You touch on the aporia between § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's paper of 1905 from a different point of view. 

an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.       

§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

You probably still think Trump is doing a Fabulous Job as President don't you ???

Here are some of my published thoughts about Trump:
http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-thinks-emotionally-not-logically.html

My web site has a lot more.  

I didn't read it, you just want your Neanderthal virus like thoughts broadcasted into other people's heads.
You're just like Trump, a Bullshitter running his mouth.
Healthcare just like Time Dilation IS COMPLICATED..... who would have thought ???

I agree with everything you say about Trump, but from my point of view it is you who is spouting nonsense because, like Trump, you seem to think with your emotions instead of with your brain.  If someone disagrees with you, instead of discussing the points of disagreement, you attack the other person with personal insults.  That is pure Trump tactics. 

Trump thinks he is smarter than everyone else (and that is why he is a billionaire), so everyone who disagrees with him (and doesn't have as much money as he has) must be dumb. 

You act just like Trump.  Will Trump ever sit down with Democrats to try to resolve differences?  Probably not.  That would be acknowledging that he could be wrong on some things and the Democrats could right.  He would never acknowledge that.  You also seem incapable of acknowledging that you could be wrong.  Instead, you want others to figure things out, because you believe that they will eventually conclude that you are right.  

No Ed.....
I Only Attack you because you are ignorant Stupid & Arrogant enough to think you can decipher Time Dilation with ZERO Knowledge of the Remainder of Physics.

I don't attack & disagree with everyone, just you.

If we now rotate the disk clockwise at velocity v, we find that the blue beam arrives back at the detector before the red beam – in fact, the difference in  the  velocity  of  light turns out to be 2*v, because the blue beam travels at C+v and the red beam at C-v.

Well, the problem is this – from the point of view of special relativity, there are no preferred frames of reference, there are only relative frames of reference, so we can’t argue that frame B is better than frame A without defeating the underlying premise of the theory. In special relativity (SR), the position of the observer is supposed to be arbitrary.

Further, on the relativistic notion that ”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light”, as had seemingly been proven by the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Sagnac experiment shows that this can in fact be done. Also, observer A can determine that it is he who is rotating, and not his surroundings.

Me:   Step 2 is the arrival of the photons at the speeder's car at (c + v)

Other guy: [car at (c + v)] is TRASH, (c+v) Negates all of Relativity....

Me: No, it doesn't.  It just negates the "MATHEMATICIANS' ALL OBSERVERS THEORY" of relativity.  READ MY PAPER!
 
Other guy: If [car at (c + v)] then there would be NO REFLECTED PHOTON TO CALCULATE THE VELOCITY

Me: There obviously IS a NEW photon to calculate velocity, so you are clearly misunderstanding something.

Other guy: [car at (c - v)] is Much More Workable if the Car was Always considered to be at the event horizon, trying to Accelerate away form the event horizon.  Your Brain is Filled with TRASH

Me: There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.  Your brain is evidently filled with memorized TRASH that is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is confusing you.

Other guy: (There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.)  FOOOOOL !!!  There is Always an Event Horizon Between The Future & The Past ....   This EVENT HORIZON is called the "PRESENT"  What a Stupid Donkey you are.  My Mother's Donkey is Smarter than you ...

Reports on Progress in Physics now offers an accepted-manuscript service, meaning your research can be downloaded and cited within 24 hours of acceptance.

4. The length of the article should be between 20000 and a maximum of 25000 words, including an allowance of 250 words for each illustration.

Why viXra?

In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as arXiv.org, was founded at Los Alamos National Laboratories. In the early days of the World Wide Web it was open to submissions from all scientific researchers, but gradually a policy of moderation was employed to block articles that the administrators considered unsuitable. In 2004 this was replaced by a system of endorsements to reduce the workload and place responsibility of moderation on the endorsers. The stated intention was to permit anybody from the scientific community to continue contributing. However many of us who had successfully submitted e-prints before then found that we were no longer able to. Even those with doctorates in physics and long histories of publication in scientific journals can no longer contribute to the arXiv unless they can find an endorser in a suitable research institution.

The policies of the administrators of Cornell University who now control the arXiv are so strict that even when someone succeeds in finding an endorser their e-print may still be rejected or moved to the "physics" category of the arXiv where it is likely to get less attention. Those who endorse articles that Cornell find unsuitable are under threat of losing their right to endorse or even their own ability to submit e-prints. Given the harm this might cause to their careers it is no surprise that endorsers are very conservative when considering articles from people they do not know. These policies are defended on the arXiv's endorsement help page

A few of the cases where people have been blocked from submitting to the arXiv have been detailed on the Archive Freedom website, but as time has gone by it has become clear that Cornell has no plans to bow to pressure and change their policies. Some of us now feel that the time has come to start an alternative archive which will be open to the whole scientific community. That is why viXra has been created. viXra will be open to anybody for both reading and submitting articles. We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.

It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific. However, it will also be a repository for new ideas that the scientific establishment is not currently willing to consider. Other perfectly conventional e-prints will be found here simply because the authors were not able to find a suitable endorser for the arXiv or because they prefer a more open system. It is our belief that anybody who considers themselves to have done scientific work should have the right to place it in an archive in order to communicate the idea to a wide public. They should also be allowed to stake their claim of priority in case the idea is recognised as important in the future.

Gar-bage 

Manuscripts that question well-established physical principles are outside the purview of [our journal] and should be submitted to a more specialized journal for consideration.

Authors are encouraged to upload their manuscripts to their personal Web sites and to e-print servers

Physicist Richard Feynman once said that it does not make any difference how beautiful your theory is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who developed the theory, or what your name is, "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."

Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"

Einstein tried again to tell him, Thats NOT correct!"

Einstein tried again to tell him, ``Thats NOT correct!''

Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, ``That's \textbf{NOT} correct.''

Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"

Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, ``That's \textbf{\textit{\underline{NOT}}} correct!"

Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"

Postulate 2 says that the velocity of light is always the same independent of the velocity of the source or of the observer. This can be taken as an experimental fact deduced from the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, Einstein, when asked years later if he had been aware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, replied that he was not sure if he had been. Einstein came on the second postulate from a different viewpoint. According to his [Einstein's] first postulate, the laws of physics must be the same for all inertial observers. If the velocity of light is different for different observers, then the observer could tell whether he was at rest or in motion at some constant velocity, simply by determining the velocity of light in his frame of reference. If the observed velocity of light c’ were equal to c then the observer would be in the frame of reference that is at rest. If the observed velocity of light were c’ = c - v, then the observer was in a frame of reference that was receding from the rest frame. Finally, if the observed velocity c’ = c - v, then the observer would be in a frame of reference that was approaching the rest frame. Obviously these various values of c’ would be a violation of the first postulate, since we could now define an absolute rest frame (c’ = c), which would be different than all the other inertial frames.

The second postulate has revolutionary consequences. Recall that a velocity is equal to a distance in space divided by an interval of time. In order for the velocity of light to remain a constant independent of the motion of the source or observer, space and time itself must change. This is a revolutionary concept, indeed, because as already pointed out, Newton had assumed that space and time were absolute.  A length of 1 m was considered to be a length of 1 m anywhere, and a time interval of 1 hr was considered to be a time interval of 1 hr anywhere. However, if space and time change, then these concepts of absolute space and absolute time can no longer be part of the picture of the physical universe.

Insofar as the constancy/variability of the speed of light is concerned, there are only two consistent theories:

1. The (original) ether theory - incompatible with the principle of relativity.

2. Newton's emission theory of light - compatible with the principle of relativity.

One of the above theories is wrong, the other is true, but both are consistent. Einstein's special relativity is both inconsistent and idiotic (entails the idiotic centaur called "spacetime").

S is a source of light and A and B two moving systems. A is moving towards the source S, and B away from it. Observers on the systems mark off equal distances aa' and bb' along the path of the light and determine the time taken for light to pass from a to a' and b to b' respectively. Contrary to what seem the simple conclusions of common sense, the second postulate requires that the time taken for the light to pass from a to a' shall measure the same as the time for the light to go from b to b'. Such a consideration makes the path obvious by which the theory of relativity has been led to strange conclusions as to the units of length and time in a moving system.

The last 500 years have witnessed a phenomenal and unprecedented growth in human power. In the year 1500, there were about 500 million Homo sapiens in the entire world. Today, there are 7 billion. The total value of goods and services produced by humankind in the year 1500 is estimated at $250 billion, in today’s dollars. Nowadays the value of a year of human production is close to $60 trillion. In 1500, humanity consumed about 13 trillion calories of energy per day. Today, we consume 1,500 trillion calories a day. (Take a second look at those figures – human population has increased fourteen-fold, production 240-fold, and energy consumption 115-fold.)

Prior to the sixteenth century, no human had circumnavigated the earth. This changed in 1522, when Magellan’s expedition returned to Spain after a journey of 72,000 kilometres. It took three years and cost the lives of almost all the crew members, Magellan included. In 1873, Jules Verne could imagine that Phileas Fogg, a wealthy British adventurer, might just be able to make it around the world in eighty days. Today anyone with a middle-class income can safely and easily circumnavigate the globe in just forty-eight hours.

In European medieval cities there was usually a single clock – a giant machine mounted on top of a high tower in the town square. These tower clocks were notoriously inaccurate, but since there were no other clocks in town to contradict them, it hardly made any difference. Today, a single affluent family generally has more timepieces at home than an entire medieval country. You can tell the time by looking at your wristwatch, glancing at your Android, peering at the alarm clock by your bed, gazing at the clock on the kitchen wall, staring at the microwave, catching a glimpse of the TV or DVD, or taking in the taskbar on your computer out of the corner of your eye. You need to make a conscious effort not to know what time it is.

The principle of relativity applies to the interior experiments and requires that similar interior experiments in your spaceship and mine will give similar results.

I light a lamp in the forward part of my spaceship and measure the speed of the light waves as they move toward the rear. You perform the same sort of experiment in your spaceship. By Einstein’s second principle, which says that the motion of light is independent of the motion of its source, the light waves from the star, the light waves from the lamp in my spaceship, and the light waves from the lamp in your spaceship will all keep abreast of one another as they move toward the rear. So when I measure the speed of the waves from my lamp, I am also measuring the speed with which the light waves from the star go by me. And the same holds for you.

Since you are rushing toward the star at one-fifth the speed of light, we are likely to conclude that you will find the light from the star, and thus also the light from your lamp, rushing toward you not at the speed of light as measured by an observer stationary with respect to the star—me—but with that speed augmented by your own speed of approach to the star. The light from the star would then pass you with a speed one-and-one-fifth times the speed with which it passes me.  Therefore the interior light from your lamp would also pass you with a speed one-and-one-fifth times the speed with which the interior light from my lamp passes me. But this conclusion has to be false. It conflicts with Einstein’s first postulate, the principle of relativity. For in measuring the speed of the light from our respective lamps, you and I are performing identical interior experiments and should therefore get identical results. If I find the speed of waves from my lamp to be c kilometers per second, so too must you.  And, because of the exterior aspect of the experiment, you must therefore find the light waves from the star passing you at this same speed c—despite the fact that you are rushing toward the star.

Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

If I find the speed of waves from my lamp to be c kilometers per second, so too must you.  And, because of the exterior aspect of the experiment, you must therefore find the light waves from the star passing you at this same speed c—despite the fact that you are rushing toward the star.  

Einstein seems to have wrestled with the problems of an emission theory of light for some time, looking for a set of differential equations describing such a theory that could replace the Maxwell-Lorentz equations; and trying to explain a number of optical experiments, notably the Fizeau experiment, based on some version of the emission theory. He could not find any such equations, and his attempt to explain the Fizeau experiment led him to more and more bizarre assumptions to avoid an outright contradiction. So he more-or-less abandoned this approach (you will soon see why I say more-or-less), after perhaps a year or more of effort, and returned to a reconsideration of the Maxwell-Lorentz equations. Perhaps there was a way of making these equations compatible with the relativity principle once one abandoned Lorentz's interpretation via the ether concept.

But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately.

I cannot ask you to accept my conjectures after all of my warnings at the outset of this paper, but will be content if you say "Si non è vero, è ben trovato," "If it isn't true, it's well contrived."    

April 1, 2017 - Since it is April Fool's Day, it seems appropriate for me to write a comment about President Trump.

While checking the news this morning, I noticed an article on BuzzFeed.com titled "Trump Held An Executive Order Signing Ceremony, Then Walked Away Without Signing Anything."

It appears that President Trump was going to sign a couple bills that he feels will help American manufacturing companies, but when a reporter asked him about Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser who has offered to testify on the Trump campaign's ties with Russia in return for immunity from prosecution, Trump just walked out of the room without signing anything.  He sent Vice-President Pence back to get the unsigned papers, apparently so he could sign them out of view of the reporters.



Meanwhile, of course, photographers were capturing every moment on still photos and on video.  There's a video of the whole thing in the article.

It's also interesting to read the comments from readers below article.  As of this moment there are 62 comments, but they're still coming in, since the article was only posted 11 hours ago.  Some typical comments:

How embarrassing for America to have that spoiled toddler in a suit representing us.

If he could just forget to sign every single one till 2020, that'd be great.

He won't last until the midterms, never mind 2020.

In Vegas, 5 bucks will get you 3 that he wont make it to the end of his term.

He...He can't even handle taking questions?
And he is leading our country?
This would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

So to me it looks like he was heading for the door BEFORE the reporter even started to ask the question. He literally had no intention of signing anything at this signing ceremony.

This is less a presidency and more a Gong Show.