Archive for
November 2021

Comments for Sunday, November 21, 2021, thru Tues., Nov. 30, 2021:

November 29, 2021 - I awoke this morning deciding that my paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" no longer says anything that isn't said better in - or can't be added to - my papers "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" and "Radar Guns vs Wave Theory."  In fact, the latest (Sept. 14, 2020) #9 version of my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" contains the same error I was correcting in "Relativity and Radar Guns."  I evidently decided that the radar-gun-in-a-truck idea needed a paper of its own, and that's why I created "Relativity and Radar Guns."

There's no point in correcting two papers that basically say the same thing and have the same error, so I submitted a request to "withdraw" the paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" from  It may take a day or two before they actually delete it.  Meanwhile, I also deleted that paper from The paper is now gone from that site.

Somehow I'd forgotten that my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" also contains the proposed erroneous radar-guns-inside-a-truck experiment.  So, I'll have to revise it.  It also contains some other related errors that need correcting.  On the other hand, the paper I deleted contains some interesting tables of radar gun data that I might add to "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories." 

I'm also going to try to stop writing comments here about what I'm doing while writing papers, since my time would be better spent working on the papers.  Plus, while it is good to learn from one's mistakes, it is not so good to display your mistakes for all the world to see or to talk about them day after day and week after week.

November 28, 2021
- I should have the newly revised version of my paper "Relativity and Radar Guns" on-line on sometime this week.  It will be version #4.  On you can only have one version, so version #4 will replace the version that is currently on that site. Realizing that my proposed radar-guns-inside-a-truck experiment wouldn't work required a lot of thinking and re-thinking about how radar guns actually do work.

The discussion I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity forum since Nov. 10th about radar guns now consist of almost 600 messages.  I'm still saving a copy of the entire thread.  It's definitely one of the best discussions I've ever had on that forum, even though about 70% of the posts are just insults, sometimes people attacking me, more often just people attacking each other.

I really wish there was some way to get an intelligent discussion going about my revised paper.  I find it mind-boggling that so many text books and other sources state that light emitters emit waves when the FACTS so clearly show that light consists of individual photons.  And, strange as it may seem, virtually all the arguments I've been having relate in some way to the dispute over Einstein's Second Postulate.

Einstein's version:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The most common physics textbook version:
Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
When I finish the revisions to "Relativity and Radar Guns" I'll have to dig into several other papers of mine that will need revisions, too.  Those revisions, however, should be relatively minor.  

I really want to get back to having time enough to listen to podcasts.  I still download them once a week or so, but I don't have the time to listen to them.  And there's definitely not enough time to sit down and just read some novel for hour after hour.  I'd like to do that,too.

Meanwhile, SPAM phone calls are sometimes a real problem.  About a week ago, I suddenly got approximately 30 SPAM phone calls in a single day.  I didn't recognize the numbers or the area codes, so I didn't answer any of them.  The next day I got about 20.  Then the number dropped fairly quickly back down to the "normal" rate of 2 to 4 per day. 

When I got those 30 in one day I began to look for some way to block them.  But you can only block an individual number.  About 28 of the 30 were individual numbers.  And there were only a couple repeats the next day.  So, blocking individual numbers won't accomplish much if they use new numbers nearly all of the time. 

About 15 of those 30 phone numbers used an area code that traces back to Northern Wisconsin.  Presumably that means there's a big room somewhere in Northern Wisconsin where the spammers have a hundred phones or more, each with a different phone number, and a hundred people or more just spend their days making phone calls to people on some list, and everyone has the same list, they just start in different places on the list.  It makes you wonder who the hell would work at such a job?  And how can the owner pay people to work such a job?  There must be a BIG payoff from every sucker who falls for their scheme, whatever that scheme is. 

Sometimes the caller doesn't just hang up when I don't answer and they just get my answering machine, they start saying "Hello" a few times, sometimes even using my first name.  When that happens you can often hear what seems like a hundred people talking in the background.  The callers NEVER say who they are, so that automatically says they are SPAM phone calls.

What a screwball world we live in.

November 26, 2021
- While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt.

On Bullshit

It's a "book" even though it is only 67 pages long.  It was a New York Times bestseller when it came out in 2005, and it still sells very well.  It took me only two lunches and three breakfasts to read it.  Basically all the book does is define "bullshit."  Here's part of the blurb on Amazon:
He [Harry G. Frankfurt] argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
And here's a quote from the book:
Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more excessive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled— whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others—to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant. Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country’s affairs.
The question for me becomes: Was I bullshitting people when I wrote that radar guns could measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck?  The answer has to be "No," since I proposed an experiment to see whether what I was saying was true or not.  And, as it turned out, I was able to determine that the truck experiment would not work by simply analyzing the known facts in greater detail.  It's a process called "learning from one's mistakes."  Bullshitters generally do not learn from their mistakes, because they can never admit to making a mistake.  They just change the subject.  What I'm doing is revising the paper in which I made the mistake while also explaining all the science behind radar guns, science which thoroughly debunks all the bullshit from mathematicians who claim that light hits all observers at c and cannot possibly hit a moving object at c+v or c-v.  Writing papers is a way of learning.  I see things much more clearly when I write them down.  

November 25, 2021
- I wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

November 23, 2021
- While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  The book was "How to Astronaut: An Insider's Guide to Leaving Planet Earth" by Terry Virts.

How to Astronaut

It was a very interesting book, with chapters on just about every subject you might think of related to traveling, working and living in space.  Virts began as an F-16 pilot in the Air Force.  Then he did extensive training as an astronaut.  That training isn't just about space walking, it's also about handling medical emergencies and every other kind of emergency in space.  Virts went into space twice, the first time as the pilot of the shuttle Endeavour when it carried a section of the International Space Station (ISS) during its construction.  He also helped assemble that section and attach it to the ISS, which involved "space walking."  His second mission involved spending 200 days on the completed ISS doing scientific experiments (and occasional space walking).

Here's one passage from the book:
One night, I was not able to sleep in my usual sleeping quarters because of a technical problem and had to find a place on the ISS to camp out. I picked the PMM, our storage module. After setting up my sleeping bag and closing my eyes, I began to feel my heart race and lips tingle—my CO2 symptoms. I realized the ventilation in that module wasn’t good enough, and after relocating my sleeping bag several times, I gave up and moved out into the main hallway, Node 1. It was a poignant lesson in the importance of ventilation, because in space there’s no atmospheric circulation without electric fans. Without ventilation an astronaut would create a cloud of CO2 as he breathed, and unless he moved, he would slowly die.
Here's one about another task you might need to perform while spending 200 days on the ISS:
I’ve been very fortunate in my career. I’ve done some pretty crazy and hair-raising things. Flown F-16s over Iraq and Korea. Piloted a space shuttle. Flown a rendezvous mission. Done spacewalks. But in all seriousness, by far, without a doubt, the most stressful thing I’ve ever done in my life was cut [fellow astronaut] Samantha[ Cristoforetti]’s hair. Because if I’d screwed that up there would have been millions of Italians angry at me. And that’s probably not survivable.
One of the most commonly asked questions about astronauts is also answered in this passage:
And just in case you were wondering about number two in a diaper? The answer is no. Not ever. I’ve never heard of it and just can’t imagine it happening unless under the direst of circumstances. You’d do anything in your power to prevent that situation. So, that answers that question.
It makes perfect sense, if you think about it.  If you are "regular," you only go "number two" once a day.  And you never spend more than 8 or 10 hours in a space suit, so you go before you get into the suit or after you get out of it.  Holding back "number one" is more of a problem, particularly since staying hydrated is essential in space.  The air in space suits, in shuttles and in the ISS is very dry. 

Amazingly, the subject I've been writing about for months was also addressed in the book in this passage:
One of Mr. Einstein’s most profound insights was that the speed of light is always constant, no matter how fast you’re moving, everywhere in the universe (black holes are problematic for some laws of physics, but that’s a topic for another book, one written by a proper physicist and not a fighter pilot). To illustrate this concept, consider two trains moving toward each other, each traveling 50 kph. If you are riding on one, it appears that the other train is moving at 100 kph toward you. However, if you shine a light beam at someone on the other train, you will measure its speed as it leaves your flashlight as 300,000 kilometers per second, and when that light beam hits him, he will also measure it as 300,000 kilometers per second. He won’t perceive the light as traveling that extra 100 kph. No matter where you are or what speed you are traveling, light always appears to travel at the exact same speed. Even if both trains were traveling at 99 percent of the speed of light, a passenger on the other train would still measure your light beam as hitting them at the normal speed of light. Bizarre, but true.
The key words are "perceive" and "appears."  When I argue with mathematicians about this, they always argue that light cannot hit a moving vehicle at c+v or c-v.  But it does when you are viewing things from the point of view of the emitter.  The target's rate of time is different due to his higher speed, so the length of his seconds are longer.  That means he will perceive the light to arrive at 300,000 kilometers per second.  That is the way it appears to the observer, but it is only because he does not have any way to perceive any difference in his rate of time.

I'll have to make sure I explain that very carefully in the revisions to the paper I'm working on.  This version of Einstein's Second Postulate is a "correct" version, according to mathematicians:
Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
That's wrong!  No matter how you look at it, it's wrong.  The length of a second when measuring c is dependent upon the speeds of the source and the observer.  Each will measure c using a different length for a second.

Terry Virts's book is a worthwhile reading for that passage about time dilation alone.  It certainly was for me, even though there was a lot more in the book that was also very interesting and worthwhile.

November 22, 2021
- I finally got around to mentioning my science-fiction novel "Time Work" on the Science Fiction Facebook forum.  They have (or had) some rule that you can't mention a book you wrote until after you've initiated 25 or 50 threads on other subjects.  I lost track of how many threads I'd started, and yesterday I decided to just start a thread about "Time Work."  New threads have to be approved by a moderator before they will appear on the forum.  The thread appeared this morning. It just included this image of the front and back covers:
Time Work covers
And this brief comment:
If time travel interests you, you might enjoy my novel "Time Work" which is available at Amazon.
And the first response I received this morning was a question: "Where's the link?"

Duh!  I not only didn't include a link with the image and comment I used to start the thread, I also didn't include a more detailed description of the book.  So, this morning I added this description:
Inventor Kyle Rawlins is asked by this brother, the President of the United States, to look into a new Anti-Time invention which allows a person and/or a camera to go back in time one second per second.  In theory, it could quickly solve nearly ALL crimes, since you could go back and FILM what actually happened and who did it.  While getting a demonstration by the inventors of the device at the scene of a recent crime, the laboratory where the device was built is bombed from a helicopter.  The investigation of that bombing leads to clues to a truly major crime of national importance that has not yet happened.  Kyle and the inventors of the device then work to prevent the pending crime from happening. 
And I added another comment:
It was fascinating to think about Anti-Time and the idea that you can go back in time, but you cannot change ANYTHING. That means you cannot even bend a blade of grass in the past. So, walking on grass is like walking on ice picks.

And since you can only go back one second per second of your time, you need to take a sleeping bag and other supplies with you if you go back more than a few hours. Then there is the problem of not being able to open a door. You have to wait for someone in Anti-Time to open it.
I'm definitely not a salesman type.  I don't think I could sell ice cream to travelers in the Sahara Desert.  The book has been for sale on Amazon since February, and it hasn't sold a single copy.  Presumably that is because I didn't tell anyone about it.   

November 21, 2021
- I've abandoned the idea of writing a paper about "Inertial vs Non-Inertial Systems."  Fortunately, I never got past the "Abstract," so I didn't waste that much time on it.  So, as I stated a couple days ago, I have to revise my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to remove the proposed "two identical radar guns in a truck" experiment in Section V and to instead explain how Radar Guns measure differences in the RATE OF TIME as experienced by the gun and by the target.

I got the wrong idea about inertial systems because of a mistaken idea that rate-of-time differences between someone stationary and someone going 70 mph are too small for a radar gun to measure. That's an idea that mathematicians were arguing - and continue to argue.  Here's what one mathematician posted on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum just a day or two ago:
"The measured Doppler effect on frequencies in a radar gun is far far larger than the relativistic time dilation effect, which is much too small for the device to measure."
"The relativistic difference in clock rates for clocks in those two vehicles is only half of the *square* of v/c."
So, they were feeding my mistaken idea.  Or I may have gotten it from them.

Or, I may have gotten it from Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.  Here is what they wrote on pages 187 and 188 of their book "The Evolution of Physics: From early concepts to relativity and quanta":
Once more, the example of the moving room with outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light signal is emitted from the centre of the room and again we ask the two men what they expect to observe, assuming only our two principles and forgetting what was previously said concerning the medium through which the light travels. We quote their answers: 

The inside observer: The light signal travelling from the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously, since all the walls are equally distant from the light source and the velocity of light is the same in all directions.

The outside observer: In my system, the velocity of light is exactly the same as in that of the observer moving with the room. It does not matter to me whether or not the light source moves in my C.S. since its motion does not influence the velocity of light. What I see is a light signal travelling with a standard speed, the same in all directions. One of the walls is trying to escape from and the opposite wall to approach the light signal.  Therefore, the escaping wall will be met by the signal a little later than the approaching one. Although the difference will be very slight if the velocity of the room is small compared with that of light, the light signal will nevertheless not meet these two opposite walls, which are perpendicular to the direction of the motion, quite simultaneously.

Comparing the predictions of our two observers, we find a most astonishing result which flatly contradicts the apparently well-founded concepts of classical physics. Two events, i.e., the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside, but not for the observer on the outside.
From that description of differences in how light is observed, I developed these two illustrations:

inertial systems

In Figure 26, the guy on the train sees the front and rear walls light up at the same time because he is moving at the same speed as the walls.

In Figure 27, the guy on the parked railroad car (or embankment) sees the rear wall light up first and then the front wall.

But I now understand that the guy on the train sees both walls light up at the same time because the moving train is an "inertial system" and the movement of an inertial system does not affect the speed of light emitted inside that inertial system. Light will hit both walls at c.  So, as I now understand it, Figure 26 should look like this:

                      Inertial systems 

Meanwhile, according to Einstein and Infeld, the guy on the stationary car sees the rear wall light up first because the rear wall was trying to "approach" the light and the front wall lights up later because the front wall was trying to "escape from" the light. 

Hmm.  I need to think about that.  Who would be emitting the light in a revised Figure 27?  And there are other questions I need to find the answers to.

Plus, I realize I shouldn't be writing all this as part of a comment on this web site.  I should be working on it in private, until all the pieces fit together and I can put the reasoning and the answers on and in the form of a science paper.

This web site was created when all the mysteries of the anthrax attacks of 2001 seemed to have been solved, and I decided it was time for me to write about other things.  But physics isn't something that interests most people, particularly physics disagreements as analyzed and explained by a layman analyst.  Conspiracy theories might be an appropriate subject, but there isn't much to say about most of them.

I'd like to write about the Carl Rittenhouse case, but about the only thing I have to say is that I wonder if the jurors were concerned that, if they found Rittenhouse guilty, Right Wing extremists would be harassing them for the rest of their lives.  How else could they have found Rittenhouse to be innocent of all counts?  Or is it because they saw him as "just a stupid kid" who did something terribly stupid, but putting him in jail with hardened criminals for the rest of his life would be just too extreme a punishment for a "stupid kid"?  That's about all I can say on the subject.

I need to think about what subjects (besides physics) I should write about.  I want to write about things that really really interest me, which at the moment is physics.  Groan.

Comments for Sunday, November 14, 2021, thru Sat., Nov. 20, 2021:

November 19, 2021 - Uh oh.  Your unconscious mind really does keep working on solving problems while you sleep.  This morning I awoke realizing that my proposed experiment involving radar guns inside a moving truck will not work.  I'll save all the detailed explanations for my Sunday comment.  Meanwhile, I need to get to work to revise my paper on "Relativity and Radar Guns" to remove that proposed experiment and to explain how Radar Guns measure differences in TIME as experienced by the gun and by the target.  I'd thought that the differences in TIME were too small to be measured by a radar gun.  The FACTS say I was wrong. 

November 18, 2021
- While driving to the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #7 in the 7-CD audio book version of "Greenlights," an autobiography by Matthew McConaughey.

I got it from the library because it was on all the best seller lists for a long time.  But, for me, it was a major disappointment.  If I had been reading it on my Kindle, I would have just moved on to another book after reading the first chapter or two.  But having burned 7 CDs costing about 15 cents each, I felt I needed to finish the whole audio book.  Besides, I didn't have any other audio book already burned on CDs.  Here's a passage from the book that particularly bothered me:
Nobody gets in trouble for what they do, they only get in trouble when they get caught.  The art is in getting away with it. 
There were passages earlier in the book where McConaughey describes in detail the fights he had with his father, where his father hit him repeatedly with closed fists, and McConaughey repeatedly hit his father back with a 2 by 4. 

And then there is the section where he became an exchange student of some kind and lived with a couple in Australia who were probably the most obnoxious people within a hundred miles, and everyone around knew that fact and laughed about it.

I could go on and on, but I didn't make any notes.  I'm not a fan of Matthew McConaughey, but I didn't realize that until I read the book.  He was in one of my favorite movies, Contact, but I don't remember him in that movie at all.  He won a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance in "Dallas Buyers Club," which I don't think I ever saw,  and he was the lead actor in the TV series "True Detective," which I think I only watched one episode of.

Another problem I had with the audio book is that it is read by Matthew McConaughey and he frequently changes the volume of his voice, sometimes yelling and sometimes whispering.  And when listening to an audio book while in a moving car, it is really difficult to hear someone who is whispering.

So, in sum, I can't recommend the book, bestseller or not.

November 17, 2021
- The heated debates I've been involved in
on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum suddenly hit paydirt yesterday.  I'd been arguing for years that, if you have two radar guns that use the exact same photon oscillation frequency, you can measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck.  The counter argument from mathematicians was typically that that was impossible because the walls of the truck are stationary relative to each other, so there is no movement to detect.

I was ready to argue that they were saying that the interior of the truck was an inertial system inside a non-inertial system.  But yesterday the argument suddenly changed.  "Odds Bodkin" posted this:
While the car engine is engaged, and the car is traveling a constant 80 mph on a straight and flat road, it is in inertial motion. It is in inertial motion because there is NO NET force acting on the car. There are indeed at least four forces acting on the car (air resistance pushing backwards, the friction between the tires and the road surface pushing the car forward — that’s where the engine comes in, the force of gravity downwards, and the force of the road pushing upward), but these forces all sum to zero and there is no net force. This net force being zero also means there is no acceleration (that’s Newton’s 2nd law), and since the acceleration is zero, the velocity is constant. That is inertial motion: no NET force, no acceleration, constant velocity.
So, he was saying that the whole truck is inertial, even though it is being propelled and is consuming fuel in order to remain in motion!  I don't think any of them had ever argued that before.  Or, if they did, I didn't pay attention.  It's NUTS!  Where did he get that idea from? 

Newton's Second Law of Motion is:

The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
Duh!  What does that have to do with anything?

I did some quick research, and I found this on page 104 of the 9th edition of "College Physics" by Hugh D. Young:
Suppose you are sitting in an airplane as it accelerates down the runway during takeoff. You feel a forward force pushing on your back, but you don’t start moving forward relative to the airplane. If you could stand in the aisle on roller skates, you would accelerate backward relative to the plane. In either case, it looks as though Newton’s first law is not obeyed. Forward net force but no acceleration, or zero net force and backward acceleration. What’s wrong? The point is that the plane, accelerating with respect to the earth, is not a suitable frame of reference for Newton’s first law. This law is valid in some frames of reference and not in others. A frame of reference in which Newton’s first law is valid is called an inertial frame of reference. The earth is approximately an inertial frame of reference, but the airplane is not.

This may sound as though there’s only one inertial frame of reference in the whole universe. On the contrary, if Newton’s first law is obeyed in one particular reference frame, it is also valid in every other reference frame that moves with constant velocity relative to the first. All such frames are therefore inertial. For instance, Figure 4.9 shows three frames of reference: that of a person standing beside the runway, that of a truck driving at constant speed in a straight line, and that of the accelerating airplane. The stationary person’s frame of reference is inertial. The truck moves with constant velocity relative to the person, so its frame of reference is also inertial. In both of these frames, Newton’s first law is obeyed. However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
Wow!  That is NUTS!  A propelled system is inertial????  No way!   Newton's First Law of Motion describes an inertial system this way:
An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
"Remains" means it goes on foreverAccording to Newton and Galileo, an inertial system is one that moves at a constant speed FOREVER as long as no force is applied to stop it.  A moving truck will not continue moving forever.  It will only continue moving until it runs out of fuel.  Energy is being applied to make it move.  The mathematician's argument is that there was only enough energy being applied to make it move at a steady rate, so it wasn't accelerating.  And if it is not accelerating or decelerating, it is inertial.

I suddenly realized that this is almost certainly the argument that caused Albert Einstein to devise so many "thought experiments" comparing moving trains to a person standing on a railroad station platform.  He was evidently countering arguments from mathematicians who claimed that a train moving at a steady rate is an "inertial system."  But according to Einstein, when turning on a light in a moving train, the light will only appear to illuminate the front and rear walls at the same time, but will actually light up the rear wall first, because that wall is moving toward the source of the light, while the front wall is moving away from the source of the light.  In other words, light will travel at c to the rear wall and hit at c+v, then bounce back at c and will hit the observer at c-v because the observer is moving away from the source of the light.  Meanwhile, light will travel at c to the front wall, it will hit the front wall at c-v, and it will bounce back to hit the observer at c+v.  The image below illustrates this:

Turning on a light in a moving railroad

And my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments" explains it all in detail, with illustrations, starting on page 20.  And, I think it is one basis for my radar gun "thought experiment."

So, it seems what I need to do is write a paper titled "Inertial vs Non-Inertial Systems" to explain that, in addition to the nonsense many college physics textbooks contain about Einstein's Second Postulate, they also include total nonsense about what constitutes an "inertial system."  That's definitely going to keep me busy for awhile, since I'll have to dig through dozens of physics textbooks to see how many more contain the same nonsense as in Hugh D. Young's book.

And, of course, before doing that I'll need to end my participation in the debates on sci.physics.relativity.  As of this moment, there are 217 posts in the thread, about 35 more than when I stopped responding yesterday afternoon.

November 14, 2021
- Back on November 10, when the latest revision to my science paper
An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity became available on-line, I debated with myself if I wanted to advise the people on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum about it.  From years of experience, I knew that they would only attack me and the paper in every way they could think of.

But, very often my responses to their attacks cause me to think about things in a different way.  While I very rarely learn anything from their comments, I often learn a lot from my responses to their comments.  So, I took a deep breath and started a new thread about my paper.

Wow!  All I have been doing for the past three days is arguing on that forum.  And it's been very educational.  As usual, I'm also making a copy of the discussion, which currently has 107 comments.  My copy is in web site (html) format, but I'd like to create a version in pdf format.  The problem is that it would take a LOT of time to edit out all the repetition and to put discussions with Person-A, Person-B, Person-C and Person-D in order instead of having them all jumbled together, as they happened on the forum.

Unexpectedly, most of the arguments were about "wave particle duality," i.e., is light a wave or is it a particle?  Light has the properties of both.  Mathematicians on the forum have a mathematical model for when light acts like a particle and another mathematical model for when light acts like a wave.  My papers use an oscillating photon, which combines those features.  But there is no mathematical model for such a thing, so the mathematicians argue that it cannot exist.

One part of the discussion was about how the wave particle duality issue is addressed in college physics textbooks.  A mathematician claimed that  
In physics, the word "photon" has a single meaning, and it is what Townes Olson said: "an excitation of the quantum field of electromagnetism".
That prompted me to check a half dozen top-rated physics textbooks which have gone through multiple editions.   NONE of them used that definition.  Instead, ALL of them discussed "wave particle duality."  Here are some quotes:

From “College Physics” 9th edition, by Hugh D. Young, page 772:
The propagation of light is best described by a wave model, but
understanding emission and absorption by atoms and nuclei requires a particle approach.
From “College Physics” 9th Edition, by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille, page 762:
So in the final analysis, is light a wave or a particle? The answer is neither and both: light has a number of physical properties, some associated with waves and others with particles.
From “Fundamentals of Physics” 10th Edition, by Jearl Walker, page 1154:
The concept of a light quantum, or a photon, turns out to be far more subtle and mysterious than Einstein imagined. Indeed, it is still very poorly understood. 

From “Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics” - 6th edition, by Paul A. Tipler & Gene Mosca, page 1187:
After Thomas Young observed the two-slit interference pattern by using light in 1801, light was thought to be a classical wave. On the other hand, the electrons discovered by J. J. Thomson were thought to be classical particles. We now know that these classical concepts of waves and particles do not adequately describe the complete behavior of any phenomenon.

Everything propagates like a wave and exchanges energy like a particle.
The other two textbooks said basically the same thing, but not so clearly worded.  I suspect dozens of others will also embrace the "wave particle  mystery."

The question I kept asking was why don't physicists solve this "mystery"?  It seems clear and obvious to me that that photons oscillate, which gives them the wave-like property.  But every person on the forum repeatedly declared like robots: "Photons do not oscillate!"

NASA has a web page titled "How Do Police Radars Really Work?"  It explains how a single photon can be used to measure the speed of an oncoming car.  And it says that single photon has a "frequency."  And the photon that returns from the target has a different frequency.  The last line on the page says,
The police radar detector easily detects this frequency shift.
How can a photon have a "frequency" if it doesn't oscillate?

There are also lots of images on the internet which show photons having a "frequency" to their waves.  An example:


But here's another image that doesn't use the word "frequency":


That second image is from a web page titled "If photons don't oscillate, how do they oscillate?"  The argument on that site seems to be that a photon travels at the speed of light, which means it does not experience time, which means that it cannot oscillate, since oscillations occur per second in time.

While I find this all fascinating, it also seems that mathematicians are perfectly content to have a mystery - because it means they do not have to modify their equations.  But the JOB of scientists and physicists is to SOLVE mysteries.

I got into all this because most college physics textbooks ignore Einstein's Second Postulate and use a "Second Postulate" the book's author has created to fit his beliefs and mathematical equations about Relativity.  And now I see that those same authors are perfectly content to have a "wave-particle mystery" if it means they do not have to change their mathematical equations.  They believe in their equations and they attack anyone who questions their beliefs or their equations.

It's beliefs versus science.  It's the same issue that is preventing so many people from wearing masks and getting vaccinated during the Covid pandemic.  It conflicts with their beliefs.

It's nothing new.  There are DOZENS of books about this conflict between beliefs and science.  A few of their titles:
Anti-Science and the Assault on Democracy
The War on Science
Science Fictions
The Scientific Attitude
Calling Bullshit: The Art of Scepticism in a Data-Driven World
Science Left Behind
Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific        Establishment
I'm going to have to put some of them on my reading list.

Fortunately, it seems scientists are getting a lot of things done by simply doing their jobs and ignoring the mathematicians.  I can testify that it is better to ignore mathematicians than to argue with them.  Most are True Believers, and it is impossible to change the mind of a True Believer.

Comments for Sunday, November 7, 2021, thru Sat., Nov. 13, 2021:

November 10, 2021 - A couple days ago, I decided to browse through the 3-ring binder containing printed copies of my science papers to see if any might need changes or an overhaul.  What I found was that I hadn't always been replacing the printed copies when I did revisions, and I hadn't even printed out paper copies for my most recent papers.  So, I spent a day getting everything in order, making sure the latest version of each of my 17 papers was in its proper place in the folder.

During the process of doing that project I saw that one of my papers was double spaced, which made it a chore to read.  In some ways it was also my most important paper: An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity.  It's the paper where I show that many college text books are teaching total nonsense about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.  What they teach is routinely disproved every day.  And it is not some minor detail in some obscure mathematical equation, it is a critical piece of basic science.  Moreover, the facts are so clear and undeniable that I can't understand why people aren't demanding that the teaching of the nonsense be stopped immediately.

The paper was in the format required for submissions to Cornell University's web site, the main viewing ground for unpublished papers.  Back in April of 2017, I wanted to submit it to Cornell University's site, but I needed an authorized sponsor.  So, I contacted a German college professor who had written a paper which used the correct version of Einstein's Second Postulate.  He agreed to be my sponsor, but when I submitted the paper, the editors at blew their stacks over the fact that my paper challenged what they all evidently accepted as the gospel truth.  They more or less made certain that I never submitted a paper to them again.  The German professor then sent me some papers describing how scientists have sued over their censoring practices.  He then suggested I submit it to instead. had been created as an alternative to, with no censors to stop papers from appearing on that site.

Although various versions of the paper have been on since April of 2017, the latest version was still in the difficult-to-read format.     
So, yesterday I revised the paper to be single spaced, which resulted in it dropping from 28 pages to 18 pages.  And, as I read it over two or three times, I also made minor improvements here and there, occasionally changing a word or adding a word.  Then, yesterday afternoon I submitted it to to become version #5 of the paper, replacing the June 26, 2017 version as the latest version.

This morning I received an email advising me that version #5 was now available at this link:

Now the question is: How can I get more people to read it?   

November 7, 2021
- I awoke this morning thinking once again about my new book tentatively titled "Battle of the Universes."  While doing Google image searches for the "Russian Pyramids" can be interesting, I've never been able to definitively confirm where the two pyramid-shaped mountains in Photograph #1 below are located:

Russian mountains

All I can say with certainty is that they are NOT the "Russian Pyramids" seen in Photograph #2 below:

Russian Pyramids

And there are many more believable sources (mostly Russian sources) which say that the second pair are the true "Russian Pyramids" than there are total sources which claim that the Photograph #1 is of the "Russian Pyramids."  I just wish both pairs were photographed from a lot more angles.  And what are those upright objects in the valley between the two mounds in the Photograph #2?  If they are people, we really need some photographs taken by those people.  If they are not people, what are they and how big are they?

And I should stop writing about this, or I'll just start researching it again.

Meanwhile, each morning, before doing anything else, I check to see how many new "unique-IP downloads" have been done for my various science papers.  And I record the numbers in a spreadsheet.

For the past 4 days, there have been downloads each day of two of my most read papers:
"Simplifying Einstein’s Thought Experiments" is my most read paper, it hasn't been changed since June of 2018, and as of this morning has been downloaded by 1,470 different people.  "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" is my third most read paper, it hasn't been changed since September of last year, and as of this morning it has been downloaded by 922 different people.  (My second most read paper is "The Reality of Time Dilation," with 1,059 reads, but it's also my oldest paper.)  And my fourth most read paper is "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity" with 921 reads.  All my other papers have less than 600 reads, and my 9 most recent papers all have less than 300 reads.

On Friday, November 5, 2021, seven different people read my paper about Einstein's "Thought Experiments" for the first time.

What all this tells me is that there are a lot of people interested in the fact that what is taught in most schools about Einstein's Second Postulate is NOT what Einstein wrote and said.  My paper about Einstein's "thought experiments" explains Einstein's theories in the greatest detail, while my papers on radar guns explain how police radar guns demonstrate every day that what is taught in most schools is WRONG and can be PROVEN WRONG.

And it all tells me that I should begin my book by explaining how the "Battle of the Universes" begins
with disagreements about Einstein's Second Postulate.  Einstein said one thing, and schools teach something totally different - while claiming it is what Einstein actually MEANT.

I still find all this to be "mind-blowing."  And I cannot understand why there aren't a lot more people fascinated by it.

Comments for Monday, November 1, 2021, thru Sat., Nov. 6, 2021:

November 5, 2021 - I've decided that the amount of time I was spending trying to find the exact location of the "Russian Pyramids" just wasn't worth the effort.  So, I stopped working on my entry about Russia's Kola Peninsula Pyramids Mystery on my blog site titled My Thoughts on The Changing World.  I concluded that these two somewhat unimpressive mounds are most likely the actual "Russian Pyramids":

Russian Pyramids

Not the "mountains" that were shown in the Facebook thread that got me started which look like this:

Russian mountains 

I tend to think that the image above is of naturally-formed mountains, but I could not find their location.  For all I know, they could be in Peru or some island in the Atlantic.  That looks like the open sea in the distance on the  left.  Plus, the "mounds" image appears in the most authoritative articles about the "Russian Pyramids."

My research uncovered another Kola Peninsula mystery.  What was the purpose of these examples of huge rocks balanced on small rocks?
Balanced rock #1
Balanced rock #2
Balanced rock #3
Balanced rock #4

Inquiring minds want to know.
  But, right now, I'm not willing to spend any time trying the find the answer.

November 1, 2021
- I decided to create a new blog entry about Russia's Kola Peninsula Pyramids Mystery on my blog site titled My Thoughts on The Changing World.
  It's the first time in over a year that I've put anything new on that blog. 

The purpose of the new blog entry is to organize the information I have gathered about the Russian Pyramids, and to look for help in finding more information.  It won't be a major project like my research into the anthrax attacks of 2001 or my research into Special Relativity and Time Dilation.  It's just that history is one of the many subjects that truly interest me, and when I find a history subject that a lot of people are arguing about, I sometimes just have to dig into the subject to see if I can resolve the arguments.

For example, lots of people are arguing that the ice ages would have destroyed the Russian Pyramids.  But the Russian Pyramids were built around 9,000 years ago, and (according to Wikipedia) the last ice age ended 11,700 years ago.  So, we've got a situation where animals - with hunter-gatherer people following them - moved into fresh new grassy areas that were previously covered with ice.

The area also appears in ancient myths.  The land is called Hyperborea and the people who lived there were called Hyperboreans.  In ancient times it was evidently believed that humans originated there and then migrated to the south.

My mission will be to separate the myths from the facts.  It could take a few days, or a few weeks.  I don't expect it to last much longer than that.


© 2021 by Ed Lake