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!
 
email
                  address

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
                cover
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

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


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

just trying to figure things out.


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

My Latest Comments


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

January 22, 2017 - Waiting to see if my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" will be accepted and published is really altering my whole life.  I find it very difficult to think about anything else.  I can't even focus on watching movies in the evening.  Instead, I watch old TV shows that do not really require me to pay much attention (reruns of "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" being a prime example).  And, while watching, my mind is going over different ways to argue different things in different scientific papers that I'll try to get published if this first paper succeeds.

Yesterday, I started wondering if the journal that has my paper has already turned it down and they somehow assumed I know to look somewhere on their web site for the information, instead of waiting for an email notification.  I couldn't find anything to support that nutty idea, but I did find some information about seven papers they recently accepted.  Here's the information I found about those seven papers:

1.  Received: November 4, 2015; Accepted: November 23, 2016.
2.  Received: July 20, 2016; Accepted: November 28, 2016.
3.  Received: April 26, 2016; Accepted: December 1, 2016.
4.  Received: June 24, 2016; Accepted: December 16, 2016.
5.  Received: August 29, 2016; Accepted: December 17, 2016.
6.  Received: September 12, 2016; Accepted: December 23, 2016.
7.  Received: September 20, 2016; Accepted: December 27, 2016.
Based upon that information, they are still going through papers they received in September, and it could be a long time before they get to the paper I submitted on December 5.  The information also suggests that they haven't accepted anything since late December, almost a month ago.  Did it really take over a year for that first paper to go through the editing process and get accepted, or is that 2015 date just a typo?  The pattern indicates the 2015 date is most likely correct.  The pattern also indicates that it takes from just over 3 months to just over a year for a paper to go through the peer-review and editing process.  Groan!  Or, if a paper doesn't need much editing, it could mean that it takes over 3 months just to get through the peer-review process.  Groan!

In other words, I have no clue as to what is actually going on.  I've never been through this process before.  My previous submissions were all rejected within a couple weeks, sometimes within a week.

Yesterday, being unable to focus on my scientific papers, I joined three arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I took a screenshot of the top four topics on the forum.  Here it is:

Google
                            discussion forum - Day 1

I posted a comment to "Moving Clocks Run Slow or ... Fast, Einsteinians?"  It was about my idea of using a pulsar as a "clock," so both twins could see the same clock at the same time, instead of requiring "magic" to let one twin instantly see the other twin's clock across trillions of miles of empty space.  As of shut-down time last evening, there were no responses.

I posted a comment to "If Light Had a 'Frequency' the Pound/Rebka Experiment would have Failed."  It was about the fact that Pound and Rebka didn't measure the wave-lengths or speed of light at the point of emission.  They just assumed that the wave-lengths changed between the emission point and the detection point 74 feet below.  As of shut-down time last evening, there were no meaningful responses.

I posted this comment to "The Worst Mistake in Theoretical Physics":
The worst mistake in theoretical physics occurred when Einstein used the "train analogy" to explain relativity and different points of view.  The analogy viewed a REAL natural phenomenon (time dilation) as an illusion.  That was a BIG mistake.

Is the train moving or is the train standing still while the train station moves?

Any intelligent person would KNOW by examining ALL the evidence, that the train was moving and it only MOMENTARILY SEEMED like the train station was moving past the window while the train was standing still.

But, if you do not CARE about what is "real" and your only interest is in creating confusion and "interesting" mathematical puzzles, you can spend the next 100 years arguing that there's no way to tell if the train is moving or if the train station is moving.

And we're all still paying the price for that BIG mistake.
As of shut-down time last evening, there was only one response to my comment about the "biggest mistake."  Here is part of it:
Any intelligent person would know, that the train station is not at
rest, since it sits of the surface of planet Earth.
This planet spins around our local star ('Sun') and that around the
centre of the galaxy. Also our home galaxy moves about the local cluster and that moves, too.

So we could not speak of 'true' rest of anything, since we simply do not know, were we have something not moving.

[yada yada yada]

But since no sufficient definition of 'at rest' exists, it is only to
fair to allow equality of individual wrongness.
And my response to that response was (in part):
Any intelligent person would know that, if the question is "Which is moving, the train or the train station?," the answer is "The train."

Yes, in the grander scheme of things, the train station is ALSO moving.  But, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION?  Was it to determine which was an illusion and which was real, or was the purpose of the question to create an argument where everyone disagrees with everyone else forever?
This morning, I see that there have been a lot more responses overnight.  Here's what the top of the list looks like this morning:

Google
                            Discussion forum - Day 2

"Moving clocks" had 7 posts yesterday, this morning it has 25.  "If light had a 'Frequency'" had 2 posts yesterday, this morning it has 15.  "The Worst Mistake" had 8 posts yesterday, this morning it has 18. 

Looking through the posts, I see that many are arguments between other people which do not involve me.  But, I see "Kenseto" posted a comment in the "Worst Mistake" thread in response to my comment that the train is moving, not the train station:
You have no fact or evidence......just unsupported assertions. 
And "tjrob137" (Tom Roberts) posted this in the "Moving Clocks" thread in response to my comment about the length of second being different everywhere:
Nope. There is no such evidence, just stuff you make up.
So, I have a way to waste time for the rest of this morning while I continue to wait to see if my article gets accepted and published.

Also, in my email in-box this morning I received Chapter 16 of the book I'm proof reading.  That will also give me something to do while I wait and wait.


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

January 19, 2017 - Yesterday, I stumbled across the Pound-Rebka experiments.  I'd undoubtedly heard of those experiments before, but I'd totally forgotten.  I was checking out the latest threads in Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, and someone named "Pentcho Valev" posted several links related to those experiments.  The Pound-Rebka experiments appear to be the source of the arguments that Gravitational Time Dilation doesn't exist.  While the experiments do not challenge Velocity Time Dilation, the experiments allegedly show that Gravitational Time Dilation isn't really Time Dilation, it's just the result of "the Doppler effect" or "gravitational red-shifting."  

Researching the experiments further, I found a very informative July 2005 article from the American Physical Society (APS) titled "Focus: The Weight of Light" about the Pound-Rebka experiments.  And I found the three Physical Review of Letters articles in which R. V. Pound, G. A. Rebka, Jr., and J. L. Snider describe their experiments.  The articles are "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance" from 1959, "Apparent Weight of Photons" from 1960, and "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance" from 1964.  Interestingly, none of the three original articles (nor the APS article) even mentions the term "time dilation."

The experiments involved emitting photons of light from atop a tower on the campus of Harvard University and measuring the "Doppler shift" in the wave length of the light when the photons reached a detector 74 feet below the emitter.  Then they did the reverse.  They shot the photons upward to a detector 74 feet above the emitter.  What they claimed to have found was that light changed to a higher frequency when "falling downward" with the force of gravity, and light changed to a lower frequency when "struggling upward" against the force of gravity.

The APS article says,

This was a “major scientific achievement,” says Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis, not only because it was a classic test of relativity, but because of the ingenious experimental design. And there is a practical consequence, he adds. The satellite-borne clocks of the GPS navigational system must be regularly corrected for changes induced by gravitational redshift. So relativity calculations keep every freighter and fighter jet on course.
I can't decipher why they do not use the term "time dilation" nor explain the difference between "time dilation" and "gravitational red-shifting."  But, they seem to be saying that light goes faster and slower depending upon whether it is going upward from the earth or downward toward the earth, so the effect on GPS satellite timing is somehow the same as "time dilation."

To me, the experiments illustrate what I've been saying (and what Einstein wrote): light will travel faster when emitted from the top of a building than when emitted from the bottom of the building, because the top of the building is farther from the center of the Earth's gravitational mass.  If they had measured length of a second and the speed of light at those two locations, they would have found that the speed of light is the same at both locations, but a second is longer at the bottom of the building (due to gravitational time dilation) than at the top of the building,  And that means that, because speed is measured per second, the speed of light is actually faster at the top of the building (where a second is shorter) than at the bottom of the building.

Because their experimental setup only allowed them to measure the frequency of the light waves, not the actual speed of the light waves, their equipment showed that the light moving downward had a higher frequency.  In reality, it didn't.  Wave frequency depends upon the length of a second.  If they had used the length of a second as measured at the top of the building when detecting the photons at the bottom of the building, they would have found no red-shifting (actually, blue shifting in this instance).

Ironically, we can all use those same tests to confirm our very different theories.  To those who apparently do not believe in time dilation (like Pentcho Valev), the experiments showed that there was no such thing as time dilation, only red-shifting.  To  Pound, Rebka and Snider, the experiments evidently confirm Einstein's theories about gravitation while saying nothing about time dilation.  And for me, the experiments confirm "Time Dilated Light" and show that light emitted from the top of a building will travel faster than light emitted from the bottom of a building.  If you use equipment for detecting red-shifting instead of equipment for measuring the speed of light, you will only see red or blue shifting because that is all your equipment was built to detect.  What's needed to confirm my theory is to measure BOTH the length of a second AND the speed of light at two different altitudes, and to COMPARE the measurements.

Interestingly, this appears to be a situation where mathematics can be used to argue a theory that photons speed up as they get closer to the earth and produce blue shifting OR a theory that light is emitted at different velocities at different altitudes, and the only way to determine which theory is correct would be to perform a well-designed experiment using the proper equipment.

January 17, 2017 (B) - I keep thinking about the December 2014 article in Nature magazine titled "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics."  The article was about the debate over whether facts and evidence are required to prove "scientific theories," or whether such theories can be accepted just because they are mathematically elegant.

The Nature article mentions how the public might view such a debate:
This battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results — in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution — are being questioned by some politicians and religious fundamentalists. Potential damage to public confidence in science and to the nature of fundamental physics needs to be contained by deeper dialogue between scientists and philosophers.
The article was written in 2014, two years before we elected a President who doesn't believe in "climate change" and who doesn't seem to trust evidence OR science.  He appears to have been elected by a public whose motto is: "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe."  That seems to be our new President's motto, too.

And I'm trying to get an article published which says that thousands of physicists are wrong in what they believe, and many (if not most) physics teachers are teaching total nonsense.  Will the public care or accept that those physicists are wrong if the physicists believe as the public believes: that facts and evidence mean nothing if you do not believe the facts and evidence?

Of course, there's no reason to believe people will pay any attention to my article, even if it is published.  The article is about what the facts and evidence say.  And it seems that fewer and fewer people care about facts and evidence.

Another problem is: Those who do not care about facts and evidence are largely closed-minded and belligerent about what they believe.  They attack those who do not believe as they believe.  Meanwhile, those who want and need facts and evidence are largely defenseless against such attacks.  They consider personal attacks to be "counter-productive."  They tend to just quietly wait for the facts and evidence to be accepted.  "Truth will out," they tell themselves.   

Maybe.  But, it looks like it's going to be a long, long, long, long, long wait.

January 17, 2017 (A) -  Malaysian, Australian and Chinese authorities officially ended their search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 today.  According to news reports, the only thing that will get them to resume the search is solid evidence pointing to where the wreckage of the plane is located.

According to The Wall Street Journal,

In the weeks after Flight 370 disappeared, Australian officials said they knew less about the search area than is known about the surface of the moon.

That is still largely the case, but they have now mapped the region’s ocean floor. In the process, the search uncovered previously unknown undersea volcanoes and canyons, at least two shipwrecks dating back as far as the 19th century, along with more mundane objects such as discarded oil barrels.

The search also lent a greater understanding of cold deep-ocean currents that drive Earth’s climate, said Robin Beaman, an Australian marine geologist. “As a data set for the global scientific community there is nothing to match it,” Mr. Beaman said.

It's another area where facts and evidence mean nothing to people who have firm beliefs about what happened to the plane.  And they believe that finding nothing is "solid proof" of their theories - whatever their theories are.

January 16, 2017 - I neglected to mention in my previous recent posts that I saved a copy of the discussion thread titled "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story" that I participated in on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum.  I just went through the copy looking for the part of the discussion that was about the steps in the Scientific Method.  Someone who called himself "Odd Bodkin" asked me if I knew the steps.  I responded by posting the steps:
The Scientific Method is:

  1. Make an Observation.
  2. Form a Question about the observation.
  3. Do research.
  4. Form a Hypothesis.
  5. Conduct an Experiment.
  6. If the experiment fails, go back to step 3.
  7. If the experiment works, analyze the data and draw conclusions.
  8. Communicate the findings (publish a paper).
Odd Bodkin, of course, disagreed .  He listed his own version of steps 4 through 8 and criticized me for having a different list:
  4. Form a hypothesis.
  5. Develop a mathematical model describing the hypothesis.
  6. With the mathematical model, calculate predicted outcomes from
  different initial conditions, which can be tested in observation or
  experiment.
  7. Replicate or discover instances of those initial conditions, and
  measure the outcome.
  8. Compare these measurements to the quantitative predictions of the
  mathematical model describing the theory. If there is agreement, then the hypothesis is inferred to have support from experiment. If there is disagreement, then they hypothesis needs to be abandoned or modified.
 
  Your 7, 8, 9 are from some grade school book.

When I provided him with a link to the many places on the Internet where my version of "the scientific method" is used, Odd Bodkin dismissed them all with this response:
I had a hunch it was some pop-sci link.
I asked him if he'd gotten his list from a book on mathematics.  He responded:
Nope.  A book on physics.
That discussion took place on January 9.  This afternoon, I wondered if there actually is a physics book which includes those steps as part of the "scientific method."  I did Google searches for sections of what he wrote (HERE, HERE and HERE) and got no results.  So, he either made up the steps or was working from memory instead of copying the steps.  I suspect the former, since I cannot imagine anyone using those steps as "the scientific method."
 
But it's an interesting glimpse into the way a believer in Religio Mathematica thinks.  There's no attempt to figure things out logically.  Their "method" is to go straight to mathematics.  Naturally, I did a Google search for examples of using the scientific method, and the first example to pop up was an example of using the method to find a lost wallet.  How would you do that using math?  The next example to pop up was a question of whether water freezes faster when sugar is added than if it just pure water.  How would you do that using math?  The next example was a question about whether a light bulb was burned out or not.  How would you do that using math?

That makes me wonder:  What kind of scientific question could anyone have where Odd Bodkin's version of "the scientific method" would work best?  I can't think of any.     

There are other discussions in that thread where bizarre beliefs are stated as if they are absolute certainties.  I also saved other threads from other discussions on other forums.  Sometimes I just have to go back to them to see if people actually said what I remember them saying.  It reminds me of the quote from Leo Rosten:
I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.
And even more amazing is that there seems to be no way to change their minds about anything.
never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/leorosten147863.html
     

January 15, 2017 - Groan!  I don't have anything ready to post as a comment for today.  So, I'm going to have to write one from scratch. 

Waiting to see what's going to happen with my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is occupying more and more of my time.  It's making it very difficult to think about anything else.  My previous submissions of other papers to various other scientific journals resulted in the rejections typically coming back within a week.  It's been well over a month since I submitted my latest paper.  Does that mean they're truly peer reviewing it, or does it mean that they can't find anyone willing to peer review it?  Have they ever sent back a submission, telling the author, "Sorry, but we cannot find anyone willing to comment on your paper"?

I think the paper is very soundly researched, and the references I used are impeccable, so peer reviewers would have a hard time arguing that I'm wrong in what I wrote.  But, am I right?  The facts and evidence clearly say I'm right, but facts and evidence do not mean much in the realm of science these days.  That means a reviewer may want to say, "I don't care what the facts say, I do not believe Mr. Lake's conclusions, so I cannot recommend publication of his paper." But feeling that way and stating such a thing in writing are two different matters. 

In last week's Jan. 11 comment, I posted links to several scientific articles from prestigious journals which pointed out that many (possibly the vast majority) of physicists in the world today no longer care about facts and evidence.  They only care if the math works and produces exciting projections.  (And that is certainly confirmed by my discussions in the Google discussion group about Science, Physics and Relativity.)  Those articles, however, only talk about the tip of the iceberg, i.e., today's focus on String Theory and Multiple Universes, which are pure mathematical constructs which cannot be proved or disproved.  Thousands of physicists are working on theories that may be total nonsense, but no one will ever be able to prove they are nonsense, because "proof" consists of evidence, and there is no actual physical evidence supporting or disproving String Theory or Multiple Universes or other such theories based solely on mathematics. 

What my papers address are the misunderstandings about physics and science that have been going on for the past 100 years and more as a result of mathematicians distorting and misinterpreting Albert Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.     

My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" says (in effect) that the facts and evidence clearly show that tens of thousands of physicists are wrong in what they believe (and college professors and teachers are wrong in what they teach).  So, how will a reviewer who is such a physicist (or teacher) react to my paper? He cannot use facts and evidence to attack it.  He doesn't believe in facts and evidence.  He only believes in mathematical equations (Religio Mathematica, the Religion of Mathematics), the belief that if the math works, then it must be true and facts or evidence are irrelevant. 

My paper doesn't use any complex mathematics.  It's just about what the facts and evidence say.  Fortunately, while mathematicians no longer seem to believe in facts and evidence, they also seem to realize that countering solid facts and evidence with unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions may not work in the peer review process.  An that may be particularly true at the journal to which I submitted my paper.  In the past it printed many articles about Time Dilation and how it is viewed from various perspectives.

While waiting, I've been working on follow-up papers that I'll submit if the first one gets published.  But, will the first one get published?  I'm fully prepared to submit the first one to other journals if the journal that is currently peer reviewing it turns it down for no good reason.   But what if they turn it down for a good reason?  I can't imagine what that reason would be, but I cannot argue that it would be totally impossible to find one.

It's kind of hard to focus on building the second floor of a house when you cannot be absolutely certain the first floor won't be knocked down by some kid who throws a stone and hits a spot that the known laws of nature say shouldn't exist.

So, I'm waiting.  And waiting.  And waiting.


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

January 11, 2017 - It's becoming harder and harder to find something to write about here.  I'm basically in a routine involving waiting for news about my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," while working on two other papers, while proof-reading the latest chapters of the book a scientist is sending me (I'm reading chapters 13 & 14, and he just sent me #15 this morning), and while trying to break away from the arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum which have become counter-productive.  (I've stopped posting, but I need to stay stopped.)

I'll still check the forum from time to time.  It's a good source for links to articles that can be very enlightening.  This afternoon, for example, I found a link to a New York Times article from June 2015 titled "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics."  The article says exactly what I've been saying.  (I checked this site to see if I've ever mentioned it before, and the results were negative.)   The article says,
A few months ago in the journal Nature, two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, published a controversial piece called “Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics.” They criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today’s most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are “sufficiently elegant and explanatory.” Despite working at the cutting edge of knowledge, such scientists are, for Professors Ellis and Silk, “breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.”
In other words, if the math works then it must be valid because the math is "sufficiently elegant and explanatory."  So, there is no need for experimentation and validation.

Here's another paragraph from the article:
Recall the epicycles, the imaginary circles that Ptolemy used and formalized around A.D. 150 to describe the motions of planets. Although Ptolemy had no evidence for their existence, epicycles successfully explained what the ancients could see in the night sky, so they were accepted as real. But they were eventually shown to be a fiction, more than 1,500 years later. Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?
While my papers don't shoot down superstrings and multiverses, they do show how today's mathematicians have led science astray.

Here are the first two paragraphs from a May 2015 article in Prospect magazine titled "What happens when we can't test scientific theories?":
If a scientific theory is elegant, and is consistent with known facts, does it need to be tested by experiment? Scientific knowledge is supposed to be empirical: to be accepted as scientific, a theory must be falsifiable—that is, it must be possible, at least in principle, to empirically disprove it. This argument was advanced in 1934 by Karl Popper, the philosopher, and is generally accepted by most scientists today as determining what is and is not a scientific theory.

In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is “scientific” be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views.
And here's part of another key paragraph:
Mathematical tools enable us to investigate reality, but the mathematical concepts themselves do not necessarily imply physical reality. Thus evidence in support of a theory has to be experimental or observational, not simply theoretical.  Ellis and Silk make this point powerfully, and warn against the notion that “theoretical discoveries [can] bolster belief.” They remind us: “experiments have proved many beautiful and simple theories wrong.”
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Coincidentally, I also have a math problem I need to solve for one of the papers I'm working on.  I think it's a fairly easy problem to solve.  I just need to find the right way to view it.  If pulses from a pulsar arrive at 100 per second when the Earth is moving at right angles to the pulsar, how many pulses per second would be measured when the Earth is toward the pulsar at 30 kilometers per second?

I'd thought about writing a comment on the movie "Tenure," which I watched the other day after buying the DVD on sale for $1.99.  It's about a college English teacher who has to get a paper published if he wants tenure at his college, and his papers keep getting rejected.  The one that does get "published" is published on-line after the journal goes out of business, so it doesn't count.  I think it may be the first movie I've seen where the problem of getting a paper published is central to the story.  And now I've written a comment about it.  


January 8, 2017 - Last week I was once again arguing for long periods with people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.   Some of it is really interesting.  And it is definitely educational, since their arguments require a lot of thinking on my part to find a way to explain things to them. 

Basically, the arguments are over whether "spacetime" represents reality (their point of view) or whether it is just a mathematical construct that does not truly represent reality (Einstein's and my point of view).

One argument in the "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story" thread made me think about the so-called "Twin Paradox" in a different way.  The people I'm arguing with are basically mathematicians who seemingly believe in Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics.  Everything turns into an argument about "frames of reference" with them.  So, I came up with the idea of having only ONE observer in all the examples of Time Dilation I was discussing, including the so-called "Twin Paradox."  Instead of having a set of twins, I had one person (me) and a pair of atomic clocks.  I would set the two atomic clocks side by side to make certain they were synchronous, and then I'd take one of the clocks with me on a round trip in the direction of Alpha Centauri at 99.5% of the speed of light.  When I returned, the clock I took with me would show ONE year had passed, while the clock I left behind would show that TEN years had passed.  There's only one "frame of reference," mine, and only one "observer," me.

The argument from the mathematicians is usually an incomprehensible jumble of words.  Here's an example I see waiting for me this morning (out of 20 messages that were posted overnight):
Wrong, the correct explanation is that both clocks followed a different worldline across spacetime, while each of the clocks continue to tick at their designed rate.
If I ask them to explain what that means, they'll just tell me that I need to take the courses they take in school, read the books they read, and then I'll believe as they believe and talk as they talk -- or words to that effect.  They'll vaguely argue that inanimate objects also have a "frame of reference" and can thus be considered to be "observers" with "frames of reference." 

That same example comment waiting for me also contains this:
For sure is your fantasy as you are unable to provide a proof that the tick rate changes with speed or acceleration. By the way extensive tests have shown atomic clock tick rate does not change even with a gravity equivalent to 10^19g. 
I'll just show him the 2010 NIST experiment where they raised an atomic clock by just one foot and could see the change in tick rate.  And they'll probably respond with more gibberish about worldlines and spacetime and how, even though the two clocks are just a foot apart and can be seen to tick at different rates, it really isn't happening.  It's just an illusion.

After responding to the half-dozen posts that were addressed to me, I can see that another problem in communication is that some of them are running their responses through a translator.  One person keeps posting about "gedanken clocks."  That translates to "thought clocks."  He was discussing "gedanken clocks" and how they work in "spacetime" and  and I was discussing REAL clocks and how they work in our REAL universe. 

I really should break off the discussion and get back to work on my scientific papers, but it's all very fascinating to me.  They cannot explain anything except in mathematical terms that they seem to have memorized, and they'll just attack me personally if I show they are wrong.  And, of course, since they cannot explain anything, all they are really doing is convincing me that I am correct in my understanding of Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity.
 
Meanwhile, during the past week I finished proof-reading chapters 10, 11 and 12 of the book being written by a scientist I know via the Internet.  He's only on Chapter 15, so the chapters will be coming to me at a much slower rate from this point on.  (He's going to send me chapters 13 and 14 today or tomorrow.  There are 22 chapters in the book's outline that was used to sell it.) 

I still haven't heard anything about my scientific paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" that is being "peer-reviewed."  I suppose I should be encouraged by the fact that it wasn't immediately rejected.  But, it's still a long wait, and it could become a lot longer, since they indicated in their letter that I shouldn't contact them about it until I've waited at least 3 months (which means I shouldn't ask about the paper until after March 5).


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

January 5, 2017 - Hmm.  I'm arguing once again on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion group, in an thread titled "Einstein's Idiotic Twin Story."   I'd been checking the group to see if there was anything new and of interest, and I hadn't seen anything.  Then, yesterday, I saw a message addressed to me from a guy who posts as "tjrob137" but signs his posts "Tom Roberts." 

I wrote a reply to his post, and, as in the past, a lot of others responded to my reply, but Tom Roberts wasn't one of them.  His last post - prior to yesterdays - was on December 30.  So, maybe I can expect something a week from now.

I really need to get back to work on my scientific papers.  I've got so many illustrations in my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate that in parts it looks like a children's book where everything is explained in pictures.  Ten illustrations probably isn't an unusually high number.  Another problem is: right now some of the illustrations look very crude.  That probably means I'll have to redo them once I've finished writing the text for the paper.  Groan

January 4, 2017 - During breakfast this morning I finished reading a paperback copy I bought of "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

A short history of nearly everythingls

I'd finished listening to the audio book version back on October 10 and wanted to actually read the book so that I could make notes in it and highlight passages.  As I commented on October 10, it is one of the most truly fascinating science books I've ever encountered.   During lunch today I'll start reading the Kindle version of "The Upright Thinkers."  (See yesterday's comment.)

January 3, 2017 - While returning home from an exercise session at the gym yesterday afternoon, I finished listening to CD #10 of the 10-CD audio book version of "The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos" by Leonard Mlodinow.

The Upright Thinkers

While there are some annoying parts to the book, and while the author reads the book as if it was a chore, it was overall excellent and of enough interest for me to reserve and obtain the Kindle version from my local library.  I'll start reading the Kindle version as soon as I finish the book I'm currently reading during breakfast and lunch every day, which will probably be sometime this week.

"The Upright Thinkers" contains a lot of interesting quotes I would want to highlight in a paper copy or made a note of in a Kindle copy.  It contains a lot of interesting details about famous scientists and their discoveries that I'd never seen, read or heard before.

The annoying part of the book is the author's tendency to repeatedly mention his father's experiences in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII.  The author usually does it to make a vague point of some kind, but then he rambles on and on about it.  I'll skip over those parts when I read the Kindle version.  There's no easy way to skip over them when listening to an audio book.

I also had another problem with the last couple chapters of the book.  Leonard Mlodinow is a big supporter of Quantum Mechanics, and he seems to see it as the way to solving all the mysteries of the universe.  I totally disagree and see Quantum Mechanics as being partly responsible for the lunacy that is common in science today, where Religio Mathematica (The Religion of Mathematics) has taken the place of facts, evidence and the Scientific Method.

January 2, 2017 - Okay.  We made it to January.  All the college professors, students or scientists who review scientific papers for scientific journals should be getting back to work either today or tomorrow.  I'd adapted myself to not expecting any response on my paper about "Time Dilation without Relativity" prior the January, but January is now here.

Yesterday, I received a fan email about my paper "What is Time?"  That was a "first."  The writer was from outside the US, and he wrote in imperfect English, but he was very complimentary.  I also noticed that 4 more people read the paper.  Between yesterday morning and this morning, there was only one additional reader.  So, whatever spurred the activity may now be over.

I've been using Corel Draw to create graphics for my new paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  Here's the graphic I use to illustrate that the speed of light from Source-A (on the left) is added to Observer-B's (on the right) velocity when Observer-B is moving toward the light source. 
Einstein's
                            Second Postulate
An extremely large number of scientists belief this is wrong.  They somehow believe that light from Source-A will somehow adjust and slow down so that Observer-B will measure it as coming at the the speed of light not at the speed of light plus the speed of Observer-B's ship.  And they don't care that that makes absolutely NO sense.
 
I just wish there was some way to have an intelligent conversation about this, but it appears that when people just believe something they cannot fully explain, they will resort to personal attacks and insults when presented with something that challenges their beliefs.  It's something I've encountered countless times over the years, but it still amazes me every time it is demonstrated.

Fortunately, I have solid evidence supporting what I've written, and I can explain everything in great detail.  All the other side has is a misinterpretation of what Einstein wrote and an unshakable belief that their misinterpretation is what Einstein "really meant."

January 1, 2017 - I wish everyone a very happy New Year!  It should be a very interesting year, with an ignorant con man as President of the United States.


Comments for Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016, thru Saturday, Dec. 31, 2016:

December 31, 2016 - Hmmm.  Between yesterday morning and this morning, seven people accessed my paper titled "What is Time?

Back on April 21 of this year, I started keeping a record of how many people read my papers.  The total number of people who had accessed my paper on "What is Time?" as of that date was 69.  Since then, there's never been a day when more than 3 people downloaded the paper.  Most days there were no downloads. Yesterday, the total number of downloads was 115.  This morning the statistics say:
Unique-IP document downloads: 122 times
I have no idea where those seven downloads came from.  There were no new downloads of the other papers I have on ViXra. org.  Yesterday, on a Google discussion forum thread titled "Time Travel Is Not Possible," I posted a message that said only,
Actually, Time Travel is routine.  Every second of every day I travel one second into the future.  Chances are you do too.
That post got a lot of reaction, including  a couple posts that were actually very complimentary.  But, no one mentioned looking at my scientific paper on "What is Time?" or any other paper of mine.  And no links were mentioned.  So, if that is where the downloads originated, the discussion and posting of links must have been done in emails or via Facebook messages.  There's nothing in the thread.

The first time I posted to Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum was 6 days ago, on Christmas Day.  This morning I see nothing of interest there, and the only responses to my other recent posts are insults and name calling.  I'm not sure, but I think that little distraction may have run its course.

December 30, 2016 - I just finished proof-reading chapter 9 of the book a scientist acquaintance of mine is writing.  It's a very interesting read.  The planned publication date is in the second half of next year.  Meanwhile, I continue to argue on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I also received a half dozen Facebook messages from people who read that discussion forum, but who do not participate in the discussions.  They evidently do not like being insulted and ridiculed if you disagree with the True Believers who dominate that discussion group.

I'm also seeing a minor surge in people reading my scientific articles on ViXra.org.  I assume it is the people who read the Google forum doing a search to find out more about me.  But it could be people who have been asked to review my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  I hope so, but doubt it.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Time Dilation is the key to resolving all kinds of scientific disputes.  It separates scientists into two groups: (1) those who believe in facts, evidence and the Scientific Method, and (2) those who believe in Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics where facts and evidence mean nothing if the mathematical equations look cool.    

December 28, 2016 - Hmm.  Someone on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum pointed out another error in my thinking about the twin paradox.  I was thinking that if the traveling twin was moving at 99.5% of the speed of light, where a year for him would be 10 years for his brother back on Earth, the traveling twin could look back and see the Earth orbiting the Sun every 36.5 days, instead of every 365 days.

Someone pointed out to me that that would be true when totals were computed for the entire trip, but because the traveling twin was moving away from the Sun and Earth at 99.5% of the speed of light, light from the Sun and Earth would have to catch up with him.  Therefore, on his outbound trip he would see the Earth make only a small fraction of one orbit around the Sun, and on his return trip - when he was heading back toward the Earth and Sun, he would see the Earth make a complete orbit around the Sun about every 17 days.  

Interestingly, I think that is also another instance where the common misinterpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity comes into play.  On his outbound trip, the traveling twin would measure light to be arriving at c - v.  On his return trip, he would measure light to be arriving at c + v.   Both situations are in violation of the erroneous theory that the movement of an observer does not affect how the speed of light will be measured, it will always arrive at c.

I also have no idea if anyone reading this comment understands what I'm saying or cares about it.  But it is very fascinating for me.     


December 27, 2016 - I was going to write a comment for this site yesterday, but I became overwhelmed with other things.  The scientist whose book I am proof reading sent me chapters 1-3 last Wednesday, and I sent my proof notes to him on Friday.  He then sent chapters 4-6 on Saturday morning, and I sent my proof notes on those chapters to him yesterday.  It's a very interesting book, and I am looking forward to reading more of it.  He says he'll send me chapters 7-9 tomorrow.  I think he's currently working on chapter 11 or 12, so things will slow down very soon.

While I was waiting for him to send me chapters 4-6, I got an idea for the science paper I have
tentatively titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate of Special Relativity."  I visualized some illustrations I would need to create.  The illustrations truly demonstrate that "a picture is worth a thousand words," since  just visualizing them made my jaw drop open as I realized how clear they would make things that are so difficult to describe in words.  Now, I just need to find the time to get onto Corel Draw to create the illustrations. 

Meanwhile, on Sunday (Christmas) I found a link to a Google discussion forum on the subjects of science, physics and relativity.  Curious, I scanned through it and found several discussions about Time Dilation.  So, naturally, I had to sign up to join the forum.  And, I posted some comments.  The discussions continued through yesterday.  This morning I created a new post on the subject of "Time Dilation Deniers," since it can be difficult to find new comments in the other threads where I joined discussions already in progress.  (I probably just need to become accustomed to how things work.)

Oops.  Gotta go.  I see someone just posted a very long comment about me and what I said yesterday.  I'll need to reply to that.

December 25, 2016 - I hope everyone is having a very merry Christmas.  If you aren't a Christian, I still hope you are having a very merry Christmas.








Other interests:

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

Archives: 
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


            
© 2017 by Ed Lake