Archive for
January 2022

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.

Packing for Mars

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.

It is a property of our Universe that no inertial reference frame is special and no experimental result depends on which inertial reference frame you're in. Experimental results depend only on the differences in velocity, not absolute velocities. 
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  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'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 and on  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 .
     First, Lorentz considered a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor), but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without  proper grounds. Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect. This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes.
     Accordingly, GRT is also incorrect. 
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, too, and 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 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 and 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.

signal lamp

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. 
sound on film strip

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, the
amplitude of the carrier changes in accordance with the input analog signal, while the frequency of the carrier remains the same.

In Frequency Modulation (FM), the frequency of the carrier changes in accordance with the input modulation signal as shown in Fig. 1.2 [5]. Notice that in FM, only the frequency changes while the amplitude remains the same.
Why 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.
Time Travel in Einstein's Universe

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.


© 2022 by Ed Lake