning I had another little "epiphany," a Eureka! moment when it seemed like the last piece in a puzzle might have suddenly fallen into place.  It began yesterday when "danco" posted this to the Google forum:
In physics, & "higher' science, 'understanding' relates to the capacity of applying the models and *calculating*, predicting, the outcome of exps. [experiments]
We 'understand the math' or we can work out the implications of the model.
Thats whats meant by 'understanding'.

Then, there is the word 'interpretation', which is more what YOU call 'understanding'.  Interpretations in physics is irrelevant and obsolete; "shut up & calculate" as the famous quote from Mermin. This is because, 'interpretations' wont change the model, wont change the math. Therefore, interpretations' are useless *in physics*. Yes, in early years of physics, or for the lay, interpretations can help them develop an 'understanding' and mental image of the situations. But further down the line, the lay gets to understand that 'interpretations' are irrelevant, and drops such options. You havent crossed that line and are still stuck at 16th century science so to speak.
Hmm.  Interpretations are useless in physics??  Who would believe such nonsense?  I then did a Google search for "shut up and calculate" and found a Wikipedia entry that says,
Thinking about foundations pays off in the long run. David Mermin once summarized a popular attitude towards quantum theory as “Shut up and calculate!”. We suggest an alternative slogan: “Shut up and contemplate!
  • Lucien Hardy and Robert Spekkens, "Why Physics Needs Quantum Foundations" (2010)
Hmm.  I found the article that contains the phrase "Shut up and contemplate!", but that didn't quite make sense, either.

Then, this morning as I lay in bed waiting for it to be time to get up, it suddenly occurred to me that for the past 4 years I haven't been studying a conflict between mathematicians and scientists, the conflict is actually a 3-way battle:
mathematicians versus scientists versus philosophers
The battle cry of mathematicians is "Shut up and calculate!"
The battle cry of philosophers is "Shut up and contemplate!"
And, meanwhile, the scientists are saying, "Let's talk about this!  Let's work together, exchange ideas, explore, do some experiments, and let's try to figure out how this complex universe works!"

The mathematicians are like a cult that sees mathematics as the word of God, and they battle against all non-believers who disagree with their beliefs.  The philosophers are like a cult that believes nothing is real, everything we see is just illusions in our minds, and they battle against all non-believers who disagree with their beliefs.   Meanwhile, most scientists have probably long understood that they are being criticized from two sides, from the mathematicians and from the philosophers.  I just hadn't realized that before.  And it is something that definitely belongs at the beginning of my book.

Coincidentally, last night I was watching the most recent episode of the PBS show "NOVA" from my DVR, and they mentioned that this Wednesday's episode of "NOVA" is going to be a rerun of an April 25, 2015, program titled "The Great Math Mystery," subtitled "Is math invented by humans, or is it the language of the universe?"  
Hmm.  I'm afraid of what their answer might be.  But, I'll watch it anyway.  

March 25, 2018 -  I recently received a bunch of happy birthday wishes from people on Facebook.  And, as I did last year, I had to tell them that the date Facebook had as my birthday wasn't correct.  When I sighed up to get on Facebook I gave them a somewhat incorrect birth date.  I gave them the right month, but the day was off by a few days and the year was off by a few years.  I'd used an incorrect birthday when signing up for Facebook because I didn't see any reason to give them my true birthday, although I could understand why they might need to know if I was over 21 or not.  I was concerned that identity thieves might steal the information from them.

It turns out I was correct in being concerned.
Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
But, I didn't actually sign up for Facebook until after the "data breach" that is in  the news these days.  That breach occurred in "early 2014."  Searching for the term "Facebook" on this web site, I find that that the first time I used it was in a comment I wrote on May 5, 2015.  On that day I wrote:
It's possible that if I were on Facebook, I could find some true experts on the anthrax attacks of 2001 and Time Dilation to talk with.  But, I tend to think that such people also have "better things to do."  My primary interest is in writing, and writing is mostly a solitary activity.  Facebook looks like a trap where you wander around in a crowded world looking for someone with the same interests as you have.  I have to allocate my time to fit my current mood and interests.  I don't have much time left for wandering the world to find someone to exchange small talk and gossip with.  And that also means I very rarely encounter Trolls.
So, I wasn't yet on Facebook at that time.  Note, too, that the comment indicates I was already heavily into arguing about Time Dilation, even though I was still very much interested in learning more details about the anthrax attacks of 2001 and all the screwball conspiracy theories about that case.

So, when did I first mention "Time Dilation" on a web site?  It turns out the first mention was on my old web site, anthraxinvestigation.com, and it was on March 16, 2014.  In my (B) comment on that day I wrote:

I completed the course on Space, Time & Einstein at the WorldScienceU.com site.  The basic principles of time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light are very familiar to me and required learning nothing new.  I think I fully understand them.  Here's one of the comments I wrote explaining my view of time dilation:

I think I understand time dilation okay. If I'm on a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light, where time is slowed down to 1/10th what it is back on earth, everything will still SEEM normal aboard the ship. The clock will seem to keep normal time. I'll still need a haircut every month (more or less). If a woman aboard gets pregnant, she'll still have a 9 month gestation period.

AND, if I had a magical "simultaneous viewer" device aboard that could show me the eastern horizon back on earth as it was happening at MY time rate, I'd see the sun rise every 2 hours and 24 minutes.

AND, if the people back on earth also had a magical "simultaneous viewer," the parents of the pregnant woman aboard would have to wait 90 months for the child to gestate and be born. And, if they could see the clock we have aboard the spaceship, they'd see it was moving at 1/10th the rate of the clocks they have.

However, there was one video (Module #8) that contained a section that was really puzzling for me, and, evidently, also very puzzling for a lot of other students.  So, I played it over and over until I could spot the exact sentence where Professor Greene lost me.  Then I looked at all the comments by the other students to see if any of them could clarify anything.  (My outdated computer software prevents me from getting any direct feedback from Professor Greene.)  Eventually, I realized the problem was all the result of a confusing choice of words used by Prof. Greene.  Am I right?  I dunno.  But, I've finished the only course I see of interest.  I'll just check the student comments from time to time to see if anyone clarifies anything further for me. 
Hmm.  I'd forgotten that I became interested in researching conflicting arguments about Time Dilation as a result of taking Professor Greene's course.  I'd been thinking it was the other way around: that I took the course because I was interested in Time Dilation.  Thinking back on it, I now recall that I had watched Professor Greene talk about his on-line courses on either Jon Stewart's or Stephen Colbert's TV show, and that was how I knew about it and became interested in taking a course. That moment in time was also right after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 had disappeared, and I was also heavily into arguing with conspiracy theorists about that mystery.

My comment for March 23, 2014, includes this additional information:

Another area of very heavy thinking last week involved me trying to figure out exactly what Professor Greene was talking about in the on-line course about Space, Time & Einstein on the WorldScienceU.com web site.  I understand time dilation, okay, I think.  To confirm it, I created a new web page about it HERE.  The idea is that if I can explain it to others and get them to understand, that means I also understand it.  I think just about anyone should be able to understand my explanation.  I may add some drawings, if I can find the time.
What was the "confusing choice of words used by Prof. Greene" that caused me to spend much of the next couple years doing research about Time Dilation?  It turns out I took the course a second time a couple years later and found those words no longer confused me, they just irritated me, since I saw them as "mathematical nonsense."  I wrote a blog page about it titled "Physics teachers are teaching mathematical nonsense, not science."  In that blog page I wrote:
I want to make it clear before continuing that Professor Greene is not teaching anything that other physics professors aren't also teaching.  The only difference is the Professor Greene's course and lectures are on-line where I can easily access them.

I soon realized what bothered me about "Module #8" back then.  Prof. Greene was breaking Time down into "quanta," i.e., into moments, like the individual frames of a movie.  And he was viewing time as a mathematician would view time.  Plus, the lecture concludes with Professor Greene saying that, "What this collectively tells us is that the traditional way we think about reality - the present is real, the past is gone, the future is yet to be - that is without any real basis in physics.  What we are really learning from these ideas is that the past, the present and the future are all equally real."

If you believe that, then you can also argue that everything we see may be equally unreal - from a mathematician's point of view.
And I rambled on and on about the absolute nonsense being taught in that course.  Interestingly, the comments I received about that post are still relevant today.  The first comment was from "Science Guy" who wrote:
It's unbelievable how many wrong conclusions you have here.
To which I responded,
It's unbelievable that someone would write such a comment without specifying which "conclusions" are "wrong" and what the FACTS and EVIDENCE say are the CORRECT "conclusions." Do you have only PERSONAL OPINIONS?
And "Science Guy" responded:
Since all of your conclusions were only personal opinions, you wouldn't want anything else.
And that basically ended the discussion.  It had become nothing by an opinion versus opinion argument, which I consider to be a total waste of time.  And that was like a model for today's arguments.  I want to discuss facts and evidence, and all the mathematicians want to discuss is opinions. 

And today I am still looking for someone - anyone - who can explain where I'm wrong, but all I'm getting is opinions that I'm wrong, with no explanations of specifically what is wrong and how facts and evidence show I am wrong.  The facts and evidence show that I am right.  That is why I cite the experiments.

And that is also why I write in this web site.  It's a record of how my thinking changed over the years and how and why I became interested in writing books and scientific papers about my findings.  And now I'm working on another book.

Comments for Sunday, March 18, 2018, thru Saturday, March 24, 2018:

March 23, 2018 - Yesterday, I actually started writing a book I have tentatively titled "Logical Relativity."  It was a totally disorganized attempt.  I just sat down and started writing about how logical Relativity is -  if you understand it.  What I wrote looks pretty good, but, like so many other things I've started to write without first getting organized, I kept adding new and different things before what I'd already written.  If I was organized, the new stuff would go at the end.  When I'm disorganized, I realize that before I wrote what I had already written I should have explained something, and I add the explanation at the beginning.  Sometimes in the middle.

But, at least I'm writing.

Then, this morning, I woke up thinking about the two animated gifs I used in Wednesday's comment, particularly this one:


Note that the image is named "doppler_source_blue.gif."  Here it is again:

moving emitter stationary observer

It occurred to me that the name of the gif is a misnomer.  The light would NOT be blue shifted in that situation, where the emitter is moving toward the observer.  The photons would be arriving faster, thus the frequency would be higher, but that just means the light would be brighter than when the emitter was stationary.  The observer is receiving more photons per unit of time.  So, the light is brighter.  There would be no shift in color.  Light is only blue shifted when the observer is moving toward the emitter.  That is depicted in the animated gif with the name "doppler_detector_blue.gif:

Moving observer stationary emitter

In the above situation, the light encountered by the observer/detector would be both brighter and blue-shifted.  It would be brighter than if the observer was stationary, because the observer would be receiving more photons per unit of time than if it was stationary, and the light would be blue-shifted because each photon would be traveling faster when it arrives than when it was emitted.  The photon would arrive at c+v, where v is the observer's speed.  That, of course, is not how things are taught in most colleges and universities, and it is the point of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.

I had to track down the source of the first gif above to find the second gif.  The source is http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/.  That source also has animated gifs showing how waves "bunch up" when the emitter is moving, versus when the emitter is stationary:

 stationary emitter
Stationary Emitter
 moving emitter
Moving Emitter

The problem is, of course, that there are no actual waves.  Light does NOT travel in waves.  Light consists of photons, not waves.  And the photons are emitted in random directions.  They just spread out somewhat in the way that is shown in the two images.  The further two individual photons get from the point where they were emitted, the farther apart they become - unless, of course, the two photons just happened to be emitted one after the other in the exact same direction. 

And now I'm wondering if I should go back to that now-inactive Google discussion thread where Pentcho Valev used the animated gifs to illustrate his mistaken point, so I can show him the two gifs directly above.  But that would probably mean restarting the arguments and insults from the others who were posting.  And Pentcho Valev is unlikely to respond anyway. 

Hmm.  While Pentcho Valev did not respond to my comment to him, he did post again in that same thread.  The post provided a link to the actual web site where the animated gifs are used as illustrations: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html   That web page contains this rhetorical question:
Is the Doppler effect for light different, depending on whether the source is moving or the receiver?
and this answer:
If it were, we would have a way to define absolute motion - we could define, using only the laws of physics (more concretely, of light propagation) whether or not the source, or the receiver, or any other object is at rest or not. This is in sharp contrast with the basic tenets of special relativity, which state that there is no absolute motion, and that the physical laws do not allow us to determine a state of absolute rest.
Groan.  Yes, BUT, decades after special relativity was developed, others realized that astronomical observations together with Special and General Relativity indicated the universe started with a "Big Bang."  And if there was a "Big Bang," the point where the Big Bang occurred is a stationary point (i.e., "a state of absolute rest") from where all movement in the universe can be measured.    

The web page also mentions "the relativistic Doppler effect."  If you are moving toward the source of light, the pulses will arrive at a faster rate, PLUS because you are moving time slows down for you.  That means a second is longer for you. And that means that even more pulses will arrive per your second.  That's a complication I hadn't thought about before.  It's also something that wouldn't work unless all movement is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.

And time dilation also says that if the source of light is moving relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, time slows down for the source.  That means all of its processes slow down.  Therefore, if it emits one pulse per second, that will be a longer second than for a stationary observer.  Photons are emitted instantaneously, so there is no effect on an individual photon due to the speed of the emitter, but photons will be emitted at a different rate.    

It also makes me think I need to explain something about this near the beginning of my new book - before most of what I've already written.  And I think I should forget about responding to Pentcho Valev's post, since what I learned from it has nothing to do with what he wrote in his post. 

March 21, 2018 - Ah!  There was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my state income tax forms were accepted by my state.  So, I am all done with my income taxes and can focus on writing either a book or some papers.

The problem is that when I think about writing a book, I think about telling the story of how I got to the place where I am, i.e., how did I (a non-scientist) arrive at the point where I want to write a book about Relativity?  I find that topic very interesting, but would anyone else care?  I suspect not.  So, I need to re-think the book, maybe turning it into a collection of my scientific papers, with maybe some info between the papers about how I came to write each paper.

But that may require that I "fix" at least one of my papers.  I keep thinking I definitely need to removed the word "illusion" from my paper Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle.  I only use the word 4 times in the paper, but there is no "illusion," there is just a definition of "the speed of light" that is valid inside different frames of reference but it is not valid when frames are compared.   

So, while I was thinking about that this morning, I noticed Pentcho Valev had started another silly new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  He titled the thread "Einstein's False Light Postulate."  Here's the entire post he used to start the thread:

Whether Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true or false depends on whether light pulses bunch up in front of the moving source or not:



Light pulses don't bunch up - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Here are the two animated gifs he used:
stationary emitter and receiver
moving emitter, stationary observer
Note how the lower gif shows the photons are much closer together ("bunched up"), yet the photons move at the same rate between emitter and observer.
And here is my entire response to Mr. Valev:
Pentcho, if I am stationary and the source of light is stationary and emits one light photon toward me every second at 299,792 kilometers per second (kps), that means there will be 299,792 kilometers between each photon that I detect and I will detect one photon arriving every second.

If, however, the source is traveling at 100,000 kilometers per second (kps) toward me and away from you (and we are both stationary), then there will be 199,792 kilometers between each photon that I detect (the photons "bunch up" and I detect more than one per second), and there will be 399,792 kilometers between each photon that you detect (the photons are "spread out" and you detect fewer than one per second).  But each photon still travels at 299,792 kps.

That is depicted in the two illustrations you provided.  The blue.gif shows that the photons are closer together than in the static.gif.  But the photons still travel at c.

The speed of light does NOT vary with the speed of the source, the FREQUENCY at which the photons arrive at the observer varies with the speed of the source AND the direction in which it is traveling. 
So, now I'm waiting to see if he will respond.  I don't recall ever seeing him respond to a post.  He just posts something else in support of his beliefs, usually something that in no way responds to any questions asked.

I wonder if there is something in this that is going to set off the mathematicians.  The first response was a personal attack from David (Kronos Prime) Fuller.  Then came a post from "rotchm" telling me it was "impolite" to move to a new thread without finishing the argument on the previous thread.  Sigh.  I'll just have to wait and see if anything worthwhile comes of this.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to think about working on a paper or a book.

March 20, 2018 - This morning I did my income taxes, so I don't have to worry about that chore anymore.  And, I see that all the people on Google's Science, Physics & Reality discussion forum are doing today is arguing personal beliefs and theories among themselves.  There has been no response from "trjrob137" regarding my dissection and debunking of his March 17 comment and email to me.  He hasn't responded via email, and it appears he hasn't posted anything at all since then to the Google forum.  Maybe he spent the past three days digesting what I wrote.  But, until he does reply, I'm going to assume that that argument has ended, and so have all the debates I was involved with there.

So, I'm free to work on some scientific paper or a book.  I think about writing a paper when I am in the middle of an argument, but I think about writing a book when the arguments are over.  I'll have to wait to see which direction I will take, but it appears I cannot think about it until I get the confirmations that my tax forms were accepted by the IRS and by my state.  Until then, I'll probably just stare at the computer screen and think about where to begin.

Ah!  I was just notified that the IRS accepted my federal forms.

I was also thinking I should show this image:

Chicago equinox

It's a shot of Upper Wacker Drive in Chicago, taken during the autumn equinox last September.  On NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day website they say, "Sometimes, in a way, Chicago is like a modern Stonehenge. The way is east to west, and the time is today."  In other words, there should have been a similar view this morning.  As I write this, spring began about 15 minutes ago.

March 19, 2018 - Yesterday afternoon, I took a break from arguing on the Internet and I sat down on my couch to finish reading a book on my Kindle.  It was "It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America" by David Cay Johnston.

It's Even Worse Than You Think

Wow.  What a depressing book!  Here's one quote from early in the book:
Viewed properly in the context of their times, the last forty-four presidents all pursued policies that they believed would make for a better America tomorrow. The Trump presidency is about Trump. Period. Full stop. He says so himself all the time, but because he mixes it in with lines about how he loves everyone and what a terrific job he will do, millions of Americans believe he is at one with them even though he is not even at one with himself.
Trump has also lived a life of thumbing his nose at conventions and law enforcement, learning lessons as a boy from his father, Fred, whose business partner was an associate of the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He has long been in deep with mobsters, domestic and foreign, along with corrupt union bosses and assorted swindlers.
Here's a another quote about Trump's father:
Not many people go so far as to support the Ku Klux Klan, as Trump’s father, Fred, was doing in 1927 when New York City police arrested him during a violent demonstration.
But mostly the book is about Donald Trump himself.  Another quote:
Trump himself has reduced his life philosophy to a single word—revenge.
“I love getting even,” Trump advised in one of his books, adding “go for the jugular, attack them in spades!” Repeatedly he has said in talks and in his books that destroying the lives of people he considers disloyal gives him pleasure.
And another:
His entire life Trump has been a con artist. In The Art of the Deal he brags about deceptions that enriched him. He has boasted about not paying banks that loaned him billions of dollars. He conned thousands of people desperate to learn what Trump said were the secrets of his success into paying up to $35,000 to attend Trump University. In a promotional video, Trump said his university would provide a better education than the finest business schools with a faculty he personally picked. Lawsuits forced Trump’s testimony and documents that showed that there were no secrets he shared with the “students.” The faculty never met Trump. These professors turned out to be fast-food managers and others with no experience in real estate, the focus of the “university.” Because of the lawsuits, Trump paid back $25 million to the people he conned so the scam would not follow him into the White House.
Near the end of the book I highlighted this question:
How can it be that millions of people do not see Trump for what he is—a narcissistic, ill-informed, thieving old blowhard?
And the last passage I highlighted in the book was this:
Donald Trump is not the political disease afflicting America, he is a symptom. That millions of people voted for a narcissistic, know-nothing con artist who has spent his entire life swindling others while repeatedly urging followers to commit criminal acts of violence against his critics reveals more about America than about Trump.
I have family members who voted for Trump.  They no longer see him as being whatever it was they thought he was when they voted for him, but I doubt that they now view Trump the way I view Trump.  If the 2016 election were to be repeated, I think just they might vote for Trump again.  And the book makes it clear that about a third of the American voters would also vote for Trump again.

I have several other books about Trump on my Kindle.  But I'm not in the mood to read more about him - or about why anyone would vote for him.  When I think about what I've already read about why people voted for him, it's really chilling.

So, this morning at breakfast I started reading a book from the "Humor" section at the library.  And the next book in the queue after that is half humor and half science.  Then I'll probably shift to only science for awhile.  Science generally provides a hopeful view of the future.  Current political books certainly don't. 

The audio book I'm currently listening to while driving here and there about town is a humor book about politics.  That one is getting a bit depressing, too.  But learning how people like Trump and other far right wingers routinely lie and justify their lying with more lies is also both educational and funny.  It's only depressing because there isn't anything I can do about it -- unless a lot of other voters also want to do something about it.  

March 18, 2018 -  On Friday morning I decided I wouldn't respond to any further posts to the "Those LYING Scientists" thread I had created on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum unless "tjrob137" answered my question about the purpose of the NIST, Italian and Hafele-Keating experiments.  He didn't respond before I shut down for the day on Friday afternoon. 

On Saturday mornings I have all kinds of chores to do, so I didn't check the Google forum.  But, later in the morning I checked my email inboxes, and in the email inbox that gets all my junk mail I was surprised to find an email from "tjrob137" giving his response to my question about the three experiments.  I spent the next two hours writing my answer to his response, using a lot of bold and red highlighting, plus underlining, to emphasize things.  You can't do any of that on the forum.  Then, after sending the email, I checked the forum and found that "tjrob137" had posted the same message there with a carbon copy to my email account.  So, I copied and pasted my email message to the forum, then modified parts of it before posting.

I'd really hoped "tjrob137" would not respond.  I'd really gotten tired of arguing on that forum, even though it is occasionally very interesting.  But, in response to my question about the purpose of the three experiments, "tjrob137" wrote:

They don't really demonstrate anything about "time", because that is NOT what they are measuring.
And then he added:
They did not measure "the rate of time", they measured FREQUENCY DIFFERENCES of SIGNALS BETWEEN THE CLOCKS."
And about the Italian experiment specifically, he wrote:
Had you bothered to actually READ THEIR REPORT (in Nature Physics, linked to the LA Times article), you would KNOW that the authors never mentioned "difference in time" or "difference in clock tick rates". For instance, in the caption to Fig. 1 they specifically mention "Frequency of the transportable Sr clock as seen by the INRIM Cs fountain clock" -- they are using words in precisely the way I advocate. That figure explicitly shows the fiber-optic link between them, so it is QUITE CLEAR that they are comparing SIGNALS BETWEEN THE CLOCKS."
Yes, "tjrob137" constantly writes about one clock "seeing" another clock, which makes no sense at all.  And he found a sentence in the Italian article which uses a clock "as seen by" another clock to justify all his claims.

As best as I can figure, he believes the clocks tick at the same rate at the top of the mountain as at the bottom (see #5 in my list of The 10 Dumbest Beliefs in Physics), and it is the speeding up (the blue-shifting) of the "signal" that is sent down the mountain for comparison that accounts for the difference in clock rates.  But, I'd already explained to him that the "signals" can have no affect on the experiment.  So, evidently I needed to explain that to him again - in some different way.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like this needs to be the subject of a scientific paper.  And I also needed to create some illustrations to help me explain the situation.

According to what I read in the articles about the Italian experiment, time ticks at a faster rate at the top of the mountain than at the bottom.  In other words, seven ticks of an atomic clock at the top of a mountain when compared to seven ticks of an identical atomic clock at the bottom of the mountain can be depicted as seen in Illustration #1 below.

Time Dilation Grid #1
Illustration #1
According to "tjrob137," however, a clock at the top of a mountain ticks at the same rate as a clock at the bottom of the mountain.  So, in Illustration #2 below we have 7 ticks of the clock at the bottom of the mountain and at the top of the mountain with  equal intervals between the 7 ticks.

Time dilation grid illustration #2

Illustration #2

"Tjrob137" evidently believes that the signals sent down the mountain are affected by gravity and speed up as they descend, so when someone at the bottom of the mountain compares the two clock tick rates it merely appears that there is a shorter interval between ticks atop the mountain.  It simply looks like Illustration #1 above while the clocks actually tick like Illustration #2.

The problem with that belief is that it is not logical.  If the signal for each tick speeds up as it descends, the amount of time that is removed from between ticks will always be the same.  The same amount of gravity is applied to each signal, and the same amount of time is required for each tick to descend.  So, if the clocks are ticking at the same rates as in Illustration #2 above, the only actual difference will be how long it takes for the signals to travel from the top of the mountain to the bottom at the speed of light.  After that, all signals will arrive with the same intervals as observed at the top of the mountain.  Illustration #3 below shows in red the travel time interval of time being observed at the bottom of the mountain for the first tick signal to arrive due to the speed of light.  Plus the illustration shows that although the signals are delayed, the interval between signals once they arrive are the same duration they were at time of transmission. 

Time dilation grid illustration #3
Illustration #3

IF some speeding up of signal times could somehow magically cause the results seen in Illustration #1, we'd get the situation shown in Illustration #4 below:

Time Dilaiton grid illustration #4
Illustration #4

There is the viewing delay caused by the time it takes for a signal to get down to the bottom of the mountain at the speed of light, and then the signals are somehow perceived as being closer together.  While there wouldn't be any serious problem with the first few signals, as Illustration #4 shows, that would mean that signal #5 would have to arrive at the same instant it was transmitted, and signal #6 would have to arrive before it was emitted at the top of the mountain.  Even more so for signal #7.   That is simply NOT LOGICAL.  But, of course, mathematicians do not believe in logic.  To them, math is the only real logic,  (See #6 in my list of The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics), and all other forms of logic are equal to "common sense," and as even their text books will tell you, there are things about physics that run counter to common sense.  But you must believe it anyway.

Near the end of his post and email, "tjrob137" added this tidbit of information:

In physics, "time is what clocks measure" [[according to] Einstein and others], for the simple reason that in any experiment that involves time, a clock is used to measure it.  No experiment measures time, they all measure clocks or signals between clocks.
I'm not positive that I know what he means by that.  However, 'tjrob137" seems to disagree with Einstein.  Perhaps he believes, as many others do, that "time is just a concept," therefore no experiment can actually measure time. 

If "time is just a concept," then how can it run at different rates under different circumstances of gravity and velocity?  I imagine 'tjrob137" would simply say "It can't and it doesn't, " adding, "That is just what 'Einstein and others' believe." 

I really feel I should put all this in a scientific paper.  There are a lot of other fascinating angles to it, some angles that are probably more important than those mentioned above.  Specifically, the fact that the Italian experiment can be viewed as a repeat of the Pound-Rebka experiment.   In my explanation above, I make it clear that there can be no difference in the frequency of light signals between emission at the top of the mountain and receipt at the bottom of the mountain.  However, I have not argued that there is no difference in wavelength.  #8 in my list of The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics is:

#8.  Light travels as waves.
There can be no difference in frequency for light emitted at the top of a mountain (or at the top of a building at Harvard) when it is received at the bottom of the mountain (or the bottom of the building), but can there be a "blue shifting" in the wavelength?  Either Pound-Rebka was wrong about frequency shifting, or it was wrong about both frequency shifting and wavelength shifting.  I think I can make a good case for the "both" idea.  (As I see it, the differences in frequency and wavelength did not occur as the light traveled, they occurred at time of emission.)  Differences in photon frequency and photon wavelength result from the velocity of a receiving body moving toward or away from the body that emitted the photons.

I should probably add that, before I received "tjrob137's" response to my question about the three experiments, I had been thinking of writing my Sunday comment to be about the blue-shifting and red-shifting of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) as the earth, sun and the Milky Way galaxy head toward the Constellation Hydra.  That red- and blue-shifting must relate to the fact that radiation from the CMB is arriving at c+v, where v is our velocity as we head toward Hydra and the CMBR ahead of us, and at c-v as we head away from the CMBR behind us.  And that of course is an argument against #4 on my list of
The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics:
#4.  The speed of light is always measured to be the same by the emitter and all outside observers, regardless of their own velocity.
Sigh.  Now I have to work on a paper about all this.  And somehow I also have to find time to do my income taxes.

Comments for Sunday, March 11, 2018, thru Saturday, March 17, 2018:

March 15, 2018 - Groan!  Twenty new messages were posted to the "Those LYING Scientists" discussion thread overnight.  Most are arguments between others on the forum, one is by someone on my "Do Not Reply" list, but there are six messages addressed to me that seem to be genuine attempts to communicate, which means I feel I should try to respond to the posts from
tjrob137 (his first post in this thread)
Paparios and
Paul B. Anderson
Plus, while I was typing the list above, kenseto posted a message addressed to JanPB recommending that JanPB should read Ken Seto's book "Model Mechanics: The Final Theory," which is available on-line at that link for free.  Ken Seto (kenseto) was responding to a response to a statement from me.  I posted this question:
What is the CAUSE of clocks ticking at different rates when the velocity is different and/or when gravity is different?
JanPB had answered with this example of lunacy:
In physics the CAUSE of ANYTHING is unknown.
And Ken Seto replied,
That’s because you mathematicians took over physical development  and invented all sorts of non-existing mathematical objects (such as: virtual particles (force messengers), extra dimensions, spacetime,  curvature in spacetime, length contraction, time dilation....etc) to explain the physical universe. Once you done that there is no way to go back to find the CAUSE of ANYTHING.
Fortunately I think I found the PHYSICAL CAUSE OF EVERYTHING in my book in the following link:
Except for the "time dilation" part and the recommendation to read his book,  Ken Seto and I seem to be mostly in agreement.  There are others who also seem to agree with me sometimes, but then they say something that I totally disagree with.   It reminds me of the cartoon I created a long time ago:

Science Truthers
Everyone agrees that something or someone is wrong, but they totally disagree on what is right.  Each has his own theory.  And, of course, so do I.  But I do not fit into the cartoon because I would be arguing that "mainstream scientists are RIGHT in what they believe.  They are correct when they do experiments which confirm that time ticks at different rates in different locations where gravity and velocity are different.  And the people I am arguing with disagree, but we cannot find the right words to define our disagreement because they only understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything except in mathematical terms.

And, two more messages just appeared in the "Those LYING Scientists" thread.  Fortunately, neither was addressed to me.  I've got an hour and a half to reply to the six messages addressed to me before it will be lunchtime and time for me to head to the gym for a workout.  Sigh.  I really need to get out of this situation so that I can do my taxes and maybe start writing a book.  

March 14, 2018 - Hmm.   Stephen Hawking died in Cambridge, England, in the "early hours" of this morning, which could have been late last night where I am in Midwest America.  This morning as I was doing my morning "chores," one "chore" is to look through my web site visitors log to see who visited during the previous day.  I noticed that at 16:08:01 (4:08 p.m.) yesterday afternoon, someone from Cambridge University visited my Time Dilation page.  It's probably just a coincidence, but I think it's been months since I've noticed any visitors from Cambridge University.

Meanwhile, there was only one comment worthy of a response among the six comments that were posted overnight to the "Those LYING Scientists" thread on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  Most of the comment from "danco" was just same-old same-old, in response to this comment from me:

To me, all movement is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
Danco wrote this:
Making allowances for your unfamiliarity with the relevant concepts from cosmology, it's true that one can define a cosmological time in a way that corresponds to what you said, but it would be expressed by saying that we can define all movement in terms of the local frames of reference at any given point in which the radiation reaching that point from the big bang is the same frequency in all directions.  This gives an unambiguous definition of motion, and indeed this is used for some astronomical and cosmological studies.  However, it remains true that local inertial coordinate systems are perfectly reciprocal.
And I responded with this:
You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of cosmology.  The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the same in all directions because it formed about 378,000 years AFTER the Big Bang.  It is from the time when hydrogen atoms first formed.  Photons emitted when an atom forms do not go in any specific direction, they are emitted RANDOMLY in EVERY direction.  So, the CMB tells us NOTHING about the direction to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
Wow.  I hadn't even thought about that before.  I'd read a lot about the CMB, but I never wondered how it could be the same in all directions if the Big Bang occurred off in some direction outside of the visible universe. 

Big Bang Universe vs Visible Universe
Before responding to danco's comment, I had to do some more research.  I found a very interesting article on space.com from five years ago that I've probably read several times before, but this time I paid particular attention to the part about how the CMB seems "redder" or "hotter" when viewed from the southern hemisphere versus the view from the northern hemisphere.  That poses the question: Is it "redder" meaning "hotter," or does it indicate that the earth is moving toward the CMB as viewed from the northern hemisphere and away from the CMB as viewed from the southern hemisphere, resulting in a "red-shift" in the radiation?  But that should mean the view from the northern hemisphere should contain "blue-shifted" radiation.  However, only noticeable spot of "blue-shifted" radiation is also in the view from the southern hemisphere.

Groan!  Does anyone actually care about any of this except me?  It sometimes seems to me that the Quantum Theorists know what they know and they are ready to argue with anyone who disagrees, while the Relativists know what they know and they don't have the time to argue with anyone who disagrees.  So, if I was looking for support, I would be looking for it from Relativists who do not have the time to provide support for people arguing with Quantum Theorists. 


March 13, 2018 - I think it may be time for me to stop posting arguments to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum for awhile.  I see 7 new posts were addressed to me overnight.  There were many more yesterday morning, so many that I spent all day responding to them and didn't have time to write a comment here.  This morning's comments are a bit different, though.  All are just statements of opinions, personal attacks and insults.  None seems worthy of a response.

I tried 3 or 4 times to get someone on the forum to tell me what the scientists who performed the NIST, Italian and Hafele-Keating experiments demonstrated with their experiments.  No one would answer the question. They do not believe that time ticks at different rates at different speeds and different altitudes, which is what the experiments demonstrated, so the people on the forum just obfuscate, change the subject and hurl insults.

One of last night's responses was from Gary Harnagel, who is on my "Do Not Reply" list.  He ridiculed me for having such a list.  If I respond, he'll ridicule me for violating the rules for my "Do Not Reply" list by replying to someone who is on the list.  It's tempting to respond anyway, since this post last night shows how he thinks.

I had written a comment about Person-1 waking up in a closed room with a golf ball in his lap and knowing from previous discussions that he is part of an experiment and he is supposed to toss the ball into the air and catch it again.  He does so, and, as expected, the ball goes straight up and comes straight down again.  Then the experiment rules say he is supposed to raise the curtain on the window in a nearby wall.  He does so, and he sees that he is aboard an airplane traveling at about 500 mph.  So, he now knows that the ball did not actually go straight up and down, due to his velocity it actually came down hundreds of feet from where he tossed it upwards.  

And Person-2 on the ground who set  up the experiment also knows this.  So, no one still believes the ball actually went straight up and down.

Gary Harnagel's response this morning was:

And a person in a [reference] frame where the sun is stationary sees the plane moving at 66000 mph and the ball comes down many THOUSANDS of feet from where it went up, so he knows that Person-2 is wrong :-)
So, Harnagel is saying that Person-2 is "wrong" because the ball came down thousands of feet from where it was tossed upwards, not merely hundreds of feet as I stated.  So, Harnagel changed the argument.  My point was - and still is - that no one believes that the ball went straight up and came straight down.

Gary Harnagel then added a further comment:

But since he knows astronomy, he knows that the earth is moving around the sun at 30 km/second.  And since he also knows the First Postulate, he understands that motion is purely relative, as Galileo proclaimed centuries ago.
I'd like to ask him what does the First Postulate (i.e., the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames) have to do with the idea that "motion is purely relative"?  Later in his post he actually states,
the velocity of an object is NOT a law of physics.
So, what was he trying to say?  I suspect it has something to do with what I list as the #3 dumbest belief in physics: "All Motion is Reciprocal."  If you corner a mathematician, he will explain that "all motion is relative" means that "all motion is reciprocal," since mathematicians believe there is no "preferred frame of reference."  Therefore, if a child gets on his tricycle and starts peddling around on the sidewalk, it is just as "possible" that the child is actually stationary and somehow his peddling is causing the sidewalk, the earth (and the universe) to move around under him.  All motion is relative.  All  motion is reciprocal.  There's no way to tell (mathematically) who is moving and who is not.

If you want to separate the idiocy of "all motion is reciprocal" from the idea that "all motion is relative," you have find something that all motion is relative TO.  Einstein helped to confirm that there is no "ether" (or "aether") to use as a "preferred frame of reference," but he seems to have left open the question of "What is all motion relative to if it is not relative to the stationary ether?"  Einstein didn't believe in the Big Bang theory, so he didn't believe (as I do) that all motion is relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred.  It seems he went in the other direction and believed that all motion is relative to the maximum speed of light.  But that just pertains to velocity, not to a location.  According to one source:
He came to realize that since all the laws of physics remain the same whether you’re at rest or in steady motion, the speed of light has to be constant as well. No one can catch up with a light beam. But if the speed of light is identical for all observers, something else has to give: absolute time and space. Einstein concluded that the cosmos has no universal clock or common reference frame. Space and time are “relative,” flowing differently for each of us depending on our motion.
Hmm.  I've concluded that the cosmos does have a universal clock and a common reference frame.  It is the point where the Big Bang occurred.  At that point, time ticks at its maximum rate, and all motion in the universe is relative to that point.

It greatly simplifies and helps make sense of everything.  But nothing can be accomplished by arguing about it with the people on the Google forum.   I just need to write more papers about it - maybe a book.  And, if someone can explain to me where I'm wrong, I'd like them to do so.  Just don't argue that I'm wrong because I do not understand the mathematics, and do not argue that I'm wrong because I appear to disagree with Einstein.  If I'm wrong, only experiments can show that I'm wrong.
Feynman quote

And, as far as I know, all experiments say I'm right, although there are definitely a lot of people who will claim that that there are experiments which show I am wrong, but they have never actually cited any such experiments much less tried to explain how the experiment shows I'm wrong. 

Hmm.  This isn't the comment I set out to write.  It's more like a demonstration of the famous quote from
Flannery O'Connor: "I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.”  I tried tracking down that quote, too, to make sure it wasn't a misquote, but I just found it repeated in dozen of places without anyone identifying what book or short story or article or interview it was quoted from.

I spent all morning writing this comment.  Then it was time for lunch and then it was time for me to head to the gym for a workout.  Now I'm back and revising the comment I wrote this morning.  I still haven't replied to the overnight posts on Google.  And looking at the four posts that were made while I was at lunch and at the gym, I see one that is worthy of a response.  So, I'm going to write a response.  And, while doing that I'll think about telling everyone that I'm going to stop responding to posts and stop writing new post on that forum for awhile.  I need time to think.  And I need to do my taxes.

March 11, 2018 - Once again I was too busy to write my Sunday comment ahead of time, so I'll have to write it from scratch this morning.  Here goes:

While the arguments I've been having on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have been intense and heated, they also seem to be running out of steam.  And I've been thinking I need to break away from those arguments and get to work on a book - or at least on a scientific paper or two - or three.  I keep thinking of writing a book titled "How I Understand Relativity."  I've always been a science-buff.  I never really took any college physics courses.  I just learned to understand Time and Time Dilation by reading about the subject and by watching TV documentaries on the subject.  There was never anything difficult to understand about it.  I saw nothing that went "against common sense."  There was nothing that was 'counter-intuitive."  And now I'm wondering WHY, for me, was there never anything difficult to understand about it?

The answer seems to be that there was nothing that I ever had to unlearn.  There was never anything that I understood clearly that turned out to be totally false.  At least not as far as I can recall.  I never had to learn other theories which I then would be told were incorrect and were replaced by new theories which turned out to also be incorrect and had to be replaced by new theories.  I started with the theories of Einstein, and I was only vaguely aware of the previous theories that Einstein had debunked.  And I was only vaguely aware of the workings of Quantum Mechanics, which fundamentally conflicts with Einstein's theories.  Science was just an interest of mine, not a "field of study" or a vocation.  If I started reading a science book that turned out to contain some theories that conflicted with what I understood, I would just shrug and toss the book aside.

Then "social media" and Facebook entered my life. 

Since I was interested in science, and I was curious about this thing called "Facebook," I thought it would be interesting to discuss science subjects with people on Facebook.  And that was when I learned that there were many many many people out there who had totally different views of science and Relativity than I had.  And I started arguing with them. 

The first group I encountered was a science cult led by Bill Gaede and a couple others.  That was early in 2015, or maybe late in 2014.  The first comment on this site where I mentioned Mr. Gaede is dated May 14, 2015.   According to Google, I mentioned his name 22 times that May.  I also learned that Gaede was one of the organizers of "Rational Physics," a group/cult that holds conventions every year just like the "Flat Earthers."  My first blog page about Gaede is dated July 8, 2015.  Gaede believes that all the atoms in the universe are bound together by tiny "ropes."  His logic can easily be shown to be illogical, but doing that just gets him and his followers very angry.

The arguments got so heated that Gaede's followers actually sabotaged my Facebook page.  I could go on and on about that, and maybe I'll do so in the book.  But for this comment, I'm just saying that was the beginning

I'd have to research exactly what I did after I stopped arguing with Gaede and his followers, but eventually I learned that college physics teachers, books, and courses were teaching things that I considered to be total nonsense.  Not only that, but countless experiments showed that what they were teaching was total nonsense.  And I started writing scientific papers about what I was discovering.

And now, more than three years after the first arguments, I find I am arguing with mathematicians and Quantum Theorists who seem to have no understanding of science at all.  They just understand math.  They cannot discuss anything but math.  And they attack anyone who attempts to discuss science without talking purely in mathematical terms.  This is no small group.  It appears to be a huge portion of the physicists in the world.  It's just difficult to gauge just how big the group is.  It probably also consists of lots of factions who do not believe exactly what the others believe, but have their own unique central argument.

The most dumbfounding argument I've ever been in is the one I am in now where the mathematicians are arguing that no intelligent scientist really believes that time ticks at different rates in different frames of reference.  The mathematicians believe that time ticks at the same rate everywhere - evidently in accordance with Quantum Mechanics.  So, when scientific articles are published about experiments which demonstrate and confirm Time Dilation and the fact that time ticks at different rates in different frames of references, the mathematicians argue that that is not what the scientists really believe, that is just a "dumbing down" or a "vulgarization" of what they really believe.  If it were what the scientist really believe, of course, that would mean the scientists are actually totally incompetent.

That belief caused me to put it as #1 on my list of The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics, which might be the central focus of my book.
Yesterday, just before turning off my computer for the day, I posed this question to the mathematicians on the Google forum:

The NIST experiment involved building atomic clocks that could detect the difference in the rate of time at one level versus 1 foot above that level.  The experiment was successful.

The Italian experiment involved building portable atomic clocks that could be used to measure the height of an object by measuring the difference in the rate of time at the base of the object versus the rate of time at some higher point on the object.  The experiment was successful.

The Hafele-Keating experiments involved using atomic clocks to measure the difference in the passage of time between a relatively stationary atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory and four clocks that were moved by transporting them around the world on commercial aircraft.  The experiment was successful.  

All three experiments were designed to confirm Einstein's theories that time runs at different rates in different frames of reference.

The question:  If the above sentence is NOT true, what WERE the experiments designed to do?       
The first response was from "rotchm" who wrote:
They are neither true nor untrue because they are meaningless.
This is because the expressions "time runs at different rates" are not defined; we cant know the meaning of something if we haven't given it a definition. And relativity does NOT say "time runs at different rates". Relativity says, for instance,  t' = (t - xv/c²)g. Then *authors* personally voice this as "time runs at different rates".
I haven't yet responded, but if I try to define words and terms, "rotchm" will just argue that my definitions are not correct because they do not match the definitions used by mathematicians.

"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" responded in his typical way:
Stupid Stupid Ed.
"Koobee Wublee," who tends to agree with me on some things, wrote:
These experiments indicate either of the following.  <shrug>

1)  Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light.  <shrug>


2)  Measurement of time ticking rate depends on the local value of the speed of light which can be different at different altitudes.  In reality, time does not dilates, but the speed of light varies while satisfying the null results of the MMX that show the speed of light is isotropic in constancy locally.  <shrug>

The self-styled scientists bet on the first case, and all subsequent experiments never looked for latter case.  After all, the calibration reference of these experiments is the Cs atomic clock which depends on temperature and the local value of the speed of light itself.  <shrug>
I'm not sure how I'm going to respond to that, but I think Time does dilate, and that causes the speed of light to be variable.

And "Kenseto" replied,

Clock time ticks at different rates but all the processes of nature do no operate of clock time--they operate of absolute time. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame and that’s why we invented the LT to predict the tick rate of a moving  clock.
I think "the LT" means the "Lorentz Transformation."  Kenseto uses the abbreviation LT constantly, but he never explains what it means.  It could also have something to do with "IRT" which is the "Improved Relativity Theory" that Ken Seto dreamed up.  It will take me awhile to decipher that response, too.

No one, of course, simply answered my question.  And I'll have to tell them that.  But, they'll probably just argue over the definition of "answered."   Sigh.

I should really get to work on a book or on some scientific papers.   

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
March 2018
April 2018

© 2018 by Ed Lake