Archive for
February 2017

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 26, 2017, thru Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017:

February 28, 2017 - Since I'm not involved in any arguments at the moment, I printed out copies of Richard Tolman's papers (see yesterday's comment) and this morning I laid down on a couch and read them, highlighting passages with a yellow marker and underlining particularly interesting passages with a red pen.

It's difficult to draw any conclusions, since my ideas about relativity are based upon the passage of Time being dependent upon motion and gravity, and Tolman's ideas seem to be based upon the notion that because there is no aether through which the earth is moving, there is no way to tell who is moving and who is not.  Tolman has the mathematician's view of reality in that he sees no way to tell if a wall is moving toward your car or if your car is moving toward the wall.  If you cannot tell who or what is moving, you cannot have time be dilated in actuality due to movement.  Tolman also appears to argue that it isn't time that is slowed, it is distance that is lengthened.

If Tolman were alive today, he'd probably argue as the "Mathematics Club" argues, and here's a direct quote from Tolman's 1909 paper on "The Principle of Relativity and Non-Newtonian Mechanics" : 
"Thus to each observer it seems that the other's clock is running too slowly."
But what about the NIST paper which shows that one observer can view two clocks and see that one is ticking slower than the other due to time dilation?

Interestingly, while I'm not involved, there's an argument going on in the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum about measuring the wave length of sodium light.  Someone who calls himself "Kenseto" is arguing that everyone measures the wavelength of sodium light to be 589 nanometers (nm) in their own frame of reference, but when they measure the wavelength of sodium light coming from a outside source it will come at either slightly less than 589 nm or slightly greater than 589 nm.  That must mean that the speed of the sodium light is variable.  "S
o we end up with variable incoming light speed and universal wavelength of the source."

Michael Moroney countered by arguing, "
We will measure the wavelength of a
sodium source moving toward us as having a wavelength shorter than 589 nm, one moving away from us having a wavelength longer than 589 nm. Astronomers call this 'blueshift' and 'redshift'."

To which "Kenseto" responded, "E
very observer measures his sodium source to have wavelength of 589 nm."  And "That means that A and B each measures the wavelength of his own sodium source and each finds a value of 589 nm."

Kenseto's argument seems to be that when sodium light changes wavelength it is because sodium light changes speed while the wavelength remains the same. 

That's my argument, too.  Only I view it as further evidence that the mathematicians' screwball beliefs about Einstein's Second Postulate are wrong.  It is evidence that an outside observer will see light arriving at c + v, where v is the observer's speed.  When we see light from a star or galaxy is red shifted, it means we are moving away from that star or galaxy.  Light is coming to us at c, but since we are moving away from the source, we observe it arriving at c minus our velocity.  In other words,
c + v = blue shifted light
c - v = red shifted light
I hadn't included this in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, but now I see that it is very important that I use it.  The problem is, I don't know how anyone could view this any other way.  But, obviously they do.  

The "Mathematics Gang" seems to be arguing that the speed of light is fixed and cannot change, therefore it must be the wavelength that changes. 

Kenseto argued, "
Moron.....I said that the source wavelength of sodium is 589 nm. The incoming sodium light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and that's why it has a different wavelength.  The problem is: You can't use this new measured wavelength and frequency to determine the incoming speed of light. Why? Because the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and the observer will measure all light sources in his frame to have speed of c.
"If you want to determine the speed of incoming sodium light using the measured incoming wavelength you need to use the following equation:
c'=c(source wavelength 589/measured incoming wavelength of sodium light)."

If I try to decipher Kenseto's argument , he seems to be arguing that an observer "will measure all light sources in his frame to have speed of c," and thus they assume that the wavelength changed.

It's an interesting argument, and I somewhat agree with Kenseto, but I'd phrase things differently, so I'm staying out of that argument.  Meanwhile, I can check to see how "red shift" and "blue shift" are defined by the "experts".  Some examples:

Redshift is defined as the change in the wavelength of the light divided by the wavelength that the light would have if the source was not moving — called the rest wavelength:

Redshift = (Observed wavelength – Rest wavelength)/(Rest wavelength)

In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

Sound can only move so fast through the air – about 1,200 kilometers per hour (about 750 miles per hour).  As the train rushes forward and blows its horn, the sound waves in front of the train get squished together.  Meanwhile, the sound waves behind the train get spread out.  This means the frequency of the sound waves is now higher ahead of the train and lower behind it. Our brains interpret changes in the frequency of sound as changes in pitch.  To a person on the ground, the horn starts off high as the train approaches and then goes low as the train recedes.

sound waves

As a car moves, sound waves in front of it get squished up while those behind get spread out. This changes the perceived frequency and we hear the pitch change as the car goes by.

Light, like sound, is also a wave stuck at a fixed speed – one billion kilometers per hour – and therefore plays by the same rules.  Except, in the case of light, we perceive changes in frequency as changes in color.  If a lightbulb moves very rapidly through space, the light appears blue as it approaches you and then becomes red after it passes.

Measuring these slight changes in the frequency of light lets astronomers measure the speed of everything in the universe!

red and blue shift

Just like sounds from a moving car, as a star moves away from us, the light becomes redder. As it moves towards us, the light becomes bluer. Credit: Wikipedia


How can this not be seen as solid proof that light will be perceived by an outside observer (like us here on Earth) as arriving at c plus our speed?   Is it considered to be just another "illusion," where the light isn't really arriving at c + v or c - v?  It just appears that way?

February 27, 2017 - Hmm.  The arguments on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum have turned into arguments between other people, with nothing for me to comment upon.  Mostly it is just name calling and stating opinions, but I'll continue to watch the discussions in case something of value is said.

So, this morning I decided to work on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  I began by doing a Google search for "Second Postulate" and found a paper on WikiSource titled "The Second Postulate of Relativity" by Richard Chace Tolman that was written in 1910.  A further search found a version of the same article that appears to have been photocopied right from the journal Physical Review.  I was somewhat surprised to see these descriptions of the First and Second Postulates in the paper:
The first postulate of relativity adds the idea that a motion of the source of light towards the observer is identical with a motion of the observer towards the source.  The second postulate of relativity is seen to be merely the combination of these two principles, since it states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless both of the motion of the source of light and of the observer.
Whaaa?  That's not what the Second Postulates says at all!  That's what the "Mathematics Gang" I argue with on Google say.  And that interpretation of the First Postulate seems the same as arguing that the motion of a wall toward my car is the same as the motion of my car to the wall.

I did a Google search for "Richard Tolman Abert Einstein disagree" (without the quotes) and found this photograph of Einstein and Tolman together:

Albert Einstein and Richard Tolman

The photograph was accompanied by a Los Angeles Times article from 1932 that says,
Dr. Richard C. Tolman, professor of mathematical physics, brought these facts to light this evening when he addressed more than fifty distinguished scientists, including Dr. Albert Einstein, at the California Institute of Technology.

The seminar leader exhibited several mathematically correct models of self-perpetuating universes in the form of blackboard equations.

Dr. Einstein accepted Dr. Tolman’s invitation to interrupt the discussion at any time. After the “father of relativity” had commented in German for more than ten minutes, Dr. E. C. Watson suggested that Dr. Tolman interpret Einstein’s comments. “Oh, I think everyone here understood Dr. Einstein,” retorted Dr. Tolman as he glanced apprehensively about the lecture hall. A gale of laughter convulsed the audience.
The word "disagree" doesn't appear in the article.  But the article certainly gives the impression that Einstein said something in German that disagrees with Tolman, and Einstein was then laughed at by the audience.  I tried to find out more about the relationship between Tolman and Einstein, but I found almost nothing.   Tolman is described on Wikipedia as "an American mathematician physicist."  That certainly fits with my arguments.   

I'm going to have to study the Tolman paper in greater detail.  At first glance,  he seems to argue the speed of the source cannot be combined with the speed of light (which I agree with), but then he argues that lengths and distances (specifically the length of a centimeter) somehow change for the outside observer.  He seems to argue that the wavelength of the light changes because the length of a centimeter changes, and that is what causes the outside observer to see light traveling at c instead of his velocity plus c.  That fits somewhat with my ideas, but I'll have to study his paper in greater detail to see exactly where we agree and disagree.   I also found Tolman's paper on "The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics," which is from 1909 and is used as a reference in his 1910 paper.  I'll have to study that paper, too.  Groan!  That's not what I was planning to do today. 

On the other hand, those two papers could be exactly what I've been looking for.  They might make perfect references to use in my paper on the Second Postulate, and they seem to be Tolman's explanation of how he interpreted Einstein's theories and why he believed what he believed.  That is something I don't seem to be able to get from any living mathematician.

I just need to find the time to study them carefully.

February 26, 2017 - I think I'm getting a better understanding of the thought processes of the members of the "Mathematics Gang."  I've said before that they only seem to understand mathematics, therefore they can only explain things in mathematical terms.  I believe that I, on the other hand, view things as a scientist views them, by looking at facts and evidence as seen in our world.

Here's a brief summary of one conversation I had on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum, in a thread titled "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?":

I began by paraphrasing Isaac Newton, arguing that in our universe an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity unless it is acted upon by an outside force.  

"Rotchm" responded by arguing "
Consider a brick wall. You jump in a car and travel at 50mph towards it.  The wall now has speed 50 mph towards you. What force caused that wall to suddenly approach you?"

I responded, "
If I jump in a car and travel at 50 mph toward a wall, in my universe I am moving toward the wall, the wall is NOT moving toward me. Therefore, NO force caused the wall to move toward me."

Rotchm responded, "
Why isn't it then 50 + 1000 mph (speed of the equator wrt EC) ? Or why not 50 + 67000 MPH (orbital speed of the earth). Why must the 50 mph be the "real" one?"

Today I probably could come up with a much better response, but at that time I responded by saying he was arguing "mathematical gibberish."

And someone calling himself "
Python" responded with this: "What you call 'mathematical gibberish' is the foundation of physics for almost four centuries, Mr Lake. You'd better learn what Galileo, Newton, and other did before pretending studying Einstein's work. "

So, we got nowhere.  In mathematics, a wall hitting my car at 50 mph is just as valid as my car hitting a wall at 50 mph.  And when I try to talk about the "real world," the response is always that in the "real world" everything is moving and therefore there is no way to prove whether the wall hit my car or my car hit the wall.

That same argument is what first got me into discussions about relativity, years ago.  The mathematicians love to talk about two space ships passing each other in an empty universe.  With no outside frame of reference, how can the spacemen tell who is moving and who is standing still?  Each will see his own ship as standing still and the other ship as moving.  And that was argued to be the essence of relativity.  There is no way to know who is moving and who is not.

I argued that our "real universe" is NOT empty, there are countless objects that can be used as a reference to tell who is moving and who is not.  The essence of Einstein's theories of relativity is that wh
at we each observe and measure is our own personal view, not a reality upon which everyone can agree.  But walls have no point of view.   To the mathematicians, however, every object is moving and has its own point of view, so there is simply no way to tell what is really moving or how fast it is moving.

And nothing I can say will convince them that that is NOT the only way to view things.  After all, I can argue, we DID compute fuel requirements to send a space probe to Pluto and the numbers worked fine.  A very different amount of fuel would have been needed to bring Pluto to the space probe.  And the engines would have to be placed differently.

The mathematician's response to that is that I just do not understand physics.

I probably could have constructed a better argument if I wasn't arguing with several people at the same time and trying to argue as fast as I could.

Sometimes, when I reach the point in discussions with mathematicians where they refuse to even attempt to explain their beliefs, I quote Albert Einstein:
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
And the "Mathematics Gang" will sometimes respond with this quote from Richard Feynman:
"If I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."
Interestingly, last week someone sent me an email about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity.  The writer seemed to want to side with the mathematicians in that an outside observer would also measure the speed of light coming at 299,292,458 meters per second.  He could not add his velocity to the speed of the oncoming light.

That caused me to re-imagine the situation by having two baseball players running toward each other while one throws a ball to the other. 

Suppose the pitcher and an outfielder are running toward each other and both are running at 5 mph.  The pitcher throws the ball to the outfielder at 45 mph.  The ball's speed is  pitcher's running speed plus his throwing speed of 40 mph.  The oncoming outfielder catches the ball which arrives as if it was traveling at 50 mph, the pitcher's speed, the throwing speed plus the outfielder's speed.  

That's the way things work with baseballs here on Earth.  The speed of light is different in that there is a fixed speed at which light can travel.  If we assumed that a baseball also has a fixed speed, that speed in the above analogy would be 45 mph.  It would mean that if the pitcher ran at 10 miles per hour, his throwing speed would be 35 miles per hour.  Together, they would still equal the fixed speed of 45 mph.  If the pitcher was standing still instead of running, he would then throw the ball at 45 mph.  The pitcher's momentum or energy and the ball's momentum or energy always total a throwing speed of 45 mph.

The outfielder's movements, however, have no effect on the pitcher's throwing speed or the amount of energy or momentum expended by the pitcher, or the fixed speed.  If the outfielder stands still, the thrown ball will arrive at 45 mph.  If the outfielder runs toward the pitcher at 5 mph, the ball will arrive at 50 mph.  If he runs toward the pitcher at 10 mph, the ball will arrive at 55 mph.  If the outfielder runs away from the pitcher at 10 mph, the ball will arrive at 35 mph.  The fixed speed is not changed by anything the outfielder does.

Only the pitcher is expending energy to make the ball move.  So, only the pitcher is encountering the rule about the fixed speed.  But, just like the wall hitting the car, mathematicians seemingly cannot envision the energy that is needed to make the ball, the car and the light wave to move.  All they can envision is a mathematical equation which must work equally well in both directions.  One "observer" cannot have powers that the other observer doesn't have.  They evidently view that as a violation of Einstein's First Postulate:  "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

The First Postulate says that if the pitcher throws the ball, he cannot throw it faster than 45 mph, and if the outfielder throws the ball, he cannot throw it faster than 45 mph.  The "equations of mechanics" hold good in those two situations.  The "equations of mechanics" do NOT hold good if the laws of electrodynamics are violated by trying to argue that the person who throws the ball expends the same amount of energy to move the ball as the person who catches it. 

And that is also the way light works.  What the outside observer measures can be very different from what the emitter measures.  All the experiments which are used to claim otherwise only measure the speed of the pitcher and the speed of the ball, not the speed of the outfielder.

The best instance of a real measurement of how the speed of the outfielder (i.e., the outside observer) does not affect the speed of the ball (i.e., the speed of light) is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment performed by NASA in 2008.  In that experiment, a pulse of laser light was sent by a ground station to a reflector on the moon.  The reflector (the pitcher) bounced the pulse (the ball) back to the ground station (the outfielder) which was moving toward the reflector due to the rotation of the earth.   The abstract in the NASA scientist's paper stated:
Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements.  
In other words, the ball was measured to exceed the throwing speed by the exact speed the outfielder was moving toward the pitcher.

What is most interesting about the NASA paper is that the author cannot understand how his experiment can disagree with what the mathematicians and what he believes to be true.  The experiment disagreed with the NASA scientist's beliefs!!!   He evidently also could not understand this quote from physicist Richard Feynman:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
There have been other NASA projects where they had similar results.  Those projects are said to have produced "anomalies."

This morning I see that the physicist who works at Fermilab is arguing this about the NIST experiment where NIST scientists observed clocks ticking at different rates when one was higher than the other:

It simply is not possible to observe two clocks at different locations without using SIGNALS. The the effect of gravitation is not on the clocks, but rather on how those signals are measured.
And, of course, he won't explain what the "SIGNALS" are, nor how gravitation can affect the signals differently when the clocks are identical and record their times on internal microchips.  

So, I'm arguing with scientists at NASA and Fermilab.  If the person who has the best credentials is automatically the person who is right, then I'd be wrong.  That may be what the scientist at Fermilab argues, but he's really arguing with the scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), not with me.  I'm just explaining how the NIST experiments disprove the Fermilab scientist's mistaken beliefs.

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 19, 2017, thru Saturday, Feb. 25, 2017:

February 23, 2017 (B) - While eating lunch this afternoon, I finished reading a book on my Kindle: "The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos" by Leonard Mlodinow.  It's the same book I listened to on CDs in my car and finished on January 3.  I decided then to get the Kindle version from my local library so I could actually read it and copy certain passages from it.  Here are four of the passages I copied:
What we each observe and measure is therefore no more than our own personal view, not a reality upon which everyone can agree. That is the essence of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

Refusing to accept quantum theory as the final word, Einstein never stopped believing that it would eventually be replaced with an even more fundamental theory that would restore the traditional concept of cause and effect. In 1905 he had published his three papers, each of which changed the course of physics; for the rest of his life he tried in vain to do it again—to reverse what he had started. In 1951, in one of his last letters to his friend Michele Besso, Einstein admitted he had failed. “All these fifty years of pondering,” he wrote, “have not brought me any closer to answering the question, What are light quanta?”

Quantum theory says that objects don’t have precise properties such as position and velocity, and what’s more, if you try to measure them, the more precisely you measure one, the less precisely you can measure the other. In everyday life, we certainly do seem to be able to measure position and velocity as precisely as we wish. This seems to contradict the uncertainty principle, but when you run through the math of quantum theory, you find that the masses of everyday objects are so large that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant for the phenomena of daily life. That is why Newtonian physics worked well for such a long time—it was only when physicists began dealing with phenomena at the atomic scale that the limits of the Newtonian promise become apparent.

Objects do have definite values for quantities like position and velocity, he [Einstein] believed, but quantum theory just cannot handle them. Quantum mechanics, Einstein said, though undeniably successful must be an incomplete embodiment of a deeper theory that restores objective reality. Though few other than Einstein shared that belief, for many years it was a possibility that no one could rule out, and Einstein went to his grave thinking he would someday be vindicated.
Unfortunately, I don't think those passages will resolve any of the disputes I'm currently involved in.

February 23, 2017 (A) - I awoke this morning thinking that it was time to stop arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  Yesterday's arguments were all repetitive nonsense and personal attacks, nothing worthy of a response.

Then, this morning I checked the discussion thread I'd created about "Time Dilation Experiments Versus Disbelievers" and found two posts in response to comments I had made early yesterday, posts that were from someone who is evidently a physicist at Fermilab.  Both of his comments contained statements that were clearly wrong, in my opinion, but one contained comments that I could easily SHOW and PROVE to be wrong, so I had to respond. 

He had argued that I has misread the paper on "Optical Clocks and Relativity" written by scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).  As usual, it was just his opinion or CLAIM without any support.  He claimed a 75-meter-long cable was used in a gravitational time dilation experiment and thereby invalidated the results of the experiment.  So, I quoted from two different parts of the NIST paper to show he clearly and undeniably misunderstood what was written.  The cable was used in the velocity time dilation experiment and was an essential part of that experiment.  It was not used in the gravitational time dilation experiment.

He also argued that scientists cannot look at atomic clocks that measure differences in time and see a difference.  I found an Encyclopedia Britannica illustration of an atomic clock and the digital display device that scientists can use to look at the time being measured by the atomic clock:

atomic clock digital readout
I assume he will now argue that the image is a cartoon and not a photograph, or that it is just an illustration created for the public that doesn't represent how the equipment really works, since that would be too complicated for the hoi polloi.

Or, more likely, he will just stop posting and reappear to argue the same things some time in the future.   If so, I may just ignore him at that time.  But, right now I'm really awaiting to see if and how he will respond to what I just posted.

Added note:  There was a posted message from him this afternoon, but it was just a response he wrote to his own comment, adding some additional comments that only demonstrate that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a mathematical model and real life.

I also keep thinking of the TV series "Eureka," which I've been binge watching for about a month.  It's about an ordinary guy (like me, except he happens to be the local sheriff) who works in a town full of government employed geniuses who are constantly causing their scientific experiments to wreak havoc on the town.  The geniuses always seem to stand around scratching their heads while the sheriff has to figure out what happened and how to fix things.  I can relate.

February 21, 2017 - I awoke this morning realizing that the paper I've been writing about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity needs to be revised and delayed.  I cannot simply state that there is a "Law of Nature" that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and therefore light emitted from a moving spaceship cannot travel at the speed of the spaceship plus the speed of light.  I need to explain WHY nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  Why is it a "law"?

The answer to that goes back to Time Dilation and the question "What is Time?"  And that means I need to get my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" published first.  That will set the stage for a paper on "What is Time?"  And then I have a paper already written about how light works.  I need to get that paper published.  Then the stage will be set for a paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.

Sigh!   I've got a lot of work to do.  And everything depends upon getting the first paper published.  The first paper is about undeniable evidence showing that Time Dilation is a real, natural phenomenon.  And that is where the arguments begin.  The mathematicians argue that time dilation is "just an illusion."  They argue that time cannot "run slow," it can only be a different velocity at one point in time versus another point in time.  One mathematician even argued, in effect, that the scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) must be incompetent if they believe that their 2010 experiment actually confirmed that time speeds up for an object when that object is moved farther from the center of the Earth.

It's almost as much a psychology problem as it is a physics problem.  I need to know how to change people's minds.  To do that I need to talk about evidence and force them to reject or ignore the evidence just because it conflicts with their beliefs.  That will separate them from the scientists who believe as Richard Feynman believed, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

My theory (which is my interpretation of Einstein's theories) agrees with experiments.  The misinterpretation of Einstein's theories that mathematicians argue and believe does not agree with experiments.           

February 20, 2017 - I check my access logs every day to see who has been visiting this web page.  For quite a while I've been noticing that there are a lot of attempts to access a non-existent file named "wp-login.php."   Every time an attempt is made, they get a 404 ("no such file") response.  There is no such file on my web site.  Here's what a sample from my Saturday morning log file looked like with the nine wp-login.php file entries underlined that were logged between midnight and 2:18 a.m.:

web site log for Feb 18,

Yesterday, I did a Google search for "wp-login.php" to see what I could learn about that file.  I found a web site that says this:

There have now been several large scale WordPress wp-login.php brute force attacks, coming from a large amount of compromised IP addresses spread across the world since April 2013.

A large botnet of around 90,000 compromised servers has been attempting to break into WordPress websites by continually trying to guess the username and password to get into the WordPress admin dashboard.

Hmm.  I don't have a WordPress web site.  So, why are they bothering me?  And how long have they been bothering me?  I checked my log file for January 1, 2016 and there were no such entries.  I checked December 1, 2016.  Yes, there were such entries.  I finally narrowed the search down to mid-August 2016.  I saw attempts to POST a wp-login.php file to my site, and a lot of other related hack attempts.  Soon afterwards, the constant searches for wp-login.php began and have apparently continued ever since.

Checking the IP addresses to see where the posts come from, the first one on the sample page above is  That is a web site in Gurgaon, India.  The rest check out to be from: = Taiwan = United Arab Emirates = Las Vegas, Nevada = Los Angeles, California = Malaysia = Israel = Thailand = Poland
There might be some way to block the attempts, but they are effectively being blocked by the fact that there is no such file on my site.  And, I've got too many other things to do.  So, I'll just let it continue until they either go away or they create a real problem of some kind.

But, I can't help but wonder about all these people working to hack into web sites while a bunch of other people keep calling me with crank threats of various kinds.  Things didn't used to be this way.  Maybe we should hire back Agnes the telephone operator.  She'd screen out all this nonsense before it got to me, and I wouldn't have to even think about it.

February 19, 2017 - Wow!  It was a very busy week for me.  I kept wanting to write some kind of comment about what was going on, but then I'd get a new idea for a way to try to communicate with the "Mathematics Gang" on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  And, of course, I'd fail.  But, I'd found other ways to explain things, which meant I'd taught myself something.

When I use Einstein's actual words to shoot down their arguments, here is a typical response from the thread about "Measuring Time and Light":
Forget what E [Einstein] said; forget how he worded it. Some words had different meanings back then, and more so for the translations. All this has been cleaned up since and given its correct current English meaning.  
All they will discuss is their BELIEFS about what Einstein "really meant."  And when I point out that all the experiments show that they are wrong and what Einstein said is actually right, they misinterpret the experiments, too.  And then they attack me for not seeing what they see.

And the whole argument gets repeated over and over and over. 

At one point in the arguments with the "Mathematics Gang" about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity, I realized how simple the problem really is.  Here is the Second Postulate from page 1 of his 1905 paper:
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 "Mathematics Gang" and many (possibly tens of thousands of) others argue that what Einstein really meant was:
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of any observing body.
To show how totally WRONG their beliefs are, I tried using a simple illustration using key strokes, since the Google forum does not allow the use of actual illustrations.  I typed this:


And I described the illustration as Space Ship-A shining a beam of light forward as it approaches Space Ship-B at a velocity of .2c.  Meanwhile, Ship-B is traveling toward Ship-A at .2c.  The EMITTER's (Ship-A's) velocity cannot add to the speed of light, since that would violate a "law of nature," the light would travel faster than the speed of light.  And nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  So, the light Ship-A emits would travel at "a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body," just as Einstein stated in his Second Postulate.  

Ship-B, however, would measure the oncoming light as arriving at 1.2c, their velocity plus the speed of the light.  They are not the emitter.  Their velocity doesn't affect or change the speed of light.  It's just mathematics

That is the essence of the dispute over the Second Postulate.  The "Mathematics Gang" somehow believes that if Ship-A's velocity cannot be added to the speed of light, then Ship-B's velocity cannot be added to the speed of light, either.   

The "Mathematics Gang" wouldn't discuss my illustration without knowing what the speeds were "relative to."  They started using Ship-A's speed as a positive number, and Ship-B's speed as a negative number, so the speed of one ship could not be relative to the other ship.   They also argued that I cannot add speeds of light together because it's against their interpretation of the Second Postulate.

So, I change the "illustration" to this:


And I explained that the two ships are approaching each other while traveling toward a spot between Saturn and its innermost ring.   Their velocities are relative to the ring.  The "Mathematics Gang" refused to discuss that illustration and went into all sorts of mathematical gibberish as their reason.

I'd like to incorporate their arguments into a scientific paper about the Second Postulate, but, unfortunately, I can't use an asinine argument on a Google forum as a reference in a serious scientific paper.  However, I've made copies of the discussions in case I might want to incorporate parts of them into a book someday.

Interestingly, this morning I see three people who I've never seen post before have jumped to my defense.  And the "Mathematics Gang" immediately started attacking all three of them with vicious insults.  Sigh. 

Coincidentally, on Tuesday evening I rented and watched "Arrival," which is an excellent movie about a scientist/linguist trying to communicate with aliens from a distant world who speak a language so different that humans cannot even repeat the vocals, and the written language is all partial circles with raggedly sections, like Spanish moss growing on a hula hoop.  It is nearly indecipherable.  But the central character of the movie gradually makes headway.  After arguing with the "Mathematics Gang," I could really empathize with the central character of that movie.

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 12, 2017, thru Saturday, Feb. 18, 2017:

February 14, 2017 - This morning, I decided to refer to the group of physicist-mathematicians who attack me on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum as the "Mathematics Gang."  The problem with fighting this "gang" is that everyone who disagrees with the has a theory or cause of his own.  I'd thought that "Robert Winn" and I were beginning to see eye to eye, but suddenly he stopped posting messages to me and instead ranted this in another thread he had created:
I had a good job with a secure future.  Science shut down an entire industry.  It was called the lumber industry.  That does not make me hate scientists.  It just shows me how stupid they are.  Now let me give you the mathematics again.  In 1910 more than 3.5 million acres of trees burned in the western United States in the worst forest fires anyone had ever seen  about fifteen miles from where I grew up, a town of a thousand people burned to the ground.  You could still see where they houses had been.  It was a terrible tragedy.  

So a hundred years later, what is the situation?

Scientists have taken over the world.  Scientists took over the government and shut down the lumber industry to save the trees because they determined that a species of owl was declining in population.  How many trees are burning per year now?

Seven million acres per year.

You can get the statistics right on your television.  Betty White appears in an advertisement warning people that vehicles dragging chains on the highways can cause forest fires.  Seven million acres of trees burn every year now because of forest fires.  

That does not mean I hate scientists.  It means that I am aware that they are among the most stupid people on earth.  

So be honest.  Didn't you believe that scientists were saving the spotted owl?  

I never believed that scientists were saving the spotted owl.  Did you ever sit down and compute how many little spotted owls burn up in their nests every time you have one of these 500,000 acre forest fires?  Just a few months ago, we watched terrible fires in the state of Tennesee---in the month of November.  When I was growing up, the Forest Service used to have controlled burns in November because a forest fire was hard to start in that month.  I worked for a while as a firefighter for the Forest Service.  We used to fight forest fires in the month of August and put them out.  

So scientists impress me about as much as the scientific firefighters of today.  I can tell they do not know how to do what they say they are trying to do.  That does not mean I hate them.  I just think they are incompetent.  There is a difference between hating someone and thinking they are incompetent.     

Um ... okay.  That's not an argument I want to get into.

Meanwhile, another poster who calls himself "
Pentcho Valev" and who has problems with the "mathematics gang" provided a link to an interesting video:

The lecturer is Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy who appears to teach physics at Forman Christian College in Lahore, Pakistan.   Pentcho Valev and I seem to agree that what Prof. Hoodbhoy is teaching is nonsense.  The problem is, Pentcho Valev argues that it Einstein is behind this nonsense, and I argue that it is mathematicians who MISINTERPRETED Einstein who are behind it.

So, as I stated at the beginning of this comment, it appears that I'll never be able to get a group together to argue against the "Mathematics Gang" because everyone who opposes the "gang" has his own specific theory and cause.

Sigh.  I've certainly been in that position before.

February 13, 2017 - Hmm.  The guy I mentioned yesterday, who calls himself "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum started a new thread last night titled "Is Ed Lake a Fancy A.I. Troll Bot ????"   So far, he's been the only one to post to it, and what he posted isn't specifically about me, it's just a comment about an article on titled  "Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist asshole in less than a day." 

It appears that "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller," "Odd Bodkin,  "tjrob137" and "rotchm" have staked out Google's forum as their private turf.  And they don't like outsiders coming onto their turf to argue against their beliefs.  They particularly do not like that I do not use their mathematics-based lingo.  In a post yesterday evening, "Odd Bodkin" wrote:

Ed, let me put it to you this way. Language is for the purpose of communication. The same word will have different meanings depending on context. If you elect to insist that a word being used in materials about physics do not mean what physicists say they mean, then the mismatch between your conclusions and their conclusions are going to stem from simply not being able to communicate. Here, you are declaring that you have NO INTEREST in communicating about physics, using physics terms.
If a sailor came to you and pointed down the companionway, saying "There's where the head is," and you simply REFUSE to think of "head" as anything other than what sits at the end of a neck, then it isn't the sailor that's being obstinate, it's you. And the only person that loses in that exchange is YOU."
To which I replied,
In reality, of course, if the sailor says "There's where the head is," I can ask, "Head?  What do you mean by 'head'?"  And he will be able to EXPLAIN, "I mean 'the toilet'."  He will not likely call me "a moron" because I do not know that on a ship the "head" is the "toilet."  That would only show that the sailor is an obnoxious jerk who cannot communicate with others.  And if the captain overheard the conversation, the sailor would soon be out of a job. 

In YOUR world, when a stranger comes to town and asks where the nearest bank is, everyone should call him a moron and tell him he should have studied the town before coming to town.  And the stranger realizes he is in a town full of obnoxious jerks where he does not want to stay and should leave as soon as possible
But, not everyone is a "jerk" on the forum.  I've been having a constructive discussion with someone called "Robert Winn" who appears to genuinely want to understand certain things about time dilation.  We've been discussing it for a few days without anyone calling anyone names.  This morning I saw that he'd posted this confusing statement in response to something I wrote about how time ticks faster the farther you are from the center of gravity:
If a faster clock and a slower clock get the same speed for light, then the light is going faster in the frame of reference of the slower clock.
I misunderstood the statement at first, but then I decided to lay out the situation in the simplest terms I could come up with to make certain I understood what would be happening in a gravitational time dilation situation:
If I have a clock at street level that measures a "slow" second, a clock on the 100th floor of the building next to me will be 1000 feet higher and will tick at a faster rate, being farther from the center of gravity.

In other words, 1 second on the street will equal 0.999999998 seconds on the 100th floor.  A second will be shorter on the 100th floor.

So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the ground level, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 0.999999998th of a second on the 100th floor or slightly FASTER.

Looking at things from the reverse angle, 1 second on the 100th floor will equal 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level.

So, if light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second on the 100th floor, it will travel 299,792,458 meters per 1.0000000002 seconds at ground level or slightly SLOWER.  

If the frame of reference is the slower clock (i.e., the ground level clock), light is going FASTER in the frame of reference of the faster clock. 

Using "frames of reference" confuses things, it doesn't clarify things.  It simplifies things to use one frame of reference for the experiment, the frame of reference of the person doing the experiment.
And now I'm waiting or a response.   The mathematicians will probably argue that I didn't use complex mathematical terms in the above comment, as they demand from everyone posting to any thread on "their" forum.  And I'll respond that I created a new thread to get away from them, but they invaded the thread and started attacking me anyway.  So, it is them invading my territory, not me invading their territory.

I'm also thinking of starting a thread titled "How Time Dilation Works," which would start with the explanation about clocks on different floors of a building I reproduced above.   It's an explanation that I'd certainly like to discuss with someone.

I'll just have to wait and see what happens overnight.  Most people seem to post in the evenings, probably because they work during the day.  I post during the day and watch TV in the evenings.  I need the downtime to relax, otherwise I'd be up all night thinking about how to respond to some argument.

February 12, 2017 - I checked the latest "received" and "accepted" dates for some more papers sent to the scientific journal that has my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  Here they are in order by date received:
1.  Received: September 14, 2016; Accepted: January 19, 2017
2.  Received: August 23, 2016; Accepted: January 10, 2017
3.  Received: June 28, 2016; Accepted: January 5, 2017
4.  Received: June 22, 2016; Accepted: January 12, 2017
5.  Received: May 7, 2016; Accepted: January 31, 2017
6.  Received: January 11, 2016; Accepted: January 28, 2017
That's not very encouraging.  They received my paper on December 5, 2016.  If they are only now finishing papers from September, it could take another three months for them to peer review my paper!  Unfortunately, the rules say I cannot even ask them about the progress of my paper until after March 5 (three months after they received it). 

The problem is: I don't know if they've even assigned my paper to any peer reviewers.  It could just be sitting in a middle of a file of papers as they add newly received papers to the bottom of the file and once per month take papers off the top of the file to give to reviewers.

I keep feeling that maybe I should have sent it to a different journal, but I don't know that some other journal wouldn't work the same way.  And then I'll also read something that tells me I did send it to the right journal, because they seem to like to publish articles that are about relativity and are highly controversial.

Meanwhile, I'm still arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  I'm finding that there are people on the forum who agree with me, but that doesn't give us anything to argue about, so our discussions generally go nowhere. On the other hand, I'm now arguing on four different threads.  So, I'm arguing with different people than before.  That's producing interesting arguments. 

I also learned that I need to use the right words.  When talking about adding together the speed of light emitted by Object-A and the velocity of Observer-1, I need to use the term "closing speed."  "Closing speed" refers to two separate moving objects.  I'd been using "combined speed" and "composite speed," which can mean the speed of the emitter combined with the speed of light it emits.  

This morning I see a whole bunch of posts awaiting responses from me.  One of them (from "
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller") asked me to describe my thoughts on how to determine if the speed of light emitted in one location is the different from the speed of light emitted at another location.  I'd never laid out the steps before, but I did in response to that request.  Here are the steps as I defined them:
1.  Set up the standard equipment to measure the speed of light on the ground floor of a building.  The equipment includes an atomic clock.

2.  Set up the standard equipment to measure the speed of light 100 (or 10) meters higher in the same building.  The equipment includes an atomic clock.

3.  Set up TV equipment so an observer can view both clocks simultaneously.  

4.  Verify that the higher clock is ticking faster than the lower clock in accordance with general relativity.

5.  Place a third atomic clock next to the atomic clock used in the ground floor test.  Verify that the two clocks are synchronous.

6.  Raise the third atomic clock to be level with the higher test equipment.

7.  Verify that the raised clock agrees with Einstein's equations and is now ticking at the SAME rate as the atomic clock with the higher equipment.

8.  Measure the speed of light in both locations.

9.  Verify that both locations show the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL SECOND using the atomic clock with the equipment.

10.  Publish a paper describing the experiment and how it demonstrates that light emitted at different altitudes will travel at that different velocities due to the length of a second being different at the different altitudes.

11. Accept the Nobel Prize.
The response from David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller was just his opinion:
Of course, it is nothing like the Pound-Rebka experiment other than that they had two experiments at different heights in a building.  There was no measurement of time at the two locations, nor did they measure the speed of light at the two locations where the light was emitted.  They falsely assumed that the speed of light was the same in both locations and changed only because light was "falling" from the top of the building in one test and struggling against gravity to get to the top of the building in the other test.   

I'm not going to get into any opinion versus opinion argument.  So, maybe I'll be able to break away and get back to working on my scientific papers.  Maybe.

I feel I should also note that I began watching episodes of "Star Trek Voyager" back in June when the local "Heroes & Icons" cable channel began airing all five "Star Trek" series in order, six episodes of each series per week.  The 172nd and last episode of "Star Trek Voyager" aired on Tuesday.  And the next day they started airing the whole series over again.  I'd also watched  all 98 episodes of "Star Trek Enterprise," which ended and began over again months ago.  I watched more than half of the 173 episodes of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," which completed their run on Wednesday, even though I found it generally boring.  I have the original "Star Trek" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" on DVDs, so I can watch them again any time I want.    

I'm also watching Season 3.5 of "Eureka," and Season 3 of "Star Gate SG-1," which I have on DVDs.  So, I guess I qualify as a "science fiction fan."

I usually watch movies in the evenings, but lately I've been thinking so much about the paper I submitted for publication, and the other papers I'm in the process of writing, and the arguments I'm involved with on the Google forum, that I find it difficult to concentrate on a movie.  It's easier to watch a TV show, particularly a TV show that I've already seen, so that I don't really have to pay much attention and I can let my mind wander to other things.

I really really need some news about my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" so I can move on to the next step, whatever that might be.

Comments for Sunday, Feb. 5, 2017, thru Saturday, Feb. 11, 2017:

February 9, 2017 - While returning home from working out at the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to the 2-CD audio book version of "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics" by Carlo Rovelli.

Seven Brief Lessons on Physics

In book form it is only 88 pages, and the audio book lasts less than 2 hours.  Rovelli narrates the book himself, and he has a very thick accent (which sounds more German than Italian).  While it was an interesting book, it was often hard to follow when listening to it in 10 or 15 minute increments as I drove here and there around town.  I'll have to sit down on a couch and listen to the whole thing in one sitting someday. 

Meanwhile, I was responding to so many different people on the Google forum on Science, Physics and Relativity that I got a notification that I was exceeding the posting limit and that I had to wait awhile before posting again.  Plus, I was running into problems apparently caused by the thread being so long (now over 540 posts).  So, I tried starting a new thread titled "Measuring Time and Light."  We'll see how it goes.

February 7, 2016 - The discussions on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum are turning into mostly personal attacks and rantings about personal beliefs and opinions.  I'm trying to get a discussion going on either the Hafele-Keating experiments or the bizarre notion expressed by "tjrob137" and "Odd Bodkin" that the physics intelligentsia are lying to the general public about how "moving clocks run slow" when, actually (according to "tjrob137" and "Odd Bodkin"), clocks just change from one observed time to another. 

In hopes of spurring more discussion on this topic, I wrote:
Since they ALL seem to be lying about clocks "running slow" during time dilation, I'm wondering if the mathematical intelligentsia communicate via some news letter or something.  How do they all know to spout the same lies?

Here's an article from Nature magazine which says "time slows down for moving objects":

Here's a web page from Boston University that says "Moving clocks run slow":

Here's an article from the University of California Riverside about clocks running slow:

Here's a lesson from the University of Virginia the explains how clocks run slow:

Here's a web page provided by the Max Planck institute on "moving clocks go slower":

Here's an article from

Here's a YouTube video from the World Science Festival titled "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks Tick Slower"

Here's a web page from the University of Oregon about clocks ticking slower:

I could go on and on, but I'm wondering how you think all these people coordinate their lies about clocks running slow.  And why are college professors teaching this "lie" to their students?  
I seriously doubt that I'll get any kind of intelligent discussion going on that topic.  It seems that they only understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything except in terms of mathematics.  Maybe I'll be able to shift my focus back to the scientific papers I'm working on.

February 6, 2017 - I'm still arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  It's really getting bizarre. 

"Rotchm" argued:
Consider a brick wall. YOU jump in a car and travel at 50mph towards it.  The wall now has speed 50 mph towards you. What force caused that wall to suddenly approach you? 
And I responded,
It seems that physicists should be hired by drunk drivers who crash their cars in to trees.  The physicist could argue in court that it was the tree that crashed into the car, and therefore the owner of the property upon which the tree stands should be sued for reckless endangerment.

If you have no interest in what CAUSED the accident, then that would work just fine.  Apparently physicists and mathematicians do not care about CAUSES.  But the rest of the world does.
They seem to be trying to argue that the world of physics is the only real world.  And in the world of physics, a tree can crash into a car just as easily as a car can crash into a tree.  Try as I might, I cannot get them to discuss the real world.

Meanwhile, "tjrob137" argued,
The resolution of this [our debate] is staring you in the face but you refuse to recognize it: the "length of a second" does not vary, and is the same in all inertial frames. 
I responded,
No it is NOT.  The length of a second is DIFFERENT in all reference frames.  That is what relativity is all about.  Time slows down (i.e., the length of a second becomes longer) when an object moves.
"Tjrob137" also argued,
This is actually REQUIRED by SR [Special Relativity]: the PoR [Principle of Relativity?] says that the laws of physics that govern the ticking of a given clock must be the same in all inertial frames, so the tick rate of that clock MUST be the same in all inertial frames.
And I responded,
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!   The length of a second is NOT A LAW.  It is a VARIABLE.  The laws of physics are the same regardless of the length of a second or the speed of light.  At the top of a mountain the length of a second will be shorter than at the bottom of the mountain, but (to quote Einstein) the "same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."  Changing the length of a second does not change an equation or a law.
"Tjrob137" also argued,
As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, "time dilation" in SR simply CANNOT be modeled as "moving clock run slow" (even though all too many casual authors state it that way). That's because in SR "time dilation" is MUTUAL: for inertial observers A and B, A measures B's clock to run slow, and B measures A's clock to run slow. This is due to the way these particular GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS work, and cannot possibly be due to EITHER clock A or B "slowing down".
And I responded,
Then let's discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment where Hafele and Keating took four atomic clocks with them on two trips around the world.  The clocks ran SLOW due to their velocity, and the clocks ran FAST due to their height when in airplanes.  They calculated the expected changes in the clocks ahead of time, and the results were within the margin of error when they did the measurements after the end of the experiments.

Your arguments SEEMS to be that the clocks did not run slow or fast DURING the experiments, they just MAGICALLY changed upon completion of the experiments. 

Is that really what you believe?
Since "tjrob137" seems to only post in the evenings, there probably won't be a reply until tomorrow.  I'm very interested in what his replies might be.  If the past is any judge, he'll just stop posting for awhile and maybe start the same argument over again in a week or so. 

Studying his words, maybe the key is the part of a sentence that I highlighted red.  He needs to create a mathematical model of the situation in order to understand it, and there is no way to have something "running fast" in a mathematical model.  And there seems to be no way to get him to think about what is happening without reference to a mathematical model.  Hmm.  I'll have to think about that and write another response. 

February 5, 2017 - Wow!  What a busy week!  Nearly every day I spent hours arguing on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum.  I decided it was better than just sitting around, watching TV and eating trail mix. 

I was arguing in the discussion thread titled "Moving Clocks Run Slow or... Fast, Einsteinians?"which had only 7 posts on January 21, and as of this morning it has 303.  Since I'm arguing with at least 4 different people, I wondered how many posts were mine.  I did a count this morning and found that I have 75 posts in the thread, which is about 25% of the total.
  (17 more posts were done after I did the count.)

There were some VERY interesting arguments.  Since the people I'm arguing with seem unable to explain anything, I'm trying very hard to figure out what they are thinking.  And then I have to figure out a way to confirm it.

For example, it seems very clear that "tjrob137" believes that "time dilation" is an effect of the speed of light.  I.e., if you are farther from Clock-A than from Clock-B, it will take longer for light to reach you from Clock-A.  As a result, Clock-A will appear to you to show a time that is slightly behind that of Clock-B.  And that, he apparently believes, is how time dilation works.

We argued long and hard about the 2010 NIST experiment where they raised a clock by 1 foot and were able to measure the difference in the rate of time between the two levels.  "Tjrob137" would repeatedly twist things to argue that the clock MUST have been at different distances from the observer or the measuring equipment for that to happen.  The idea that time runs slower at the lower level than at the higher level is totally incomprehensible to him.

And it seems to be totally incomprehensible to the other three participants, too.  We argued for HOURS about what the expression "runs slow" means.  Time cannot "run slow," they argued.  It can only be different for one reading than for another.  To assume that time can somehow "run slow" to cause the difference is inconceivable. 

When I provided quotes from Einstein saying or implying that time "ran slow"  due to the movement of the clock or object, they would tell me that Einstein was wrong.  And they'd claim that everyone now knows he was wrong.

When I did a Google search "moving clocks run slow" (without the quotes) and provided many sources stating that time dilation causes time to "run slow," they argued that my sources were from the Internet, not from sources they recognize as being correct. 

I'm not sure what "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" thinks about it, since he seems to spend most of his time writing nasty insults about me.  However, it seems that there is one thing that "tjrob137," "rotchm" and "Odd Bodkin" agree upon, and that is that clocks do not "run slow" during time dilation.  There is only a difference between time measurements.  And they will not even address the question of what causes the difference in time measurements.  

According to "rotchm," "cause" is not a word or term used in physics.  He wrote, "The word 'cause' is not (operationally) defined. The concept of 'cause' is not needed, and does not appear in the models. I suggest you read the many *many* treatises of 'cause' in the philosophy literature and how it applies (or not) to physics & science."

It seems to be the primary difference between the mathematicians and scientists.  Mathematicians do not ask what causes 2 plus 2 to equal 4.  It just does.  They also do not ask what causes the time on a clock that moved to show a different time than on a clock that was not moved.  They are only interested in the results, which is t' < t.  One time is slower than another time.  No one cares why or what caused the difference.

And the idea that Clock-A ran slower while it was moving is just plain absurd.  Time does not run slower.  Time always runs at the same rate everywhere. 

It might be interesting to try to get them to discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment where Joseph Hafele and Ricard Keating first computed how time would slow down due to velocity time dilation and speed up due to gravitational time dilation if they flew around the world in an airplane. 
Hafele and Keating first did the calculations based upon Einstein's equations, and then they actually flew around the world twice with four atomic clocks on commercial airliners, first traveling east and the second time traveling west.  Their calculations very closely matched the actual time differences measured by the atomic clocks. 

"Tjrob137," "rotchm" and "Odd Bodkin" will have to argue that while the clocks showed different times, time did not actually speed up or slow down while the clocks were being transported.  What caused the difference?  They don't care about causes. 

Interestingly, "rotchm" also believes that when you copyright a scientific paper or any kind of book or article, you copyright the format, not the words and ideas.

And "Odd Bodkin" believes that a car can be going 50 miles per hour and be standing still at the same time.  How?  Evidently he believes everything is an illusion.

I see there are THIRTEEN posts by "Odd Bodkin" awaiting my response this morning.  And there are FOUR from "rotchm."  So, I guess I'll have to end this comment and figure out how to respond to those posts.

Comments for Wednesday, February 1, 2017, thru Sunday, Feb. 4, 2017:

February 3, 2017 - While driving around doing some shopping this afternoon, I used the CD player in my car to finish listening to CD #10 of the 10-CD audio book version of "The Eerie Silence: Renewing our Search for Alien Intelligence" by Paul Davies.

An Eerie Silence

It's a very interesting book, looking at the search for alien intelligence from many different angles, including angles I never read or thought about before.  As part of looking at all the different angles, the author had to describe the physics required for the angles - which would be very different if the aliens were zipping around the galaxy in their natural form, rather than sending out robots. 

Unfortunately, since I listened to it in the form of an audio book, I have no notes or highlighted passages to copy and paste here.   The author concludes that it seems unlikely that there is any other intelligent life in the universe, since we haven't heard from them, we've heard only "The Eerie Silence."  And we haven't found life of any kind anywhere else but on Earth.  However, the author would quickly change his mind if we did find bacteria on Mars or a moon of Jupiter.

February 1, 2017 - I think I may finally be starting to understand what "rotchm" is arguing when on Google's science, physics and relativity forum he repeatedly asks me "What is the significance of t' < t?"

He's viewing things as a mathematician.  The equation t' < t simply means that one time (t') is less than another time (t).  It has no more significance than that -- to a mathematician.

But to a scientist, the fact that one time measurement is less than another time measurement means that something CAUSED the difference.  And the scientist wants to know about that CAUSE.  WHY do the times differ?  What CAUSED the times to differ? 

The answer in the situation I'm discussing with "rotchm" is that time slowed down for a clock that was moving, while time did not slow down for a clock that was stationary, and as a result the time shown by the clock that moved (t') was less than the time shown by the stationary clock (t).

So, "rotchm" then asked me to define the term "slowed down."

I responded:
1.  It means the atomic cycles within the clock take longer to complete.
2.  It means it takes longer for the lower clock to measure ONE SECOND of time.
3.  It means any measured unit of time is longer when you are closer to the center of the earth than when you are farther from the center of the earth. 
His response was, in effect, that "slowed down" or "runs slow" are terms used in popular science articles for the hoi polloi (the common people).  Intelligent people (i.e., mathematicians) just say "two values differ."  WHY the "two values differ" is evidently of no concern.  And "slowed down" would apparently have a problem in Quantum Mechanics since it is not a "quanta," a unit of measure.  It implies a gradual change, which cannot be quantified.

It's all very interesting to me.  And arguing on a blog helps pass the time while I'm waiting for news about my scientific paper.

© 2017 by Ed Lake