If you
want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.
Welcome
to Ed Lake's web site!
I also have an
interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/
(And I have two science-related
Facebook discussion groups, HERE
and HERE.)
My latest comments
are near the bottom of this page.
You can go directly to them by clicking
HERE.
Click HERE
to go to 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,
photography,
photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz,
blues, and ...
just trying to figure things out.
Click
on the above image to view a larger version.
My Latest Comments
Comments for Sunday, June
25, 2017, thru Friday, June 30, 2017:
June 28,
2017 - I've written in previous
comments how I've accumulated a collection of
books and articles while doing research over the
past year or so. Whenever I found a new
book or article, I would just save it in a
"Miscellaneous Papers" computer folder while
occasionally making a note on a "list of
documents" as to what the book or article is
about and why I saved it.
For the past few days, I've been trying to
organize that folder by creating a new
list of what is in it, a list that is in
spreadsheet format. As of this morning I've gone
through 235 of them, but the total is now 469,
much lower than the 536 items I mentioned two
days ago. So, I am half done. The
536 number included three sub-folders where
books were stored as individual chapters.
As a result those 3 books were counted as 72
items. Plus, I have .djvu and .pdf
versions of numerous books, and on the new list
I only count the .pdf version. Lastly, I
often have an "original" .pdf version of a book
or paper I downloaded, and I also have an
"annotated" version where I have highlighted
passages and made notes.
Anyway, I'm half done with creating the
spreadsheet list. As I go through each
document while making spreadsheet entries for
its title, number of pages, etc., I have come up
with some thoughts about new papers that I might
write.
I keep thinking of a paper titled "A
Fundamental Misunderstanding About Physics."
It wouldn't be my understanding versus the
understandings described in the books and
papers, it would be a conflict of understandings
between the authors of physics books. The
misunderstanding is about relativity. Back
on
June 21 I mentioned the book "Spacetime
Physics" by Edwin Taylor and John
Wheeler. That book states on page 55,
But now exclude all
information from outside. Screen out
all radiation from the heavens. Pull
down the window shade. Then do
whatever experiment we will on the
movement and collision of particles
and the action of electric and
magnetic forces in whatever
free-float frame we please. We find
not the slightest difference in the
fit to the laws of physics between
measurements made in one free-float
frame and those made in another. We
arrive at the Principle of
Relativity in its negative form:
No
test of the laws of physics provides
any way whatsoever to distinguish one
free-float
frame from another.
If
the velocity of light is different for
different observers, then the observer
could tell whether he was at rest or in
motion at some constant velocity, simply
by determining the velocity of light in
his frame of reference.
If the observed velocity of light c' were
equal to c then the observer would be in the
frame of reference that is at rest. If the
observed velocity of light were c' = c − v,
then the observer was in a frame of reference
that was receding from the rest frame.
Finally, if the observed velocity c' = c + v,
then the observer would be in a frame of
reference that was approaching the rest frame.
Obviously these
various values of c' would be a violation
of the first postulate, since we could now
define an absolute rest frame (c' = c),
which would be different than all the
other inertial frames.
Taylor and Wheeler (and Einstein)
say that, according to the Principle
of Relativity, if you are inside a closed
lab, you cannot tell by doing any
physical measurements if you are moving at a
constant rate or if you are standing still ("at
rest"). Professor Nolan, however, argues
that if the speed of light is different for different
observers (in different labs), you would
know that you are moving, and that would be a
violation of the First Postulate (a.k.a The
Principle of Relativity). That is a
fundamental misunderstanding of
Relativity.
The whole idea of the Principle
of Special Relativity is that you cannot tell (without
making comparisons to other locations)
whether you stationary or moving at a constant
rate. And you also cannot tell (without
making comparisons to other locations)
that your test results are different from those
done at other locations. If you measure
the speed of light, you will get the same speed
of light that everyone else gets.
Everything in your lab and in my lab will appear
to work the same way and we all get the same
results as everyone else gets. HOWEVER,
when you compare input
data (the length of a second being the prime
example) to other locations, you will find they
are not the same. Therefore the results
are actually different.
While browsing other books, I found other
authors making the same argument that Prof.
Nolan makes. It's a fundamental misunderstanding
of Relativity.
I've also been thinking of another paper
tentatively titled "Measuring versus
Understanding." Mathematicians
measure things and do calculations based upon
the measurements they made. But that does
not provide any understanding of
what was just measured. Yet, they seem to
think it does.
Groan! I just spent over
two hours writing this
comment, two hours that probably would probably
have been better spent continuing with my
analysis and organization of the books and
papers I've accumulated. And organizing is
just the first step. The next step will be
to read and study the documents I
identified in the organization step as being
worth further reading and study. There are
other books which make the same argument Prof.
Nolan made, but how many other books are there
that make the same argument as Taylor and
Wheeler? The more I can find, the better
the argument I can make that there is a fundamental
misunderstanding about Relativity
and not just a silly misunderstanding by Taylor
and Wheeler.
Everyone who writes a book phrases things his
own way. I'm also hoping that by reading
how different writers describe how Einstein
arrived at his conclusion that Time is variable,
I'll be able to write my own description and
understand it. And I'm hoping that my
description will be more easily understood than
everyone else's.
Busy busy busy.
June 26,
2017 - I spent a couple hours
yesterday morning working through the
list of 227 physics journals trying to
find the "right" journals for submitting my
papers on Time Dilation and Einstein's Second
Postulate. I came to the conclusion that
there are only a couple left on the list that
seem like possibilities, and neither is truly
"right" for either one of my papers.
So, I spent the rest of the day trying to
organize the books, papers and other documents
that I downloaded and saved while doing my
research. Of the 536 items I now have in
my "Miscellaneous papers" folder, I've sorted
through 122 of them, updating a spreadsheet that
shows the file name, the type of file (book,
article, epub, mobi, etc.), the title, the
authors, the number of pages, whether it is a
"searchable" pdf or not, and a comments
column. In the comments column I make a
note if it is something I should definitely
read, and if not, why not.
This morning I awoke making a decision to pause
the submission of my papers for awhile as I
think things over. I also decided to put
the latest version of my Second Postulate paper
on viXra.org,
where it should appear as version #4 later
today. It's 28 pages long and contains 9
illustrations. It's basically the version
that was turned down by Annals of Physics
on June 14.
I also put a "draft" copy of it on academia.edu.
It's never been on that site before, although
I've put "final" versions of my
other papers there. The oldest paper
I have on viXra.org is the May 31, 2015 version
of Time Dilation without Relativity.
I wrote some comments for this web site on that
date when I discovered viXra.org and decided to
start posting papers there. The oldest
paper I have on academia.edu is Time
Dilation Revisualized, which has that same
date. But academia.edu doesn't show prior
versions of papers. And a search through
my web site comments shows that I put my first
paper on academia.edu on July 18, 2015. I
haven't been paying much attention to
academia.edu, so I'm not totally sure how things
work there. I'll have to study it further
when I get some time.
June 25, 2017 -
On Friday afternoon, I submitted my revised
paper about Time Dilation to the scientific
journal Physics
in Perspective. On Saturday
morning, I received a rejection email telling me
that my paper didn't provide any historical
perspective on physics, so it was outside of the
scope of their journal. From my point of
view, the fact that scientists have seemed
unwilling to discuss Time Dilation with
mathematician-physicists for over 100 years is a
"historical perspective" that needs
discussion. But I didn't point that out in
my cover letter. All I did in my cover
letter was say I hoped they would find the
article worthy of publication.
Before submitting the paper to Physics in
Perspective, I made some revisions to the
paper, mostly just improving the
references. The
previous version included 8
references to articles from Physics Essays,
which was the first journal I tried and the one
that was ready to publish it when they notified
me that publication would cost me $508 to offset
printing costs, and I withdrew the paper.
In addition to replacing some references with
better references and removing 7 of the 8 Physics
Essays references, I changed the title of
the paper. When I submitted it to Physics
Essays, it was titled "Time Dilation
without Relativity." When I
submitted it to Physics in Perspective
it was titled "Science, Physics and the
Reality of Time Dilation." I'm
seriously considering just titling it "The
Reality of Time Dilation" when I submit it
the next time.
Physics in Perspective is a
journal someone recommended to me months
ago. I hadn't tried it earlier because it
is ranked #220 out of 227 physics journals
listed HERE,
and I had been trying to
work through that list from the top down.
So, once again neither one of my two scientific
papers is currently being reviewed
anywhere. But I've got new targets picked
for both papers. Unless I want to try a
Romanian, Russian or Chinese journal, the two
targets I've picked are the last ones I can find
in the top 100.
I'm really getting to detest the
research required to find a journal that isn't a
"by invitation only" journal, which doesn't
charge fees to publish, which doesn't have a
word maximum or minimum that eliminates my
papers, which doesn't require me to supply names
of reviewers, and which doesn't have a narrow
focus on some specific area of physics that
doesn't include what I wrote about.
I'd also really like to find some time to read
some of the books I've downloaded. But I
first need to find the time to organize
the books, so that I'll read the most likely to
be best ones first. I must have at least
100 books waiting to be browsed so
they can be prioritized, and there could easily
be over 150.
But, before I can organize those books I need to
get my two papers into the queue at some
journals. While waiting for the responses
I can do other things.
Oh yeah, one more problem: Formatting the papers
for submission. It seems that nearly every
journal has their own requirements about how the
papers they will accept are formatted, how
references are described, etc. I've
formatted papers using LaTex several times, and
I'd gotten pretty good at it. Then,
yesterday, when I tried to figure out how to
format it for the journal where I wanted to send
my Time Dilation paper - moan! - there
were tremendous
differences. They appear to use LaTeX
features that no one else uses. I spent an
hour trying to figure out how to format the
References section before giving up for the
day. It looks like it's going to take a lot
of study.
But, it's not yet 9.a.m. and I've already
finished my Sunday comment, so I really have
nothing else to do all day.
Comments for Sunday, June
18, 2017, thru Saturday, June 24, 2017:
June 21,
2017 - I had planned to work on
submitting my papers to different journals
today. But something has been really
nagging at me, and I can't get it off my mind.
The best way to get a problem off my mind
is to clarify it, and the best way to clarify a
problem is to write it down. So, here
goes:
A couple days ago on the
Google Science, Physics & Relativity
discussion forum, I mentioned my problem
of not being able to figure out how Albert
Einstein arrived at his realization that Time
slowed down with velocity. The physicist
at Fermilab with whom I'd been arguing then
posted this:
I recommend: Taylor
and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
I did a quick search and found the
entire book "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin
Taylor and John Wheeler was available on-line
for free in various formats, including
searchable pdf format and Kindle format HERE.
So, I downloaded a searchable pdf copy and began
browsing. I found this on page 55:
Einstein’s Principle of Relativity says that
once the laws of physics have been established
in one free-float frame, they can be applied
without modification in any other free-float
frame. Both the mathematical form of the laws
of physics and the numerical values of basic
physical constants that these laws contain are
the same in every free-float frame. So far as
concerns the laws of physics, all free-float
frames are equivalent.
We can tell where we are on Earth by looking
out of the window. Where we are in the Milky
Way we can tell by the configuration of the
Big Dipper and other constellations. How fast
and in what direction we are going through the
larger framework of the universe we measure
with a set of microwave horns pointed to pick
up the microwave radiation streaming through
space from all sides. But now exclude all
information from outside. Screen out all
radiation from the heavens. Pull down the
window shade. Then do whatever experiment we
will on the movement and collision of
particles and the action of electric and
magnetic forces in whatever free-float frame
we please. We find not the slightest
difference in the fit to the laws of physics
between measurements made in one free-float
frame and those made in another. We arrive
at the Principle of Relativity in its
negative form:
No test of the laws of physics
provides any way whatsoever to
distinguish one free-float frame from another.
Okay. That's exactly what
I've been arguing. The LAWS
of nature are the same in all references
frames. Browsing further, I found this on
page 56:
Notice what the
Principle of Relativity does not say. It does
not say that the time between two events is
the same when measured from two different
free-float frames. Neither does it say
that space separation between the two events
is the same in the two frames. Ordinarily
neither time
nor space separations
are the same in the two frames.
And this on page 60:
Different values of some physical quantities
between the two frames? Yes, but identical
physical laws! For example, the relation
between the force acting on a particle and the
change in velocity per unit time of that
particle follows the same law in the
laboratory frame as in the rocket frame. The
force is not the same in the two frames.
Neither is the change in velocity per unit
time the same. But the law that relates force
and change of velocity per unit time is the
same in each of the two frames. All the laws
of motion are the same in the one free-float
frame as in the other.
Not only the laws of motion but also the laws
of electromagnetism and all other Laws of
physics hold as true in one free-float frame
as in any other such frame. This is what it
means to say, "No test of the laws of
physics provides any way whatsoever to
distinguish one free-float frame from
another." Deep in the laws of physics are numerical
values of fundamental physical constants,
such as the elementary charge on the
electron and the
speed of light.The values
of these constants must be the same as
measured in overlapping free-float frames in
relative motion; otherwise these frames
could be distinguished from one another and
the Principle of Relativity violated.
One basic physical constant appears in the
law's of electromagnetism: the speed of light
in a vacuum, c ~ 299,792,458 meters per
second. According to the Principle of
Relativity, this value must be the same in
all free-float frames in uniform relative
motion. Has observation checked this
conclusion? Yes, many experiments demonstrate
it daily and hourly in every
particle-accelerating facility on Earth.
Nevertheless, it has taken a long time for
people to become accustomed to the apparently
absurd idea that there can be one special
speed, the speed of light, that has the same
value measured in each of two overlapping
free-float frames in relative motion. Values of the speed of light as measured by
laboratory and by rocket observer turn out
identical.This
agreement has cast a new light on light.
Its speed rates no longer as a constant of
nature. Instead, today the
speed of light ranks as mere conversion factor
between the meter and the second, like the
factor of conversion from the centimeter to
the meter.
So, the
speed of light is NOT a "constant of
nature." That's
what I have been saying. It is the same
in every reference frame, but it is different
if you compare one frame to another.
The book goes on say it again a different way on
page 61, stating that the speed of light MUST
be the same in every reference frame in order
for the LAWS of nature to be the same in every
reference frame.
Then, on page 64, the authors write this about
"the train paradox":
For the observer
standing on the ground, the two lightning
bolts strike the front and back of the train
at the same time. Therefore for him the
distance between the char marks on the track
constitutes a valid measure of the length
of the train. In contrast, the
observer riding on the train measures the
front lightning bolt to strike first, the rear
bolt later. The rider on the train exclaims to
her Earth-based colleague, “See here! Your
front mark was made before the back mark —
since the flash from the front reached me (at
the middle of the train) before the flash from
the back reached me. Of course the train moved
during the time lapse between these two
lightning strikes. By the time the stroke fell
at the back of the train, the front of the
train had moved well past the front char mark
on the track. Therefore your measurement of
the length of the train is too small. The
train is really longer than you measured.”
Okay. Right away I see I
misunderstood something about Einstein's train
and embankment diagram:
I thought that points A and B in
the Einstein diagram were just the points where
the two bolts of lightning struck, but now I
realize they are also the location
of the front and rear of the train at the
time of the lightning strikes.
Einstein didn't clearly and specifically state
that. Looking back at it now, I see he
phrased it this way:
Then every event which
takes place along the line also takes place at
a particular point of the train.
But I didn't get the
connection. And now I still do not fully
"get" the connection between time and
length/distance. I can see that physicists
measure a meter as being the distance light
travels in one second. The book says on
page 59:
Today the meter is
defined as the distance light travels in a
vacuum in the fraction 1/299,792,458 of a
cesium-defined second.
And, for some reason that will
take me some more time to figure out, the person
on the train is saying that meter is longer than
that, therefore a second is longer.
The way I understand things, a second is longer
on the moving train because the atomic particles
which make up the train (and which are the cause
of time) are spinning slower. They're
spinning slower because they have
to spin slower because their lateral motion
combined with their speed of spin is restricted
by the maximum speed of light (and spin and
matter).
I think I can see what Einstein was saying, but
I still cannot explain how he could determine
the existence of Time Dilation that way. I
need to study it further. It appears to be
a mathematical conclusion that does not relate
to reality, which Einstein expressed this
way:
and this way:
So, as long as I continue to view
things the way an analyst
or scientist would view things, I
may never be able to understand how a
mathematician views the same things.
But, I'll continue to try.
Obviously the mathematicians' view is
wrong. And Einstein's logic may have also
been wrong, even though he came up with
the right answers. Scientists knew next to
nothing about particles in 1905, so Einstein was
working with what he knew and had available to
him. Did he actually believe the length of
the train would change, or was it only his way
of explaining things?
Now I understand why I keep reading that no
experiment has ever even remotely confirmed that
objects change their length in
accordance with Time Dilation when moving or
when they are at different
altitudes. It makes no sense
whatsoever. How does "Nature" know the
"length" of a cube if it is tumbling through
space at half the speed of light? How does
she know which way to reduce the "length" of a
spinning iron ball when the cause of Time
Dilation is gravity? And research
indicates that the logic seems to say that
the length of the moving object, like the length
of the train, will only "appear"
to be "foreshortened." That probably helps
to foster the invalid notion that Time Dilation
is not real.
June 20,
2017 - Groan!
At the moment, I have no papers
being reviewed by any journals. And I
don't have any specific journals selected as
targets for my next attempts to get my papers
published. Plus, instead of working on
those papers and researching physics journals to
target, I've been arguing for two solid days on
Google's
Science, Physics & Relativity discussion
forum.
This morning it all turned into personal attacks
and insults, so I've given up on that forum once
again - for awhile. But, before it all
turned to personal attacks, there were some very
interesting arguments. As usual, no one on
the forum provided any new information, but in
the process of arguing against their beliefs and
posing questions to ask them, I came to realize
some things I'd never noticed before. One
realization stands out. In one of the
arguments, I quoted from Albert Einstein's book
"Relativity:
The Special and General Theory."
This is from Chapter 9:
We
were led to that conflict by the
considerations of [Chapter] 6, which are
now no longer tenable. In that section we
concluded that the man in the carriage,
who traverses the distance w per
second relative
to the carriage, traverses the same distance
also with respect to the embankment in each second of
time. But, according to the foregoing
considerations, the time required by a
particular occurrence with respect to the
carriage must not be considered equal to
the duration of the same occurrence as
judged from the embankment (as
reference-body). Hence it cannot be
contended that the man in walking
travels the distance w relative to the
railway line in a time which is equal to
one second as judged from the
embankment.
In the part of the quote I
highlighted inbold red,
Einstein is clearly saying that one second for
the man walking on the moving train is not
equal to one second for someone standing on the
embankment next to the moving train.
I quoted that passage in response to this claim
by a Fermilab physicist:
The definition of a
second does not change with frame, and _IS_
the same in every frame. "Time dilation" is
NOT about "the length of a second varying" or
a "clock tick rate varying" -- it is about the
GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION involved in making the
measurement.
How does a
"geometrical projection" make it appear that the
length of a second is different in every "frame"
when it really isn't? The Fermilab physicist
could not or would not explain himself, of
course. It seems he was just reciting
memorized phrases he learned somewhere.
If I were to ask him to explain, he would just
tell me I am too dumb to understand.
So, I still need to figure out for myself how
Einstein arrived at that conclusion. The
biggest problem is Einstein's method of
explaining. Here is his definition of
"time" from Chapter 8 of his book:
We are thus led also to a definition of
"time" in physics. For this purpose we
suppose that clocks of identical
construction are placed at the points A, B
and C of the railway line (co-ordinate
system) and that they are set in such a
manner that the positions of their pointers
are simultaneously (in the above sense)
the same. Under these conditions we
understand by the " time " of an event the
reading (position of the hands) of that one
of these clocks which is in the immediate
vicinity (in space) of the event. In this
manner a time-value is associated with every
event which is essentially capable of
observation.
This stipulation contains a further physical
hypothesis, the validity of which will
hardly be doubted without empirical evidence
to the contrary. It has been assumed that
all these clocks go at the same rate if they
are of identical construction. Stated more
exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in
different places of a reference-body are set
in such a manner that a particular position
of the pointers of the one clock is
simultaneous (in the above sense) with the
same position, of the pointers of the other
clock, then identical "settings" are always
simultaneous (in the sense of the above
definition).
That's the end of the chapter,
except for this footnote:
We suppose further,
that, when three events A, B and C occur in
different places in such a manner that A is
simultaneous with B and B is simultaneous with
C (simultaneous in the sense of the above
definition), then the criterion for the
simultaneity of the pair of events A, C is
also satisfied. This assumption is a physical
hypothesis about the the of propagation of
light: it must certainly be fulfilled if we
are to maintain the law of the constancy of
the velocity of light in vacuo.
So, what is his
"definition of 'time'?" There's got to be
a shorter way to explain it! And when he
says "in the sense of the above definition," you
get the feeling that in some other more
important sense the "definition" he
just provided (whatever it is) would not be
valid.
I think he's simply saying that "time" is what
is defined by identical clocks that are all
synchronous when they are working properly in
the same location. Therefore,
"simultaneous events" means events which occur
at the same time as shown on these identical
clocks.
Which leads me to ask: "Okay. So
what?" The next chapter is about "The
Simultaneity of Relativity" and has nothing to
do with Time Dilation.
Sigh. Is Einstein relating Time to
the speed of light? How can he if he
claims there is a "law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo"?
Of course, I've been saying that two different
observers, one moving and one stationary, will both
measure the speed of light to be the same in
their frames of reference, because the length
of a second is different in each
frame of reference due to Time Dilation.
And that means the speed of light is actually different
in the two frames of reference.
For all I know (and I think it is the case),
Einstein and I could be saying the same thing,
just using different words and different
situations. But, I cannot get his
explanations to fit with my explanations.
Hmm. I just noticed that a few minutes ago
the Fermilab physicist posted a very long
response to something I wrote. And he
argues the same thing over and over:
YOU just don't read
the experiments and understand HOW THEY WERE
ACTUALLY PERFORMED. NONE of them measure
what you claim -- they do NOT compare clocks'
tick rates, they
compare one clock to SIGNALS from the other
clock.
and
By repeatedly ignoring
ESSENTIAL aspects of these experiment you have
confused yourself. The
ENTIRE effect is in the SIGNALS AND HOW THEY
ARE MEASURED, not in the clocks.
and
The other experiments
ALL compare one clock to SIGNALS FROM ANOTHER CLOCK.
And the physics PURELY AFFECTS THE SIGNALS AND HOW THEY ARE
MEASURED, not the clocks. In EACH of
these experiments, the clocks all tick at the
same rate, but the
MEASUREMENTS involve SIGNALS which affect
the results.
I repeat: to measure a
clock's tick rate you MUST have the
clock
sitting right next to the measuring
instrument. NONE
of
these experiments did that, they ALL used
SIGNALS.
and
Yes, many of these authors wrote
papers which were not careful to distinguish
between "effects on the
clocks" and the actual effects on the
SIGNALS they used. But SR and
GR are quite clear on this (signals are
affected, clocks are not);
So, none of the Time Dilation
experiments worked the way the scientists who
performed the experiments said they
worked. Only the Fermilab physicist knows
the truth: that it was some kind of "signals"
that just made it appear that
clocks ran slow. What are these
signals? I've tried to get him to explain,
but he just says I'm too dumb to understand (and
apparently so are all the scientists who
performed the experiments).
Sigh. I need to focus on getting my
papers published and stop getting distracted by
the unresolveable opinion-based arguments on
that Google forum.
June 18, 2017 -
Today is another one of those Sundays where I
have nothing prepared to post here as my "Sunday
comment." So, I'm going to have to write
something from scratch.
If Einstein's
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false,
modern physics is pseudoscience (true science
was killed in 1905).
Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light
postulate false? Of course, this is obvious.
Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses
equally distanced from one another. A
stationary observer (receiver) measures the
frequency:
The observer starts moving with constant
speed towards the light source and measures
the frequency again:
Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally
confirmed): The moving observer measures the
frequency to be higher.
Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula (measured
frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative
to the observer)/(distance between the
pulses) is correct.
Conclusion: The speed of the pulses
relative to the moving observer is higher than
relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed
of light varies with the speed of the
observer, in violation of Einstein's
relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Of course, this is NOT a violation of
Einstein's relativity, it is exactly
what Einstein's relativity says is true.
It is a violation of the "Mathematicians' All
Observers Theory." It is the
"Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" which
claims that the speed of light is the same for
all observers.
The thread contained 6 messages by 4 different
authors when I posted mine as message #7,
telling Pentcho Valev that he got things
backwards. It was the first time I'd posted a
message to that forum in about a month. A
hullabaloo ensued. This
morning it has 71 messages by 16 different
authors, about 18 more messages than when I
signed off last night. None are from
Pentcho Valev. From what I've seen in the
past, Pentcho Valev just endlessly posts his
beliefs and rarely if ever reads the responses.
A lot of the overnight discussion is just people
calling other people names, but I see a post
from a physicist at FermiLab that is addressed
to me, so I'm going to have to respond to
that. But, I'm also going to have to break
off from the discussion pretty soon, so that I
can get back to work on revisions to my Time
Dilation paper. I must have spent at
least an hour yesterday trying to track down a
reference. And I still haven't found it.
The short answer is that it depends on who is
doing the measuring:
the speed of light is only guaranteed to
have a value of 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum
when measured by someone situated right next
to it.
Editors generally do not like references that
are web sites, so I searched around and found
the same thing was stated in a book "Velocity
of Light and Radio Waves" by K. D.
Froome and L. Essen. But, I failed to note
the page the statement was on. I don't
have a copy of that book, so I have to find the
page number by doing a search for the statement
via Google. But that requires knowing or
finding the exact wording.
Hmm. Just now, while I was typing this
comment, I received an email from Studies
in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,
the academic journal where I'd submitted my
paper on Einstein's Second Postulate. They
turned it down. It wasn't just a "not
suitable" turn-down, they specified some reasons
for turning it down. They said it lacked
"technical rigour." And they said that I
needed to support my arguments by providing
the mathematical equations that would replace
the mathematical equations used by
mathematicians if my claims were true.
And they argued the same argument that Pentcho
Valev argued, that it was Einstein who
argued what I say the mathematicians are
arguing. So, they missed the whole point
of my paper: logic does not agree with the
"Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."
They also want me to provide a mathematical
argument. I have no way of doing that.
Sigh. I think that's enough
commenting for today.
Comments for Sunday, June
11, 2017, thru Saturday, June 17, 2017:
June 15,
2017 - I've been complaining
about not having a clue as to how the
publication process works for scientific
journals, and I've been writing here about how
I've been bumbling around in the dark just
experimenting with submissions to see what
happens. I've been looking for advice on
how to best do things, but the only "advice"
I've gotten is from the mathematicians on Google's
Science, Physics and Relativity discussion
forum who tell me I'm just too stupid to
understand anything and that I should give
up.
I didn't fail to notice that someone gave me
some advice yesterday. So, yesterday
afternoon, I decided to take that physics
journal editor's suggestion, and I submitted my paper
on Einstein's Second Postulate to an academic
journal. It was relatively easy to do,
even though it meant creating a new LaTex
type-set version. The academic
journal is owned by the same company that owns
the physics journal I tried, so it uses
the same LaTeX code. All I had to do was
change the name of the journal and add the
paragraph I wanted to include about Einstein's
book Relativity: The Special and General
Theory, which shows that Einstein
directly contradicts the "Mathematicians' All
Observers Theory."
I finished the changes and submitted the paper
via the journal's web site just before supper
last night. This morning, its status is
"with editor."
This morning, I also checked the
rankings for such academic journals and
found that the journal that has my paper is
ranked in the top 50, but there are only 128
journals on the ranking list. I have no
clue what the rankings really mean, and the
paper is already submitted, so I'm just going to
try to focus on getting my paper
on Time Dilation ready to submit somewhere
else.
Busy busy busy.
June 14,
2017 - There are three reasons
for skipping a few days without writing a
comment for this web site: (1) I have nothing
new or interesting to say, (2) I can't find the
time to write a comment because I'm just
overwhelmed with things to do, and (3) I'm
overwhelmed with things to do, but they wouldn't
be of interest to anyone but me. I imagine
that reading about someone trying to get a
scientific paper published is like watching
paint dry. There's nothing interesting
about it if you are not the person who is trying
to get a paper published.
This morning, I received a rejection email from
the physics journal to which I'd sent my paper
about Einstein's Second Postulate. They
turned it down without saying there was anything
wrong with the paper. The editor simply
wrote: "I have come to the conclusion that [our
journal] is not the appropriate journal for
publication of your work." The email was
from the Managing Editor, not the Editor in
Chief (who is a well-known physics professor and
author). On the positive side, he
suggested a different journal for me to
try. However, it is an academic
journal, not a science or physics
journal. That poses the question: If
physics professors are teaching crap because it
is what physicists believe to be true, is that a
teaching problem or a physics
problem? I submitted the paper to a
journal for physics teachers, the American
Journal of Physics(AJP),
back on April 19. It was rejected the next
day because
Manuscripts
that question well-established physical
principles are outside the purview of AJPand should be submitted to a more
specialized journal for consideration.
But, the journal that was
recommended might be different. I'll have
to research it.
Meanwhile, yesterday I received the final
chapter for the book I've been proof-reading for
a scientist acquaintance of mine. That
took a couple hours of my time, but it was an
interesting read, and I'm anxiously awaiting the
publication of the book, which is tentatively
scheduled for October.
And, of course, while all that was going on I've
been trying to figure out how to revise my paper
on Time Dilation to incorporate some of
the things I've learned since I wrote it.
And then I have to find another journal to try
with that paper.
Busy busy busy. I just wish I didn't feel
like I'm bumbling around in the dark. Is
there some simple method to determine which
journals are right for my papers? If there
is, I have no clue as to what that method might
be.
June 11, 2017 -
Two days ago, I received a spam email from
Amazon.com that was fairly interesting.
When I access their web site to browse a book,
they must record my IP address and what books I
looked at. Then they sometimes send me an
email suggesting I buy the book I looked at, or
that I might want to buy some other book that is
similar in some way.
On Friday, they sent an unusually long email
listing 8 books that they somehow
determined might be of interest to me:
Surprisingly, I was unaware of most of those
books, and they are of
significant interest to me. Moreover, when
I looked for other books by the same authors, I
found six more that might be of equal or even
greater interest:
Now I just have to find the time to read
them. ("The Road to Reality" is
1,123 pages in pdf format!)
It doesn't look like any of them argue that the
mathematicians are claiming things to be true
that experiments undeniably and demonstrably
prove to be false. The books seem to focus
on the concepts that mathematicians have
dreamed up (like String Theory) which have no
"real" aspects to them, and thus no one can use
experiments to prove them to be either real or
false. They are "non-falsifiable" ideas
and therefore non-scientific.
However, a quick browse of Smolin's "The
Trouble With Physics" finds that Chapter 1
is titled "The Five Great Problems of
Theoretical Physics," and there is an
explanation starting on page 8 of one of the
main "problems" with Quantum Mechanics.
That problem is that Quantum Mechanics doesn't
relate to reality. Quantum Mechanics
assumes the universe would not exist if we were
not around to observe it.
On page 7 it says,
Since quantum theory was first
proposed, a debate has raged between those who
accept this way of doing science and those who
reject it. Many of the founders of
quantum mechanics, including Einstein, Erwin
Shrödinger, and Louis de Broglie, found this
approach to to physics repugnant. They
were realists. For them quantum
theory, no matter how well it worked, was
not a complete theory, because it did not
provide a picture of reality absent our
interaction with it. On the other
side were Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and
many others. Rather than being appalled,
they embraced this new way of doing science.
The first of the 5 problems with Theoretical
Physics is the well-known problem that General
Relativity is not compatible with Quantum
Mechanics. The second problem is that
quantum mechanics does not relate to
reality. On page 8 it says:
This whole issue goes under the
name the foundational problems of quantum
mechanics. It is the second great
problem of contemporary physics.
Problem 2: Resolve the
problems in the foundations of quantum
mechanics, either by making sense of the
theory as it stands or by inventing a new
theory that does make
sense.
Lee Smolin suggests several ways the problem
might be solved, and then he says near the top
of page 9 (with my highlighting):
There are unfortunately not many
physicists who work on this problem. This
is sometimes taken as an indication that the
problem is either solved or unimportant.
Neither is true. This
is probably the most serious problem
facing modern science.
What amazes me is that
mathematician-physicists do not seem to care
that what they believe can be easily
demonstrated to be false.
They do not care that their beliefs can
be disproved. That
is what my paper
about Einstein's Second Postulate is all
about. It describes the many experiments
which conclusively disprove the
mathematicians' screwball beliefs about the
speed of light.
Browsing through Unzicker's "Bankrupting
Physics," I found this in the last
paragraph of the Prologue:
While completing my German
manuscript, I discovered Sheilla Jones’s The
Quantum Ten, an excellent history of
quantum mechanics. What really impressed
me was how persuasively she explained the
way modern theoretical physics has gone
astray since the late 1920s.
So, of course, I had to find a copy of "The
Quantum Ten." Browsing through
it, I found this on page 5:
At this point, it’s worth adding
some clarity to the terms physicists use to
talk about quantum science. They often treat
the phrases “quantum mechanics,” “quantum
theory” and “quantum physics” as if they were
interchangeable, which they are not.
Throughout this book, “quantum mechanics” is
defined as the set of rules for how the
physics and mathematics are used to make
testable predictions; these rules have been
used to unparalleled fruitfulness since their
development in the 1920s. “Quantum theory”
is defined as the explanation for why the
quantum world behaves the way it does; this
exercise is still fraught with controversy.
“Quantum physics” is the whole package—the
mechanics and the theory.
So, I and everyone else really should be
talking about the problem with "Quantum Theory,"
not any problem with "Quantum Mechanics."
Live and learn.
I'm wondering if I should re-write my Time
Dilation paper to do the same thing with
it as I did with my paper on Einstein's Second
Postulate: compare theories. Time Dilation
is a real phenomenon, but
mathematician-physicists insist on arguing that
it is just an "illusion." I wasn't aware
of the "foundational problems of quantum
mechanics" when I wrote the paper. I was
simply wondering why more people weren't looking
into the implications of Time
Dilation being real after it had been proven
real in so many experiments.
Maybe I'll submit the paper to another journal
as it is currently written and, while waiting to
see what happens, I'll revise it and give it a
new title, something like "An Analysis of the
Two Conflicting Theories of Time Dilation."
On the one side we have all the scientists who
do experiments which undeniably prove that Time
Dilation is real, and on the other side we have
mathematician-physicists who continue to argue
that Time Dilation is just an "illusion" because
their equations cannot deal with reality -
particularly reality that involves cause and
effect.
Yesterday, I wondered what science
journals have to say about the subject of Time
Dilation. I've mostly read what physics
journals have to say. First I looked to
see how
science journals are ranked. There
are 274 journals in the "Earth
and Planetary Sciences" category.
Most are journals I never heard of before, and
very few seem even remotely likely to have an
interest in an article about Time
Dilation. Then I tried viewing those in
the "Space
and Planetary Science" field and found 97
journals, mostly in astrophysics. Time
Dilation should be of interest to
astrophysicists, but they probably don't care
about any controversy between what science says
and what physicists say. Sigh.
It's as Lee Smolin said, "There
are unfortunately not many physicists who work
on this problem."
I'll continue researching. Maybe I'll find
the right journal somewhere.
Comments for Sunday, June
4, 2017, thru Saturday, June 10, 2017:
June 9,
2017 - Nuts! Back on May
15, I submitted my paper "Time
Dilation without Relativity" to Foundations
of Physics, a scientific
journal that publishes monthly. They just
turned down the paper for no specific
reason. The rejection they sent me appears
to be a form-letter-type email listing various
general reasons they turn down manuscripts and
then saying,
the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.
It's frustrating to be turned
down after the paper was accepted
by Physics
Essays before I learned that it
would cost me $508 to publish there, and I
withdrew the article.
So, I'm going to have to find another journal to
try. Someone recommended a journal that
publishes controversial articles like mine, but
it is very low ranked. I think it's better
if I just work my way down the
ranking list.
One high-ranked journal I checked out this
morning only publishes on-line. I've set
my goal on getting published in a journal that
publishes paper copies. So, I can come
back to that one later if I change my mind.
Another high-ranked journal, Advances
in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics,
requires that the article be
placed on arXiv.org first. I can't do
that. ArXiv.org not only turned down my
paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, they
pretty much turned down any other paper I might
write by stating that they require that I be "a
professional scientist," that I already have
some published articles, and that I have some
affiliation with a scientific institution.
The only other journal in the top 50 (out
of 227) that seems to be applicable is the
journal where my article on Einstein's Second
Postulate is being considered. I don't
think I should try submitting my Time Dilation
paper to that journal until I find out what they
think about the Second Postulate paper.
So, it appears I need to hunt through 51-100
group for the right journal to try next.
June 8,
2017 - Hmm. This morning I
used Google
to translate the English word "space" into
German, and I got "Platz." That wasn't
what I expected, and I recognized the German
word "Platz" from when I was studying
German. So I used Google
to translate the German word "Platz" into
English and I got "place," which was what I
remembered. However, when I
translated the English word "place" into German,
I got "Ort." And "Ort" also translates to
"place."
It still have a large
English-German/German-English dictionary on one
of my bookshelves. So, I opened it and
looked for the English word "space." In
the dictionary, the equivalent German word is
"raum" which means "room" as in "having enough
room (or space) to fit something into."
"Space capsule" is "Raumkapsel." "Spaceman" is
"Raumfahrer." There is no German
equivalent of "space-time" provided, but the
English phrase "to launch a rocket into space"
translates to "eine Rakete in den Raum
schiessen."
I found a German-language copy of Einstein's
book and then located a spot in the book where
the term "space-time" is first used. It's
in Chapter 11. In the English version it
says:
This question leads to
a quite definite positive answer, and to a
perfectly definite transformation law for the
space-time
magnitudes of an event when changing over from
one body of reference to another.
And in the original German that
sentence reads as:
Diese Frage führt zu
einer bejahenden, ganz bestimmten Antwort, zu
einem ganz bestimmten Verwandlungsgesetz für
die Raum-Zeit-Größen
eines Ereignisses beim Ubergang von einem
Bezugskörper zu einem anderen.
So, "Raum-Zeit" is the German
version of "space-time." "Room-Time" doesn't
have any more meaning than "space-time" when
trying to figure out what Einstein was
saying. There doesn't seem to be
any German word for "location." Yet,
"location-time" fits with the rest of the book
(and with experiments) which are about how Time
can be different in different
locations.
Now I have to figure out how
Einstein determined via
logic and gedanken (thought
experiments) that Time can be different in
different locations depending upon how fast
those locations are moving.
June 7,
2017 - Since most arguments I've
had with mathematicians are not
about the abundant experimental
evidence which shows
they are wrong, but are instead about whether or
not Albert Einstein's Second Postulate is what I
claim it is, I decided to read Einstein's book "Relativity:
The Special and General Theory."
I'd browsed through it before,
doing highlighting and making some notes, but
this time I was determined to read it thoroughly
and carefully (at least the first half of it,
the part about Special Relativity).
First published in December 1916, the book
begins with this:
The present book is
intended, as far as possible, to give an exact
insight into the theory of Relativity to those
readers who, from a general scientific and
philosophical point of view, are interested
in the theory, but who are not conversant
with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work
presumes a standard of education corresponding
to that of a university matriculation
examination, and, despite the shortness of the
book, a fair amount of patience and force of
will on the part of the reader.
In other words, it is not
written for mathematicians.
Another important factor for me was the fact
that it is available for free on the
Internet. I had downloaded a couple
163-page pdf versions from somewhere back in
October of last year, browsing through one of
them at that time. When I started
organizing my collection of books and papers a
couple months ago, I found I had two identical
copies, so I deleted one of them.
Yesterday, I saw that there was also 115-page
pdf version on-line at marxists.org.
And I also saw that there was a 56-page pdf
version on line at gutenberg.org.
It wasn't until this afternoon that I discovered
that my 163-page version and Gutenberg's 56-page
both originated with the marxist.org
version. (They all have the same contents,
just different font sizes and different widths
to their pages.) The
Gutenberg version seems to have corrected
some typos that are in the other versions, but
it's annoying to read because the pages are so
wide.
Anyway, this morning I finished reading the
first 18 of the 32 chapters. That's
probably all I'll read for now, since those
chapters are about Special Relativity and the
remaining chapters are mostly about General
Relativity.
So far, I've found nothing that
disagrees with my interpretation of Einstein's
Second Postulate, I only found things that
disagree with the mathematicians'
interpretation. Most notably, on page 21
of the
Gutenberg version it refers to
the yearly movement of
the apparent position of the fixed stars
resulting from the motion of the earth round
the sun (aberration), and to the influence of
the radial components of the relative motions
of the fixed stars with respect to the earth
on the colour of the light reaching us from
them. The latter effect manifests itself in a
slight displacement of the spectral lines of
the light transmitted to us from a fixed star,
as compared with the position of the same
spectral lines when they are produced by a
terrestrial source of light (Doppler
principle).
In other words, we on Earth are
"moving observers" watching the light from those
stars arrive at c + v (where v
is our orbital speed) at the point in our orbit
around the sun where we are moving toward the
star, and at c - v six months
later in the orbit, when we are moving away from
the star. It is usually called "the annual
Doppler shift," and refer to in my paper on the
Second Postulate.
On page 12 of the
Gutenberg version, Einstein describes a
situation that can be illustrated as below:
If lightning bolts strike points A and B at
exactly the same time according to an observer
sitting at point M, which is equidistant from A
and B, the sitting observer will see and measure
that the lightning strikes occurred
simultaneously.
If, however, there is an observer at point M who
is moving at high speed toward point B and away
from point A when the two lightning bolts
strike, the moving observer will see and measure
the lighting strike from point B arriving first
and then the strike from point A. He will
be rushing to meet the oncoming light (c
+ v) from point B while rushing away
from the following light (c - v)
from point A. That is also in direct
conflict with the "Mathematicians' All Observers
Theory" which says that light will travel at the
same speed for all observers.
The biggest problem I have with the book is that
it is horribly
written, and the translation wasn't the best
(besides being translated from German into
British English instead of American
English). It's horribly written because it
seems to spend a hundred words to describe
something when ten words would have done much
better. Plus, it is like asking someone to
tell you how to get to New York City and having
him respond with a long description of the route
the original explorers took who first visited
that location. If I want to know about
"Relativity," I don't necessarily want to know
about all the previous theories which had some
connection to Relativity but didn't describe it
accurately. And I don't want to know about
all the possible problems I could encounter if I
do not take the best route.
Plus, it seems that either as a result of bad
translating or because Einstein wanted to do it
for some reason, Einstein uses the word
"space" to mean "distance." When he
writes about "space," he's not writing about the
empty nothingness between the Earth and Mars,
he's talking about the distance between two
marks made on the floor of your living
room. It's about coordinates. So, it
appears that when he's writing about
"space-time" he is really writing about
"distance-time."
On page 9 of the
Gutenberg version, Einstein describes the
"de
Sitter double star experiment" in a way I
never saw before. De Sitter found that the
light coming from a rotating double star that
was moving toward the Earth did not arrive at c
+ v where v is the speed of the
star. It arrived at c whether the
star was coming toward us or going away from us.
(There is no moving observer involved.)
The way Einstein describes the experiment, it
showed him (Einstein) that "all light travels at
the same speed." Although its
wavelength is longer, red light does NOT
travel at a slower speed than blue light.
Both travel at the same speed. If they
didn't, in the double star experiment, where the
bright star is periodically hidden by a dark
body star, the light from the star when it comes
out from behind the dark body would first be
seen as all blue and then gradually turn to all
red or violet because the blue light would
arrive first at the Earth. That is
absolutely fascinating and something I'll
probably be able to use in an argument someday.
The biggest problem I have with the book is the
way it goes about describing Time
Dilation. The word "dilation" isn't used
in the book, of course, just as it wasn't used
in the
1905 paper that introduced the concept.
Instead, the book is all about different
coordinates in different locations and how they
appear to different observers. I'm
going to have to see if I can turn several
thousand words of description into a few
sentences that say the same thing while making
it clear how Time Dilation works. But, I
have to really understand what Einstein wrote
before I can do that.
Meanwhile, I'm pondering the idea of writing a
paper about how light works. I just need
to thoroughly understand how light works first -
before I can write the paper. I think the
question "Is light a particle or a wave?" is
answerable.
June 5,
2017 - Hmm. Looking at my
web site logs, I see that this web site got a
lot of visitors via Facebook last night,
starting at about 8:45 p.m. Central Time.
But I've received no notification that anyone
posted anything to my threads on Facebook, nor
did anyone mention me by name using my Facebook
link. It seems that someone on Facebook
posted a link to this web site and a lot of
people clicked on that link. I can't tell
who or where they are, only that they came to my
site via Facebook. So, if they are
reading this message, maybe they'll click on
my name link so that I can track things back
to a Facebook comment and figure out what is
going on.
Meanwhile, this morning I discovered that
I had already read "Farewell
to Reality" by Jim Baggott. I
have it on my Kindle, and I wrote a comment
about finishing reading it on October
23, 2016. I also created a 9-page
.docx file of the passages I highlighted in the
Kindle version. It includes some of the
passages I highlighted in the pdf version
yesterday and the day before.
Back in October of 2016, I was still trying to
finish my paper on Time
Dilation without Relativity. I
was looking at things from a different angle
back then. I was focused on Time Dilation,
not on the bizarre misinterpretation of
Einstein's Second Postulate that mathematicians
have created.
I was on page 71 of the 221 page pdf file for "Farewell
to Reality" when I realized\discovered I'd
read it before. But, the second read was
worthwhile. It made me realize one
thing: While I have had a lifelong LOVE
for science, I have almost NO
interest in physics. Here's a definition
of "physics":
the branch of
science concerned with the nature and
properties of matter and energy. The subject
matter of physics, distinguished from that
of chemistry and biology, includes
mechanics, heat, light and other radiation,
sound, electricity, magnetism, and the
structure of atoms.
I really have only two interests
that relate to physics: how does Time work? and
how does light work? My paper on Time
Dilation describes my understanding of how Time
works. But, I still have a lot
of questions about how light works. One
thing that re-reading Baggott's book did for me
was to identify some points about light which I
need to clarify before I can be confident that I
understand it well enough to write about it in a
scientific paper.
In the pdf version of Baggott's book, I
highlighted this passage on page 67, which I
didn't highlight in the Kindle version:
Light travelling
towards a gravitating object will be blueshifted
as the effects of gravity grow stronger.
Doesn't that mean that nearly all
light coming from distant stars will be BLUEshifted
when viewed here on Earth? Is there any
evidence of this? Isn't the Big Bang
Theory based upon the observation that nearly
all light reaching Earth from distant galaxies
is REDshifted? Wouldn't Baggott's
statement mean that the Hubble will view stars
far less blueshifted than a telescope on Earth?
Here's another passage from page 65 of the pdf
file that I didn't highlight when I read the
Kindle version:
In an elevator that is
rapidly accelerating upwards, a beam of light
emitted from one side of the elevator would
strike the other side slightly lower down,
because in the time it takes for the light to
travel from one side to the other, the
elevator has moved upwards.
The author doesn't seem to realize
that statement (which I believe is correct) is
in direct conflict with something he wrote on
page 61 where he describes a "light clock" which
has a beam of light going straight up and down
(which I believe is incorrect) as viewed by
someone on an imaginary train traveling at more
than half the speed of light.
Here's something I wrote about Baggott's book in
my Oct. 23, 2016 comment:
The author wrote a lot
of things with which I would tend to agree,
but he also says a few things with which I do
not fully agree. And sometimes we are in
total disagreement.
That's the same opinion I have
now.
I'm not sure if I'm going to finish my second
read of Baggott's book or not. Probably
not. At least not right now. What I
read in the first 4 chapters has made me see
that there's something I need to research.
Baggott (like Paul Marmet) claims that Einstein
said things that I do not think Einstein
said. And I think the disagreement stems
from what seems to be our totally different
views about Time Dilation. They view Time
Dilation as a reciprocal "illusion" where I see
time for you going slower than time for me, and
you see time for me going slower than time for
you. I say, and the experimental
evidence says, that if I see time going
slower for you than for me, you will agree
with that observation, because Time dilation is
REAL, not a
reciprocal "illusion." Baggott's and
Marmet's claims about what Einstein said appears
to be based upon what I consider to be their misunderstandings
of Time Dilation.
I'm pretty certain I understand how Time
works, but I definitely need to clarify my
thoughts about how light works.
That is where I disagree with Baggott and Marmet
(and nearly all the mathematician-physicists in
the world). I don't see how they can
possibly be right, but I don't understand the
subject well enough for me to use experimental
evidence to show exactly where they are wrong.
June 4, 2017 -
While I still seem to be downloading and saving
at least one book every day as a byproduct of
the research I'm doing, and I'm still a long way
from completely organizing my folder of
scientific books and articles, I've decided I
need to start reading some of the
books I've found. On Thursday, I read what
I could of Paul Marmet's book "Absurdities
in Modern Physics: A Solution":
Published by Éditions du
Nordir on January 1, 1993, the
hardcover version for sale on Amazon.com for
$42.24 consists of only 144 pages. There's no
"Look Inside" option, so I can't tell what the
size of the print is, but it's probably fairly
large. The version that I read is the
version that is on-line at Paul Marmet's web
site HERE.
It doesn't contain chapters 5, 6 and 7 and says
that those chapters were "removed by the
author." The Preface, Chapters 1 through 4
and Chapter 8 are on the site in .html
format. I wanted to do highlighting and
make notes, so I copied each chapter and
converted it to pdf format before saving it in a
folder in my computer. The Preface
consists of 3 pages, Chapter 1 = 16 pages,
Chapter 2 = 9 pages, Chapter 3 = 15 pages,
Chapter 4 = 6 pages, and Chapter 8 = 4
pages, which comes to a total of 53 pages.
That's not a very large "book," but it was an extremely
interesting read. In fact, I highlighted
more than half of the Preface, and probably a
third of Chapters 1 and 4. For example, I
highlighted this from the first page of my pdf
file for the Preface:
When we deal with physics, we
must ask: Do rules other than the ones
imposed by mathematical logic exist? Yes,
there are in physics some elements that do
not exist in mathematics. Physics deals with
concepts such as mass, length, time and
energy. These concepts correspond in our
mind to images different from the ones
represented by mathematical relations. They
have a different representation in our mind
because they must be submitted to external
tests. They have to
comply with observational results. There
is no equivalence in mathematics. A
mathematical demonstration never implies
any experimentation.
Mathematics simply deals with the calculation
of relations between those concepts.
And I highlighted this from page 2 of the
Preface:
Mathematics
allows the calculation of things that
cannot exist. Here are some examples.
Physically, it does not make sense to
consider negative or imaginary masses
although mathematics can calculate them.
and this:
We also
try to find a cause for any physical
phenomenon. However, the physical cause of
the phenomenon is irrelevant in
mathematics.
That last one above was really important to
me, since it fitted with what a reviewer
suggested I mention in my paper on Time
Dilation without Relativity. How can
any scientist ignore cause and
effect? Answer: a scientist
can't, but a mathematician can.
Here's part of a discussion I had on the Google
Science, Physics & Relativity forum:
Me: If A = B,
then B = A. In REAL LIFE, things are NOT
reciprocal. There is CAUSE AND EFFECT.
Other guy: Cause and effect
have nothing to do with relativity, so this is
non sequitur.
Me: Cause and effect are
WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT. We have
different views of WHEN things happen, and the
CAUSE of those different views is TIME
DILATION.
Here's an interesting quote from Chapter 1 of
Marmet's book:
The contradictions found in
modern science are so
absurd that most
physicists assume that somebody must
certainly have solved them long ago. The
degree of indifference of most physicists
about these contradictions is phenomenal.
Is that what is going on? Is
that why college professors are teaching
nonsense? Is it simply that they assume
if it was nonsense, someone would have pointed
that out and made corrections long ago?
From what I've observed, that seems to be the
case. It's not what they tell you, of
course. They just tell you to study more
about physics and you will find the answer
somewhere. They do not add, "Things simply
cannot be as ridiculous as they appear."
Here's a quote from Immanuel
Kant that is used in Chapter 1:
"Causality is the
basis of all scientific work. Causality is the
condition that renders science possible."
And here is another interesting
passage from Chapter 1:
During their undergraduate studies, physicists
are gradually taught to accept interpretations
that appear more and more surprising (absurd).
They are misled by the fact that the equations
used in physics lead to predictions that are
compatible with observations. Physicists
are taught to believe that when an equation
gives a correct prediction, it proves that
the model is correct (even if the model is
absurd). Furthermore, they claim that, since
the working model is absurd, one must
conclude that Nature is absurd.
The
philosophy of science and the lack of
causality are subjects almost completely
avoided in classrooms where physics is taught.
I could go on and on. Paul
Marmet explains virtually all the screwball
arguments I had with mathematicians on the
Google forum and other forums before that.
The mathematicians do not believe in
experimental evidence, and they do not believe
in cause and effect. The only believe in
mathematics. It really is Religio
Mathematica, the religion of
mathematics. It is about belief, not
about facts and evidence.Facts and evidence are heresy
if they disagree with established beliefs.
In Chapter 4, Marmet discusses the problem of
reality versus mathematics. In the
"philosophy" of mathematics, something is "real"
only if it is observed. It becomes
real when it is observed. There was no
universe before there was a person to observe
the universe. The universe has no
independent existence aside from our
observations of it. It makes no sense, but
it is what they believe.
Again, I could go on and on. But it's all
there available for anyone to read. It's
the explanation for why physics-mathematics
professors are teaching nonsense.
They're teaching nonsense because mathematics
has no mechanism for determining whether
something is real or not. Adding up the
number of unicorns in an imaginary universe is
simple mathematics, and it makes no difference
if unicorns are real or not.
During that past few days, I also
did some research about Paul
Marmet the person. I knew that
before he died in 2005 he was an assistant
professor of physics at the University of
Ottawa. But I didn't know that he has
another book that is also on-line. It is
titled "Einstein's
Theory of Relativity versus Classical
Mechanics":
It's 200 pages long in the hardcover edition,
which costs
$39.95 on Amazon.com, and was published by
Newton Physics Books on January 1,
1997.
Unfortunately, while his other book makes things
very clear for me, this second book does nothing
but make it clear that Paul Marmet had some very
strange misunderstandings, too. This is
from page 2 of the Preface to his second book:
Einstein's relativity assumes new
mathematical hypotheses and ignores completely
the concept of models to describe physical
reality. Einstein supposed that time and
space can be distorted and that simultaneity
is relative but he did not give any serious description
of what this really means physically. In
Newton's time, physical descriptions of
phenomena were accompanied by mathematical
equations giving quantitative predictions
corresponding to those physical descriptions.
Einstein's relativity claims that nature can
be described with mathematical equations
without any physical description. There is a
complete abandon of all the physical models
that made physics understandable in Newton's
time.
In reality, Einstein did a lot of
explaining with "physics models," his clocks
being the very first example. If you have
two clocks that are synchronous, and if you move
one of them, the clock that was moved will then
no longer be synchronous with the other clock,
it will "lag behind." He also used trains
a lot to describe how things look different from
different perspectives.
I haven't yet thoroughly studied Einstein's
Theory of Relativity versus Classical
Mechanics, but I think the problem may be
that Einstein didn't know exactly whatcauses
Time to run slow for something that moves.
He only knew that it did. Time slowing
down explained effects that had
been observed without knowing the exact cause
of the effects.
So, that fits right in with my paper on Time
Dilation without Relativity.
Einstein considered Time Dilation to be a real,
natural phenomenon. He didn't know exactly
what caused it, but he could predict the
effects using mathematics. What we
need to do now is something that scientists seem
to be avoiding: we need to study what
physically causes
time to slow down when an object
moves. In other words: How does Time
work?
Before scientists can understand how time works,
however, they have to stop thinking of it as
just a "concept," and the mathematicians have to
understand that time does actually slow
down when an object moves. It
is NOT just an "illusion."
There is as yet no observational or
experimental evidence for many of the concepts
of contemporary theoretical physics, such as
super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the
multiverse, the universe as information, the
holographic principle or the anthropic
cosmological principle. For some of the wilder
speculations of the theorists there can by
definition never be any such evidence. This
stuff is not only not true, it is not even
science. I call it ‘fairytale physics’.
It is arguably borderline
confidence-trickery.
I think I highlighted over a 30% of the first
chapter. It's about "Reality, Truth and
the Scientific Method," and it has some really
interesting material in it, including this quote
from science-fiction writer Philip K.
Dick: "Reality is that which, when you
stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
The problem with "reality" is defining it.
Baggott writes this in Chapter 1:
To repeat one last time, reality
is a metaphysical concept — it lies beyond the
grasp of science. When we adopt specific
beliefs about reality, what we are actually
doing is adopting a specific philosophical
position.
and
When we invoke entities that we
can’t directly perceive, such as photons or
electrons, we learn to appreciate that we
can’t know anything of these entities as
things-in-themselves. We may nevertheless
choose to assume that they exist.
That is definitely a BIG part
of the problem. We can logically deduce
from experiments that photons and electrons must
exist, but we do not yet have any way to
actually see them. So, it becomes
a matter of philosophy as to what
position you take on how such things work.
And that puts the subject into opinion versus
opinion territory.
Chapter 1 of Baggott's book also contains this:
In 2009, Britain’s Science
Council announced that after a year of
deliberations, it had come up with a
definition of science, perhaps the first such
definition ever published: "Science is the
pursuit of knowledge and understanding of
the natural and social world following a
systematic methodology based on evidence."
That's a very good definition of
"science." But what is the definition of
"physics" when experiments and evidence have no
meaning? Maybe the book will have an
answer. At the moment, I'm only about half
way through Chapter 2, and the book has 12
Chapters.
Comments for Thursday,
June 1, 2017, thru Saturday, June 3, 2017:
June 1,
2017 - Yesterday afternoon,
I received an email from the journal that has my
paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, notifying
me that the paper had been assigned to an
editor. The previous status was that the
paper had been received. The current
status shown on their web site is that it is
"With Editor":
The next update will hopefully be that it has
been assigned to a reviewer. If that
doesn't happen, the email informed me that I
should wait at least a month before I contact
them to ask why the status hasn't changed.
If it does happen, then I'm
supposed to wait at least six to eight weeks
after the change before asking why it is still
with a reviewer and what the true status is at
that point.
I awoke this morning thinking I should write
another paper titled "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG
HERE!" In yesterday's comment, I
wrote this:
What
amazes me is that I can find very
few people who are also arguing
to have the mathematicians stop teaching
nonsense.
The first version
I typed of that sentence had "no one who is"
instead of "very few people who are." After
typing the first version, I remembered writing
something about someone else who saw
the problem. It was in my
March 8 comment. It was about
physics professor Paul Marmet and his
self-published book "Absurdities
in Modern Physics: A Solution."
And in that same March 8 comment, I also
wrote about David Layzer and an article in
the Harvard
Crimson which indicated that
Layzer also saw that something was
wrong with the way students are currently
being taught science and physics.
This morning I remembered that I didn't just
suddenly discover Einstein's
theory of Time Dilation and how it is a real
phenomenon. It is the way it is
explained in "popular science" articles everywhere.
Check the articles HERE,
HERE,
HERE,
HERE
and HERE.
It is what I've been reading all my
life! It wasn't until I started
arguing with mathematicians and others on
the Internet that I learned that many or
most mathematicians believe Time Dilation is
just an illusion.
In total disagreement with all the
experiments, they argue that you will see
time running slower for me while I
will see time running slower for
you, proving it is just an illusion.
In reality, I will see time running slower
for you when you are at the bottom of a
mountain and I am at the top, and at the
same time you will see time running faster
for me, just as is explained in "popular
science" articles.
The same situation applies to the Second
Postulate to Einstein's Theory of Special
Relativity. Einstein did NOT say that
all observers will see light
traveling at the same speed, as
mathematicians argue. The way I argue
the Second Postulate is also the way it is
explained in "popular science" articles everywhere.
Usually, however, it is in "popular science"
articles about General Relativity like the
ones HERE,
HERE,
HERE,
HERE
and HERE.
Yet, in college and university classrooms
everywhere, teachers teach what experiments
show to be untrue.
Months ago, when I asked some mathematicians why
the popular science articles say one thing while
the mathematicians say something else, their
basic argument was that physics is too
complicated for ordinary people. So,
physicists tell the public one thing while
telling each other something totally different.
But I know that is NOT true. What is
happening is that scientists tell the public
what they have proved via experiments, and
mathematicians tell each other that it is all
just nonsense. That wouldn't be a problem
if the mathematicians weren't also teaching
their nonsense to students.
And that would be what my article "THERE IS
SOMETHING WRONG HERE!" would be
all about.
But where would I submit such an article?
It would seem more appropriate for a psychology
journal than a physics journal. How the
hell did we get into such a situation? Why
aren't more people screaming their heads off
about it?
Sigh. I think I need to just take
some deep breaths and maybe focus on organizing
my collection of downloaded physics books and
articles. I downloaded several new books
this morning. I was checking out the
activity on Google's
Science, Physics and Relativity discussion
forum, and saw that Pentcho Valev had just
started a new thread titled "The
Good Thing About Einstein's Relativity"
which contains a link to a pdf copy of a 307
page book titled "The
Rationality of Science" by W. H.
Newton-Smith. So, I had to download a copy
of it, which means I had to update the two
indexes I maintain for stuff I've saved.
Is the book worth reading? I dunno.
I've got at least 50 other books I need to
examine first. But, since the book looked
like it might be worth reading,
I looked for other books by Newton-Smith and
downloaded his book "Logic: An Introductory
Course," which might even be of greater
interest. And something led me to a book
titled "Farewell
to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed
the Search for Scientific Truth" by
science writer Jim Baggott. Sigh.
Comments for Sunday, May
28, 2017, thru Wednesday, May 31, 2017:
May 31,
2017 - While waiting for
news about the two science papers I have
submitted to two different journals, I've been
doing looking through all the papers and books I
accumulated during the past couple years, trying
to organize them in some way. While doing
so, I cannot help but think about those two
papers of mine.
Paper #1, Time Dilation Without Relativity,
is about all the experimental evidence
which shows that Time Dilation is a real natural
phenomenon, even though mathematicians will
argue that time is a universal constant and
cannot "dilate" or slow down.
Paper #2, An Analysis of Einstein's Second
Postulate to his Theory of Special
Relativity, is about all the
experimental evidence which shows that a
moving observer heading toward a stationary
light source will see that light as traveling at
the speed of light plus his own velocity, even
though mathematicians will argue that the speed
of light is a "universal constant" and everyone
must see it traveling at the same speed
regardless of their own motion.
The mathematicians point of view makes no
sense unless you inexplicably
believe the universe operates like a
mathematical equation and there is no such thing
as "cause and effect."
How can anyone believe such a thing?
Because they are taught it in school, and
if they argue against it they will receive a
failing grade? Plus, their teachers tell
them that everyone knows that it seems
illogical, but that is the nature of Relativity,
and you just have to accept it as true
even if it seems illogical.
What amazes me is that I can find very
few people who are also arguing to
have the mathematicians stop teaching
nonsense. If experiments show it
is nonsense, how can it be taught? Why
aren't people marching in the streets to stop
it? I can't believe that it is simply
because no one wants to argue with the people
who seem to be in charge. Is it because
the mathematicians argue with the total
certainty of True Believers, while
scientists tend to argue with logic and
reasoning based upon experiments and evidence
which they accept might possibly be shown to be
wrong if someone comes up with a different
experiment which provides different evidence via
different logic and reasoning?
That also seems to be the same problem that is
affecting our country right now. The
President seems about
to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,
evidently because he doesn't believe
in Global Warming. He doesn't believe
in facts and evidence if his gut tells him they
could be wrong. And the scientists will
admit that they could be wrong, although they'll
also say that the odds of them being wrong are
very very small.
It is difficult to argue uncertainty against
total certainty. I can be totally certain
that the mathematicians are wrong because all
the experiments and evidence show
they are wrong, but I can't be 100% certain that
I am right. Their being wrong doesn't
automatically make me right. We could both
be wrong. Just because I don't see any way
I can be wrong could just mean that I haven't
examined all the possibilities, because I don't
know what all the possibilities are.
It's a hellofa way to run a universe if you ask
me. ;-)
May 30,
2017 - Okay! At 10:12 a.m.
this morning, I submitted my paper An
Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate
to his Theory of Special Relativity to a
highly-ranked physics journal. And I've
received notification that it is in their
system. They provide a link to a web page
where I can check its status. It's a
monthly journal, so the response should
theoretically be three times faster than a
quarterly journal.
One of the final required steps in the
submission process was to supply two
names of suggested reviewers for the
paper. I don't personally know anyone who
would be willing to review the paper, so I typed
in "Stephen Hawking" and "Neil deGrasse
Tyson." It went through okay. As I
stated in my Sunday comment, I do not expect
that the journal will publish the paper, since
what the paper says is contrary to what the
Editor in Chief teaches in his physics
classes. But, it might go through, and, if
not, I might get an interesting explanation for
the turn-down.
I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I've
had TWO physics papers out for
"peer review" and publication at the same
time.
I feel tempted to write a paper titled "Mathematics
versus Reality in Physics."
My research and my discussions with
mathematicians has made it clear where they are
wildly screwed up in their
thinking. They are totally certain that
the universe works mathematically, and therefore
everything is reciprocal. If A = B + C,
then C + B = A. And that is what
"Relativity" means to them. One side of
the mathematical equation is equal to the other
side.
It appears that, to mathematicians, cause and
effect are alien concepts. Time Dilation
is just an "illusion." If you shine a
light at me, I'll see the light traveling at the
same speed that you see it traveling, even if
you are stationary and I am moving at high speed
toward you or away from you. And all
the countless experiments that prove
otherwise are just misunderstandings by people
who do not understand mathematics. Yes, it
makes no sense, but that is the nature of
Relativity, it makes no sense but you're
supposed to accept and believe it anyway.
So, while I'm waiting to see if my two papers
make it into the first peer review step, I'm
going to try to organize all the articles and
books I downloaded and saved while doing the
research. There are 415 items in the
"Miscellaneous" folder where I put everything
that didn't come from arXiv.org or
viXra.org. My 79-page detailed .docx list
of contents for that folder probably doesn't
include more than 60 percent of the items.
I'm very curious to find out how many books
are in that folder. I was really amazed to
discover that I could download free pdf copies
of physics books that are used in classrooms
around the world. So, when I browsed a
book to see if it was something worth reading or
not, the first thing I would do is save a
copy. And there was never a reason for
deleting anything. I suspect I have
multiple copies of a few of the books, different
editions and the same book from different
sources. Maybe I'll create a spreadsheet
with columns for title, author(s), type (book or
article), number of pages, my file number, and
some ranking and/or brief description.
Maybe I'll also look for the next journal to try
for each of the two papers.
It's better than just sitting around waiting.
May 28, 2017 -
Yesterday, I finished creating a new version of
my scientific paper An Analysis of
Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of
Special Relativity. It includes 9
new illustrations, all very different from the
illustrations I used in the first version I put
on
viXra.org on April 20. Also, while
that April version was 4,884 words, the new
version consists of 6,903 words, including the
references. Basically, it is
the third version I put on viXra with a couple
new sections that include the new illustrations
and new explanations of how various experiments
work that supposedly measure the speed of light.
I'm not going to put the new version on viXra
until I've exhausted all efforts to get it
published. I still do not fully
understand the process of putting scientific
papers on viXra or arXiv.
I assume all or some versions of a paper will
have to be deleted when some
journal agrees to publish it and demands that
the paper be removed from all web sites while
they control the copyrights. But, while I
know deleting a paper is not a problem on
viXra.org, I recall reading on
arXiv.org that they do not allow deletions
once a paper is accepted there:
if you intend to submit, or have
submitted, your article to a journal then you
should verify that the license you select
during arXiv submission does not conflict with
the journal's license or copyright transfer
agreement.
Does that mean that people put papers on
arXiv.org with no intention of ever trying to
get the paper published? If they plan to
try to get it published, how can they agree to
arXiv.org's terms without knowing what the rules
are at all the journals they plan to
try? Something in that still makes no
sense to me.
But, while it makes no sense, it isn't a problem
for me, since I cannot and have no intention to
submit any more papers to arXiv.org.
My immediate problem is finding a journal that
fits with my paper and my rule of not paying to
get my papers published. I've pretty much
decided on what journal to try next. It's
a highly-ranked journal that has a well-known
college physics professor as its editor in
chief. And since my paper says that
college physics professors are teaching crap,
I think the odds of getting it published at that
journal are very slim. But,
if I don't try, I'll always be wondering if they
would have published it. Plus, they'll
always be able to claim they would
have been wildly pleased to have
published it if I had only sent it to them.
It's a monthly journal, which means I should get
a response a lot faster than at a quarterly
journal. They also prefer to have the
article typeset with LaTeX, which means I'll be
learning how to put illustrations into a LaTeX
formatted article. That's something I've
never done before.
I'm also getting pretty adept at using paint.net
to create illustrations. It took me awhile
to create the 9 illustrations I added to the
Second Postulate article, but most of that time
was spent on re-doing illustrations over and
over as I thought of better ways to illustrate
ideas and figured out different and better ways
to create the illustrations. I can create
a beautiful illustration in a 1,000 pixel by
1,000 pixel format, but when it gets reduced to
about 250 by 250 pixels to fit in a single
column of a journal article, a thick line that
was 3 pixels wide totally disappears. So, you
either have to create an illustration that
reduces correctly to smaller sizes, or you have
to create different size illustrations.
I'm currently planning to submit the article on
May 30.
Meanwhile, I've been wanting to mention a movie
I recently watched for the second time. I
rented "The
Big Short" from RedBox on March 15 of
2016. I thought it was a terrific movie,
and when I saw the Blu-Ray version on sale for
$5.96 on Black Friday, I bought a copy and put
it on a shelf. Then, two days ago, I
finally took it off the shelf and watched "The
Big Short" for the second time.
The similarities to the situation with my
scientific papers are amazing to me. The
movie is about the housing market crash of
2008. But it's also about some people who
saw that the US mortgage securities market was
an overstretched bubble just waiting to
burst. They saw it was built on false
information, buzz words that no one understood,
and total trust in people who were totally
untrustworthy. The people who saw the
problem were laughed at by nearly
everyone. But, they turned out to be
totally correct. Near the beginning of the
movie, this Mark Twain quote is shown on the
screen:
It ain't
what you don't know that gets you into
trouble. It's what you know for sure
that just ain't so.
So, I'm not likely to get into trouble if I
don't fully understand Einstein's Second
Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity,
but it seems there are a lot of people who
believe they know for sure what
it means, who are out teaching students and the
rest of the world what they believe, but who
appear to be totally wrong.
I just need to get my paper published so we can
all find out for certain who is right and who is
wrong.
Comments for Sunday, May
21, 2017, thru Saturday, May 27, 2017:
May 25,
2017 - After studying numerous
papers and videos, I think I now know enough
about how interferometers work to describe
something about them in my paper about
disagreements over Einstein's Second
Postulate. Strangely, the best video I
found explaining how interferometers work
doesn't have a sound track. It's totally
silent. Here it is:
Unfortunately, you have to understand something
about how interferometers work in order to
understand the video. But it nicely
answered questions I had that no other video I'd
previously found seemed to bother to
explain. It nicely shows how by adjusting
one or both of the mirrors you adjust how the
light waves coincide or conflict when they hit
the display screen. You can measure the
wavelength of the light by adjusting of the
mirrors. Moving the mirror a half a
wavelength farther away from or closer to the
light source and display screen determines if
the two waves will conflict or coincide.
The question I had that wasn't answered by any
other video was: What do you see on the screen
if both light beams are in sync? The video
shows that you get a bright spot of light on the
screen. When the beams of light are out
fully of sync and the crest of one wave is
matched with the trough of another wave, you get
nothing on the screen.
That, of course, poses the question: Where does
the light go when you have a perfect
interference pattern with the crest of one wave
matching the trough of the other wave.
There's a video below that attempts to answer
that question:
Perhaps the most interesting part of that very
confusing video is how - by just pressing on the
tabletop - the light pattern is changed.
Pressing on the tabletop causes enough movement
in the position of the equipment on the table to
change the way the light waves move and/or the
distance they have to travel.
While writing this comment I found a third video
HERE
that isn't quite as confusing and muddled as the
one above, plus it does an excellent job of
showing what the "interference pattern" of
circles or lines on the display screen (like the
one below) represent.
The center dark circle represents two light
waves conflicting with each other and producing
no visible light. The red circle around it
represents a change in angle between the lens
and the display that is 1/2 of a wavelength at
the source, just enough to have the crests of
one wave match the crests of the second wave,
and the result is a visible red circle of
light. The next dark line results from
another slight change in angle which again
causes crest to match with trough, producing no
visible light. So, when the angle lets
crest match crest, you get a red circle.
When the angle causes the crests of one wave
pattern to line up with the troughs of another
wave pattern, you get a dark circle.
Fortunately, I don't really have to explain how
interferometers work in my paper. I just
have to explain how they can be used to show
that an observer will see light coming from some
source as arriving at c + v, where v is his own
speed, in direct conflict with the
"Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which
argues that everyone sees light as arriving at
c, regardless of how you are moving.
I'm still puzzled over how such a BIG error can
be believed by so many people without anyone
doing as I'm doing and writing a paper about how
RIDICULOUS their beliefs are - and how countless
experiments show they are totally wrong.
I'm really feeling that no one wants to argue
with the mathematicians. It seems like
they only understand math and can't explain
anything except in mathematical terms. So,
they argue that YOU must learn the math that
they learned or you cannot understand what they
believe they understand perfectly. And, if
you aren't willing to learn the math, then you
are evidently just satisfied with your own
ignorance and just not worth discussing the
problem with.
May 24,
2017 - I'm still waiting to see
if the editor at the journal that has my paper
on Time Dilation without Relativity is going to
assign it to some peer reviewers or reject it
for some reason. It's only been 9 days,
but seems like longer. Meanwhile, the
comment I posted to the Astrophysics
and Physics Facebook group is still
pending approval after about two weeks.
A couple days ago, I noticed a newspaper opinion
piece about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
It was in the Orange County Register, the author
was Carl Cannon of RealClearPolitics.com,
and was titled "Comey,
Mueller bungled big anthrax case together."
It was also on the
Daily Breeze. I expected it to be
some conspiracy theory article, but Cannon
acknowledges that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax
killer and merely complains about how Comey and
Mueller spent so much time focused on Steven
Hatfill. The Washington Examiner also
printed a brief summary of Cannon's article and
titled it "Remember
the botched anthrax investigation."
I didn't mention those articles earlier, because
they didn't seem worth mentioning. They
still don't, but yesterday someone bought a
paperback copy of my
book about the anthrax attacks, so I
figured I should mention it anyway. The
article probably generated the sale.
May 22,
2017 - After I completed writing
yesterday's comment, I went hunting for MIT text
books in order to find out what they might say
about Time Dilation and Einstein's Second
Postulate to his Theory of Special
Relativity. I found at least a dozen
books, some of them text books, some of them
just printed by MIT Press, but none
said anything worth quoting on the subjects I
was interested in. This morning, however,
I found a book that was of interest. I
wondered about those lectures by Professor
Walter Lewin. Exactly when were the
lectures given? MIT's web site seemed to
suggest they were given in 1999.
I did a
Google search for Walter H. G. Lewin and
found that Wikipedia
has a page about him. He taught at
MIT for 46 years, from 1966 until he retired in
2009. He came out of retirement in 2012
and started doing filmed lectures for a Japanese
company. The on-line lectures were filmed
in 2013. Wikipedia says he also wrote a
book "For
the Love of Physics" that was
published in 2011. Ah! Checking my
sources, I found a pdf copy of the book.
And I found that it says this on page 269 of the
paperback edition (with my highlighting):
Einstein argued in his
theory of special relativity that space and
time constituted one four-dimensional reality,
spacetime. He postulated that the speed of
light was constant (300,000 kilometers per
second). Even if a person were approaching
you on a superfast train going at 50 percent
of the speed of light (150,000 kilometers
per second), shining a headlight in your
face, you and he
would come up with the same figure for the
speed of light. This is very
nonintuitive, as you would think that since
the train is approaching you, you who are
observing the light aimed at you would have to
add 300,000 and 150,000, which would lead to
450,000 kilometers per second. But that is not
the case — according to Einstein, 300,000 plus
150,000 is still 300,000!
So, he argues the
"Mathematicians' All Observers Theory,"
even though the description I used yesterday for
his Lecture #23 disputes that theory. This
morning, I tried sending him an email at his MIT
address, but it didn't work. He was
involved in a sex scandal there a few years ago,
and evidently MIT no longer has anything
directly to do with him. Too bad.
I'd really like to find someone who can discuss
Einstein's Second Postulate
intelligently.
May 21, 2017 -
I'm beginning to feel a bit overwhelmed
again. I thought my paper on Einstein's
Second Postulate was all set to be submitted to
some physics journal, but then I recalled the
Pound/Rebka experiment, which I do not
mention in the paper. I probably should
mention it, even though Pound and Rebka didn't
prove what they thought they proved. Plus,
I really really would like to
find a paper about a 1955 Russian experiment
which measured the speed of light coming from
the left and right sides of the sun.
Here is what it says about the Russian test on
page 16 of Martin Gardner's book "Relativity
Simply Explained":
One famous test was made by
Russian astronomers in 1955, using light from
opposite sides of the rotating sun. One
edge of our sun is always moving toward us,
the other edge always moving away. It
was found that light from both edges travels
to the earth with the same velocity.
But the book contains no reference for that
comment, nor does it even mention the names of
the Russian astronomers. The same with
another "popular" science book that also
mentions that Russian test. And a
Google search finds only those two books,
and no other mention of the "Russian test."
But what really put things into the
"overwhelming" category was a discussion I had
on the Facebook "Science,
Philosophy and Psychology Discussion"
group where, on May 8, I posted a link to my
Second Postulate paper. I'd thought the
brief discussion generated by my post had died
out, but then on Friday, someone suddenly posted
this comment:
I STILL
don't see anything from MIT about
it? How do you account for that?
I politely
explained the slow but steady progress
I was making with submitting my
papers, and then I added
I assume
MIT teaches what
everyone else teaches,
because they don't know
any better.
But, as
soon as I had posted that
comment I started
wondering about MIT.
They are basically an engineering
school, and engineers
should have a very
different view of test
results than what many or
most mathematician seem to
have.
So, I started searching
for what the
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) has to
say about time dilation
and Einstein's second
postulate. The first
item of interest I found
was some "lecture
notes" by Scott Hughes
dated 15 March 2005.
Those notes have this as
the Second Postulate:
2. The
speed of light is the
same in all frames of
reference.
That's not
what Einstein's Second
Postulate says, but it
isn't necessarily wrong,
either. It all
depends upon how you view
"frames of reference."
Postulate
2: The speed of light in
empty space always has
the same value c.
That is
also not
what Einstein's Second
Postulate says, but, once
again, it isn't
necessarily wrong.
It just doesn't say
anything about different
observers.
Electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed
of light, c, in vacuum. If
a source of light has a velocity component
towards you, the frequencies that you will
observe will be higher than those of the
emitted radiation, and the
received wavelengths will be shorter
(blue-shift) than the emitted wavelengths. If
the source is receding from you the received
wavelength is longer (red-shift).
In other
words, if you are an
observer and the light
source is moving, light
will reach you at c
+ v, where v
is the velocity of the
light source. That
supports what I wrote in my paper on Einstein's Second
Postulate: It is
true according to
"Einstein's Emitter Only
Theory" which says that
the speed you will
observe can include the
motion of the emitter,
but it is not
true according to the
"Mathematicians' All
Observers Theory" which
claims that all
observers will see
light arriving at c
regardless of the movement
of the source or
the observer.
However, it appears it is
not true
according to the 1955
Russian test.
So, I listened to and
watched the lecture.
Prof.
Lewin begins by
talking about sound waves
and how they change
frequency (or "pitch") if
the source is coming
toward you or going away
from you. And he
does some demonstrations
to prove it. Then,
at the 8 minute mark, he
starts talking about light
waves. He says,
I now
want to change to
electromagnetic
waves.
Electromagnetic waves
travel with the speed of
light, which is 300,000
kilometers per
second. And if you
want to treat that
correctly, you would
have to use Special
Relativity. In the
case of sound, I
stressed repeatedly that
you in the audience
should not move, but
that the sound source is
moving. In the
case of electromagnetic
radiation, when you deal
with the speed of light,
you don't have to ask
that question.
It is a meaningless
question in relativity
to ask whether you are
moving relative to me
or whether I am moving
relative to you, it
doesn't matter.
All that matters in
Special Relativity is
the relative
motion. So, you
can always think of
yourself as standing
still and make the
source of
electromagnetic
radiation move to you or
away from you, relative
to you.
Who is
moving may be meaningless
mathematically and in
"Relativity" as the
Professor discusses it,
but it definitely has
meaning in reality.
In the fantasy world of
mathematicians where only
you and I exist in totally
empty space, it may not
matter or make any
difference if I am moving
away from you at 25,000
miles per hour or if you
are moving away from me at
25,000 mph.
But, in the reality
of our real universe
it makes a great
difference If the
Earth is behind me while I
am moving away from you at
that speed, I will burn up
in the Earth's atmosphere
in an hour, while, if you
are moving away from me,
you will be reaching the
moon in a few days.
In reality, if you are
moving toward me and
emitting light toward me,
you will measure the light
traveling at c.
If I am moving toward you,
on the other hand, I will
measure the light you
emitted as coming toward
me at c + v,
where v is my speed.
In reality, if I am
stationary while watching
a pair of rotating binary
stars, the light from the
star moving away from me
will be red-shifted and
the star that is moving
toward me will be
blue-shifted, as one would
expect. However, if
I am also
moving away from those
rotating binary stars,
then the light from the
star that is moving away
from me will be additionally
red shifted, and the star
that is moving toward me
will be less blue
shifted compared to when I
was standing still.
And, if I'm moving toward
the binary star that is
coming toward me, its
light should be additionally
blue shifted, and the
binary star that is moving
away from me as I move
toward it may not be red
or blue shifted at all at
some point in its
orbit. While we are
definitely moving relative
to one another, we are also
moving relative to the
rest of the
universe. So, in
reality it does
matter who is moving, even
if a mathematician
typically doesn't
care.
At the 13 minute 30 second
mark, Professor Lewin says
something else that was extremely
interesting to
me. He says,
In
astronomy, in
optical astronomy,
we cannot measure
the period or the
frequency of optical
light. All we
can measure is the
wavelength.
I've been
arguing with
mathematicians that you cannot
measure the speed of light
coming from stars.
They've been arguing that
you can.
The statement above says
I am right.
Not only can't you measure
the speed of light, you
cannot even measure the
frequency of light waves
coming from some distant
source.
I cannot use transcribed
quotes from an on-line
lecture as a reference in
my paper, so I need to
find a text book or
documented source that
says that. It also
requires a minor change to
my Second Postulate paper,
because my paper currently
implies that if you can
measure the wavelength,
you can also measure the
frequency by simply
assuming that the speed of
light is c.
There were other
interesting things I
noticed on MIT's web site,
but they'll have to wait
for me to comment on them
until after I've studied
them further.
Comments for Sunday, May
14, 2017, thru Saturday, May 20, 2017:
May 20,
2017 - DAMMIT!!
This morning I received another email from that
Canadian journal claiming they haven't received
the previous emails I sent them telling them I
withdraw my paper on Time Dilation without
Relativity. The latest email is
different in that it says (with my highlighting
in red):
if we do not hear from
you by May 25, we will withdraw
your paper from publication
in [our journal].
So, even if they do not receive my
latest email, they will still withdraw it.
That's a relief. I looked through the
previous emails they sent me to see if I could
find other email addresses. I found one
and sent my latest response to both addresses.
One address was to the "editor" and the other
was to "admin." It seems like the
latest ones I sent to "admin" are not getting
received, or they are claiming they are not
getting received. I never had any problems
with earlier emails sent to "editor."
Obviously, I should have been sending my emails
to both addresses, instead of just to the one
who sent me the email.
It's still a lousy way to run a business.
Okay. About an hour after I sent the
email, the editor sent a response stating
Following the
instructions contained in your e-mail of 20
May 2017, I would like to inform you that the
above paper has been withdrawn from
publication in [our journal].
Whew! Finally! They
sent the notification as a formal .doc letter
with their letterhead. Maybe that is what
they wanted from me. But, more likely, it
was sending the withdrawal email to the "editor"
that did the trick. I got the feeling that
the "editor" really wanted to publish the paper,
but the "admin" wanted $508 from me. The
"admin" assumed I was just trying to negotiate
for a lower fee, and ignored any emails which
might smell of a negotiating tactic. But
that's just the feeling I got. I'll never
know exactly what was going on there.
May 17,
2017 - This morning I finished
what turned out to be a major overhaul of my
paper on Einstein's Second Postulate in order to
incorporate five newly created
illustrations. The paper now has 6,157
words, so it is still a long ways from the 8,000
word minimum required by a scientific journal
where I had been thinking of submitting the
paper.
This morning I created a list of the top 45
science journals in the astrophysics and physics
fields. Here it is:
The
full list contains 227 journals, but the
first part of the list gives an idea of the
problems I have in finding the right journal for
my papers. The red X's in the leftmost
column indicate journals that aren't in the
field of physics where my paper would fit.
Example: #20 - Physical Chemistry
Chemical Physics. The red M's in the
leftmost column indicate journals which focus on
mathematics. My papers have virtually no
mathematics. On the right side of the the Title
column, I added notes indicating other problems,
such as printing costs (which I won't pay), word
limits (my longest paper is 6,100 words, my
shortest is 3,400 words), and journal which only
print articles from authors they invite to write
for them. As you can see, that leaves just
7 out of the 45, and 2 of those seem to be in a
language other than English. I have a note
that another seems to be a pay-to-publish
journal (but I haven't yet dug through their web
page to find exactly how much they charge) and
another has an Editor in Chief who is a
well-known mathematician-physicist university
professor who I have argued is teaching crap.
So, that just leaves just 3.
Those 3 could also be wrong for me, but I just
haven't yet dug through their web sites to find
the problem. The journal that currently
has my paper on Time Dilation without
Relativity is in the top 100.
Someone suggested I try the journal that is #220
on the list, but I'd like to work through the
list from the top down.
So, the next task on my list of things to do is
to find the right journal for my paper on
Einstein's Second Postulate. Along with
way, I'll probably learn a lot more about how
the scientific journal publishing business
works.
May 15,
2017 - Hmm. One of the
first things I do every morning is check my web
site logs. Looking at the access log for
yesterday, I saw that I had an unusual number of
first-time visitors to this web site, including
one from the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory near
Naperville, Illinois. I can only wonder
what caused the surge. I typically get 1,
2 or 3 first-time visitors every day, but
yesterday these 10 were all first-time visitors:
Other than that they all occurred
in the afternoon (my time), I couldn't see any
pattern to them, however. There was no
surge in readers of my
papers, nor did the comment I tried
posting to the Astrophysics
and Physics Facebook group get out of the
"pending approval" stage, where it has been for
over a week.
Meanwhile, the status of my paper on Time
Dilation without Relativity remains
unchanged. It has only been 24 hours, but
it is still in the hands of an editor, meaning
the editor has not yet decided if the paper
should be sent out for peer review. Here
is what it shows on the status page for my
paper:
So, I'm just going to continue
revising my paper on Einstein's Second
Postulate to include illustrations. It
isn't just a matter of plunking in some
illustrations. The illustrations need
to be explained, and that results in
changing the way a lot of other things are
explained. In some ways, "a picture is
worth a thousand words," but in other ways a
picture can provide a different way of
looking at things, which can generate an
additional thousand words of clarification.
I also found that I needed to really
understand how
an interferometer works. I need
to understand it well enough to explain in a
few words what takes pages of explanation
elsewhere. But, it is all very
interesting, and I have no deadlines, so I
can study things at my leisure.
May 15,
2017 - At 9:07 a.m. this morning,
I submitted my paper on Time Dilation
without Relativity to a major scientific
journal that is well known for publishing
controversial articles. I was a little
stunned when I reached a web page during the
submission process which has a line at the
bottom which says "The charges are $1,150 per
article." However, the charges seem to only
apply if you want your article to be printed in
color. I made it clear in my
response comment that I do not want the color
option (the paper has no illustrations) and that
the $1,150 cost per article would therefore not
apply to me. And, I'm fairly certain that
I read somewhere else on the web site that the
charges only apply if you want your article
printed in color.
Here is what they said in a form-letter email
telling me that the submission process was
successfully completed:
If it is deemed suitable for our journal, it will be sent for peer review and we will endeavour to send you a first decision within three months
If your manuscript is not considered suitable for our journal (to be decided by the editorial board), we will let you know as soon as possible.
Well, at least I won't have to
wait for three months to learn that they
rejected it. And they provide a status web
site which I can check to see what is happening
with the paper.
Meanwhile, I awoke this morning realizing that I
definitely need illustrations in
my paper An Analysis of Einstein's Second
Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.
I need to carefully explain the difference in
measuring the speed of light the standard way,
by bouncing photons off a mirror inside a vacuum
chamber, versus measuring the speed of light by
checking the wave frequency. My paper
about the Second Postulate doesn't indicate that
there is a difference, and there definitely IS
a difference in what experimental results would
show. Merely explaining that difference
might be worth a paper all by itself. But,
I'll be including it in a paper that is about
much much more. It's just going to take
awhile to create the illustrations and to make
the change to the text.
Yesterday, a scientist at Fermilab
(which is located just west of Chicago) wrote a
comment about me and my Second Postulate paper
on the Google
Science, Physics & Relativity Discussion
forum where I've been discussing my
papers. Here is his entire comment with
only his name removed:
I have looked at this
paper. I can predict that no reputable
peer-reviewed physics
journal will publish it, because it makes so
many very basic errors, and its basic approach is just plain
wrong -- he attempts to distinguish what he thinks is an "emitter only theory"
from what is taught in many classes; the error is LAKE'S, and Einstein's
ACTUAL theory is not at all "emitter only" (quite the opposite, because he
EXPLICITLY shows that the (vacuum) speed of
light is c in EVERY inertial
frame, not just that of the emitter).
As I have said before, Ed Lake
cannot read, and this paper displays that repeatedly. I'll only point out a
few places where it is just plain wrong, and in direct conflict with Einstein's
1905 paper.
Lake titles section II
"Einstein's Emitter Only Theory", but that is
a
falsehood, and this "emitter
only theory" is PURE FABRICATION on the part
of Ed Lake, Einstein
had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
To start with, Lake uses the
WRONG STATEMENT of Einstein's postulates -- he
used Einstein's
INTRODUCTION to them, not the actual
statements (which are in section I.2). Lake claims "Einstein said
nothing about what any other observer might
see or measure." which
is true for the introduction, but BLATANTLY
FALSE for the
paper itself -- Lake OBVIOUSLY
did not read Einstein's paper.
For instance, in Section I.3
Einstein says "We now have to prove that any
ray of light, measured
in the moving system, is propagated with the
velocity c", and then
does so by considering a spherical wave in the
"stationary system", concluding
"The wave under consideration is therefore no
less a spherical wave with
velocity of propagation c when viewed in the
moving system."
Lake claims "The emitting
body’s velocity (referred to as v) cannot be
added to the speed of
light being emitted, since c + v would produce
a speed greater than the
maximum that light can travel." -- he
OBVIOUSLY did not read Einstein's paper, as in section I.5 Einstein
derives the equation for the composition of velocities, and says "the velocity
of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of
light". So the emitting body's velocity is NOT
"added to the speed of
light being emitted", it is COMPOSED as
Einstein showed, and
the result of the composition is c.
Lake claims "an observer
approaching the source of light will measure
the light to arrive at
c + v, where v is his velocity, and if the
observer is moving away from the source of the light, he
will measure the light to arrive at c – v" --
this is ENTIRELY DUE TO
LAKE, and is INCONSISTENT with what Einstein
said in his paper:
Einstein showed that the (vacuum) speed of
light is c relative to both his "stationary system" and his
"moving system", and since these are both
arbitrary, relative to ANY
inertial system.
Lake completely missed the
basic point of Einstein's paper, and claims:
When Einstein wrote
that the Second Postulate “is only
apparently irreconcilable
with” the First Postulate, he seems to have
been referring to
the fact that while the observer standing
next to the emitter
measures light he emits as moving at a speed
that is independent
of his own speed, that fact does not
necessarily apply to
light he may measure coming from another
source outside of his frame of reference.
This is
completely wrong, and Lake is just
fantasizing, not reading Einstein's paper. Einstein was discussing the
APPARENT inconsistency between his two postulates: until this paper people
assumed the PoR required Galilean invariance, and that is indeed
inconsistent with Einstein's second postulate
-- the paper shows
that there is no inconsistency when one uses
Lorentz invariance. Einstein showed the OPPOSITE of
Lake's claim: that an observer will measure
the (vacuum) speed of
light to be c, regardless of whether it is
emitted by a source at
rest in the observer's frame, or moving
relative to it. Indeed this is the statement of Einstein's second
postulate, which Lake has OBVIOUSLY NEVER
READ:
2. Any ray of
light moves in the “stationary” system of
coordinates
with the
determined velocity c, whether the ray be
emitted by a
stationary
or by a moving body.
As Lake is so profoundly
confused, I'll spell it out: consider the
observer's frame
to be the "stationary system". This
second postulate then says the observer will measure light to
propagate at c in his frame, even when the
source of the light is
not at rest in his frame. So it DOES apply "to
light he may measure
coming from another source outside of his
frame of reference".
Lake's paper is hopeless. He
needs to learn how to read, and then needs to
actually READ and LEARN
about the subject before attempting to write
about it.
I am showing the entire comment
because it consists entirely of personal attacks
and arguments that his interpretation of
Einstein's Second Postulate is correct and my
interpretation is wrong, which is just his opinion.
My paper is about all the experiments
which have confirmed that
"Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" is correct and
that the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory"
is incorrect. No where in his post does
the Fermilab physicist even mention
those experiments and what they showed.
In previous discussions where I tried to get him
to discuss experiments, he would change tactics
and argue that the experiments do not show what
the scientific papers claim they show.
Basically, he'd argue that the experimenters
were all incompetent, although he would never
use that term in that way. He would argue
that the experimenters were all misled by
"signals" that somehow negate the test
results. And when I tried to get him to
explain to me how those "signals" work, he'd
just tell me I am too stupid to understand,
since his explanations would consist of
mathematical jargon and formulas, and it's
evidently not possible (for him) to provide any
explanation in plain English.
That is why I stopped posting there (for
now). It's all just opinions and personal
attacks. Plus, of course, I'm pretty much
done with my research (or so I think at this
moment) and I have a lot of other things to do,
like revising the Second Postulate paper to
include illustrations and a description of the
differences in the two different ways of
measuring the speed of light.
Busy busy busy. And it is totally
fascinating work.
May 14, 2017 -
I guess it is time to seriously get down to
business. I think I've done enough
research to be certain that my papers are based
on solid logic and solid science. I've
argued enough with people on Google's
Science, Physics and Relativity discussion
forum to know that they have no more
worthwhile things to say. They have
started acting like obnoxious 12-year-olds,
calling me names and playing stupid games like
complaining that the links to the statistics for
my papers on viXra.org do not work. (They
deliberately scrambled parts of their
copies of the links to make certain
they would not work.) It is all
reminiscent of the years I spent arguing with
conspiracy theorists and True Believers about
the anthrax attacks of 2001. Plus, I see
this morning that they've all turned to arguing
with each other. There is no reason for me
to interrupt.
Putting links to one of my papers on Facebook
accomplished little. All I got was lots of
people clicking on "like" and a few comments
about how much Richard Feynman is admired.
(I mentioned him in my comment about my
paper.) Plus, the one Facebook group where
I was really hoping to get some helpful comments
(Astrophysics
and Physics) still hasn't accepted
it. After 6 days, it still shows as
"pending approval."
And the emails from that Canadian journal have
stopped, so I'm going to assume that they have
finally accepted the fact that I withdrew my
paper.
That means I can focus on submitting the two
papers to other scientific journals. I've
decided on a journal to try for my paper on Time
Dilation without Relativity.
But, that journal prefers that all articles be
submitted in LaTeX
format. I'm becoming fairly adept at
doing that by formatting things using LaTeX via
Overleaf.com,
but it still takes a long time to get things
coded properly. I know the basic steps,
but I haven't memorized all the different codes
that are used for sections, references, italics,
boldface, etc.
For awhile I thought I was almost ready to
submit my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate
somewhere, too. However, yesterday I
learned that, while a
scientific paper I mention and reference in my
paper was written by a NASA scientist, and
it was about using a reflector that NASA left on
the moon, the actual experiment described in the
paper was done by the University of California -
San Diego, not by NASA. No
one would ever get that from reading the
paper. It doesn't even mention the
University of California. So, I'll have to
change what my paper says about who did the
experiments -- which should be a relatively
minor change. Interestingly, it seems to
mean that UCSD is probably teaching nonsense
about Einstein's Second Postulate even though
they've done experiments which confirm that they
are teaching nonsense. I also keep
thinking I should add some explanatory graphics
to my paper. Those would take some time to
create.
I've also been wondering if I can combine the
two papers into one paper. There is one
highly ranked journal that I'd like to try, but
they have an 8,000 word minimum
for articles (with a 12,000 word maximum).
My Time Dilation article is about 3,500 words,
and my Second Postulate article is about 5,500
words. I've decided to submit the Time
Dilation paper to a journal tomorrow or the next
day, depending upon how long it takes me to get
the LaTeX formatting done. So, I'll have
to wait to see what the results are before I can
seriously think about combining the two
papers. The idea is intriguing,
though. Both papers are about experiments
which show how the universe works, and how
scientists are not paying any attention to what
countless experiments prove. Plus, the
problems described in both papers stem from a
common source - the mathematicians' belief
that Einstein's theories of relativity are about
everything being reciprocal. I.e., that
there is no way to tell who is moving when two
objects pass each other in space. In real
life we can tell. But it
seems you'll never get a mathematician to accept
that it is a fact that a car crashed into a
tree, since he'll argue that it is just as
likely that the tree crashed into the car.
If you argue that the car was moving and the
tree wasn't, he'll immediately start ranting
about how the earth is moving, too. It is
turning on its axis, it is moving around the
sun, and it is moving with the sun around the
universe. So, everything is moving, which
means the tree could have crashed into the car.
That is the kind of argument I have been getting
on the Google forum for months. They also
believe time dilation is reciprocal, even though
experiments show that to be total
nonsense.
So, I've got a lot of work lined up. As
soon as I upload this comment, I'll get back to
work on converting my Time Dilation paper to
LaTeX format. It really looks nice when
typeset for that journal.
