|Comments for Sunday, Sept. 25,
2016, thru Friday, Sept. 30, 2016:
September 27, 2016 - I'll be kind of busy on personal matters for the next couple days, so I won't be writing many comments. However, this morning I found another experiment which confirmed Time Dilation. It's presented in the form of a YouTube Video:
It's also interesting to look at the comments that follow the video to see how many people do not believe the evidence from the experiment, and how many people do not even understand what was demonstrated.
September 25, 2016 - On Friday morning, I sent an email and a copy of the latest version of my Time Dilated Light article to a well known scientist whose opinion I truly respect. On Friday afternoon, I received a reply that said my way of thinking about Time Dilation was one he'd never seen before, and he'd have to think about it. So, I'm awaiting his next response.
Unfortunately, I don't know what it is about my thinking about Time Dilation that he'd never seen before. Certainly it can't simply be that I think that Time Dilation is real. Or could it? I not only think it's real, I cannot understand how anyone can think it is not real after it has been proved real so many times.
The day before, on Thursday morning, I was stunned when a scientist from one of the largest scientific organizations in the world told me that he didn't "think that Time Dilation is a real effect in nature."
What's going on? Since when do experiments mean nothing, and since when do only beliefs have meaning?
I've always thought that virtually all scientists agreed with Richard Feynman's famous quote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."There have been many experiments which show very clearly that Time Dilation is real. Here are a few of them:
1.) In 1938, the Ives-Stillwell experiment was the first test to confirm that time dilation is real.
2.) In October 1971, the Hafele-Keating Experiment was performed. Four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity. The results fully confirmed that Time Dilation is real.
3.) In 2007, physicists in Germany and Canada timed the “ticking” of lithium ions as they hurtled around a ring at a fraction of the speed of light. They confirmed that Time Dilation is real.
4.) In September 2010, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) raised one atomic clock by one-third of a meter (about a foot) above a second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as Einstein predicted. They had once again confirmed that Time Dilation is real.
5.) In May 2016, PBS aired a 6-part science series called "Genius by Stephen Hawking." Part 1 was titled "Can We Time Travel?" In that show, two of the three experimenters took an atomic clock to the top of a mountain. After spending the night there, the third experimenter brought up another atomic clock which had spent the night at the bottom of the mountain. They found that the clock that was on top of the mountain was 20 nanoseconds (billionths of a second) ahead of the clock that was at the bottom. It was another experiment demonstrating that Time Dilation is real.
6.) And, of course, GPS satellites confirm every day that Time Dilation is real. Each satellite in the GPS system has an orbital speed of about 14,000 kilometers per hour. At that speed, a clock aboard the satellite runs slower than clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds (millionths of a second) per day. Each GPS satellite also orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 20,000 kilometers. At that altitude, a clock aboard the satellite runs faster than clocks on the ground by about 45 microseconds per day. So, each day the clocks aboard about 30 GPS satellites must be adjusted by 7 microseconds to compensate for velocity time dilation and by 45 microseconds to compensate for gravitational time dilation. If they weren’t adjusted by 38 microseconds (45 – 7 = 38) per day, the satellites would quickly become useless and unable to pinpoint the location of anything on the ground, with an error rate that would increase by the minute.
There are certainly other experiments which also show that Time Dilation is real. So why are there so many scientists who cannot accept the evidence and argue their beliefs instead?
Evidently, it is because no one is asking or answering the question: "What is Time if velocity and gravity can cause it to slow down?" The standard answer to the question "What is Time? is that "Time is a concept." But, as I've made clear many times on this web site, concepts do not slow down and speed up. So, what is Time if it can slow down and speed up? And would anyone believe any answer other than "Time is a concept," or any answer that is far removed from how we intuitively think of time?
Being a logical person, I had absolutely no problem visualizing Time as being something that operates on the atomic and subatomic level. It's what all the facts and evidence say. But when I did a search on ArXiv.org for "What is Time" I got links to only 6 papers (in a collection of 1,186,732 papers) which contain those three words in that sequence. One paper seems to be philosophical, three others are by the same Indian scientist who seems to be discussing religion instead of science, and one is titled "What is Time in Quantum Mechanics?" It seems only concerned with "time of arrival." And the sixth paper also seems to be an attempt to define "time" for mathematicians who work with Quantum Mechanics. It gives this answer to the question "What is Time?":
We are tempted to answer: time is just a measure of the number of events that happened in a given place. If so, then time is discrete, and there is another time, that counts the deterministic steps between events.It seems like such a basic question: What is Time if velocity and gravity can cause it to slow down? Yet, no one else phrases the question that way, and most scientists don't seem to want the question asked, much less answered.
I keep downloading and digging through scientific papers looking for some hint that I'm on the wrong track, that my theory of Time Dilated Light is wrong - or some hint that others have asked the same questions I ask. All I'm finding are papers which argue one "frame of reference" against another, as if reality has no meaning whatsoever.
And I keep remembering the physics class I took twice and how Professor Brian Greene from Columbia University summarized his lectures: "What this collectively tells us is that the traditional way we think about reality - the present is real, the past is gone, the future is yet to be - that is without any real basis in physics. What we are really learning from these ideas is that the past, the present and the future are all equally real."
That is not physics. It certainly is not science. It is religio mathematica, the religion of mathematics. If the math works, it must be believed. Hallelujah!
Sometimes I think I should just write and self-publish a book about all this and forget about finding someone willing to intelligently discuss it. It's been an absolutely fascinating experience getting this far.
But then I wonder: What if I do a slightly different search of ArXiv.org or the entire Internet, what kind of results will I get? And what if I ask people a slightly different question, what will their answers be? Every time I explain things to people in a slightly different way, I understand those things better myself.
|Comments for Sunday, Sept. 18,
2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 24, 2016:
September 23, 2016 - This morning I was discussing the absurdity of "light clocks" with someone who was posting in the comments section after the YouTube video about light clocks that I first mentioned here in my September 4 comment. When the person got tired of not being able to convert me to his beliefs, he wrote "If you think that math could ever be wrong, then you don't know math, and what it is." I felt he should have said "Hallelujah!!" and "Amen" after that pronouncement of his beliefs.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I need to go back to the beginning and write a paper titled "Time Dilation is Real!" All the arguments I'm having seem to be traceable back to a general belief that Time Dilation is just some kind of illusion resulting from relativity, i.e., nothing more than the illusion of looking outside a train window and momentarily thinking that the railroad station is moving and not the train you just boarded. And no tests or examples showing that time dilation is real can change their minds. That would require thinking of Time as something other than just a "concept" or another "illusion."
It's all very disheartening. I would like to discuss science. But now it seems I'm going to have to discuss psychology and why so many scientists absolutely refuse to accept that Time Dilation is real and that time is not just a "concept." It's going to be another battle against "True Believers." And I've never yet changed the mind of a "True Believer."
September 22, 2016 - Hmm. Yesterday I exchanged a series of emails with an American scientist who has a problem that my paper on Time Dilated Light seems to solve. However, he pointed out a possible problem in verifying my theory.
The "problem" has to do with the level of accuracy of current equipment used to measure the speed of light. It's supposedly incredibly accurate, but, assuming my theory is valid, is the equipment accurate enough to tell the difference between the speed of light at ground level and the speed of light 30 feet above ground level? If not, how far apart do the measuring devices have to be in order to get a meaningful measurement of differences in the speed of light?
Light is said to travel approximately 1 foot per nanosecond. A nanosecond is one billionth of a second or .000000001 seconds. So, what is the length of a second at 30 feet in height versus at 0 feet? Is it 9,192,631,770 atomic clock "ticks" at both heights because a lot of decimal places are needed to show any difference, or is there already a measurable difference of 1 or 10 or 100 ticks? I dunno. And I'm not sure how to find out. I'll have to think about it.
As a result of the email discussion, I changed my paper to add 9 words before the proposed test for gravitational time dilation. I added these 9 words: "Assuming that current equipment and methodologies are sufficiently precise, ..." then you can measure the speed of light differences in the ways I describe.
The conversation ended this morning when the scientist advised me, "I don't think Time dilation is a real effect in nature. If you do. So I guess we can disagree on that." That was a surprise to me, since I got the impression from his previous writings that he did indeed think Time Dilation was a real effect in nature. I'd showed him several scientific papers proving that time dilation was real, and he didn't challenge any of them. I guess I just assumed they would be enough to convince any scientist. Unfortunately, he also wrote, "I just don't have the time or the energy to get into a long discussions with all the people who would like to share their ideas with me. There's only one of me, and thousands of them."
So, I guess that's that. I'll just have to move on to the next scientist who has some kind of problem that my theory appears to solve.
September 21, 2016 - I awoke this morning realizing that there is no reason I cannot continue submitting my article on Time Dilated Light to science journals that do not require placement on ArXiv.org first. I only tried 3 such journals, and I have no idea how many others there may be. Meanwhile, I can continue trying to find an "endorser" who will assist me in placing my article on ArXiv.org.
In the past 24 hours, 4 people read one or more versions of the original "Time Dilated Light" article that I first put on ViXra.org back in July. They were the first readers in over a week. It makes me wonder what I did or what happened to suddenly cause four people to read my article. Did the scientist who received the copy of the article I sent out yesterday decide to research me? Or is it just some kind of coincidence? I'll probably never find out.
But, one thing is certain: I should be trying as many routes as possible to get my article in the hands of people who can tell me if it is as important as I think it is, or if it is just the result of something I misinterpreted.
September 20, 2016 - I'm still spending most of my time studying articles on ArXiv.org, looking for someone who might be interested in discussing my paper on Time Dilated Light with me. Yesterday, I sent out a copy of my paper to a scientist who had a problem that my paper seems to solve. It was the first copy of the magazine-format article I've sent to anyone. The scientist may still have the problem, but his paper describing his problem was written in 2009, and a lot could have happened in the past 7 years. He could have received ten thousand emails with all sorts of crazy arguments and nutty proposed solutions. And he could be fed up with responding to them.
If past experience holds true, he simply won't respond to my email. He may be fed up after getting crappy suggestions for 7 years, he may just reject any email that has attachments, he may be too busy to respond to emails from people he does not know, or he may simply disagree with my paper and not want to tell me so because he assumes it will lead to an argument he doesn't have time for.
Another problem is: The scientist has a problem, and he's looking for a solution that is defined the way he defined his problem. My solution says that he is looking at the problem incorrectly. He may not want that kind of solution.
I was just looking at his paper again. A printed copy is setting beside my computer as I type these words. I just used a yellow marker to highlight some additional questions he asks. I'm tempted to send him a pdf copy of his own paper with my highlights and notes on it. But that could to force me to discuss his problem using his terms and his examples. It could be a lot of work for me, and he might just delete the file without ever reading it.
But, it could be educational. I'll have to think about it. Maybe I'll just try the first couple pages to see if it's worth continuing.
Or maybe I'll continue looking for someone else who has a more recent problem my paper can solve.
Or maybe I'll work on my book about all this.
September 18, 2016 - Uh oh. I've got nothing prepared for today's "Sunday comment." So, once again I'm going to have to "wing it." Here goes ....
I was surprised this morning to be advised by email notification that someone had posted a comment to my YouTube video about the anthrax letters of 2001. I thought it was the first comment in over a year, but then I found another comment someone posted two weeks ago that I wasn't notified about.
The most recent post was from "Mark Wahlburg," stating:
That's strange.. The profile of someone who is trying to figure out how to write r's does not fit the profile of a scientist....It's not the "Mark Wahlberg" from movies, who spells his last name differently. But I also noticed that his post was a "highlighted post" for some reason. I'd never seen a "highlighted post" before, and I have no idea what it means or how one creates a "highlighted" post.
I responded to that post, telling him that the fact that the writer of the anthrax letters was "someone who is trying to figure out how to write r's" was the point of the video. Ivins must have had someone else write the letters for him, like someone from his wife's day care center.
I also responded to the post from two weeks ago, which was just some guy telling me how he found the video.
Meanwhile, in the comments following the YouTube video about "light clocks" that I mentioned in my September 4 comment, I'm arguing mostly the same things I'm arguing on WorldScienceU.com. I'm arguing that "light clocks" are nonsense, and that if they existed they would disprove General Relativity. All the arguments about "light clocks" and "relativity" just convince me that my theory of Time Dilated Light is absolutely correct.
The main reason I had nothing ready to post this morning was because I've been incredibly busy revising my paper on Time Dilated Light while researching scientific articles on ArXiv.org. I now have 96 ArXiv.org articles saved on my computer, 15 more than last week at this time. Most of the time was spent just studying the articles I already had to see if anything in them disproved my theory. I couldn't find anything. I found dozens of articles arguing different theories, but arguing a different theory doesn't disprove my theory.
The most important thing I found was that there are a LOT of theories about the speed of light being "variable." In fact, everyone seems to use a the same acronym "VSL" (Variable Speed of Light) to identify such theories. They are "VSL theories."
My research also finds that there are a LOT of problems with the FIXED speed of light theory that is currently used. That's why so many people are trying to develop a good, testable VSL theory. Mine seems to be the only easily testable VSL theory.
My research also finds that none of the people who have constructed their own VSL theories are "qualified to endorse" the publishing of papers on ArXiv.org. So, I can't ask them to "endorse" my paper for two reasons: (1) they are not "qualified to endorse," and (2) they have different theories, which would likely mean they would give my paper a "negative endorsement" if I were to ask them to endorse my paper.
Of course, I cannot ask those who argue in favor of the FIXED speed of light and how the VSL theorists are just nut cases who do not understand mathematics, since they would certainly give my paper a "negative endorsement."
That leaves one group that may offer some hope: the group that is publishing papers describing problems they are having with the FIXED speed of light. They have no VSL theory to promote, but they wonder and speculate on how to test for a variable speed of light. Interestingly, their ideas for testing methods directly relate to the problems they are having. Their problems are incredibly complex, so their tests are incredibly complex. And there's one additional problem: none of those people are "qualified to endorse," either. At least I haven't found any.
BUT, somehow those scientists found people to "endorse" the papers they put on ArXiv.org.
So, what I'm going to try to do is get a scientist who has a problem with the FIXED speed of light, but no testable solution, to read my paper which not only has a solution, but has an easily testable solution. If he agrees with my paper (or even if he doesn't fully agree), I'm hoping he will help me find someone to "endorse" the paper so I can get it on ArXiv.org.
It's a plan. If it doesn't work, I'll try a different plan. And, meanwhile, I'll try to get to work on a book about "Time Dilated Light" and how I developed the theory, a book that I can self-publish if all else fails.
|Comments for Sunday, Sept. 11,
2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 17, 2016:
Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - Some scientific discussions on Facebook get really interesting. Below is part of a conversation my alter ego Ralph Maggio had recently with a few other people on the Facebook page at the link HERE.
Neil: This post is not to imply quarrel between us, friends, is this group. I have read it in the dictionary, but those definitions didn't gave me the satisfaction I want. Now here's my question, please answer it without fights and opposing other's opinion: What is Time? Others will disagree but I'd define time as an idea we use to describe change. It's certainly not a 'thing' that has any physical existence.
Gian Carlo: I'm surprised that we have the exact same idea
Neil: There will be other views, believe me.
Ralph: Good question. One thing we KNOW about time is that it can dilate (run slower). Over a hundred years ago, Alfred Einstein explained that time runs slower the faster you move, and time runs slower the closer you are to a gravitational mass. MANY experiments over the years using atomic clocks have proved he was right.
You can set a stack of atomic clocks atop each other and SEE that the higher the clock is in the stack (the farther it is from the center of the Earth's gravitational mass) the faster it ticks.
Clocks are not "time," but they definitely MEASURE time.
So, one thing we can be certain about. Time is NOT just a "concept," or an "idea." Concepts and ideas do not run slower when they move fast or get close to a gravitational mass.
We can also be certain that time works on the atomic or sub-atomic level, because experiments have shown that certain types of sub-atomic particles (muons) experience time. The faster they move, the longer they exist.
Is time a "thing"? Probably not. It seems more like it is a property of matter.
The only thing we know for certain is: It's a fascinating subject.
I suppose I should add, Neil and Gian Carlo, that we CREATE ideas and concepts. We do NOT create time. We are simply AWARE of time.
Neil: We create the IDEA of time. Only change is real.
Ralph: We created the word "time" to identify and give a name to something that is real.
Bill: In my mind, relative.. many different definitions - perhaps a distance between 2 points, a clock, slows down when I walk, steady in a resting state, Time?.. ..clueless. :-)
Dave: Time is a human construct. The ways that time is measured, including Atomic clocks, are human constructs. Einstein's observations only validate that atoms slow down as higher gravitational forces are applied to them.
Time is NOT change; change, however, is man's concrete evidence that time has passed. If you place a sensor in a sealed, darkened, 100% hypothetical vacuum, it will measure no changes, but time will still pass.
Finally, although our measurement of it is arbitrary, it's existence is not- Calculus and most advanced science is impossible to define without it.
Neil: The evidence of time still passing would be the continuing change in the observer's system. I use the term evidence advisedly; we consider that time is passing because we witness change. If we were locked inside the sealed container we would think that time had stopped.
Dave: The fact that we were still thinking would be evidence in of itself. We don't need to see change to know that time had passed. We need measured change to know how much time has passed.
Ralph: I would have written what Dave wrote in a slightly a different way. I would write: "Time is not change. Change is just another way of MEASURING Time."
Isn't there an Edgar Allen Poe story where some guy gets sealed in a coffin and thinks that days have passed when, in reality it is only minutes before the coffin is opened? Our own heartbeat and rate of breathing will tell us that time is passing.
Time is real. Change is just a way of measuring the passage of time. Processes are also ways of measuring time. According to Einstein (and I fully agreed), the process of aging will occur at a slower rate when you are moving very fast or get closer to a large gravitational mass. The process of decay will also occur more slowly. So will our sensory processes. We will FEEL no slowing of time even when we KNOW that it is happening. When we look out the window of our space ship and see the Earth orbiting the Sun once a week or once a day, we will KNOW our Time is running slower than Earth time, even though we feel and can measure no changes to our life processes.
Dave: There have been countless sensory deprivation experiments that document the acceleration of the perception of time while so deprived. In short: without feedback for reference, a combination of boredom and anxiety conspire together to give the childhood feeling: "are we there yet?" :)
Neil: The argument that "Time is real. Change is just a way of measuring the passage of time" is putting the cart before the horse. We only perceive or measure change. Time is the idea we invented to describe and discuss change. To say that our measurements and perceptions are evidence of the idea we use to explain them is circular.
Dave: It is impossible not to think that way. If locked in a hypothetical state of complete sensory deprivation, we would detect no changes, yet our thoughts would confirm that time is passing, even if we think of nothing but "one one-thousand, two one-thousand..." While you could argue (and I would agree) that our thoughts are themselves nothing more than electro-chemical changes, so is life itself. It is impossible to detect change without experiencing the passage of time, and vice-versa.
Neil: I don't entirely disagree that it is impossible to think any differently but we experience change and call it time. We don't experience time. (BTW I would never argue that thoughts are electrochemical changes).
Dave: I would :) e-c changes with purpose and intelligent direction, but changes nonetheless.
Neil: Sure. When two things correlate how do you identify which is cause and which effect?
Ralph: Neil Creamer wrote: "we experience change and call it time. We don't experience time." And, "When two things correlate how do you identify which is cause and which effect?"
The two things do NOT correlate. That is what time dilation proves. We can CAUSE processes (i.e., change) to slow down by slowing down time. We can also CAUSE time to slow down by moving very fast or by getting closer to a gravitational mass.
We cannot CAUSE time to change by slowing down change. That doesn't even make sense. How do you slow down change other than by slowing down time? Time is the cause, change is the effect.
We do not typically experience time dilation, that is why it is difficult to imagine time as something that can be manipulated to CAUSE a slow down of the aging process.
That's the kind of conversation I can only have on Facebook. I know no one personally who has any interest whatsoever in science, much less in discussing a question like "What is time?"
September 13, 2016 - I've got a new magazine article-style version of my paper on Time Dilated Light all set to publish, but I don't know who to ask for an "endorsement" so I can put it on ArXiv.org. I hesitate to ask just anyone for an endorsement. I'd like to exchange emails with them first, to get their views on critical points. I just need to work out a strategy for doing that. I almost certainly need to begin with a discussion of one of their papers to see if there is a chance for a meeting of minds. But, will anyone have the time to discuss their paper with me? I suppose it all depends upon how I open the conversation.
To complicate matters, this morning I awoke with an idea for a different version of my Time Dilated Light article, a version specifically directed toward mathematicians. I realized that I can put together a mathematical formula for Velocity Time Dilated Light, and, if I think about it for a while, and do a bit of research, I can probably put together a mathematical formula for Gravitational Time Dilated Light. And maybe even a combined formula for light that is slowed by both velocity and gravity. I just need some time to sit down, to think about it, and to put it in writing. And then, once again, I'll need to find someone to discuss it with, someone who will explain to me where I'm wrong -- if I'm wrong. In the past two years I haven't been able to find such a person. They just tell me that I need to study mathematics the way they did, and I need to read and learn what they learned, so that I can believe what they believe.
September 12, 2016 - I awoke this morning realizing that when I searched through ArXiv.org for those 81 scientific articles last week, I'd totally forgotten that all my scientific papers are on ViXra.org. So, this morning I checked ViXra.org to see if they had any additional papers about "Time Dilation." I found 28 of them that seemed worth downloading and checking out. I also see that ViXra.org currently has only 15,653 articles on file, compared to the 1,182,505 articles on ArXiv.org.
Strangely, when I searched for the phrase "time dilation" on ViXra.org, my article on the subject was not one of the ones displayed. But I also noticed that the search was done by Google, not by ViXra.org. On ArXiv.org, the searches are done by ArXiv.org software. Both sites are owned and run by Cornell University, but ArXiv.org is clearly the web site that gets priority and attention.
All I did this morning was download those 28 articles after briefly skimming their first pages to see if they might be of interest. I didn't attempt to create a list of details about them. I've got to set priorities, otherwise I'll be continuously finding something new that is interesting and which takes my attention away from what I should be doing, which is getting my paper on Time Dilated Light onto ArXiv.org so that I can submit it to an actual scientific journal.
Hmm. I just noticed that VIXRA is ARXIV backwards. Groan! I really do not want to wonder about that!
September 11, 2016 - I mentioned in my September 8 comment that I had downloaded and saved 81 scientific articles that might relate to my scientific papers. I've been going through them and making notes in a WORD file with this name: "list-of-papers.docx". It's in the same directory as the 81 papers:
It's a slow but often fascinating task to skim through each paper to see if it has something of interest or value to what I'm writing. I've only read two or three of them all the way through. Basically, I'm just reading the first few pages to see if the paper might be worth reading fully. Then I put a summary of my findings in the list-of-papers.docx file. I also make notes about strange problems I notice with the format of the article. If the article looks like something I can use in support of my theory, I make a note as to whether the author is "Qualified to Endorse" or not, i.e., whether or not the author can endorse my article when I try to submit it to ArXiv.org.
For example, here is what I noted about the very first article on the list (with parts of the author's email address blocked out to avoid causing him problems):
And here is what I noted about the second article on the list:
Below are my notes on an article that was of great interest to me, but research showed that the author cannot endorse articles on ArXiv.org, and there are indications that he is now retired and may not be responding to emails:
Here's an article by a mathematician who attempts to disprove Einstein's theories:
Note that the author's location is unknown. It's the only article I found where the location of the author wasn't clear or easy to determine. Also note that I copied a long section from the first page of the article to help remind me what it is all about. The section I highlighted in red supports what I've been saying about mathematicians, although it's from the mathematicians' point of view. From my point of view, it's the mathematicians who are "picking on" the scientists, not the other way around.
And below is an article that seems definitely worth reading even though it won't help me with my paper. And, when I tried to copy a few lines from the article, I found a problem with doing so.
I could go on and on. I read the articles in the order they are listed in the image at the top of this comment. I soon realized that the ID number contains the year the article was submitted, starting with 2007, which meant that I was reading the oldest first. But when I finished reading the only article from 2016 and reached the fourth article from the bottom of the fourth column, the numbering system changed. And I was once again reading oldest articles first, starting in 2003.
On Friday I found a recent paper that was truly of great interest. It was written by an astronomer/astrophysicist who had encountered a problem with some of his astronomical measurements. Studying the paper, it appeared that my paper is the solution to his problem. Then, after thinking about it for awhile, I realized that his problem may be verification and proof of my Time Dilated Light theory.
But what do I do next?
Clearly, the first thing I have to do is study his paper in detail to make certain I fully understand the parts that seem to directly relate to my theory. Then, I may try emailing the author to verify that my understanding of his problem is in agreement with his understanding. I'll be writing my understanding in "layman's language." I may even write what I plan to put in my paper about his paper. His paper isn't overwhelmingly technical, but it contains a lot of technical jargon.
If we are in agreement, then I'll have to decide what to do next. It appears that I would be changing plans once again, and I would try to submit my paper on Time Dilated Light to ArXiv.org instead of first trying to "set the groundwork" with my earlier articles on "Time Dilation Re-Visualized" and "What is Time?"
But, as I write these words, I still haven't finished going through all 81 articles. Furthermore, I've found that there are articles in the fifth column that are of truly great interest, even though they are older articles. Here are some sample titles:
‘c’ is the speed of light, isn’t it?The last article listed above has three defintions for "time":
Definition 1. Time is the magnitude measured by clocks.None of those definitions matches my definition.
I awoke yesterday morning and this morning thinking of revisions I might make to my paper on Time Dilated Light. I definitely think I can eliminate the references to my previous two papers. In some ways, Time Dilated Light might be put to good use to "set the groundwork" for "What is Time?" And I think I can use the beginning from the article I tried to get printed in a newspaper as the beginning of "Time Dilated Light." It's a good attention grabber. And it would "set the groundwork" before I go into the more complex and controversial areas.
So, I've got a LOT of work to do. But things are definitely looking good.
|Comments for Sunday, Sept. 4, 2016,
thru Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016:
September 8, 2016 - Hmmm. I did several searches of the ArXiv.org article files yesterday and this morning, looking for the terms "time dilation" and "speed of light" and articles where the words "reality" and "relativity" are both used. I found about 2,500 articles that contain those terms. Looking through the titles of those 2,500 articles, I found a few hundred that seemed of interest. I downloaded each one and skimmed through the first page or two to see if they were actually about topics of interest to me. I found 81 articles that seemed of interest. I saved copies of all 81 articles.
The next step is to do a more detailed examination of the 81 articles, to make a computerized list of them, and to make some notes on the list as to whether the article is worthy of closer examination and study. Some of them seem of great interest. Others may contain information I need. And, of course, I'm also looking for authors who might be willing to read and "endorse" my article when I submit it to ArXiv.org.
Meanwhile, I learned that a reader can give a "negative endorsement" for an article. If I get a "negative endorsement," that means I have to get at least two "positive endorsements" before ArXiv.org will accept the article.
I can already see that I need to change my tactics. My article on "Time Dilated Light" mentions two earlier articles I wrote but never tried to get published. Now it seems clear and certain that I need to go back to the first article I wrote on "Time Dilation Re-Visualized," I need to revise it to also be about "relativity versus reality," and I need to try to get it published first. In other words, I need to "lay a foundation" for people to read my article on "Time Dilated Light." "Time Dilated Light" contains too much that is new and different for a typical reader to accept it without prior conditioning.
After I've described what is real about Time Dilation, and after I've described how Time Dilation needs to be understood by itself before complicating matters with Relativity, I then need to go to the next step, which is to get my second paper, "What Is Time?" onto ArXiv.org (and maybe into some scientific journal). I'll undoubtedly have to revise and rework that paper, too, before attempting to get "endorsers" to read it and before I try to submit it to ArXiv.org.
If I can get my "Time Dilation Re-Visualized" article onto ArXiv.org, I will have also gotten at least one "endorser." I theory, I can then try to enlist the aid of that endorser (or those endorsers) to get "What is Time?" onto ArXiv.org.
If I can get both articles on ArXiv.org, then and only then I can think about getting "Time Dilated Light" onto ArXiv.org and getting it published in some journal.
Meanwhile, I should probably work on a book about it all. If I can't get all three articles onto ArXiv.org, and if I can't get "Time Dilated Light" published in a scientific journal, I will undoubtedly have to self-publish the book. But, at least it will be out there for anyone to read who has the interest.
But, the first step in all this is to examine those 81 articles, to see what they have to say, and to see if any of their authors are possible endorsers for "Time Dilation Re-Visualized." I see articles which question the "universal speed of light," I see articles which point out scientific findings and observations which indicate that the speed of light is not a universal constant, and I see articles which question what is real and what is just "perceived" about Time Dilation.
And I see articles which say you are very likely to get crucified if you try to publish an article that attacks main-stream thinking. Fortunately, crucifixion is only a concern for professional scientists who have to worry about keeping their jobs. That's not something I have to be concerned about.
September 6, 2016 - DAMN! I was all set to submit my nicely typeset paper to a scientific journal. So, I started going through the steps for submitting it. Then I found that I have to first submit it to ArXiv.org. And then I learned I can't submit it to ArXiv.org until I have someone to "endorse" it. The instructions for getting an "endorsement" are as follows:
If you need to be endorsed by someone, it is best for you to find an endorser whoSo, it looks like I'm going to have to try to find an "endorser." At first, I thought this was a setback of some kind.
However, after studying what the process is all about, I learned that this is probably where I should have started in the first place. ArXiv.org contains about 1,100,000 scientific papers on file, written by thousands of scientists from all over the world. ArXiv.org provides a way to search for articles in the scientific area where my paper belongs, and when I find an article on a similar subject, ArXiv.org shows whether or not any of the scientists who authored the paper are willing to read and endorse papers written by others. So, in effect, I have a list of thousands of scientists from all over the world who are open to people asking them to read their articles, and those scientists may be prepared to give me their thoughts about my paper.
Here's more information from the ArXiv.org web site:
It is a good idea to send eligible endorsers a copy of your proposed submission along with the endorsement request. Please note, however, that it is inappropriate to email large numbers of potential endorsers at once, or to repeatedly email the same endorser with a request for endorsement.So, there's nothing wrong will sending out emails to four or five per day and having them all read it and give opinions. I just have to be careful about getting "negative endorsments." And, presumably, if I get multiple positive "endorsers," that might enhance the chances of me actually getting published. But, I only need one positive endorser to become eligible to submit my paper.
Live and learn.
September 5, 2016 - I think my paper on "Time Dilated Light" is correctly typeset and ready for submission. I'll submit it tomorrow morning. Every time I think I'm done, however, I notice some missing apostrophe or something that should be italicized but isn't. But I'm noticing fewer and fewer such problems.
Meanwhile, I just received a copy of an email addressed to my alter ego, Ralph Maggio, advising him that someone posted this message to the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group:
Besides, nobody here is mistaking the map for the territory, except for you. Let me simplify this to a more condensed form. The current mathematical model matches experimentation, so what difference does it make? Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken? What practical use do you expect us to be granted with your allegedly more practical viewpoint (which has repeatedly not matched experiment, by the way)? Instead of screaming about "imaginary light clocks" and the supposed dense skulls of mathematicians, why don't you get to your point? What magically changes if we all agree with you, Ralph?The first question highlighted in red assumes that things are not "broken," when they really are broken. And there have been no experiments to compare the speed of light at different locations where time is known to tick at a different rate. The second question in red is a much more interesting question. My paper really only describes one "change" that acceptance of the theory would cause: calculations for red-shifting. Equipment which determines how much "red-shift" (or "blue-shift") there is in a wave of light coming from outer space is constructed to assume that all light in the universe is traveling at the same speed as light is measured in a lab here on Earth. So, the equipment cannot tell how much a light wave is red-shifted (or blue-shifted) because the object is moving away from (or approaching) the Earth and how much the light wave merely appears red-shifted (or blue shifted) simply because the light measuring equipment is incorrectly calibrated.
That would mean that objects in the distant universe are closer than is currently believed. And the expansion of the universe is slower than is currently believed. And all calculations about "dark energy" will have to be redone. It may even turn out that "dark energy" is simply a mathematical error resulting from using an incorrect number for the speed of light.
There could be massive changes in other areas that I cannot foresee because I know so little about those areas.
The biggest change I would like to see is to have physics teachers stop teaching crap to their students about how time and relativity work. Albert Einstein and Carver Mead have both pointed out the problems with mathematics and mathematicians taking over science. Learning that the speed of light is not a "fixed universal constant" just might teach mathematicians that they need to learn what the numbers they are using really mean. They have to stop assuming that because the math works, everything must be correct.
September 4, 2016 - Yesterday, on the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group, someone provided a YouTube video which uses another "light clock" to explain the same nonsense that Prof. Greene explained in his course (see last Sunday's comment). Here's the video:
So, naturally, I had to go to the YouTube page and add a comment after the video. Here's what I wrote:
A "light clock" is just nonsense. First, if there was such a thing as a "light clock," it would DISPROVE gravitational time dilation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.Maybe it will start some kind of discussion. The posting of the video to the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group started a long argument, but it was all pointless, since the people arguing with Ralph Maggio (who argued my point of view) mostly refused to answer any of Ralph's questions, and when they did make comments, the comments were distortions of what Ralph said, combined with personal attacks and a lot of mathematics-based gibberish. It proved once again that there is no way to have an intelligent conversation with a True Believer -- including a lot of mathematicians who seem to truly believe that mathematics and science are the same thing.
I really wish I could find someone who can discuss this topic in layman's terms. If all they can do is argue mathematics and argue that I need to learn the math in order to understand what they are saying, that just means they cannot understand or discuss the science involved. Math is "garbage in, garbage out." And the mathematicians are proud of the fact that if you put garbage into an equation and get garbage out of the equation, that proves that the math is right. They don't care about the garbage. That's for non-mathematicians to worry about.
Will I ever find anyone (except Ralph) who fully agrees with me? I dunno. I still see a lot of people "liking" what I post on Facebook, but few of them join the conversation to add additional points to my arguments. If I'm wrong, why is it so difficult for the mathematicians to explain in simple terms where I am wrong. I keep showing them this quote from Einstein:
Hmm. While looking for the link to the above quote, I found the quote below in a web site about Einstein quotes:
It seems to be the same argument I am having with mathematicians! Unfortunately, the site doesn't provide any information about the context of the quote and where it came from. Then I found this quote:
That quote is from an address Albert Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1921. It's a long talk which I didn't find until this morning as I was typing this comment. I'll have to study it in detail to see exactly what Einstein was talking about. Here's another quote from the first part of the talk:
All linear measurement in physics is practical geometry in this sense, so too is geodetic and astronomical linear measurement, if we call to our help the law of experience that light is propagated in a straight line, and indeed in a straight line in the sense of practical geometry.I don't know if it was a coincidence or not, but I awoke this morning with the realization that I might have to write another scientific paper about a "Reality Check." As illustrated by Professor Greene's lectures and by the video at the top of this comment, according to mathematicians, a person on a fast moving space ship who bounces a beam of light straight up and down will see no effect of movement. The mathematicians claim the photon will appear to go straight up and down no matter how fast the rocket is moving. Meanwhile, some mythical stationary observer outside of the space ship will see the light traveling at angles to keep up with the moving mirror.
But, according to me, and I think according to Einstein, just the opposite is true. The person on the space ship will see the light clock stop working because light travels in a straight line, and on a moving space ship the light will appear to travel at angles until the mirrors move fully out of the way. And the mythical stationary observer will see the light traveling in a straight line at all times -- just the opposite of what the mathematicians claim.
Most interestingly, I think a "reality check" can be performed to see who is right and who is wrong.
All that is needed is to perform the same tests I proposed in my paper on "Time Dilated Light," but include one additional test. On or near the Equator, in some place like Singapore or at the space station in French Guiana, they should measure the speed of light traveling vertically. At those locations, the light measuring equipment would be moving at about 1,000 miles per hour as the Earth spins on its axis. Unfortunately, we might need some mathematicians to tell us how far "out of plumb" light will travel if we emit a photon of light from equipment on the floor of an assembly building, bounce it off a mirror straight up at the top of the building, and record its impact as it hits a detector next to the emitter on the floor. Will the photon travel in a straight line as Einstein and I claim and thereby, as a result of the movement of the earth, appear to travel at angles as it goes up and down? Or will the photon go straight up and down as the mathematicians claim?
If the photon goes straight up and down, as mathematicians predict, that will prove that light does not travel in a straight line. It will show that light somehow magically follows the mirror. It will prove the mathematicians are right.
If the light seems to travel at a slight angle toward the west due to the spinning of the Earth around its axis at 1,000 mph, then Einstein and I are right.
Easy peasy. We just need someone to perform the tests.
This whole subject gets more fascinating every day.
|Comments for Thursday, Sept. 1,
2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 3, 2016:
September 1, 2016 - I found an "easy way" to construct a magazine article using the RevTEX typesetter programming language. I found a web site where they show a sample article on the right side of your computer screen, and on the left side they show the LATEX code used to typeset the article. You have the option of selecting various page formats to conform with what is required by the journal to which you plan to submit the article. Once you have the right format template in place, you can then type the title of our article into the proper spot in the code, and a moment later the sample article changes to show your title. Then you replace the sample abstract with your abstract, etc. In theory, all you need to do is replace the parts of the code that belong to the sample with parts from your own article, and the result is you have typeset your article. Like so:
In reality, it is a lot more complicated. If you have any percentage symbols (%) in your paper, the RevTEX compiler will interpret them to indicate a co-writer's non-printing comment in the code version. So, you have to replace "%" with "percent." Apostrophes (') do not work, either. I think I read somewhere that they need to be replaced by accent marks (´). So, "Joe's" becomes "Joe´s." I haven't gotten around to doing that yet. And I think quote marks also have to be replaced, since they are a LATEX code for something else.
And that's just the beginning. I think on the two column format shown above, all references have to appear as footnotes at the bottom of the page on which the reference is used, instead of at the end of the article, which is where my WORD version of my paper currently has them. I have no clue how that is done. I also have no clue how to encode a mathematical equation so it will look like a mathematical equation. I only use one in the paper, but one is enough to require a lot of study and research.
Nonetheless, I'm hoping to have a typeset version of the article in the hands of the editor of some specialized scientific journal by next Tuesday.