|Comments for Sunday, January 23,
2022, thru Mon., Jan. 31, 2022:
January 30, 2022 - Sometime on Friday afternoon, some kind of "button" was evidently pushed in my brain and I suddenly started thinking about a new way to begin my new book "Logical Relativity."
Yesterday morning I completed the two page "Introduction" and began working on Chapter 1, "What is Time?"
I'm not sure what exactly caused that "button" to be pushed, but I think it may have resulted from my suddenly wondering how I got into the practice of analyzing arguments about Einstein's Relativity and Time Dilation. Fortunately, it is all documented on this web site, on my blog, on other blogs, and on my now-deleted web site about the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, a copy of which is still in my computer.
Digging through those files, I was somewhat surprised to discover that, on March 23, 2014, on my anthrax web site, I created a web page titled "Time Dilation - as I Understand It." It basically says the same things that I wrote in my first science paper, "Time Dilation Re-Visualized" which I put on viXra.org over a year later, on May 31, 2015. A few days before doing that, I put a version on this web site.
After about 12 years of arguing with anthrax conspiracy theorists, I started arguing with other kinds of conspiracy theorists, everything from Flat Earthers to "chemtrail" believers. Then, some time in late 2014, I started arguing with Rational Science Methodists, who believe in what is sometimes called the "Gaedean Scientific Method," since it was created by a man named Bill Gaede. Wikipedia describes Gaede as an Argentine Communist spy who was convicted in U.S. courts and deported back to Argentina. His "scientific method" eliminates the need for evidence and proof. You just state a hypothesis, develop a theory from that hypothesis, and then you declare the theory is valid by concluding that it is valid.
For years I argued with Rational Scientific Methodists when facts and evidence showed they were wrong. I never changed any minds, but gathering all those facts and and all that evidence made me want to put it all onto the Internet somewhere. ViXra.org turned out to be the place, and that is where I put paper after paper. And now I want to put a summary of it all into a book.
The problem I had been having with the book is that I didn't know where to start. I kept wanting to start with the conflict over Einstein's theories, and how mathematicians falsely claim that Albert Einstein agreed with their screwball distortions of his theories. The new version I've just started begins with detailed explanations of Einstein's theories in plain English, with no mathematics, and it won't get into the mathematician versions until the second half of the book. At least that's the plan. Time will tell whether or not I can turn the plan into an actual book.
January 28, 2022 - Yesterday, after completing my morning chores, I sat down in an easy chair in my living room and started listening to the audio book version of "Curse of the Pogo Stick," the 5th Dr. Siri mystery by Colin Cotterill. I took a break to go to the gym, but I managed to finish the book at around 7:30 PM.
In my January 26 comment, I mentioned that I had started to listen to it on the 25th but fell asleep during the second hour. This time, I started at the beginning again, and I managed to get through the entire 6 hour audio book. But it wasn't a particularly enjoyable 6 hours. For me, the story is somewhat difficult to follow when listening to it, instead of reading it. Maybe it's just that I have a visual memory and reading something really sinks it into my brain, while listening to something makes it more difficult to remember. Or maybe it was because I kept reminding myself to pay attention and to not let my mind wonder onto other things.
The story begins when a booby-trapped corpse is delivered to Dr. Siri's morgue, and his assistant, Nurse Dtui, notices that there are some unusual bumps on both sides of the belly of the corpse. Plus, it appears the body was operated on after it was dead. So, she freezes the corpse, X-rays it, and sees that there is a hand grenade inside the corpse that is rigged to explode if anyone tried to cut into its belly. All that happens in the first 20 minutes of the audio book.
While that was going on, Dr. Siri was at a meeting in Northern Laos. On his way home he is kidnapped. Somewhere along the way he learns about a pogo stick that was left behind by American troops in the 1960s, and the pogo stick seems to have a curse associated with it. The book explains how all these pieces - and many others - all fit together, but I couldn't follow all the details.
"Curse of the Pogo Stick" is the only Dr. Siri mystery that my local library has in audio book format. While this book was not particularly enjoyable for me, I still look forward to reading book #6 in the series.
January 26, 2022 - Yes, I'm definitely at some kind of crossroads. I'm spending hours sitting at my computer wondering what I should do next. Every time I start working on a book about Time Dilation and Relativity, I end up just sitting and staring at the outline - which just has a few chapter titles.
Yesterday, I tried listening to the audio book version of the 5th mystery in the Dr. Siri series, which consists of 6 MP3 files. I managed to listen to the 20-minute first section, but I fell asleep somewhere during the 1-hour 12-minute second section. Listening to a novel in audio book form is very much like having someone read you a bedtime story. I can listen to science podcasts all day, but listening to a story just puts me to sleep. I'll probably end up just reading the Kindle version, but first I have to get in the right mood for that.
Reading "Anarchy and Old Dogs" caused me to spend much of this morning browsing through my photo collection from when I was in Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, just across the river from Laos. In "Anarchy and Old Dogs," Dr. Siri traveled from Vientiane, Laos, to Pakse, Laos, by traveling through Thailand most of the way. But that would probably have taken them some distance away from Nakhon Phanom, as you can see from the map below.
The Dr. Siri story takes place in 1977. I was in Nakhon Phanom in 1963, fourteen years earlier and about 58 years ago. Today, I took a Google Street View tour along the west side of the Mekong River looking for the spot where I took this picture in 1963.
And below is what it looked like in August 2019 when Google's street view camera truck passed by.
The only way you can tell it is the same river and the same approximate location is because the Laotian mountains in the distance haven't changed. In 1963, the only road traffic was usually just bicycles and rickshaws, and there were always boats visible on the river. Today there are cars and trucks everywhere, and I never saw a single boat on the river.
January 24, 2022 - At around 10:30 this morning, I finished reading another book on my Kindle. This one was a mystery novel that I started reading yesterday. It was "Anarchy and Old Dogs" by Colin Cotterill, book #4 in the Dr. Siri mystery series.
I'm reading them in order, and this one was as thoroughly enjoyable at the three previous novels in the series that I'd read. The story centers on Dr. Siri Paiboun, the national coroner in 1977 Laos. Dr. Siri is 73 years old and the only coroner in Laos. So, when dead bodies show up, he's the guy who has to examine them to find out the cause of death. In this case, the dead man is a blind former dentist who was run over by a runaway lumber truck. The cause of death is obvious, but Dr. Siri finds a letter in the dead man's pocket. The letter seems blank, but it is clearly a message written in invisible ink.
Dr. Siri, his assistant Nurse Dtui, and the group of professionals he has as friends (including a police officer and a politician) figure out how to make the letter readable, and they find it is in code using the English alphabet. Fortunately, it's a simple code where you just use one letter of the alphabet to mean a different letter, and they are able to decipher the code. Gradually they learn that the letter is about a planned coup to overthrow the newly formed Communist government of Laos. But who is behind the planned coup?
Their investigation takes them to nearby towns and villages and across the Mekong river into Thailand. But it is the hilarious dialog between Dr. Siri and the others, and the mistakes they make along the way that turns the book into a fascinating and very funny read. The story is just something to put the characters into action, while also providing a view of 1977 Laos that is as strange and as foreign as any place on Earth can be.
I have the next book in the series in audio book format. I might just start listening to it this afternoon or tomorrow. The series has been thoroughly enjoyable so far, and I look forward to listening to the next story.
January 23, 2022 - On Friday, I finished listening to the last of the podcasts about Flat Earthers that I had downloaded into my MP3 player last week. Some were so annoying that I couldn't sit through them, and I had to turn them off. But others were thoroughly fascinating, even if they were also frustrating. They were frustrating because I kept wanting the hosts (Mick West from the Tales From The Rabbit Hole podcast and David McRaney from the You Are Not So Smart podcast) to get into a serious discussion with a Flat Earther, but neither of them ever did.
In the episodes I listened to, the closest Mick West ever got to a serious discussion with a Flat Earther was his discussion with a woman named "Sasha" in episode #8. At about the 10 minute mark, Sasha talks about an airplane flight from India to the UK where you go from a point where the earth is supposedly spinning at about 1,000 miles per hour to a point where the earth is spinning at only 600 mph. To her, that means that during your flight you have to decelerate by 400 mph, which she believes should just about crush you. According to her, it certainly wouldn't be unnoticeable. The counterargument from Mick West was that the change in speed is very small when spread out over a 9 hour flight. But, Sasha still felt it should be detectable. And because it isn't detectable, to her that means the earth is flat and not a spinning globe. And then, frustratingly, instead of trying to resolve their disagreement, they changed the subject.
In episode #170 of the You Are Not So Smart podcast, David McRaney had a discussion with a Flat Earther named Mark Sargent. It's frustrating because it rambles about various conspiracy theories without ever really focusing on one of them to see if disagreements can be resolved. They never talk about evidence to support a theory, and the "evidence" they do discuss is just unsolved mysteries. The Flat Earther argument seems to be that, if you do not know everything, then you know nothing. They couldn't discuss the views from space which show the earth to be a sphere, because Mr. Sargent thinks the entire space program is a scam that doesn't really exist. The discussion also introduced a term I had never heard before: "Auto-hoaxing." It means that everything is just a conspiracy until proven otherwise.
I wrote a lot about Flat Earthers back on December 29, 2017. Back then I brought up an argument that I'd really like to see Flat Earthers explain. The image below is a view of the "flat earth" surrounded by the South Pole ice cap. According to Flat Earth conspiracy theorists, the Antarctic Treaty is an agreement to keep people from exposing the fact that there is nothing beyond the ice cap. It is either the far edge of the flat earth, or it is where the dome begins that covers the flat earth. In reality, of course, the Antarctic Treaty is just an agreement that no one is going to claim Antarctica as their territory and station armies and navies there to protect your claimed territory. If you just want to explore, that's fine.
Back in 2017, I suggested that the Flat Earthers should explain how airline routes allow you to travel around Antarctica so much faster than would be possible if the earth was flat as shown in the picture above. The actual route around Antarctica can be flown in less than two days by anyone with the money. The map below shows the 4 stops, traveling from Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, then to San Paulo, Brazil, then to Johannesburg, South Africa, and from Johannesburg back to Sydney.
Distance traveled: 20,213 miles.
I'd like to see Flat Earthers explain such a trip on their map, which requires flights that are far longer than can be done by any known commercial aircraft. Plus, the first flight from Sydney, Australia, to Santiago, Chile, requires that the aircraft fly over California and parts of Mexico. Someone should notice that while flying. And notice that the Flat Earth trip from Johannesburg to Sydney is almost entirely over land, while on a globe the trip is is almost entirely over water. How would Flat Earthers explain that?
I cannot get any Flat Earther to discuss this. It seems to me it should be the first thing they need to explain. The only person who ever argued with me about it was someone on the metabunk.org discussion forum who complained that my route on the globe shows straight lines when it should show the "great circle routes" that commercial aircraft would actually fly. It seems to me that the differences would be minor and just be another cause for more arguments with Flat Earthers. Plus, "great circle routes" mostly apply to maps that have the equator in the middle, not the South Pole. On such maps, like the one below, flights from Sydney to Santiago and from Johannesburg to Sydney don't go anywhere near Antarctica unless you show the "great circle routes."
If you showed the above map to a Flat Earther, he'd probably just shake his head and laugh over your stupidity in believing that you would fall off the edge of the world if you tried to fly west from San Francisco to get to Tokyo.
|Comments for Sunday, January 16,
2022, thru Sat., Jan. 22, 2022:
January 20, 2022 - I think I've reached some kind of crossroads. The arguments on the metabunk.org forum have come to an end. I've been listening to podcasts about conspiracy theorists, and while some of the podcasts are absolutely fascinating, they also indicate that I'm in agreement with most experts on the subject. Conspiracy theorists simply think they are smarter than everyone else.
I'll probably finish listening to the remaining 5 podcasts I downloaded from the Tales from the Rabbit Hole site, but I don't think I'll download any more. While browsing through various podcast sites yesterday, I found that the You Are Not So Smart site also has a bunch of podcasts about conspiracy theorists. I downloaded and listened to 2 of them, #211 and #221, which were both extremely interesting. #211 has a detailed explanation of how QAnon got started. Here's part of it:
QAnon is a conspiracy theory that, among many other things, proposes that there is a secret government underneath the government, which people within QAnon call the deep state. And the deep state, they believe is a group of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who control the government, major businesses, and the mainstream media. QAnon started on 8Chan and then 4chan. These are Internet message boards, and it started there because an anonymous user there, calling themselves Q, began making cryptic posts, claiming they were someone working inside the government with information about how some people were planning on destroying the deep state from the inside. Over time, once Donald Trump was president, he got rolled into this conspiracy theory as an outsider who became president to disassemble the deep state and eventually arrest Hillary Clinton, who they believe runs one of these pagan child trafficking rings.So, QAnon isn't a Right Wing organization, it is an anti-establishment conspiracy theory, and since Trump was "anti-establishment" he was promoted by QAnon as their candidate to bring down the "deep state." QAnon is as much against Right Wing Republicans as they are against Left Wing Democrats. To QAnon, both are part of the "deep state" establishment. The only positive thing about QAnon is that it really isn't a very large group. There are larger and more dangerous groups out there.
Episode #221 is about the psychology of Flat Earthers and other conspiracy theorists. It says what they also say on metabunk.org: conspiracy theorists are ego driven. In a way, they are narcissists. They think they are smarter than everyone else, and if you argue with them you are attacking their self-esteem. So, you shouldn't just say they are wrong, you should politely ask questions that address key points of disagreement - like why ships seem to drop over the horizon instead of just vanishing in the distance and why you can't see the other side of Lake Michigan from atop the Willis Tower in Chicago.
For me, though, I'd rather just avoid conspiracy theorists altogether. I've got better things to do than argue with them. I argued for fifteen years with conspiracy theorists who couldn't accept that the anthrax letter mailer was most likely an American scientist, instead of some Muslim terrorist whom the American government refused to identify because it might offend some of our oil-producing Muslim allies.
Arguing with mathematicians about science is in some ways even more of a waste of time than arguing with conspiracy theorists. Right now, I feel I have found answers to all my questions about Relativity and Time Dilation. I just want to put it all down on paper. The objective is not to change minds, but to conclude my research into the subject.
January 17, 2022 - Hmm. It seems like I run into mathematicians wherever I go. I didn't expect to run into any on the metabunk.org forum about conspiracy theories, but as a new member I had to introduce myself, and in the process of doing that I mentioned writing science papers about Einstein's Second Postulate. I wrote:
About six years ago, I started looking into a real puzzling science question: Why do most college physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity? I've been writing science papers about what I've found.And one member of the site responded with this:
Welcome! Wow, taking on the light postulate. That's bold. So, everyone who says that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant is wrong? And, Galilean relativity is wrong? That's bold indeed. I'd like to see these ideas brought up on the Physics Forums or Physics Stack Exchange to learn how physicists would address them.Of course, I wrote nothing to cause him to argue that I was saying that "everyone who says the speed of light in a vacuum is constant is wrong." He just made some false assumptions. Fortunately, I was able to keep the argument short by pointing out to him that there was no conspiracy involved, so it was not an appropriate subject to argue about on a web site about conspiracy theories.
The current hot topic on the site appears to be contrails. That's a conspiracy theory I haven't been involved with in years. I briefly wrote about it on this site on August 16, 2016. Nothing since then. It's truly a dumb theory, almost as dumb as the Flat Earth Theory. This morning on metabunk.org, I briefly commented on the Flat Earth conspiracy theory, providing this image:
But I don't think the discussion will last long. On that forum you're usually not arguing with people who believe in conspiracy theories, you're just exchanging viewpoints with people who like debunking conspiracy theories.
January 16, 2022 - Yesterday I was reading a book on my Kindle which, to my surprise, was written by the creator of a web site about debunking conspiracy theories. His name is Mick West. It will be weeks before I finish the book and write a review of it, but meanwhile I'll be browsing his web site at www.metabunk.org.
While browsing his site yesterday, I discovered that he also has a podcast. It's called "Tales from the Rabbit Hole." There are only 54 episodes, the first is dated April 19, 2019, and the last episode is dated October 22, 2021. I downloaded about a dozen of the ones that seem most interesting into my MP3 player. In the process of downloading them, I had to listen to bits and parts, and they seem very interesting. So, I added the podcast to my web page of my favorite podcasts.
One of the favorite topics on metabunk.org seems to be "the flat earth conspiracy theory." Since I have a blog page on that subject, I decided to join the forum and mention that fact. I had to wait to be accepted. This morning I see I have been accepted, but my posts are still being "monitored," which means that someone (probably Mick West) has to look them over before they'll appear on the site for everyone to see.
I'm totally amazed that I never heard of his web site before. Browsing through it, there are lots of threads that I'd like to comment on. One thread begins with a YouTube video that seemingly shows an airplane slowing and then stopping in mid-air. Here it is:
Obviously the plane cannot be stopping in mid-air. So what could cause it to appear to be doing that? I think the plane must be "banking," which means it is turning away from the camera and flying somewhat sideways. And is probably pushing against headwinds. If you know nothing about airplanes, flying sideways seems silly, but if you think about it, a plane cannot simply turn a corner like a car does. If you are pushing against headwinds, you can be flying at 200 mph according to your instruments while flying just 100 mph over the ground. And if you bank to keep your nose into the headwinds, you will appear to be moving sideways. From certain angles it would look like you're stopped.
There's probably an airport in the vicinity and the plane is turning for a landing, which would also explain why it would be flying as slow as it can and a lot lower than the normal altitude for commercial airplanes.
What's puzzling about the video is why the person who made it says the plane seems to be "parking itself in the sky," when clearly the plane is dropping lower and lower.
It seems to be another example of what causes people to dream up conspiracy theories. I tend to separate people into two types: those who think logically and those who think emotionally. Someone looking at that plane who thinks logically would just assume there's an airport in that direction and the plane is turning for a landing. Someone who thinks emotionally would look at the same thing and be totally amazed at a plane that seems "to be parking itself in the sky," even though it obviously could not possibly be doing that. They do not look for explanations, they just log it as something amazing they have seen, that others will probably not believe. And they enjoy that.
|Comments for Sunday, January 9,
2022, thru Sat., Jan. 15, 2021:
January 14, 2022 - Yesterday afternoon, after ending the arguments I was having on the RDForum, I decided to just sit down on my couch and finish the book I had been reading on my Kindle. The book was "Packing For Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void" by Mary Roach.
I'd started the book over a year ago, but stopped reading it for some forgotten reason. Then, a week or so ago, I started reading it again. While it is interesting in parts, overall it was a big disappointment. It really has very little to do with "packing for Mars." It's mostly about the experiments that were done (and are apparently still being done) to determine how humans can survive in a weightless environment for long periods of time. Here's a quote from about midway through the book:
Zero gravity still had NASA spooked. “The big bugaboo was weightlessness,” said John Glenn in a 1967 Associated Press interview. “Many ophthalmologists thought the eye would change its shape and that this would change the vision, so that maybe the man in space would not be able to see at all.” That is why, if you’d looked inside Glenn’s capsule, you’d have seen a scaled-down version of the classic Snellen eye chart taped to the instrument panel. Glenn had been given instructions to read the chart every twenty minutes. A color blindness test and a device to measure astigmatism were also on board. I used to hear about Glenn’s historic flight and think, “Man, what was that like—being the first NASA astronaut to orbit the Earth?” Now I know. It was like visiting the eye doctor.A lot of the book is about keeping clean in a weightless environment. You can't take showers or baths, so you basically just wipe yourself down with damp cloths. But the book goes through chapter after chapter of experimenting with different ways to bathe and keep clean, describing in great detail the kinds of oils and grease that that body emits and where it is emitted. Here's a quote about that:
Once a set of clothes becomes saturated and oil starts to build up on the skin, what’s the end point? Does uncleansed skin grow ever greasier as the days pass? It does not. According to the Soviet research, the skin halts its production of sebum * after five to seven days of not bathing and not changing one’s increasingly well-greased clothing. Only when the person changes his shirt or takes a shower do the sebaceous glands get back to work. Skin seems happiest with a five-day buildup of oils.The book has at least one full chapter about rumors of men and women having sex while in weightlessness. And there were supposedly some sex acts performed on airplane flights where weightlessness was simulated by flying upward and doing a slow arc that lasts for about 90 seconds. But it is all officially denied, and probably justly so.
I found it interesting that no one wears shoes in space. I hadn't thought about that, but it's easy to understand. You do not stand on anything, but you often need to hook your toes under handles of some kind to keep yourself steady as you perform some task with your hands.
That was more interesting to me than page after page about the process of recycling urine back into drinking water or chasing particles of poop that might escape when an astronaut does "number 2" into a plastic bag while in space.
January 13, 2022 - I just ended my discussions on the RDForum. I started the discussions on September 26, 2020, about a year and a half ago. While many of the discussions during that time were very educational, they've reached the point where everything is now just repetition of previous arguments. This morning, someone who labels himself "STS-134" posted this as a response to my new paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Second Postulate":
What the hell? If an emitter emits a single photon, that photon has a specific frequency in the emitter's inertial reference frame. If we move to any other inertial reference frame, the single photon will be Doppler shifted in frequency. The shift depends on the difference in velocity between the two inertial reference frames. So yes, there is a Doppler shift when a photon from a moving emitter hits a stationary target, because we had to change reference frames from that of the emitter to that of the target.I was talking about how radar guns work here on main street, and he's talking about inertial reference frames. That shows how there is no possibility of coming to a mutual understanding. We're just not talking about the same things - or in the same language. I'm talking plain English, he's talking mathematical models.
I've thought about starting a discussion on the sci.physics.relativity forum about my latest paper, but, the more I think about it, the more it becomes clear that I do not care what they might think about my paper.
So, maybe it's time once again to think about my book idea where all those discussions and many others are summarized and analyzed. Einstein's Special Relativity is something I find to be absolutely amazing, while at the same time being clear and simple. And it seems like there are countless mathematicians out there whose goal in life is to complicate things in order to show that they are the only person in the universe who really understands what is going on.
January 11, 2022 - Hmm. I received another email this morning that was almost certainly prompted by me putting my new science paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Second Postulate" on viXra.org. The email was from author Jean de Climont and included a link to a 501 page book he composed and titled "The worldwide list of dissident scientists: Critics and alternative theories."
The book lists about 4 entries per page, each with some information about a specific author and what he or she has written about some science subject. The list was compiled in June of 2016. I'm not in it. But, it is searchable, so I looked for the word "special" and found author after author and links to article after article attacking special relativity for one reason or another. Occasionally there would be one which says special relativity is correct. There are probably over a hundred links to articles about Special Relativity.
What it tells me is that my papers are just going to get lost in this heap of science articles. But, looking at viXra.org's statistics I see that 9 people accessed my paper yesterday. I suspect that most of them are on the RDForum where I mentioned the article yesterday. It's really weird. It's like they read the article and then flipped a switch which caused them to rant about things that aren't in the article, things that we argued about before and which they seem to totally misunderstand. They just cannot accept that if light traveling at c hits an observer (or vehicle) traveling at velocity v toward the source of the light, the observer will encounter that light at c+v. Somehow, to them, that means the light is traveling at c+v which is greater than the speed of light and therefore impossible. The cause of their misunderstanding must be something mathematical, since it is totally illogical. And they cannot explain anything except to argue that c+v means something travels at a speed greater than the speed of light. I cannot understand how they can think that way, and they cannot explain why they think that way.
But I find it very interesting that they think that way.
January 10, 2022 - My new science paper titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Second Postulate" is now on viXra.org and on Academia.edu. Interestingly, I think I received my first reaction to it this morning via an email from someone in Moscow, Russia. The email said,
SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations: they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect .Yes, it's just another person ranting about how Einstein was wrong, and it doesn't say anything about my paper (which says Einstein was right), but the emailer's article is on viXra.org, too, and viXra.org mentioned my paper in their daily list of new papers this morning. So, it seems certain that he got my email address from my paper, and he is responding to it by ranting about his own paper and his own beliefs. That is a typical response.
Researching further, I found that his paper was put on viXra.org in 2018, and I downloaded it on June 24 of that year, probably as a result of him sending me an email around that time. He's probably just still looking for someone who is willing to discuss his paper.
Unfortunately, what I'm looking for is someone who is willing to discuss my paper. It has some things in it that should send mathematicians into an uncontrollable, screaming rage. Specifically it says there is such a thing as a "preferred frame of reference," and it suggests a way to find it. In a thousand years we might have the equipment to do it. You just begin by traveling at about 1.5 million miles per hour in the direction that is directly away from the constellation Hydra. We may be able to build the equipment that can do that in less than a thousand years, but we'd also need some way to measure time dilation, specifically the difference in the rate of time for the equipment on that trip versus the rate of time for people back here on Earth. There seems no doubt that the experiment will cause time to speed up for the equipment on that trip, but doing the comparison could require technologies that no one has yet even imagined. Unlike the "twin paradox" where one twin stays home and the other makes a round trip to Alpha Centauri, on this trip time goes faster when you are outbound and goes slower when you return, so the net difference when compared to a person who remained on Earth could be zero. It boggles the mind.
That's why I'm going to have to try to start discussions about it on the RDForum and on sci.physics.relativity.
January 9, 2022 - Okay, I've got another science paper that seems ready for uploading to viXra.org and academia.edu. The paper is titled "Radar Guns and Einstein's Second Postulate." In some ways it may appear to be a total rewrite of my previous paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity." But that paper barely mentioned radar guns, and this one is all about how radar guns easily and undeniably disprove what is stated in most college physics textbooks.
The idea began with that radar gun experiment I developed while arguing on the RDForum where experts in radar guns discuss ways to beat speeding tickets that result from being caught by a police officer using a radar gun, and ways to detect signals from a radar gun before you get caught, so that you have time to slow down.
The more I discussed that experiment, which I described here in my December 27, 2021, comment, the more clear it became that I needed to write a paper about it.
To me, it seems like a fairly important paper, since it clearly shows that most college textbooks contain a totally incorrect version of Einstein's Second Postulate, and it provides abundant proof to verify that the textbook versions are incorrect. Plus, no one has ever been able to name a single experiment which supports what is stated in the textbooks.
While I was writing the paper I kept wanting to add other information about radio frequency photons, such as how FM radio works and how the Doppler Effect can be simulated with radio signals, but none of that had anything to do with the key point of the paper: textbooks are wrong.
In my previous paper about Einstein's Second Postulate I quoted from just five textbooks which contain an incorrect version. In the new paper I quote from ten textbooks that have a totally wrong version, and ten more that have a partially wrong version, and 12 textbooks that have a correct version. I also quote from 3 textbooks which explain why they use the incorrect version. That part of the paper is important enough to merit a paper just on that subject, but without experiments that demonstrate which version of Einstein's Second Postulate is correct, it can seem like it's just a matter of opinion. To avoid opinion-vs-opinion arguments, the new paper doesn't even use the word "mathematicians." It's just about undeniable facts.
If all goes well, and if I don't suddenly discover that I need to do a total rewrite for some reason, the paper should be on-line tomorrow morning.
|Comments for Saturday, January 1,
2022, thru Sat., Jan. 8, 2021:
January 5, 2022 - Hmm. I wonder if I contracted the Omicron variant of the Covid virus, even though I'm fully vaccinated and boosted. On January 1, I woke up with what seemed like a mild cold. The symptoms were a runny nose, a sore throat and a mild cough. But all the symptoms seemed a bit different from a "normal" cold. The snot from my nose was almost as thin as water. My voice was very hoarse from the sore throat, which seemed to be the worst of the symptoms. Things have been getting better since then, and today I think I can safely say the symptoms are all gone.
I thought about getting tested for Covid, but Walgreens and CVS required that I make an appointment. Plus, I read or heard somewhere that they were charging for the tests.
So, I guess I'll never know if I had Omicron or not - unless I didn't have it and I get it sometime in the future.
January 4, 2022 - Hmm. I've been working on a new paper that is now tentatively titled Radios, Radar Guns and Einstein's Second Postulate. All was going very well, and then, on page 8, I found I needed to describe the difference between AM, FM and PM radio transmissions.
PM (Pulse Modulation) is simple enough. It's used for sending Morse Code messages. As long as your finger is pressing on the transmitter key, you are transmitting. Remove your finger from the transmitter key and you stop transmitting. It is then the job of whoever is listening to the transmission to decode what you sent. If you know Morse Code, it is easy peasy. It's very much like turning a light off and on. When the light is on, you're sending out photons. When the light is off, you're not.
AM (Amplitude Modulation) is more complicated, but still fairly easy to understand. You just need a fairly simple device to encode and send signals, and another to receive and decode the signals. It was once the basis for most radio broadcasts. The technique is similar to sending sound waves. Sending more photons produces a louder signal at the other end. To get a higher pitched signal, you send short bursts of photons. That causes the radio speaker at the other end to vibrate faster. Longer bursts of photons make the speaker vibrate slower. They used to record the sound for movies on the movie film. In the image below, the sound recording is the jagged strip just to the left of the picture. In principle, it is very much like how a phonograph works. If you can adjust (modulate) radio frequency photon density in the same way, you can send out radio signals.
FM (Frequency Modulation) is a lot more complicated. I dug through eight books about radio transmitting, looking to see if the oscillation frequency of individual photons was modulated, or was there some kind of modulation of batches of photons of the same frequency? Not a single one of the books uses the word "photon." They all describe how FM radio works in terms of "waves," and you have dig through them and study the wording to see if they actually alter the oscillation frequency of photons or if they somehow combine AM and PM to somehow encode the signal without changing the photon frequencies. A 55 page paper from 1936 HERE explains how the process came about. It appears that they do emit photons of different oscillation frequencies to cause the receiver's speaker to vibrate at different rates. They just never explain things using those words.
Here's how a book titled "Radio Frequency Modulation Made Easy" describes the difference between AM and FM on pages 3 and 4 (which can be read via Amazon's "look inside" feature):
The classical Marconi radio used a modulation technique known today as “Amplitude Modulation” or just AM. In AM, theWhy do the books and papers say "frequency of the carrier" instead of "oscillation frequency of the photons"? And why use the term "sine wave" when "stream of photons" would be more like reality? It appears it is just because it best describes their mathematical models. The fact that the mathematical models do not represent reality is irrelevant if the models produce the correct answers. It's the crazy wave-particle duality issue once again.
As Einstein put it,
"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."And the reason they cannot be merged is because mathematicians cannot cope with the idea of oscillating photons. If that idea doesn't bother you, then suddenly things become incredibly simpler.
I know I've ranted about this before, but it's an issue I keep bumping up against over and over.
January 2, 2022 - While eating lunch yesterday, I finished reading another book on my Kindle. The book was "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe" by J. Richard Gott, who is or was a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University in 2002, when the book was published.
I started reading it in April of 2020, but I evidently lost interest when I was about 45% through. Then, a couple weeks ago, I decided to pick up where I left off. Looking through my notes, I can see why I lost interest. Professor Gott seems to believe the "all observers" version of Einstein's Second Postulate. Here's one note on that topic from early in the book:
With all of this remarkable information at hand, in 1905 Einstein came up with two astonishing postulates. First, the effects of the laws of physics should look the same to every observer in uniform motion (motion at a constant speed in a constant direction, without turning), and second, the velocity of light through empty space should be the same as witnessed by every observer in uniform motion.That, of course, conflicts with the way radar guns operate. An observer in uniform motion heading at speed v toward a source of light (i.e., toward a radar gun) will see the light which is traveling at c from the radar gun arrive at c+v, his speed plus the speed of light.
Another quote, also from early in the book:
Einstein based his second postulate on the fact that Maxwell’s equations predicted that in empty space, electromagnetic waves would propagate at 300,000 kilometers per second. If you were “at rest,” light should pass you at that speed. If you saw a light beam pass you at any other speed, that would constitute evidence that you were not “at rest.” (In fact, Michelson and Morley had hoped to use this effect to prove the Earth was not “at rest,” but they failed.) Einstein thought that all observers in uniform motion should be able to consider themselves “at rest” and should therefore always see light beams passing them at 300,000 kilometers per second. Einstein’s second postulate meant that an observer traveling at high velocity and performing the Michelson-Morley experiment must always fail to get a result.I think "at rest" means "in an inertial frame." The passage I highlighted in red could make sense if that was the case, but Professor Gott seems to have his own unique understanding of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and his Second Postulate. He's a mathematician, of course. Much of the latter part of the book is about calculating the odds of some event occurring. It's mostly silly gibberish to me, since I cannot see the sense in this kind of comment (another quote from the book):
How long is the human spaceflight program likely to continue? In my May 27, 1993, Nature paper I noted that the program was only 32 years old; and I predicted with 95 percent confidence that it would last at least another 10 months but less than another 1,250 years. Since my paper’s publication, the human spaceflight program has lasted longer than the 10 month predicted minimum, proving half of my prediction correct already.Duh! Who would have disagreed in 1993 that America's spaceflight program would last at least another 10 months, but less than another 1,250 years? It's like some kid saying he expects to live at least another week but less than a million years.
Here's another interesting quote from late in the book:
In 1989, President Bush promised to send humans to Mars by 2019.That's George H. W. Bush, not George W. Bush. In case you haven't been paying attention, it didn't happen.
Here's the last quote I saved from the book:
Time travel is a project for supercivilizations. Time travel to the future requires a civilization already accustomed to interstellar travel. Time travel to the past could be attempted by supercivilizations commanding the energy resources of an entire galaxy.I wonder how he thinks time travel into the past is possible. It is total nonsense to me. And it's another reason why I cannot recommend the book.
January 1, 2022 - I wish everyone a Happy New Year! I certainly hope that 2022 will be better than 2021.