Archive for
April 2017

Comments for Sunday, April 30, 2017, thru Sunday, April 30, 2017:

April 30, 2017 - The past week was another extremely busy week for me.  On Wednesday I kept thinking it was Sunday, since so much had already happened in the week (and because I don't go to the gym on Wednesdays or Sundays).  I still find it hard to believe that it was just six days ago that I received the second request for revisions to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  It seems like that was at least 3 weeks ago. 

The changes are ready to be sent out tomorrow.

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, I wrote comments here about things that had happened.  On Thursday afternoon, I received an email from a scientist-professor at a major university in Europe who stated he would endorse my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate for posting to  In fact, I received notice from arXiv that I had been endorsed before I received the email from the scientist-professor, and I spent a few minutes wondering who had done it.  I didn't think about the scientist-professor, because my endorsement request to him had been sent out over a week earlier, and I'd written it off as a "no response."

The email contained some fairly nice compliments and referred to the conflict between "Einstein's Emitter Only Theory" and the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" this way:

You touch on the aporia between § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's paper of 1905 from a different point of view. 
"Aporia" was a word that was unfamiliar to me (and I see that my spell checker doesn't even recognize it), so I had to look it up.  It means:
an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.       
He was saying that sections § 1 and § 3 in Einstein's 1905 paper appear to be contradictory.  Those sections are:
§ 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
The mathematicians with whom I have argued have said the same thing using different words, but they didn't explain the contradiction - and neither did the scientist-professor.  So, when I find some free time, I'm going to have to study those two sections and Einstein's book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, which seems to contain easy-to-read descriptions or restatements of those sections in layman's terms.  It appears that, if I want to know what the contradiction is, I'm going to have to figure it out for myself, since no mathematician seems to be able to explain it except in terms of complex mathematical equations.    
On Friday morning, I also received an email from the scientist whose book I finished proof-reading on March 13.  It appears his book has been accepted by the publisher and it will now go into their editing process.  So, when it comes out (supposedly in October) I will certainly mention it on this web site.

And, although I have tried to avoid getting into arguments on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity discussion forum, there were some arguments that I just could not ignore.  Yesterday, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller made this comment to me out of the blue:
You probably still think Trump is doing a Fabulous Job as President don't you ???
Huh!  I responded with this comment:
Here are some of my published thoughts about Trump:

My web site has a lot more.  
But David (Lord Kronos Fuller) refused to go to the link and instead he simply responded:
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 ???
And, of course, I had to respond.  I wrote this:
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.  
I had actually been wondering if the mathematicians I've been arguing with are Trump followers, since they seem to think like Trump - emotionally, not logically.  But it seems the world is not that simple and straight-forward.  They may seem as closed-minded and as illogical as Trump, but for some reason I cannot fathom, at least one of them is not a Trump supporter.  He did respond to my comment, but, of course, without admitting he was wrong about me supporting Trump:
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.
I let the argument end there.  I searched back through his responses to comments from other people posting in the thread, but I couldn't find any where he insulted the others he disagreed with.  However, they were all basically arguments over mathematical formulas and how the formulas should be interpreted.  So, that probably proves something, but I'm not sure what.

I awoke this morning thinking that tomorrow when I return the latest changes to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity to the journal that is currently  reviewing it,  I should ask them if they would have any objection to me putting the paper on  I assume he wouldn't have any problem with it, but I still do not fully understand why some journals seem to want authors to first put their papers on  It would, of course, give me something to refer to when I discuss the paper with others, but I don't understand how a publisher would consider that to be a good thing.

Maybe someday I'll figure that one out.

Comments for Sunday, April 23, 2017, thru Saturday, April 29, 2017:

April 27, 2017  - Hmm.  For some reason, I decided to do a Google search for "Religio Mathematica."  It's a term I've been using a lot lately, and I think I was just wondering if it would properly translate into "the religion of mathematics" or not.  To my surprise, up popped a journal paper titled "Religio Mathematici: Presidential Address Delivered Before the Mathematical Association of America, September 7, 1921 " by David Eugene Smith, published in The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 28, No. 10 (Oct., 1921), and in The Mathematics Teacher in December 1921.

In the document, Smith actually suggests that mathematics is a kind of religion in that it has laws that seem to have been handed down by God.  He doesn't propose that anyone go out an covert the heathen, but he talks about mathematics as if he was talking about the word of God.

To me it's kind of creepy, but it also gives me some ammunition when I claim that arguing with a mathematician is like arguing with a religious fanatic.  All they can do is cite scripture and call you a "non-believer" and tell you that you need to study their scripture.  They cannot explain anything, because they do not understand anything.  All they know are memorized slogans and laws that are unquestioned and unquestionable.  

The 46-page paper I mentioned in my April 25 comment turned out to be just more incomprehensible mathematical crap, a point by point dissection of Albert Einstein's short but excellent 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory."  In his paper, hhe mathematician argued that everything Einstein says is wrong.  But his arguments weren't really about what Einstein wrote, they were about his interpretations of what Einstein wrote.  And I cannot see how he could possibly arrive at such interpretations.  Nor do I expect he will be able to explain his interpretations. 

It's really weird.  It's like something out of science fiction, something like "Brave New World" by Aldous  Huxley, where everyone is "conditioned" (brainwashed) at an early age to believe as the masters want them to believe.  But how do you communicate with such people if they are programmed to think you are just too stupid to understand "the truth"?

April 26, 2017 - One of the changes the potential endorser I mentioned yesterday suggested I make to my paper "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" was to include some reference to the Sagnac Effect.

Wow!  Yes indeed!  I really need to mention the Sagnac Effect in my paper.  I spent a couple hours yesterday trying to track down a free copy of the paper Regarding the Proof for the Existence of a Luminiferous Ether Using a Rotating Inteferometer Experiment by Georges Sagnac, since I don't want to spend money to buy a copy from the publisher.  I couldn't find a copy.  This morning, however, I awoke wondering if Wikipedia provided a link to it.  I checked, and yes they do.  Click HERE

I'd read the Wikipedia article before, and I had also read an on-line article titled "The Sagnac Effect: Does it Contradict Relativity?," plus a few other articles.  But I'd evidently forgotten about them.  It's a fairly simple lab experiment that confirms what I've been saying about Einstein's Second Postulate!  It confirms my understanding of the postulate and it disproves the mathematicians' version. 

Here's an illustration from Wikipedia:
Sagnac Effect
It's similar to the standard method for measuring the speed of light in a lab, with some very important differences.  The light is emitted by the "light source" through a "half-silvered mirror."  The mirror deflects half of the photons at a 90 degree angle and allows the other half to continue in a straight line.  The result is that half of the photons travel clockwise between the mirrors at the corners of the square shown above to reach the detector, and the other half of the photons travel counterclockwise.  The experiment was done to determine if there would be any difference in the speed of light due to the Earth's movement through the hypothetical aether as the Earth orbits the Sun.  If there was, one direction should be faster than the other.  In that way, it is very similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment.  And it produces the same result: there was no difference.

But, what if you put the whole apparatus on a rotating disk with the center of the disk in the center of the square?  And what if you then rotate the disk at high speed?  One source explains the results this way:
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.
Sagnac's results showed that light traveling in the same direction as the rotating square was red shifted and light traveling in the opposite direction was blue shifted.  And the difference was the speed of rotation.  It is experimental proof that the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory" is wrong.  An observer looking toward the light coming from the clockwise direction will measure it arriving at c + v while another observer measuring the light coming from the counterclockwise direction would measure it arriving at c - v.  Different observers measure light traveling at different velocities.   It's exactly what happens when a stationary police officer uses LIDAR gun to measure light emitted back from a speeding car.  The light arrives at c plus the speed of the car.

A little additional research caused me to stumble upon the 1925 Michelson-Gale experiment, which I should probably also use as a reference in my paper.  It showed that light moving against the rotation of the earth spinning on its axis traveled at c + v, while light moving with the rotation of the earth on its axis traveled at c - v, and light moving north or south just traveled a c.

So, why hasn't this been used to show that the Mathematicians' All Observers Theory is wrong?  The source previously cited says,
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.
They aren't looking at Einstein's Emitter Only Theory, they are looking at the Mathematicians' All Observers Theory and arguing that the experiments show Einstein's theory to be wrong.  They are proving themselves wrong and arguing that they are proving Einstein wrong!

What this shows me is the point where the disagreement between Einstein and the mathematicians occurs.  Einstein was a scientist trying to understand how the universe works.  He found that different people can see things happening at different times.  He wondered why, and that led to his discovery of time dilation.  Person-A measures things happening in at a specific rate, and Person-B measures the same things happening at a different rate.  Why?  Time passes at a different rate for Person-A than for Person-B.  Simple.  Easy peasy.

But mathematicians do not accept the reality of time dilation.  To them it is just an "illusion."  Moreover, in mathematics everything is reciprocal.  If A = B, then B = A.   Therefore, it all depends upon who is the "preferred observer."  If Person-A measures things happening at one rate and Person-B measures things happening at a different rate, it is "arbitrary" as to who is right.  If Person-B is the "preferred frame of reference," then Person-B is right.  If Person-A is the "preferred frame of reference," then Person-A is right. 

But, Einstein says they are BOTH right.  Time just passes at a different rate for Person-A than for Person-B due to differences in motion or location.  It's not much different from being on different sides of the street while watching a parade.  I see the parade going from left to right, and you see it going from right to left.  Who is right?  We're BOTH right.  But to mathematicians there must be a "preferred frame of reference," otherwise their calculations could be wrong.

Mathematicians are saying that E=mc2 and mc2=E.  In other words, there is no difference between putting a log on a fire to add heat to a room than taking heat from the room to create a log in the fireplace.  Either one can be just an "illusion," depending only on your "preferred frame of reference."

This fits very well with a quote from Einstein: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Now I have to figure out how to say that in a "scientific paper."

April 25, 2017 - I'm really starting to feel overwhelmed.  The changes I was requested to make to my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity seem to be fairly minor, but I'm not going to send the revised paper back until next Monday, May 1.  That will give me plenty of time to think things over to make certain the changes (and the rest of the paper) are as good as I can make them.

This morning I received an email from a scientist who I had asked to endorse my paper "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" for  He said he was willing to do so, but he suggested I make some changes first - to help the paper get past the arXiv moderators.  And he also sent me a 46-page paper he wrote about Einstein's Second Postulate and asked for my thoughts about it.  Since we don't really agree on how the Second Postulate should be interpreted, my comments will probably include a lot of suggestions that he might be wrong.  But, that may very well be what he is looking for.  Ideally, it is what any scientist would want from a critique, but it seems extremely rare for anyone to welcome anything other than praise.

I've temporarily given up on arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  But, I am making a copy of the arguments for possible use in the book I might write some day.  Here's a typical argument from yesterday, resulting from my attempt to discuss the steps involved in a police officer using LIDAR to measure a speeder's velocity as described in my paper about Einstein's Second  Postulate:
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 ...
I'm talking about something that seems very simple and straight-forward, but he's complicating things beyond comprehension.  I didn't really want to ask him for his explanation of how any of what he said fits into the simple task of a police officer checking a speeder's velocity, since his response would certainly be just more personal attacks.

When I get some of the things done that have a vastly higher priority, I may start another discussion on that forum and try to focus it on how LIDAR works in a very simple situation like that described in my paper.
But first, I have to make some tweeks to my paper on Time Dilation, and then I have to read the paper the potential endorser sent me.

Busy busy busy.

April 24, 2017 - Hmm.  This morning, I didn't receive any responses to my two outstanding requests for endorsers.  The only email I received was from the scientific journal that has my paper on Time Dilation without Relativity.  The reviewer asked for a few additional changes. 

I'm glad I didn't have to wait until the end of June to get a response, as I was expecting.  But, the requested changes are difficult to decipher.  So, I'll have to think about what to do.

I'm really overwhelmed with things I need to do.  I've been trying to organize all the papers and books I downloaded during my research and saved into folders in my computer during the past year or so.  I've been trying to maintain listings that describe each paper and book (one listing for arXiv papers (184 items), another listing for viXra papers (27 items) and third listing for "miscellaneous" papers (368 items)), but the listings only include about 60 percent of what I actually downloaded and saved.  Going through the folders to update the listings with the things not yet described, I found I have different versions of several books, and I have some things that I really really need to find time to read.

Meanwhile, I've been spending a little time each day arguing on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  Since the arguments are mostly personal attacks, all that is accomplished by arguing there is to make me all the more certain that my papers are valid and worthwhile.  But, occasionally someone asks a meaningful question that requires me to think a bit before responding.        

April 23, 2017 - Wow!  What a busy week!  I think I've finished all the research required for my scientific papers.  Now I just need to focus on getting them published.  Yesterday, I put the 3,000 word version of my paper titled "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity" on this web site at the link HERE.  I was planning on adding it to, but I decided that wasn't a good idea.  I have the 7,024 word version on, and I think that's all I really need to have there.

I still do not understand why scientific journals like the idea of having authors put their papers put on before they send them to the journals.  Last week I was researching the journal called "Reports on Progress in Physics."  At the top of their web site they say,

Reports on Progress in Physics now offers an accepted-manuscript service, meaning your research can be downloaded and cited within 24 hours of acceptance.
It appears that they have started a "service" that will compete with and  Why?!  What purpose does such a service serve?  Reading further, they seem to indicate that such web site allows people to argue about the content of papers.  And then, perhaps, publishers can get some idea as to whether a paper has merit or not.  Evidently the editors cannot rely on their own judgment.

Digging deeper into their guidelines for authors, I found this rule:

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.
A 20,000 word minimum?  Could they possibly have meant 2,000 words?  I suspect not.  My paper is just under 5,000 words.   

It's all very bizarre to me.  But I'm on their turf, so I have to figure out how things operate in this world of "getting published."

I want to put the 7,000 word version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate on, but I keep stumbling into pitfalls.  I need an "endorser."  I thought that I just needed to find someone who is "Qualified to endorse," and ask them to do so for me.  Not so.  It turns out I need to find an "endorser" who is qualified to endorse in the specific "section" of where I want to place my paper.

On Thursday, I sent off three email requests for endorsement, along with copies of my 7,024 word paper.  All three potential endorsers were located in different countries.  The one in Spain replied that he couldn't endorse for the astrophysics section.  The other two (in former Soviet Union countries) evidently just saw that I didn't know what I was doing and didn't respond.  I'd used the endorsement request form that I got last year when I was thinking of putting a paper about Time Dilated Light on  I didn't notice that it was only valid for the astrophysics section.

So, I figured out how to get an endorsement form for the physics section, which seemed to be the best section for my paper, and I sent it off to that same potential endorser in Spain.  He responded that he couldn't endorse for the physics section, either.  The only section into which he has published papers is the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) section.  Groan!  Does my paper fit into the gr-qc section?  What difference does it make?  It appears that all papers submitted to go into the same file, but each is coded with a "section" so that people looking for new papers on some topic can go straight to the section that most likely contains what they are looking for.

So, I obtained an endorsement form for the gr-qc section and sent it off on Friday afternoon.  I haven't received any response.  I'm hoping that that endorser just doesn't respond to work emails on the weekends.  But, it's possible he also gave up on me and got tired of responding to my invalid endorsement requests.

So, while waiting, I need to go through recent papers in physics section to see if any were written by people who can endorse for that section.  But they would also need to have written a paper about something related to Einstein's Second Postulate, and not something opposed to what I wrote.  Otherwise, what basis would I have to ask them to endorse for me?

An alternative idea is to search for all recent papers which mention Einstein's Second Postulate and, if they turn out to be "qualified to endorse," I can check to see if my paper is compatible with what they wrote.  I did that and found one author whose paper is compatible and who is qualified to endorse, but apparently he can "only" endorse for astro-ph.GA, astro-ph.SR, math.HO, physics.atm-clus, physics.atom-ph,, physics.comp-ph, physics.flu-dyn and q-bio.QM.   Not for physics!  Should I ask him if he will endorse my paper for the "Solar and Stellar astrophysics" (astro-ph.SR) section?  Does it really belong there?  I dunno.  I'll keep searching.  But, it probably won't hurt to try asking him.  He's in Japan, so I can try this afternoon.

Meanwhile, I have to also search for another scientific journal to which I can submit my paper. 

Yesterday morning, I made the mistake of asking people on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity forum for advice.  They wouldn't even talk about the problem of finding an endorser, they would only talk about how they didn't believe what I wrote in the version of my Second Postulate paper that I put on, because they have their own theories.  And, of course, they attacked me personally for not accepting their theories.


Uh oh.  I just clicked on a link HERE and found this:

Why viXra?

In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as, 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.

Hmm.  I don't really care how much attention my paper gets.  I just want it to be on viXra because some journal publishers seem to require it.  So, the physics "category" or "section" is fine for me, but if it's the default category, who would want to be an endorser for it?  That probably explains why I haven't found anyone who deliberately puts their papers in that category. 


Today's statistics for my scientific papers on shows that 23 people have accessed my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, up from 9 yesterday morning. It's undoubtedly the result of the discussion on the Google forum.  I see there is also one comment on viXra about my Second Postulate paper.  It's the first comment I've gotten on that web site.  The comment simply says:
Not very helpful

I also see there are some arguments awaiting my response on the Google forum this morning.  I'll have to respond, but I'll try to make it short, so that I can get back to work on finding and endorser and finding a scientific journal which will at least look at my paper. 

One of these days, I really must write a book about all this.   

Comments for Sunday, April 16, 2017, thru Saturday, April 22, 2017:

April 20, 2017 - Well, that didn't take long.  In my email inbox this morning, I found a rejection letter from the scientific journal to which I sent my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate yesterday.  The editor stated,
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.
So, they have nothing to say about the validity of the material in my paper, they just don't publish anything that is controversial.  Hmmm.

I suppose I should have expected that.  The paper I wrote says that physics teachers are teaching crap about physics, and I sent it to a journal that is run by physics teachers for physics teachers.

So, I'll try someplace else.  The journal that has my paper on Time Dilation definitely does print articles that "question well-established physical principles."  But I don't want to have to wait three months for a response.  I'm going to use them as my last resort option. 

Maybe I'll try another journal that is run by physics teachers.  In an ideal world, physics teachers would be the ones most interested in knowing whether what they are teaching is valid or not.

Nah.  I'll try to find a monthly journal that might publish controversial papers.

I woke up this morning wondering about something I read on that scientific journal for teachers web site.  They state:

Authors are encouraged to upload their manuscripts to their personal Web sites and to e-print servers
Why?  Obviously, there's something about this process that I do not understand.  But, I just submitted the 7,024 word version to, and it's already available there.  I've also put the pdf version on my own web site at the link HERE.  Tomorrow, I plan to submit and upload the 3,000 word version that I sent to a top-ranked journal and got rejected there.  I'm still not sure if I should upload the latest version or not.  I'll have to think about it and see if I can get some advice.  I'll also have to check to see if I can find any likely "endorser" on  I'm not very hopeful about that.  But I just sent an email to a potential endorser in the Republic of Georgia and another in the Czech Republic.  Meanwhile, I'll try to find a potential endorser closer to home.  

Busy busy busy.

April 19, 2017 - I just submitted my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to a scientific journal.  They say they'll get back to me about it in ten days or less, which is a lot better than waiting 3 months as I am for information about my paper on Time Dilation.  I also received acknowledgement of receipt at 10:41 a.m., less than a minute after submitting it, instead of having to wait a week and then send an email asking if they received it, as was the case with the revised submission of my Time Dilation paper.  

I finished putting the paper into LaTeX format yesterday afternoon and then printed out a pdf copy.  This morning I proof-read that paper.  I found a slew of minor problems, mostly having to do with LaTex coding, and made those changes.  I hadn't replaced a lot of apostrophes, so the paper had a lot of "Einsteins" instead of "Einstein's."  Plus, I'd totally failed to notice that I needed to add an apostrophe to "c = c + v" to make it "c' = c + v" in all the places it appeared in a large quote I used (the same quote I used in my April 16 comment).

The journal did ask me to supply some potential reviewers, but it was not a requirement.  So, I was able to skip over that part.  It wasn't even a requirement to supply a cover letter, so I didn't supply one.  I wasn't sure what to say.  And I didn't want any cover letter to give any kind of wrong impression. 

The 14-page double-spaced paper has NO illustrations.  It's just 4,880 words of text (including the references).  The illustrations I had been using (and spent a LOT of time creating) were all too cartoony, which didn't seem appropriate for a deadly serious paper that states that most physics teachers around the world are teaching total crap.

I tried to figure out some way to add something more about Time Dilation to the paper, since it is mathematicians' refusal to accept the reality of Time Dilation that is the cause for all their screwball misinterpretations of Einstein's Second Postulate, but I decided it was better to just supply a mountain of experimental evidence to prove the mathematicians are wrong, and to quote Richard Feynman on the subject of experiments.  Here's how I phrased it in the paper:
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."
If you look around the Internet for that quote, you'll find many different places where the first part of it is stated as:

Feynman misquote

However, that is not really what Feynman said.  A YouTube video of that part of his lecture is on-line HERE, and a transcribed version is on page 150 of a hardcover book I have in my library that is titled "The Character of Physical Law," and which I used as a reference.  Here's what Dr. Feynman actually said,

Feynman quote

I couldn't use his actual words, because he talks of "guesses" instead of "theories."  If you understand what he was saying, the two words become interchangeable, but out of context they would require a lot of explanation.  So, I just put quotes around the words he actually spoke.

Now I just have to wait to see what happens.  As I see it, there's no way the journal can say that my paper is "wrong," so if they reject it they'll have to find some other reason. Time will tell if they can find some reason.

April 18, 2017 - Okay.  Late on Sunday afternoon I had a good first draft of the new version of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.  So, I then tried to figure out how to create the LaTeX version requested by the scientific journal to which I plan to send it.   I finally gave up and finished for the day.

On Monday, I awoke thinking I need to create backup versions of everything and put them in my safe deposit box, not just of my scientific papers, but everything I have on my laptop computer.  Surprisingly, it took me about 2½ hours to fill up a 32GB flash drive, and I couldn't fit everything on it.  But it held everything I deemed to be important.  It took 50 minutes to just save my file of audio books!

When I had the backups completed, I started again on trying to figure out how to create a LaTeX version of the paper.  I went through about 150 different sample templates on Overleaf, which the scientific journal recommended as a web site to use for LaTeX coding, but none of their templates exactly matched what the journal required.  Then yesterday afternoon, I tried using Overleaf's "blank page" template and loading into it all the LaTeX code for the "sample paper" the journal provided on their web site.  That worked.

So, I started the conversion.  It is a slow and tedious process.  For example, if I have a sentence in WORD that reads like this:
Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"
Just copying and pasting that into LaTeX format doesn't work.  It produces this in the final version:
Einstein tried again to tell him, Thats NOT correct!"
To fix it, first you need to use two accent marks as the left quote mark and then two apostrophes for the right quote mark.  The LaTeX code then looks like this:
Einstein tried again to tell him, ``Thats NOT correct!''
You need to re-enter the apostrophe in "That's," because copying and pasting it doesn't work.  Then you need to add code to tell LaTeX which words need to be in italics and which words need to be in bold, like so:
Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, ``That's \textbf{NOT} correct.''
But that just gives me this in the final version:
Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"
And that's as far as I got yesterday.  One of the first things I need to figure out today is how to produce a word that is both in italics and in bold.  Everything I've tried so far just produces an error message.  So, I'm going to have to do some research.

I considered sending them the version of my paper that is just in WORD format, the version I wrote, but then I'd have to worry that they might just turn down the paper because it is not in LaTeX format, which the say they greatly prefer.


Ah!  Found it!  When you use this LaTeX code:
Einstein tried \textit{again} to tell him, ``That's \textbf{\textit{\underline{NOT}}} correct!"
You get this:
Einstein tried again to tell him, "That's NOT correct!"
And that is exactly what I wanted!  Whew!

April 16, 2017 - I spent the last few days making various revisions to my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity, and doing research.  The research was to find articles published by the journal to which I plan to send the paper when it is done.  I found some articles, but they weren't particularly important to my case.  Checking the references used in those articles, I found other articles that were a bit more relevant, but they weren't published in my target journal.  The changes I was making to my paper were to incorporate into my paper the articles I'd found.  The idea was that my paper/article might be more acceptable to the journal if I use some of their articles as references. 

Then yesterday morning I realized something.  I needed to totally overhaul my paper.  I needed to write a paper that specifically addresses the issues of concern to the readers of the scientific journal that is my target.  That meant I needed to present my evidence as if it was a case being presented to a jury consisting of editors of that particular scientific journal.  I needed to show how Einstein explained his Second Postulate, then how the mathematicians explain the Second Postulate, then I needed to explain where the two interpretations are in direct conflict with one another, and then I would explain in detail all the evidence that undeniably confirms that Einstein's version is the only correct version. 

But, I have to be careful.  The key to understanding everything is Time Dilation, but I can't make the paper be about Time Dilation.  The paper I have awaiting a second review at another journal is about Time Dilation.  This new paper has to be almost exclusively about Einstein's Second Postulate.

Interesting, while searching for arguments I can use in my paper, I found another very interesting college text book.  The book I found explains in detail how the mathematicians evidently arrive at their misunderstanding about the second postulate.  It is done the way the author of the book does it.  The text book is authored by Dr. Peter J. Nolan, it is titled "Fundamentals of Modern Physics," and it says this at the bottom of page 1-22 and into page 1-23:
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.
I added that whole paragraph to my paper and put my comments about it in brackets after the sections highlighted in red above.  Einstein's Second Postulate says absolutely NOTHING about what an observer might see.  It is ONLY about what the emitter of the light sees and measures.  The Michelson-Morley experiment proves just the opposite of what Dr. Nolan suggests it proves.  Also, the point to Einstein's first postulate is that an observer cannot tell if his measurements are different from someone else's by simply doing a measurement in his own frame of reference.  He must compare his results to the results found by someone else in a different frame of reference, which seems to be something the mathematicians absolutely refuse to do because of what is says in the start of the next paragraph in Dr. Nolan's book (which I didn't include in my paper, because it is all about Time Dilation): 
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.
Yes, indeed.  Time must change.  Time is not absolute.  And the concept of absolute time "can no longer be part of the picture of the physical universe."  But how do we change the minds of the mathematicians who refuse to accept that time is not absolute?  The only way I can see to do that is to get my papers about Time Dilation and the Second Postulate published.  It won't accomplish anything overnight, of course, but it will be a start.

Meanwhile, this morning, I noticed a new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity forum.  The thread is titled "Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Was Inseparable from the Ether Theory."  In the first post in the thread, the author Pentcho Valev quotes from the same book I quoted from in my (B) comment on April 2.  I've been noticing that he seems to be reading this site and making comments without actually mentioning this site.  Instead of blaming the mathematicians for their misinterpretations of Einstein's theories, Pentcho Valev blames Einstein for the misinterpretations and for his own misinterpretations.  Here is his entire second post in the thread he started last night:
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").
As you can see, he gets everything wrong, and he blames Einstein for his own problems.  Newton's emission theory of light is NOT compatible with the principle of relativity.  Einstein specifically stated that the speed of light does NOT combine with the speed of the emitter, which is what "Newton's emission theory of light" states.    BOTH of the theories Valev describes are wrong.  And neither one of those theories is compatible with Einstein's theories.  But, if Pentcho Valev reads this, I do not expect he will change his mind.  He seems on a mission to prove Einstein wrong, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that all he's doing is proving himself wrong.

But sometimes he finds interesting links.  And you can never tell where a good idea might come from, so I'll continue to check his posts from time to time.

I hope to have my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate ready to submit in a few days.  It's currently in Docx format, but the target journal greatly prefers that the paper be submitted in LaTeX format.  I did that once before, back in September of last year, so it shouldn't be a problem.  It will just take a little extra time.

Comments for Sunday, April 9, 2017, thru Saturday, April 15, 2017:

April 12, 2017 - Yup.  The paper about Einstein's Second Postulate that I submitted to a scientific journal at 10:09 a.m. yesterday morning was rejected at 4:14 a.m. this morning (10:14 p.m. last night London time).  So, it took them less than 24 hours to reject it.  All they sent was their standard rejection form letter, the exact same form letter I received in response to my two prior submissions.

Looking at my web site logs, I also see I had two visits from a regular visitor in Putney, England, last night, at 9:57 p..m. and 10:19 p.m., just before and just after the rejection.  Putney is a 38 minute tube ride from the offices of the scientific journal that turned down my paper.  It's probably just a coincidence, but who knows?  They may simply have considered my web site comments to be "unprofessional." 

So, today I spent most of the morning formatting the 7,000 word version of the paper for submission to a lesser-ranked scientific journal, the next one  on my list.  Then, *^&^#$@%%, as I went through the umpteen different steps you have to go through to submit the paper online, I hit the umpteenth step which said that it was a requirement that I supply the names and credentials for 3 reviewers who I recommend to review the article.  I didn't have any such names.  And there is no way around that requirement.

So, I had no choice but to move on to the next scientific journal on my list.  It has a 5,000 word limit.  And they want the names in the references section to be in a different format that most others ask for, they want authors names described as "Alfred Einstein" or "A. Einstein," not "Einstein, A."  There's no chance that I'll get the paper ready today.  But, I should be able to get most of the changes done, then I'll sleep on it and probably submit tomorrow.

April 11, 2017 - Two days ago, after I finished putting my Sunday comment on this web site, I went back to work on the scientific paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity that I've been working on for the past few months.  By suppertime, I had a 7,000 word version that I thought was ready for submission to a scientific journal.  I just needed to sleep on it and take a fresh look at it in the morning.

On Monday morning, I awoke wondering if I could cut the 7,000 word version (with 7 illustrations) down to less than 3,000 words and 5 illustrations or less, so that I could submit it to a top-ranked journal that requires all articles to be 3,000 words or less with 5 illustrations or less.  I spent all day on it.  By suppertime on Monday, I had a version with just under 3,000 words and only 4 illustrations.  Again, I needed to sleep on it and take a fresh look at it in the morning.

This morning, I took a fresh look at it, I made some changes I had thought about overnight, and I submitted it to that top-ranked journal.  It is now in their system waiting for an editor to read it.

I've submitted papers to this journal before, but those papers were unprofessional in that they used web sites as references and they addressed topics that required acceptance of Time Dilation as a real phenomenon before you could accept what I'd written in the papers.  It took me awhile, but gradually I realized that I had to write papers that proved that Time Dilation was real before I could write papers that assumed Time Dilation was real.  And using web sites as references is a BAD idea.  My paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity," which is awaiting a second peer review at a different scientific journal, uses solid references and undeniable evidence to prove that Time Dilation is real.  And the paper on Einstein's Second Postulate that I just submitted doesn't require that the reader accept Time Dilation as being real, it's only about two different interpretations of Einstein's Second Postulate, one of which (as a minor side issue) assumes Time Dilation is real and one which does not.  The paper provides solid, undeniable evidence that the interpretation that assumes Time Dilation is real is the only interpretation that can be considered to be correct.

I still have the 7,000 word version, and I can submit it elsewhere if the journal that just received the 3,000 word version turns it down without providing any solid reason for doing so.  They didn't provide any reasons for turning down my two previous submissions, other than to say the papers didn't provide any solid new information to the scientific community.  I had to figure out for myself exactly what the problems were.  The best thing about that journal is that they publish weekly, so I can expect a response in less than a week.  It took 4 days to get a response to my first paper, and just one day to get a response to my second paper.  So, if they turn down this one for the same standard reason, I can have the 7,000 word version in the hands of a different journal the next day.

It's difficult for me to see how they can turn it down, since I make a solid and incontrovertible argument about an incredibly important problem.  But, while looking for other highly-ranked journals where I could submit the paper, I found a top journal that has Professor Brian Greene as its chief editor.  Without mentioning his name, my paper says that what Professor Greene teaches about Time Dilation, Relativity and the Second Postulate is WRONG.   While it's possible that Professor Greene might be open to any argument that shows what he is teaching is totally wrong, I think my paper would be more likely accepted by a chief editor who is logic based, not mathematics based, and who hasn't made a career of presenting his mathematical arguments to the world.

I've got my fingers crossed.

April 9, 2017 - On Wednesday, something suddenly occurred to me that I hadn't really thought about before.  I was working on my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity, and I suddenly wondered about police radar guns and how they work.  They're used every day to catch speeders, and I knew they sent out radio wave signals and measured the Doppler shift in the return signals to determine how fast a vehicle is moving, but how exactly do they work - step by step?  I did a little research and, after thinking it through, I realized that the way they work is in exact accord with Einstein's Second Postulate and directly contradicts the way Einstein's Second Postulate is taught in most colleges and universities. 

I also learned that, starting a couple decades ago, most police departments have been replacing their radar guns with "lidar" guns.   Lidar guns use pulses of light to measure the distance to an oncoming vehicle.  It can calculate the speed of the incoming vehicle by how far the vehicle traveled during the time between two pulses from the lidar gun.  Stepping through the process, I realized that the way they work also directly contradicts the way Einstein's Second Postulate is taught in most colleges and universities.  And probably high schools, too.  

So, I felt that I had no choice but to overhaul my paper to include my findings.  (I saved a copy from prior to the overhaul, of course, just in case I find something that makes me reconsider the overhaul.)

Yesterday, while looking through the references I use in the Second Postulate paper, I found a quotation I'd forgotten about.  Einstein wrote this to his friend Paul Ehrenfeld in early 1912:
"You are one of the few theoreticians who has not been robbed of his common sense by the mathematical contagion."

Wow!  "Robbed of his common sense by the mathematical contagion?"  I've been calling it a religion, not a disease.  Einstein must have been really frustrated with mathematicians misinterpreting his theories.  I then dug up the rest of the letter and found he somewhat explains his thoughts regarding the Second Postulate.  He's responding to something Ehrenfeld wrote him, so the letter is only one side of the conversation, but Einstein explained how it took time for him to realize that “the constancy of c exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source” was the way light works.  In other words, the speed of light is a constant only for the emitter, just as he says in his Second Postulate (the way HE wrote it).  And Einstein says that previously, “I was convinced that all light is defined by frequency and intensity alone, completely independent of whether it comes from a moving or resting source.  Further, it did not occur to me to consider that deflected radiation might behave differently with regard to propagation from radiation newly emitted at the point in question.”  But gradually he realized he was wrong.  Reflected/deflected light does behave differently.  He goes on to say, “All one can bring up in support of the hypothesis of the independence of the velocity of light from the state of motion of the light source is its simplicity and practicability.”

So, of course, I had to add those quotations to my paper. 

Then I found a book by Richard C. Tolman titled "The Theory of the Relativity of Motion," which was published by The University of California Press in 1917.  On page 22 it contains a very interesting illustration that Tolman also used in a paper titled "The Second Postulate of Relativity" published in 1910.

second postulate illustration

Here is the explanation that goes with the above illustration:

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.
In reality, common sense provides the right answer, and Einstein's version of his own Second Postulate says nothing about what Observers A and B will measure.  It only says that S will measure light moving away at c regardless of whether S is moving or not.  The mathematician-created description above produces total nonsense.  Since Observer A is moving toward the source of light, Observer A will measure the speed of light coming at c plus his speed.  Since Observer B is moving away from the source of light, Observer B will measure the speed of light coming a c minus his speed.  There are no "strange conclusions," and everything works according to common sense.  Moreover, it is demonstrated hundred or maybe thousands of times per day with police radar and lidar guns.

The mathematician-created Second Postulate is taught in schools all over the world.  It's used in countless text books and scientific papers.  It's incredible!  I can't understand how they can believe such nonsense!  Simple experiments will prove them wrong, but the only experiments they perform are ones which they can interpret to support their beliefs!  It really is like religious dogma -- or a contagious disease that teachers use to infect their students! 

However, I can see that ranting about it here is not accomplishing anything.  I need to finish my paper on the subject and submit it to a physics journal.  I'm setting a goal to submit it on Monday, April 24.  But, if I can just focus on it instead of constantly stopping to study new books and papers I come across, I may be able to get it done by the 17th.

Comments for Sunday, April 2, 2017, thru Saturday, April 8, 2017:

April 6, 2017 - This afternoon, while returning home after my regular workout at the gym, I finished listening to CD #16 of the 16-CD set I burned some time ago for "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind" by Yuval Noah Harari. 


WOW!  What a terrific book!  It may be the best book I ever listened to while driving from place to place in my car.  I'd never heard of it before I "borrowed" it from my library, but it was evidently a New York Times bestseller in 2015. 

It's got a lot of interesting material worth quoting in it, so I decided to reserve a Kindle copy from my library.  Then a few days after reserving it, I wondered if there might be a pdf copy available on the Internet.  I did a search and, sure nuff, I found a copy.  So, I cancelled the reserve.  The pdf copy I have says that it was first published in Hebrew in 2011, and then translated into English and published in England in 2014.  For some reason, it has no page numbers, but Chapter 14 is titled "The Discovery of Ignorance" and begins on page 212 of the pdf file.  It has this on the first page:
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.)
I thought it was just a history book when I started reading it, but it is much more than that.  It's also a philosophy book, since it examines how humans have changed over the years as we've made one discovery after another, as we started organizing ourselves into larger and larger groups, and as our priorities and daily needs have changed.  Here's another quote from the next page:
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.
The book delves into how the formation of companies changed the world and how we all started out knowing how to do just about everything we needed to do, we were hunter-gatherers who knew how to hunt, how to make tools for hunting, and how to stay alive as long as possible.  Today we have no clue how to make most of the things we use every day, and we cannot survive without the work done by others.  Here's another quote, this one from page 301 of the pdf file:
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 book is also about all the damage we are doing to our world and how we are wiping out one species of animals after another while we also destroy land and pollute waters.  It's a book I highly recommend.    

April 4, 2017 - Ah!  This morning I found an email in my inbox from the chief editor at the scientific journal to which I sent my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity."  He told me I could "rest assured" that he had received my revised paper and that he had turned it and my comments over to the peer-reviewer who had commented favorably about it.  Hmm.  I hadn't expected that.  I'd assumed that he would turn the paper over to both peer  reviewers, including the one who didn't think it would be of interest to the readers of their journal.

I'm not sure what will happen next, but I assume the peer-reviewer will make some additional suggestions for improvement.  Or the peer-reviewer will - for some reason - decide that the paper should be rejected.  Or, possibly and hopefully, the peer reviewer will say it is ready for publication.  Time will tell.  I cannot ask any further questions for 3 months - until June 27. 

This morning, I was also expecting an email from my health club.  When it didn't arrive, I checked my filter logs to see if it may have been rejected by one of the filters I have in place for the email address I show at the top of this site.  I didn't find the email I was looking for, but I did find that someone had sent me an email about something related to my quest for scientific answers.  The email was rejected because it had an equal sign (=) in the subject.  That is generally an indicator of a spam email.  In the past 6 days, 16 emails were rejected because they had an equal sign in the subject.  Here's that part of the log:

filter log
I used a red pen to blot out part of the guy's email address, but it's clear that the email said something about "Fascination_of_Physics" and that is followed by the name "Jacquelin."  There's no way for me to un-delete the email to get a better look at it.  So, I did a Google search for - Fascination of Physics Jacquelin - and found a book titled "The Fascination of Physics" by Jacqueline D. Spears and Dean Zollman.  I also found a web site where I could download the entire book in pdf format for free.  And I did so.  

It turns out to be a book I'd seen pieces of before, but I'd only seen certain chapters and was unable to find the title and author.  I mentioned that in a comment here on March 28. And the guy who sent the email may have simply been providing the information I was looking for.  If so, I thank him.  However, he's a guy who generally disagrees with me and viciously attacks me and everything I write, so his email may have included some kind of attack.  Either way, he did me a favor and I appreciate it.  (He's a regular reader of this web site, so he'll read this comment.  I'm not about to respond to him via email.  I gave up on that kind of contact a decade ago.)

Unfortunately, the book is in image form and cannot be searched for key words.  But somehow Google finds key words in the book if you search for them.  That's how I found the chapters from the book in the first place.  It's got a lot of great illustrations and looks like a good read.  And it might make a good reference in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  

Meanwhile, if anyone knows the name of the author and what book the Chapter 3 at this link is from, I'd appreciate getting an email with that information (and without an equal sign in the subject).    

April 3, 2017 - I just sent off an email to the scientific journal that has my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" to see if they received the updated version I sent them a week ago.  I assume they most likely did, but they didn't send any acknowledgement of receipt.  However, I cannot live with that assumption while also knowing that they may not have received the paper, and I could end up waiting for three months for a response that is never going to arrive.

Meanwhile, I've concluded that the screwball interpretation of Einstein's Second Postulate that I wrote about in yesterday's (B) comment may just be that one author's misunderstanding.  It could be that every author who misinterprets or disagrees with Einstein has own unique reasons for disagreeing.  If I tried to include descriptions of their misunderstandings in my paper about the Second Postulate, it would turn into a psychology paper as I try to psychoanalyze what they were thinking when they made their mistakes.

So, I'm not going to dissect their misunderstandings.  I'll just show that they are wrong and display and describe the proof that they are wrong.

Maybe someday, when I write a book about all this, I'll dissect the various misinterpretations and try to categorize them.  Maybe.

April 2, 2017 (B) - I spent a couple hours this afternoon trying to put together a better version of this graphic from page 148 of the book "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffman:

space ship example
That's the actual size of the image in the book, apparently.  If I try to enlarge it, all the lines and the printing get blurry.  So, I had to try to create a version that can be more easily seen.  Here's what I got on my first attempt:

space ship example
Obviously, it needs work.  But, it's good enough for me to use here to explain how the author of the book uses his illustration to describe his interpretation of Einstein's First and Second Postulates to the Special Theory of Relativity.

The illustration is supposed to show that even though Spaceship-A is moving toward the star at 20% of the speed of light, and Spaceship-B is "at rest" (not moving relative to the star), if they measure the speed of light they create on their spaceships, and the speed of light coming from the star, all the waves of light will appear to move at the same rate.

The author says on page 148:
The principle of relativity applies to the interior experiments and requires that similar interior experiments in your spaceship and mine will give similar results.
So far, so good.  His space ship is B, and mine is A.  He then writes:
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.
That is absurdly untrue.  Since he is not moving relative to the star, he will measure the speed of light he emits as being the same as the light from the star.  However, I'm moving at 20% of the speed of light, so while the light I emit will be measured by me as moving at c, the light coming from the star will travel past me at c + 20%.  

The author believes otherwise.  He explains:
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.
He's saying that according to Einstein, because we get identical results in tests we perform aboard our different spaceships, the light from the star must also show the same speed.  I.e., light from the star must pass him at the same speed it passes me, even though I am moving and he is not. 

In reality, Einstein wrote nothing about the light from the star.  What Einstein wrote was that the author and I do indeed get identical results when we measure the speed of light we create aboard our ships.  He measures it at c aboard his space ship and I measure it as c aboard my space ship, even though he is "at rest" and I am moving at 20% of the speed of light.  Why?  Because, when light is emitted it travels at the speed of light at the location where the light was emitted.  Here's Einstein's Second Postulate:
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The "empty space" is the vacuum chamber in which our light travels during the experiment.  The "emitting body" is the "lamp" that created the light. 

There's nothing in the Second Postulate about how light from a star would be measured as it passes by my moving space ship.  The author just interprets the First Postulate as having some meaning there.  Here, once again, are his last two sentences from the last time I quoted him: 
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.  
What "exterior aspect of the experiment"?  Evidently, the author believes that the "experiment" also involves the star.  He compared the speed of light he emitted to the speed of light from the star and got identical results.  Both traveled at c.  Therefore, he believes the FIRST postulate says that I must get the same results when I measure the speed of light I emit and compare it to the speed of light from the star - even though I am moving.

Einstein was talking only about the simple experiment within the ship.  The author is including the light from the star as part of the experiment.  That's a complete misunderstanding of Relativity.  The point of Relativity is that we think everything is normal and measure the same in our own Frames of Reference, but when we make comparisons we find that things are very different. 
I can see how he got an incorrect understanding of Einstein's postulates, but how many others made that same absurd mistake?  Unfortunately, the others generally do not explain themselves the way Banesh Hoffman did.  So, I cannot be certain that they arrived at their wrong answers by the same route. 

But I find it very interesting, nevertheless.  I just don't yet know how I can use it in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  I'll have to think about it.

April 2, 2017 (A) - Uh oh.  It is Sunday morning, and I am supposed to have a comment ready to display on this web site, as I have every Sunday for the past two years - and for 13 years before that on my anthrax site.  But, I don't have anything ready.  So, I'm going to have to "wing it."  Here goes:

Every morning when I get on my computer, before I do anything else (such as writing comments) I check, view and file my web site statistics and access logs, I check the statistics for my anthrax blog and my current blog, and then I see what is new on various web sites.  One of the web sites I check every day is NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive siteThis morning's photo was particularly awesome:

NASA Astoronomy Picture of the day

If the picture is a good one, I save a copy.  The above picture is the 1,070th I've saved. 

I also check The Huffington Post web site to see what crazy things are happening in the world.  This morning I noticed that a judge has approved a civil law suit claiming Donald Trump incited a riot during his presidential campaignThe Huffington Post web site is a great place to find out what's happening with the Trump Presidency. 

I also check to see if anyone has read any of my scientific papers in the past 24 hours.  And the last routine task I've been doing each morning for the past month or so is check the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum to see what new topics they may be discussing since I stopped posting there.

This morning I noticed a new thread titled "The Simplest Refutation of Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate."  It was created by someone named "Pentcho Valev," who has a screwball notion about Einstein's theories and constantly posts links to new places where he has found things which he believes support his beliefs.  They don't support him, but some of the things he finds are interesting nevertheless.

This morning, he found a book titled "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffman.  And he produced a long quote from it, which Valev believes supports his beliefs. 

The book looked interesting, and it has apparently been around since 1983.  So, I did a search to see if there was a free pdf copy available on the Internet.  Yup.  Found one.  And I found a terrific illustration and section which I can use as a very good reference in my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  I'd like to show the illustration and quote here, but the illustration needs work to make it clear, and the quote would have to be several pages long.  So, I decided against it.

Pentcho Valev also cited a source I already had in my files, an article titled "How Did Einstein Discover Relativity" by John Stachel.  It has a quote that is similar to the one in the book, but shorter, so I can show it here:

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.

Like the book that Valev cited, this article goes through the logic the author uses to explain Einstein's First and Second Postulates, NOT the logic Einstein used.  And the author says:
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."    
I don't know if it is "well contrived," but it is certainly "contrived" in a way that agrees with many other sources from authors who could not understand Einstein's First and Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity and just "contrived" their own interpretations.  When their versions turned out to be illogical, they blamed it on Einstein.

So, the morning has been productive (and it's only 10:20 a.m.!).  I've got a new book to use as a reference, and I've now completed what is probably at least my 676th Sunday comment.  (If I get some free time someday, I may figure out the exact number.)     

Comments for Saturday, April 1, 2017, thru Saturday, April 1, 2017:

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 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.

Pence going back to get unsigned bills

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.
It does look like Trump just wanted to get out of the room and either forgot why he was there or didn't care.  I checked other news articles about the incident.  CNN has a video that shows Trump talking about going to sign the orders, but it stops before the walk-out. has another video, which really makes it seem like Trump just forgot why he was there.  The Washington Post's video also makes it seem like Trump just forgot or didn't care.  He seems to be just going through the motions like some wind-up doll.  An Australian news organization headlines it this way: "Donald Trump forgets to sign executive orders."  The comments after that article are worth reading, too.

© 2017 by Ed Lake