Archive for
August 2022

Comments for Sunday, August 28, 2022, thru Wed., Aug. 31, 2022:

August 30, 2022 - Yesterday, I submitted my "new" paper "Radar Guns and Relativity" to, and this morning I was advised that it is now on-line as my 13th paper

It's not really a "new" paper, of course.  It's a revision to a paper that I deleted because wouldn't let me post an 11th version of it.

It could also very well be my last paper.  My 13 papers seem to say all I want to say about physics and Relativity -- except for my wanting to say something about all the incorrect information in college physics textbooks. But, if I write something about that, it would probably have to be in the book I might someday finish.

I still find it incredible that nearly every college physics textbook has a different version of Einstein's Second Postulate.

But, it sometimes seems like I'm the only person on this planet who cares about such things.  With America's democracy being torn apart, and with blatant liars and crooks running for office all over the country, there are much more important issues to think about.  However, I find it very difficult to write about them, since there's not much I can add to what is in the news every day.  And there seems to be an endless stream of new books about the subject.

Luckily, I can still find enjoyment in listening to podcasts

August 28, 2022
- I'm continuing the process of examining all my science papers to see which need correcting due to my misunderstanding of what happens when light photons hit a moving object (i.e., my  "c+v error"). Yesterday I deleted my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" when made me aware of their new policy that only 4 revisions to a paper are allowed.  My latest change would have been the 10th revision. They didn't allow it, so I had no choice but to delete the original and all 9 previous revisions.  I still think it's a very important paper, so I'll make some more revisions (or I'll totally rewrite it) and then I'll post it as a "new" paper, probably with the title "Radar Guns and Relativity."

Meanwhile, I made some revisions to my paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" and submitted them.  They are now in version #2 of the paper on

There are three other papers that I decided I had to delete.  The first is my paper "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle."  It's a paper I always regretted writing, since it is mostly about terminology.  And since it contained the c+v error, I decided to delete it.

The second paper I deleted is "Pulsars and Special Relativity."  It also contains the c+v error and would be just too much effort to correct.

The third paper I deleted is "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to His Theory of Special Relativity." I've already revised that paper 4 times, so they won't allow me to revise it again.  But any new version would be a total rewrite anyway. 

When I was reading my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Second Postulate" (which I've deleted and won't replace), I studied one of the college textbooks I cited which contains a "wrong" version of Einstein's Second Postulate.  The 1,322 page textbook is titled "Physics for Scientists & Engineers" and it was written by Douglas C. Giancoli.  On page 957 it contains this:
In his famous 1905 paper, Einstein proposed doing away completely with the idea of the ether and the accompanying assumption of a preferred or absolute reference frame at rest. This proposal was embodied in two postulates. The first postulate was an extension of the Galilean-Newtonian relativity principle to include not only the laws of mechanics but also those of the rest of physics, including electricity and magnetism:
First postulate (the relativity principle): The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.
The first postulate can also be stated as: There is no experiment you can do in an inertial reference frame to tell if you are at rest or moving uniformly at constant velocity.
The second postulate is consistent with the first:
Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
These two postulates form the foundation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.
That is NOT Einstein's Second Postulate.  Einstein's Second 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.
Einstein's version says nothing about what an observer would see, so Prof. Giancoli's is an "incorrect" version of Einstein's Second Postulate.  But is Prof. Giancoli's version scientifically "incorrect"?  Regardless of any motion by the emitter or receiver, light is emitted at c and it is received at c.  That seems to say that there's nothing scientifically wrong with Prof. Giancoli's version.  It's just not an accurate quote.

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what Prof. Giancoli writes about Time Dilation in his textbook.  So, it appears he just produced an "incorrect" version of Einstein's Second Postulate so that he could explain Relativity in his own way.  Einstein created two postulates that appear to conflict, and then Einstein explained things to show that they do not actually conflict.  Prof. Giancoli evidently simply decided to explain things without any conflicts.

Nearly every college physics textbook contains a different version of Einstein's Second Postulate, evidently all created to allow the author to explain things in his own way.  I'd have to study each of the textbooks to see if the author actually describes Velocity Time Dilation correctly.  As I recall, some of the textbooks that have different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate do not mention Time Dilation at all.  Others say that time dilation is reciprocal, which it is not.  And others seem to say that Time Dilation only applies to inertial systems.  

Do I want to write a new paper that analyzes all the different ways that college professors teach Relativity?  No.  So, I just deleted my paper "An Analysis of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity."  It's the 6th paper I've deleted, but there are still 12 that seem to be correct or correctable.  And one of the 6 that I deleted will be rewritten and posted as a new paper.

To err is human.  I seem to have just demonstrated that I'm very human.

Comments for Sunday, August 21, 2022, thru Sat., Aug. 27, 2022:

August 25, 2022 - I've begun the process of examining all of my science papers to see which need correcting due to my misunderstanding of what happens when light photons hit a moving object.  The first step was to delete my paper on "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'"  from completely.  It wasn't worth correcting.  It's still available on because I've somehow lost the ability to delete anything from that forum.  If I regain that ability, I'll delete it from there, too.

I also examined my paper "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light" which I last updated on August 14, 2018.  It appears that that paper needs no corrections. Moreover, it explains the "problem" very well.  If the speed of light is different virtually everywhere, is the speed of light "variable" or "invariable"?  If you consider it to be "invariable" because it is 299,792,458 meters per second everywhere, and you do not care that the length of a second is different nearly everywhere, then, to you, it is "invariable."  If you are fascinated by the fact that the length of a second is different (i.e., "varies") nearly everywhere, then it is difficult to consider the speed of light to be the same everywhere.

I next examined and then overhauled my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  It only required "minor" changes if you accept that "minor" means changing a sentence here and there.  The changes, however, are "major" when you view how those "minor" changes altered the validity of the paper.  I submitted the revised paper to, and I'm now waiting for it to become version #11 of the paper.  No other paper of mine has been revised more than 5 times.

I'm now going to go through the other 15 papers one by one to see if they need to be corrected.

August 24, 2022
- While driving around doing errands this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #9 in the 9-CD audio book set for "Last Words" by George Carlin.
Last Words

I "borrowed" it from my local library on March 11, 2021, and finally got around to listening to it.  It's certainly an interesting book, even though it has more X-rated language than any book I've ever read or heard before.  But Carlin was noted for his use of X-rated language, and he was even arrested for it more than once.  His court cases went to the Supreme Court and changed the laws about such things.

Carlin began as a kid in New York, where he learned to joke about things. He joined the Air Force and was stationed in the South where he learned to love jazz and was hated by the local white population because he hung out in colored jazz joints.  He also probably took more drugs than any person alive today.  He appeared 19 times on the Johnny Carson show, and he did 13 HBO specials. 
Of the 23 solo albums he recorded, 11 were Grammy nominated and he took home the coveted statue 5 times, including a 2001 Grammy win for Best Spoken Comedy Album for his reading of his best seller Brain Droppings In 2002, Carlin was awarded the “Freedom of Speech Award” by the First Amendment Center in cooperation with the US Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colorado, and he was the named eleventh recipient of The Kennedy Center Mark Twain Prize for American Humor in June of 2008. George Carlin passed away at age 71 on June 22, 2008 in Santa Monica, California.

His was an interesting life, and it made a very interesting book.

August 23, 2022
- Yesterday via the Internet, I contacted one of the large computer software corporations to ask a question.  They began with them using "intelligent software" to find out what I wanted.  That didn't work.  Nothing I was saying fitted any of their algorithms.  So they switched to talking with me on a chat app (after a 30 minute wait for someone to be free to talk).  That didn't work, either, because the person I was talking with kept making false assumptions.  Finally we ended up talking on the telephone.  I had to give him all sorts of information to verify that I was who I said I was. We talked for well over an hour.  He evidently never encountered anyone who used a Hewitt-Packard laptop before.  He assumed I was using Windows-8 or Windows-XP.  I told him I was using Windows-10, but I didn't know how to verify that, and he evidently didn't, either.  I had to research it this morning.  Yes, I'm using "Windows-10 Home."  I ended up never really getting an answer to my question.  My question was why they changed something that previously provided valuable information to something that contained no information, and their answer was because they changed it.  I can't say anything more about it without identifying which corporation I was dealing with.  But it's another part of today's world that sometimes really scares me - dealing with robots, and dealing with people who think like robots.

I'm in a similar situation with  I posted my latest paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" to their web site, but it didn't go where all my other papers are located.  And I don't know where it went or how to find out where it went.  I just get messages from telling me that people are reading the paper - somewhere.

Meanwhile, I went through one of my science papers yesterday to see how much I needed to correct as a result of what I've learned about "stationary points in space" and the Doppler Effect with light.  I was surprised to find that it just required changing a few sentences here and there.

All I need now is some ambition to proceed.

August 21, 2022
- Former U.S. Senator and comedian Al Franken was the guest host on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Tuesday night.  As usual, I recorded the show and watched it the next evening.  During Franken's monologue he mentioned that he had a podcast.  So, naturally, I had to check it out the next day.  The Al Franken Podcast has evidently been in existence since May of 2019, and he does a new show every Saturday.

Looking through the selection, most of them are very heavy topics, such as politics and poverty, but Franken also interviews comedians like Martin Short, Conan O'Brien and Sarah Silverman.  I found about a dozen episodes that looked very interesting, mostly comedian interviews, and I downloaded them into my MP3 player.  Then I listen to two of them, a nearly 2-hour interview with David Letterman, and a 50-minute interview with California Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff.

The Letterman interview was a fascinating discussion about late night talk shows, but the Adam Schiff interview really grabbed me.  Schiff has written a new book, "Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could."  It contains all kinds of fascinating details about what Donald Trump did to get impeached as a result of trying to force Ukraine to find dirt about Joe Biden's son.  Even though I'd sworn off of reading any more books about Trump, I immediately put the book on my "must read" list.  At about the 45 minute mark in the interview, Schiff talked about sitting next to Republican Kevin McCarthy on a plane trip, having an brief confidential discussion with him, and then watching McCarthy blatantly lie about the conversaiton when they were interviewed by the press after landing. The next day, in Congress, Schiff asked McCarthy about it.  I found a copy of that part of Schiff's book, and it says, 
     “Kevin, if we were having a private conversation on the plane, I would have thought it was a private conversation. But if it wasn’t, you know I said the exact opposite of what you told the press.”
     “I know, Adam,” was his reply, “but you know how it goes.”
     I was incredulous. “No, Kevin. I don’t. You just make shit up, and that’s how you operate?”
     He just shrugged. That was simply how he operated, and how he still operates today. He was comfortable trafficking in his own “alternative facts” even before the advent of Trumpism.
Every evening while waiting for the weather forecast to come on, for about 15 minutes I watch back-to-back TV ads where one Republican after another lies about fellow Republicans as well as Democratic candidates for various posts.  It is clear their only objective is to win the election, and they'll lie endlessly if that helps them win.  The Democrats often show clips of a Republican saying one thing and then saying the opposite thing, depending upon the audience and the subject under discussion.  And the Republicans don't care.  Some of the Republican candidates are really scary.  I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with them.  They come across as truly evil, yet one of them (the one endorsed by Trump) could become Wisconsin's next governor.

During the following evenings, I listened to more of the Al Franken podcasts.  During an interview with comedian Sarah Silverman, at about the 15 minute mark, Silverman mentioned how a catholic priest in Florida had told his TV audience that Silverman should be killed because of things she'd said about Jesus in her comedy act.  And they played a recording of the priest's comments as he prays for Silverman's "untimely death" and how murdering her would be "God's will."


I keep telling myself that I should be revising some of my science papers which I now know contain errors, and I should be working on my book about "Logical Relativity," but all I want to do right now (as soon as I finish this comment) is listen to some more Al Franken podcasts.

Comments for Sunday, August 14, 2022, thru Sat., Aug. 20, 2022:

August 18, 2022 - Yesterday afternoon, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  I read it in two days.  The book was "The Merry Misogynist" by Colin Cotterill, the sixth book in the detective series featuring Dr. Siri Paiboun, the only coroner in 1978 Laos. 

The Merry Misogynist

Dr. Siri (as he is called in the book) is 73 years old, an excellent medical doctor, but not qualified to be a coroner.  However, he's the only person in Communist run Laos willing to do the job.

I "borrowed" the book from my local library on June 16, 2021, back when "borrowing" a book meant it was downloaded into my Kindle, so that I could read it whenever I found the time.  I finally found the time.

While it's an enjoyable book, it's definitely not the best of the bunch.  This time Dr. Siri has to track down and stop a serial killer who has been killing beautiful young women.  The killer's motivation is very creepy, and it almost ruined the book for me.   But Dr. Siri's sense of humor and his humorous interaction with his staff and friends, plus the details of how things worked (or didn't work) in a communist run country where no one is qualified to do the job they've been assigned, makes for good reading.

August 15, 2022
- Yesterday afternoon, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "Thank You for Your Servitude" by Mark Liebovich.

Thank You for Your Servitude

It's another book about Donald Trump and his presidency.  It's also probably the last book I'll read on that subject, since I now know more about Trump than I want to know.  It's like reading a book about crap.  How many books do you want to read on that subject?  I only read it because it on the top 10 bestseller list for awhile, and a lot of the reviews said it was "a very funny book."  It was definitely funny in parts, but you soon get tired of humor about crap.  It's currently #24 on USA Today's list of bestsellers.

Here's a quote from the book:
From the start, Trump’s main trick was not to convince anyone that he was pure but rather to convince people that everyone else was dirty. Everybody lied and cheated at golf, on their spouses, and on their taxes. Trump was just better at being dirty, proving how smart and savvy he was. Only losers got hung up on the unspoken rules of the capital.
Were Republican leaders so unwilling to condemn Trump because their voters supported him so vigorously, or did these voters support Trump so vigorously because so few Republican leaders ever dared condemn his actions? Chicken, egg; egg, chicken.
And another quote from near the end of the book:
Biden’s inauguration included no mention of Donald Trump, the newly departed and deplatformed commander in chief who skipped town early in the morning with yet another unpleasant distinction to his name: he was the first president in 152 years to refuse to attend the swearing-in of his successor. It was probably for the best.
While the book was well written and funny in parts, I can only recommend it if you know nothing about Trump and want to learn something about him.  In that case, you might really enjoy the book a lot.

Meanwhile, the price of gas at the station down the street from me jumped another 15 cents today.  It's now $3.89
9 per gallon, up from $3.749 per gallon.  On August 11 it was $3.599 per gallon. That's an increase of 30 cents in 4 days!

August 14, 2022
- I seem to have lost interest in finishing my book about "Logical Relativity."  I don't know if that loss of interest is just temporary or permanent.  My latest paper, "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light," basically summarizes the first 11 chapters of the book, and the rest of the book is just an analysis of all the screwball beliefs that are presented in physics textbooks.  Here's the table of contents as it exists right now:

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

Analyzing the screwball beliefs that are presented in physics textbooks could result in a single sentence: The books were written by humans, and it is extremely rare to find two humans who fully agree about everything.

Today's political arguments fully verify that.
I briefly considered the idea of writing another paper, tentatively titled "Analyzing Wave-Particle Duality," but arguments on that topic on the sci.physics.relativity forum went nowhere.  We just weren't speaking the same language.  Here's part of an argument we had yesterday about "wave-particle duality":

Me: Having TWO DIFFERENT MATHEMATICAL MODELS for how light works, and sometimes using one model and sometimes using the other MEANS YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!

Volney: No, it means that that model sometimes has light behaving like particles and sometimes like waves.  A more modern BETTER model, such as QED/QFT resolves this, but using older models is often simpler.


Volney: By creating better (but never perfect) models.

Me: Mathematicians evidently prefer to LIVE WITH THE PROBLEM.

Volney: What problem? Mathematicians are interested in abstract concepts like numbers, not physics.

Me: Experiments show how light works.

Volney: Yes, and experiments disagree with many of your beliefs.

Me: WHICH EXPERIMENTS disagree with what I've written?
I'm waiting on a response to that last question.

Meanwhile, I wonder what Trump's supporters will do if the FBI throws Trump in jail for obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act.

Comments for Sunday, August 7, 2022, thru Sat., Aug. 13, 2022:

August 12, 2022 - Wow!  Yesterday, the price of gas at the station down the street from me dropped 14 cents, from $3.739 per gallon to $3.599 per gallon.  And today it jumped 15 cents, to $3.749 per gallon.  It really makes you wonder what could cause such a swing.  It can't be because the gas station owner paid more today than yesterday.  I doubt that they fill their underground tanks more than once or twice a month.  Maybe it was to make a point?  But what point?  Or was yesterday's drop some kind of mistake?  I'll probably never find out.

August 11, 2022
- Hmm.  The discussion I started yesterday on the alt.physics.relativity forum about my new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" seems to have attracted some Russian hackers.  Here's part of what someone named "Chang Salucci" posted:

anyway, since the gay actor, no party/politician puppet, cocaine zelenske wants Crimea, a Rusian territory, as a military base (actually wanted already from 2014) I guess the Russians have choices, other then to regain Odessa, formally also a Romanian territory, then kick out the nazi uKranoids from the Black Sea. Then re_part the fictitious uKraine among Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus and Russia,
And "Jody De santis" posted this (censored by me):
but you don't understand the cocaine zelenske is cocaine. You like want the proofs, but you don't want the proofs. The entire parliaments standing up, in standing ovation, to the images of the cocaine zelenske, ordering stuff and money from them. What a f**king shame. This alone puts down the entire capitalist western europe. What a shame, what a disgrace, what a f**king idiots put in charge to destroy own countries and s**t on the face of their own people.

NaZilensky's Downward Spiral Continues
And "Cole Battaglia" posted this:
What an idiot. Frogeting two atmic bombs over his country.
And "Dick's DriveIn" posted this:
He West can't stop Putin.
I have no idea what caused them to suddenly start posting propaganda to a discussion I had started.  And why only to my thread?  I can find no such posts in other threads.

Life is full of mysteries.  My new paper is about solving a mystery that has bugged me for years.  Finding that solution makes me want to just sit down and start reading a novel - or maybe listen to some podcasts.  I'm not out to convince anyone of anything.  I was just trying to understand some things that just didn't quite make sense.  And I think I now finally understand them.

Meanwhile, the price of gas at the station down the street from me just dropped 14 cents to $3.59
9 per gallon.

August 10, 2022
- My new 18-page paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" is now on line at this link:

Of course, about 2 minutes after submitting it, I noticed a typo.  In the second to last paragraph on page 8, I typed "photo" when I meant to type "photon."  Hopefully that will be the only error that people will find in the paper. 

Although it officially has no "views" yet, it somehow already has one comment.  And, I think it may be the first positive response I've ever received for one of my papers.  The comment says,

At first I wanted to pre-judge your paper. But then some of your insights really electrified me, because I had seen them exactly in my experiments.
That comment was followed by a link to papers written by the guy who wrote the comment.  Unfortunately, his papers are all filled with mathematics and are virtually incomprehensible to me.  I don't even understand the titles for most of them.

When I saw the paper was on-line, I started a thread about it on Google's alt.physics.relativity discussion forum.  On that forum they seem to believe that if you can't find anything nasty to say about someone's comment, you shouldn't say anything at all.  So, if I get no responses that will be a good thing.

The paper has me a bit anxious.  It shows that I made errors in some of my other papers.  I suppose I should start correcting those papers, but I'm going to wait.  It's like my new paper sums up everything, and I have nothing more that I want to write papers about.  I just want to find out if I'm correct or not. Then I might get back to work on my book, which covers a lot of the same territory but also shows how nearly every college physics textbook has some screwball misinterpretation of Relativity.  However, in today's world where everyone seems to disagree with everyone else, that seems normal. 

August 8, 2022
- This morning I printed out my new 18-page paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."  It's got a date of August 10, 2022, on it.  So, unless I discover something terribly wrong with the paper, I'll submit it to on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the price of a gallon of gas at the station down the street just dropped another 6 cents to $3.73
9 per gallon.  

August 7, 2022
- Yesterday, when I checked the discussions on Google's sci.physics.relativity forum as part of my regular morning routine, I saw that "Mikko" had restarted a thread that I had started on Nov. 1, 2019, and which had ended on Nov. 11, 2019.  The thread was titled "A List of 8 Variable Speed of Light Experiments."  I started the thread to announce that the day before, on October 31, 2019, I had created a web page describing those 8 experiments.

"Mikko" had read my August 5 comment on this site about overhauling
my web page about "Variable speed of light experiments."  So, he posted this message to that discussion thread from 2019:
The author has now revised the page and retracted the claim that the experiments support variable speed of light. The descriptions of the experiments and their relation to the author's claims are not better than they were.
Looking over the 82 comments that were in the thread when it ended, I see some arguments that make more sense today, but mostly what I see is that we just weren't speaking the same language.  That observation was verified after I posted this comment yesterday to that discussion thread from 2019:
I'm working on a paper that will explain everything in detail. Yes, I was wrong. The experimenters all claimed that light can be received at c+v and c-v where v is the speed of an observer moving toward or away from the oncoming photons. I accepted what the experiments claimed. Now I see that the experimenters misinterpreted their own data. They didn't understand how kinetic energy can be added to a photon. I didn't, either, until recently.

When I finish my new paper in a week or so, I'll start a new thread about it.
That comment caused "Mikko" to respond with this (including all of his typos):
I does not make sense to say that light is received at c+v or c-v or c. Light, like anthing else, only has a speed between two events, as the speed is the ration of the distance to the diration of those two events. Reception is a single event so does not have a distance nor a duration.
The experiments presented on the page don't observe the enrgy of the photon. They measure the time of flight or difference between two times of flight.
It's a good example of how we do not speak the same language.  I think he's talking about how Lidar guns work.  Lidar guns make two quick measurements of the distance between the stationary gun and a moving target, and then the gun computes how fast the target must be moving in order to travel the difference in distance between the two measurements.

None of the 8 experiments does anything like that.

My new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light" examines things step by step with illustrations.  When I finish it (hopefully some time next week), I'll put it on and on  Then I'll start a thread on the sci.physics.relativity forum to discuss it. 

I admit that I was wrong in some previous arguments on that forum.  It might be the first time anyone has admitted such a thing on that forum.

I'll probably also make corrections to some of my 17 previous papers.

Comments for Monday, August 1, 2022, thru Sat., Aug. 6, 2022:

August 5, 2022 - Yesterday, I overhauled my web page about "Variable speed of light experiments."  The experiments supposedly show that light can arrive at c+v or c-v where c is the speed of light and v is the speed of the observer moving toward or away from the oncoming light photons. 

However, after studying the subject for months, it now seems clear to me that I was wrong in accepting what the experiments claimed.  The speed of light is "invariant" in that it is always emitted and received at the speed of 299,792,458 meters per second. But, because the length of a second varies due to Time Dilation, the length of a second is different virtually everywhere.

The experiments, however, have little to do with the speed of light.  The experiments only demonstrate the Doppler Effect as it applies to light photons.  Unlike the Doppler Effect for sound waves, which can be caused by a moving emitter or receiver, there is no Doppler Effect with light that is caused by a moving emitter.  There is only a Doppler Effect caused by a moving receiver.  A moving receiver will add energy to an oncoming photon if the receiver is moving toward the photon, and a moving receiver will subtract energy from a oncoming photon if the receiver is moving away from the photon.

I'm still working to explain this in great detail in my new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."  Every time I think I'm nearing completion, I realize there is some additional point that needs explaining - or some existing point that needs additional explaining.

But, I think I'm getting close to completing it.

Meanwhile, the price of regular gas at the station down the street from me just dropped another 5 cents to $3.79
9 per gallon.

August 3, 2022
- As I was driving around doing errands today, I saw that the price of gas had dropped another 8 cents at the gas station just down the street from where I live.  It's now $3.84
9 per gallon.  So, if I had waited a few days before filling up, I could have saved myself 90 cents or so.

That's no big deal, of course, but when you see Republican ads on TV every day bitching about how my state governor caused the price of gas to soar, you can't help but notice any change in gas prices.

Meanwhile, I realized I have to once again overhaul my new paper "Analyzing the Invariant Speed of Light."   I need to discuss the "Doppler Effect" early in the paper, since it plays a big role in how light works when the observer is moving.  With sound, they usually only describe how the Doppler Effect works when the emitter is moving (usually an approaching train horn or a police car siren or an ambulance siren).  But the sound Doppler effect can also be heard when you are on a train and pass by a crossing where a bell seems to rings fast as you approach and then slower when you move away from the crossing.  With light, it appears there is no Doppler effect when you are stationary and a light source is coming at you. But I think a lot of mathematicians will argue with that, because they see all motion as relative, i.e., if I am moving away from you, you are also moving away from me.  Nope.  That's not how things work in our universe.

August 1, 2022
- Yesterday, I put 7.38 gallons of gas in my car at $3.92
9 per gallon. Total cost $28.94.  I was going to take a picture of the receipt and show it here, but, of course, the gas pump ate the receipt, grinding it up instead of dispensing it.  I had to scramble to write everything down before the pump's display reset.

My previous fill-up on June 30 cost $4.78
9 per gallon.  The fill-up before that, on May 26, cost $4.489 per gallon.  Since I only put gas in my tank about once a month, and then it's only about a half tankful, I suppose I don't really have much cause for complaining.

I'd like to complain about problems with my newest paper, however,  I'm really having a hard time deciphering the Michelson-Gale experiment.  According to Wikipedia, the experiment showed that -
The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000. According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity.
I read and re-read the papers that Michelson and Gale wrote, but they don't clarify anything.  The purpose of my paper is to describe the experiment in plain English.  In "plain English," I think "230 parts in 1000" should somehow translate to some rotation speed of the earth at the location of the experiment, which took place in Clearing, Illinois, on the southwest side of Chicago.  But so far I cannot find anyplace that says anything like that.  I can't find any place that says that is wrong, either.  It seems I need to do more research.

© 2022 by Ed Lake