|Comments for Sunday, July 30, 2017,
thru Monday, July 31, 2017:
July 31, 2017 - Hmm. I awoke this morning thinking I might try submitting my paper on Time Dilation to another physics journal, but then I checked my emails and found I'd received a request for me to do a TV interview about the anthrax attacks of 2001. It was totally out of the blue, and I had to wonder if it had something to do with the new book about the case that I recently proof-read. The email indicated that they were interested because of the book I wrote in 2012. An attachment to the email showed the project to be very comprehensive and a lot more than just a segment on a news show. I suppose I'll learn more as we work out the details via phone calls, which should take place within a few days.
Meanwhile, I'm finding it very difficult to focus on studying all the rules involved in submitting my paper on Time Dilation to journal #8.
July 30, 2017 - It's another one of those Sundays when I have absolutely nothing ready to use as my Sunday comment. So, I'll have to "wing it" once again.
I keep wanting to write something about President Trump and how unbelievably ignorant he is. You can ask yourself, What did he hope to accomplish by suggesting to the police forces of America that they stop being so nice to people they arrest. Trump indicated he thought it was silly for cops to put their hands on a person's head to make sure the person they are putting into a squad car doesn't bump their head against the frame of the door. Trump doesn't seem to understand that that procedure was instituted after countless people had their heads slammed against the doorframe and successfully sued for police brutality. Trump also seems to want to go back to the days when we were constantly sitting with our finger on the button ready to launch a nuclear war. And then there's his talk to the Boy Scouts of America where he not only talked politics to children, he also told the Scouts that the government was a "cesspool" or "sewer." However, I've already written about how I believe Trump thinks emotionally, not logically. All he's been doing just confirms that over and over and over and over again.
And there isn't anything I can write that hasn't been said much better by Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Samantha Bee and others with TV shows. They point out Trump's craziness and his errors almost every night, and on Thursday nights we have The President Show on Comedy Central, which is a half hour parody of Donald Trump that really hits the target.
I also keep wanting to write about all the scam phone calls and emails I keep getting. Every day I get emails about $50 gift certificates available to me from Macy's, Amazon, Sam's Club and Walgreens, but none of the emails are from any of those companies. Presumably, if I open any of them, I'll get some kind of computer virus or other problem. In addition, every day I get dozens of attempts to access a file in my computer that I do not have: wp-login.php. It's evidently the result of about ninety thousand computers around the world having been attacked with a virus that makes those attempts to get to such a file in other peoples computers. There are ways to stop it, but who's got the time to go through the steps? It's just crazy to have people trying to scam you several times a day every day.
And, of course, I have been writing about my research to figure out how the world of physics could get so screwed up that physics teachers are teaching absolute nonsense. I've written some unpublished papers on the subject, and, of course, I've written about it on this web site again and again. There's a lot more I could write about, but first I need to do my research to make certain what I'm saying is scientifically correct. It is really and truly fascinating.
And now that I've finished my Sunday comment, I can get back to work trying to figure out how Albert Einstein discovered the reality of Time Dilation. He evidently arrived at the right conclusion via an incorrect route. He considered Time to be somehow related to distance (or length). No one has ever found any way to confirm that. And it is in direct conflict with my assertion that Time is an effect of particle spin. But, I need to fully understand Einstein's thought processes in coming up with his conclusions before I can say he was wrong. So, I'm reading parts of his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory over and over and over and over in an attempt to understand his thought processes.
When you are suggesting Albert Einstein was wrong about something, you had better provide a mountain of undeniable evidence. Otherwise you'll just be another nut case who believes Einstein was wrong because you cannot make any sense of what Einstein wrote or claimed, and you think you have a better idea.
|Comments for Sunday, July 23, 2017,
thru Saturday, July 29, 2017:
July 28, 2017 - Groan! I'm constantly getting sidetracked. But, it isn't really "getting sidetracked," it's research. I must have spent HOURS yesterday trying to track down the source of this quote supposedly from Albert Einstein:
“Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it.”I found many places repeating the quote, but I couldn't find any book or paper or lecture or letter where Einstein actually said or wrote those words. They're important, because my my paper on Time Dilation says, “The Time Dilation experiments indicate that Time is an effect resulting from some property of matter.” And that is in direct conflict with what Einstein supposedly wrote. So, if Einstein really said those words, I probably need to explain why I contradict them in my paper. As a result, I'm doing more research.
This morning, I read a couple posts on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum that were VERY interesting. They contained lots of very interesting links, and one of them was to a book by Richard Feynman titled "QED: The strange theory of light and matter," which has this on page 15:
I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.I found an .epub version, so it is going on my list of books I need to read. And finding that book caused me to locate an .epub version of "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces," which was also written by Dr. Feynman and appears to contain a lot of very interesting topics.
Another post on that Google forum led to a quote by Stephen Hawking, from his book "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."I have a hardcover copy of "A Brief History of Time" in my personal library, but I didn't have a searchable pdf file. So, now I do. And I can use that quote from Prof. Hawking to show that there's an alternative to Hawking's logic. If light consists of particles, as Dr. Feyman says, and if particles are emitted faster than their wave motion can complete one cycle, you have - in effect - overlapping waves. In the paper on waves versus particles that I've been writing, I show how if a star is moving toward us, the frequency of the arriving light particles will be greater than the measurement you would get if you assumed that each wave was followed by another wave. You'd get a frequency where some of the particles moving in wave patterns are slightly overlapping or even side by side. And Prof. Hawking's comment also poses the question: How does the star know it is "nearer to us"? And the question: Doesn't that presuppose that the source is moving relative to something other than us? And the question: Is there a way to tell if he source is moving toward us versus us moving toward the source?
Getting a paper written isn't just a matter of writing down words, it is mostly the process of making sure the words are correct. And that requires research. Groan! Lots of research.
July 26, 2017 - This morning I found an email in my inbox from Journal #7 rejecting my paper on Time Dilation. That was quicker than I expected. Maybe I should have guessed it would happen quickly because of the email I received from them yesterday. They asked why I hadn't attached any "Figure files" to the paper I had submitted. I responded by telling them that my paper had no Figures (illustrations) to attach, it was straight explanatory text.
After sending my response I wondered if I should have mentioned that my paper used logic, not mathematics, therefore I didn't need any illustrations to explain the mathematics. I wondered if they would have taken that as a snippy or sarcastic response. But, it doesn't make any difference now.
Of course, they didn't point out any errors in the paper. They just stated that "it does not meet the journal's acceptance criteria." I guess they didn't consider my research to be "original," and/or they didn't think my total overhaul of current thinking about Time Dilation to be a "significant advance" in understanding physics.
I could just send the paper out to Journal #8 this morning, but I recently came across something while reading David Bohm's book on "The Special Theory of Relativity" that really got my brain to working at high speeds.
A few days ago, while reading Bohm's book in .mobi format on my Kindle during either breakfast or lunch, I came across a description of Einstein's Train-Embankment thought experiment on pages 40 to 43. I didn't want to stop reading at that point in order to study what Bohm wrote, so, after my meal, when I returned to working on my computer, I located a pdf copy of the book and studied those pages more carefully. Then I made a .docx copy of the pages and started highlighting and making notes, trying to fully understand what Bohm was saying.
Back on June 21, I wrote a comment about a different book that mentioned the Train-Embankment experiment. The book was "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler. That book says this on page 64:
For the observer standing on the ground, the two lightning bolts strike the front and back of the train at the same time. Therefore for him the distance between the char marks on the track constitutes a valid measure of the length of the train. In contrast, the observer riding on the train measures the front lightning bolt to strike first, the rear bolt later.But in Bohm's book it says this on page 40:
Now consider an observer O’ on the moving train. Suppose that O’ happens to be opposite to O when O receives the two flashes from A and B. Of course, O’ will also see the two flashes at the same time.Here's Einstein's diagram of the Train-Embankment experiment from page 25 of his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory:
The situation involves two bolts of lightning simultaneously striking points A and B on the embankment. Observer M, who is stationary on the embankment and equal distance from both points A and B, sees and measures the two bolts of lightning to have struck simultaneously.
For some reason, Bohm changed M to O and M' to O'. But Taylor and Wheeler said that the observer on the train would measure the lightning bolt that hit point A to have hit first. Bohm, however, says that O (M) and O' (M')will both see the flashes from the lightning bolts at the same time.
It took me awhile to realize that, in Einstein's diagram, if lightning struck points A and B simultaneously, both M (the observer on the stationary embankment) and M' (the observer on the fast moving train) would SEE the strikes occurring at the same time. They are side by side, equal distances from points A & B, and light from the lightning bolts travels the same distance for both of them.
HOWEVER, if M' on the train had some capability to measure the speed of light, he would measure the light from A to be traveling at the speed of light (c) minus the speed of the train (v), because the train is moving away from point A. And he would measure the speed of light coming from point B to be traveling at c + v, the speed of light plus the speed of the train.
So, they SEE the light arriving at the same time because they just happen to be positioned right next to each other, but they MEASURE the light to be traveling at different speeds. That is a situation I hadn't realized and thought about before.
Going back and reading what Einstein wrote (translated into English), it seems he was talking about what is observed by M and M' if they were next to each other when the lightning bolts struck, NOT when they see the flashes. In that case, you really have a simultaneity problem. M on the embankment will still see the flashes occur simultaneously, but M' on the train will NOT. M' will first see the flash from B because he is moving toward it, and then he will see the flash from A, because he was moving away from A. Here is what Einstein wrote:
Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he [M'] is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result:Wow! That is NOTHING like what David Bohm was writing about in his book. But, it might relate to what I've been looking for to figure out how Einstein decided that time would run slower for the observer on the train. But, I haven't yet figured out how he came to that conclusion.
However, I noticed that Bohm also says this in his book where he has the light from the lightning flashes reaching O and O' at the same time:
In fact, however, all observers must assign the same speed to light, since as we have seen, experiments show this to be the case. Therefore the train observer can no longer agree that the two flashes are simultaneous, because they cover different distances at the same speed.Whoa! That is totally wrong! What the hell does "assign" mean in that context!! Is that where the mathematicians get derailed (so to speak)? They believe and endlessly argue that all observers would measure the same speed of light. But they wouldn't! In Einstein's example, they would see the light from both sources arriving at the same time because they were purposely positioned right next to each other, but they would not both measure (or "assign") the light to be traveling at the same speed. Not unless they were mathematicians who understand only mathematics and not how the real world works.
As I understand it, Quantum Theorists consider movement to be an "illusion." They argue that the observer on the train and the observer on the embankment both see light traveling at the same speed because M and M' are points in space at points in time, not moving objects. If you just ignore the whole point of Einstein's thought experiment, then they are right.
I still need to figure out what "length contraction" is all about. It is not logical to me that the length of anything is contracting, but that might be a "gedanken" (thought experimental) way of figuring out something about Time Dilation.
I also need to study what Bohm wrote a bit more. He goes into how Time is viewed in the Train/Embankment thought experiment, but it is all very heavy mathematics. I was tricked into reading the book by this comment from a reader as shown on the Amazon.com's web page for Bohm's book:
Because of its centrality to the book, my advice to the reader is to read the appendix first, or at least at a very early stage of the book, because it is there that the substance of the book takes shape and form. The physics concepts are almost incidental to this underlying conceptual theme.Really!?!?!? To me it seems that Bohm endlessly gets into deep mathematics, although he sometimes might go for a page or two without using mathematical equations. Maybe, to mathematicians, if you do not use math equations in every paragraph, then you use "no mathematics."
While writing this comment this morning I also did some research and found several other sources about the Train/Embankment experiment that I need to read. I also watched a video about it:
The video doesn't help much. It declares that "there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events."
Perhaps mathematicians can never be in agreement "on the simultaneity of events," but any intelligent human being or scientist looking at the situation in our real world would see that the two lightning strikes were simultaneous from both perspectives IF the two observers both understand what they and the other observer are seeing and measuring. The purpose of Einstein's thought experiment was to get people to understand the two different points of view, NOT to create a mathematics problem where no two observers can ever agree "on the simultaneity of events."
In our real world, we can understand that the two observers have different perspectives. In the fantasy world of mathematicians, there can never be an agreement, so there can never be an understanding.
I could go on and on, but I have some studying to do. And, I'll probably do it before I try submitting my Time Dilation paper to Journal #8. I really need to understand how Einstein figured out the reality of Time Dilation without ever seeing anyone perform any experiment like the ones today's scientists do every day to demonstrate the reality of Time Dilation.
July 25, 2017 - Shortly after receiving the email from the 6th scientific journal to reject my paper on Time Dilation, I began looking for another journal to try. It turned out that I had picked another journal back on June 25, but never went through with the submission process. I don't remember why, but it was probably because of their rules about formatting submissions. While I've used LaTex to format papers before, I couldn't figure out how to format their way using LaTeX. So, yesterday, I decided to submit it in .docx format, which was an available option. But that also requires a lot of very specific formatting.
It took me the rest of the morning and part of the afternoon to get the paper into the right format. Then came the next part of the process: to go through all the questions they ask. That must have taken me at least an hour. At one point I had to suggest the names of three scientists to critique the paper. I picked the three top living scientists I could think of. There was form after form to read and check. There were very technical legal documents where I had to swear that I didn't steal the ideas in my paper from someone else and didn't copy any tables or charts from anyone else's paper. I kept looking for some hidden clause where they would require a fee to offset publication costs, but all I saw was the option to pay to have the paper made available by "open access." I didn't choose that option.
It was 4:45 in the afternoon when I checked the last box on the last form and my submission was accepted. This morning it is still waiting for an editor to be assigned to it.
Oh, yes, I also spent a few minutes writing a cover letter that briefly explained how I felt my paper fitted their requirements, even though I wasn't reporting on the results of any lab experiments I had done.
I don't know if the paper has any chance of getting published at that journal, but I had to give it a try. It's try #7 for the Time Dilation paper.
July 24, 2017 - I check NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day web site every morning. This morning's picture was particularly interesting. It shows a man in native garb in Kenya watching a solar eclipse.
The "trick" for taking pictures like that is to get very far away from the person on the hill and have a very good telescopic lens on your camera so that the sense of perspective is lost and the differences in distances seem small. This morning, they have two different versions of the same picture. Here's the second version:
It's the same picture, except that the upper picture has the sides cropped off. The original probably has a lot more on the sides, top and bottom. The more you can see of what is at the sides of the picture, the more your sense of perspective makes things seem perfectly normal.
Here's another picture from NASA's web site that shows a man walking his dog in front of the rising (or setting) sun:
I'm not sure what my point is in showing these pictures. I thought the first one was interesting, and then I remembered I'd saved others that did the same thing to affect the viewer's sense of perspective. So, I decided to show them, too.
While I was writing this comment, I received an email from a highly-ranked scientific journal informing me that they weren't the "appropriate journal" for publication of my paper on Time Dilation, since it didn't present "original" research into basic physics.
So, that was rejection #6, and the third in a row with NO comments about the validity of the logic about Time Dilation presented in the paper.
Unfortunately, I haven't got #7 already lined up in my sights. So, I suppose that is what I'll be doing for the rest of the day: figuring out where to try next.
July 23, 2017 - There's a big difference between a fascination and an obsession. I recall that Time magazine once claimed that I was "obsessed" with the anthrax attacks of 2001. In reality, I was just fascinated by it - for about 12 years. As I saw it, people were arguing opinion against opinion, and very few people were looking at the facts and evidence. I was fascinated by what evidence said, and the scientific aspects of the case added to my fascination. I was also fascinated by the people who were totally obsessed with the case. The difference, as I saw it, was they were absolutely certain they knew who did it, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would ever change their minds. (And none has, since they still argue the same arguments today, after 16 years. Click HERE and HERE for two examples.) I didn't know who did it, but for awhile I saw evidence pointing in a specific direction. In 2005, I wrote and self-published a book about the case. It was titled "Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks - The First Three Years."
Here's part of what the blurb on Amazon.com says about the book:
The book concludes that it is an absolute certainty that the person behind the anthrax attacks of 2001 will be more easily brought to justice if the scientific evidence is carefully examined by more people in the scientific community, instead of simply relying upon rumor, speculation, innuendo and baseless conspiracy theories, as has been the situation to date.Then, on August 1, 2008, the FBI named someone I'd almost never heard of as the anthrax killer. And shortly thereafter, the FBI provided a mountain of scientific evidence to support their case. I spent much of the next six years arguing with people who didn't believe the evidence and still believed they knew who really did it: the same people they had been claiming did it since the attacks occurred in 2001. Evidence didn't matter. Facts didn't matter. They simply knew who did it. It was emotional thinking, not logical thinking. It was Donald Trump's kind of thinking, where facts and evidence mean nothing if you are totally certain you are right.
It took awhile, but my fascination with these "True Believers" slowly waned. In 2012, I wrote and self-published another book about the case, "A Crime Unlike Any Other: What the Facts Say about Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins and the Anthrax Attacks of 2001." And I eventually lost interest. On December 31, 2014, I stopped updating my web site about the case. The next day, January 1, 2015, I created the web site you are reading now. In my first comment I wrote,
People who are familiar with my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001 know that one of my main interests is conspiracy theorists, particularly the psychology of conspiracy theorists.And I started tracking the conspiracy theories related to the Boston Marathon Bombing and various other crimes. It was interesting, and it kept me somewhat busy, but it wasn't exactly "fascinating."
Meanwhile, starting in late 2013 or very early in 2014, I began arguing about Time Dilation with people on various Internet forums. On March 23, 2014, I created a web page about it on my anthraxinvestigation.com site. The page was titled "Time Dilation - As I Understand It." That slowly developed into a new fascination. About a year later, I started writing "scientific papers" about Time Dilation and how it relates to the speed of light. And I argued and argued and argued with people who refused to look at the facts and evidence.
And that's where I am today. It's not an obsession. It's a fascination. I am totally fascinated with the subject of Time Dilation and how there are many people who seem driven by beliefs instead of logic, who argue that Time Dilation doesn't exist - regardless of all the experiments which have shown that it does exist.
I've read many books and papers on the subject, and I've accumulated dozens more that are waiting for me to find the time to read them. And, of course, I am once again trying to get my paper on the subject published.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to analyze the arguments over whether light is a wave or a particle, arguments that have been raging for centuries. It is easy to see that a lot of the logic used in the arguments is just plain absurd. And I can even show how totally absurd it is. But, it isn't very easy to provide a "correct" answer that can be undeniably demonstrated via experiments.
This morning, I wondered if Einstein ever worked in a lab. I knew he wrote all of his most important papers while working as a clerk in a Swiss Patent Office, but did he ever actually do experiments? Doing a little research, I found a Scientific American article titled "Einstein's Only Known Experiment Rebuilt." It says Einstein once built a device to amplify a voltage. He spent 3 years on it, from 1907 to 1910. It never came to anything. The article concludes with this:
Although the device works, the reconstruction confirms that Einstein made the right choice in remaining a theorist. The charge accumulated in the instrument fluctuates by a small amount, probably because of its mechanical contacts. This variability likely renders it too imprecise for the measurements Einstein desired, reports [Danny] Segers [director of the Museum for the History of Sciences in Ghent, Belgium], whose admiration for the great physicist is undiminished. "The amazing thing for me as a physicist is I did not know Einstein was interested in experimental work," he says. "I'm not going to say Einstein used a screwdriver himself, but he certainly understood veryEinstein was a theoretical physicist. He was terrific at analyzing statistics and figuring out what they meant. And he was famous for his "gedanken," his "thought experiments" which he performed only in his mind. But he wasn't much good at doing actual lab experiments.
So, today we have people doing lab experiments which they claim prove Einstein wrong, but the experiments do no such thing.
And, I'm sitting here in front of my computer on a Sunday morning trying to figure out how to explain how "the Double-Slit Experiment" doesn't prove what the experimenters claim it proves. But I keep hitting the same wall. Something within the slits seems to be acting as a prism. About the only thing it can be is gravity. In Einstein's Theory of General Relativity he showed that gravity can bend light. It's called "gravitational lensing." If gravity can bend light that is passing millions of miles from a massive gravitational source, doesn't that also mean it can bend light that is passing a few picometers from a small gravitational source? Maybe not, but why not?
I find the subject fascinating, but I'm not obsessed with it. I'd certainly like to find something in some book somewhere that would help me either prove or disprove that hypothesis. I'm just curious, that's all. And, of course, I'd like to write another paper about how college physics teachers are teaching total nonsense. That's a totally fascinating situation. I just do not understand why it isn't equally fascinating to many others. Do they have to become obsessed before they will discuss it? I see many people arguing their scientific obsessions on Internet forums. But, unless they are obsessed, it seems they aren't willing to discuss anything.
|Comments for Sunday, July 16, 2017,
thru Saturday, July 22, 2017:
July 21, 2017 - I awoke this morning wondering how many scientific journals had rejected my paper on Time Dilation. Doing a little research, I found it was FIVE. The first was Nature magazine, which just said it wasn't their type of article. The second was Science magazine, which also simply said it wasn't their type of article. The third submission was to Physics Essays, which, after two sets of revisions, accepted it for publication and then notified me that there would be a $127 fee per page ($508 total) to offset printing costs. I wasn't expecting to have to pay money to have the paper published, so I withdrew the paper.
After checking to make sure they didn't charge for publishing, I tried another journal in May and another in June. They both rejected it saying it wasn't their type of article.
While I was submitting the paper in May and June, I was also submitting my other paper on Einstein's Second Postulate. which was also getting turned down because it wasn't the type of article those journals published.
Of all my papers, the paper on Time Dilation is by far the most important. So, this morning I submitted it to another journal - a journal that had previously turned down my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate but recommended a journal that might be better suited to the article.
Unlike my paper on the Second Postulate, the paper on Time Dilation also seems suitable for some journals on astrophysics. So, I'm going to be submitting it to other journals if the one that currently has it turns it down. I won't be submitting my Second Postulate paper anywhere until after I find out if I can get the Time Dilation paper published. And, hopefully, I will get my paper on the Double-Slit Experiment done before I've run out of journals for the Time Dilation paper.
July 19, 2017 - This afternoon, after running some errands, I sat in my car inside my garage for an extra thirty seconds in order to finish listening to CD #5 in the 5-CD set for the audio book version of "Bossypants" by Tina Fey.
Although it is a very short book, it's basically Tina Fey's autobiography. While I barely managed to get through CD #1, which was about her early life before going to work for Saturday Night Live, I enjoyed listening to most of the rest of the book. She has a very raunchy, self-depreciating sense of humor, and the inside details of working on SNL and 30 Rock were very interesting, particularly the bits where she impersonated vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, including getting her picture on the cover of Life Magazine with Presidential candidate John McCain. She talks a lot about a .pdf file that goes with the audio book, but doesn't come with it when you "borrow" the audio book from your local library via the Internet. However, I found the pdf file is on-line HERE. So, I was able to see what she was talking about.
Meanwhile, I've managed to break away from constantly doing research, and I got to work on an almost totally new version of a science paper that I am now calling "Analyzing the Double-Slit Experiment." I'm also considering writing a book tentatively titled "The STUPID Side of Quantum Theory."
I thought things were NUTS when I analyzed how Einstein's Second Postulate is taught in college physics classes, but what they teach about the Double-Slit Experiment goes beyond nuts. It's just plain STUPID. I couldn't understand how it could happen without half the world screaming and yelling about it. Now I see that it's such an obscure subject that 99.999% of the world has never even heard about the Double-Slit Experiment, and the remaining 0.001% mostly just accept what they are taught and don't challenge it for fear of either getting a bad grade (if they are students) or getting fired (if they are teachers or scientists), because the True Believers are in charge.
The True Believers believe that mathematical models rule the universe. And, if something doesn't fit one of their models, it is impossible. No criticism allowed. No challenges allowed. No arguments allowed. Only acceptance is allowed. Once again, it is Religio Mathematica, the religion of mathematics. Their beliefs are INSANE in any world where cause and effect are an important part of science. And their Prophet, Neils Bohr, didn't believe that cause and effect could explain the universe the way mathematics can. Just read Bohr's 1949 paper Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics. (epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.)
July 17, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, I sat down on a couch for about an hour and finished reading "Following The Equator" by Mark Twain.
Looking back through this web site, it appears I started reading it shortly after finishing another Mark Twain travel book, A Tramp Abroad, back on May 1. So, it took me two and a half months to read. But, during that time I read at least two other books. I'm not sure why I started reading it, but it was a fairly enjoyable read. Following the Equator is a book published in 1897, written by Samuel Clements (Mark Twain), describing a trip around the world he did in 1895 while on a lecture tour. He describes visiting Hawaii, various Polynesian Islands, Australia, New Zealand, he wrote chapter after chapter about touring India, then Mauritania and lastly South Africa as it was just after the Boer Wars.
While it was funny in parts, the book was also very grim in its description of life in those times, particularly for natives in the Pacific and South Africa, and virtually everyone in India.
This morning, during breakfast, I started reading a 193 page book, "The Special Theory of Relativity" by David Bohm. I have it in .mobi format on my Kindle. It's not the book I was planning to read, but since it was readable on my Kindle and looked interesting, I started on it. Reading a book on my small laptop while eating breakfast and lunch is not as easy as reading a book on my Kindle. The keyboard on the laptop has to go between my meal and the computer screen, and that puts the screen just beyond the point where my bifocals focus on things to read, and not far enough away for the long range lenses to let me read things comfortably. I have reading glasses for working on the computer, but they're usually in my office, not in the kitchen. It's another area where I just need to get organized.
July 16, 2017 - Groan! Writing a scientific paper about the so-called mysterious "Double-Slit Experiment" is becoming more and more like a creative writing exercise for a book or short story. I keep changing where the "story" begins. Do I start with the "mystery," or do I start with how the "mystery" became a "mystery"? But, I can't explain the "mystery" without first explaining some of the science. And I can' t explain the science without injecting my understanding of the science into the story, and my understanding may be in conflict with how others understand science. So, do I begin by explaining how my understanding differs from their understanding? Can I do that without first explaining the "mystery." And at what point would the reader become frustrated and bored and toss the paper aside?
It seems I need to do something else they teach in creative writing classes: I need to start with a "hook," i.e., something that will grab the reader's attention and make him want to read further. But what hook? It seems like the whole subject is a jumble of "hooks" which will snag some people while repelling others. And, the people who are snagged by the "hook" might quickly break away if the hook doesn't sink in deep enough.
I'm also getting frequently distracted by all the research I'm doing. Yesterday, I came across a YouTube video about "The Mysterious Double-Slit Experiment" narrated by Professor Brian Greene.
That particular version of the video has been on-line since June 15, 2015, and has had only 1,491 views. However, the video wasn't posted by Greene, so I did a search and found that it was originally part of a NOVA program which aired in July 2012. Then I found another version that someone put on YouTube on November 11, 2012, that has had 205,439 views. Then I found yet another version someone else put on YouTube on January 2, 2014, that has had 289,540 views. That's a lot more views, but it's not a "large" number views for a professionally done science video with a relatively famous person. I have to wonder if it is because the video does absolutely nothing to clarify things and only confuses the question about the nature of light. And it very strongly argues that light is a wave, even though almost anyone can easily punch BIG holes in that belief. The discussions following the videos mostly just show confusion and annoyance.
Earlier yesterday morning I found another, vastly more interesting video titled "What is Light?" It touches on the particle versus wave problem in the first minute and calls it "a lie," without really ever explaining why it is "a lie." As I type these words, the video has had 3,101,508 views after being on the Internet since October 15, 2015. It's part of a very interesting series.
It also says at the 2:24 minute mark: "Macroscopically, the moving charge of the electron [or photon?] creates an oscillating magnetic field, which creates an oscillating electric field perpendicular to it. These two fields move themselves through space, transferring energy from one place to another." That first sentence is one that I can stare at for an hour, wondering about what it is actually saying, and getting nowhere. But, being puzzled by something is better than being annoyed by something that is obviously wrong, like the Greene video.
I think one problem I'm having with my paper on the Double-Slit experiment is that I can't easily show who is behind the nonsense. It appears to be Quantum Theorist mathematicians. But they provide no common slogan that I can use the way I used their screwball twisting of Einstein's Second Postulate to argue that "the speed of light is the same for all observers." By doing a Google search for double-slit experiment, I can find countless diagrams similar to this one:
Then, this morning, after writing the first version of this comment, I watched a different video about the "Double Slit Experiment."
At the 1:45 minute mark the speaker says the magic words about the interference pattern shown on the right above, "This only happens if light is traveling as a wave." BINGO! That is UNTRUE! That is what has been bugging me since I started digging into this subject!
A quick scan through the college text book "Understanding Physics" by David Cassidy, Gerald Holton and James Rutherford finds this on page 383:
Young’s famous “double-slit experiment” provided convincing evidence that light does have properties that are explainable only in terms of waves.Something could be causing the thin slits to act as prisms. In Thomas Young's experiment, in addition to the interference pattern, he got a prism effect where light was somehow separated into different colors by going around a thin object. Today's experimenters avoid that "problem" by using coherent light of one color. And, then they do not ask the question: "What happens when the trough of one wave and the crest of another wave hit an atom in the "optical screen" at the same time? That is what an interferometer does. And the screen displays an "interference pattern."
It's not an interference pattern caused by light acting like waves and interfering with one another like waves on a pond. It's an interference pattern caused by light photons arriving at the screen out of sync. The trough of one photon's wave hits an atom at the same time as the crest of another photon's wave.
It appears there is something that is causing the slits to change the trajectory of some photons more than others as they go through the slit. It is probably either gravity or an electrical field inside the slit.
Groan! I cannot be the only person who has questioned if the slits are causing some prism effect that makes them act like an interferometer. I guess I'll have to do more research. I could be totally wrong, but there's no way to find out except by researching it by myself. There's no physics teacher with whom I can discuss the subject. They are only concerned with teaching the "mystery," not with discussing possible solutions to the mystery. And I can't discuss it on the Google Science, Physics and Relativity forum until I have organized my thoughts and completed a first draft of a paper. Groan!
Meanwhile yesterday on my laptop, I started reading a book titled The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, by Julian Barbour. I'm highlighting many parts of it, which means it contains a lot of material worth noting and remembering - at least in the few pages I've read so far. Will it turn into some nutty theory? Time will tell. But, before I can really start reading it during breakfast and lunch and at every other opportunity, I have to finish the travel book by Mark Twain that I've been reading. I've read 91% of that book.
Busy busy busy.
|Comments for Sunday, July 9, 2017,
thru Saturday, July 15, 2017:
July 13, 2017 - I've been doing research, tying to figure out why things that seem so clear and obvious to me appear totally unknown and alien to virtually everyone else. I've been reading one article after another related to the so-called "Double-Slit mystery," and it just gets more and more bizarre. This morning, I found an interesting 4-1/2 minute YouTube video that is very good at describing a lot of things about light, but at the same time it is filled with nonsense. It's had 346,779 views so far, and it was produced by TED-ed, which is about as close as you can get to lessons taught in school without actually having a school.
After viewing the video, I posted this comment:
As I see it, there are three problems with this video:The video as been on-line since January 17, 2013, and it has accumulated 534 comments. I didn't look at them all, but it seems the last comment before mine was posted a week ago. Looking at the discussions, they seem to be just people asking reasonable questions and getting insults or religious sermons as replies. So, I don't expect my comment will change things, but I just felt compelled to write something. I just cannot see how people can think that light consists of spreading waves, like you might see on a pond after you throw a stone into it, when there is so much evidence which says that simply cannot be. It appears that the wave theory can be supported with mathematics, even if experiments, logic and common sense says it is totally bogus.
Here is how another web site describes Einstein's point of view:
That's the way it seems to me, too.
July 11, 2017 - While I've got dozens of physics and science books lined up for me to read, only a couple of them are compatible with my Kindle, and neither of those is at the very top of the list. So, before I switch to reading physics and science books on my small laptop, I have to finish the Mark Twain book I've been reading on the Kindle. I'm about 82% done, which means I can't just forget about finishing it. If I had a specific physics or science book that I really really wanted to read, that might be different. But, what I have is a "stack" of books, mostly in .pdf format but some in .epub format, which I really need to browse through to figure out which I should read next. Meanwhile, at breakfast and lunch I continue to read the Mark Twain travel book on my Kindle.
And while driving here and there around town, I'm listening to an occasionally very funny book by writer/comedian Tina Fey. Basically, it's an autobiography, but it focuses mostly on her professional life. While driving home from the gym this afternoon I listened to the part of CD #3 (of 5 CDs) where she described how she reacted when she learned, in October 2001, that Tom Brokaw had received a letter filled with anthrax in the same building where she worked. She says she just went home and waited to die. But, then she learned that she was the only writer for Saturday Night Live who went home. Everyone else stayed and just continued to do their work, since the "experts" felt that the possibility of contamination was less the farther your floor was from Brokaw's floor, and Fey's work area was well outside of the "danger zone."
She talks of how she was persuaded to return to work by someone who really understood how to deal with actors and writers. You couldn't be bossy, you couldn't use logic, you couldn't be angry, you couldn't be threatening. Her boss just called her up to ask what she wanted for supper, since everyone was going to be working through the evening. So, rather than tell him that she wasn't going to be there because she was scared out of her mind, she told him what she wanted and she returned to work.
Meanwhile, I'm still working on my paper about the Double-Slit experiment. I'm back to thinking that I can solve the "mystery" of whether light travels as a particle or as a wave. But, I could easily run into some kind of logic problem that would throw everything back into the "mystery" box again. So, I'm not going to write anything more about it here until I feel that I've got the problem understood to the point where I can answer most questions that I can think of - and hopefully most questions that others can think of. Or when I give up.
July 9, 2017 - I'm still hung up on the so-called "double-slit experiment." I've been studying Thomas Young's papers about his experiments. In his first paper, Young mentioned "The crested fringes described by the ingenious and accurate Grimaldi." So, I looked up "Grimaldi crested fringes" (without the quote marks) and that led me to a bunch of books which mention Grimaldi's crested fringes.
I clicked on "Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects" by Sir John Fredrick William Hershel, a book published in 1895, and I was shown a section of page 324 which has a lot of information about experiments performed by a friar named Francesco Grimaldi, circa 1665. The "fringes" are edges of shadows. Grimaldi discovered that the shadow of an object standing in a beam of light in an otherwise dark room does not have a distinct and sharp separation from light to dark, but instead has a "fringe" something like a "fringe" on a table cloth ... but different:
It was different in that the "fringe" of a shadow isn't a series of perpendicular lines coming off the shadow/tablecloth as shown in the photo above, the "fringe" is a series of lines running parallel to the edge of the shadow/tablecloth. And if the object casting the shadow is thin enough, some of the "fringe" lines would be inside the shadow of the object, creating a "fringe" pattern:
And then I dug further.
I started writing a long comment about all this, but, since all I'm doing is collecting information, I couldn't see how such a comment could be of interest to anyone but me.
Moreover, I'm now thinking that, instead of writing a paper titled Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment, I should be writing a paper titled Examining the Clues in the Double-Slit Mystery. That's what I'm doing: examining clues. I haven't yet "demystified" the experiment, but I can definitely state that all the clues clearly indicate that there are no "waves" emanating from the single or the double slits as shown in the center and right sections of the illustration below.
If we had a screen at the far right side of the above image instead of a photographic plate, and if the angle from the screen to our eyes was such that we could see the pattern that was created, we would have something like this:
We know that the only reason we can see the pattern on the screen is because when the atoms in the screen are hit by photons coming from the slits, the atoms in the screen momentarily absorb those photons and then emit NEW photons, and some of those new photons come in our direction and hit our eyes.
So, we have a clue. It seems that, when atoms in the screen are hit by photons coming from different angles, they do not produce new photons that are identical to the photons that were received, as would happen in a "normal situation," they produce new and different photons. And, no matter what angle we view the screen from, as long as we can see that side of the screen, we will see the same pattern. And, if the screen was a thin sheet of paper, and if we were behind it, we would see the reverse of what we see from the front side. The same atoms emit the same new and different light photons in all directions.
This "clue" tells me that, instead of waves, it seems we have pulses. Both waves and pulses can arrive at identical intervals. However, the difference between a wave and a pulse is that a wave is interconnected and continuous, while a pulse is not connected and not continuous. It's the difference between waves of water as they hit a beach every five seconds and a spray of water from a rotating sprinkler that hits a sidewalk every five seconds. One is a continuous mass, the other is individual droplets. One is a continuous wave, the other is individual particles. And, if the particles are small enough, they will not interfere with one another.
The question then becomes: Does a light bulb emit waves, pulses or individual photons? The clues (a.k.a. "evidence") clearly say it does not emit waves. But does a light bulb emit pulses instead of a spray of loose and disconnected photons? I need to research that. What would be the timing of the pulses? What "clock" regulates the pulses?
I'm "thinking in writing" while writing all this down. While writing, I'm looking for flaws in what I'm writing. The flaws will probably all occur to me as soon as I upload this comment to my web site.
If so, maybe I'll come back and change this comment to be all about a cool picture I saw on NASA's web site this morning. Click HERE to view a full size version of the image below:
It's the entire earth as seen at night, created by compositing together nighttime shots of a cloudless earth taken from all angles over the equator.
I really love science.
|Comments for Saturday, July 1,
2017, thru Saturday, July 8, 2017:
July 7, 2017 - I'm still bumbling around, trying to figure things out by writing them down. Sometime last week, scientist and college physics professor Brian Greene was on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. To entertain the audience, he described the "mystery" of the "double slit experiment." Perhaps because I think that Professor Greene teaches crap in his classes, I then decided I needed to understand that experiment. So, I started doing research and writing down my findings. The idea was to write a paper optimistically titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment."
Here's a standard illustration of the double-slit experiment showing the nonsense of the light acting like waves of water exiting the single slit and the double-slits:
Studying the double-slit experiment as described in various sources, it started to become clear that the slits were somehow acting as prisms and separating the light by wavelength. I then wondered if water molecules in the "slits" were somehow causing the prism effect. Was the experiment ever done in a vacuum? I did a Google search to find out. What I found was that a lot of other people have wondered the same thing, but no one seems to know the answer. And no one appears willing to try the experiment in a vacuum because they are totally satisfied with the results of past experiments. It perpetuates the mystery. No one seems interested in solving the mystery of how light can sometimes act as a particle and sometimes as a wave. The Quantum Theorists love the mystery, because they can dream up endless quantum nonsense based upon it, while ignoring the particle attributes exhibited by light.
The next thing I learned while doing my research was that the double slit experiment was NOT discovered or first done by the scientist who everyone claims first did it - Thomas Young.
Thomas Young never did any experiment involving double slits. He never even uses the word "slit" in his papers and lectures. And looking at his papers, I found that what he did was very very VERY different from what is done in the double-slit experiments, yet he got similar but also significantly different results. The results are similar in that he got an interference pattern. They're different in that there is absolutely NO suggestion of a wave pattern.
Young set up an experiment that involved letting a light beam from the sun travel through a pinhole in a shuttered window to the wall on the opposite side of his darkened lab. That, of course, produced nothing but a spot of light on the wall. But then he placed a card (about twice the thickness of a playing card) edgewise in the light beam.
What he got was an "interference pattern" in the shadow of the card on the wall. The shadow of the card was not a solid black shadow, as one would expect, it had a white line down the center and other parallel white lines next to the center line. PLUS, there were different colored lines like a rainbow effect at the edge of the shadow. Somehow the card was causing prism effects.
So, now I have to figure out how both experiments can get "similar" results, i.e., an "interference pattern" even though the card experiment would not produce the water wave-like effect between the card and the wall. You do not get the same kind of wave pattern behind a ship (or behind a knife cutting through water) as you do when you drop two balls into a pond. And how does a card in a light beam produce a prism effect?
There has to be a logical explanation. The quantum theorists seem satisfied with the "mystery" and the fantasy explanations they have devised for the double-slit experiment, so they may never have tried to explain the card experiment, just as they may never have tried to do the experiment in a vacuum.
While I was working out at the gym this afternoon, a possible solution occurred to me. But I don't know how to validate it. I have no equipment to use in any experiments. I'll have to think about it and see if I can find flaws in the idea or some way to add to the certainty. I'm "thinking in writing," putting my thoughts down in the paper. The paper is currently 13 pages long, but it is mostly just a string of thoughts and quotes and links. It explains nothing except where the "mystery" becomes a mystery.
I think I just need to view the experiment from the right angle. The problem is to find the "right" angle. Is the idea I got at the gym the "right" angle? What I'm seeing is a lot of author/scientists writing papers about the "mystery" without resolving the question of whether light is a particle (a photon) or a wave. No one seems to address the idea that light could be a particle that travels in a wave pattern, which is what I suggested in one of my early papers on "What is Time?"
So, I need to think through the idea I got at the gym to see if I can find a flaw in it. If I can't, then I'll need to figure out how to explain it in layman's terms - maybe to the crowd in the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum to see if they can pick it apart. Or, maybe I'll just try getting the paper published. Or maybe I'll do both.
July 5, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, I finished another short book by John and Mary Gribbin, I read "Einstein in 90 Minutes."
The text of the book begins on page 7 and ends on page 65, so the "book" is only 58 pages long. The text is followed by the same list of important scientific events used in "Galileo in 90 Minutes," so I didn't even bother skimming through that part. It probably took me more than 90 minutes to read it, however, since I paused about a dozen times to do screen captures of pages. When I was done, I turned the screen captures into text using the .jpg to .txt web site I found yesterday. I ended up with 3 pages of notes and quotes.
It was an interesting book, but not interesting in the same way the Galileo book was. The Einstein book is mostly interesting because of what it doesn't say. John and Mary Gribbin state a lot of what appear to be their personal beliefs and understandings about Einstein's theories. Here is a copy and paste from a small section of my notes and quotes. The quotes are above the line, and my notes are below the line. (They're side by side in the .docx version. The red highlighting is also from my .docx version.) The quote starts on page 31 and goes into page 32 where I indicated it in green.
The jumping-off point for the special theory (‘special’ here means ‘restricted’, because the theory deals only with objects moving at constant speeds in straight lines, not the more general case of accelerations) was the way in which Maxwell’s equations give a unique Value for the speed of light[EL1] . In the old Newtonian picture, [page 32] if you stood still and shone a beam of light, travelling at 300 million metres per second, towards a space— ship hurtling towards you at 100 million metres per second, the crew of the spaceship would expect to measure the speed of light in the beam as 400 million metres per second.
[EL1]So, the whole idea of light always being c comes from Maxwell’s equations and NOT from Einstein?
[EL2]“They” presumably means “the equations.” If the equations do not allow for the possibility, why does that mean anything?
The book also mentions that Einstein was nominated for the Nobel Prize every year for about six years but didn't win, apparently because the Nobel judges couldn't understand what he wrote in his papers. I can sympathize. Einstein also had other problems where scientists couldn't understand what he wrote. So, I'm not the first person to find it extremely difficult to decipher his writings. And it appears that a lot of mathematicians interpreted his writings incorrectly. What I'm doing in my papers - I think and hope - is explaining Einstein's theories in ordinary English with minimal mathematics. The problem I'm having is: No one can explain where I'm wrong (if I'm wrong) in "ordinary English with minimal mathematics."
July 4, 2017 - Yesterday afternoon, I started and finished reading the first book I've read on my new small laptop. I didn't plan to read it, I just started reading it to see if it would be of interest, and I ended up reading the whole thing. I read "Galileo in 90 Minutes" by John and Mary Gribbin.
I didn't time myself, so I can't say that I read it in 90 minutes, but it certainly didn't take much longer than that - and probably a bit less. The text starts on page 7 of the book and ends on page 66. Then there is a chronology of important scientific events that ends on page 80. And that's it.
It was an interesting read. However, since it was in non-searchable .pdf format, I couldn't copy an paste passages from it into a notes file. (Each page is a picture of a page, not a typed page.) So, instead of copying and pasting passages from the book, I did a "print screen" and then edited the image to include just the part that I wanted to make note of. Like so:
I only did that 3 times, creating 3 pictures of passages from the book. The idea was that later I'd transcribe those passages. But, while writing this comment, I discovered I could use an on-line program to convert the .jpg image file into a .txt file. The next image I captured, which shows the paragraph after the one in the image above looks like this when run through a .jpg to .txt converter:
I'd never used that option before writing this comment. (There are also ways to do an optical scan of the entire book and create a text version, but I wasn't able to do that with this book for some reason.)
While the book was very short, it was also very interesting. The experiment Galileo's father was writing about in the text I captured is the experiment of simultaneously dropping two iron balls of very different sizes from the top of a building (like the Leaning Tower of Pisa) to see if they reach the ground at the same time. According to Aristotle, the larger ball will reach the ground much quicker than the smaller ball because it has more weight. According to Galileo they would reach the ground at the same time. He'd noticed during a hail storm that large hail stones were falling at the same rate as small hail stones, in direct conflict with Aristotle.
It was also interesting to read that after Galileo argued that two different size balls dropped from the Leaning Tower of Pisa would reach the ground at the same time, he got a lot of ridicule from people who didn't believe it. From page 21 and 22:
Galileo also realized that air-resistance played a role in such tests and that could explain why the two balls didn't hit the ground at exactly the same time. So, he was able to visualize the problem with the experiment and how it would work under ideal conditions, and what that meant. However, he was also wrong about some things, so he wasn't perfect. He was human.
All in all, it was an interesting read. And I've spent more time writing this comment than I spent reading the book. Instead of writing this comment, I could have read "Einstein in 90 Minutes." Maybe I'll do that later today.
July 2, 2017 - Around 11 a.m. yesterday morning, I finished creating the entries in my spreadsheet list of articles and books about physics that I accumulated during the past year or two. That meant that I was then able to sort the list in various ways. The first thing I did was sort down the item type (i.e., whether it was a pdf book, an .epub book, a .mobi book, a chapter from a pdf book, an article, a thesis, a slide show, or just some lecture or reading notes. And within each item type, I sorted the titles in alphabetical order.
It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll explain later why that is important).
I also have 238 articles in pdf format, which does not include 191 articles in .pdf format that I downloaded from arXiv.org over the years (total: 429). Only 22 of the 429 articles in .pdf format are non-searchable.
Another one of the things you can do when you have a spreadsheet list is select out a portion of the list for conversion into html format, which is the format for this web page. I can then display the first 50 books on the list. Like so:
I haven't read all of these books, of course, nor do I plan to read them all. I just found them, browsed them, and referred to some of them when writing my papers on Time Dilation and Einstein's Second Postulate. What I plan to do now is read the parts of the books which are of most interest to me, parts about Time Dilation, Relativity, theories about the nature of light, etc. And I plan to start accumulating references and quotes for some new papers. For example, I may write a paper tentatively titled "The Pound-Rebka Misunderstanding," which would be about how the Pound-Rebka experiment would have gotten the same result if they had measured the light running parallel to the earth's surface instead of vertical to the earth's surface, the way they did it. And doing it horizontally would disprove nearly all the "findings" from the Pound-Rebka experiment and illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding about how light works.
I also need to accumulate references and quotes that would help me explain the problem with the "two-way spectrograph" I mentioned in my June 30 comment:
While the device is perfectly logical, as I understand it there is no known way to actually compare the information gathered by the two spectrographs in the device. There is no way to compare two wavelengths when two beams of light are going in opposite directions. And there doesn't appear to be any simple way to get the two beams to go in the same direction without negating the entire experiment. It appears to be a logic and engineering problem. It might be solvable, but it will take some thinking. And one thing seems certain, it has to be solved with logic, it cannot be solved with mathematics.
The reason I mentioned and noted whether the books and papers are "searchable" or not is because when the book is not searchable, I have to search through it manually, and generally I cannot copy and paste from it. I have to retype the things I want to put in my file of notes. On the other hand, if the book is searchable that generally means I can copy and paste from it, and it greatly aids in the hunt for sections of the book that refer to what I am interested in. I've already done a search for the term "Time Dilation" through nearly every book on the list that is in searchable .pdf format. And I searched many of them to see if they use the term "Second Postulate." The problem is that I didn't organize the results of my searches. So, I need to do that. When I do that, I find that the 8th edition of Jearl Walker's 1,334 page college text book "Fundamentals of Physics" contains this version of the Second Postulate on page 1254:
2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value, c = 3.00 x 108 m/s, in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.And the 10th edition of the same book has 1,450 pages and contains this version of the Second Postulate on page 1117:
2. The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.The 8th edition uses the "Mathematicians' All Observers Theory," but the 10th edition evidently doesn't. Yet, it is not Einstein's Second Postulate, either. And that version of the book goes on to explain the Second Postulate in different ways, which suggests it might be a good one to study.
So, I'm going to study the sections of books and papers that are of interest to me, working though the list in the order that I prioritized the books. The books by Jim Baggott, Karl Popper and Alexander Unzicker look very interesting and I assigned them a high-priority code. Instead of just reading the sections that I know will be of interest, I might start reading some of those from the beginning, particularly since I have a few of them in .epub format.
I just bought a second laptop for that purpose. It's all set to go. When I'm tired of analyzing things on my old laptop, I can sit down and just read books and papers on my new laptop (copying, pasting, highlighting and making notes). My new laptop is smaller and a lot more portable, so I can use it while laying on the couch in the living room, or even at the kitchen table while eating breakfast and lunch.
That's the plan. Now we'll see what actually happens.
Oh, yes. One more thing. I'm hoping that somewhere in all these books and papers I'll find the name of someone with whom I can discuss my papers. That is really what I need the most. I don't want to argue opinion versus opinion with someone who has a different theory, I want to discuss my theory (or their theory) to see if the differences can be logically reconciled.
That's the dream. Now we'll see what actually happens.
July 1, 2017 - While running errands this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #15 in my 15-CD audio book set for "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base" by Annie Jacobsen.
It was a surprisingly interesting book marred only by some vague "information" at the beginning and end of the book which strongly suggests that the "Roswell flying saucer" that supposedly crashed in 1947 was actually a secret Russian aircraft containing two badly deformed children who may have been the product of Nazi experiments performed by Josef Mengele.
While I found it difficult to believe the Roswell UFO story Jacobsen tells, the rest of the book is a fascinating and well-researched and well-documented account of all the atomic bomb testing and the testing of various spy planes that took place in and near Area 51, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. And it's a good history of those times and why things were done they way they were done. It was certainly an enjoyable book to listen to over a period of close to two months. I started listening to it on May 5. (That isn't an illustration of how long it takes me to listen to a book, but it is an illustration of how little time I spend in my car listening to CDs. I just have no way to "listen faster.")