Ed Lake's web page
Time Work 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/


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 in paperback and Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

clipper cover, b
Click HERE to access my scientific papers about time dilation, Special Relativity, etc.
Click HERE to go to my Facebook group about Time and Time Dilation. Click HERE to go to my notes about scientific topics discussed on this web site.


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

just trying to figure things out.


Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.                                   I have a fascination with Time and Time Dilation.         Other interests: Movies and Science Podcasts Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments


Comments for Sunday, August 7, 2022, thru Sat., Aug. 13, 2022:

August 12, 2022 - Wow!  Yesterday, the price of gas at the station down the street from me dropped 14 cents, from $3.739 per gallon to $3.599 per gallon.  And today it jumped 15 cents, to $3.749 per gallon.  It really makes you wonder what could cause such a swing.  It can't be because the gas station owner paid more today than yesterday.  I doubt that they fill their underground tanks more than once or twice a month.  Maybe it was to make a point?  But what point?  Or was yesterday's drop some kind of mistake?  I'll probably never find out.

August 11, 2022
- Hmm.  The discussion I started yesterday on the alt.physics.relativity forum about my new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" seems to have attracted some Russian hackers.  Here's part of what someone named "Chang Salucci" posted:

anyway, since the gay actor, no party/politician puppet, cocaine zelenske wants Crimea, a Rusian territory, as a military base (actually wanted already from 2014) I guess the Russians have choices, other then to regain Odessa, formally also a Romanian territory, then kick out the nazi uKranoids from the Black Sea. Then re_part the fictitious uKraine among Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Russia,
And "Jody De santis" posted this (censored by me):
but you don't understand the cocaine zelenske is cocaine. You like want the proofs, but you don't want the proofs. The entire parliaments standing up, in standing ovation, to the images of the cocaine zelenske, ordering stuff and money from them. What a f**king shame. This alone puts down the entire capitalist western europe. What a shame, what a disgrace, what a f**king idiots put in charge to destroy own countries and s**t on the face of their own people.

NaZilensky's Downward Spiral Continues
And "Cole Battaglia" posted this:
What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.
And "Dick's DriveIn" posted this:
He West can't stop Putin.
I have no idea what caused them to suddenly start posting propaganda to a discussion I had started.  And why only to my thread?  I can find no such posts in other threads.

Life is full of mysteries.  My new paper is about solving a mystery that has bugged me for years.  Finding that solution makes me want to just sit down and start reading a novel - or maybe listen to some podcasts.  I'm not out to convince anyone of anything.  I was just trying to understand some things that just didn't quite make sense.  And I think I now finally understand them.
   

Meanwhile, the price of gas at the station down the street from me just dropped 14 cents to $3.59
9 per gallon.

August 10, 2022
- My new 18-page paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on line at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0052v1.pdf

Of course, about 2 minutes after submitting it, I noticed a typo.  In the second to last paragraph on page 8, I typed "photo" when I meant to type "photon."  Hopefully that will be the only error that people will find in the paper. 

Although it officially has no "views" yet, it somehow already has one comment.  And, I think it may be the first positive response I've ever received for one of my papers.  The comment says,

At first I wanted to pre-judge your paper. But then some of your insights really electrified me, because I had seen them exactly in my experiments.
That comment was followed by a link to papers written by the guy who wrote the comment.  Unfortunately, his papers are all filled with mathematics and are virtually incomprehensible to me.  I don't even understand the titles for most of them.

When I saw the paper was on-line, I started a thread about it on Google's alt.physics.relativity discussion forum.  On that forum they seem to believe that if you can't find anything nasty to say about someone's comment, you shouldn't say anything at all.  So, if I get no responses that will be a good thing.

The paper has me a bit anxious.  It shows that I made errors in some of my other papers.  I suppose I should start correcting those papers, but I'm going to wait.  It's like my new paper sums up everything, and I have nothing more that I want to write papers about.  I just want to find out if I'm correct or not. Then I might get back to work on my book, which covers a lot of the same territory but also shows how nearly every college physics textbook has some screwball misinterpretation of Relativity.  However, in today's world where everyone seems to disagree with everyone else, that seems normal. 
  

August 8, 2022
- This morning I printed out my new 18-page paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."  It's got a date of August 10, 2022, on it.  So, unless I discover something terribly wrong with the paper, I'll submit it to vixra.org on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the price of a gallon of gas at the station down the street just dropped another 6 cents to $3.73
9 per gallon.  


August 7, 2022
- Yesterday, when I checked the discussions on Google's sci.physics.relativity forum as part of my regular morning routine, I saw that "Mikko" had restarted a thread that I had started on Nov. 1, 2019, and which had ended on Nov. 11, 2019.  The thread was titled "A List of 8 Variable Speed of Light Experiments."  I started the thread to announce that the day before, on October 31, 2019, I had created a web page describing those 8 experiments.

"Mikko" had read my August 5 comment on this site about overhauling
my web page about "Variable speed of light experiments."  So, he posted this message to that discussion thread from 2019:
The author has now revised the page and retracted the claim that the experiments support variable speed of light. The descriptions of the experiments and their relation to the author's claims are not better than they were.
Looking over the 82 comments that were in the thread when it ended, I see some arguments that make more sense today, but mostly what I see is that we just weren't speaking the same language.  That observation was verified after I posted this comment yesterday to that discussion thread from 2019:
I'm working on a paper that will explain everything in detail. Yes, I was wrong. The experimenters all claimed that light can be received at c+v and c-v where v is the speed of an observer moving toward or away from the oncoming photons. I accepted what the experiments claimed. Now I see that the experimenters misinterpreted their own data. They didn't understand how kinetic energy can be added to a photon. I didn't, either, until recently.

When I finish my new paper in a week or so, I'll start a new thread about it.
That comment caused "Mikko" to respond with this (including all of his typos):
I does not make sense to say that light is received at c+v or c-v or c. Light, like anthing else, only has a speed between two events, as the speed is the ration of the distance to the diration of those two events. Reception is a single event so does not have a distance nor a duration.
and
The experiments presented on the page http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html don't observe the enrgy of the photon. They measure the time of flight or difference between two times of flight.
It's a good example of how we do not speak the same language.  I think he's talking about how Lidar guns work.  Lidar guns make two quick measurements of the distance between the stationary gun and a moving target, and then the gun computes how fast the target must be moving in order to travel the difference in distance between the two measurements.

None of the 8 experiments does anything like that.

My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" examines things step by step with illustrations.  When I finish it (hopefully some time next week), I'll put it on vixra.org and on academia.edu.  Then I'll start a thread on the sci.physics.relativity forum to discuss it. 

I admit that I was wrong in some previous arguments on that forum.  It might be the first time anyone has admitted such a thing on that forum.

I'll probably also make corrections to some of my 17 previous papers.


Comments for Monday, August 1, 2022, thru Sat., Aug. 6, 2022:

August 5, 2022 - Yesterday, I overhauled my web page about "Variable speed of light experiments."  The experiments supposedly show that light can arrive at c+v or c-v where c is the speed of light and v is the speed of the observer moving toward or away from the oncoming light photons. 

However, after studying the subject for months, it now seems clear to me that I was wrong in accepting what the experiments claimed.  The speed of light is "invariant" in that it is always emitted and received at the speed of 299,792,458 meters per second. But, because the length of a second varies due to Time Dilation, the length of a second is different virtually everywhere.

The experiments, however, have little to do with the speed of light.  The experiments only demonstrate the Doppler Effect as it applies to light photons.  Unlike the Doppler Effect for sound waves, which can be caused by a moving emitter or receiver, there is no Doppler Effect with light that is caused by a moving emitter.  There is only a Doppler Effect caused by a moving receiver.  A moving receiver will add energy to an oncoming photon if the receiver is moving toward the photon, and a moving receiver will subtract energy from a oncoming photon if the receiver is moving away from the photon.

I'm still working to explain this in great detail in my new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."  Every time I think I'm nearing completion, I realize there is some additional point that needs explaining - or some existing point that needs additional explaining.

But, I think I'm getting close to completing it.
   

Meanwhile, the price of regular gas at the station down the street from me just dropped another 5 cents to $3.79
9 per gallon.

August 3, 2022
- As I was driving around doing errands today, I saw that the price of gas had dropped another 8 cents at the gas station just down the street from where I live.  It's now $3.84
9 per gallon.  So, if I had waited a few days before filling up, I could have saved myself 90 cents or so.

That's no big deal, of course, but when you see Republican ads on TV every day bitching about how my state governor caused the price of gas to soar, you can't help but notice any change in gas prices.

Meanwhile, I realized I have to once again overhaul my new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."   I need to discuss the "Doppler Effect" early in the paper, since it plays a big role in how light works when the observer is moving.  With sound, they usually only describe how the Doppler Effect works when the emitter is moving (usually an approaching train horn or a police car siren or an ambulance siren).  But the sound Doppler effect can also be heard when you are on a train and pass by a crossing where a bell seems to rings fast as you approach and then slower when you move away from the crossing.  With light, it appears there is no Doppler effect when you are stationary and a light source is coming at you. But I think a lot of mathematicians will argue with that, because they see all motion as relative, i.e., if I am moving away from you, you are also moving away from me.  Nope.  That's not how things work in our universe.
  


August 1, 2022
- Yesterday, I put 7.38 gallons of gas in my car at $3.92
9 per gallon. Total cost $28.94.  I was going to take a picture of the receipt and show it here, but, of course, the gas pump ate the receipt, grinding it up instead of dispensing it.  I had to scramble to write everything down before the pump's display reset.

My previous fill-up on June 30 cost $4.78
9 per gallon.  The fill-up before that, on May 26, cost $4.489 per gallon.  Since I only put gas in my tank about once a month, and then it's only about a half tankful, I suppose I don't really have much cause for complaining.

I'd like to complain about problems with my newest paper, however,  I'm really having a hard time deciphering the Michelson-Gale experiment.  According to Wikipedia, the experiment showed that -
The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000. According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity.
I read and re-read the papers that Michelson and Gale wrote, but they don't clarify anything.  The purpose of my paper is to describe the experiment in plain English.  In "plain English," I think "230 parts in 1000" should somehow translate to some rotation speed of the earth at the location of the experiment, which took place in Clearing, Illinois, on the southwest side of Chicago.  But so far I cannot find anyplace that says anything like that.  I can't find any place that says that is wrong, either.  It seems I need to do more research.


Comments for Sunday, July 24, 2022, thru Sun., July 31, 2022:

July 31, 2022 - The price of regular gas at the station just down the street from me dropped another 7 cents yesterday.  It's now $3.929 per gallon. I'll probably fill my tank this afternoon.

Meanwhile, I've been working every day on my new paper which is still tentatively titled "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light," and I think I'm nearing the point where I'll have a good first draft.

It also looks like the paper will show that I made errors in several of my other papers.  And I will definitely need to overhaul my web page on "Variable Speed of Light Experiments.NONE of the experiments listed on that page show that the speed of light is not always 299,792,458 meters per second (also known by its mathematical symbol c).  The experiments just show that kinetic energy can be added to the energy of a photon when that photon hits a moving object.

In all the arguing I've done about "the variable speed of light," I don't think anyone ever pointed out my error.  They just argued incorrect theories of their own, usually that there is no such thing as Time Dilation.  Or they would simply claim that light is always sent and received at c, but they would never offer any evidence to support that claim.  One of the authors of the papers showing that the speed of light is "variable," wrote this:
It is troubling that there are no unambiguous, positive experimental results in the photon sector to support the local Lorentz invariance of c.
He's right.  There are no such experiments.  There are only experiments which supposedly show the variance of c.  But, my new paper will explain that those experiments show no such thing.

I'd better end this comment here, since I may seem like a raving madman to 99.99999999999999% of the people on earth.
  

July 29, 2022
- Monday through Thursday, and sometimes on Friday I use my DVR to record a bunch of different late night talk shows: Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show," Seth Meyers'  "Late Night," Trevor Noah's "The Daily Show," Jimmy Kimmel's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," Samantha Bee's "Full Frontal" and sometimes Jimmy Fallon's "The Tonight Show" when he has interesting guests.  Then I watch those shows the next evening, skipping over the commercials, the music guests and anything else that doesn't seem interesting to me.

I'm sometimes surprised when they talk about news stories that I didn't see on the news shows I watch.  Last night there was a good example on "The Daily Show."  Trevor Noah talked about how some counties in Oregon want to secede from Oregon and become part of Idaho.  Huh? 

Checking the Internet this morning, I found lots of news stories about it. There are even some counties in Washington State and California that want to become part of "greater Idaho."

Greater
                                                      Idaho

There are 9 counties in Oregon which have already voted to become part of Idaho, and 2 more which plan to vote that way.

It's all about politics, of course.  Idaho is conservative, and conservative Republican counties in Oregon want to secede from the liberal parts of Oregon and become part of conservative Idaho.

Fortunately, it cannot be done via a simple vote by a county.  It requires approval from the United States Congress, plus the state governments of Idaho and Oregon.  That could be a problem since the counties that want to join Idaho are mostly rural and have only 9% of Oregon's population while having 62% of Oregon's land.

Meanwhile, even though I can skip over the commercials on the evening talk shows, I watch the evening news directly and therefore cannot skip over their commercials.  And right now most of the commercials are about different candidates for Wisconsin governor, the U.S. Senate and congress.  And the Republicans seem to be running some of the nastiest people I've ever seen.  They not only use lies to attack the Democrats, they seem to be even more vicious when they attack each other.

That sometimes seems to be the only "good news" on TV.  Republicans are attacking each other.
  


July 27, 2022
- Hmm.  The price of gas at the station down the street dropped another 10 cents.  The price of regular is now $3.99
9 per gallon.  I suspect it will stay at that price for awhile, but I could be wrong.  I still have more than half a tankful, so I can still wait awhile to fill up.

I watched both of the shows about Malaysia Flight MH370 on the History Channel last night.  I set my VCR to record the shows, and while the VCR was recording the 1-hour episode and the first 35 minutes of the 2-hour episode, I listened to a podcast in which theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss interviewed Woody Allen for an hour and 47 minutes. 
It was an interesting discussion about acting and writing.  I found the discussion about writing to be particularly interesting because they compared writing science papers versus writing fiction.  When writing science papers, you start out just laying down known information without really knowing where the paper will end.  When writing fiction, you start with creating an the ending and then you write what is needed to reach that ending.

I've done both, but I never really thought about the difference in how the writing is done.  Right now I'm doing another revision of a paper tentatively titled "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."  I've never written the conclusion for the paper because I keep revising the order in which I need to describe known facts so that I can reach a conclusion.

When I started watching the new 2-hour show about flight MH370, I'd recorded about 35 minutes of it, and therefore I was able to fast-forward past nearly all of the 37 minutes of commercials, finishing when the show finished at about 9 p.m.  Then I watched the 1 hour show, fast-forwarding past the commercials.

There wasn't anything both interesting and new in the two shows.  There were lots of new interviews with relatives of the passengers who went missing when MH370 went missing in March of 2014, but there wasn't anything particularly interesting in them.  What I found interesting was that the new 2-hour show didn't even mention the satellite data that indicated MH370 ended up somewhere in the Indian Ocean.  And the 1-hour episode ended with a conspiracy theory that Russians hijacked MH370 and flew it to Afghanistan and then into Russia.  There was no explanation for why the Russians would do that.  It was all the conspiracy theories about MH370 that got me interested.  The facts clearly show that MH370 ended up in the Indian ocean about about 2,000 miles west of Perth, Australia.  But, if facts mean nothing to you, there's plenty of material for creating dozens of conspiracy theories, each dumber than the next. 

One point made clear in both shows was that the Malaysian government isn't going to spend any more money trying to locate the plane.  If some new evidence shows up indicating exactly where the plane went down, someone else is going to have to pay to verify it.
  

There's a good article about MH370 from Singapore's Straits Times HERE. It contains a whole section about the many theories that try to explain what "actually" happened to MH370.

July 26, 2022
- While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook, and the MAGA Media Are Destroying America" by Dan Pfeiffer.

Battling the Big Lie

I've got 16 pages of notes from the book.  Here's a sample from page xii of the Introduction:
People like to say that Democrats and Republicans now live in two separate realities, but that is incorrect. Democrats live in the real world, and Republicans live in a deeply delusional alternative ecosystem. The insurrection and the subsequent rewriting of history are proof that the Republicans have mastered a form of politics that depends on disinformation and propaganda. They have built a megaphone that drowns out the truth and any and all dissenting views.
And here's another quote from page xiii of the Introduction:
Over a period of decades, the Republican Party built up a massive propaganda and disinformation apparatus that allows them to dominate politics despite representing a shrinking share of the electorate. This “MAGA megaphone” is embodied by Fox News and powered by Facebook and gives the GOP the power to bend reality.
For several decades I've considered Fox News to be nothing more than a Republican propaganda outlet.  It's on one of the TVs at my gym, on a wall right in front of me when I do my 20 minutes on a stationary bicycle.  There's another TV attached to the bicycle, and I can change the channel on that one to watch CNN, which I can also do while on the treadmill.  So, I can, in effect, watch both CNN and Fox at the same time.  It can be interesting to see how Fox News twists things and ignores news that make Republicans look bad.

One thing that surprised me in the book was the repeated mention of Facebook as being part of the Republican "megaphone."  On June 6, 2016, I created a Facebook page titled "Time and Time Dilation."  But I soon got bored with it, and I rarely post anything there.  However, I belong to other Facebook groups, like Astrophysics and Cosmology, Science Fiction, and Ancient History and Mystery, that I check nearly every day.  No one has ever pitched any Right Wing propaganda at me on those forums.  In fact, it says on some of them that talking politics is forbidden and will get you tossed off the forum.

Apparently, however, there are many Facebook groups I've never seen which do nothing but discuss Right Wing and MAGA politics.  Here's a quote about Facebook:
No matter his original intent, Mark Zuckerberg had built a pro-Trump platform. No matter what they tell themselves, the people working for Facebook are working to push Trumpism. Without Facebook, there is no Trump. Without Facebook, there is no January 6 insurrection. And if Trump is reelected president in 2024, it will be because of Facebook.  
Mark Zuckerberg's "original intent" was apparently just to avoid appearing biased, so he wouldn't delete anything that might make him look "biased."  But, in the real world, when you post something that generates wild and lengthy arguments, you are generating money for Zuckerberg, since he charges advertisers according to how many times their ads are viewed, and heated arguments generate lots of views, whether anyone actually looks at the ads or not.  Looking at the Science Fiction page, I see NO ads at all.   The same with the other groups I regularly visit.  If I click on the "Marketplace" icon I see lots of ads, but until just now I've never clicked on that icon. And I've never visited any of the top 50 Facebook pages.

Dan Pfeiffer, the author of the book, was Barack Obama's communication director when Obama was President, and he is now a co-host of the Pod Save America podcast, which I have on my list of "interesting podcasts," but I only recall sampling a few episodes to see if they appeared interesting.

In sum, it was a very interesting book, and I can certainly recommend it.
    

July 25, 2022
- Aha!  When I drove to the gym today, the price of gas
at the station less than a block from where I live was still the same as yesterday.  But when I returned home from the gym, the price of gas had dropped another 10 cents to $4.099. And, of course, I still do not yet need to fill up.  I still have more than half a tank full.  Will the price drop to below $4 before I need to fill up?  I certainly hope so.  But I certainly wouldn't bet on it.   


July 24, 2022
- Hmm.  Yesterday, the price of gas at the station less than a block from where I live dropped another 20 cents to $4.15
9. I still had more than half a tank full, so there was no reason for me to fill up.  I wondered, though, if the price would go up or down before I need to fill up.  I found out today.  The price skyrocketed up 4 cents to $4.199!  But, I certainly can't assume it is the start of a trend.  I'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, I read that the History Channel is going to have a new 2-hour program about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 this coming Tuesday at 8 PM
Eastern Time.  It looks like it could be interesting.  And it also appears that, at 7 PM ET, they are rerunning episode 7 of season 3 of "History's Greatest Mysteries," which was also about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.  While it's an interesting mystery, I've only set my DVR to only record the new 2-hour presentation.  It is supposed to have a lot of new material collected from foreign TV sources.  It's supposed to be a 3 part series of 50-minute episodes, but the History Channel is evidently merging them into one 2-hour program

I've also decided to set my new book aside and instead work on a new science paper.  The paper is tentatively titled "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."
  It addresses the issue that caused me to get bogged down on my book.  I've been working on an outline for the new paper, but there's a part that I still have to thoroughly research and study.

In "Situation #1 in the illustration below, we have a police officer pointing a radar gun at an oncoming car.  The photons emitted by the gun have a specific oscillation frequency as they travel to the target, and they have a shorter oscillation frequency (more oscillations per second) when they return from the target.  The difference in oscillation frequencies allows the gun to compute the speed of the target to be 100 mph.  

Radar guns and angle to the target  

In "Situation #2," the radar gun is pointed at a different target that is moving at a 90 degree angle to the radar gun.  In that situation, the gun emits photons with the same oscillation frequency as in "Situation #1," but the photons that return to the gun are no different from the photons the gun originally emitted, so the gun computes no speed for the target.

Since both cars are moving faster than the stationary radar gun, Time Dilation should be (and evidently is) involved in both cases.  But the energy that is measured by the oscillation frequencies of the photons plays a bigger role.  In "Situation #2" above, the car is moving at 100 mph, which means that a second is longer for the car than for the gun.  So the target receives photons that have more oscillations per second than what was transmitted by the gun.  But when the target sends photons back to the radar gun, because the gun is moving slower than the target, the gun receives photons that have fewer oscillations per second than what the target emitted.  The result is that the gun gets back photons that are identical to the photons it emitted.

What is different about the two situations that causes the radar gun to perform totally differently?  It appears to be the "cosine effect."  If the target was moving at a 45 degree angle, instead of 90 or zero, the gun would show a speed of 70 mph.  A 50 degree angle would show a speed of 64 mph.  A 60 degree angle to the target would how a speed of 50 mph.  80 degrees shows 17 mph.   I need to figure out how to explain why the angle at which the photon's oscillating electric and magnetic fields hit the target makes such a difference.  It's easy to describe logically and visually, but I need to find a way to explain it so that mathematicians cannot dispute it.


Comments for Sunday, July 17, 2022, thru Sat., July 23, 2022:

July 20, 2022 - A couple days ago, when I sat down at my computer to burn CDs for another audio book, I ran into a problem I had never encountered before.  The first MP3 file in the set was 82 minutes longYou can only put 80 minutes onto a CD.  The CD-burning software won't even let you start to burn a file if it is too long.

The solution was obvious: I needed to cut 2 minutes off of the MP3 file.  But I didn't have any software to do that.  Fortunately, there is free editing software available on the Internet. I downloaded the software and trimmed two minutes off that first file.  I can always listen to those two minutes on my computer when I get to that point.

That solution also fits another problem I have.  Some day I'm going to run out of audio books to burn onto CDs.  My library no longer allows you to "borrow" an entire audio book over the Internet.  You can only listen to it while connected to the library.  So, you can no longer just "borrow" audio books and save them to listen to at some later time.

I finished listening to my last 6 audio books on July 18, June 26, May 11, February 15, January 28 and December 24.  The book I finished on January 18, I listened to in one day while sitting on my couch.  I didn't burn that one onto CDs. The 18-CD book I finished on May 11 took me 3 months of listening time while driving.  If I say an average audio book takes me a month to listen to, that means I've got over 3 years of audio books still in my listening queue.  Then I'll have to start burning podcasts onto CDs.  And that MP3 file editing software I recently downloaded will allow me to do that.  But 3 years is a long time away.  And it would probably be better to find a way to just listen to the podcasts on an MP3 player while driving, since CDs cost about 10 cents apiece.

The times are achanging.

Meanwhile, the price of a gallon of gas at the gas station just down the street dropped another 4 cents to $4.35
9 yesterday.


July 19, 2022
- Groan!  It appears that I'm gradually beginning to understand something about Time Dilation that I should have figured out long ago.  The problem I have now is: How do I explain it?  It appears that before I can explain it, I have to FULLY understand it myself.  And then I'll have to explain it in terms that will enable others to understand it.

I'm going to write a brief description of the problem here as part of this comment, even though that is very difficult to do.  I've tried summarizing the problem in several different ways, but the results would all just create confusion, they wouldn't explain anything. The key question could be stated this way:  How could all the experiments which show light hitting a moving observer at c+v or c-v be misleading

There's nothing wrong with those experiments.  They just omit one fact that greatly changes their meaning.  What is that fact?  It appears to be that light is always observed and seen to arrive at c.  But how can that be a "fact" if there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light?

It also appears that mathematicians usually interpret that fact to mean that the speed of light is "invariant," meaning it never varies.  And they usually refer to "Lorentz invariance" which says,
The Lorentz Invariance is at the heart of special relativity, which predicts, among other things, that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant 186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second, whatever the situation.
I would remove the words "a constant," since, while the speed of light is 
"186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second, whatever the situation," it is definitely not a "constant," since the length of a second is different nearly everywhere.

The problem is how to explain that, even though virtually every emitter emits light that travels at a different speed (even though they all emit light that travels at "
186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second," how can it be that that same light is also observed to arrive at "186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second" regardless of the speed of the observer?

All I can say is: I'm working on it.
  

July 18, 2022
- Yesterday afternoon, while driving around doing some shopping, I finished listening to CD #5 of the 5-CD audio book version of "The Origins of Creativity" by Edward O. Wilson.

The Origins of Creativity

I "borrowed" the book from my local library on November 22, 2020, and it finally came up in my listening queue.  The book was read (or narrated) by Jonathan Hogan, who has a very strange voice - or a very ordinary voice - like some elderly man you might meet on the street.

While it was an enjoyable book, it was also a very strange book, and it often seemed to have very little to do with the origins of creativity.  Mostly it seemed to be about how we learn from observing others and by solving problems.

Here's a quote from early in the book:
What, then, is creativity? It is the innate quest for originality. The driving force is humanity’s instinctive love of novelty—the discovery of new entities and processes, the solving of old challenges and disclosure of new ones, the aesthetic surprise of unanticipated facts and theories, the pleasure of new faces, the thrill of new worlds. We judge creativity by the magnitude of the emotional response it evokes.
And here's a definition of "creativity" that I found on-line:
creativity: the ability to make or otherwise bring into existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form.
Is solving a problem the same as being creative?  I'd never looked at it that way before, but I suppose it could be.  The author writes a lot about ants and other insects and how they build things, and he's traveled all over the world studying ants and other insects, plus monkeys and apes.  It's just difficult for me to connect all these things to the subject of creativity.

Near the end of the book, the author suddenly shifts to discussing his favorite movies, most of which also happen to be my favorite movies.  He discusses movies about heroes, about tragic heroes, about monsters, about quests, about pair bonding, and about other worlds.  Here are three movies he lists as being about heroes:
Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986). Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, the ultimate feminist warrior, defeats some of the most terrifying aliens ever to invade a Hollywood set.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955). One-armed World War II veteran thrashes a racist bully.


Casablanca (1942). In the end, a noble character shines through Bogart’s bluster and cynicism.

"Alien" is also listed in the section about monsters:
Alien (1979). An intense atmospheric exploration of a newly discovered planet, and a super-efficient monster parasite waiting there. With Aliens and The Thing (2011, remake of the 1982 film by John Carpenter), among the best science fiction horror movies ever made.
That paragraph has the one time I disagree with the author.  I watched the 2011 version of "The Thing" just last week, when it aired on TCM, and I still cannot understand why some people like it so much.  To me it is a horror movie, not a sci-fi movie.  And I am not a fan of horror movies.

But, except for that one point, the book was okay, and I can recommend it.
   

July 17, 2022
- I don't like the way the final chapters of my book are going.  It seems clear I need to stop using Internet discussions as evidence of all the damage that is being done by all the wildly inaccurate college physics textbooks that are out there.  The textbooks not only disagree with Einstein's Relativity, they disagree with each other.  It's like every textbook was written by a person who has his own personal beliefs about physics, and he didn't care if his beliefs disagreed with almost every other textbook author.  His task is to convince students that his belief is the correct belief.  And the end product is a world where no two people seem to have the same view about physics unless they actually work on physics projects designed to investigate the universe around us.  And even then they may disagree about certain things, but they agree that experiments are the way to resolve disagreements.

My problem is: If I don't use Internet discussions to illustrate screwball beliefs about physics, what else can I use?  Textbooks?  Incorrect textbooks are the cause, not the effect.  One effect is the idiotic arguments on the Internet.  But what are the other effects?  Wasted money?  How many millions have been spent on math-based projects which can never prove anything, like projects involving alternate universes and additional dimensions? 

Anyway, I think I need to go back and start a new version of the book.  That doesn't mean I will start all over again from scratch.  Most of what I've written will remain in the new version.  I just need add some things and also see if I can find a better way to end the book.  Right now, h
ere's what the Table of Contents for my new book looks like:
Introduction                                Page   1
Chapter  1  -  What Einstein Knew           Page   3
Chapter  2  -  Stationary Points in Space   Page   6
Chapter  3  -  What is Light?               Page  11 Chapter  4  -  c+v and c-v                  Page  20
Chapter  5  -  Radar Guns and Relativity    Page  29
Chapter  6  -  Time Dilation                Page  44 Chapter  7  - 
The Twin Paradox             Page  58

Chapter  8  -  What is Time?                Page  65
Chapter  9  -  The Variable Speed of Light  Page  69
Chapter 10  -  Inertial Systems             Page  71 Chapter 11  -  General Relativity           Page  76
Chapter 12  -  The Edge of Reality          Page  81
Chapter 13  -  The Big Bang                 Page  84
Chapter 14  -  Mathematics vs Reality       Page  94
Chapter 15  -  The Textbook Problem         Page 101
Chapter 16  -  Our Conflicted World         Page 119
Chapter 17  -  Physics' Most Sacred Belief  Page 125
Chapter 18  -  Conclusion                   Page
About the Author                            Page

At just 125 pages or so, it's more like an outline than a book.  I feel I need to add more to chapters 2, 4 and 9.  Chapter 17 is actually titled "The Most Sacred Belief in Physics," but I couldn't fit that name into the above format.  That "most sacred belief" is that the speed of light is c in all reference frames.  It's a belief that has been disproved by many experiments, and there are NO experiments which confirm it, yet the mathematicians I argue with on the Internet twist everything to make it fit their belief in the "invariance of c."

And yesterday I remembered that years ago I had put together a blog page titled "The 10 Dumbest Beliefs in Physics."  The "invariance of c" is #4 on that list.  #1 is "All Motion is Reciprocal."  Somehow, I never specifically addressed that issue in the book I'm writing, although I certainly explain in many ways that all motion is NOT reciprocal.  The same with  #3 on the list: "Cause and Effect has no meaning in Physics."  I need to address those specific issues in the first part of the book so that I can explain in the second part of the book how they are Quantum Mechanics-based beliefs and have nothing to do with reality.

#7 on that blog list is "It is perfectly acceptable for physics to be illogical."  I don't recall addressing that issue in the book, either.  Here's  how it is described on my blog page:
Many many college text books state that physics may sometimes appear contrary to "common sense," but what is "common sense" in the everyday world may not apply to the world of physics.  It also appears to be a way for teachers to stop students from arguing that what is being taught makes no sense.
Everything in Einstein's Relativity makes perfect sense.  Some may consider Time Dilation to be contrary to "common sense," but so is a spherical earth if you've never thought about why ships seem to disappear and drop behind the horizon when they get very far away.  You just have to learn a few new things in order to see how it all fits together and does make perfect sense.

It's fascinating stuff.  I just hope I can do a good job of explaining it all.


Comments for Sunday, July 10, 2022, thru Sat., July 16, 2022:

July 15, 2022 - As I was driving to the gym yesterday, I glanced at the price of gas at the station down the street.  I'm pretty sure it said $4.499 per gallon.  But I couldn't remember what the price was the previous day.  Then, on the way home from the gym I glanced at the price again and it said $4.399 per gallon.  That was definitely a price drop.  And it was a price drop of 20 cents from the last time I mentioned gas prices on this web page, back on July 7.

Not only does the price of gas seem to be going down, but, according to the AAA, the national average for the price of a gallon of regular gas is $4.57
7.  And the average price in Wisconsin is $4.362, which means Wisconsin's prices are below average.  So how can Republicans be attacking Wisconsin's Democratic Governor over the high price of gas?  Evidently, it is because the average person doesn't bother to check on gas prices in other states, and Republicans know that.  Both sides are using attack ads, but the Republican ads are filled with lies and wrong information.  And it seems that no one in the media is pointing out the lies, because in today's world that would be "biased reporting."  Groan!     


July 12, 2022
- I'm still arguing on
the sci.physics.relativity forum.  The arguments have become so heated that they're starting to remind me of the arguments I had over the anthrax attacks of 2001.  In those arguments, I explored the solid and abundant evidence that an American scientist was behind the attacks.  However, there were a lot of people who believed (and still do) that Muslim terrorists were behind the attacks, and if you didn't believe what they believed, then you were aiding the Muslim terrorists.  There were times when I was concerned that some fanatic might come after me with a rifle.

My arguments with mathematicians hasn't reached that degree of hostility yet, but it's clear I'm arguing with people who are fanatical about their beliefs.  If you disagree with them, you are attacking their beliefs.  And they take it as a personal attack.  I've seen the same reactions from Trump supporters.  If you point out all the evidence that shows that Trump is con man and an habitual liar, his supporters take that as an attack on their integrity.  You are attacking them by claiming that you are smarter than they are.

My arguments with the mathematicians have pointed out three primary areas of conflict. 

One area of conflict is "infinite space."  Mathematicians argue that space is not infinite, they argue it only extends to the farthest star, because they cannot measure anything beyond that.  The universe is expanding by adding more space between stars.  How can you logically do that without the farthest stars moving farther into empty space (or into infinity)?  That is not accepted as a valid question.  Unfortunately, there are no experiments to confirm things one way or the other.  So, while there are disagreements, there are no heated arguments.

The discussion thread I started back on June 19th is titled "Time Dilation Experiments."  It addresses the second of the three primary areas of conflict: Time Dilation.  I began the thread by listing 12 major Time Dilation experiments which confirm that time dilation is real, and then I asked:

Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
Mostly they avoided discussing the subject.  Instead, they argued about how I phrased things, or how the experiments didn't verify what I claimed they verified.  But they wouldn't explain what they thought the experiments verified or why they believed the experiments were faulty.

The third point of conflict is the one that has generated the most arguments.  It is about the variability of the speed of light.  It comes up whenever Einstein's Second Postulate is mentioned.  I also have a web page that lists all the experiments I could find that confirm that light hits an approaching receiver at c+v, where c is the speed of light and v is the speed of the approaching receiver.  That page is HERE.  The experiments also show that the speed of light varies when time varies.

But that attacks what mathematicians evidently consider to be holy gospel, that the speed of light is a fixed constant.  They look at the experiments and they argue that they do not prove anything.  "Mikko" wrote:
Those experiments don't verify what you claim.
And "Volney" added:
I just looked at a couple; ... They say nothing about the speed
of light other than to use it as an understood constant. Ed just jumps to a conclusion.
I'm considering starting a new thread about the variable speed of light, which I would begin by listing all the experiments that verify it.  I'd really like to discuss the topic, instead of having mathematicians simply dismiss it as nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

But I also need to write more about it in my book.  And that has my highest priority.
  

July 10, 2022
- A couple days ago, I mentioned that "
I finally dropped out of that long discussion I was having on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  And that enabled me to also finish chapter 14 of my book."  Since then I have also finished chapter 15, and I've got quite a bit done on chapter 16, which may end up being the last chapter in the book.

But, yesterday I started arguing again on
the sci.physics.relativity forum. I'd stopped arguing because the people on the forum had once again just turned to arguing minutia and phraseology between themselves.  Then yesterday a physics teacher from South America posted a message addressed to me, a message which contained a NEW version of an old argument.

The argument began with the teacher quoting me from a previous argument over what Einstein's Second Postulate says about light seen by an observer:
Me: WRONG! It says the EMITTER always EMITS light at c.  Einstein's Second Postulate says absolutely NOTHING about what a RECEIVER/OBSERVER will see.
Then the teacher began his new argument:
Teacher: Again you do not understand English. That introduction says:  "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

Me: Agreed.

Teacher: The "state of motion of the emitting body" clearly means either the body is stationary or the body is moving. Therefore, a) if the emitter is stationary, light will propagate at speed c. b) If the emitter is moving, light will also propagate at speed c.

Me: Agreed.

Teacher: Say the emitter is at point E and the receiver is at point R.  Case 1) Both E and R are stationary E.....c--.......................R.  E emits at speed c, R receives at speed c.

Me. Agreed.

Teacher:  Case 2) E is moving at speed v, R is stationary, E emits light at speed c, R receives the light at speed c.

Me: Agreed.

Teacher:  Case 3) E is stationary, R is moving towards E at speed w. E emits light at speed c, R receives the light at speed V=(c+w)/(1+w/c)=c
(see equations in section 5 of the paper).
 Therefore in all cases, the receiver R receives the light at speed c.

Me:  Nonsense. Section 5 of Einstein's paper says, "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." In other words, when an observer receives light at c+v, v is his speed and c is still the speed of light.

It appears you are twisting the meaning of that equation to make it fit your BELIEFS.
While I was waiting for a response to that argument, someone else on the forum started an argument claiming that the first part of Einstein's paper is an "abstract," which merely summarizes the rest of the paper. 

I had to respond because that is obviously not true.  The first part of Einstein's paper is an Introduction where he presents a puzzle that is solved in the rest of the paper.  The "puzzle" consists of two "postulates" that appear "irreconcilable," but which are only "apparently irreconcilable" and in his paper Einstein explains how they are reconciled: by Time Dilation, which Einstein explains step by step and summarizes this way:
Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.
I've never been able to get anyone on that forum to acknowledge that Einstein's paper contains that summary.  This morning I see that once again everyone just ignored it.  And the teacher I was arguing with posted a complex bunch of equations to show how his beliefs are better than my logic - and it doesn't make any difference how many experiments show that he is wrong.








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
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
May 2018
June 2018
July 2018
August 2018
September 2018
October 2018
November 2018
December 2018

January 2019
February 2019
March 2019
April 2019
May 2019
June 2019
July 2019    
August 2019 
September 2019
October 2019
November 2019
December 2019

January 2020            
February 2020  
March 2020                   
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
 July 2020            
August 2020                   
September 2020 
October 2020
November 2020
December 2020
January 2021  
February 2021
March 2021   
April 2021
May 2021
June 2021
July 2021                                
August 2021 
September 2021
October 2021
November 2021
December 2021
January 2022            
February 2022  
March 2022
April 2022
May 2022
June 2022                   
July 2022 
August 2022
                          

            
© 2022 by Ed Lake