Archive for
July 2022

Comments for Sunday, July 24, 2022, thru Sun., July 31, 2022:

July 31, 2022 - The price of regular gas at the station just down the street from me dropped another 7 cents yesterday.  It's now $3.929 per gallon. I'll probably fill my tank this afternoon.

Meanwhile, I've been working every day on my new paper which is still tentatively titled "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light," and I think I'm nearing the point where I'll have a good first draft.

It also looks like the paper will show that I made errors in several of my other papers.  And I will definitely need to overhaul my web page on "Variable Speed of Light Experiments.NONE of the experiments listed on that page show that the speed of light is not always 299,792,458 meters per second (also known by its mathematical symbol c).  The experiments just show that kinetic energy can be added to the energy of a photon when that photon hits a moving object.

In all the arguing I've done about "the variable speed of light," I don't think anyone ever pointed out my error.  They just argued incorrect theories of their own, usually that there is no such thing as Time Dilation.  Or they would simply claim that light is always sent and received at c, but they would never offer any evidence to support that claim.  One of the authors of the papers showing that the speed of light is "variable," wrote this:
It is troubling that there are no unambiguous, positive experimental results in the photon sector to support the local Lorentz invariance of c.
He's right.  There are no such experiments.  There are only experiments which supposedly show the variance of c.  But, my new paper will explain that those experiments show no such thing.

I'd better end this comment here, since I may seem like a raving madman to 99.99999999999999% of the people on earth.

July 29, 2022
- Monday through Thursday, and sometimes on Friday I use my DVR to record a bunch of different late night talk shows: Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show," Seth Meyers'  "Late Night," Trevor Noah's "The Daily Show," Jimmy Kimmel's "Jimmy Kimmel Live," Samantha Bee's "Full Frontal" and sometimes Jimmy Fallon's "The Tonight Show" when he has interesting guests.  Then I watch those shows the next evening, skipping over the commercials, the music guests and anything else that doesn't seem interesting to me.

I'm sometimes surprised when they talk about news stories that I didn't see on the news shows I watch.  Last night there was a good example on "The Daily Show."  Trevor Noah talked about how some counties in Oregon want to secede from Oregon and become part of Idaho.  Huh? 

Checking the Internet this morning, I found lots of news stories about it. There are even some counties in Washington State and California that want to become part of "greater Idaho."

Greater Idaho

There are 9 counties in Oregon which have already voted to become part of Idaho, and 2 more which plan to vote that way.

It's all about politics, of course.  Idaho is conservative, and conservative Republican counties in Oregon want to secede from the liberal parts of Oregon and become part of conservative Idaho.

Fortunately, it cannot be done via a simple vote by a county.  It requires approval from the United States Congress, plus the state governments of Idaho and Oregon.  That could be a problem since the counties that want to join Idaho are mostly rural and have only 9% of Oregon's population while having 62% of Oregon's land.

Meanwhile, even though I can skip over the commercials on the evening talk shows, I watch the evening news directly and therefore cannot skip over their commercials.  And right now most of the commercials are about different candidates for Wisconsin governor, the U.S. Senate and congress.  And the Republicans seem to be running some of the nastiest people I've ever seen.  They not only use lies to attack the Democrats, they seem to be even more vicious when they attack each other.

That sometimes seems to be the only "good news" on TV.  Republicans are attacking each other.

July 27, 2022
- Hmm.  The price of gas at the station down the street dropped another 10 cents.  The price of regular is now $3.99
9 per gallon.  I suspect it will stay at that price for awhile, but I could be wrong.  I still have more than half a tankful, so I can still wait awhile to fill up.

I watched both of the shows about Malaysia Flight MH370 on the History Channel last night.  I set my VCR to record the shows, and while the VCR was recording the 1-hour episode and the first 35 minutes of the 2-hour episode, I listened to a podcast in which theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss interviewed Woody Allen for an hour and 47 minutes. 
It was an interesting discussion about acting and writing.  I found the discussion about writing to be particularly interesting because they compared writing science papers versus writing fiction.  When writing science papers, you start out just laying down known information without really knowing where the paper will end.  When writing fiction, you start with creating an the ending and then you write what is needed to reach that ending.

I've done both, but I never really thought about the difference in how the writing is done.  Right now I'm doing another revision of a paper tentatively titled "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."  I've never written the conclusion for the paper because I keep revising the order in which I need to describe known facts so that I can reach a conclusion.

When I started watching the new 2-hour show about flight MH370, I'd recorded about 35 minutes of it, and therefore I was able to fast-forward past nearly all of the 37 minutes of commercials, finishing when the show finished at about 9 p.m.  Then I watched the 1 hour show, fast-forwarding past the commercials.

There wasn't anything both interesting and new in the two shows.  There were lots of new interviews with relatives of the passengers who went missing when MH370 went missing in March of 2014, but there wasn't anything particularly interesting in them.  What I found interesting was that the new 2-hour show didn't even mention the satellite data that indicated MH370 ended up somewhere in the Indian Ocean.  And the 1-hour episode ended with a conspiracy theory that Russians hijacked MH370 and flew it to Afghanistan and then into Russia.  There was no explanation for why the Russians would do that.  It was all the conspiracy theories about MH370 that got me interested.  The facts clearly show that MH370 ended up in the Indian ocean about about 2,000 miles west of Perth, Australia.  But, if facts mean nothing to you, there's plenty of material for creating dozens of conspiracy theories, each dumber than the next. 

One point made clear in both shows was that the Malaysian government isn't going to spend any more money trying to locate the plane.  If some new evidence shows up indicating exactly where the plane went down, someone else is going to have to pay to verify it.

There's a good article about MH370 from Singapore's Straits Times HERE. It contains a whole section about the many theories that try to explain what "actually" happened to MH370.

July 26, 2022
- While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook, and the MAGA Media Are Destroying America" by Dan Pfeiffer.

Battling the Big Lie

I've got 16 pages of notes from the book.  Here's a sample from page xii of the Introduction:
People like to say that Democrats and Republicans now live in two separate realities, but that is incorrect. Democrats live in the real world, and Republicans live in a deeply delusional alternative ecosystem. The insurrection and the subsequent rewriting of history are proof that the Republicans have mastered a form of politics that depends on disinformation and propaganda. They have built a megaphone that drowns out the truth and any and all dissenting views.
And here's another quote from page xiii of the Introduction:
Over a period of decades, the Republican Party built up a massive propaganda and disinformation apparatus that allows them to dominate politics despite representing a shrinking share of the electorate. This “MAGA megaphone” is embodied by Fox News and powered by Facebook and gives the GOP the power to bend reality.
For several decades I've considered Fox News to be nothing more than a Republican propaganda outlet.  It's on one of the TVs at my gym, on a wall right in front of me when I do my 20 minutes on a stationary bicycle.  There's another TV attached to the bicycle, and I can change the channel on that one to watch CNN, which I can also do while on the treadmill.  So, I can, in effect, watch both CNN and Fox at the same time.  It can be interesting to see how Fox News twists things and ignores news that make Republicans look bad.

One thing that surprised me in the book was the repeated mention of Facebook as being part of the Republican "megaphone."  On June 6, 2016, I created a Facebook page titled "Time and Time Dilation."  But I soon got bored with it, and I rarely post anything there.  However, I belong to other Facebook groups, like Astrophysics and Cosmology, Science Fiction, and Ancient History and Mystery, that I check nearly every day.  No one has ever pitched any Right Wing propaganda at me on those forums.  In fact, it says on some of them that talking politics is forbidden and will get you tossed off the forum.

Apparently, however, there are many Facebook groups I've never seen which do nothing but discuss Right Wing and MAGA politics.  Here's a quote about Facebook:
No matter his original intent, Mark Zuckerberg had built a pro-Trump platform. No matter what they tell themselves, the people working for Facebook are working to push Trumpism. Without Facebook, there is no Trump. Without Facebook, there is no January 6 insurrection. And if Trump is reelected president in 2024, it will be because of Facebook.  
Mark Zuckerberg's "original intent" was apparently just to avoid appearing biased, so he wouldn't delete anything that might make him look "biased."  But, in the real world, when you post something that generates wild and lengthy arguments, you are generating money for Zuckerberg, since he charges advertisers according to how many times their ads are viewed, and heated arguments generate lots of views, whether anyone actually looks at the ads or not.  Looking at the Science Fiction page, I see NO ads at all.   The same with the other groups I regularly visit.  If I click on the "Marketplace" icon I see lots of ads, but until just now I've never clicked on that icon. And I've never visited any of the top 50 Facebook pages.

Dan Pfeiffer, the author of the book, was Barack Obama's communication director when Obama was President, and he is now a co-host of the Pod Save America podcast, which I have on my list of "interesting podcasts," but I only recall sampling a few episodes to see if they appeared interesting.

In sum, it was a very interesting book, and I can certainly recommend it.

July 25, 2022
- Aha!  When I drove to the gym today, the price of gas
at the station less than a block from where I live was still the same as yesterday.  But when I returned home from the gym, the price of gas had dropped another 10 cents to $4.099. And, of course, I still do not yet need to fill up.  I still have more than half a tank full.  Will the price drop to below $4 before I need to fill up?  I certainly hope so.  But I certainly wouldn't bet on it.   

July 24, 2022
- Hmm.  Yesterday, the price of gas at the station less than a block from where I live dropped another 20 cents to $4.15
9. I still had more than half a tank full, so there was no reason for me to fill up.  I wondered, though, if the price would go up or down before I need to fill up.  I found out today.  The price skyrocketed up 4 cents to $4.199!  But, I certainly can't assume it is the start of a trend.  I'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, I read that the History Channel is going to have a new 2-hour program about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 this coming Tuesday at 8 PM
Eastern Time.  It looks like it could be interesting.  And it also appears that, at 7 PM ET, they are rerunning episode 7 of season 3 of "History's Greatest Mysteries," which was also about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.  While it's an interesting mystery, I've only set my DVR to only record the new 2-hour presentation.  It is supposed to have a lot of new material collected from foreign TV sources.  It's supposed to be a 3 part series of 50-minute episodes, but the History Channel is evidently merging them into one 2-hour program

I've also decided to set my new book aside and instead work on a new science paper.  The paper is tentatively titled "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."
  It addresses the issue that caused me to get bogged down on my book.  I've been working on an outline for the new paper, but there's a part that I still have to thoroughly research and study.

In "Situation #1 in the illustration below, we have a police officer pointing a radar gun at an oncoming car.  The photons emitted by the gun have a specific oscillation frequency as they travel to the target, and they have a shorter oscillation frequency (more oscillations per second) when they return from the target.  The difference in oscillation frequencies allows the gun to compute the speed of the target to be 100 mph.  

                    guns and angle to the target  

In "Situation #2," the radar gun is pointed at a different target that is moving at a 90 degree angle to the radar gun.  In that situation, the gun emits photons with the same oscillation frequency as in "Situation #1," but the photons that return to the gun are no different from the photons the gun originally emitted, so the gun computes no speed for the target.

Since both cars are moving faster than the stationary radar gun, Time Dilation should be (and evidently is) involved in both cases.  But the energy that is measured by the oscillation frequencies of the photons plays a bigger role.  In "Situation #2" above, the car is moving at 100 mph, which means that a second is longer for the car than for the gun.  So the target receives photons that have more oscillations per second than what was transmitted by the gun.  But when the target sends photons back to the radar gun, because the gun is moving slower than the target, the gun receives photons that have fewer oscillations per second than what the target emitted.  The result is that the gun gets back photons that are identical to the photons it emitted.

What is different about the two situations that causes the radar gun to perform totally differently?  It appears to be the "cosine effect."  If the target was moving at a 45 degree angle, instead of 90 or zero, the gun would show a speed of 70 mph.  A 50 degree angle would show a speed of 64 mph.  A 60 degree angle to the target would how a speed of 50 mph.  80 degrees shows 17 mph.   I need to figure out how to explain why the angle at which the photon's oscillating electric and magnetic fields hit the target makes such a difference.  It's easy to describe logically and visually, but I need to find a way to explain it so that mathematicians cannot dispute it.

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

July 20, 2022 - A couple days ago, when I sat down at my computer to burn CDs for another audio book, I ran into a problem I had never encountered before.  The first MP3 file in the set was 82 minutes longYou can only put 80 minutes onto a CD.  The CD-burning software won't even let you start to burn a file if it is too long.

The solution was obvious: I needed to cut 2 minutes off of the MP3 file.  But I didn't have any software to do that.  Fortunately, there is free editing software available on the Internet. I downloaded the software and trimmed two minutes off that first file.  I can always listen to those two minutes on my computer when I get to that point.

That solution also fits another problem I have.  Some day I'm going to run out of audio books to burn onto CDs.  My library no longer allows you to "borrow" an entire audio book over the Internet.  You can only listen to it while connected to the library.  So, you can no longer just "borrow" audio books and save them to listen to at some later time.

I finished listening to my last 6 audio books on July 18, June 26, May 11, February 15, January 28 and December 24.  The book I finished on January 18, I listened to in one day while sitting on my couch.  I didn't burn that one onto CDs. The 18-CD book I finished on May 11 took me 3 months of listening time while driving.  If I say an average audio book takes me a month to listen to, that means I've got over 3 years of audio books still in my listening queue.  Then I'll have to start burning podcasts onto CDs.  And that MP3 file editing software I recently downloaded will allow me to do that.  But 3 years is a long time away.  And it would probably be better to find a way to just listen to the podcasts on an MP3 player while driving, since CDs cost about 10 cents apiece.

The times are achanging.

Meanwhile, the price of a gallon of gas at the gas station just down the street dropped another 4 cents to $4.35
9 yesterday.

July 19, 2022
- Groan!  It appears that I'm gradually beginning to understand something about Time Dilation that I should have figured out long ago.  The problem I have now is: How do I explain it?  It appears that before I can explain it, I have to FULLY understand it myself.  And then I'll have to explain it in terms that will enable others to understand it.

I'm going to write a brief description of the problem here as part of this comment, even though that is very difficult to do.  I've tried summarizing the problem in several different ways, but the results would all just create confusion, they wouldn't explain anything. The key question could be stated this way:  How could all the experiments which show light hitting a moving observer at c+v or c-v be misleading

There's nothing wrong with those experiments.  They just omit one fact that greatly changes their meaning.  What is that fact?  It appears to be that light is always observed and seen to arrive at c.  But how can that be a "fact" if there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light?

It also appears that mathematicians usually interpret that fact to mean that the speed of light is "invariant," meaning it never varies.  And they usually refer to "Lorentz invariance" which says,
The Lorentz Invariance is at the heart of special relativity, which predicts, among other things, that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant 186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second, whatever the situation.
I would remove the words "a constant," since, while the speed of light is 
"186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second, whatever the situation," it is definitely not a "constant," since the length of a second is different nearly everywhere.

The problem is how to explain that, even though virtually every emitter emits light that travels at a different speed (even though they all emit light that travels at "
186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second," how can it be that that same light is also observed to arrive at "186,282 miles (299,791 kilometers) per second" regardless of the speed of the observer?

All I can say is: I'm working on it.

July 18, 2022
- Yesterday afternoon, while driving around doing some shopping, I finished listening to CD #5 of the 5-CD audio book version of "The Origins of Creativity" by Edward O. Wilson.

The Origins of Creativity

I "borrowed" the book from my local library on November 22, 2020, and it finally came up in my listening queue.  The book was read (or narrated) by Jonathan Hogan, who has a very strange voice - or a very ordinary voice - like some elderly man you might meet on the street.

While it was an enjoyable book, it was also a very strange book, and it often seemed to have very little to do with the origins of creativity.  Mostly it seemed to be about how we learn from observing others and by solving problems.

Here's a quote from early in the book:
What, then, is creativity? It is the innate quest for originality. The driving force is humanity’s instinctive love of novelty—the discovery of new entities and processes, the solving of old challenges and disclosure of new ones, the aesthetic surprise of unanticipated facts and theories, the pleasure of new faces, the thrill of new worlds. We judge creativity by the magnitude of the emotional response it evokes.
And here's a definition of "creativity" that I found on-line:
creativity: the ability to make or otherwise bring into existence something new, whether a new solution to a problem, a new method or device, or a new artistic object or form.
Is solving a problem the same as being creative?  I'd never looked at it that way before, but I suppose it could be.  The author writes a lot about ants and other insects and how they build things, and he's traveled all over the world studying ants and other insects, plus monkeys and apes.  It's just difficult for me to connect all these things to the subject of creativity.

Near the end of the book, the author suddenly shifts to discussing his favorite movies, most of which also happen to be my favorite movies.  He discusses movies about heroes, about tragic heroes, about monsters, about quests, about pair bonding, and about other worlds.  Here are three movies he lists as being about heroes:
Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986). Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, the ultimate feminist warrior, defeats some of the most terrifying aliens ever to invade a Hollywood set.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955). One-armed World War II veteran thrashes a racist bully.

Casablanca (1942). In the end, a noble character shines through Bogart’s bluster and cynicism.

"Alien" is also listed in the section about monsters:
Alien (1979). An intense atmospheric exploration of a newly discovered planet, and a super-efficient monster parasite waiting there. With Aliens and The Thing (2011, remake of the 1982 film by John Carpenter), among the best science fiction horror movies ever made.
That paragraph has the one time I disagree with the author.  I watched the 2011 version of "The Thing" just last week, when it aired on TCM, and I still cannot understand why some people like it so much.  To me it is a horror movie, not a sci-fi movie.  And I am not a fan of horror movies.

But, except for that one point, the book was okay, and I can recommend it.

July 17, 2022
- I don't like the way the final chapters of my book are going.  It seems clear I need to stop using Internet discussions as evidence of all the damage that is being done by all the wildly inaccurate college physics textbooks that are out there.  The textbooks not only disagree with Einstein's Relativity, they disagree with each other.  It's like every textbook was written by a person who has his own personal beliefs about physics, and he didn't care if his beliefs disagreed with almost every other textbook author.  His task is to convince students that his belief is the correct belief.  And the end product is a world where no two people seem to have the same view about physics unless they actually work on physics projects designed to investigate the universe around us.  And even then they may disagree about certain things, but they agree that experiments are the way to resolve disagreements.

My problem is: If I don't use Internet discussions to illustrate screwball beliefs about physics, what else can I use?  Textbooks?  Incorrect textbooks are the cause, not the effect.  One effect is the idiotic arguments on the Internet.  But what are the other effects?  Wasted money?  How many millions have been spent on math-based projects which can never prove anything, like projects involving alternate universes and additional dimensions? 

Anyway, I think I need to go back and start a new version of the book.  That doesn't mean I will start all over again from scratch.  Most of what I've written will remain in the new version.  I just need add some things and also see if I can find a better way to end the book.  Right now, h
ere's what the Table of Contents for my new book looks like:
Introduction                                Page   1
Chapter  1  -  What Einstein Knew           Page   3
Chapter  2  -  Stationary Points in Space   Page   6
Chapter  3  -  What is Light?               Page  11 Chapter  4  -  c+v and c-v                  Page  20
Chapter  5  -  Radar Guns and Relativity    Page  29
Chapter  6  -  Time Dilation                Page  44 Chapter  7  - 
The Twin Paradox             Page  58

Chapter  8  -  What is Time?                Page  65
Chapter  9  -  The Variable Speed of Light  Page  69
Chapter 10  -  Inertial Systems             Page  71 Chapter 11  -  General Relativity           Page  76
Chapter 12  -  The Edge of Reality          Page  81
Chapter 13  -  The Big Bang                 Page  84
Chapter 14  -  Mathematics vs Reality       Page  94
Chapter 15  -  The Textbook Problem         Page 101
Chapter 16  -  Our Conflicted World         Page 119
Chapter 17  -  Physics' Most Sacred Belief  Page 125
Chapter 18  -  Conclusion                   Page
About the Author                            Page

At just 125 pages or so, it's more like an outline than a book.  I feel I need to add more to chapters 2, 4 and 9.  Chapter 17 is actually titled "The Most Sacred Belief in Physics," but I couldn't fit that name into the above format.  That "most sacred belief" is that the speed of light is c in all reference frames.  It's a belief that has been disproved by many experiments, and there are NO experiments which confirm it, yet the mathematicians I argue with on the Internet twist everything to make it fit their belief in the "invariance of c."

And yesterday I remembered that years ago I had put together a blog page titled "The 10 Dumbest Beliefs in Physics."  The "invariance of c" is #4 on that list.  #1 is "All Motion is Reciprocal."  Somehow, I never specifically addressed that issue in the book I'm writing, although I certainly explain in many ways that all motion is NOT reciprocal.  The same with  #3 on the list: "Cause and Effect has no meaning in Physics."  I need to address those specific issues in the first part of the book so that I can explain in the second part of the book how they are Quantum Mechanics-based beliefs and have nothing to do with reality.

#7 on that blog list is "It is perfectly acceptable for physics to be illogical."  I don't recall addressing that issue in the book, either.  Here's  how it is described on my blog page:
Many many college text books state that physics may sometimes appear contrary to "common sense," but what is "common sense" in the everyday world may not apply to the world of physics.  It also appears to be a way for teachers to stop students from arguing that what is being taught makes no sense.
Everything in Einstein's Relativity makes perfect sense.  Some may consider Time Dilation to be contrary to "common sense," but so is a spherical earth if you've never thought about why ships seem to disappear and drop behind the horizon when they get very far away.  You just have to learn a few new things in order to see how it all fits together and does make perfect sense.

It's fascinating stuff.  I just hope I can do a good job of explaining it all.

Comments for Sunday, July 10, 2022, thru Sat., July 16, 2022:

July 15, 2022 - As I was driving to the gym yesterday, I glanced at the price of gas at the station down the street.  I'm pretty sure it said $4.499 per gallon.  But I couldn't remember what the price was the previous day.  Then, on the way home from the gym I glanced at the price again and it said $4.399 per gallon.  That was definitely a price drop.  And it was a price drop of 20 cents from the last time I mentioned gas prices on this web page, back on July 7.

Not only does the price of gas seem to be going down, but, according to the AAA, the national average for the price of a gallon of regular gas is $4.57
7.  And the average price in Wisconsin is $4.362, which means Wisconsin's prices are below average.  So how can Republicans be attacking Wisconsin's Democratic Governor over the high price of gas?  Evidently, it is because the average person doesn't bother to check on gas prices in other states, and Republicans know that.  Both sides are using attack ads, but the Republican ads are filled with lies and wrong information.  And it seems that no one in the media is pointing out the lies, because in today's world that would be "biased reporting."  Groan!     

July 12, 2022
- I'm still arguing on
the sci.physics.relativity forum.  The arguments have become so heated that they're starting to remind me of the arguments I had over the anthrax attacks of 2001.  In those arguments, I explored the solid and abundant evidence that an American scientist was behind the attacks.  However, there were a lot of people who believed (and still do) that Muslim terrorists were behind the attacks, and if you didn't believe what they believed, then you were aiding the Muslim terrorists.  There were times when I was concerned that some fanatic might come after me with a rifle.

My arguments with mathematicians hasn't reached that degree of hostility yet, but it's clear I'm arguing with people who are fanatical about their beliefs.  If you disagree with them, you are attacking their beliefs.  And they take it as a personal attack.  I've seen the same reactions from Trump supporters.  If you point out all the evidence that shows that Trump is con man and an habitual liar, his supporters take that as an attack on their integrity.  You are attacking them by claiming that you are smarter than they are.

My arguments with the mathematicians have pointed out three primary areas of conflict. 

One area of conflict is "infinite space."  Mathematicians argue that space is not infinite, they argue it only extends to the farthest star, because they cannot measure anything beyond that.  The universe is expanding by adding more space between stars.  How can you logically do that without the farthest stars moving farther into empty space (or into infinity)?  That is not accepted as a valid question.  Unfortunately, there are no experiments to confirm things one way or the other.  So, while there are disagreements, there are no heated arguments.

The discussion thread I started back on June 19th is titled "Time Dilation Experiments."  It addresses the second of the three primary areas of conflict: Time Dilation.  I began the thread by listing 12 major Time Dilation experiments which confirm that time dilation is real, and then I asked:

Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
Mostly they avoided discussing the subject.  Instead, they argued about how I phrased things, or how the experiments didn't verify what I claimed they verified.  But they wouldn't explain what they thought the experiments verified or why they believed the experiments were faulty.

The third point of conflict is the one that has generated the most arguments.  It is about the variability of the speed of light.  It comes up whenever Einstein's Second Postulate is mentioned.  I also have a web page that lists all the experiments I could find that confirm that light hits an approaching receiver at c+v, where c is the speed of light and v is the speed of the approaching receiver.  That page is HERE.  The experiments also show that the speed of light varies when time varies.

But that attacks what mathematicians evidently consider to be holy gospel, that the speed of light is a fixed constant.  They look at the experiments and they argue that they do not prove anything.  "Mikko" wrote:
Those experiments don't verify what you claim.
And "Volney" added:
I just looked at a couple; ... They say nothing about the speed
of light other than to use it as an understood constant. Ed just jumps to a conclusion.
I'm considering starting a new thread about the variable speed of light, which I would begin by listing all the experiments that verify it.  I'd really like to discuss the topic, instead of having mathematicians simply dismiss it as nonsense and refuse to discuss it.

But I also need to write more about it in my book.  And that has my highest priority.

July 10, 2022
- A couple days ago, I mentioned that "
I finally dropped out of that long discussion I was having on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  And that enabled me to also finish chapter 14 of my book."  Since then I have also finished chapter 15, and I've got quite a bit done on chapter 16, which may end up being the last chapter in the book.

But, yesterday I started arguing again on
the sci.physics.relativity forum. I'd stopped arguing because the people on the forum had once again just turned to arguing minutia and phraseology between themselves.  Then yesterday a physics teacher from South America posted a message addressed to me, a message which contained a NEW version of an old argument.

The argument began with the teacher quoting me from a previous argument over what Einstein's Second Postulate says about light seen by an observer:
Me: WRONG! It says the EMITTER always EMITS light at c.  Einstein's Second Postulate says absolutely NOTHING about what a RECEIVER/OBSERVER will see.
Then the teacher began his new argument:
Teacher: Again you do not understand English. That introduction says:  "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

Me: Agreed.

Teacher: The "state of motion of the emitting body" clearly means either the body is stationary or the body is moving. Therefore, a) if the emitter is stationary, light will propagate at speed c. b) If the emitter is moving, light will also propagate at speed c.

Me: Agreed.

Teacher: Say the emitter is at point E and the receiver is at point R.  Case 1) Both E and R are stationary E.....c--.......................R.  E emits at speed c, R receives at speed c.

Me. Agreed.

Teacher:  Case 2) E is moving at speed v, R is stationary, E emits light at speed c, R receives the light at speed c.

Me: Agreed.

Teacher:  Case 3) E is stationary, R is moving towards E at speed w. E emits light at speed c, R receives the light at speed V=(c+w)/(1+w/c)=c
(see equations in section 5 of the paper).
 Therefore in all cases, the receiver R receives the light at speed c.

Me:  Nonsense. Section 5 of Einstein's paper says, "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." In other words, when an observer receives light at c+v, v is his speed and c is still the speed of light.

It appears you are twisting the meaning of that equation to make it fit your BELIEFS.
While I was waiting for a response to that argument, someone else on the forum started an argument claiming that the first part of Einstein's paper is an "abstract," which merely summarizes the rest of the paper. 

I had to respond because that is obviously not true.  The first part of Einstein's paper is an Introduction where he presents a puzzle that is solved in the rest of the paper.  The "puzzle" consists of two "postulates" that appear "irreconcilable," but which are only "apparently irreconcilable" and in his paper Einstein explains how they are reconciled: by Time Dilation, which Einstein explains step by step and summarizes this way:
Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.
I've never been able to get anyone on that forum to acknowledge that Einstein's paper contains that summary.  This morning I see that once again everyone just ignored it.  And the teacher I was arguing with posted a complex bunch of equations to show how his beliefs are better than my logic - and it doesn't make any difference how many experiments show that he is wrong.

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

July 7, 2022 - Hmm.  The price of gas at the gas station just down the street from me just dropped another 10 cents to $4.599 per gallon. But I still have nearly a full tank, so prices will almost certainly change again before it's time for me to fill my tank again.

I keep wanting to mention that that latest mass shooting to make headlines took place on July 4 in Highland Park, which is about 45 miles south of where I live.  I'm not sure if I've ever actually been to Highland Park, but the main character in my novel "Time Work" lived in a condo there.  I prowled the area via Google Maps Street View so that I could describe the area and the streets leading to the condo.  I also used to work in Deerfield, which borders on Highland Park.

I should also mention that I finally dropped out of that long discussion I was having on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  And that enabled me to also finish chapter 14 of my book and move on to chapter 15.  I'd been working on chapter 14 since some time in late June.  I may do some major revisions when I create the "final" version of the book, but for now I've move on to a chapter about all the different and incorrect versions of Einstein's Second Postulate that can be found in college textbooks.

July 6, 2022
- The sci.physics.relativity discussion thread about "Time Dilation Experiments" that I created back on June 19 is still going strong.   As of this moment, there are 268 messages in the thread.  It is definitely the best discussion I've ever been involved with on that forum.  Although I started it to discuss time dilation experiments, the thread has changed to be mostly about Relativity versus Quantum Mechanics.  That is how nearly all the discussions I've been involved with on that forum turn out, but this one really got into ways of showing how Quantum Mechanics mathematicians have no concern for reality. 

The discussion also showed the need to use illustrations when discussing how light works.  We got into how telescopes work.  Telescopes collect photons and merge the photons into images.  That is easy to illustrate, but how would you illustrate collecting waves and merging them into images?  As I see it, they would have to draw "rays of light" that look exactly like photons.

Right now, I think I'm done arguing.  I have all I need to get back to work on the "Quantum Mechanics versus Relativity" part of my book.  Maybe I'll get back to work tomorrow - or in a day or two.  I could definitely use a new supply of ambition.   

July 4, 2022
- I wish everyone a very enjoyable 4th of July.

July 3, 2022
- On NBC news last night there was a story about bitcoin miningBitcoin mining?  I've never understood bitcoins, and the story just confused me all the more.  Click HERE to go to the YouTube version of the NBC story.  This morning I accessed some print news stories about the bitcoin mining issue.  Click HERE for one of them.  The article contains this:
Bitcoin mining maintains the cryptocurrency's digital ledger, known as the blockchain, by validating transactions inside of a block and adding it to the chain. The process to validate the transaction has often been explained as computers solving advanced mathematical equations, but it's really more like complicated guesswork. When a block is added, miners are rewarded with Bitcoins.
I still do not understand what is going on.  It certainly seems to be that "bitcoin mining" involves solving more and more complex mathematical problems, and to do that you need bigger and bigger and more powerful computers. Here's a quote from a scientific article on the subject:
Unlike earlier days, nowadays, the process of mining Bitcoin is best contextualized in terms of mining cryptocurrency blocks, as opposed to single units, such as one Bitcoin (BTC). The reason is simple: new Bitcoins are only mined whenever a new block on the Bitcoin blockchain is validated.

Block mining requires solving complex mathematical equations, which are also known as a hash. The first miner to validate new block benefits by getting a reward – which is currently 6.25 BTC, down from 12.5 BTC.

So, mathematicians mine bitcoins by solving math problems, and then they sell the bitcoins to others who want to use some untraceable "money" to buy things on the dark web, or who just want to save "currency" for the day when real money stops working? 

Here's how one web site describes things as of this morning:
The Bitcoin price is $19,057.71, a change of -0.74% over the past 24 hours as of 11:25 a.m. The recent price action in Bitcoin left the token’s market capitalization at $363,684,313,438.19 USD. So far this year, Bitcoin has a change of -58.75%. Bitcoin is classified as a Currency under CoinDesk's Digital Asset Classification Standard (DACS).

Bitcoin is the world’s first decentralized cryptocurrency – a type of digital asset that uses public-key cryptography to record, sign and send transactions over the Bitcoin blockchain – all done without the oversight of a central authority.

The Bitcoin network (with an upper-case “B”) was launched in January 2009 by an anonymous computer programmer or group of programmers under the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto.” The network is a peer-to-peer electronic payment system that uses a cryptocurrency called bitcoin (lower case “b”) to transfer value over the internet or act as a store of value like gold and silver.
It's like mathematicians got bored with trying to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and instead shifted to just turning pointless math problem-solving into a profit-making business.  And they succeeded, even if a lot of their customers lost their shirts.  

July 2, 2022
- Hmm.  On June 30 I mentioned that I'd filled up my gas tank when the price of gas was
$4.789 per gallon.  I probably should have expected it, but the next day the price dropped 9 cents to $4.699 per gallon.  So, if I had waited a day, I could have saved about 68 cents.  Sob sob.  On the positive side, the last time I filled up my tank was on May 26 when the price was $4.489 per gallon.  The price of gas may have gone up 30 cents per gallon during that time, but the average driver probably filled up his tank 3 or 4 times during that same period, and he probably put in 12 to 15 gallons each time, while I only put in 7½ gallons. 

July 1, 2022
- I'm working on Chapter 14 of my new book, which is still tentatively titled "Logical Relativity."  Chapter 14 is tentatively titled "Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity," but I've been thinking of changing the title to "Mathematics versus Reality."  The conflict seems to stem from the fact that mathematics appears to be the only thing of interest to mathematicians.  How mathematics represents reality is of little concern to them, unless someone presents a reality-based problem as a mathematical equation and asks for opinions about it.  However, even then the arguments will typically favor a mathematical model over reality.

About a week ago, I started to realize I was occasionally reading about a term I had never researched: Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.  I did a Google search for the term and was shown 15 books on the subject:
1. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by James D. Bjorken & Sidney D. Drell
2. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Tommy Ohlsson
3. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Paul Strange
4. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Hartmut M. Pilkuhn
5. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Armin Wachter
6. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Fields by Luciano Maiani & Omar Benhar
7. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics -Wave Equations
by Walter Greiner

8. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory by Franz Gross
9. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields by Ta-You Wu & W-Y Pauchy Hwang
10. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics And Introduction To Quantum Field Theory by Anton Z. Capri
11. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory by Varadarajan Devanathan
12. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics And Introduction To Quantum Field Theory by Francisco Y. Yndurain
13. An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory by Silvan S. Schweber
14. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics of Leptons and Fields by Walter T. Grandy, Jr.
15. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory of Arbitrary Spin by Volodimir Simulik
and 3 books about NON-relativistic Quantum Mechanics:
1. Quantum Mechanics – Non-Relativistic Theory by L. D. Landau
2. Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Anton Z. Capri
3. An Elementary Introduction to the Formal Theory of Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics by Daniel T. Gillespie
But none of them seemed to answer my question: What IS Relativistic Quantum Mechanics?

However, my Google search also found a Wikipedia page on the topic.  That page says,

In physics, relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM) is any Poincaré covariant formulation of quantum mechanics (QM). This theory is applicable to massive particles propagating at all velocities up to those comparable to the speed of light c, and can accommodate massless particles. The theory has application in high energy physics,[1] particle physics and accelerator physics,[2] as well as atomic physics, chemistry[3] and condensed matter physics.[4][5] Non-relativistic quantum mechanics refers to the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics applied in the context of Galilean relativity, more specifically quantizing the equations of classical mechanics by replacing dynamical variables by operators. Relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM) is quantum mechanics applied with special relativity. Although the earlier formulations, like the Schrödinger picture and Heisenberg picture were originally formulated in a non-relativistic background, a few of them (e.g. the Dirac or path-integral formalism) also work with special relativity.
My task is to simplify all that.  This sentence: "Relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM) is quantum mechanics applied with special relativity." seems as simple as they can get, but what does "applied with special relativity" mean?  Digging through the page, it seems to mean that they modify some mathematical model from Quantum Mechanics to include something from a mathematical model for Special Relativity.

Another thing that bothered me about all this is that all 18 books listed above are written by physics teachers who do not seem to like the explanation of "relativistic Quantum Mechanics" found in other college textbooks, so it appears that each one created a TEXTBOOK of his own that he will use in his class and other teachers can use in their classes.

The first book on the list includes a statement in the Preface that says the author doesn't advocate any particular view about relativistic quantum mechanics because "The unsatisfactory status of present-day elementary particle theory does not allow one such a luxury."  So, it seems the authors are presenting their theory on a "take it or leave it" basis.  They're just describing the theory as they understand it.

I'm advocating Einstein's view of reality in my book.  It appears that all the advocates of "relativistic quantum theory" have their own theories, and reality is not a factor in any of them.

© 2022 by Ed Lake