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

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

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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

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

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "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,
hotography, photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz, blues, and ...

just trying to figure things out.

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

My Latest Comments

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

October 16, 2017 - The first thing I did this morning after completing my "on-line morning chores" was to submit the revised version of my paper on Time Dilation to viXra.org.  It will be version-5 when it appears on that site, probably later today.  In yesterday's comment I described the changes I made.

After submitting that paper, I immediately began working on a revision to my paper on "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" to include some things I mentioned in my September 27 comment.  I completed those changes and submitted the revised paper.  It will be version-2 when it appears.

I not only made changes to those papers but I also changed the physics sub-category in which they would be included.   Here's the list of viXra.org physics sub-categories:

                            physics categories
I'd previously placed the papers in the "Physics - Astrophysics" sub-category, not because I felt that was where they belonged but because that was the sub-category that is displayed when you choose a category.  I thought it meant "Physics & Astrophysics" instead of "Category Physics, sub-category Astrophysics."  Picking the right sub-category wasn't easy.  Judging only by the sub-category names, none looks perfect.  I finally chose to put them in the "Relativity and Cosmology" sub-category.  As defined on ViXra.org, that sub-category includes "classical physics of special and general relativity including cosmology and application in astrophysics."  Plus, it is the most popular of the sub-categories, with 2,629 papers in it as of this moment, nearly double the 1,365 papers in the Astrophysics sub-category.  (The second-most popular physics sub-category is "Quantum Physics" with 1,974 paper as of this moment, but my paper definitely does NOT fit in that sub-category.)        

If the new versions appear on viXra.org later today, I'll revise this comment to say so.  Meanwhile, with that off my mind, I can now work on a new paper about GPS clocks and the so-called Twin Paradox.

October 15, 2017 - I finally managed to make the changes to my paper on Time Dilation to correct what I'd written about the way GPS clocks work.  After I describe how Gravitation Time Dilation causes GPS clocks in orbit to run 45 microseconds faster per day, and Velocity Time Dilation causes them to run 7 microseconds slower per day, the version of the paper that is currently on viXra.org says,
As a result, the atomic clocks aboard each of the GPS satellites must be adjusted by 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38) or the whole GPS system would become worthless in a few days.
The new version that I will be uploading tomorrow says,
As a result, the atomic clocks aboard each of the GPS satellites were modified before launch to run 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38) slower than ground clocks, so that when they are in orbit, they will be synchronous with ground clocks.  Otherwise the whole GPS system would become totally worthless in a matter of days.
I also found that I'd modified the paper so many times while preparing different versions for different journals, that I needed to go through the entire paper line by line to make sure it is as good as I can currently make it.  The revised paper will include a lot of other minor changes, mostly just to make things more clear.

The next item on  my To-Do list was supposed to be to revise my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle to quote a section of the synchronization TEST from Einstein's 1905 paper and to step through the mathematics procedure instead of just generally describing the process.  But, making the change to the Time Dilation paper made me think more about the GPS clock modification.  If they can fix a clock to run slower on the ground so that it will be synchronous with ground clocks when in orbit, that technique can be used to help explain the so-called "Twin Paradox" (which is actually NOT a paradox to anyone except mathematicians). 

So, I decided to start working on a totally new paper titled something like "The Twin Paradox and GPS Clocks."  If you build a clock that runs 10 times faster than earth clocks when the clock is on earth, that clock will be synchronous with earth clocks when it is on a space ship going 95% of the speed of light.  And that would debunk all the idiotic nonsense generated by mathematicians about how each observer will see the other's clock as running slow.    

So, yesterday I started working on that new paper.  One of the first things I did was go looking for the paper by Paul Langevin which originated the so-called "Twin Paradox" thought experiment.  I'd decided I'd probably want to quote from it in my paper, plus I was curious about what it actually says.  The paper from 1911 was originally written in French.  Its English title is "The Evolution of Space and Time."  I did a Google search for that title and found a version created and translated by Wikisource.  But I wasn't sure that it would be a good idea to use a paper created by Wikisource as a reference. 

The only other English language version I could find was at the link HERE.  Instead of a pdf file, which I'd been hoping to find, it is a series of 16 jpg images of the individual pages.  So, I thought about turning the 16 images into a pdf file.  But I wouldn't be able to copy and paste quotes that way.   However, I knew of a source where I could do an OCR (Optical Character Recognition) scan of each jpg page to create a .txt file.  So, I tried it for the first page.  Here's what one paragraph near the bottom of the first page converted to:

Neither apaee nor time exiate a priori: ior every moment in time and ion every degree oi refinement oi our theoriee ahout the phyaieal world, there is a correeponrling eoneeptien oi apacc and time. The mechanietio theory thecld ' and L ‘ theory it u ' a new one. hut there in nothing to juatiiy our eeying that this will he the de~
initive one.
Hmm.  That was no good at all.  However, when I copied the entire jpg for that first page and plunked it into a WORD docx page, it pasted as a very small jpg file in the upper left corner, taking less than a 9th of the page (a third of the width and a third of the length).   I wondered if the size of the jpg image affected the OCR results.   So, I created a much larger version of the jpg image and ran that through the OCR scan program.  The same paragraph shown above then converted to this:
Neither space nor time exists a priori: for every moment in time and for every degree of refinement of our theories about the physical world, there is a corresponding conception of space and time. The mechanistic theory introduced the old conception. and the electromagnetic theory is now demanding a new one, but there is nothing to justify our saying that this will be the dew
flnitive one.

Ah!  That is greatly improved, perfect except for a period that should be a comma, and a screw-up on a hyphenated word, simple errors which I can fairly easily fix.   Then I wondered how that paragraph compares to the Wikisource translation.  Here's the same paragraph as translated by Wikisource:
There is neither space nor time à priori: to every moment, every level of perfection of our theories of the physical universe corresponds a conception of space and time. Mechanics implied the old conception, electromagnetism requires a new one, and nothing permits us to say that this is the definite one.
Wow!  That is a very different translation.  "Definitive" is very different from "definite," and the original French version uses the French word "dèfinitive."  I decided I will stick with the 1973 published translation by J. D. Sykes. 

But, I'm not sure what I'll quote.  The paper is very interesting in that it was written a year before anyone started manufacturing radios for use by the general public, and 9 years before the first radio news broadcast.  So, signals mentioned in the paper are sent using "wireless telegraphy" instead of "radio."  The paper explains how wireless telegraphy signals would be received from a ship going about 99 percent of the speed of light toward a distant star, where the wavelength of the signals would supposedly (if you believe in the wave theory of light) be extremely long on the outbound trip, and extremely short on the return trip.  Moreover, it would take a hundred years to get all the signals from the outbound trip, but just a year or so to get the signals from the return trip because the ship would be traveling nearly at the same speed as the signals on the way back.  And then it explains how the person on the ship would age much more slowly than someone on earth. 

The Time Dilation part of the paper seems to be in total agreement with Einstein and in total disagreement with the beliefs of many mathematicians.  That is probably why mathematician call it a "paradox," likely meaning "
a self-contradictory and false proposition" rather than "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth."  

Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what the paper prior to the Langevin paper in the on-line volume was all about.  It looks like a brief biography of part of Langevin's life, and it has this quote from Langevin on the first page:
Scientific effort is neither arbitrary nor isolated, since science itself is merely a slightly more advanced form of common sense. Scientific work proceeds in the same way as all human work and can be pursued only by maintaining contact with all the resources of the human collectivity.  It necessarily follows from this that we should not allow the result of our eflorts to be confined to a few minds. The things that are today common knowledge among the majority of men were, fifty years ago, the prerogative of a few intellects, and this progression will continue unceasingly because scientific knowledge is one of the stages in the collective adaptation of thought to facts.
A man after my own heart.  The first part that I highlighted in red is definitely going to appear somewhere in my new paper, and I might include it in revisions to other papers where I write about how modern university physics text books declare that Relativity is contrary to "common sense" but then state that the nonsensical interpretation of Relativity presented in the text books must be accepted and believed anyway.

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

October 12, 2017 -  This morning, I finished organizing my collection of papers downloaded from arXiv.org.  There are about 200 papers in the collection.  I created a spreadsheet in order by the ID number of the paper, then columns for the title, the author(s) and a priority number I assigned.  That allowed me to sort the whole list by priority and by author, putting the papers I currently think are most interesting at the top of the list.  (Priority #40 is reserved for 19 documents that are about "flyby anomalies," which I think may have something to do with the "mathematician's all observers theory.)  Here are the first 46 items on the sorted list:

Spreadsheet list
                            of papers from arxiv.org

The File IDs in red are those for which I also have created annotated versions (versions where I went through the paper highlighting passages and making notes).  The first item on the list was one I just finished reading during breakfast this morning.  I'll modify the priority codes as I go through the papers, giving the papers which have quotable and usable information a lower number, and giving papers which contain nothing of interest a high number.  I basically just skimmed through the papers when I was saving them, rarely bothering to read large parts of any of them.  And I doubt that I actually studied more than 2 or 3 of them.

While I was collecting the papers, I made notes about each paper in a WORD docx file that I still have in support of the spread sheet. 

Here's a page from the 55-page listing:

                              document list 

My plan when I started organizing the papers was to find scientists who might be willing to be "reviewers" for a paper I wanted to submit to a physics journal.  But that no longer seems like a viable idea.  In the latter half of 2016, I contacted a few authors on the list to ask their opinion of my Time Dilation paper.  Looking through those emails today, it seems like everyone has a slightly different idea about Time Dilation, and they are only interesting in getting their own ideas and papers published, not helping others get their papers published.  Evidently, physics can be a "cutthroat" business.

So, I'm not exactly sure what to do next.  I might try contacting the authors of some of the papers to explain how I disagree with something in their paper to see if a good discussion can come from it.  Or, if they make a good argument in their paper, I might contact them to discuss details or their reasoning.  I had the start of some good discussions last year, but I evidently wasn't ready to continue them when the physicist I was arguing with disagreed with me.  I'm ready now.

October 11, 2017 - I awoke this morning at 5 a.m. with my mind going a million miles an hour as I tried to make sense of what I wrote yesterday about "Einstein's Mistake" regarding a "clock synchronization procedure," and the arguments I had on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum about that "clock synchronization procedure."  I couldn't fall back to sleep because I kept trying to figure things out. 

The first thing I did this morning (after my "morning chores") was to read (and reread and reread) the section of the book
"Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius" by Hans C. Ohanian, to see if I could find exactly what Ohanian considered to be "Einstein's mistake" regarding synchronizing clocks in Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.  On page 90 the book says,
Einstein proposed to achieve an exact synchronization of clocks at different locations by sending light signals back and forth between the clocks.  For instance, consider a clock in Berne and a clock in Lucerne, 60 [kilometers] to the east [in Switzerland]. Then Einstein's proposal is to send a light signal at, say, 12:00 exactly, on a straight line from Berne to Lucerne ..., and bounce it back to Berne immediately. The Berne clock will tell us that the light signal returns at 12:00 plus 0.0004 seconds; that is, the light signal took 0.0004 seconds for this round trip. Obviously, it must then have taken 0.0002 seconds to get to Lucerne, and if the Lucerne clock is synchronized with the Berne clock, the Lucerne clock must have shown 12:00 plus 0.0002 seconds when the light signal arrived. If it did not, its synchronization is wrong, and the clock must be advanced or retarded by the amount it deviated from 0.0002 seconds.
Okayyyy, so far so good, if you accept that Einstein was just writing about how to temporarily synchronize two clocks, not about how to determine if a distant clock is measuring time (ticking) at the same rate as a local clock. 

Then, on page 93 the book says,
EINSTEIN'S SYNCHRONIZATION PROCEDURE relies on the implicit assumption that the speed of light between the locations of the two clocks is the same in each direction: same speed from Berne to Lucerne and from Lucerne to Berne. And Einstein emphasized this meant that with the clocks synchronized by his procedure, it was not possible to perform a logically meaningful test of the constancy of the speed of light.
Ohanian doesn't quote the section of his 1905 paper were Einstein "emphasized" what the procedure meant, but it could be this sentence from page 5:
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
And then Ohanian implies that Einstein not only stole his ideas from others, he also played a "parlor trick" in his 1905 paper.  Ohanian writes about sending voice signals aboard a moving ship and how the movement of the ship affects how fast the voice signals move.  Then on that same page 93 Ohanian says,
Einstein had deliberately designed his synchronization procedure to hide the effect of the speed of the Earth on the speed of light, because he thought that this was the clever and right thing to do. In essence, Einstein's synchronization procedure was a parlor trick to make the speed of light appear constant, regardless of what the speed "really" is.
In other words, Ohanian believes that sending a light signal from west to east, from Bern to Lucerne, Switzerland, will cause the light to move faster than when going against the spin of the earth, i.e., when going east to west from Lucerne to Bern.  So, if you send light signals in both directions, the effects will cancel each other out.  Going west to east you have light traveling at c + v, where v is the speed of earth's rotation, and when going east to west you have light traveling at c - v.  According to Ohanian, it's a "parlor trick" to claim the speed of light is "constant" while, in Ohanian's reality, the differences in light speed are hidden by the procedure. 

Ohanian explains that you can detect the differences in the speed of light by having two clocks synchronized together in Bern, and then sending one of the clocks very slowly to Lucerne.  That way, "Einstein's synchronization procedure" will be shown to be "fraudulent" because the results of the procedure can be compared to the synchronized clocks already in place.  I.e., you will see that light traveled faster going west to east and slower going east to west.        

On page 95 the book says, 
And this was Einstein's big mistake: He forgot that besides synchronization with light signals there are other synchronization procedures - such as synchronization with transported clocks - by means of which it is possible to detect his trick and expose it as fraudulent. Synchronization by light signals does not permit us to check whether the one-way speed of light is really constant. But synchronization by other procedures permits us to check whether the one-way speed of light is really constant.
Of course, Einstein's Second Postulate as stated on page 1 of his 1905 paper is as follows:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
So, according to Einstein, Professor Ohanian's beliefs are nonsense.  Light emitted in Bern toward Lacerne cannot and does not travel at the speed of earth plus the speed of light (c + v) because light travels at c regardless of or "independent of the state of motion of [the source of the light, a.k.a.] the emitting body."  And the same with the light sent back.  (Note: This is different from the Michelson-Gale experiment which was about an observer detecting a different speed of light, not a body emitting a different speed of light.)

Professor Ohanian attacks Einstein over and over in the section of the book that I quoted from, and since Professor Ohanian clearly misunderstood Einstein's 1905 paper, I'm not sure that reading the rest of his book would be a good way to spend my time.  I may skim through it, but I don't see any value to reading it from cover to cover.  It seems clear Professor Ohanian doesn't understand what he's writing about.

I had planned to write something about the arguments on the Google forum, but I've already spent all morning on this comment, it's lunch time, and I can always write more tomorrow.  So, that's the end of this comment.

October 10, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning, while doing my "morning chores" (checking emails, web site statistics, overnight news, blog postings, etc.), I came across an article from Discover Magazine titled "Einstein's 23 Biggest Mistakes," which led me to another Discover Magazine article titled "The Master's Mistakes" and a book titled "Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius."  The first article and the book list this as Einstein's FIRST mistake:
1. 1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity. 
I'd argued about his "mistake" endlessly on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I didn't see any mistake.  And the mathematicians on the forum didn't see any mistake, either.  We disagreed because, as I saw it, Einstein's procedure was a test to see if two clocks in different reference frames were synchronized or not.  As the mathematicians on the forum saw it, it was a procedure for synchronizing clocks in different reference frames.  I argued that that would be a "procedure" that could never work.  So, if viewed their way it can be considered to be a "mistake," but it's not a mistake if viewed my way.

The "procedure" (or "test") begins near the top of page 3 of Einstein's 1905 paper with this sentence:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events.
And it ends with this sentence on the same page:
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.”
Clearly it is not a procedure to synchronize clocks, it's a procedure to TEST if clocks in different places are synchronized or not.  Or it is a definition of what the term "synchronous stationary clocks" means.

I browsed through the book on "Einstein's Mistakes" and found this on page 87:
Finally, on a beautiful spring day in Berne. in the middle of May 1905, Einstein suddenly came upon the idea that the solution to the puzzle of the speed of light lay hidden in the procedures used to measure time. He was, once again, discussing this puzzle with his friend Michele Besso, an engineer also working at the patent office. when he was struck by an inspiration.  He later recalled, "A storm broke loose in my mind, .. and "Suddenly I understood where the key to the problem lay.  The next morning, when he again met Besso, he was so excited that instead of greeting Besso with the usual "Griiezi," he blurted out. "Thank you. I've completely solved the problem." And he explained, "An analysis of the concept of time was my solution. Time cannot be absolutely defined, and there is an inseparable relation between time and signal velocity." He pointed at one of Berne's clock towers and then to the distant clock tower of the neighboring town of Muri to exemplify for his friend his crucial idea about the synchronization of clocks at different locations.

IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT that Einstein came upon the idea that synchronization plays a crucial role in the speed-of-light puzzle. An obsession with clock synchronization had swept across Europe.
I'll have to read more of the book to see if it explains exactly what the "mistake" is.  The "mistake," as I see it, is that mathematicians believe it is a procedure to synchronize clocks.  That is absurd to me.  At best, the TEST can be used to SET two clocks to the same time (e.g., 8:43 a.m.) at a given moment, but from that moment on the clocks will tick at different rates if they are in different frames of reference.  So, the clocks will immediately become UNsynchronized.

Today, we can build special clocks that will be synchronized when they are moved to a different frame of reference, as they do with clocks to be put aboard GPS satellites (such clocks are built to run slower on earth so they will be synchronized with earth clocks when in orbit where time runs faster), but there is no hint that Einstein was even thinking of such a construction procedure in 1905 when he wrote his paper.       

October 9, 2017 - I woke this morning realizing something: I've been dividing physicists into three general categories:
1.  The mathematician-physicists who firmly disagree with me.
2.  The silent middle.
3.  The physicists who agree with some of what I'm saying.
When I first started writing scientific papers about my understandings of Relativity and the speed of light, I had everyone in just one category: Possible Helpers.  I tried to discuss the first of my papers with local college professors, but only one responded.  He said my paper was outside of his areas of expertise.  I tried some non-local scientists and college professors.  No one responded.

When I tried sending my papers to scientific journals, they got turned down for one technical reason or another: mostly that my papers just weren't "the type of paper" they publish.  Or the papers present no new experimental data. 

Then I learned about
arXiv.org.  When I wanted to try submitting my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to arXiv.org, I saw I needed to have an "endorser," i.e., someone the people at arXiv.org consider "qualified to endorse" a new submission.  Their web site tells you if an author of a paper on their site is "qualified to endorse" other people's papers or not.  I looked through dozens of papers on arXiv.org to see if I could find anyone who seemed to have views similar to mine.  I tried a couple people, and one agreed to endorse my paper.  ArXiv.org not only turned down my paper, they essentially turned down all other papers I might want to submit to them in the future.

So, I tried some more journals.  Meanwhile, I started arguing with people on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  That's when I started realizing that physicists appear to fall into those 3 categories (and probably some sub-categories).  I was arguing with those in category #1.  There were a few who seemed to fall into category #3, but they all had their own particular views of things, so their support wasn't really very helpful.  They didn't argue that I was right, they argued their own theories which had elements similar to mine. 

I only have the "feeling" that category #2 exists.  I assume they are just too busy to argue on discussion forums, but they do submit papers for publication.

I temporarily gave up on submitting papers to physics journals after my paper on Time Dilation got turned down for the 8th time.  What I didn't mention on this site was that I had investigated one particular journal for submission of my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, but I never actually submitted it because the journal required that I provide the names and credentials of 3 reviewers who might favorably review my paper for them.  I didn't have any such reviewers.

Then, this morning, I woke up realizing I'd gotten off on the wrong track.  The physicist who endorsed my paper for arXiv.org just might be willing to be a "reviewer" for that same paper if I submitted it to a journal.  There would certainly be no harm in asking.  He might even suggest some others who would be willing to review my paper.  If not, I might be able to find some by going through the papers on arXiv.org and elsewhere to find authors who argue some of the same things I argue.  Duh!  

I should have realized that long ago.  The biggest problem might be that I really HATE imposing on people to ask favors of them.  And I have no idea what would happen if I gave a journal their name.  Can the physicist simply say they are too busy to review my paper?  Or do they have to do a lot of work to review it?  Or is it just a formality to make sure I have people who are willing to endorse it, and that it isn't a paper that no self-respecting physicist would ever endorse?

Whatever the answers are, it's something I need to check out.

October 8, 2017 - The last time I looked for people who might agree with my interpretation of Einstein's theories was when I was looking for an "endorser" so I could try putting my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate on ArXiv.org.  That was back in April and May of this year.  I found someone who was willing to endorse my paper, but he also suggested I mention the Sagnac effect and the Michelson-Gale experiment in the paper, which I immediately added.  That endorser (a professor at a famous college in Germany) also wrote me:
You touch on the aporia between § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's paper of 1905 from a different point of view. What you call “Mathematicians’ All Observers Theory” is indeed a consequence of the Lorentz transformation based on Voigt's untenable postulate c=const for all observers. It has nothing to do with Einstein's second postulate that is in disagreement with the LT, as you observe and argue.
The "aporia" ("an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory)" in Einstein's paper has constantly caused those on the Google forum to argue that the Second Postulate I quote from § 1 is contradicted somewhere in § 3, and they argue that section 3 has the correct version.  I need to translate Einstein's 1905 paper entirely into my own terminology before I can figure out exactly what it is that those mathematicians see. 

That German professor also sent me a paper in which he argues his own theories, which appear to be similar to yet somewhat different than mine, but which require a lot of deciphering before I'll fully understand what he is arguing.

That will probably be the case with others who have written papers which seem to contradict the mathematicians' version of Relativity.

That professor also provided me with a link to an organization of scientists who are fighting against the policies at Arxiv.org:  http://www.archivefreedom.org/
It has a lot of links and information I never bothered to check out.  Now may be the time.  One link is very interesting.  It leads to a published paper titled "New Ideas in Science" which has this abstract:

The pace of scientific work continues to accelerate, but the question is whether the pace of *discovery* will continue to accelerate. If we were driving in the wrong direction - in the direction where no new ideas can be accepted - then even if scientific work goes on, the progress would be stifled. This is not to suggest that we are in quite such a disastrous position, but on the other hand, all is not well.
While I know I need to contact authors, physicists and scientists who argue the same things I argue about Time Dilation and the speed of light, I continue to be fascinated by those who argue against my interpretation of Einstein's theories.  After stumbling across Prof. Claes Johnson's "physics illusion 11" a couple days ago, I had to see if I could find them all.  I did.  There are 14 of them (although #1 and #9 seem to be very similar, as do #2 and #13):
1: Gravitational Attraction as Instant Action at Distance
2: Photons as Light Particles
3: Explanation of Michelson-Morley Null Result
4: Elementary Particles, Quanta and Wave-Particle Duality
5: Particles as Force Carriers
6: Gravitational Force Between Each Pair of Particles
7: What You See Is What There Is
8: Input and Output of Maxwell's equations
9: Instant Action at Distance Not Physical Nor Needed
10: Fabric of Curved Space-Time
11: Lorentz Transformation as Holy Doctrine of Physics
12: Modern vs Classical World
13: Light as Stream of Photon Particles
14: Gravitational Motion by Instant Action at Distance
I also see he criticizes Global Warming in links on his blog, claiming it is not mathematically correct.  Meanwhile, on his blog pages he also provides some interesting quotes:
For when propositions are denied, there is an end

of them, but if they bee allowed, it requireth a

new worke. The Essais of Sr. Francis Bacon, London, 1612

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell

Nothing is created by coincidence, rather there is reason and necessity for everything. Leukippus, 5th Century BC.

Those quotes work both ways.  If society is drifting further from "the truth," it is the non-mathematicians who are the ones who are hated and getting attacked.  That is certain the case on the Google discussion forums where I argued my understandings of Einstein's theories.

Are there also forums or newgroups where non-mathematicians dominate?  I don't think so, but I can't be sure.  If there are such newsgroups, they aren't very popular. 

When I first started arguing about the anthrax attacks of 2001, I did so on Usenet newsgroups.  But, I've forgotten how to access such newgroups directly.  I only know how to access them via Google.  I found a link that indicates there are a LOT of interesting newsgroups out there.  Here is what it says about one of them:

alt.sci.physics.new-theories is an open forum for discussion of any topics related to conventional or unconventional physics.  In this context, "unconventional physics" includes any ideas on physical science, whether or not they are widely accepted by the mainstream physics community.
Right now, I have no idea how to get to that newsgroup the "normal" way (via the link in the quote).  As stated above, I can only get to it via Google: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  Doing so, indicates it isn't as interesting as the title suggests it is.

I'm sure accessing Usenet newsgroups directly is very simple, but I forgot the "trick."  I need to find some time to think about it.

But my most immediate chore is to update my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle to show that atomic clocks used on GPS satellites are set to run slow by 38 nanoseconds per day before launching, they aren't adjusted by 38 nanoseconds every day as the paper now says.  And there are some other changes I want to make, too.

Busy busy busy.

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

October 7. 2016 (B) - While pulling into my garage after running some errands this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #7 in the 7-CD audio book version of "You Are Not A Gadget" by Jaron Lanier. 

You are not a gadget

When I "borrowed" it from my local library, I thought it was some kind of popular science book.  It is that, but it also gets into a lot of other areas, everything from music to computers to medicine.  While I did listen to it all the way through, I was often lost when the author wrote about music, particularly digitizing music by using a midi.  It wasn't until I finished the book that I looked up "midi" to see what it was.   It doesn't really help me understand what the author was saying about it, but there were many other things discussed in the book.  Maybe The New York Times review says things better than I can:

Now, in his impassioned new book “You Are Not a Gadget,” Mr. Lanier expands this thesis further, looking at the implications that digital Maoism or “cybernetic totalism” have for our society at large. Although some of his suggestions for addressing these problems wander into technical thickets the lay reader will find difficult to follow, the bulk of the book is lucid, powerful and persuasive. It is necessary reading for anyone interested in how the Web and the software we use every day are reshaping culture and the marketplace.
I can't say that I "thoroughly" enjoyed listening to it, but there were enough interesting ideas in it to keep me listening through 7 CDs. 

October 7, 2017 (A) - Yesterday, I was thinking about calling my Internet Provider to complain once again that my email problem still hadn't been fixed, but before doing that, of course, I needed to verify that it hadn't been fixed.  I tried sending myself an email.   It worked.  So, the problem is fixed.  Whew!  What a relief.  The "work-around" procedures were really tedious and annoying.   Plus, I will probably be sending out a lot of emails in the next month or more as I try to make contact with people who, based upon their papers and books, appear to mostly agree with my understandings of Relativity and Time Dilation.

October 6, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, I got fed up once again and stopped posting to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  It was all turning into opinion versus opinion arguments (i.e., just contradicting one another without trying to resolve the disagreements).  

I thought I was making progress in talking about how one observer may see something different than another observer, because one is observing an illusion.  In a way, that view was what got me interested in science.  We see the sun moving across the sky, but, in reality, that is an illusion.  The sun is virtually motionless and it is we on earth who are moving as the earth spins on its axis.  I found that to be fascinating as a kid.  The same with illusions of perspective, like in the photos I've shown here where a human appears to be nearly the same size as the sun or moon.  Or the illusion when you are on a plane and the attendant is pouring you a cup of coffee, that you and the plane and the attendant and the coffee are not really all moving at 500 mph.  It was all like watching a magician, only Mother Nature was the Magician.  Other kids seemed to enjoy being fooled by magicians.  Or they didn't care.  I was fascinated with how the magician did his tricks.  I'm likewise fascinated by how Nature does her "tricks" when she creates such illusions.    

However, the mathematicians on the Google forum HATE the word "illusion."  It implies something is "not real."  And, to them, everything is "real."  There are no "illusions" in physics or nature.    

The example I used on the Google forum was having an observer lean out the window of a moving train and drop a rock.  He sees the rock fall straight down, which I considered to be an illusion.  An observer on the embankment next to the train will see the rock follow a parabolic trajectory as it moves with the train, loses speed and falls to the earth.  That, to me, is what really happens.  

To the mathematicians on the Google forum, both views are equally validNeither is an "illusion."  If you are on the train, the rock really does fall straight down.  If you are on the embankment, the rock really does fall in a parabolic trajectory.  To call one view an "illusion" is to say that the mathematics are somehow wrong in that situation.  It was hopeless to try to get them to see things from my point of view.  And you can't get them to understand anything if you argue from their point of view.

This morning, I wanted to find some illustrations to help describe that train experiment for this comment, so I did a Google image search for "dropping object from moving train experiment."  One image I found was pretty much what I wanted, but it's very large, you have to click HERE to see it full size:

dropping something from a moving train

Another result I got was a link (click HERE) to a web blog run by a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Claes Johnson, which has this title at the top of the blog page:

Physics Illusion 11: Lorentz Transformation as Holy Doctrine of Physics

Wow!  That seemed to be exactly what I could have used when arguing on Google's forum, particularly when I read through the page and found this:
And there we are today with the Lorentz transformation as a Holy Doctrine of Modern Physics of the same stature, and mysticism, as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the Catholic Church. But a Lorentz transformation is just a very simple linear coordinate transformation and as such cannot reveal deep truths of physics, while the Holy Trinity may well represent a deep truth of religion.

Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant, but not Lorentz invariant, and so in Einstein's hands Newtonian mechanics had to be sacked, according to the Doctrine of Lorentz Transformation. Instead a wonderful magical world of space contraction and time dilation was born from the Doctrine, but of course inheriting the unphysical nature of the Lorentz transformation and thus only a world of illusions without the reality of Newtonian mechanics. 
But, the author of the web site is Swedish and his words have been translated into English, plus the author is a mathematician, so he tends to explain everything in mathematical terms.  I'll have to study the page to see if it says anything that can really help me in my arguments.  The fact that he believes in "space contraction" doesn't help.

When I did a Google search for the exact phrase "physics illusion" to find more of Prof. Johnson's "illusions," I found instead dozens of references to a book titled "Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality?"  Browsing the book I found it is easy to read and seems to say a lot of what I've been saying.

When I did a Google search for "physics illusion" AND "Johnson," I found the rest of his "illusions."  And I found one blog page where he says,

Real physics must be some form of computational process, since if not it can only be magical.
So, he's definitely not on my side.
Those findings suggest that I really should be looking for people who agree with me, instead of constantly arguing with mathematicians who will never agree.  If I can find people who agree with me, maybe they'll have some suggestions on how to get my papers published.

But, I also need to make some minor revisions to my paper on Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle.  First things first.

October 4, 2017 - Ah!  I was just informed that the book about the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I proof-read chapter by chapter last spring and summer is now on Amazon's web site for pre-ordering, and it is also on the publisher's web site.  Here's what the cover looks like:

Scott Decker's book

It will be officially released on April 8, 2018.  Here's one of the reviews on the Amazon site:

A remarkable scientific whodunnit that peels back some of the biggest mysteries surrounding the case known as Amerithrax. From his own experiences as a lead investigator, Scott Decker paints an intimate and chilling portrait of the hunt for the elusive killer behind history’s worst bioterrorist attack.
Since I proof-read it, I guess it can also be added to the list of books I read this year.

I also received an email that informed me the TV interview they want me to do about the anthrax investigation won't happen in October.  They are now looking for it to happen in early November.

October 3, 2017 - I've been so busy arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum that I kept postponing checking on the status of that TV project about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  The last email I received from them was dated August 15, and the last time I mentioned it on this web site was on August 23.  I sent them an email this morning inquiring about the status of the project, which reminded me of my email problem.  I had to go to mail.twc.com to send the email.  I still cannot send emails my "normal" way via my browser software.  So, I have to carbon copy myself in order to get a copy into my email files.  They responded that the project was still on, and they were trying to get someone else in my general area to interview.  I guess they don't want to drive their TV van all the way from NYC to Wisconsin just to do one local interview. 

Meanwhile, I spent about 2½ hours this morning responding to four different people writing 5 different messages to me on Google's forum.  It is all boiling down to the fact that they cannot view science from the point of view of a human "observer."  They can only view science as mathematical equations.  But Einstein wrote about what human observers would see in two different locations.

In one post I also wrote about a very interesting hypothetical situation.  We have already generally agreed that clocks to be used aboard GPS satellites are set before they are launched to run 38 microseconds slower per day than earth-based clocks.  That way, when the clocks are in orbit where time ticks faster, they will tick at the same rate as the earth-based clocks.

I realized that that same "fix" can be used to set clocks that will be sent on a rocket ship that will travel at 95% of the speed of light  At that speed, clocks aboard the rocket ship will tick at 1/10th the rate of clocks back on earth.  So, if they are set to tick ten times faster than normal while here on earth, they will tick at the earth rate when going 95% of the speed of light.  That means that they will have a clock aboard the ship that is ticking ten times faster than all the other clocks aboard the ship because it is "synchronized" with earth clocks.

Ooooo.  That is a devastating argument to all those physicist-mathematicians who endlessly argue that Time Dilation is "reciprocal" and people aboard the space ship will see earth clocks as running slower just as people on earth see the space ship clocks running slower.  I'm awaiting a response from the physicist-mathematicians on the forum.

It's also something else I should probably add to my paper about Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle.    

October 2, 2017 - I had a little "epiphany" this morning.  Epiphany is defined as:
a: (1) :a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something
(2) :an intuitive grasp of reality through something (such as an event) usually simple and striking
(3) :an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure
b :a revealing scene or moment
I'd been arguing with "Dancourian" about definitions of the term "coordinate systems."  I was looking for definitions in books which match Einstein's definition.  Then I suddenly realized, the only definition of "coordinate system" which has any relevance to Relativity is Einstein's definition.  And in all of his writings, he defines "coordinate systems" as being locations where certain laws of mechanics hold true.  For example, a "coordinate system" can be located aboard a moving train while a different "coordinate system" can be located on the embankment next to the moving train. 

Then I realized something else.  "Dancourian" and I had discussed how GPS satellites are built to run 38 nanoseconds slower per day while they are on earth, so that when they are placed in orbit where time runs faster, the GPS clocks will then run at the same rate and synchronize with earth clocks.

That presents an interesting situation:  If you have a GPS clock still located on earth running 38 nanoseconds slower per day than an earth-based clock, and if you used that GPS clock to measure the speed of light, it would NOT measure it to be the same speed as when you use the earth-based clock.  The earth-based clock would measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per second.  The GPS clock would measure the speed of light to be faster than that, because the GPS clock runs slower while on earth and measures a second to be of a longer duration.  So light will travel more meters during the longer second.  

That also means that when the GPS clock is in orbit where it is "in sync" with the earth-based clock, if it was brought aboard a space ship in that same orbit, it would measure a different speed of light than the earth based clock.  The clocks would be synchronous, but the speed of light is not controlled by the clock, it is controlled by nature.  And the speed of light would be 299,792,458 meters per second only for an unmodified clock in orbit.  

I've got to find a way to add that to my paper on "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle."

October 1, 2017 - Hmm.  It's 10:15 a.m. on a Sunday morning, and I'm just starting to write my Sunday comment.  Usually I manage to get started on it on Saturday.

My email problem continues.  Yesterday, while looking through my email files, I found a "draft" of an email I was preparing to send in June of 2016 to the author of an article published in the January 2016 issue of Forbes magazine titled "Is Time Dilation Real?"  For some reason, I never sent the email.  The email was a request to discuss Time Dilation with the author, who was an assistant professor of astronomy in England at the time.  I'd probably already learned by that time that no professional astronomer or physicist wants to discuss Time Dilation with someone they do not know, and that's why I never sent it.

When I mentioned the article on the
Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, it was immediately dismissed by "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" because
That is a Story for Laymen that have no physics back ground.  The story was in FORBES not a physics journal
Fuller is on my "Do Not Reply" list, so I wrote this in a response to "Paparios" who asked why I had posted that link:
It is being dismissed as "a Story for Laymen that have no physics background," which implies that it is in some way untrue.  That poses the question: Are physicists lying to laymen, or are mathematicians claiming so in order to justify their own screwball beliefs?
And the answer from Fuller was:
It is much more complicated than it seems you will ever be able to understand.
Then "Paparios" wrote:
Who is disputing that time dilation exists? Now, the girl conclusion next is quite misleading and clearly show the sloppy language some scientists use when trying to reach to the general public.  
I couldn't make any sense of the first part of the second sentence and asked him to clarify.  "Paparios" responded:
Is there something you do not understand? The young assistant professor is not writing a scientific paper, where the phrase: "And anyone who uses a GPS, or the 'My Location' option on Google Maps, is making direct use of the fact that time dilation is real." would be most certainly rejected by reviewers, because is not even wrong.
At that point, I gave up on trying to understand what he meant by "the girl conclusion next."  I'll just assume he was dismissing the article because it was written by a woman, in addition to the fact that it wasn't published in a recognized scientific journal, which, to him, evidently makes it not worth even mentioning, much less reading.  Plus, it appears that he sometimes writes in Spanish and uses a translation program to convert his writings into English.  When he does that, there's a "Translate Message to English" line at the top of his post.  But, on the "girl conclusion next" post there was no such line.

Several people on the forum repeatedly argue that Time Dilation does not exist, but they do not use those exact words.  They bury their arguments in a lot of cryptic mathematical jargon.

In the arguments on the Google forum, however, people do sometimes provide interesting links.  Here's a link to a YouTube video about learning how to argue:

The Monty Python sketch contains one actual point of interest.  At about the 1:50 minute mark, Michael Palin says that John Cleese is just contradicting him, and "An argument is not the same as a contradiction."  Cleese, of course, contradicts him, saying "Yes, it is."  Then Palin says, "An argument is a series of statements to establish a proposition."  And, "An argument is an intellectual process; contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of what the other person says."

A lot of what I was calling "arguments" on the Google forum have really been just contradicting or "gainsaying."  I was dismissing those arguments as being just "opinion versus opinion" arguments.  So, I learned a different way to state that such "arguments" are not really worthwhile.

Meanwhile, someone calling himself JanPB wrote this on the Google forum:

You may have noticed that here the word "mathematician" is used as a slur by cranks and on sci.math the word "physicist" is used a slur. Cute :-)
On a different forum mathematicians use the word "physicist" as a "slur"??  I'd never hear that before, and I asked if it was true.  Someone else responded that it is true.  Unfortunately, I have no easy way to confirm it.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out a way to explain that Relativity isn't about what the mathematicians believe it is about.  Einstein addresses the same problem in his book "The Evolution of Physics," but when I quote from that book, the mathematicians dismiss the book as having been co-written by Leopold Infeld, and therefore they do not accept that Einstein actually wrote such things.   
And I see that a mathematician/physicist who works at Fermi lab posted this at 9:40 a.m. this morning:
Ed Lake has proven he is impervious to discussions that point out his obvious mistakes, probably due to his inability to read. So I won't bother. 
And someone named "Ned Latham," who I don't think has ever posted in any thread I've been posting in before, responded to the Fermilab mathematician:
The NG would be better off is you didn't bother to post at all, Roberts.  You're a liar, an abuser, and a weasel, and you "argue" using logical fallacies. As has been said before, you might be a physicist but you most certainly are *not* a scientist.
I think that's the first time someone on that forum has defended me by going after someone who attacked me.  Latham's post includes four other interesting attacks on the Fermilab mathematician/physicist.   Some are really pointed jabs.

Interestingly and along the same lines, a couple days ago, someone who calls himself "Python" and who is on my "Do Not Reply" list wrote:

I have to admit that, as a crank, Mr Lake has some kind of uniqueness and originality (which is not usual here, where all the bunch of idiots Seto, Wilson/Rabbidge, late Androcles, etc. spout the same kind of nonsense for ages).
And  "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" wrote:
I think Ed is a plant from the mainstream physics community as a purposeful disruptive influence.
Since Fuller is also on my "Do Not Reply" list, I never asked him what is the difference between his "community" and the "mainstream physics community."  I suspect the difference is that the "mainstream physics community" accepts that Time Dilation is real, while the other unnamed "community" consists mostly of mathematicians who can only use mathematical equations and mathematical jargon to argue that Time Dilation is not real.

It's now 11:50 a.m., so I spent the entire morning writing this comment.  Sigh.  It's also the first of the month, so I have to backup my files later today.  And, when I finish with that I'll have to figure out how to respond to "Dancourian," who keeps asking me to define "coordinate system" for him, since his definition doesn't seem to agree with mine.  Actually, our definitions do agree, but "Dancourian" uses the term in one way and Albert Einstein used it in another way.  "Dancourian" won't except how Einstein defined it in "The Evolution of Physics," of course, because that book was co-written by Leopold Infeld, so I'll have to find some other place where Einstein wrote basically the same things. 

Sigh.  Is it worth it?  I don't know.  But I'm learning a lot in the process. 

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 24, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 30, 2017:

September 29, 2017 - Groan!   I've really got too many things going on at once.

Two days ago, I found I couldn't send out any emails via my normal method of using my browser software.   I spent at least a half hour on the phone with Spectrum (previously known as Time Warner Cable) trying to resolve the problem. They determined it wasn't anything in my computer, it was something in one of their servers.  It also appears that I am doing things the way businesses do things, not the way typical email users do things.  I'm using a browser program to access my emails instead of accessing them directly from my Internet provider.  Businesses typically use their own business programs to send and receive emails. 

Yesterday, I tried sending out an experimental email and, again, it didn't work.  Same problem.  So, I called Spectrum again.  They're still working on it.  They have two "problem ticket numbers" assigned.  I must have spent over an hour on the phone with them as we went through my browser software to narrow in on the problem.  I can send out emails by going to mail.twc.com and signing in there.  I can also send emails by going to pop-mail.outlook.com and signing in there to use my outlook.com email address.  Or, I can go to pop.newsguy.com and signing in there to use my newsguy.com email address.  The problem is that I then have to figure out how to get copies of those emails into my browser system where all my previous emails are filed. 

When I use my browser system, all copies are filed in various files by person or by company name.  Those files contain hundreds of emails (tens of thousands in my old computer) that I've filed away.

Anyway, my point is that that was taking up a lot of time while I was trying to focus on arguments I was having
on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  This morning I discovered that there was something about GPS satellites that I didn't understand when I wrote yesterday's comment. 

Yesterday, I wrote "
In reality, of course, all 30 GPS clocks have to be reset by 38 microseconds every day due to Time Dilation."  That is wrong.

In reality, the clocks on GPS satellites have been modified to run slower than ground clocks in order to avoid the need to reset them by 38 microseconds every day.  It doesn't change anything in the arguments, but it was a mistake and I have to go through my papers to make sure I didn't make the same mistake in them.

I'm also learning that I need to create a reference file for each person I'm arguing  with so that I can make sure I'm arguing the right argument.  The situation is very similar to arguments I had with "anthrax truthers."  Every one of them had a different theory about who sent the anthrax letters in 2001.  It appears that every person I'm arguing with on the Google forum has a slightly different argument about Time Dilation and/or Relativity.  I'd been categorizing them all as "Time Dilation Deniers."  But it appears now that each one has his own variation on that theme.  I just have to figure out what each specific variation is.  Sigh.  Or maybe I should get back to work on my papers.  But, I've learned a great deal in the past few days, so I think I really need to continue with the debates.  I just need to do it - somehow - in a different, better way.  

September 28, 2017 - Yesterday, the arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum finally produced something worthwhile.  Two key disagreements were pinpointed and identified.

Disagreement #1:  The math cult believes that two clocks in two different coordinate systems are "synchronized" by simply setting them to the same time.  In reality, and as I see it, that just "synchronizes" them for an instant, and then they will immediately become out of sync once again as one clock ticks faster than the other due to Time Dilation.

Disagreement #2:  The math cult believes that GPS satellites contain "imperfect" clocks that simply need to be reset every day.  They argue that Time Dilation doesn't have anything to do with the reason they have to be reset.  In reality, of course, all 30 GPS clocks have to be reset by 38 microseconds every day due to Time Dilation.  As I see it, it is absurd to argue that all 30 clocks are "imperfect" and just happen to get out of sync by the same 38 microseconds every day.

Disagreement #1 says they totally misunderstand Time Dilation and its causes.  And they totally misunderstand Relativity.  It also tells me that I'm right in disagreeing with them.  They can only discuss the subject by citing mathematical dogma.  They do not understand anything except mathematical dogma. 

Disagreement #2 shows how they rationalized things to justify their beliefs.  What are the odds of 30 atomic clocks being "imperfect" by the same amount every day for decades, and that amount is the exact amount Einstein predicted would be caused by Gravitational and Velocity Time Dilation?  Here is exactly what "Danco" wrote in a post overnight:

No two clocks have perfectly matched rates, just due to inevitable differences in constructions, etc.  But we can synchronize any two clocks with each other, albeit only for the instant of synchronization, and then they begin to drift apart because of unequal rates.  But this drifting due to imperfect construction has nothing to do with the subject at hand [i.e., Relativity].
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this "finding."  But, I see one of the people I was arguing with (Paul B. Anderson) has stated this morning that he's not going to argue with me anymore.  That's another tactic they use when it is becoming clear that they cannot defend their beliefs. 

Looking through all the posts made overnight, I don't see any that aren't just tedious and boring arguments about definitions of words.  So, what I think I'm going to do is start a new thread about the two disagreements described above, and I'll try to focus the new arguments on the exact two areas where we disagree.

September 27, 2017 - I'm currently involved in a bunch of fairly interesting arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  I really wanted to write a comment here about it yesterday, but I just couldn't break away from the arguments.  I see there are 12 messages waiting this morning, so I'm writing this comment before I start responding to them.

One thing I learned yesterday was that I shouldn't have called my "do not respond" list by that name.  Some guy on the list mentioned something interesting, and I made a comment about it to someone else.  So, the guy on the "do not res
pond" list attacked me for reacting to his post after I said I wouldn't do that anymore.   To him (at least for the purpose of starting another argument),  the word "respond" means "react."  So, I've given my list a new name.  It is now my "do not reply" list.

The comment the guy made was about Einstein's 1905 paper and how Einstein described a test to see if clocks at two locations were synchronized.  The guy said the test involved using a reflector to bounce light off of the second location.  The quote I used in my paper on "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" didn't contain the word "reflect" or "reflector."  So, I mistakenly argued that Einstein didn't say anything about any reflector.  The guy then quoted the passage where the word "reflected" was used:

Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” $t'_{\rm A}$.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if

\begin{displaymath}t_{\rm B}-t_{\rm
                                A}=t'_{\rm A}-t_{\rm B}.

Hmm.  That's very interesting.  I decided to analyze it to see what it really says in plain English using meaningful numbers.   Here is what it means:
Light is emitted from Clock-A at 5:30 a.m.  (tA) 
The light reflects from Clock-B at 5:32 a.m. (tB) back toward Clock-A. 
It arrives at Clock-A at 5:34 a.m. (t’A)

The clocks are synchronized if 5:32 a.m. (tB) minus 5:30 a.m. (tA) equals 5:34 a.m. (t’A) minus 5:32 a.m. (tB).

It does:
2 - 0 = 2 
4 - 2 = 2. 
That's a better example to use than what I used in my paper.  It shows the point I wanted to make more  clearly.  If the clocks are synchronized, that method will work to prove it.  But what would happen if the clocks are NOT synchronized?  And how do you synchronize the two clocks in the first place?

If the clocks are not synchronized, you can get something like this:

Light is emitted from Clock-A at 5:30 a.m.  (tA) 
The light reflects from Clock-B at 5:32 a.m. (tB) back toward Clock-A. 
It arrives at Clock-A at 5:35 a.m. (t’A)

The clocks are NOT synchronized if 5:32 a.m. (tB) minus 5:30 a.m. (tA) does NOT equal 5:35 a.m. (t’A) minus 5:32 a.m. (tB).

It does not:
2 - 0 = 2 
5 - 2 = 3. 
What is most interesting is that such a test would prove that the mathematicians' "All Observers Theory" is just plain wrong.  The reason the clocks are not synchronized in the above example is because light going back to Clock-A after being reflected off Clock-B has to catch up with Clock-A as it moves away from the source of the light.  So, instead of hitting Clock-A at the 5:34 a.m. mark, the light didn't catch up with Clock-A until it was 5:35 a.m.  That means that Clock-A is "an observer" who measured light arriving at c - v, where v is Clock-A's velocity.   If the speed of light was the same for "all observers" the test wouldn't work at all.  No matter how fast or slow one clock is moving relative to the other, they would always have to be synchronous


So, now it's time for me to jump back into the arguments to see how they will try to prove me wrong.

September 25, 2017 - The argument I'm having on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum just had its 132nd post.  It's averaging about 40 posts per day.   I'm arguing with 4 different people, 3 of whom seem reasonable and a 4th ("Poutnik") who seems to understand nothing but mathematical theory. Meanwhile, of course, there are others who do nothing but hurl personal insults which I just ignore.   Added note:  As I was working on this comment, "Poutnik" started launching personal insults.  So, he's now on my "do not respond" list.

A lot of the arguments have to do with the "length" of a second, which I'm beginning to feel I should refer to as the "duration" of a second.  I explained how the duration of a second can be different on the top of a mountain versus at the bottom of the mountain due to Gravitational Time Dilation, but we keep getting stuck on arguments about phrasing.  It's like they have memorized phrases from some text book, and if I do not recited the exact same phrase in the exact same way it is in the textbook, they cannot understand what I'm saying.

I'm rapidly getting tired of the discussion.  My time would certainly be better spent if I got back to working on a paper about the wave-vs-particle dispute over the nature of light.   But, I also want to consolidate my notes on the book I just finished,
"The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.  I started reading the 313 page book on page 160 after a search for some term took me there.  I was using my laptop which allows me to highlight things in different colors and make notes.  Then, when I got to about page 262, I switched to reading it on my Kindle, and began at page 1.  When I got to page 160, I switched back to my laptop and finished the book there.  There's a LOT of interesting stuff in the book that I need to organize in some way so I can easily refer to it when the occasion demands. 

I also keep wanting to mention that the mouse for the laptop I use for updating this web site and for most of my on-line work suddenly failed the other day.  The left button suddenly stopped working when I was in the middle of doing some kind of research.  It took me at least 15 minutes to figure out what happened.  I thought the computer had stopped responding.  I could still move the arrow around, and I could right-click when I needed to, but nothing happened when I did a left-click.  It was really weird trying to figure out what was wrong.  I did it through a process of elimination, trying about a dozen other ideas first.  But, I suppose it's hard to understand if you haven't had an identical experience.  I used the mouse from another computer to verify I'd solved the problem.  Then I went out and spent $13.99 for a new mouse.

I suppose I could also mention that I downloaded and saved 84 episodes of "The Lucy Show" into my DVR over the weekend.  It was a "weekend binge" on the "Decades" network.  I don't know when I'll get the time to watch them, since I have a viewing backlog just as I have a reading backlog and a writing backlog.

September 24, 2017 - Yesterday, I finished reading a really terrific physics book published in 1938: "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.  

The Evolution of Physics

It is virtually devoid of mathematics and very carefully explains all or most of the aspects of Relativity that seem to confuse many people.  It looks to me like Einstein was tired of having the mathematicians constantly distort his theories, so he partnered with Infeld to write this book.  Or maybe Infeld convinced Einstein that he needed to write a book for the layman that wasn't filled with complex mathematics.  The book was written in English by Infeld, who was an assistant to Einstein at the time.  But it clearly expresses the ideas of Einstein.

When I quoted from the book in an argument with a math cult member on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, the math cult member dismissed the book this way:

First, for your info, it's well known that the popular book "Evolution of Physics" was written almost entirely by Infeld.  Einstein had very little to do with the writing of it, agreed to put his name on it to help Infeld raise money, and was not happy with how the book turned out.  This doesn't mean every word in the book is wrong, but just be aware that when you quote from that book you are quoting Leopold Infeld, not Albert Einstein.
So, I had to do research to see if I could find any statement anywhere in which Einstein is quoted as being "not happy with how the book turned out."  I couldn't find anything.  But I found a lot of other materials which support what Einstein and Infeld say in the book.  (And of course, what is said in the book is in total agreement with how I interpret the important papers that Einstein wrote.)

The book is 313 pages long, and it has this on page 291:
"Fundamental ideas play the most essential role in
forming a physical theory. Books on physics are full
of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought
and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every
physical theory. The ideas must later take the mathematical
form of a quantitative theory, to make possible
the comparison with experiment."
That goes directly against what the math cult argues.  The math cult seems to believe that math is where theories begin.  Or maybe they believe that math is all there is.  It is difficult to get them to explain exactly what they believe.

But, when I went hunting for some source which might support the idea that Einstein was "not happy" with The Evolution of Physics, I found a paper written by Einstein alone titled "Induction and Deduction in Physics."  It was written in 1919 and is only two pages long, but the quote below supports the quote above while also stating the same things in a very different way:
The truly great advances in our understanding of nature originated in a manner almost diametrically opposed to induction. The intuitive grasp of the essentials or a large complex of facts leads the scientist to the postulation of a hypothetical basic law, or several such basic laws. From the basic law (system of axioms) he derives his conclusion as completely as possible in a purely logically deductive manner. These conclusions, derived from the basic law (and often only after time consuming developments and calculations), can then be compared to experience, and in this manner provide criteria for the justification of the assumed basic law. Basic law (axioms) and conclusions together form what is called a "theory." Every expert knows that the greatest advances in natural science, e.g., Newton's theory of gravitation, thermodynamics, the kinetic theory of gases, modern electrodynamics, etc. all originated in this manner, and that their basis has this, in principal, hypothetical character. So, while the researcher always starts out from facts, whose mutual connections are his aim, he does not find his system of ideas in a methodical, inductive way; rather, he adapts to the facts by intuitive selection among the conceivable theories that are based upon axioms.
One web site I found provides this example of deductive reasoning:
"All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.
And it also provides two examples of inductive reasoning:
An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald." The conclusion does not follow logically from the statements.
It seems to me that mathematicians use inductive reasoningThey argue that the speed of light is measured as 299,792,458 meters per second atop a mountain and is measured as 299,792,458 meters per second at the bottom of the mountain, therefore the speed of light is the same everywhere.

It was through deductive reasoning that Einstein came to realize that the speed of light might NOT be the same everywhere if the length of a second is not the same everywhere.  As Einstein (and Infeld) wrote:  "Thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory."  And you have to have the idea that time may not be the same everywhere before you can figure out a way to use mathematics to help confirm the idea.

When using both methods of reasoning, you're supposed to assume that it is possible that your conclusions might be wrong.  In other words, you are supposed to keep an open mind about what you conclude.  But that seems very rare in today's world.  I'm trying to find someone who can voice an intelligent argument that my understanding of Einstein's theories is wrong.  All they can do is argue that I disagree with their inductive reasoning and their math. 

As of this morning, there are 46 posts to my Google forum thread titled "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle."  About 25 of them are nothing but personal attacks.  One that isn't says this about my paper on "What is Time?":

There isn't a SINGLE DAMN FORMULA in that Paper ???
What the Hell Ed?
Evidently, he cannot conceive of a scientific paper that isn't just one big mass of mathematical formulae.  Unfortunately, that seems to be the same view some editors of scientific journals have.      

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 17, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 23, 2017:

September 22, 2017 - This morning I received an email informing me that my paper "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" is now available on ViXra.org at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1709.0317  

So, of course, I immediately created a new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum to see what others might have to say about it.

This morning I also received an email from journal #8 turning down my paper on Time Dilation because the "paper does not contain enough new results to warrant refereeing."  So, once again they say nothing about the validity of what is said in the paper.  It seems they are not interested in new ways to view old results from old experiments, they are only interested in NEW results from new experiments.  Which means, of course, they wouldn't be interested in the paper I just put on vixra.org, either, since that paper is also about viewing old test results in a new and correct way.

That will probably be my last attempt to get a scientific paper published.  I have ideas for at least two more papers I want to write, and then I probably just put them all into a self-published book. 

September 21, 2017 - At about 10:05 a.m. this morning, I submitted my latest scientific paper "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle" to vixra.org.  If my past experience holds true, it should be available on-line later today.  If so, I'll modify this comment to add the link.

The paper hits some of the same points I hit in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, except that this new paper examines the misunderstandings and confusion about Einstein's Second Postulate, and tries to explain where all the misunderstandings and confusion come from.  It seems it can be explained as a simple understanding of a word: principle.

Here's one definition of the word "principle" from an on-line dictionary that I didn't use in the paper:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:the principles of modern physics.
And what is a "theory"?  A "theory" can be an argument that a "fundamental, primary or general law from which others are derived" is totally wrong or just an illusion.  In his 1905 paper, Einstein first calls the "Principle of Relativity" a "conjecture," a word which is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."  That seems very different from a "principle."  And it often seems that mathematicians argue that a "principle" is "a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works," and therefore no one can challenge or argue with a "basic truth."

The paper is just a "first draft."  I'm a long way from being totally satisfied with it.  But, I need to take a break from it, and I want to see what the folks on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have to say about it.

I don't know if I'll ever try to get it published.  Mostly I wrote it just to clarify my own thoughts on how the whole "crisis in physics" got started.  And I wanted to write about some things Einstein wrote in his 1905 Special Relativity paper that seem to leave no room for dispute over what Einstein "really meant."

September 20, 2017 - When I checked the status of my paper on Time Dilation this morning, the status had changed.  The web site run by the physics journal that has the paper had been showing the status as "Under Review" since August 2nd.  As of this morning, the status is "Awaiting ED Decision."

I assume that "ED" stands for either "Editor" or "Editorial Director."  And what kind of decision are they waiting for?  I have to assume it is a decision on whether to (1) ask me for revisions to make it more suitable for printing in their journal, or (2) to publish it as is, or (3) to reject the paper.   I'll just have to wait to find out.  Presumably, I won't have to wait very much longer.

This morning, a new post to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum contained a phrase I suddenly realized I've been seeing a lot lately: "the crisis in physics."  So, I did a Google search for "crisis in physics."  One article near the top of the list was from National Public Radio (NPR) titled "Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?"  It's a VERY interesting article from June 2016 about a book by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin that had just been published.  The article says:
Smolin and Unger believe this crisis is real — and it's acute. They pull no punches in their sense that the lack of empirical data has led the field astray. As they put it:
    "Science is corrupted when it abandons the discipline of empirical validation or dis-confirmation. It is also weakened when it mistakes its assumptions for facts and its ready-made philosophy for the way things are."
Thus, the goal of The Singular Universe and The Reality of Time is to take a giant philosophical step back and see if a new and more promising direction can be found. For the two thinkers, such a new direction can be spelled out in three bold claims about the world.
 Their "three bold claims about the world" are:
1. There is only one universe.
2. Time is real.
3. Mathematics is selectively real.
Those are also my "bold claims," although I'd rephrase them to this:
1.  The "visible universe" is just part of "the Big Bang Universe."
2.  Time and Time Dilation are real.
3.  Mathematics is just a tool, not holy writ.
Browsing through their book, however, it seems to be more of a philosophy book than a science or physics book.  I could be wrong, though.  The authors seem to argue their theories, which are not the same as my theories.   Chapter 5, which is by Unger, is titled "The Mutability of the Laws of Nature."  But, instead of being about how our defined laws of nature change as we learn more about how Nature works, it seems to be an argument that the laws of nature could have been different when the universe was younger.  That may be true, but who cares?  How do you prove such a thing?  Right now, I only care if the "defined laws of nature" as we currently view them are correct.  Or is there something we do not yet understand - like how Time works?  Have we defined the laws of nature correctly?

Some seem to believe that we do not define the laws of nature, we discover them.  And once discovered, they are immutable.  But we know from our history that laws we once thought were "immutable" were actually mutable, because we misunderstood things when we created and defined the laws.       

And that happens to be the theme of the paper I'm currently working on.  It's close to being a good first draft.  I just need to stop being distracted by things I find while doing research.  It took me about two hours to write this comment.  Those are two hours I could have spent working on my paper.

September 18, 2017 - Hmm.  Each morning I browse though the topics on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum to see if anything interesting is being discussed.  This morning, I noticed a post containing a link to a YouTube video by Neil deGrass Tyson from which the poster, Pentcho Valev, partially transcribed some statements by Tyson:
"One of the towering great achievements of the human mind in our understanding of the universe is Einstein's theories of relativity. It makes only two assumptions: That the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement and no matter in what direction you are moving or how fast. You always get the same measurement for the speed of light. That's Assumption 1 which by the way the experiment has shown to be true. Assumption 2: The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another. Those are the only two tenets that you have to buy into."
Here's a screen capture I made from a point early in the video:
Neil deGrass Tyson
                            giving wrong information

The image shows the same claim as "assumption #1" in the transcription, just phrased slightly differently.  It's the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" in its simplest form.   I knew from watching Tyson on TV that that was how he understood things, but I didn't have a good link to such a statement.  Now I do.  (Nevertheless, I'm a fan of Tyson.  He's correct about most things.  He just goes off the track when talking about time dilation and the speed of light.)

In my Sunday comment yesterday, I mentioned that I had already browsed through the book of lectures by Richard Feynman that was #5 on the list of "5 Highly Recommended Physics Textbooks," and I made no further comment on that book.  Then, after I'd finished posting my Sunday comment, I browsed through volume1 of Feynman's 3 volumes of lectures to see if I should have included something from it.  (Volumes 2 & 3 are mostly on topics of little interest to me.)  The problem is, Feynman doesn't provide any short quotes I can use to show he agrees with Einstein and I, and he disagrees with the mathematicians.  If I want to show what he thinks about the mathematicians' absurd argument that "all motion is relative," I have to copy a fairly large section from Section 16-2:
To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous so-called “paradox” of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul’s clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter’s point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mu-mesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a “paradox” only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, “Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can’t we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet.” But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship—the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on—while Peter felt nothing.

So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an “absolute” sense, and it is certainly correct.

There's an even longer quote in section 15-4 about Time Dilation which the mathematicians also claim isn't real because "all motion is relative."  And there's a long quote in section 15-6 about two observers seeing light travel at different rates, but there aren't any small quotable pieces of it that mean anything without the providing whole long quote.   Sigh.

September 17, 2017 - I spent most of my computer time last week quaworking on a new paper about the The Principle of Relativity versus The Theory of Relativity.  The new paper contains some variations on some of the same arguments I used in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  And it used some of the same references.  So, last week I decided to see if I could find some new references. 

It occurred to me that I didn't know how the college physic text books I used as references were ranked.  Are college physics text books ranked?  I did a Google search for "the best college physics textbook."  One physics website has a list of "5 Highly Recommended Physics Textbooks."  The 5th book on the list is a book of lectures by Richard Feynman, which I already had.  And I'd browsed through 3 different editions of #3 on the list, but I hadn't examined the others on the list: 
#1. University Physics with Modern Physics by Young, Freedman & Lewis Ford

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

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

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

#5. The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman
Browsing through the #1 book on the list, which is 1,551 pages followed by many more pages of appendixes, tables and indexes, I found some very quotable information in Chapter 37, which begins on page 1268.   On page 1269 it says:
Einstein's first postulate, called the principle of relativity, states: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of referenceIf the laws differed, the difference would distinguish one inertial frame from the others or make one frame somehow more "correct" than another.   
Hmm.  That sentence I highlighted in red shows that the book is off on the wrong track.  The laws are the same in all inertial frames, BUT when you compare results between frames, the results you get from the same laws can be different - primarily due to different rates of Time Dilation. 

Later on that same page the authors distort Einstein's Second Postulate this way:
Einstein's second postulate states: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference and is independent of the motion of the source.
No, that's not exactly true, and it's definitely not what Einstein's second postulate states.  The speed of light in a vacuum will be measured to be the same in every inertial frame where it is created, but it may not be measured to be the same when measured in a different frame from the frame where it was created or emitted.  Only when the two frames are stationary relative to each other will the speed of light sent from each frame to the other be measured to be the same.

On the next page the authors use illustrations to show how an outside observer will see light traveling at the same speed as the emitter saw it.  And the authors conclude:
This result contradicts our elementary notion of relative velocities, and it may not appear to agree with common sense.  But "common sense" is intuition based on everyday experience, and this does not usually include measurements of the speed of light.
In other words, you have to accept it as true if you want to pass the course, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.  And, presumably, if the student argues that it isn't what Einstein wrote, he'll be told that it may not be what Einstein wrote, but you must believe that it is what Einstein meant.

I printed out most of Chapter 37.  I haven't had time to read all of it yet. 

Browsing through textbook #2 on the list, which is over 1,300 pages, I found these versions of Einstein's First and Second postulates on page 957:
First postulate (the relativity principle): The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.

The first postulate can also be stated as: There is no experiment you can do in an inertial reference frame to tell if you are at rest or moving uniformly at constant velocity.
The second postulate is consistent with the first:

Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
These two postulates form the foundation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It is called “special” to distinguish it from his later “general theory of relativity,” which deals with noninertial (accelerating) reference frames (Chapter 44). The special theory, which is what we discuss here, deals only with inertial frames.
Then it says,
The second postulate may seem hard to accept, for it seems to violate common sense. First of all, we have to think of light traveling through empty space. Giving up the ether is not too hard, however, since it had never been detected. But the second postulate also tells us that the speed of light in vacuum is always the same, 3.00 X 108m/s, no matter what the speed of the observer or the source. Thus, a person traveling toward or away from a source of light will measure the same speed for that light as someone at rest with respect to the source. This conflicts with our everyday experience: we would expect to have to add in the velocity of the observer. On the other hand, perhaps we can’t expect our everyday experience to be helpful when dealing with the high velocity of light.
I also browsed through textbook #4 on the list above.  It's over 1,300 pages.  On page 1027 there is an illustration that I'd very much like to show here, but I'm afraid of violating some copyright.  There's no problem quoting text, but using images is a different situation.

The illustration shows a woman, Amy, on the left shining a flashlight at Cathy who is in the middle of the illustration on bicycle peddling fast toward Bill, who is on the right shining another flashlight at Cathy.  The
following text goes with that illustration:
All experimenters, regardless of how they move with respect to each other, find that all light waves, regardless of the source, travel in their
reference frame with the same speed c.  If Cathy's velocity toward Bill and away from Amy is v = 0.9c, Cathy finds, by making measurements in her reference frame, that the light from Bill approaches her at speed c, not at c + v = 1.9c.  And the light from Amy, which left Amy at speed c, catches up from behind at c relative to Cathy, not the c - v = 0.1c you would have expected.

Although this prediction goes against all shreds of common sense, the experimental evidence for it is strong.  Laboratory experiments are difficult because even the highest laboratory speed is insignificant in comparison to c.
The evidence is "strong," but "experiments are difficult"???  In reality, all the experiments say it is NONSENSE.  But, of course, the student must nevertheless accept it as true if he or she wants to pass the course, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not.  And, presumably, if the student argues that it isn't what Einstein wrote, he or she will be told that it may not be what Einstein wrote, but you must believe that it is what Einstein meant.  

It reminded me of some news articles I read recently about the problems colleges and universities are having with hiring physics teachers.  Click HERE, HERE and HERE.  Who wants to teach dogma that conflicts with common sense?  And are the teachers willing to teach dogma the kind of teachers we need and want?

How did schools and universities get into this idiotic situation?  The paper I'm writing suggests that it is simply that they don't seem to know the difference between a principle and a theory.  Dictionaries define a principle as "a fundamental truth or law."  The on-line Cambridge Dictionary has this definition: "a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works."

If something is a "basic truth" or a "fundamental truth" or a "law," it appears that the authors of physics books feel that it cannot be questioned.  Unfortunately, that means they do not understand the meaning of the word "theory."  That same Cambridge Dictionary has this definition of "theory": "something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation."

In other words, a theory can be a challenge to or a questioning of a principle.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a "systematic or scientific explanation" for why Galileo's Principle of Relativity is an illusion.  It is a challenge to and a questioning of Galileo's "principle."  The "principle" is in need of an modification or overhaul to make it a more "reasonable explanation for facts."

It's really not that difficult to understand.  All you need to do is get rid of most of the math and look at things logically.  And they should probably stop putting discussions of Relativity near the end of books that are over a thousand pages in length.  Who wants to challenge the idiotic dogma being taught by professor when you are near the end of a course?

As I stated above, I have browsed three different editions of textbook #3 on the list.  On page 1254 of the 8th edition it says these are the "postulates of the special theory of relativity":
1. The principle of relativity: The laws of physics must be the same in all inertial reference frames.

2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value, c = 3.00 X 108 m/s, in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light. 
And it has the following paragraph of explanation:
The first postulate asserts that all the laws of physics—those dealing with mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, thermodynamics, and so on — are the same in all reference frames moving with constant velocity relative to one another. This postulate is a sweeping generalization of the principle of Galilean relativity, which refers only to the laws of mechanics. From an experimental point of view, Einstein’s principle of relativity means that any kind of experiment (measuring the speed of light, for example) performed in a laboratory at rest must give the same result when performed in a laboratory moving at a constant velocity past the first one. Hence, no preferred inertial reference frame exists, and it is impossible to detect absolute motion.
That last sentence is, of course, just an opinion or interpretation by the authors.  It is not anything stated by Einstein.

On page 1023 of the 9th edition and on page 1117 of the 10th edition it says this about Einstein's Second Postulate:
2. The Speed of Light Postulate: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.

We can also phrase this postulate to say that there is in nature an ultimate speed c, the same in all directions and in all inertial reference frames. Light happens to travel at this ultimate speed.
Note that this is VERY different from what was in the 8th edition.  It says nothing about the velocity of the observer.  And it says nothing about any "preferred inertial reference frame."

It appears that the authors decided for some reason to omit some of their personal interpretations in the newer versions of their text book.  Hopefully, there are others writing physics text books who are also finding reason to more closely examine what Einstein actually said and wrote and to leave out their own personal interpretations and beliefs.

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017, thru Saturday, Sept. 16, 2017:

September 14, 2017 - For the record, while driving home from doing some chores yesterday afternoon, I finished listening to CD #16 of the 16-CD set for "The Daily Show (the AudioBook): An Oral History as Told by Jon Stewart, the Correspondents, Staff and Guests."

The Daily Show - audio book

It was a very enjoyable listening experience.  I probably watched every single episode of "The Daily Show" during the nearly 17 years Jon Stewart was host.  The audio book is narrated by a team of actors, not the original cast members, celebrities and politicians who made the actual statements.  It is like a reading of  a transcript of an week-long discussion between Jon and the people who worked on "The Daily Show," plus many of the people he interviewed over the years.  And it is also sort of a history book of many of the events that happened in the years, from sometime in 2000 to sometime in 2016.  9/11 happened in their second year.  George W. Bush seemed like the most bumbling, ignorant President the country had every seen, until Donald Trump became the all time champ.  The book explains how "The Daily Show" influenced politics, changed late-night TV, and also changed the way regular news shows operated.  I highly recommend the book.  And the audio book was perfect for listening while driving. 

September 13, 2017 - This morning I received an email advising me of a different way to look up IP (Internet Protocol) addresses to find the location of the computer assigned that address.  Somewhere in some previous comment on this web site I had mentioned that I used http://www.ip2location.com/ to look up locations for IP addresses.  The email said:
While it does the job overall, I found another tool to be a far better alternative. I thought other users might also appreciate it if you update your page. 
The emailer suggested https://www.vpnmentor.com/tools/ipinfo/ as the "far better alternative." 

So, I tried using both methods to look up the same IP address.  The first IP address I tried produced New York City as the IP location via both methods.  But the second IP address I tried ( produced different results.  Ip2location said the IP was located in Antwerp, Belgium.  Vpnmentor said the IP was located in Brussels, Belgium.  Hmm.  Unfortunately, I had no way to determine which was correct.  So, I had to find a way.

I suspected that Antwerp was right, and Vpnmentor was just providing the capitals of foreign IP addresses, not the actual city were the IP was located.  I tried looking up IP  Ip2location gave me Humberstone, England.  Vpnmentor gave me London, England, about 110 miles from Humberstone.  Again vpnmentory had given me the country's capitol.  So, I tried  a few other foreign IP addresses, but they didn't follow that pattern.  Some gave me different cities via the different methods, some gave me the same cities.

So, I tried my own IP address.  Ip2location gave me my home town.  Vpnmentor gave me "Delafield (Cushing Park Business Center), Wisconsin," which Google Maps says is 53.5 miles away from where I'm actually located.  That was enough to show me that I was using the better IP locator package.

But, I wanted a bit more proof.  So, I tried IP, which I knew from their web site HERE was Cambridge University in Coton, England.  And that is what Ip2location gave me.  However, Vpnmentor inexplicably gave me Bedford, Tennessee.  To make certain, I examined the source code for an email I once received from Stephen Hawking's staff, and I found the IP address used to send the email:  Ip2location shows the location of that IP address as Cambridge University.  Vpnmentor shows it as Bedford, TN.

Case closed.  http://www.ip2location.com/ is far better.

September 11, 2017 - Hmm.  It appears that the editor of the journal (#8) that has my paper on Time Dilation was on vacation or out ill last week.  This morning after I did my morning routines, I pondered whether to send journal #8 another email or not.  I finally sent them an email asking about the status of my paper, and I addressed the email to "editor" instead of the specific editor who initially acknowledged receipt of my paper back on August 2.

Then I read some of Einstein's book
The Evolution of Physics for awhile.  The part I was reading was about things that do not particularly interest me, so decided to do some research about light waves and particles for awhile.  Then, just before I shut down to go to lunch, I received a response from Journal #8. 

The response stated that they had received my paper, that it was "under peer review," and that they would inform me of a "final decision" as soon as possible.

OKAY!  So, they have reviewers who are actually reading it, and I should be getting some peer reviewer thoughts about the paper sometime soon.  I suppose, the "final decision" might turn out to be that they do not want to publish it, but they should provide reasons why.

In the afternoon, after lunch and after I did some chores, I turned on my computer once again and found I had another email from the same editor at Journal #8.  At first I thought they might have made their "final decision."  But, no, it was a response to the email I sent them last week.  So, the editor was catching up on work not done last week.  The email said basically the same thing as the first email, just phrased differently.

So, I'll continue waiting.  And I won't be sending them any more emails until around October 2, if I haven't heard from them by then.  

September 10, 2017 - I keep accumulating facts and evidence which show that the way physics is taught in colleges and universities these days is totally wrong - specifically the so-called "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," which I addressed in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  Selected from many examples, here is how Einstein's Second Postulate is presented on page 888 of the 9th edition of College Physics by Raymond A. Serway and Chris Vuille:
The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.
And here's how  it is described on page 91 of the eleventh edition of a college text book titled "Foundations of Astronomy" by Michael Seeds and Dana Backman:
Second postulate: The speed of light is a constant and will be the same for all observers independent of their motion relative to the light source.
Of course, that is NOT Einstein's Second Postulate.  And no matter how many different college text books show the Second Postulate that way, it is not what Einstein said or wrote or meant.  Here is Einstein's Second Postulate:
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. 
Einstein makes it very clear that only the emitter of the light (or an observer who is stationary relative to the emitter) will see the light traveling at c.  Einstein says absolutely nothing about what some other observer will see.  In fact, his whole point is that they may not measure the light as arriving at c.

In his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies which introduced his Theory of Special Relativity to the world, Einstein described how to determine if someone else is stationary relative to you.  Basically, if two entities consider themselves to both be stationary, they can confirm it by each sending a light signal to the other at exactly the same time.  If the light signals take exactly the same amount of time to go in both directions, then the two entities are not only stationary relative to each other, but their clocks are also synchronous.

Here is how Einstein put it:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
And later on the same page, he continues:
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
Although Einstein didn't do it in his paper, the test for being synchronous and stationary can be easily illustrated like so:
At a pre-selected instant in time, A sends a light signal to B and B sends an identical light signal to A.  They then compare their readings.  If they sent and received the signals at exactly the same time, they are stationary relative to each other, and their clocks are synchronized.  If the readings differ, they are not stationary relative to one another. 

It would have been nice if Einstein had described why and how the movement of one entity would cause the speed of light to differ.  But he didn't.  For example, he could have written: If A is moving toward stationary B, and they simultaneously send out light signals, the results will look like this for the signal sent by A:
The movement by A did not affect the light signal it emitted to reach stationary B.  This is because of Einstein’s Second Postulate: “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”  The emitting body is A, and movement by A will not change the speed of the light it emits.  It will always be c (just as his Second Postulate stated).

However, the reverse is not true.  When light is emitted from stationary B toward moving A, it can be depicted like this:
B sent the light signal when A was at Location-A, but because A was moving toward the oncoming light signal, A encountered the signal at Location-A2.  The light traveled at c, but because A was moving toward B, A encountered the signal as if light had traveled at c+v, where v is the speed of A toward B.  And, of course, the situation where A is moving away from B will look like this:
The light traveled at c, but because A was moving away from B, A encountered the signal at Location-A2, as if it had traveled at c-v, where v is the speed of A away from B. 
So, A and B would know they are not experiencing a common or synchronous time.  They may not know who is moving, but they know someone is moving relative to the other.

This is totally in agreement with Einstein's Second Postulate, but it is in total disagreement with the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory."  When moving A is the observer receiving the light emitted by stationary B, he will never receive it arriving at c.  A's motion will always affect the speed of light he receives from an emitter that is not "stationary" relative to him.  So, "all observers" will NOT observe the same speed of light.

The only question is: Why can't the mathematicians and the math cult see this?  How can they argue their beliefs while claiming their beliefs are in agreement with Einstein?  Einstein was making it clear that he disagreed with the mathematicians.  How can physics teachers all over the world teach something that is wrong while at the same time falsely claiming it is what Einstein stated?  It is virtually the opposite of what Einstein stated!

In 1925, Einstein wrote a book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory," in which he seems to have attempted to make mathematicians understand that they were not saying the same things he was saying.  But the book was filled with mathematics and was horrendously complicated, with plenty of ways for people to misinterpret things if they want to.  Plus, the original was in German, which meant that it had to go through a translator to get a version in English.  That also complicated the situation for those who read the book in English.

Then, in 1938, Einstein co-wrote "The Evolution of Physics" with Leopold Infeld.  It was written in English, with Infeld doing the editing.  It was virtually devoid of mathematics, and it was published by Cambridge University Press.

On page 166 it says something the mathematicians do not seem able to comprehend (Einstein and Infeld used the abbreviation "c.s." to mean "coordinate systems." I've replaced "c.s." with "coordinate systems" in brackets because the full spelling helps make things clearer for everyone.):
Let us consider the case of two [coordinate systems] starting from a known position and moving uniformly, one relative to the other, with a known velocity. One who prefers concrete pictures can safely think of a ship or a train moving relative to the earth. The laws of mechanics can be confirmed experimentally with the same degree of accuracy, on the earth or in a train or on a ship moving uniformly. But some difficulty arises if the observers of two systems begin to discuss observations of the same event from the point of view of their different [coordinate sytems]. Each would like to translate the other’s observations into his own language.
The two observers of two systems get the same results to experiments done in their own coordinate systems (frames of reference), but if they compare or discuss those results, they will find they actually were not the same.  Usually it is because the length of a second is longer in the coordinate system that is moving, so anything involving time will have a different rate of measurement in one coordinate system versus the other.

On page 175, Einstein and Infeld describe a thought experiment which really had my mind working overtime.  They begin two pages earlier by describing the experiment using sound waves instead of light photons.  On page 175 they start talking about the same experiment using light.  But they complicate the situation by having an "ether" surround everything.  So, their explanation spends a lot of time disproving the notion of an "ether" surrounding everything.  Like so many explanations in physics, they do not just explain what is actually happening, they spend a lot of time explaining what is NOT happening that was once thought to be happening.

It is not until page 186 that they describe how things really work:
Our new assumptions are:

(1) The velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all [coordinate systems] moving uniformly, relative to each other.

(2) All laws of nature are the same in all [coordinate systems]  moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The relativity theory begins with these two assumptions.
So, taking those assumptions back to their thought experiment, we have a situation where there are observers in two different coordinate systems that are NOT "moving uniformly, relative to each other."  So, light will NOT be seen to travel at the same speeds in both coordinate systems.

The experiment involves having a man in a rapidly moving room (like on a space ship) that has a transparent side so that an observer in a stationary position somewhere can theoretically look into the room.    

The guy in the fast moving room turns on a light bulb in the center of the room.  He observes the light from the bulb illuminate the front wall and the rear wall at the same time.  The guy who is stationary, however, does not see that.  He sees the light illuminate the rear wall first, and then the front wall.


It is because of something I described in detail in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.   When the guy in the space ship turns on the light, the light travels at c toward both walls.  However, because the forward wall is moving away from the point of emission at v (the velocity of the ship), the light photons take longer to get to the wall.  The photons arrive at the wall at c-v.  The atoms in the wall then send back new photons to the observer standing in the center of the room.  And because the observer is moving toward the point where the new photons were emitted, his eye receives the photons traveling at c+v.  The c-v speed of the original photons going in one direction and the c+v speed of the new photons going in the other direction mean that the speed of the ship is canceled out: c+v-v = c.

The reverse holds true with the rear wall.  The original photons reached the rear wall at c+v and the new photons were returned at c-v.  So the observer on the ship sees everything as happening normally.  He turned on the light bulb, and the front wall was illuminated at the same time as the rear wall.

But the outside observer saw something very different.  He was stationary and not moving with the ship.  So, he saw the photons hit the front wall at c-v and the rear wall at c+v.  The new photons emitted by those walls traveled at c to reach his eyes.  The rear wall was illuminated first, then the front wall.       

I can only wonder what the math cult would say about this.  It's virtually a certainty that they will heatedly disagree, and they will argue that all movement is reciprocal and all observers see the same speed of light.  But, would they also argue that Einstein was wrong?  Or would they argue that I was misinterpreting what Einstein clearly wrote?

I've got to finish reading The Evolution of Physics, and I've got to do more work on some new papers before I start arguing with the math cult again.

Busy busy busy. 

Other interests:

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

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

© 2017 by Ed Lake