Archive for
April 2022

Comments for Sunday, April 24, 2022, thru Sat., April 30, 2022:

April 28, 2022 - I just put an end to another discussion I started on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  I started the discussion about "Stationary Points in Space" on April 23rd, just before shutting down my computer for the day.  As of this moment, 11:49 AM on the 28th, the thread contains 160 messages, with probably close to a third of them being my responses to posts to me from others.

This discussion seemed a lot more interesting than virtually every other discussion I've had on that forum.  I didn't change any minds, of course, but explaining things helped me to understand a few things that I had really never thought about before.

One of the most bizarre arguments I had was with several people who seemingly could not understand how research is done.  When I research a subject, I may go through a hundred books to see what they each have to say on that subject.  When I described that process to them, the response from "Paparios" was:
By which you are just acknowledging that you select some parts of those books, which you believe, in your uninformed opinion, support your beliefs.
No, I just look to see if there are different explanations of things, and which explanations seem to make the most sense.

Here is how "Odds Bodkin" responded:
No, that’s a bad program for books. A REALLY bad idea. Books are not like encyclopedias with little independent articles in them. If there is something on page 198, it is implicit that you already understand the material in pages 1-197 and it’s going to USE that implication in presenting what’s on 198. It is IMPOSSIBLE in a book to understand correctly what’s on page 198 unless you already know the stuff in pages 1-197.

If this is how you have modeled your “research”, then it is no wonder you have absolutely no understanding of anything in books and the only things you have absorbed are short web articles you’ve been able to digest as a whole in a sitting.
So, you can't do research on a topic unless you read every book from cover to cover and understand everything in every book?

How can anyone be so far removed from reality?

Years ago, one of the first physics topics I researched was Einstein's Second Postulate.  It is absolutely clear when reading Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" what his Second Postulate is.  On the first page he describes it as "another postulate" following the postulate he just gave as his first postulate.  He then comments on his two postulates, and he never uses the word "postulate" again anywhere in the entire paper.

But in some discussion someone gave something totally different as "Einstein's Second Postulate."  So, I researched where he got that version from.

When I researched what physics textbooks had to say about Einstein's Second Postulate, I found that it was rare to find any two textbooks which used the same wording.  Some authors picked a phrase from elsewhere in the paper and gave that as Einstein's "second postulate," some authors used their own wording, and almost NONE used the second postulate as Einstein gave it.  I was stunned, and I wrote a paper about it.

Reading each of the books in its entirety might have given me a better idea of how each author got his version, but I could do that later if it became important or interesting. 

Probably the most arguments I had on that forum during the past few days were about where the Big Bang occurred.  Mostly they argued that it occurred "everywhere."  But logically that makes no sense.  The universe began as radiation spreading out from some point.  The radiation then formed particles.  Some of those particles then collected to form into the Milky Way galaxy, and within that galaxy some particles formed into the sun and earth.  When people talk about the Big Bang occurring everywhere, they talk about how nearly all the galaxies are moving away from each other.  They do not talk about the time when particles were collecting together to form those galaxies.

I could go on and on, but probably the most interesting argument was about how I shouldn't read books about science and physics, I should only read textbooks.  That made me wonder about the differences I have seen between what science books say versus what physics textbooks say.  Have I ever seen an incorrect version of Einstein's Second Postulate in a science book?  I don't think so.  And I know I've seen descriptions of the Big Bang which say it happened outside of our observable universe.  I just never before thought about comparing what science book authors say versus what textbook authors say.

If I can ever find the time, that might be something interesting to research.

April 25, 2022
- During lunch on Saturday, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "All About Me!: My Remarkable Life in Show Business" by Mel Brooks:

All About Me - Mel Brooks

I started reading it because I was looking for something humorous to read, after reading "Ha!" which I thought would be funnier than it turned out to be.  Reading only during breakfast and lunch, It took me over a month to read "All About Me!", and it too wasn't as funny as I had hoped it would be.  There were lots of parts that were hilarious, and I enjoyed reading about the making of the movies Mel Brooks played in, starred in or directed.  In the evenings, if I hadn't seen them in at least 8 years, I would dig copies out of my DVD collection, and watch them, such as "Blazing Saddles," "Spaceballs" and  "The Producers."

Mel Brooks was born in 1926.  He's still alive today at age 95.  He served in World War II as a radio man for a field artillery unit.  He was married to Anne Bancroft for decades.  Here's a quote from the book:
Later, as the 2000 Year Old Man with Carl Reiner I explained the difference between comedy and tragedy: If I cut my finger, that’s tragedy. Comedy is if you walk into an open sewer and die.
I was on the very first Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson on October 1, 1962, along with Groucho Marx, Joan Crawford, Rudy Vallee, and Tony Bennett. It was the first appearance in a long association with Johnny Carson that really helped me to become a famous comedy name.
The book was published in November of last year, so it even mentions the Covid pandemic.  However, it is also 480 pages long, which means, for me, that it got a bit repetitious, particularly all the "name dropping."  He mentions everyone who he worked with, and he worked with a lot of people over the decades, many of them more than once.

But, overall I enjoyed the book and can recommend it.

April 24, 2022
- I can't stop thinking about "stationary points in space." It is just mind-boggling to me that others haven't mentioned how Einstein's Second Postulate basically says that there are stationary points in space. That postulate is:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
If light is emitted at a "definite velocity" that has nothing to do with the "motion of the emitting body," what is that velocity relative to?  It seems clear that it is relative to a "stationary point in space," since Einstein says that his theory makes the luminiferous ether "superfluous," and the imaginary luminiferous ether was created in order to give mathematicians something stationary against which to measure all other motion.

When I posted my paper on "Stationary Points in Space" to, a guy named "Mikko" responded negatively, as he does to just about every paper I write.  ("Mikko" is apparently Finnish for "Michael.")  I then responded to his criticisms, going through his key comments one by one to show that they were either wrong or off topic.  To my surprise, an administrator for the site evidently deleted my response.  That had never happened before. 

I really wanted some place to discuss "Stationary Points in Space," so I tried creating a thread about it on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group.  Then something happened that had also never happened before.  My comment simply remained in limbo, awaiting some administrator to approve it.  Here's what I tried to post:
                      post to Facebook about stationary points

As you can see, I tried posting it on April 3, and it has remained there as "pending" for three weeks.

Yesterday, I tried something else.  There's one place where I can create a discussion thread and there is no "administrator" who can delete it or just sit on it forever without allowing it to be posted.  That place is my own blog "My Thoughts on the Changing World."   So, I created a new thread there which, of course, I titled "Stationary Points in Space."

Because I am the administrator of that blog, nothing gets posted until I approve it.   Otherwise, it would just be filled with personal attacks.

I then went back to and typed a response to "Mikko" telling him that if he wanted to discuss the topic with me, he can do so on my blog, and I provided the link.  As of this moment, that message is still there.  And Mikko responded on my blog.  But then he argued further on, so I'll copy that argument to my blog and respond there.

And, since I had never discussed "stationary points in space" on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, I started a thread about it there.  This morning I see there are four new posts there.  But one simply says "no" and one other is a response to someone else.  Responding to the two others might prove interesting.

Meanwhile, it was just mind-boggling to me that I had never read anything anywhere that mentions how Einstein's Second Postulate implies that there are "stationary points in space."  Yesterday, I did a Google search for "stationary points in space" and got a whole list of places where that term is used.  But they are all just theories related to how there can be a point in space that is stationary relative to another point in space (even though neither point is truly "stationary," they're just keeping the same distance from each other).  The only exceptions seem to be links to my paper.

So, now I have to respond to the posts on sci.physics.relativity and on my blog.  It could be interesting.  I really find the subject fascinating.  I wish there were others who do also.

Comments for Sunday, April 17, 2022, thru Sat., April 23, 2022:

April 21, 2022 - Hmm.  When I sit at my computer, I have a bunch of 3-ring binders holding screenplays atop a bookcase right in front of me.  For some reason I recently started to wonder if those screenplays, which I wrote back in the 1990s, were typed on a typewriter, or if I wrote them on a computer using Microsoft WORD.  So, this morning I dug into my backup computer files to see if I had a folder for screenplays somewhere.  I turned out I did, but it didn't contain all eleven.

My screenplays

And NONE of them are in a format that is fully compatible with Microsoft WORD, not even the .DOC files. 

Sometimes when I open a .DOC file, it doesn't use my current version of WORD, it gets another version from somewhere and the screenplay is presented in "protected mode," which means I cannot change it or even print it.  I can, however, copy and paste it into WORD as a .DOCX file, but the screenplay will need at least an hour of work to get it into a readable format, and even then it will not be in true screenplay format because WORD doesn't seem to have any way of putting both the screenplay name and the page number at the top of each page.

Other times when I try to open a .DOC file for a different screenplay, I get a "File Conversion" window which seems to indicate that the file was written on a DOS machine and needs to be converted to OS.  I can do all that, but the screenplay would still need at least a day's work to get it into a readable format.

Some files are in .FDR format.  FDR is the format used by "Final Draft," a program used for writing screenplays.  I don't think I have that program anymore.  It was probably on a CD that you had to insert into your computer when you wanted to use it.  But, if I want to start writing screenplays again, I could buy a new copy from Amazon for $40. 

I'm not going to start writing screenplays again.  I had an agent back then, but he was never able to sell any of my screenplays, even though they got some praise at meetings.  I found a note that says Rivers of Iron "placed in the top 10 percent in the 2000 Nicholl Fellowships screenwriting contest run by AMPAS" (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), and Shook "finished in the top 10 percent in the 2000 Austin Film Festival screenwriting contest."  I remember attending the Austin Film Festival in 2000.  While there, I spent some time wandering around Austin, including going to the top of the tower where some crazy guy had recently positioned himself with a rifle to shoot strangers on the street below.

All this reminiscing, of course, is keeping me from working on my latest book. 

April 20, 2022
- Yesterday, I finished a major revision to my paper "Stationary Points in Space" and I uploaded it to I added an illustration, plus a lot of explanatory details and eight "implications."  Here's the illustration I added:
Spherical light wave
                                            from a moving light source.
It shows a light source moving from the lower left to the upper right.  I used a light bulb because I wasn't sure of the best way to draw a star or sun.  The bulb emits light for an instant at the mid-way point on its path.  That light is emitted from a "stationary point in space."  As the paper explains, we know it's a stationary point because when we look at a galaxy like Andromeda, we see it where it was located 2,537,000 years ago, not where it is today.  Einstein must have realized that when he developed his Second Postulate:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Like most people, I interpreted that Second Postulate as meaning that the speed of the emitter does not add to the speed of light, thereby debunking the "Emission Theory" which was widely accepted in 1905 when Einstein wrote his paper about Special Relativity.  It does indeed say that, but it also says a lot more.  As the illustration shows, light photons are emitted at the same speed in all directions, including back in the direction from where the emitter came.  If light is emitted at the same speed in all directions, and if light travels in a straight line from that point of emission to your telescope, that is the same as saying that light must be emitted from a "stationary point in space."  If the emission point wasn't stationary, the light couldn't travel in a straight line from that point, and light could not travel at the same speed in all directions.

One of the eight implications I describe in the paper is #6:
The sixth implication is that, because all light is emitted from stationary points in space, there can be no “red-shifting” or “blue-shifting” due to the emitter’s speed away from or toward an observer on Earth. 
As Einstein's Second Postulate says, the emitter's speed doesn't affect the speed of light, c.  And that leads to Implication #7:
The light will appear to be blue-shifted to a higher frequency if the Earth is moving toward that stationary point in space, and the light will appear to be red-shifted to a lower frequency if the Earth is moving away from that stationary point in space.
How can the Earth be moving away from all those points in space?  The 8th implication is that the universe must be expanding.  That is the only way we can be moving away from all those points.  When the space between galaxies is expanding, the Earth and most galaxies are moving away from each other.  In effect, we are both moving away from some point somewhere between us.  Our motion and only our motion away from that point causes the red-shift we observe.  That is confirmed by the "annual Doppler effect," where we see stars and galaxies as red-shifted when the Earth in its orbit around the sun is moving away from those bodies, and blue-shifted when the Earth is moving toward those bodies.  It also implies that at some point in the distant past, all objects were in the same place, and then there was some kind of "Big Bang" that caused everything to move away from everything else.

It still boggles my mind that people will argue against this.  It appears that the only reason they have for such arguments is that there is no object marking those "stationary points in space."  If there is no object remaining at the point of emission, tracing a photon of light back to its point of origin ends up at a point in empty spaceLogically, that must be where the photon was emitted, but mathematically there is nothing still there to measure distances from.  That evidently makes it incomprehensible to most mathematicians.

April 18, 2022
- I'm once again back to work on my new book "Logical Relativity," but it's slow going.  The Introduction I'd previously written for the book was all about how I got interested in Einstein's theories about Relativity.  Looking at that Introduction again, I began to wonder "Who cares?"  So, I moved it to the end of the book and renamed it: "About the Author."  That meant I had to write a new "Introduction."  Yesterday, I
did that, and what I wrote required that I also write a new first chapter.  That's where I am now, writing a chapter about "Stationary Points in Space," using my paper on that topic as a starting point. 

While I was bumbling around trying to figure out the best way to introduce the idea of "Stationary Points in Space," I spent some time downloading podcasts.  I watched some late night talk show last week where Bill Maher was a guest.  On that show Maher talked about the new podcast he had just started.  Curious, the next day I researched it.  It's called "Club Random," and the outlet I found that provides the easiest way to download and save the MP3 files also has a bunch of other podcasts that I had never heard of before.  The one that really caught my eye was "Star Trek: The Pod Directive."  A podcast about Star Trek???  I have every episode of the original series and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" on DVD, plus lots of episodes of "Star Trek Voyager."  Although I watched every episode when they were re-aired on BBC America a few years ago, I didn't particularly enjoy "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" or "Star Trek: Enterprise."  And there were several more recent Star Trek series that were on networks I never paid to access. 

Anyway, I had to download a few episodes of the Star Trek: The Pod Directive podcast just to find out what they were all about.  They turned out to be just talk about various people's favorite Star Trek TV shows and movies.  One had Ben Stiller talking about how much he loved the shows and watched nearly every episode.  Another had John Hodgman doing the same thing, only with a lot more detail.

I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't just a gabfest with people talking about their favorite Star Trek episodes and movies.  The podcast is in its second year, which says something, I suppose.  However, there are a couple dozen other science podcasts, history podcasts and interview podcasts that I want to catch up on first.  Many hundreds of hours of individual shows.  I just need to find the time.

April 17, 2022
- I wish everyone a very happy Easter!

Comments for Friday, April 10, 2022, thru Sat., April 16, 2022:

April 13, 2022 - Yesterday, I managed to break away from just staring at my computer while trying to get back to work on my book, and I began getting ready to throw two of my old computers into the trash.  Here's a picture I took of them when I had all the items in one place:

My old computers

The tan and black computer has been setting on a shelf in a closet for probably more than 15 years.
  The damn thing seems to weigh about 50 pounds, but it's probably closer to 30.  The "newer" gray-colored computer weighs a few pounds less.  The keyboards and speakers connect by cables with round plugs that fit into round sockets.  The screen connects to the computer via a "HD 15 Male to Male VGA video cable."  So, there are no USB sockets or plugs on anything.

And the tan and black computer seems to be DOS, so it is from the time before OS.  I wanted to make sure there was no personal information on the hard drive, but I'm not sure it even has a hard drive.  I think I had to put a CD in the CD player if I wanted to run some program.  The gray computer has a hard drive, and I erased all my personal files from it, but I've decided I'm also going to take the two computers apart before I throw them away.  That will solve two problems: (1) it will make it easier to carry the pieces to the dumpster across the street, and (2) it will guarantee that there is no personal information left in either computer.

Before doing any of this I checked to see if there is any kind of market for old computers.  There doesn't seem to be.  Even the metals in old computers are worth less than the metals in newer computers.

The search also reminded me that really old computers had TV screens that were at the end of TV tubes, not the flat screen kind shown in the picture.  I remember my first computer was one of those.  But, right now I need to get rid of the stuff in the picture instead of just spending hours writing and thinking about it.

April 11, 2022
- This morning I finished Section 5 of my simplification of Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," which brought me to Part II of the paper, which begins with 4 sections where Einstein explains how his theory doesn't contradict other theories about related subjects.  Groan!  I just don't have the will-power to dig into those sections right now.  The only reason I got as far as I have is because the realization that all light photons are emitted from stationary points in space boggled my mind, and I had to work through all the implications to make sure I understood them.

I think I've done that.  So, now I need to get back to work on my new book "Logical Relativity."  I'm beginning the "second draft," going through the first 12 chapters to see if anything needs improvement, and to see if there are places where I should mention "stationary points in space."

I don't have to re-write anything.  There's nothing in the book that would disagree with "stationary points in space."  It's something that explains things I haven't previously explained.  It makes things more clear.

Before beginning work on the Einstein stuff, I finished downloading some more podcasts.  I think I've got a backlog of maybe two solid months of listening time if I listen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  

Some of the new podcasts I downloaded look very interesting.  One episode of the Space Nuts podcast from 17 weeks ago, for instance, is titled "Einstein Challenged."  It's about scientists trying to find flaws in Einstein's theories, since finding something that disagrees with Einstein would be a truly MAJOR discovery.  It's a 49 minute podcast, and I managed to listen to the first 14 minutes, which initially didn't seem to be about Einstein, it was about two pulsars that orbit one another, but then it turned out that those two pulsars provided a verification of some part of Einstein's theories about gravity.

So much to do, and so few hours in a day.  Sigh.

April 10, 2022
- This is another Sunday when I have nothing prepared for my Sunday comment.  So, I'm writing this from scratch. 

The reason I don't have anything prepared is because I've been stuck for days on writing just one page for my new paper
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - Simplified."  It's the page on which I am trying to simplify Section 4, which is titled "Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks."  It's also the section in which Einstein explains how he deduced that the faster an object travels, the slower Time must pass for that object.  As the title of the section says, it is an explanation of the equations involved.  And, according to Einstein, because of what the equations say,
From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by ½tv2/c2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

In other words, time ticks slower for the moving clock.  Einstein deduced that by starting with the fact that velocity is distance divided by the time it takes to travel that distance.  So, 10 miles distance traveled in 1 hour of time = 10 miles per hour velocity.

Distance is not really a variable.  Yes, the distance can be 1 mile, 10 yards or 50 kilometers, but 1 mile is a fixed distance everywhere in the entire universe, and so is 10 yards and 50 kilometers.  Velocity, on the other hand, is variable for everything except the speed of light, which is always measured to be
299,792,458 meters per second.  That means that, in order for the First Postulate to be true ("the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good"), the length of a second MUST be a variable in those equations of mechanics. 

But I'm just stating what is known to be true.  Exactly how Einstein figured out that velocity causes time to slow down is still unclear to me.  And if I continue to sit here pondering that question, it could take me a week or more just to finish this comment.  Or maybe I've already figured it out, but I don't know how to explain exactly what it is that I figured out.

Yesterday I became so frustrated that I spent nearly the entire day just downloading science podcasts, even though I haven't listened to any podcasts in over a month.  Today I'm tempted to just turn off my computer and to spend the day listening to science podcasts. 

Needless to say, work on my new book has come to a complete stop.  What I've learned about light being emitted from stationary points in space is not in the book and definitely needs to be added.  The same with exactly how Einstein deduced that the length of a second is variable.

Comments for Friday, April 1, 2022, thru Sat., April 9, 2022:

April 6, 2022 - Yesterday, while on my way to the gym, I stopped in at my local vaccination center and got my second booster shot for Covid.  I had some thoughts about not getting the shot, since I think I caught the Omicron variant back in January, and it was just a mild cough and a sore throat that lasted for a few days.  But, the experts recommend that everyone get the second booster, so I got it.  Better safe than sorry.

Meanwhile, a few days ago I began working on a new paper titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - Simplified."  I first started it many months ago, maybe years ago, but I never got very far with it.  This time, however, I'm making progress.  As the title says, it is just a very-much simplified version of Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.  The reason I gave up on earlier tries is that it is not an easy paper to simplify.

But it's worthwhile to try, since I discovered something yesterday that caused my jaw to drop open.  It's in Section 3, which is titled "Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former."  Groan.  I didn't even try to simplify that title.  But when reading the text of that section, I came across this (with my highlighting):
We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.   
In other words, he's going to show that his two postulates are compatible even if they do not initially appear compatible (and many college physics textbook declare that they are not compatible).

Einstein then describes how "circular waves" of light move away from a given point whether that point is in a stationary system or in a moving system.   In other words, the two "waves" expand outward from fixed points in space, not from any theoretical "system." 
What is a "circular wave"?  Evidently, it is photons moving away in all directions from a fixed point in space as shown in the illustration I created below.

Circular Wave

If photons travel at the same speed in all directions away from the point in space where they were emitted, regardless of the speed of the emitter, as Einstein's Second Postulate says, and if it doesn't matter if the emission point is in a stationary or moving "system" because “the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good,” just as the First Postulate states, then, according to Einstein:
“This shows that our two fundamental principles [postulates] are compatible.”
Yes, it does.  But it also appears to show that common interpretations of Einstein's FIRST postulate are incorrect.  If light is emitted from a fixed point in space, that point will move inside a moving "system."  And it will move even if you consider the "system" to be stationary, because there is nothing in our observable universe that is stationary except the points at which light is emitted.  

Wow!  That boggles the mind!  It probably means I should add some illustrations to my paper on "Stationary Points in Space" and go more into the details, but I think I'll first try to finish "simplifying" Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.    

April 4, 2022
- My new paper "Stationary Points in Space" is now on-line at this link: doesn't yet show any reads for it, but some guy named "Mikko" who makes a negative comment about every article I write, wrote this comment:
In the article the author expresses his disbelief in Galilean relativity and all newer relativity theories. No attempt to support this disbelief with any empirical evidence is made.

The author says that a star is seen not where it is but it was when the light we see was emitted. However, the author fails to mention that a star is not always seen in the same place. Instead, the observed position moves each year 20" to one side of the mean observed position and then 20" to the other side. See e.g.
Galilean relativity?  According to the principle of Galilean relativity, if Isaac Newton’s laws are true in any reference frame, they are also true in any other frame moving at constant velocity with respect to the first one.  My paper isn't about what two different observers see.  It's just about the speed of light and where light originates.  Mikko seems to just want to argue his beliefs, the way the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum do.  No concern is paid to trying to understand what the other person is saying.

His second paragraph is about how an observer will see a star in a slightly different location (as much as 20 archseconds different) when the observer moves with the earth's orbit around the sun.  My article is not about moving observers, it is about the fact that the star emitting light is moving, and we see its light coming from the location where the star was, not where it currently is.  It's about the speed of light from a moving emitter.  The fact that the observer is also moving is irrelevant.  But, if all you understand is mathematics, then you might have a problem.

I awoke this morning thinking that perhaps I should have included an illustration in my paper, an illustration showing that while light travels from a star, the star moves away from the emission point.  But do you really need an illustration to understand that?  A mathematician probably does, and he'll undoubtedly complain that the illustration just shows the emitter and the path that the light travels, it doesn't show a moving observer.

If I included an observer in such an illustration, it would just be the location where the observer was located when a light photon arrived.  That means the mathematicians will probably argue that light travels as "rays" or "waves."

My papers are about how I understand things. If mathematicians cannot understand things the same way, that's not my problem.

April 3, 2022
- While the discussion thread about a question I had regarding the trajectory of light on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum has turned into endless arguments between others on the forum over the meaning of words, I'm still thinking about the questions I had when I started the thread. 

Yesterday, I sat down at my computer and wrote a scientific paper on the topic "Stationary Points in Space."  And I finished it.  It's only 3 pages long, with some references on a 4th page, but it contains what seems to be a significantly different view on Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.  While it doesn't change anything, it's mind-boggling in its implications.

I'm going to read it again a few dozen times, and if I cannot find any real problems with it, I'll submit it to later today.  The title alone should generate a lot of reads.  Stationary points in space?  I know it will upset mathematicians.  They'll rant, "How can you have a "stationary point" in something that has no boundaries from which to measure whether it is stationary or not?"  That's one reason why mathematicians dreamed up the "luminiferous ether," so they would have something to measure the speed of light against.  Einstein showed that there was no reason to need a "luminiferous ether," because the speed of light can be measured relative to stationary points in space.  Unfortunately, he never phrased things that way. And for years I've been thinking he meant that you do not need a "luminiferous ether" because all speeds can be measured as relative to the speed of light.  There are complications with that idea (the speed of light varies with the location of the source), but there do not appear to be any complications with the idea that all light originates at a stationary point in space.
Think about it. When we look through a telescope at the Andromeda Galaxy, we do not see Andromeda where it is located today, we see it where it was located 2,537,000 years ago.  Its light came to us in a straight line from a stationary point in space where the Andromeda Galaxy was located two and a half million years ago!  And when we look at the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, we see it located where it was 4.4 years ago, not where it is today as it orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

And, of course, once my new paper is available on, I'll probably mention it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  Instead of discussing the science, they'll almost certainly just argue over word definitions, but I want to see what others think of the idea.  I might even post something to the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group.  The discussions there are usually more civil. 

If someone can explain to me where I'm wrong, I can always delete the paper from  But, of course, it would have to be something that I agree is wrong.  It can't just be an argument over what the word "stationary" means, or an argument that there is no such thing as a photon because light consists of waves or rays.

April 1, 2022
- The two threads I started on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum on Monday have become a total waste of time for me.   The people there are now just arguing with one another, and the arguments have nothing to do with the topics I used to start the threads.  The thread I started on the topic of errors in physics textbooks is now on some totally unrelated topic.  Here are the last ten posts in that thread (A responded to me, B responded to A, and C responded to B):
A: Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what the words mean.

B:To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. [A is a woodworker.  He signs his posts that way.]

C: Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s language devised by them for purpose.

B: For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
means they know what the words mean. Sorry.

C: Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is irrelevant to that

B: No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling AH
" a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.

C: No, that’s not an example of jargon.

B: Because an idiot woodworker says so? If "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", poor halfbrain?

C: Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking special meanings specific to that community.
On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning special to the community of physics.
Duh. As mentioned before, if you don’t know what “jargon” means, you can look that word up.

B: Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz. You really do need to look up "jargon".

BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the phrase, is the jargon. It describes a particular type of time measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a jargon phrase "proper time" evolved.

Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory.
B's relatively lengthy comment was posted about 30 minutes ago. It's the last message in the thread.  As you can see, there's no reason for me to join in on such an argument. 

I told them all that I was leaving before the discussion above started.

The last few messages on the other thread are arguments about throwing a basketball while dodging an opponent.  The argument is that dodging while throwing doesn't change the trajectory of the basketball.  Somehow they see that argument as related to my discussion about photons being emitted sideways from a moving rocket ship. I see no reason to go with them on their screwball tangent.

© 2022 by Ed Lake