Archive for
April 2021

Comments for Sunday, April 25, 2021, thru Friday, April 30, 2021:

April 30, 2021 - The troll who puts insults in my web site log file posted three more attacks yesterday, at about 4:45 p.m.  Here they are:
The  reason  stupid  Ed  lake  claims  that  statements  posted  here  'make  no  sense  to  me'  is  because  he  does  not  understand  basic  logic---like  he  can  sit  in  other  people's  lap  but  he  can't  sit  on  his  own  lap

The  reason  stupid  Ed  lake  claims  that  '[other  people]  cannot  comprehend  my  elementary  logic'  is  because  his  logic  is  akin  to  claiming  that  he  can  sit  in  his  own  lap

The  number  one  thing  out  of  the  'million  things  about  Relativity  that  [moron  Ed]  would  like  to  understand  better'  is  the  fact  that  Relativity  is  about  MEASUREMENTS=CLOCKS  &  RODS  not  'things'
Hmm.  Clearly we're still not speaking the same language.  I understand that I cannot sit in my own lap, but I don't understand how that relates to anything I've said about his posts.  HOW is MY logic "akin to claiming" I can sit in my own lap? 

What the troll appears to be demonstrating is that he only understands Quantum Mechanics mathematics, so he cannot explain anything except Quantum Mechanics mathematics.

His third message is almost comprehensible. I understand that relativity is about MEASUREMENTS, particularly about how clocks measure time.  But he seems to be saying that clocks and rods are not "things."  If they are not "things," what are they?  Just measurements?  As I see it, clocks are NOT "measurements." Clocks are THINGS we use to make measurements.

But I've seen mathematicians argue that every THING we see is just an illusion, because humans, cars, buildings, and the earth itself are just collections of atoms, and atoms are mostly empty space.   There is nothing "solid" about an atom, so atoms cannot form anything "solid."  If that is what the troll is claiming, I wish he'd say so.  But that would open him up to questions, which would take him out of "attack  mode" and put him in "defense mode."

If the world and the universe do not consist of "things," just mathematical measurements, then we are truly into the area of religious beliefs.  His religion is mathematics, and he views math as infallible truth. To argue otherwise is to attack his religion.  I have no interest in attacking his religion, I just wish he'd stop trying to convert me to his religion. 

Coincidentally, one of my favorite podcasts, Big Picture Science, recently released a new episode titled "Skeptic Check: Flat Earth."  I haven't yet had time to listen to it, but I'll try doing so sometime later today.  It's about Flat Earthers and the convention they had in England in May 2018.  Arguing with Flat Earthers is something like arguing with the troll, I'd be attacking their religion, even if all I'm trying to do is understand how they can believe what they believe. 

April 29, 2021 - Hmm.  The troll who posts insults to my web site log file posted three more messages yesterday.  I was going to simply ignore all posts from him, but these three are very interesting:
Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  that  the  Photoelectric  EFFECT  is  NOT  'a  thing'    'a  photon'  is  a  measurement  in  QM  irrespective  of  his  stupid  opinion

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  that  'water'  is  not  the  same  as  'flow  of  water'      a  photon  in  QM  is  akin  to  'flow  of  water'  not  to  'water'

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  states-'to  me  a  photon  is  still  NOT  a  measurement'      that  is  because  he  is  too  fucking  stupid  to  comprehend  what  Quantum  Mechanics  is  about      CAN'T  FIX  STUPID
Ah!  He's a Quantum Mechanics mathematician!  No wonder he makes no sense to me and he cannot comprehend my elementary logic. 

I've never knowingly argued with a Quantum Mechanics mathematician before, and he makes it clear that there can be no point in arguing further.  I'm talking Relativity, he's talking Quantum Mechanics, and he is showing why the two views of the universe have been irreconcilable for over a hundred years.  If you reduce everything in the universe to mathematical equations, there is no need to understand "cause and effect" or any areas of science, you just need to understand mathematics. 

It's highly unusual for a Quantum Mechanics mathematician to venture into the real world to argue with normal people.  Does he expect me to convert to his beliefs?  Or is he just telling me that his way of thinking is superior?  Arguing opinion versus opinion isn't going to convert anyone.  And facts, evidence and logical reasoning are clearly alien to his thought processes.

In a strange way, we have no disagreements.  If he claims that "a photon is a measurement in Quantum Mechanics," I cannot argue with that.  I find it very interesting. The same with "a photon in Quantum Mechanics is akin to 'flow of water' not to 'water'."  I think I know what Quantum Mechanics is "about," but I certainly wouldn't argue the point with a Quantum Mechanics mathematician.  If I had known he is a Quantum Mechanics mathematician, I would have moved over to the other side of the street, rather than to risk any kind of encounter.  I learned long ago that there is no point in arguing with True Believers.  And I'm not really interested is examining what they believe.  What would be the point?
  There are still probably a million things about Relativity that I would like to understand better.  And there are only so many hours in a day.

April 27, 2021
- I'm still researching different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.  Yesterday, I was browsing through a book titled "The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics and Logic CANNOT Tell Us" by Noson F. Yanofsky, and I found this on page 216:
Postulate 1: All observers at a constant speed must observe the same laws of motion.
And this on page 219:
Postulate 2: All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
I put it in my list of INCORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate, since Einstein only mentioned the emitter in this Second Postulate, and countless experiments have shown that light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer toward or away from the emitter.

But, what I found more interesting was this from the bottom of page 219 and into page 220:
Imagine Captain Kirk firing a phaser gun while two space shuttles are observing the action. One space shuttle is stationary and the other is moving in the same direction as the light.

Postulate 2 tells us that they both see the light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. Let us say that the stationary space shuttle has measured the “ correct ” distance and time to calculate the speed. What about the moving space shuttle? Since it is moving, one would expect its passengers to perceive the light going a little slower. But in fact they also see the light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. The only way this “ error ” can occur is if they measure the distance and time “ incorrectly. ” That is, their measuring rods must have shortened so that the distance they measured is “ incorrect, ” and their time clock must have slowed down so that the duration they measured is “ incorrect. ” In fact, this is exactly what happens! Their measuring rods get shorter in a phenomenon called “ length contraction” and their clocks go slower in a phenomenon called “ time dilation.” Since this is a natural process, it is wrong to call one view correct and the other incorrect. Both views are correct.
No! Both views are not "correct."  If I walk from my apartment to Monument Square in downtown Racine, which is 4.7 miles away, it will take about an hour and 20 minutes at a walking speed of 3 miles per hour.  If I go by car, it will take 13 minutes.  Does the distance change when I go by car and thereby move a lot faster?  No, of course not!  I covered the same distance in a shorter amount of time because I went faster.

Einstein, however, seems to disagree.  I have to wonder if it is because when he wrote his Time Dilation paper in 1905, humans knew nothing about The Big Bang, or about sub-atomic particles, or about radar guns.  As I see it, I really need to overhaul my paper about using a pulsar to measure time dilation.  It  shows that time slows down on the space ship and the observer on the ship can measure how much it slows down, even though he cannot feel any effects, and all clocks on the ship seem to be operating normally.  And who in their right mind would argue that  a ship traveling from Earth to Alpha Centauri somehow changes the distance to Alpha Centauri?  Only a mathematician could believe that.  Why don't they call it "distance contraction" instead of "length contraction"?  Is it because "distance contraction" is obviously mathematical nonsense?

Meanwhile, I assumed that if I mentioned the insults that troll put on my web site log on Sunday, it would cause him to post more insults to my log file.  And, as expected, there was a bunch of them in my log file this morning.  To verify that it was the troll in Santiago, Chile, who was doing the posting, I watched for him to view my site.  I posted my comments at about 10:50 a.m.  The troll who calls himself "Paparios" on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum viewed my site from his regular Santiago, Chile, IP address at 1:42 p.m., and starting at 4:22 p.m. he began spewing four insults from a web site in Enfurt, Germany, then a fifth from another site in Munich, Germany.  Here are his latest rantings:
Imbecile  Ed  Lake  still---even-after-posting-the-definitions---does  not  comprehend  that  a  photon  is  a  MEASUREMENT

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  comprehend  that  'a  quantity'  or  'an  amount'  are  MEASUREMENTS

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  comprehend  that  a  photon  is  to  light  what  a  kilogram  is  to  mass

These  concepts  are  so  alien  to  imbecile  Ed  Lake  that  he  thinks  they  are  bad  translations  from  a  foreing  language  although  HIS  definitions  are  in  plain  English

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  comprehend  that  in  Quantum  Mechanics  PARTICLES  ARE  MEASUREMENTS

No matter how many times he rants his gibberish, to me a photon is still NOT a measurement.  It's just a generic term for a type of sub-atomic particle.  A photon is a "thing."  It is also called "a particle." In colloquial English, a photon of light may also be a quantity of one photon, but is still not a "measurement" because we do not know what kind of photon it is.   To find out what kind of photon it is, you have to do a measurement of its wavelength or frequency.  Also, "an amount" is not a measurement because we do not know if the "amount" is 1 or 873,098,376,045 quadrillion or anywhere in between.  One kilogram is a measurement of mass, but a photon is not a measurement of light if you do not know what kind of "light" you are talking about.  

I remember reading a book years ago titled "The Old Patagonian Express: By Train Through the Americas" written by Paul Theroux, who wrote about a trip he  made from Boston down to Tierra Del Fuego at the southern tip of South America.  Somewhere along the way he met someone who only spoke Spanish, and that guy gushed on and on about how there were so many different ways to say something in English that could only be said one way in Spanish.  I think that may be the situation here.  But I see no point in mentioning any further posts by Paparios, since they will all be the same:  His Spanish language opinion against my English language opinion.  And opinion vs opinion arguments are a waste of time, no matter what the language.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like he wants me to put "the" in front of "photon" so that it will translate to "el fotón."  When speaking about THE photon, you aren't speaking about ONE photon, as you would if you mentioned "A photon."  You're speaking about the particle known as the "photon." "Para calcular la energía de un fotón del sol, tienes que conocer la constante de Planck y la frecuencia de luz emitida" translates to "
To calculate energy of a photon from the sun, you need to know Planck's constant and the frequency of the light emitted." 

The problem is:  If I use "the photon" in my writings, everyone who speaks English will wonder what the hell I'm talking about.

April 26, 2021
- When I went through my web site log file this morning, I found five copies each of four more insults from someone on the sci.physics.relativity forum
He posted them via a web site in Amsterdam, Netherlands, where he has posted from before.  However, this time the insults were really weird.  Here are the two weirdest:
Stupid Ed_Lake doesn't understand that a photon is a measurement.

Saying that light is 'composed of photons' is as stupid as saying that 'space is composed of meters'.
A photon is a measurement???  How can that make sense to anyone?  When people go to the beach and lay in the sun, to they bathe themselves in measurements?

According to Merriam-Webster, a "photon" is defined as:
a quantum of electromagnetic radiation
A "quantum" is defined as:
quantity, amount
And one of the definitions of "quantity" is:
the subject of a mathematical operation
I think the troll who posted those insults is from Chile, and his native language is Spanish.  But, still, it is very difficult to figure out what he is trying to say.  Here are his other two insulting messages:
Stupid Ed Lake doesn't understand that a wave is a measurement.

Saying that light is 'composed of waves' is as stupid as saying that
'space is composed of yards'.

No matter how you look at it, a wave is not a measurement.  However, if waves come in a regular order, you can use waves to measure something.  We use wave counts (or oscillation frequencies) to measure the energy in a photon.

And a photon is an oscillating particle that has no mass and always travels at the speed of light.   How anyone can call it a "measurement" is incomprehensible.

Meanwhile, after writing yesterday's comment, in which I mentioned "cause and effect," I did a Google search for "cause and effect" and found a book titled "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect."

NEW science of cause and effect???  I thought cause and effect was what science is all about!  The Amazon page for the book contains this information:

A Turing Award-winning computer scientist and statistician shows how understanding causality has revolutionized science and will revolutionize artificial intelligence

"Correlation is not causation." This mantra, chanted by scientists for more than a century, has led to a virtual prohibition on causal talk. Today, that taboo is dead. The causal revolution, instigated by Judea Pearl and his colleagues, has cut through a century of confusion and established causality -- the study of cause and effect -- on a firm scientific basis.
I'm going to have to read that book.  It appears there is a revolution going on to get scientists to do what I thought they have always done.  Or maybe there was a "revolution" in the 1950s which overthrew "cause and effect science" and replaced it with "mathematical science," and now people have seen the "error of their ways" and are going back to "cause and effect science."

The problem is: I don't think any mathematicians are going to accept such a "revolution."  It will probably end up being like converting True Believers.  You just have to wait for them to die out and be replaced by new people willing to accept new beliefs.

April 25, 2021
- I awoke this morning wondering about the difference between science and physics.  I've had a life-long interest in science, but I never thought much about physics.  Yet, I've been in arguments with physicists for years.
  And, as far as I can recall, I've never had an argument with a scientist.

Researching the difference, I found an article that says this about science:
Generally, Science is a system of knowledge acquisition. Through different processes such as observation, experimentation and making inferences, the system can describe and explain the many why’s and how’s in the environment. Science describes and rationalizes natural occurrences on earth. The main purpose of Science is to produce essential facts and truth through world explorations. These are all possible by application of scientific method in every scientific investigation.
Yep.  That's my interest.  The same article says this about physics:
Physics embodies knowledge of the natural world. Basically, physics is the study of matter, which is anything that consists mass and takes up space. This is a natural science that focuses on matter and its motion and conduct in space and time.  It is also related to energy and force. Physics is one of the most ultimate disciplines in the world of science aiming to explain and understand the behavior of the whole universe.
Nah.  That's not really my area of interest, although I get into parts of it sometimes.  Here's another definition of "physics":
Physics is a kind of science. Even though the real boundaries of a type of science are not known, physics is often regarded as the science of the way things move or simply put; the science of energy. Physics deals mostly with the physical universe without including some chemistry, geology, and astronomy. 
I have a major interest in astronomy and minor interests in chemistry and geology.  I tend to view them all as part of "science" without concern for where the dividing lines are between branches.  My major interest has become "Time Dilation," which I view the way I think a scientist would view it, which doesn't seem to be how a typical physicist views it.  A scientist would view Time Dilation by analyzing cause and effect.  It seems to me that a "typical physicist" just views Time Dilation as a mathematical formula.  They get really upset when I talk about "cause and effect."  But I've never analyzed why they do not like to talk about cause and effect.  I've saved copies of 88 different arguments I've had on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  Maybe I should search through them for mentions of "cause and effect."  Maybe I can find some clue as to why they hate talking about cause and effect.

Sigh.  I should also work on the two papers I want to write, one about "Analyzing Inertial and Non-Inertial Systems" and another about pulsars and time dilation, which would either be a major revision to an old paper or a totally new paper.

This morning, as I look at the dozens of new messages that were posted overnight in the sci.physics.relativity thread I started on April 19, I see only one that is interesting.  But it is an argument about "illusions."   If you are traveling away from the sun at 1,000 kilometers per second and you measure the light from the sun as passing you at 299,792.458 kilometers per second, while someone on the sun would measure it as passing you at 298,792.458 kilometers per second, are both measurements "real" or is the one you measure an "illusion"?  I would say it is an "illusion," since both measurements cannot be real, and it is known that you are moving at 1,000 kilometers per second away from the emitter which definitely emitted the light at 299,792.458 meters per second.  But the guy who posted the message is arguing that unless Einstein specifically stated that it is an "illusion," then it is not an "illusion." 

I think a scientist would say it is an illusion.  But physicists seem to have as many problems with "illusions" as they have with "cause and effect."  And they are not going to accept anything I say about either subject.

Comments for Sunday, April 18, 2021, thru Sat., April 24, 2021:

April 22, 2021 - Groan!  I've just got too many things going on at once!  I've been spending a lot of my time searching the Internet for different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.  Plus I've been arguing with the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum about Einstein's Second Postulate.  The research has been fascinating.  The arguments have become tedious and counter-productive. 

When I turned off my computer yesterday afternoon, there were 73 messages in the sci.physics.relativity thread I'd started on Monday about my paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'."  When I turned on my computer this morning, there were 111 messages in the thread.  Nearly all of the 38 new messages are just personal attacks between others on the group, having nothing to do with me or my paper.

My last message in the discussion yesterday was about how we measure light photon frequency and convert the frequency to "wavelength."   It's simple math, and I even provided a link to a calculator that does it for you.  After all, light consist of photons, not waves.  A photon is a particle, so it cannot be a wave.  Physicist Richard Feynman even stated it emphatically on page 15 of his book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter:
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.
Nevertheless, wavelengths is something mathematicians firmly believe in, evidently because it fits with their memorized mathematical equations.  And it is a total waste of time to try to convince them that light does not consist of waves.  So, I don't know if I'm going to post anything further about waves in that discussion thread.  But there is something else I'm tempted to mention.

My research yesterday came across Richard C. Tolman's book from 1917 titled "The Theory of the Relativity of Motion."  It's available for free in different formats on the Gutenberg web site.  I recalled reading parts of it long ago and how it conflicts with Einstein.  On page 23 it has this about Einstein's Second Postulate:
18. The second postulate of relativity states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless of the relative motion of the source of light and the observer. This postulate may be obtained by combining the first postulate of relativity with a principle which has long been familiar to the ether theory of light. This principle states that the velocity of light is unaffected by a motion of the emitting source, in other words, that the velocity with which light travels past any observer is not increased by a motion of the source of light towards the observer. The first postulate of relativity adds the idea that a motion of the source of light towards the observer is identical with a motion of the observer towards the source. The second postulate of relativity is seen to be merely a combination of these two principles, since it states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless both of the motion of the source of light and of the observer.
The passages I highlighted in red-bold are WRONG.  The passage I highlighted in black-bold is true.  A moving observer approaching a light source will encounter that light arriving at c+v, where v is the speed of the observer.  It is the principle behind radar guns.  It is also demonstrated in many other experiments and observations.   I pointed that out to the people on the forum yesterday when I provided the link and wrote this:
Light from a source always travels at c, but it will hit a MOVING OBSERVER at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward or away from the light source.

That is demonstrated by radar guns every day. And I have a list of other ways it is verified:

Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
The first response was from Michael Moroney, who wrote:
Moving relative to what? Every inertial object is moving relative to
some frame and stationary in some other frame.
That's a mathematician's argument.  In one "frame" the speeder in his speeding car is moving toward the cop and his radar gun hiding in some bushes, in another equally valid "frame" the cop, his radar gun and the bushes are moving toward the stationary speeder parked in the middle of the road.  And to a mathematician, both "frames" are indisputable.  That is basically what Richard C. Tolman was also arguing 104 years ago.

I think it's time for me to just bow out of that latest thread and move on to other things.  No one else has provided any experiment where light from an emitter hits a MOVING OBSERVER at c.  "Sylvia Else" merely misquoted me and argued that all the actual experiments I listed are just "thought experiments."  And "tjrob137" responded that they weren't just "thought experiments," they were also not based on special relativity.

How can one reason with people who think that way?

April 19, 2019
- There was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'" is now on-line at this address:  When I checked the page for the paper, I found that the person known as "Mikko" had made a comment about the paper, even though officially there have not yet been any "unique-IP document downloads."  Mikko seems to have made it his mission in life to comment on every paper and every version of every paper I put on vixra.

This time, however, his comment was somewhat interesting.  He provided a link to Wikipedia's version of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and added this comment "
The reader is adviced to compare the author's statements about Einstein's text to the text itself before making any conclusions."  Wikipedia's translation is slightly (but not significantly) different from the other three translations I used in my paper.  Here's the key part of the Wikipedia translation:
Examples of a similar kind, as well as the unsuccessful attempts to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "light-medium", lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of the phenomena correspond to the concept of absolute rest, but rather that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we will elevate this guess to a presupposition (whose content we shall subsequently call the "Principle of Relativity") and introduce the further assumption, — an assumption which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former one — that light in empty space always propagates with a velocity V which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
None of the three other translations I found had used the words "guess" or "presupposition."  And no version in any textbook I found uses those words, either,  Using V instead of c as a symbol for the speed of light was in one of the other translations, but it was lower-case v not the upper-case V.  (In Einstein's original paper in German, upper-case V was used.)

As soon as I saw that my paper was on okay, I put it on at this link:

Then I mentioned the new paper in a comment on the sci.physics.relativity forum to see what the mathematicians there will think of it.

Whew!  Now I can move on to my next project.

April 18, 2021
- Yesterday afternoon
I finished the first version of my new paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'."  The plan is that I will submit it to later today and that it should be on-line sometime tomorrow.

The paper is a step-by-step analysis of how Einstein's Second Postulate is incorrectly shown and explained in most college textbooks.  I've collected incorrect versions of the Second Postulate from 18 different books, including some top-rated college textbooks.  I also found correct versions in 5 books, and "helpful" versions in 9 books.  The weird thing is that of the 41 different books I've found so far which contain a version of Einstein's Second Postulate, only about 5 or 6 are exact copies of other versions.  The rest are all different.  I keep wanting to hunt for more, until I have an even 50 -- or an even 50 different versions. Or maybe an even 100.  Each time I find a version, there is usually something odd that comes with it.  For example, here is Einstein's version from the most common translation of his paper:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
And here is what one college text book says is Einstein's Second Postulate:
The velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the source and the observer.
Einstein's postulate says NOTHING about observers!  And a few sentences further on in that book is this further explanation:
As per postulate II, if a light beam is emitted by a moving rocket, it doesn’t matter: it travels at c. If a light beam is seen by a moving rocket, it doesn’t matter: it will measure c. All people will get the same answer for the velocity of light. It is a postulate because it cannot be deduced from anything else.
"It is a postulate because it cannot be deduced from anything else"???   How did Einstein deduce it?  He deduced it by studying what was known about the speed of light from experiments.

I found the book yesterday when I went searching for the top rated physics textbooks and found a site that lists what it considers to be the "top 7."  The quote above is from book #2 on the list.  The book that is #1 on the list contains no mention of Einstein's postulates or Relativity.  The book that is #3 on the list contains this on page 1117:
2. The Speed of Light Postulate: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.

We can also phrase this postulate to say that there is in nature an ultimate speed c, the same in all directions and in all inertial reference frames. Light happens to travel at this ultimate speed.
Einstein's postulate says nothing about "inertial reference frames."  It is about light that is "propagated in empty space," i.e., in a vacuum where gravity has no effect, instead of in air or in water or through an ether.  Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity doesn't even contain the word "inertial."  And, in reality, there can be no "inertial reference frame" anywhere on earth, since gravity has an effect on everything on or near the earth. And measuring a moving observer's motion relative to the speed of light is done countless times every day by radar guns.  How can so many textbooks say it is not possible?

I could go on and on, but that would just mean that I might not be able to finish my paper today.  When it is done and on-line, I'll then start a new thread about it on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  It should be interesting to see what the mathematicians there think about it.  And I also plan to work on a revision to my paper about pulsars and time dilation.  Somehow, the "revisions" I made to that paper over the years gradually eliminated all the original key points.  And there's a new "key point" about changes in photon frequency that I want to make.

Then maybe I can get back to work on my book about it all.

Comments for Sunday, April 11, 2021, thru Sat., April 17, 2021:

April 16, 2021
- Hmm.  When I woke up this morning, my subconscious mind presented me with the solution to a problem I hadn't realized existed.  It relates to the thought experiment where a pulsar is used to measure time dilation.  Here's the illustration I used in the thought experiment described in my May 31, 2015, paper "Time Dilation Re-Visualized":

pulsar time dilation experiment

The pulsar rotates, sending a beam of light out like a lighthouse, hitting the earth once per second.  Using that beam as a clock that can be seen from both the earth and from a space ship traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light toward Alpha Centauri, because a second will be 10 times longer on the space ship, it will see the pulsar pulsing 10 times per second.

Yet, in the sci.physics.relativity UseNet/Google Discussion thread I started about this topic on March 16 someone named "Mitchell Raemisch" kept posting messages saying the clock would run slow and therefore be inaccurate.  When I asked several times what he meant, getting no answer, people on the forum told me "Mitchell Raemisch" was actually a robot.  I thought that was interesting, but it was also time for me to stop responding to posts in the thread, so I did.  Then, this morning, I realized the "robot" was right - sort of.

The pulsar rotates counter-clockwise once per Earth second.  The space ship heading to Alpha Centauri is moving at a right angle to the light from the pulsar.  That means that every revolution of the pulsar the light will hit the moving space ship a very tiny fraction of a second later than on the previous revolution.  If the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri is one degree of revolution for the pulsar, and if the pulsar flashes 31,536,000 times during the ten year experiment, during the entire trip from Earth to Alpha Centauri, the pulsar clock will run about a billionth of a second slow.  But on the return trip from Alpha Centauri back to Earth, the pulsar clock will run about a billionth of a second fast.  So, it has absolutely no effect on the experiment.  However, if you are a mathematician, it might be a serious problem to incorporate that change in clock times into an equation. 

This morning I posted a message to "Mitchell Raemisch," addressing him as "Mr. Robot," and thanking him for bringing the issue to my attention.  Then "Odds Bodkin" immediately responded, advising me that "Mitchell Raemisch" is NOT a robot, he's a "homeless drifter, living in the Pacific Northwest, sometimes in other people’s unlocked cars."  Either way, I'm glad he brought the issue to my attention.  And I stated so in the 706th message in the thread.

April 15, 2021
- Two days ago, while working on my new book, tentatively titled "Logical Relativity," I began working on a chapter about Einstein's Second Postulate.  I did some research and found a couple dozen different versions of that Postulate in textbooks and science books, some of them referring to "the constancy of the speed of light."  Then I started studying what Einstein wrote about "the constancy of the speed of light." BOOM!  It blew my mind!  What Einstein wrote didn't stun me, it was my analysis of what he wrote and the implications I hadn't thought about before.

I immediately stopped working on the book and copied everything I had written in that chapter into science paper format, titling the paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'."  Yesterday evening it seemed like I was about 80% finished with the paper, but, when I woke this morning, my mind was racing on about things I hadn't previously thought about.  So, I'm probably more like 50% done.  But I still hope to have it on-line sometime next week.

One idea that never occurred to me before relates to the pulsar experiment, where one twin travels at extremely high speeds to Alpha Centauri while the other twin stays at home on earth, and they use a pulsar as a clock to measure time in both locations.  If you are moving toward a star at high speeds, the photons from that star are going to hit you the same way photons from a radar gun hit an oncoming car -- at c+v.  And when the car receives those photons, it receives them as if they were oscillating at a higher rate.  Atoms in the car then emit NEW photons that have the higher oscillation rate back to the radar gun.  The gun measures the difference in oscillation rates between what it emitted and what it received back and computes the speed of the car.

Now, suppose that instead of moving at earth traffic speeds, you are in a space ship heading for Alpha Centauri at speeds approaching the speed of light.  Alpha Centauri is now the "radar gun" emitting photons at you. It is emitting photons in the visible light range, but as you increase speed toward Alpha Centauri, the photons will start hitting you as if they had shorter and shorter wavelengths and higher and higher energy levels. 

wave frequency chart
As you can see in the chart above, very quickly the visible light photons will hit you as if they were ultra-violet light photons.  Then as if they were X-ray photons.  Then as if they were stronger and stronger Gamma ray photons.

I haven't done the math, but if you travel toward Alpha Centauri at 298,290 kilometers per second, which is the speed you need to reach in order to make 1 second on your space ship equal to 10 seconds back on Earth, your space ship is going to be hit with ever-increasing numbers of extremely energetic Gamma ray photons that will blast apart every atom in your space ship.

Meanwhile, of course, if there are any mathematicians aboard your ship, they will all be arguing that it doesn't matter how fast you go, the light photons from Alpha Centauri will still only hit you at c, never at c+v, which is their screwball interpretation of "the constancy of the speed of light."  

April 12, 2021
- I've finally managed to get started on my book "Logical Relativity."  It's currently 7 pages long, all of which require a lot of revising.  I decided to begin with the conflict over Einstein's Second Postulate.  All other problems and conflicts I plan to write about seem to stem from there. 

I suppose I should be spending my time promoting my sci-fi novel, "Time Work," but I just cannot resist working on "Logical Relativity."  I didn't write "Time Work" to make money, and I certainly do not expect "Logical Relativity" to be a "runaway bestseller."  I'll probably be lucky if it sells 10 copies.  I write because I like writing.  That's why I have this web site, too.  The biggest problem I have is: Which should I work on?  You cannot write two different things at once.  So, to write this comment I had to stop working on "Logical Relativity" for awhile.  And I think I've done enough to qualify as a "comment," so now I'll get back to work on "Logical Relativity."

April 11, 2021
I finally managed to stop arguing on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  But that doesn't mean the arguments have ended.  As of this morn
ing there are 682 messages in the thread I started back on March 16.  The arguments now almost entirely just consist of some angry guys hurling insults at other angry guys and getting insults hurled back.  The conversations in which I took part, however, were generally (and surprisingly) without insults.  And they were very interesting.  When you explain something to someone in 20 different ways, you will understand it much better yourself, and it helps you see which way is the best way to explain something.

I still do not have a single word written for my new book "Logical Relativity." However, that is only because I've been doing some critical research.  About five years ago, I got into studying Time Dilation and Relativity because I was seeing endless arguments over Einstein's Second Postulate, and I was also seeing that nearly every book and textbook seems to include a slightly different version of that postulate.  That made no sense to me at all, since there can be no doubt about what Einstein wrote and meant.  It seemed to me the only reason for using a different Second Postulate is to argue against what Einstein wrote and meant by claiming that is not what Einstein actually meant

A few days ago, I started researching the different versions, going through one textbook after another to see which version they use.  I classified the first 27 of them into Good Versions (4), Helpful Versions (4), Unhelpful Versions (7) and Bad Versions (12).  Plus discovered I have 3 different translations of Einstein's paper from 1905 that started it all, each with a slightly different version of the Second Postulate.  Here are those three versions:
1) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

2) in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity v which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

3) light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body.    
Compare them to these 3 "bad" versions:
1) Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.

2) The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.

3) 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.”

Einstein's Second Postulate is only about the speed of light relative to the emitter.  The "bad" versions say the speed of light is the same for an observer as it is for the emitter.  As I see it, that is totally untrue and is demonstrated to be wrong every day.  Radar guns require that the target (the observer) receive light at c+v or c-v.  That's how radar guns measure v, which is the speed of the target.  Under some very specific circumstances, a moving observer can - in theory - observe a passing photon to be traveling at c, but Einstein clearly just described those circumstances to help people better understand how time dilation works, not to provide anyone with a different Second Postulate.

Meanwhile, as I was driving around doing some chores yesterday, I was listening to an audio book titled "At the Edge of Time" by Dan Hooper, and I heard something else I consider to be total nonsense:
And just as there is no center of the surface of the Earth, there is no center of the expanding universe. Any observer, located anywhere in our universe, will observe the same recession of galaxies that Hubble discovered.
          When I’m explaining this idea in a classroom or in a public lecture, it’s usually around this time that someone asks, “But what is space expanding into?” Most people picture expanding space as a process of space growing into, or gradually taking up, some other region of space—like the volume of an inflating balloon. But this misses the point of what we mean when we say “space.” Space can’t expand into other space. When we say that space is expanding, we mean all of space, not just some of it. There is nothing for space to grow or expand into. If there were, we would call that thing space. The space of our universe is getting larger, but without moving into anything else. 
To me, that is just mumbo jumbo obfuscation. When looking at things logically, there is absolutely no reason why the Big Bang universe cannot be expanding into an "infinite universe" that we can also call "space."  I illustrated that concept in a drawing I created about a year ago:
our two
This view of the universe, which I describe in detail in my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" is perfectly logical, but mathematicians simply cannot cope with it.  They cannot cope with an "infinite universe" because there is no way to measure where it ends.  If they cannot measure it, then it cannot exist!

This will go into my book somewhere, as will a discussion of using a pulsar as a clock to measure time dilation, and a detailed description of the crazy arguments about which Second Postulate is the one Einstein used and why the version used in many many textbooks is wrong.

My biggest problem right now just seems to be: where to start?  What do I write about first?  I'm leaning toward writing about measuring time dilation with a pulsar first.  It's a good "lead in" that won't scare people off, as a lengthy analysis of all the different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate might.  That analysis might cause mathematicians to rise up and view me as a warlock or sorcerer.  

Comments for Thursday, April 1, 2021, thru Sat., April 10, 2021:

April 8, 2021 - This morning I finally ended my participation in the discussion thread titled "Using a pulsar as a clock to measure time dilation" that I started on March 16 on the sci.physics.relativity forum.   The thread currently contains 608 messages.  I doubt that that is a record, but it is certainly the longest thread I ever started. 

It ended with another argument over Einstein's Second Postulate, probably close to the thousandth argument I've had on that topic.  I had written:
If photons are emitted at 299,792.458 kilometers PER SECOND in a stationary system, and 299,792.458 kilometers PER SECOND in a moving system, the photons from the stationary system will travel FASTER than photons from the moving system, BECAUSE A SECOND IS SHORTER IN THE STATIONARY SYSTEM.

Einstein didn't spell things out in his 1905 paper the way I just did.
To which Rob Acraman replied:
In fact, not just his 1905 paper, but Einstein didn't spell things out the way just just did EVER. Not once, in any of his papers or books. That should tell you something.
And, as part of my final post in that thread I responded:
It tells me that YOU need to do more research. Here is what Einstein said in his book "Autobiographical Notes," which is also part of a book titled "Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist" by Paul Arthur Schilpp. It's on page 61:

"The speed of light c: is one of the quantities which occurs as 'universal constant' in physical equations. If, however, one introduces as unit of time - instead of the second - the time in which light travels 1 cm, c no longer occurs in the equations. In this sense one could say that the constant c is only an apparently universal constant."

So, c is a "universal constant" ONLY in the sense that light always travels at c. However, c is NOT a universal constant when you understand that c varies depending upon the length of a second at the point of emission.  
I'd come across that quote from Einstein only the day before.  I'd never heard of  the book "Autobiographical Notes" before. 

The previous day I'd had a similar argument.  The same guy, Rob Acraman, had argued that Einstein never said, wrote nor implied that light from a sun would travel faster than light from an object moving away from the sun at 1,000 kilometers per second.  And I found a quote from his  paper "The Principle Ideas of the Theory of Relativity" which said exactly the same thing I had just said.
If I were to continue the argument, Rob Acraman would just argue the same things, just phrasing things differently and arguing that my wording is somewhat different than Einstein's wording.  So, I dropped out of the discussion.  And I started working on a book titled "Logical Relativity."  So far, I just have a blank first page.  I really need to find the time to work on it.  But I have so many other things going on!  I just spent an hour writing this comment!  There just aren't enough hours in a day! 

April 4, 2021
Every morning when I turn on my computer, one of the first things I do is check Amazon's web site to see if I sold any books in the past 24 hours.  This morning the chart showed I sold a paperback book.  Here's what the chart looks like, but you'll have to click on it and on "view image" to see a larger, more easily readable version:

Book sales chart 04/04/2021

What it shows is that in the past month I sold 2 copies of "A Crime Unlike Any Other," one copy of "Clipper" and one copy of "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks: The First Three Years".  The copy of "A Crime Unlike Any Other" that I sold yesterday was in paperback format.  The one sold on March 15 was a Kindle copy, and so was the copy of "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks" that I sold on March 9.  I only have "Clipper" in Kindle format, so, of course, it was a Kindle book, too.

The last time I sold a copy of my newest book, "Time Work," was on March 3, over a month ago.  I can explain the lack of sales for that book: I haven't been promoting it.  Almost no one knows about it.  But, I haven't been promoting any of my books, so how do I explain the sales of "A Crime Unlike Any Other"?  I think it may be because the conspiracy theorists are still arguing about the anthrax attacks of 2001, we're nearing the 20-year anniversary of the attacks, and there is at least one new TV show about it in the works.  So, people are looking for information about the attacks.  Almost any search will take them to my anthaxinvestigation web site where my book is advertised.  I can't explain the sale of "Clipper," nor the sale of "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks: The First Three Years."  Even more odd is the fact that that book about the early days of the anthrax investigation was paid for in Indian Rupees.

I really need to try to promote "Time Work."  I really want to know what people think of it.  If I can get people to buy it, maybe they will also write a review for Amazon's site.

But, it seems like the only thing I can think about these days is the arguments I'm having on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  There are now 538 messages in the thread I started on March 16 about "Using a Pulsar to Measure Time Dilation."  That probably isn't a record, but it's more messages than there are in any other discussion thread accessed by anyone so far this year, and it's undoubtedly more than 20 times the average number of messages in a typical thread.

I'm looking for a way to end the thread.  It seems I now have two experiments which can end countless arguments about time dilation and special relativity.  The Pulsar experiment is one, and the truck experiment is the other.  I can't get anyone to discuss the Pulsar experiment - anyone except the "robot" that evidently cannot understand how a pulsar can be used as a clock.  But virtually everyone on the sci.physics.relativity forum argues that my truck experiment will not work.  They simply cannot believe that it is possible to measure the speed of a truck from inside the close back of the truck.  My experiments with radar guns, and my research into how radar guns work, tells me that there is no doubt that my proposed experiment will work.  I just don't have the resources to perform the experiment.  I can only hope that someone who reads that thread will be able to acquire the necessary equipment to do the experiment.

Meanwhile, I want to start working on a paper titled "Two argument-ending experiments," or something like that.  The two experiments would put an end to at least a hundred different arguments about physics, relativity and time dilation.  One person on the sci.physics.relativity forum keeps saying that I'd win the Nobel Prize if the truck experiment works.  I tend to think that there are countless scientists who already know it would work, but they just don't want to get into arguments with mathematicians about it.  Or, there may be no way to precisely control radar gun emission frequencies.  But, if that were true, I would think someone would have stated so by now.

It's all very fascinating stuff for me.  I apologize if it is of no interest at all to most readers of this web site.

April 2, 2021
- Yesterday afternoon, while driving home from the gym, I finished listening to CD #7 of the 7-CD, 8-hour, 49 minute audio book version of "Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain" by David Eagleman.


Wow!  What a terrific and fascinating book!  I probably should have read it on my Kindle instead of listening to the audio book version, since there are many many passages in the book I would have wanted to underline and save as notes.  Instead, I had to try to remember to make notes when I got home, copying and pasting from a digital copy.  Here are a couple passages from early in the book:
The first thing we learn from studying our own [brain] circuitry is a simple lesson: most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control. The vast jungles of neurons operate their own programs. The conscious you—the I that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning—is the smallest bit of what’s transpiring in your brain. Although we are dependent on the functioning of the brain for our inner lives, it runs its own show. Most of its operations are above the security clearance of the conscious mind.

Your consciousness is like a tiny stowaway on a transatlantic steamship, taking credit for the journey without acknowledging the massive engineering underfoot.
That is essentially what the book is about: How our brain is like a large corporation where different departments handle different functions that the chief officer of the corporation is almost unaware of.  Here are two more passages from early in the book: 
Brains are in the business of gathering information and steering behavior appropriately. It doesn’t matter whether consciousness is involved in the decision making. And most of the time, it’s not. Whether we’re talking about dilated eyes, jealousy, attraction, the love of fatty foods, or the great idea you had last week, consciousness is the smallest player in the operations of the brain. Our brains run mostly on autopilot, and the conscious mind has little access to the giant and mysterious factory that runs below it.

You see evidence of this when your foot gets halfway to the brake before you consciously realize that a red Toyota is backing out of a driveway on the road ahead of you. You see it when you notice your name spoken in a conversation across the room that you thought you weren’t listening to, when you find someone attractive without knowing why, or when your nervous system gives you a “hunch” about which choice you should make.
I've many written comments here about how I wake up in the morning with some new idea or new realization because my unconscious brain was working on it all night long while my conscious mind was asleep.  What the author of "Incognito" says is that the "unconscious brain" is actually many many little pockets of my brain that each handle certain kinds of puzzles.  If something doesn't quite make sense to me, parts of my brain will work on it until it does make sense.  Then that part of my brain will notify my conscious mind.  And I'll think "Ah!  Okay.  That makes sense!"  Or maybe, "Hmm.  I need to find more information about that before it can make any sense."

About one third of our brain is devoted to vision.  Little parts of your brain know that things in the distance only appear smaller than things nearby.  Another part knows about how shadows can hide things.  Another part knows about motion and how to figure out trajectories.  Another part knows about colors.  All these parts are figuring things out while you conscious mind just enjoys the scenery.  If something strange happens, the part that notices it will notify your conscious mind.  Fascinating stuff, particularly when the author talks about people who had some kind of injury that affects one of those minor departments in the brain.  Suddenly you cannot see motion, you only see a stationary car in one place, then in another place, then another.  A blind person understands a room only in three dimensions.  A blueprint of the room makes no sense at all.

And then, of course, there are the battles between the "departments."  One part wants sugar, another knows too much sugar is not good for me.

It was a fascinating book that I can highly recommend.  

Maybe it will help me in the seemingly endless arguments I've been having with mathematicians about Time, Time Dilation and Relativity.  Our conscious minds are just not getting the same information from our unconscious minds.  We see the same things very differently. 

April 1, 2021
While eating lunch yesterday, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  The book was "Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know" by Adam Grant.

Think Again

While I started out enjoying the book very much, it became very repetitive, tedious and boring as I neared the end.  To my pleasant surprise, the "end" occurred about 50% of the way through the Kindle book.  After that it is all notes and references.

The book is mainly about rethinking what we "know" and believe" to see if it fits with the facts.  Here's a quote from early in the book:
I can’t think of a more vital time for rethinking. As the coronavirus pandemic unfolded, many leaders around the world were slow to rethink their assumptions—first that the virus wouldn’t affect their countries, next that it would be no deadlier than the flu, and then that it could only be transmitted by people with visible symptoms. The cost in human life is still being tallied.
And here's another paragraph from early in the book which explains the basic idea behind the book:
As we think and talk, we often slip into the mindsets of three different professions: preachers, prosecutors, and politicians. In each of these modes, we take on a particular identity and use a distinct set of tools. We go into preacher mode when our sacred beliefs are in jeopardy: we deliver sermons to protect and promote our ideals. We enter prosecutor mode when we recognize flaws in other people’s reasoning: we marshal arguments to prove them wrong and win our case. We shift into politician mode when we’re seeking to win over an audience: we campaign and lobby for the approval of our constituents. The risk is that we become so wrapped up in preaching that we’re right, prosecuting others who are wrong, and politicking for support that we don’t bother to rethink our own views.
The book promotes scientific thinking.  Here's a quote about that:
Scientific thinking favors humility over pride, doubt over certainty, curiosity over closure. When we shift out of scientist mode, the rethinking cycle breaks down, giving way to an overconfidence cycle. If we’re preaching, we can’t see gaps in our knowledge: we believe we’ve already found the truth.
And here's one final quote which I noted because it reminds me of the arguments I have I on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum:
In the hierarchy of disagreement created by computer scientist Paul Graham, the highest form of argument is refuting the central point, and the lowest is name-calling.
I've been trying to refute their central argument about what is Einstein's Second Postulate, but the main counter argument they seem to have is name calling.  I wish I had the time to go through the 443 messages in the thread I started on March 16 to see how many include name calling.  Mostly it is just name calling between the others on the forum, but from time to time they call me an "idiot" or worse.  The last three messages in the thread as of this moment involve calling one another "Stupid Ken," "Stupid Mike" and "moron."  Fortunately, the last message addressed to me includes no name calling, it's just an argument about what constitutes an "inertial system.  I wrote:
A truck is a PROPELLED SYSTEM, even when it is moving at a constant speed. It is NOT an "inertial system" and if used as a "frame of reference" it will give unexpected results.
To which "Michael Moroney" responded:
Wrong. If it is moving at a constant speed it is inertial BY DEFINITION. Since it is inertial, it can be used as an inertial frame of reference. "Propelled system" is bogus, since the propulsion exists ONLY to overcome air resistance and friction.
As I see it, he is totally wrong on a FUNDAMENTAL concept in physics.  Here's the definition of "inertial system" from
a frame of reference in which a body remains at rest or moves with constant linear velocity unless acted upon by forces: any frame of reference that moves with constant velocity relative to an inertial system is itself an inertial system.
A moving truck is NOT an inertial system, because it is being "acted upon by forces" which make the truck move.  It has an engine that creates force to propel the truck at some given speed.   Remove that force and the truck will slow to a stop due to "air resistance and friction" and will them become part of the system that is the surface of the earth.  Is that system "inertial"?  It does NOT involve "linear" motion.  Here's what Encyclopedia Britannica says about that:
Strictly speaking, Newton's laws of motion are valid only in a coordinate system at rest with respect to the “fixed” stars. ... A coordinate system attached to the Earth is not an inertial reference frame because the Earth rotates and is accelerated with respect to the Sun.
This is about as fundamental as you can get in physics.  Yet, somehow nearly everyone on that forum thinks that a truck moving at a constant speed is an "inertial system."  I'll try explaining why a truck is not an inertial system, but I doubt I'll be able to change any minds.  More likely, they will just start calling me names.

© 2021 by Ed Lake