|Comments for Sunday, March 26,
2017, thru Friday, March 31, 2017:
March 31, 2017 - Grumble grumble. The scientific journal that supposedly has the revised version of my paper about "Time Dilation without Relativity" never acknowledged receipt of my email with the revisions. Am I supposed to assume that the email went through okay? Who would make such an assumption? Not me. I'll wait until Monday, and if I haven't heard anything by then, I'll ask them.
Meanwhile, I think I've finished my research to find papers and books which I can use as references for my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. While searching the Internet for any mention of the Second Postulate, I found a whole raft of college lecture notes and study materials related to Chapter 26 of some book:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~humanic/p1201lecture22.pdfAnd then to my surprise, I was able to locate and download as a pdf file the entire 1,158 page college text book to which all those links above apparently refer. (None of the links actually mention the name or authors of the book.) Not only that, I was able to locate the seventh, eight and ninth editions of the text book, so I could compare them to see if what they say about the Second Postulate is the same in all the editions. It is.
26.3 Einstein’s Principle of RelativityThat is NOT what Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper. It's a total distortion of what Einstein actually wrote. But it is consistent with what is written in many scientific papers and in some other college text books I've found.
I'm claiming that they are all wrong. I'm fully aware that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and I think I have more than enough. I just need to get the paper written, so that I can submit it somewhere. And I need to clear my mind of everything else to do that. That's very difficult to do when you don't know what has happened to a previous paper, or when you have to wonder about what else you can write about, because you have established a pattern of writing comments for a web site every Sunday and several times during the week.
March 28, 2017 - While I'm waiting for acknowledgement of the receipt of my revised paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," I've been finishing up the organizing of papers I've found and filed away during my research. This morning I had about 8 papers left to evaluate when I found a copy of what appeared to be another college text book which teaches the mathematicians' screwball version of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity. The book is simply titled "Special Relativity." I found a complete 108-page pdf copy of it on Stanford University's web site. And the pdf indicates some connection to the University of Sussex. It may be where the author went to school. Another link indicates he has a PhD and was holding seminars at the University College in London in 2009. Another link indicates that the author is currently a staff physicist at CERN in Switzerland. Amazon, however, indicates that it is a self-published book. And, since the book is self-published, I cannot use it as a reference. Too bad. It has some dandy things for me to quote.
Probably even more frustrating is the chapter of a book I found at this link https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Chapter3.pdf on the Kansas State University's web site. It has some really great quotes starting on the bottom of page 59 and going through most of page 60. However, I cannot figure out what the title of the books is. Or who wrote it. I can find and read other chapters of the book by simply changing the chapter number in the link. But none provide the title of the book or the name of the author. What is most puzzling is that when I search for quoted passages from the book, the only place I can find those passages are in those same pdf files. &*$@%$%$#!!
March 27, 2017 - Okay. At 9:08 a.m. this morning, I re-submitted my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" to the scientific journal that I originally sent it to on December 5, 2016, and which they responded to on March 6, 2017. I made all the changes requested by the logic-oriented peer reviewer, and I explained why I couldn't agree with the opinions of the mathematics-oriented peer reviewer that my paper wouldn't be of interest to readers of their journal.
Now it is once again a matter of waiting. Will it again take three months to get a response, as it did with the first version? Who knows? But I have no choice except to wait and see. I'm also curious about whether they assign the revised paper to different peer reviewers or to the same ones. And will I get another mathematician as a peer reviewer? Or two mathematicians? Time will tell.
Meanwhile, I'm continuing to work on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity. Mostly I'm looking for additional papers to use as references. And I'm organizing my findings so I won't have to repeat the research every time I learn there is something else I should mention in my paper.
Yesterday I found four college text books that use the mathematicians' version of the Second Postulate. I need to do a bit more research on one of them. I found a pdf file of Chapter 3 the book, which I think is titled "Special Relativity." I know the publisher (Wiley), but I haven't been able to verify the title, and I can't find the publication date of the book or how many pages are in the book. Here's what it says in Chapter 3 on page 83:
Einstein agreed with Galileo that the laws of physics must be the same for all observers, but he added a second requirement: that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. The speed of light is not relative, as had been expected by those who went before him, but invariant. He set these two principles down as requirements for development of theoretical physics. They are known as Einstein’s two postulates of special relativity:That is NOT what Einstein's Second Postulate says. It is what mathematicians mistakenly argue that Einstein really meant, instead of what Einstein actually wrote on 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.My research is finding explanations for how the mathematicians turned what Einstein wrote about "the emitting body" into a screwball notion about "all observers." It appears the mathematicians can't figure out why Einstein created that Second Postulate, since they believe the First Postulate says all that needs to be said. And they evidently won't listen to anyone who can explain things to them, since such explanations would require them to re-think their mathematical equations.
Of course, I'm also finding a few sources (including college text books) which agree with Einstein (and me) and disagree with the mathematicians, but it seems for every one of those I find, I find ten which use the mathematicians' theory.
The research is very interesting. I've probably got all the references I need, so further research may not be necessary.
On the other hand, how do you know when you have "too many facts"?
March 26, 2017 - The revised version of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" is all set to be re-submitted to the scientific journal, including the cover letter which explains what I changed and where I agreed with the peer reviewers and where I didn't. I'll do the re-submission tomorrow.
The paper is probably TWICE as meaningful as the original. It really hits home on all the key points now. And it makes several really powerful new points. Among other things, it really debunks the mathematicians' totally absurd belief that Time Dilation is reciprocal, i.e., that if Observer-A sees time running slow for Observer-B, Observer-B will also see time running slow for Observer-A. It's an absurd argument that has nothing to do with reality, but it appears to be what an incredible number of mathematicians believe.
Meanwhile, my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate is also taking shape. But, I've probably got at least a month's worth of work on it to make it ready for submission. Plus, on Saturday morning I realized I haven't been thinking about where I will submit it. I've only been thinking that I'd try a higher ranked journal that seems more likely to respond in less than three months.
But I never picked an actual journal as my target. And yesterday I also realized that it might be a very good idea if my paper included some scientific papers from that same journal as references. That could require a LOT of research.
Back in December, I did some research and I produced a computerized list of journals I could try. The original full list included journals on biology, botany, materials science, photonics, particle physics and many other sciences, plus it includes many journals that are printed in languages other than English. So, from a full list of 1,254, I ended up with a list of less than 40 journals.
The top journal on my list is Nature Physics, which I gather is a physics journal produced by Nature magazine. It is ranked #6 by that web site that ranks scientific journals. Nature Physics has a nice "Guide to Authors" page which seemed to indicate that I could at least get to the first referee, but then I looked at their "Brief guide for submission to Nature Physics" and saw this:
Articles: an abstract of approximately 150 words, unreferenced; main text of no more than 3,000 words and 6 display items (figures, tables). As a guideline, Articles allow up to 50 references. Section headings should be used and subheadings may appear in 'Results'. Avoid 'Introduction' as a headingUh oh. My paper looks like it's going to be about 5,000 words in length (maybe more), and it currently has 13 "display items."
Besides, in all my research into arguments about Einstein's Second Postulate, I couldn't recall I ever coming across an article from Nature Physics. Yesterday, just for the heck of it, I did a Google search for - "second postulate" nature physics - and at the top of the list are two articles from Nature magazine about the Second Postulate. The first, which costs $32 to obtain and is from 1966, doesn't look particularly interesting. The second is from 1963 and also costs $32, but it doesn't seem to be of any value to me. I don't need references that agree with me, since if everyone agrees with me, there is no need to write a paper. I need references that disagree with me, so that I can prove them wrong. The paper says this in the abstract that I can read for free:
THE following is a preliminary report of an investigation performed to test directly, in a terrestrial experiment, the second postulate of special relativity, which states that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source.The second postulate actually says,
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.That's pretty much the same thing. So, it is of no use to me. The articles I need for references say something like this,
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.The reference I use for the above quote is as follows:
I have two more recently published references that also refer to "all observers" seeing the same speed of light, but I could use more - particularly some from the journal to which I will submit my paper.
The next journal on my list requires a paper that is at least 70 pages long. Mine will be about 17 pages (single spaced).
The next Journal on my list was Physics Review X. But when I checked it out, I found that it charges a minimum of $2,900 to publish an article. But it's also ranked #9 on how much impact it has on scientists. And they charge the same price as #2 on the ranked list, Reviews of Modern Physics. That posed a new question for me: How do referees and peer reviewers view references from "open access" journals?
I've been ignoring "open access" journals for publication of my articles because I wanted to publish in a "regular" journal, plus I'm not about to pay $100 to have my article published, much less $2,900. As a result, I didn't even think about using articles from "open access" journals as references. There doesn't appear to be anything against it in Nature Physics' submission guidelines.
Hmm. When I tried to access a paper about the Second Postulate on the Reviews of Modern Physics web site, I found that I have to pay $25 for it. So, they are NOT "open access." They charge the author to publish the article AND they charge the reader to read the article. The same with Physics Review X. Checking further, I found that New Journal of Physics, which is ranked #83, and Frontiers in Physics, which is ranked #210, also charge authors and readers, but they also have a few "open access" articles available for free. I didn't find any "open access" articles that would be of value to me.
Live and learn.
But, I found two journals to try. Both publish monthly, so I shouldn't have to wait three months for a response. It's just a matter of deciding which to try first.
Now I just need to finish the paper.
Groan! I just found out that both journals I've chosen require that all illustrations be in .tif format. Mine are in .jpg format. It's simple enough to convert a .jpg file to a .tif file, but will the results be the same as if I created .tif files to begin with? I dunno. Most of the images I created are fairly crude, anyway, which probably means I'll have to re-create all the illustrations. Groan!
|Comments for Sunday, March 19,
2017, thru Saturday, March 25, 2017:
March 23, 2017 - This morning someone sent me a link to a New York Times article titled "A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on ‘Predatory’ Journals." I researched "open access" journals years ago when I was arguing with people about the anthrax attacks of 2001. I argued that open access journals were virtually worthless, since they seemed to publish anything from anyone, just as long as that person was willing to pay the publication fee, which could be anywhere from $80 to $2,900 for an article. But several well-known scientists argued against me, saying that there were some "good" open access journals, and that they published very worthwhile materials.
I won't be dealing with any open access journals as I try to get my papers on Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate published. However, I can see the appeal of open access journals. If I wanted to pay to have my papers published, they would already be published. Instead, I'm going the "scholarly" route and working only with regular, well-established scientific journals. And that means waiting for three months for a peer review, and then waiting for another three months for another peer review, and maybe so on and so on.
I haven't posted any comments here for the past couple days because I've been extremely busy adding some references to my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity." One of the reviewers recommended it. I had added the one reference the reviewer recommended, but until two days ago I failed to realize that if I cite a lot of papers that argue that Time Dilation is just an "illusion," I'll be creating a "controversy," since my paper says their papers are wrong. And I explain why their papers are wrong, using solid evidence to prove it. In addition to creating controversy, I also provide readers who don't know much about Time Dilation with the information they need to see the importance of my analysis.
The reason it is taking me days to add eight or ten references is because I have to read dozens of papers to find the right ones to use. I have been saving copies of papers on the subject of Time Dilation for a long time, probably a couple years, but the listing I maintain of the 168 papers I saved from arxiv.org is only about 75% complete, and the listing I maintain of the 284 papers I saved from other sources is only about 80% complete. Here's what an entry from that listing looks like:
Is that a paper I want to use as a reference? It requires that I study it a bit to see if it argues for or against what I'm saying. And it's only 1 paper out of roughly 450 that I need to check out. Plus the paper cites another paper that I haven't previously checked out. It looks like I probably should. And then I have to categorize the papers further according to what what basis they have for their argument against Time Dilation. That is very tedious and time-consuming work.
March 20, 2017 - I awoke this morning thinking about another point I needed to make in my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity." The previous version didn't point out that Time Dilation is not reciprocal. This morning, I added a section to the paper where I address that point.
In my many arguments with mathematicians, they always viewed Time Dilation as an illusion seen by different observers in fantasy universe that is totally empty except for one observer on a space ship passing another observer on a space ship. Neither observer can tell who is moving. There is nothing else in the universe to use as a "stationary" point or as a reference to tell who is moving. As a result, each observer can argue he is stationary while the other observer is moving. Or vice versa. And, according to the mathematicians, each will see the clocks aboard the other ship as running slow. They cannot explain why. That's just the way the mathematics work. It means that Time Dilation is reciprocal, it affects both parties the same way.
In our real universe, however, things are very different. With the proper equipment, a scientist in his lab at the bottom of a mountain can see that his clock is running slower than a clock being used by a scientist in a lab at the top of the mountain. And the scientist at the top of the mountain will agree that his clock is running faster than the clock next to the scientist at the bottom of the mountain. Time Dilation is definitely not reciprocal.
In my paper I also point out that there is a theoretical stationary point in our real universe where time runs at its maximum speed and light travels at its maximum speed. That point is the point where the Big Bang occurred. It's the stationary point from which all movement began, with everything moving outward in all directions. At that stationary point, gravity would be equal in all directions.
Mathematicians have been arguing for centuries about whether or not there is an "aether" that is stationary and which can be used to measure the movement and speed of everything else. Maybe they should start arguing about whether or not they can use the theoretical stationary point where the Big Bang occurred as the point from which all movement and speed is measured.
This morning I finished revising the paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity." I dated it next Monday. Before I resubmit it, I still have to finish writing the cover letter where I explain how I used some suggestions from the peer reviewers and didn't use others, providing explanations for why I didn't take the suggestions I didn't use.
I've also been thinking that I might send the revised paper to a different journal, one which would presumably give me peer reviews without a three month wait. If it got turned down at that other journal, I could still re-submit it to the same journal that just reviewed it -- as long as I meet their revisions deadline of June 28. But, I don't have a "better" journal in mind. So, I probably won't do that.
Of course, tomorrow morning I could suddenly realize that there is something else I need to add to the paper. But, for now, I think it is done. And I really want to focus on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate. There is absolutely nothing preventing me from submitting that paper to a different journal.
If mathematicians don't like my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," they'll go absolutely berserk when they read my paper on the Second Postulate.
March 19, 2017 - I've been trying to restrain myself, but I keep thinking I need to write a comment about President Donald Trump's screwball claim that he was wiretapped by President Obama. It's just one straw too many. So, here's my comment.
According to an article in Friday's Washington Post:
In the days since Trump’s tweets alleging the wiretapping were posted, the White House has called for a congressional investigation, declined to comment, dodged questions, pointed to media reports that don’t contain the information aides say they do and analyzed the president’s use of quotation marks — all while doubling down on his claim without providing any evidence.While doing research, I found this cartoon:
I keep thinking that President Trump simply cannot think logically, he only thinks emotionally. Evidence obviously has no meaning to him. Only his beliefs have meaning. If there's no evidence of wire tapping, that just means the FBI hasn't looked hard enough to find the evidence that Trump believes must exist.
How can President Trump believe the evidence must exist? Because some staffer comment or news article or email or idea convinced him to believe it. And once he believed it, it becomes an emotional conclusion. What he believes cannot be wrong, since that would mean he is not as smart as he thinks he is.
There is no middle ground for those who think emotionally. Those who think emotionally must be right, and the only acceptable alternative is that the world must be conspiring against them to maliciously argue something is wrong that must with absolute certainty be right. If something they argued for turns out to be a failure, it is always the fault of those ignorant and malicious people who disagreed with them.
This topic has special meaning to me because I spent over a decade arguing with people who believed that Muslims sent the anthrax letters, even though all the evidence clearly said the letters were sent by an American scientist. And those True Believers are still out there arguing the same things they argued ten years ago. No facts or evidence will ever change their minds. And, of course, they have no facts or evidence to support their beliefs. As with Trump, they want the FBI to find the facts and evidence for them. They are just absolutely certain that there is evidence out there somewhere that will confirm their unshakable beliefs.
It also seems that if these True Believers have one totally unsupported belief, they also have others. And they are totally certain about all of them. The absurd claims were probably never more absurd than when Trump argued that millions of people voted illegally in the election he won.
From my observations, it appears that Trump was elected by people who think the way he does, people who think emotionally, not logically. Were they driven by a hatred of foreigners, a fear of foreigners or a hatred of the government in general? Maybe a bit of all three. All that appears certain is that were "fed up" and wanted to elect a fast-talking game show host to straighten out the situation. Trump told them what they wanted to hear, and they believed him.
Another thing that Donald Trump has made very clear is that he had absolutely no idea how complicated politics can be. He was probably the only person in America who thought that replacing "Obamacare" would be a simple task.
I'm reminded of a comment in Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer"which said
the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief. "He cannot be convinced, but only converted."
I have a paperback copy of Hoffer's book somewhere in my library, but I couldn't find it when I looked for it yesterday. (It's probably behind some other book.) But I quickly found a free pdf copy on the Internet. Searching through it for the word "convert," I found this full quote:
The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause. But he finds no difficulty in swinging suddenly and wildly from one holy cause to another. He cannot be convinced but only converted. His passionate attachment is more vital than the quality of the cause to which he is attached.I also found this quote which seems very much to apply to President Trump:
Both by converting and antagonizing, he shapes the world in his own image.And this quote also seems to apply to President Trump:
The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse.So, we can assume that as more and more of Trump's absurd beliefs get shot down and debunked by people citing facts and evidence, the more Trump will become convinced that he is right and the world is conspiring against him.
Doing a Google search for the words "Trump" and "impeach" I was provided with 16,900,000 results. Among those results, I found a web site called "impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org" which is looking for people to sign their petition to impeach President Trump (and to donate to their cause). There are also a lot of other sites out there with petitions to impeach Trump. I also found a Time Magazine article titled "Congress Can Remove Donald Trump From Office Without Impeaching Him." And a Bloomberg.com article titled "Trump's Wiretap Tweets Raise Risk of Impeachment." According to one source, Congressman Jerrold Nadler has already set in motion a plan to impeach Trump.
Of course, if Trump were to be impeached, that would mean that Vice President Mike Spence would become President. Some consider that to be a worse situation: It's better to have an incompetent President than an evil President.
Personally, I think it is more likely that Donald Trump will resign before the end of his four-year term than that he will be impeached. If he doesn't find being President the "fun" and the boost to his ego that he thought it would be, and if he constantly suffers setbacks in his plans, he could just "throw in the towel" and say "The hell with it." He'd blame others for his failures, of course.
On the other hand, if President Trump manages to start a war somewhere, that would mean all bets are off.
Whew! I'm glad I got that off my chest. I've been wanting to write a comment about Donald Trump for weeks, even though I try very hard to avoid thinking about him. The problem is: He's on the TVs they have at the gym where I work out four times a week. I seem to work out at the exact same time that Trump's spokesman Sean Spicer gives his daily news briefing.
When I get home, the evening news every night seems to have some story about Trump's latest screwball tweet. And The Late Show with Stephen Colbert always has some hilarious comments about the Trump absurdities.
It's all very hilarious.. But, at the same time it isn't very funny at all.
And, now that I've got that off my chest, maybe I can get back to working on my scientific papers.
|Comments for Sunday, March 12,
2017, thru Saturday, March 18, 2017:
March 16, 2017 - Browsing through the books and papers I downloaded yesterday, I find that nearly all of them appear to be about "the philosophy of science," which might be considered to be a third warring party in the battle for control of scientific opinion about Relativity and Time Dilation. It seems to be a 3-way war between scientists, mathematicians and "philosophers of science." All three groups have the other two as enemies.
Scientists are trying to understand how the universe works.
Mathematicians think the universe is a mathematical equation.
Philosophers of Science sit around a philosophize about what the other two groups are doing and whether or not it is worthwhile or has any meaning.
A couple of the downloads might turn out to be of value. All I need is the time to dig through them to find the golden nuggets that might possibly be there.
March 15, 2017 - Hmm. The Internet never ceases to amaze me. This afternoon, I was studying the dozen pages from the book "Causal Physics: Photons by Non-Interactions of Waves" that I'd printed out because a peer reviewer of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" suggested I cite the book somewhere in my paper. That led me to to do a Google search for "scientific explanations," which led me to the book "Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World" by Wesley Salmon. Since that book was first published in the 1980s, I wondered if it was available for free on-line. So, I searched for it. I couldn't find a free copy of it anywhere, but I found and downloaded free pdf copies of some related books and materials:
"Scientific Explanation," edited by Philip Kitcher and Wesley C. Salmon (543 pages)And a 14-page scientific paper out of some book:
"Inquiry and Scientific Explanations: Helping Students Use Evidence and Reasoning" by Katherine L. McNeill and Joseph KrajcikGroan! I don't know if any of books and papers will help me explain the science of Time Dilation without Relativity, and I don't know if those books and papers relate to the disputes between philosophers and scientists or not, but copies of them are now in my computer awaiting the future occasion when I'll have the time to study them to see what they are all about.
March 14, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, the IRS accepted my income tax filing as okay, and this morning I was notified that the State of Wisconsin did the same for my state taxes. So, I'm officially done filing my 2016 income taxes.
A quick check of Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum finds nothing more interesting than this brief discussion between "Ralph" and "Gary":
Ralph: OK, I know we all regard little gary as the epitome of the classic village idiot and one of this NG's most persistent irritants. ...but what you don't know is that in spite of his lack of general intelligence, he has a brilliant memory.
Gary: I am very flattered by Abysmally-Stupid Ralphie-boy's attention. His ad hominem attack can only mean that my arguments have taken a devastating toll on his abysmally-stupid DirtyBaThWater. Actually, it was no great problem refuting it because it is so abysmally stupid. I'm also flattered that he even remembered me since his attention span is that of a two-year-old.So, I began studying the Preface and pages 239 through 243 of a book that one of the peer reviewers of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" suggested that I might read and cite as a reference: "Causal Physics: Photons by Non-Interactions of Waves." While the title suggests it is a very technical book about waves and photons, which it is, it is also a book about the unending conflict between mathematicians and observational scientists. Just as I argued last week, it argues that it is time for a better mathematical model of the workings of the universe to be developed, since the current space-time model is clearly dysfunctional, even if countless mathematicians are dedicated to protecting and saving it.
The author, Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri who is a Research Professor at the University of Connecticut, promotes IPM-E, which is the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology as opposed to MDM-E, which is Mathematical Data Modeling Epistemology. He wrote in his book's Preface:
Current theories emphasize modeling measurable data, rather than facilitating visualization of, or mapping, the ontological (actual) interaction processes going on in nature. Technology inventions require successful emulation of physical processes allowed by nature in novel ways, or in novel combinations, irrespective of our deficiencies in developing the complete or the final theory for any relevant phenomenon.In other words, we need to use new technologies to help us understand how the universe really works instead of just accepting some current mathematical model as the ultimate truth. Here's another quote from the Preface:
So, the primary thrust of this book is to draw close attention to the invisible ontological interaction processes behind various optical phenomena so we can emulate them more efficiently and knowledgeably in spite of limitations of our theories. Such an attempt immediately reveals that process-based understanding of superposition effects (SE) as experienced by detectors is dramatically different from the mathematical superposition principle (SP). SE is a physical phenomenon. SP is an interaction-free mathematical construct.My problem is going to be to figure out how to use Professor Roychoudhuri's book as a reference without getting into explaining all the acronyms and convoluted descriptions he uses.
March 13, 2017 - OKAY!! I just finished doing my income taxes, I finished proof-reading the last chapter of the scientist's book yesterday afternoon, and that takes care of all the high-priority things I had to do before getting back to work on my scientific papers.
And it snowing outside, with what looks like about 6 inches already on the ground, so I'll be skipping my regular trip to the gym this afternoon. That also means I don't have anything else to do except work on those scientific papers.
I'll start right after lunch.
March 12, 2017 - I've mentioned in past comments that, back before Christmas, a scientist acquaintance of mine asked me to proof-read a book he is writing. He's already got an agent, and he's got a publisher waiting for the book he has contracted to write. So, he's been busy writing it, first sending me three chapters at a time from the 12 chapters he'd already written. When I had proof-read those chapters and sent them back, he'd immediately send three more. After finishing the first 12, he'd then send me three more chapters at a time as he finished them.
A month ago, he stopped sending chapters, and I figured he was just having a hard time writing the latest chapters. Then, on Thursday, the scientist sent me the last seven chapters of the book as one big batch. So, that put a temporary hold on me doing my taxes and on my work on my scientific papers.
I read through the seven chapters on Friday, making notes, mostly just about typos and a few misspellings, but occasionally making a suggestion about rephrasing something to make it more clear. Yesterday, I started reading through the chapters again, this time more slowly. And, I began returning the chapters and my notes to him one by one. This morning, I have only the final chapter left to finish, and then I can think once again about doing my taxes.
Meanwhile, I've managed to avoid posting anything to the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, although I have been checking it each morning to see if there was anything happening that was worthy of my attention. There's been nothing. It seems to be mostly mathematicians arguing with other mathematicians about which mathematical formula best fits some problem, plus a bunch of trolls who do nothing but attack the whole idea of Relativity. And another group of individuals who each have a different variation on the Theory of Relativity they want to tell the world about and get the world to accept.
At night, while watching TV, and in the mornings while laying in bed waiting for it to be time to get up, I've been thinking about my scientific papers. More than ever, I feel I'm right about what Einstein wrote, and the interpretations by the mathematicians are just plain illogical. The primary problem I have is figuring out how to best present my case. I have to shoot down the mathematicians without directly attacking or insulting them. That's sometimes difficult to do, but I've managed to do it fairly consistently when arguing with mathematicians on the Google forum. As I've said before, it's like arguing with True Believers. If you disagree with them in any way, they will take it as a personal attack on them on their beliefs, and they'll come back at you with every vicious personal attack they can muster.
So, I'll have be very clear and logical as I argue that their Fixed Speed of Light model of the universe, which is a distortion of what Einstein presented in his papers on Special and General Relativity needs to be replaced by the Variable Time and Speed of Light model of the universe that Einstein actually presented.
My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" presents the evidence which clearly shows that the mathematicians' theories need to be reconsidered, and my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate will be a step by step tear-down of the mathematician's invalid and illogical interpretations of Einstein's First and Second Postulates to his Special Theory of Relativity. Unfortunately, I'll have to leave it to the mathematicians to come up with a replacement mathematical model for the universe. Mathematics is definitely not my forte.
So, I've got a lot of work to do.
But first I need to finish proof-reading that final chapter of the scientist's book.
And then I have to do my income taxes.
|Comments for Sunday, March 5, 2017,
thru Saturday, March 11, 2017:
March 9, 2017 - After thinking it over a bit, I decided that there's nothing for me to be concerned about in the writings of Paul Marmet and David Lazer (see yesterday's comment). The issue they address is the problem with how Physics is taught in colleges and universities today, not the problem I describe in my papers, i.e., the different interpretations of Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
I also awoke this morning thinking about a way to argue against the points made by mathematicians on the Google forum and particularly the mathematician who peer reviewed my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity." Their argument is that their mathematical equations work, therefore their theory is correct. The only way they'll accept any claim that their theory is wrong is if you prove their mathematical equations are incorrect. And there is no way to do that.
The mathematical theories of Plato and Aristotle had the Earth as the center of the universe with dozens of geocentric transparent spheres moving the planets and stars around in the night sky. No one could prove their theory wrong by proving their mathematics were wrong because their mathematics weren't wrong. The whole idea was wrong.
It took a new idea, a Sun-centered solar system, to convince scientists that the geocentric model was invalid. The mathematical equations for the geocentric universe still worked, but the mathematical equations for the heliocentric system also worked, they were simpler, and they better explained actual observations.
So, there's no way to use mathematics to prove the mathematicians' horrendously complex mathematical model of spacetime with a fixed speed of light is wrong. It has to be replaced by a better idea that better fits observations and experiments and involves a very different mathematical model. As I see it, that idea is Einstein's original idea of varying local time and a variable speed of light. It is far better explanation of the workings of the universe than the mathematicians' distortion of Einstein's idea using fixed time and a fixed speed of light.
Presenting a new idea is difficult enough. Presenting an old idea and arguing that it is being and has been misinterpreted by mathematicians for over a hundred years is the task I have before me. But, I think I can make the logic convincing to scientists who believe in logic. If I can't convince the mathematicians who believe that math is logic, maybe I can convince them that Einstein's original mathematical model could be fun to explore.
But first I need to do my income taxes.
March 8, 2017 - I began this day by telling people on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum that I'm not going to be able to argue there for awhile, probably for at least a few months. I need to focus on making changes to my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" so that I can resubmit it to the science journal that yesterday provided me with two "peer reviews."
Interestingly, in one of the overnight posts to the discussion thread titled "The Incoming Speed of Light from A Moving Source Is Variable," someone mentioned the name "Paul Marmet." I had to research him and found that in a paper titled "The GPS and the constant velocity of light" published in 2000, Paul Marmet appears to argue many of the same things I am arguing today.
Further research found a paper by Marmet titled "Explaining the Illusion of the Constant Velocity of Light." And then I found a treasure trove of information about him, including the fact that Marmet died in 2005, the fact that from 1990 to 1999, Paul Marmet was a Visiting Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa. He was a Senior Research Officer at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, from 1983 to 1990. Etc. There's also a list of papers he wrote, but none of the links work. However, I can use the titles to find the papers elsewhere.
For example, I found he wrote a self-published book titled "Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution," which can be read for free on-line. The Preface of the book begins with this:
When I chose to study physics, I thought that science was always rational. Modern physics has certainly failed to fulfill those expectations. For example, I found that the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation does not allow us to believe in the real existence of matter and that the law of causality is not applied in quantum theory. David Layzer gave one of the most honest descriptions of modern physics when he said that modern physics is merely a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements. Unfortunately, his statement is true.I couldn't have said it better. But David Layzer is another name I'd never heard of. Researching him, I found an article about him in the Harvard Crimson which says,
"Virtually all of the difficulty comes from the fact that science and math are atrociously taught in school," Layzer says. "Most people come to Harvard with a view of science that is completely distorted. It is as if science has to do only with memorizing formulas. This is as if people were taught about art by painting by numbers, so that you've taken away spatial organization and made it a mindless assembly."I'll have to study Marmet's and Layzer's papers to see if we fully agree or if he has a different theory that just initially appears to be the same as mine. (I can already see Marmet and I disagree on how red-shifting works.) And I'm not sure how to use their papers as references in my papers if we're saying the same things. It might look like I am stealing their ideas. Hopefully, reading their papers will help me figure out how to deal with them.
March 7, 2017 (B) - @@$#^^#!%**!!! This morning I received a response from the science journal that has had my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" since December 5. It had two "peer reviews" of my paper attached and instructions on what to do next. It makes me wonder how long those reviews were sitting around waiting for me to send an email.
The first reviewer recommended rejecting my paper because he didn't find my arguments to be convincing. He then goes on to state his own beliefs using mathematical equations.
The second reviewer has some complimentary things to say and recommends some changes to make the paper better and more acceptable.
I suppose it's possible that they were waiting for a third reviewer to "break the tie."
The managing editor says in his instructions that I have to either revise the paper or make a convincing argument about why no revisions are necessary. However, in either case, I must resubmit the paper by June 28.
Now, I have to figure out what to do next. I'll probably do my taxes.
March 7, 2017 (A) - On Sunday, right after writing a comment here about not being able to focus on watching movies, I received an email promotion from RedBox telling me I could rent 2 movies from them for $1 each per day. So, I rented "Captain Fantastic" and "Denial," the only two movies at my local Redbox that I hadn't seen but thought I might possibly want to watch - or at least find out if I wanted to watch them or not. I didn't really expect to be able to sit through either one of them.
First I watched "Captain Fantastic." As I watched, I kept telling myself that I should give up on it, but I kept watching. It turned out to be pretty good and well worth the dollar I paid to view it.
Then I watched "Denial." I fully expected to turn it off after 10 or 15 minutes, since I knew it was about the Holocaust and Holocaust deniers, and I figured it would be far too grim and depressing for me in my current state of mind. But, WOW! What a terrific movie! I enjoyed every minute of it. It was even very funny in parts. It may be the best movie I've seen in years, or maybe it just seemed so great because it was so much unlike what I expected.
Yes, it was about a holocaust denier, a true story that took place from 1996 to 2000. However, it was mostly about the British legal system and the need to prove that the holocaust denier was indeed a denier - a denier of the truth. Here's how the IMDB describes it:
Based on the acclaimed book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier," DENIAL recounts Deborah E. Lipstadt's (Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz) legal battle for historical truth against David Irving (Cannes Award winner Timothy Spall), who accused her of libel when she declared him a Holocaust denier. In the English legal system in Defamation, the burden of proof is on the accused, therefore it was up to Lipstadt and her legal team to prove the essential truth that the Holocaust occurred.And that is why the movie was so fascinating. It was about proving that a True Believer and conspiracy theorist was deliberately lying. I wasn't thinking about how we have a True Believer conspiracy theorist as President right now. I was thinking about all the arguments I've had with True Believers and conspiracy theorists over the past 16 years. What I've found is that they may believe what they say (which would technically and legally mean they aren't lying), but they will freely lie to make an argument against anyone who disagrees with them.
I spent over a decade arguing with one such True Believer and Denier. He's still arguing that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were committed by Muslims and not by the man the FBI and DOJ accused of the crime: Dr. Bruce Ivins. Interestingly, he's currently trying to get President Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence to re-open the anthrax investigation. Here is what the conspiracy theorist "Accuracy in Media" web site said about it on Feb. 27:
President Donald Trump is currently engaged in a feud with the FBI over “illegal leaks” that he wants investigated and stopped.and
If you attempt to discuss the facts and the evidence with these True Believers and conspiracy theorists, they will bury you in meaningless bulls**t, and they seem to have no problem with distorting the truth or even lying to make their arguments.
That is how the denier in the movie "Denial" gets tripped up. He may have believed what he was saying, but he was such a True Believer that he had no problem lying when he needed to make a point.
I learned long ago that there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer. But you can learn a lot about the "truth" by arguing with them. And that is what I'm doing as I argue with the mathematicians who truly believe that their bizarre interpretations of Einstein's theories are what Einstein really meant, instead of what Einstein actually wrote.
March 6, 2017 - Yesterday, someone who calls himself "Pentcho Valev" posted a series of quotes from scientific articles on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum. While his purpose was to argue that scientists who formerly accepted Einstein's theories now "run from Einstein," the articles at the links he provided show a very different picture. They show that mathematicians - particularly those involved with Quantum Mechanics - have a major conflict with Einstein's theories. Of course, everyone knows about the conflicts between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, but those conflicts always seemed to be about position and velocity. Here's a quote from the book "The Upright Thinkers: The Human Journey from Living in Trees to Understanding the Cosmos" by Leonard Mlodinow, that I finished reading on February 23:
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.The articles Pentcho Valev posted seem to argue that the conflict actually centers on TIME, the subject I've been talking and arguing about for the past few years.
Here are some interesting quotes and their sources:
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."Source: https://www.hindawi.com/
"In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. Or hop in a rocket and use fuel rather than gravity to accelerate through space, and time dilates; you age less than someone who stayed at home.Source: https://www.quantamagazine.
"Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
"In quantum theory, a “master clock” ticks away somewhere in the universe, measuring out all processes. But in Einstein’s relativity, time is distorted by motion and gravity, so clocks don’t necessarily agree on how it is passing – meaning any master clock must, somewhat implausibly, be outside the universe."Source: https://www.newscientist.com/
"Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."
"On one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time." "On the other hand, time in general relativity is dynamical and local. Hence, it is not an absolute time.”Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/
There are probably a lot more such quotes that I could find if I had a reason to look for them. But the ones I've already found have served their purpose for me. They showed the "Mathematics Gang" that I am not alone in opposing their beliefs about time.
BTW, at 9 a.m. this morning, I sent an email to the science journal that has my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" asking about the status of my paper. I'm now awaiting a response.
March 5, 2017 - I just experienced a bit of Time Dilation. The last three months were probably the longest three months in the history of the universe. They certainly felt that way to me. I submitted my paper "Time Dilation without Relativity" to a scientific journal three months ago today, on December 5, 2016. I haven't heard a word about it in 3 months, and the journal's "rules" say that no one should inquire into the status of their paper until at least 3 month after submission.
So, tomorrow I'll ask them about it.
I'm assuming they'll tell me it is still in a queue awaiting assignment to some reviewer(s). I'm also assuming that they won't be able to tell me when I can expect it will be assigned to some reviewer(s). From what I can tell by visiting their web site, it seems they are just getting around to reading papers submitted in October 2016. So, I might have to wait another three months before they'll even tell me if they are rejecting my paper or are considering it for publication.
On the positive side, I think I'm making significant progress on another scientific paper tentatively titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity." Last week, I think I greatly improved the paper by referring to the beliefs of the mathematicians as "an alternative theory" instead of "a misunderstanding," which reviewers might see as unfair and one-sided. I then gave a name to their theory. I call it "The All Observers Theory," which says that all observers measure light to be moving at the same speed, a theory which is in disagreement with "The Emitter Only Theory" where only the emitter measures light to move at his local speed of light, and everyone else measures the speed of light using a different time frame.
I have two other papers in the works, "What is Time?" and "Time Dilated Light," but months ago I came to the conclusion that those papers basically require that my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" be published first, since they build on the same idea -- that Time Dilation is a real, natural phenomenon and not just an illusion.
Since the "Second Postulate" paper can stand alone and doesn't build on any previous paper, I can submit it somewhere as soon as I finish it. I'll definitely submit it to a different journal, one where I hopefully will get a faster response.
But first I have to finish it. Yesterday, or the day before, Tom Roberts in the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion group mentioned a scientific finding that I'd never heard of before (or maybe I just couldn't recall it), the "annual Doppler effect." Wikipedia says only this about it: "In 1887, Vogel and Scheiner discovered the annual Doppler effect, the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic due to the orbital velocity of the Earth."
It seems to be undeniable evidence that the movement of an outside observer will affect the speed of light the observer measures. In the spring, when the Earth is moving toward a star near the ecliptic plane, the light from the star will be blue shifted. In the fall, when the Earth is moving away from that same star, the light from the star will be red shifted. The problem now is to find the paper that Hermann Vogel and Julius Scheiner published about their observations. All I've been able to find so far are one-line mentions of it on Wikipedia, in the astronomy book Wikipedia uses as a reference, and in a few other astronomy books. However, I'm continuing the research as I write this comment.
It is all very fascinating for me. I'm finding it very difficult to think about anything else. In the evenings when I normally watch movies, I'm now watching old TV shows which do not require that I pay much attention, and my mind can easily drift to thoughts about Time Dilation and the Second Postulate. Last week I "binge-watched" about 7 or 8 episodes of "The Twilight Zone" each night, episodes I had downloaded into my DVR from a "Twilight Zone Marathon" the sci-fi channel ran back in July. Plus, some nights for a change of pace, I'd watch one episode of Season 4 of "Stargate SG-1" from my DVD collection, and maybe listen to the audio commentary track for that episode. Before binge-watching "The Twilight Zone" I binge-watched Season 3 of "Stargate SG-1."
As I was typing the above comment, people were arguing about red-shifting and the speed of light on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum. Most of it is Greek to me, but maybe I'll be able to decipher some of it -- when I'm not hunting for the paper Vogel and Scheiner wrote in 1887.
for Wednesday, March 1, 2017, thru Saturday, March 4,
March 2, 2017 - Hmm. The latest edition of New Scientist magazine has an article titled "Cosmic uncertainty: Is the speed of light really constant?" Unfortunately, the version at the above link is only the first part of the article, and it doesn't say very much. You need a subscription or you need to buy a copy to read the rest.
I've got an article awaiting peer review that says that the speed of light is NOT really a constant. While it would be nice to have some support, it is also a bit unnerving to see other articles appear that seem to say what I'm trying to say in a new and original article. I don't want my article to be obsolete before it is published.
March 1, 2017 - Wow! Using red- and blue-shifting of light waves as an argument for a variable speed of light is really becoming interesting. It's also becoming so complicated that I have to sit and study what I'm writing for a long time to make certain it actually does make sense.
Late yesterday afternoon, I responded to a couple comments on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum. The first comment, from Kenseto stated:
Moron the PoR [Principle of Relativity?] says that every observer measures his sodium source to have wavelength of 589 nm.To which "Odd Bodkin" replied,
Liar, it says absolutely nothing like that.Since I've made it a policy to never respond to anything that "Odd Bodkin" writes, I waited for Kenseto to post something else, and I then I responded with this:
Of course, this is just a very good and OBVIOUS demonstration that an observer moving toward a source of light will see the light arriving at c + v, where v is the observer's velocity (AND the amount of blue shift). If the observer is moving away from the source of the light, the light will arrive at c - v, where v is the observer's velocity (AND the amount of red shift).That comment was pretty much ignored, but then the Fermilab scientist posting as "tjrob137" wrote this in response to someone else's post:
To you and kenseto I say again: wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of light, it is rather a relationship between the light and the apparatus that is measuring it. The light is not changing, but THE WAY DIFFERENT INERTIAL FRAMES MEASURE ITS WAVELENGTH does change.And I responded with this:
You are contradicting YOURSELF. First you say "wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of light" and then you say "The light is not changing."To my surprise, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller agreed with me. He posted this:
Yes .... it would appear Honest Roberts would be "playing both sides of the Aether Fence" in utilizing both "The Relative Velocity of the Detector & the Relative MOMENTUM of the Photon"But for some reason he also tried to change the subject, adding some comment about the Pound-Rebka experiments which had nothing to do with anything. So I responded,
Let's stick with the problem at hand and not change the subject.That's where the discussion stands at the moment. I had to do a lot of thinking before posting that last comment. I had to be sure I wasn't contradicting something I had written in the past. In the past, I repeatedly argued that there is no way to measure the speed of light coming from a distant star or distant frame of reference. So, we cannot be certain that light coming from a distant star is coming at 299,792,458 meters per second. But it seems that most physicists assume that speed to be a "universal constant" which is the same regardless of the source, instead of only being a "universal constant" for anyone measuring the speed of light created in their own frame of reference. And they are then forced to argue that the wave length of light somehow changes without changing the speed of light. How can that be? They don't know. They just babble about it being how the Theory of Relativity works.
Every day I am just amazed at how simple "reality" is, and how ridiculously complex people make things in order to force them to fit their misunderstandings of Einstein's Theories of Relativity.