Archive for ed-lake.com
November 2016

Comments for Sunday, Nov. 27, 2016, thru Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2016:

November 30, 2016 - This morning I finished going through the last of the 76 scientific papers related to Time Dilation that I downloaded a couple days ago.  I only read a few of them in their entirety, since the vast majority were just nit-picking arguments about some obscure facet of Time Dilation.  I should have realized long ago that scientific papers aren't written to reiterate what is stated about some subject in the text books, they are written to argue against or correct or expand upon what is stated about some subject in the text books. 

Another thing that reading those articles made me realize is that mathematicians who argue that Time Dilation is just an "illusion" are doing so because they view Time Dilation as a solution to problems with Relativity and simultaneity.  In the world of mathematics, solutions have no meaning without the problems that created them.  4 has no real meaning all by itself.  It only has meaning when it is the solution to a problem:  What is 2 + 2?   Or when it is a component of a problem: What is 4 - 2?

In the real world, however, the solution to a problem can be a real thing.  A tree falling on a power line can be the solution to the question of why the lights suddenly went out.  The tree is real and so are the power lines, even if you didn't have a problem. 

What caused the problems with determining simultaneity?  The problems were caused by Time Dilation and the fact that time ticks at a different rate for everyone and every thing.  Einstein discovered that Time Dilation exists.  If you do not have the problem, you still have a fact that Time Dilation exists and produces a different time for everyone and every thing.  Mathematicians seem unable to comprehend that.

Anyway, reading those 76 papers also provided me with a new journal where I can try to get my scientific papers published.  So, I promptly wrote a new version of "Time Dilation Without Relativity" which will discuss Time Dilation as if the problems of Relativity and simultaneity were solved a hundred years ago and what we need to do now is understand what the real phenomenon of Time Dilation means to our perception of matters related to Time and Light. 

I have a first draft.  I hope to submit the final draft on Monday.  We'll see.      


November 28, 2016 - Groan!  Yesterday, I spent some time learning more about the library web site I was informed about when I visited my local library a couple weeks ago.  The web site is called www.BadgerLink.net.  You need a library card from a Wisconsin library to access the documents on it.

I had just been looking for articles in Nature and Physics Today magazines.  But yesterday I did a search for "time dilation" through their entire data base.  I was provided with a list of 430 papers that contain that exact phrase.  I went through the first 350 on the list (which was in order by "relevance"), and I downloaded about SEVENTY papers that looked to be of interest.

Now, I have to go through the papers to see if they contain anything I should know.  One paper I have already studied, which was published in May, 2016, and which also happens to be available to the general public on line at another web site, is titled "A logical examination of the nature of time."  It was written by a systems analyst and programmer (as I used to be) who uses logic instead of math to draw conclusions (as I do).  Some of his conclusions match mine (e.g., "In physical time, all events occur during 'Now.'").  Many others do not.  But, more importantly, the author seems to have reached his conclusions via a very different line of logic than what I used.  His logic is sometimes very hard to follow, and I don't know how much time I should spend to decipher it.  The article is published in a Canadian science journal that I've never checked out before.  (One minor stumbling block: the abstract must be provided in both English and French.)

Most of the other seventy or so papers I downloaded were published in other science journals that I never checked out to see if I should try submitting to them.

I've been complaining that I haven't found anyone with whom I can discuss my theory, but now I may have found something that could be very helpful.  I found a treasure trove of articles on the same subjects that interest me, and I can study those articles to see if any of them verify or disprove my theory.

And then I might try to submit my articles to these different science journals to get the feedback I've been seeking.

My first task:  To produce a list of the 70 or so articles and to get a better idea of what each article is about. 

So, my book is "on hold" for awhile.  


November 27, 2016 - In spite of the Thanksgiving holiday, I did get some work done on my book last week.  I've got 14 pages (a 3-page Introduction, a 5-page first chapter and a 6-page second chapter) that look pretty good, but the odds are that I'll revise them many times before I'm finished. 

What I'm also seeing is that the book (as I now envision it) won't be more than 150 pages long.  In fact, it might not make it to 100 pages.  But, who knows?  I could get into some area that I haven't even thought about that could add many more pages to the book.  Plus, I can always change the font size, which would certainly increase the number of pages.  And I have been thinking of adding a lot of drawings and cartoons to illustrate the concepts and points.  In addition, what I've written so far suggests that I may have a lot of very short chapters, which means there can be a lot of blank space at the end of chapters and almost about a third of a page at the start of each chapter that contains nothing but the chapter number and the title of the chapter.  A book with 50 chapters will have the equivalent of about 50 pages that are just blank space.  So, my worries about the length of the book could just be concerns about plunging into the unknown. 

I probably should have created an outline for the book before I started, but it may turn out that that is what I'm doing now - only in a longer, more detailed form.

One thing I noticed that might be worth a mention somewhere in the book is that I'm finding some articles from major science magazines that can be viewed as attacks on Albert Einstein. 

The first article was one I found while at my local library eight days ago.  While looking for articles that mention Time Dilation, I found an article from the November 19, 2015, issue of Nature titled "Einstein was no lone genius."  The article is all about various people who helped Einstein think through this theories as they were being developed, and, in particular, helped him with mathematical equations.  Mathematics was not one of Einstein's strong points, and he admitted that on many occasions.  But, does the fact that Einstein discussed his ideas with others mean that the ideas weren't his?  No, of course not.  It's a quibble over whether the term "lone genius" can apply to someone who discussed his ideas with others and got help in expressing his ideas in mathematical form. 

The second article attacking Einstein was first brought to my attention by the science student in Switzerland who wrote me an email on November 22 to criticize my paper on "Understanding Time Dilation."  He mentioned a paper from the March 2005 issue of Physics Today titled "A Small Puzzle from 1905" by Alex Harvey and Engelbert Schucking.  The Swiss student claimed the article showed that Einstein was wrong when he wrote that Time would run slower for a clock at the equator than for clocks at either of the poles.  I couldn't find a free copy of that paper at any open on-line source, but it was available on the library site where I found the Nature articles.  The paper goes on and on about how Einstein was in error because it was learned years later that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, it bulges at the equator, which means that gravitational time dilation almost exactly negates velocity time dilation at the equator.

What the f...?  Here's one part of what the paper says:
It seems strange that, despite intense scrutiny of the groundbreaking 1905 paper, no historian of science has ever noted, much less discussed, the incorrectness of its prediction of a rate difference between equatorial and polar clocks. There is no mention, even, in the exhaustive discussion in the collected Einstein papers. There is no record of Einstein's having corrected the erroneous 1905 prediction.
Another part:
The 1905 paper has been studied by numerous historians of science, and this year the world celebrates its centenary.  Nonetheless, we have found only two references to the error in the many commentaries on the paper.
The reason no one is making a fuss because there was no error.  Time does, in theory and in reality, run slower at the equator than at the poles due to the fact that the Earth is rotating at 1,040 miles per hour on its axis at the equator, while at the poles there is only a very slow, once-per-day rotation.  It is a greater error to ignore that fact and falsely claim it was a "prediction" instead of a theoretical finding.  And it's an even greater error to argue that the velocity time dilation difference doesn't exist because it is offset by gravitational time dilation.  It's like saying that clocks on GPS satellites have to be corrected by 38 microseconds each day due to gravitational time dilation.  NO!  GPS satellites have to be adjusted to run slower by 7 microseconds per day due to velocity time dilation, and they have to be adjusted to run faster by 45 microseconds per day due to gravitational time dilation, giving a net adjustment of 38 microseconds per day.                 

I might copy parts of what I just wrote above and paste them into "Part Two" of my book, if I decide it needs a "Part Two" about all the silly arguments I've encountered over the years from people who either do not believe Einstein's theories or who erroneously interpret Einstein's theories.  The problem with having such a "Part Two" is that it could be vastly longer than "Part One" while also being very repetitious.

I awoke this morning wondering if I shouldn't try writing another science article for publication in some science magazine.  What I wrote for the book last week gave me an idea for an article.  I also awoke wondering if I shouldn't do some more exploration of that library research site I was told about.  It's got magazine articles that aren't generally available on-line, so a Google search won't find them, specifically articles from Nature and Physics Today magazines.  I just spent a few minutes looking for articles from Physics Today and downloaded a couple.  I don't know if they will contain anything new, but they look interesting.

Damn!  When you are working on writing a book, there are so many ways to get distracted.  And that is probably never more true than when you are writing a book that overturns "standard ideas" about basic scientific principles regarding Time, Time Dilation and Light.  I'm constantly on the lookout for something that will say I'm wrong, but all I'm finding is more and more evidence that the "standard ideas" are wrong.  The situation is also complicated by the fact that there seem to be countless scientists who have their own personal theories about Time, Time Dilation and Light, which they believe disprove the "standard ideas."  It seems that for every article I find that explains some detail about the "standard ideas," I find a hundred articles which question the ideas and propose personal theories to replace the ideas.

And I'm writing another about one.  Who's going to read it?

It doesn't really matter.  I need to figure things out for my own personal reasons.  If things do not make sense to me, I need and want to know why they do not make sense.  I want to know if there is any factor that can be changed or replaced to cause things to make sense.  I'm an analyst.  Analyzing things is what I do.  I can't help it.  I have to keep analyzing things until they make sense to me.  And when they do make sense to me, I cannot resist trying to explain things to others - even if no one wants to listen.

It's the analyst's burden. 


Comments for Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016, thru Saturday, Nov. 26, 2016:

November 23, 2016 - I wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!

November 22, 2016 - I awoke this morning anxious to get to work on a chapter for my book (or a new paper) about Albert Einstein's "second postulate" to his Special Theory of Relativity.  Copied from page 1 of his 1905 paper, it 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.
Here's how an Ohio State University professor interprets that postulate:
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the source.
How does one arrive at that interpretation of what Einstein wrote?  Einstein was simply saying that the velocity of a body emitting light does not affect the speed of light emitted from that body, i.e., the speed of light will be C, not C plus V or C minus V.  He didn't say anything about the motion of any observers - relative or otherwise.  He only wrote about the emitting body, which, if considered to be an "observer" would be an observer with a very special perspective that would not in any way relate to any other observers.

Wikipedia twists and distorts Einstein's second postulate this way:

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.
That is nothing like what Einstein wrote.

The article from Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine that I mentioned in yesterday's comment has this interpretation:
No matter how fast or slow you move, light always moves at the same speed.

Imagine, for instance, that Marco is on a spaceship traveling toward the sun at 99.99 percent of the speed of light, and Sophia is on a spaceship heading away from the sun at 99.99 percent of the speed of light. Even though they're heading in different directions, sunlight is rushing past them both. How fast is that light traveling relative to Marco? It's traveling at the speed of light—about 300,000 kilometers per second. How fast is that light traveling relative to Sophia? It's traveling at the speed of light—about 300,000 kilometers per second.
That interpretation is just plain absurd.  I've read that students often argue that to their professors, and the professors argue back that it is "counter-intuitive" but totally valid (and you have to accept it if you want to get a passing grade).

Anyway, that was what I wanted to write about this morning.  I still felt hopeful when that fellow in Spain who has been discussing things with me in Spanish on my interactive blog posted a farewell note indicating that he wouldn't be posting any more messages.  He said it had been a pleasure to discuss the issues with me, even if we didn't agree on much of anything.

But then, moments after I responded, I received an email from a scientist or science student in Switzerland who had read my paper on "Understanding Time Dilation" and provided a lengthy analysis of it.  He disagreed with almost everything, because of course, he has his own unique theory about light, time and time dilation.  It took me over an hour to analyze what he wrote and to write a reply.  I also researched him a bit and found that his has 43 papers on ArXiv.org expounding his beliefs.  I skimmed though a bunch of them and found them all virtually incomprehensible due to his convoluted writing style and the way he organizes his papers.  As near as I can figure, he doesn't believe in Gravitational Time Dilation, only in Velocity Time Dilation.  And his papers explain why.

But as a result of the time I spent writing my response and researching him, I got no work done on my book this morning.  Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to copy some of what I wrote this afternoon in this comment to start some new chapters.

Meanwhile, as I was driving to the gym this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #3 of the 3 CD set for the audio book version of "America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't" by Stephen Colbert.
 
America Again
 
The book was undoubtedly a lot funnier when it was first published in 2012, back when Donald Trump was just a silly blowhard jerk on TV and not the silly blowhard jerk who will become President of the United States on January 20.   It still has a lot of amusing jokes, but nothing seems to be as funny as it was before election day.

November 21, 2016 - On Saturday afternoon, I drove to my local library to browse through some back issues of Science and Nature magazines.  They had plenty of issues of Science on their shelves, but no copies of Nature.  Talking with one of the librarians, I learned that they had back issues of Nature available on line, but nothing from within the past year.  Since I was more interested in a particular subject than in how old an article might be, that was fine with me.

The subject of interest to me, of course, was Time Dilation.  However, the library's software didn't seem to provide any way for me to do a search through back issues of Nature to find that term.  The only way I could do a search for the term "time dilation" was to search their entire magazine collection data base.  I did such a search and found a couple articles from Nature that mentioned the term, but I also found 33 articles from other magazines that mentioned the term.  I'd been told by the librarian that I could email PDF copies of the articles to my email account.  So, I sent myself a half dozen articles in PDF format, including the two from Nature.  I'd only put enough money in the parking meter to spend 45 minutes in the library, so I had to go home to read the articles in full.

Unexpectedly, the article that interested me the most when I got home was from Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine.  Since I wanted to write this comment about the article, I wondered if it was on-line anywhere for the general public.  I couldn't find the PDF version anywhere, but an html copy of "Weirder Than You Think" was available on their web page for the authors of the article.  The article explains a lot of things about Special Relativity in layman's terms, but it also explains them in the way the authors understand them.  For example, the article begins with these two paragraphs:
IN 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper that described his special theory of relativity for the first time. That theory, condensed to its essence, is this: Space and time are not two separate things. They are two parts of the same thing: spacetime.

One consequence of special relativity is that your motion through space is linked to your motion through time. The faster your spaceship moves, the more slowly the clock on your spaceship moves compared to a clock on Earth. This apparent slowing of a fast-moving clock is known as time dilation.    
Ah!  That's another fundamental disagreement I have with many people.  As far as I am concerned, Space and Time are NOT "two parts of the same thing."  But now I understand why many others see them that way.

From my point of view, space is just space.  Emptiness.  Yes, if you do not want to remain stationary and you want to move, you have to move through space.  But, empty space has no effect on anything.  Particle spin and the fixed speed of light are the two parts or factors that cause Time Dilation.  It appears that all matter consists of particles that spin at the fixed speed of light when the particles are stationary.  If something were to cause the particles to move laterally, their spin would exceed the speed of light by the speed of their lateral movement.  Since the speed of light is fixed, that means the particle spin must slow down.  So, in theory, for every kilometer per second the particle moves laterally, its spin must slow down by one kilometer per second. 

That makes sense to me, and it appears to be confirmed by experiment.  Atomic clocks (which measure particle movement) slow down when in motion and/or when close to a gravitational mass.  There are no experiments which support the notion that space and time are "two parts of the same thing."

And the ramblings above are just my thoughts about the first two paragraphs from the Fantasy & Science Fiction article.  There's a much bigger area for disagreement later in the article.  But, I'll have to write about that some other time -- or just write about it in my book (or in some paper).  It's almost lunch time and it's time for me to end this comment. 

End of comment.  There.  I did it.  It took all morning.

November 20, 2016 - I'm still conversing in Spanish with a guy in Spain who is posting to my interactive blog.  I don't speak Spanish, which means it's a lot of work for me to translate his Spanish comments into English so I can try to understand them, then to write an English reply, then to translate my English reply into Spanish, and then to post everything to the blog.  I complained to the guy (who posts as "anonymous") that I probably can't continue arguing that way for much longer.  But then he'll post some interesting question or comment that requires me to do a lot of thinking before I can reply.  That's good, since there's no way to tell where a really good idea or solution to a problem might come from.

For example, this morning he wrote:
O sea que el tiempo es un subproducto proveniente del movimiento de un cuerpo o partícula, lo que termina siendo nada menos que una idea creada a través de nuestra mente. Lo cuerpos o particulas en movimiento que observamos, de eso nace la idea de tiempo.

Conclusión: el tiempo no existe por si solo, mientras que una partícula en movimiento sí.
I used Google to translate that into English:
That is, time is a byproduct from the movement of a body or a particle, which ends up being nothing less than an idea created through our mind. The bodies or particles in motion that we observe, from that is born the idea of time.

Conclusion: time does not exist by itself, while a moving particle does.
He was responding to something I wrote about Time being particle spin.  It's an interesting response and something I've been thinking about.  I think he's saying that particle spin is just another "clock" like the movement of the Earth around the Sun.  We observe those "clocks" and come up with the idea of time, which makes Time just an idea.

The problem with that "idea," of course, is that we can observe Time ticking at different rates by watching two atomic clocks, one higher than the other.  The "idea" of Time only works when Time ticks at one rate for everyone.  When Time ticks at a different rate for my feet than it does for my knees, that doesn't fit any "idea" of Time that also measures time by planetary spin or by orbits around the Sun. 

I can maintain the "idea of Time" while I'm trying to understand exactly how different particle spin rates affect the "idea of Time," but how do I respond to the guy in Spain?  I'll have to think about it after I finish writing this Sunday comment.  I'll post a response on the blog later today.

I suppose I should be happy that he isn't arguing about the topic that occupied most of my time last week: the difference between "stationary" and "at rest."  I shudder to think about arguing over word definitions when everything has to be translated from one language to another.

If I begin with this question in English:
What is the difference between being stationary and being at rest?
And use Google to translate it into Spanish, I get:
¿Cuál es la diferencia entre estar parado y estar en reposo?
And if I take that translation and translate it back into English, I get:
What is the difference between standing and being at rest?
Nope.  That's not the question.  So, I better not mention it to the guy in Spain.

Last week I came to the tentative conclusion that the source of many of the conflicts I have with others about Time and Time Dilation stem from one fundamental disagreement: the difference between "stationary" and "at rest."

It appears that most people with an interest in science believe there is no such thing as "stationary," and they believe the closest you can get to being "stationary" is to be "at rest," which means to be traveling at the same rate as everything around you.  (See my November 16 comment.)

From my point of view, Einstein made it very clear that time could not be understood unless you understood it in a stationary context.  In his 1905 paper Einstein wrote on page 3:
It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system."
It seems he is making a distinction between "stationary" and "at rest," but his way of doing so requires a lot of deciphering and working out examples. 

I have no problem understanding a "stationary" system, but others are translating Einstein's comments to mean that there is no such thing as a stationary system - or that a "stationary system" is the same thing as "a system at rest."

I'd really like to find someone to discuss this with - someone who can converse in English.  Everything becomes infinitely easier when you can bounce ideas off of someone else.  I've argued much of it with others before.  Last week, while doing research, I came across the web page titled "Why Time Dilation Must be Impossible."  Back in April and May of last year, I exchanged a bunch of emails with the author of that web site and page, Mr. Bernard Burchell.  I also exchanged a bunch of emails with Dr. Thomas Smid, who has beliefs about Time Dilation that are similar to those argued by Mr. Burchell.

I could try restarting the discussions, or I might just study our past emails to see if they contain anything that would help me now.

Before I can continue with my book, I think I need to determine what Einstein meant when he wrote about "the time of the stationary system."  Doing a Google search for that term just finds copies of Einstein's 1905 paper, quotes from the paper that include the clause, and passages from books where authors are writing about the viewpoints of "moving observers."  Plus a few sites which attack Einstein as being wrong.

I'm now thinking I'm just going to have to try to translate most of pages 2 and 3 of Einstein's 1905 paper (i,e., the entire section titled "1. Definition of Simultaneity") into plain English.  Maybe then I'll have the material I need for the first chapter of my book (or for another scientific paper).

Time will tell.  I'm also tempted to just sit down and watch some TV.  But, no, I can't do that until after I answer the posts from the guy in Spain.  Groan!

Added note:  Here is my reply in English:
No, there is a difference between an “idea of time” and how time actually works.  Our “idea of time” is that it is the same for everyone.  It is universal.  A second for me is a second for everyone everywhere.

Our “idea of time” does not agree with reality.

In reality, the length of a second is different for me than it is for an astronaut on the International Space Station (ISS).  Because I am closer to the center of the earth than the astronaut, time runs slower for me, and the length of a second for me is longer than the length of a second for the astronaut. 

The problem is that the length my second is around one trillionth of a second longer than the astronaut’s second.  So, it is not noticeable.   Only precision clocks can measure the difference. 

But the difference is real. 

So, how do we reconcile our “idea of time” with “the reality of time?”  We can do so by just ignoring the difference.  However, if we want to try to understand the difference, we can envision “now” as being the same for everyone, even though time is moving at a different rate for everyone. 

Imagine we are on a large rotating disk on a playground or at a carnival.  I am in the center of the spinning disk facing you, and you are at the edge of the disk facing me.   Midway between us is a white spot painted on the rotating disk.  You are moving much faster than I am but you appear stationary to me.  The spot midway between us doesn’t change its position, even though it is moving at a different rate than both you and me.

That is how time works.  Time is moving at different rates for all of us, but “now” is the same for all of us.  So, you do not disappear into the past because you are moving slower, and I do not jump into the future because I am moving faster.  We are all in the same “now.” 

My feet move slower through time than my hips, and my hips move slower through time than my head.  I do not fly apart because “now” is the same for all parts of me.

And if it is simpler and easier for me to imagine that time is the same for all parts of me, I can do so, even if it is untrue.
If anyone wants to read the Spanish translation for that, it is HERE.  Thinking through that answer may have provided some bits I can use in my book.


Comments for Sunday, Nov. 13, 2016, thru Saturday, Nov. 19, 2016:

November 16, 2016 - Hmm.  I'm back to thinking I need to write a book. 

This morning I decided I needed to know exactly what certain "scientific" terms mean if I am going to argue in favor of viewing things as they exist in "reality" versus the Relativistic view which says that no "frame of reference" is any more "real" than any other "frame of reference."

I started checking out the definitions of various terms.  That process led me to realize that the first term I needed to fully understand was "rest frame."  I quickly learned that it has nothing to do with being "at rest," i.e. being stationary (which would have been the way I would have defined "rest frame").   It has to do with the specific situation.  Wikipedia says,
The rest frame of a river would be the frame of an unpowered boat, in which the mean velocity of the water is zero.
So, the unpowered boat is "at rest" in a river that is moving at the same speed as the boat.  And
in the rest frame of a neutrino particle travelling from the Crab Nebula supernova to Earth the supernova occurred in the 11th Century AD only a short while before the light reached Earth, but in Earth's rest frame the event occurred about 6300 years earlier.
Which means that the "rest frame" for the neutrino is at nearly the speed of light.  As a result of Time Dilation, the neutrino "thinks" or "feels" the supernova occurred just a "short while" ago.  But, in our "rest frame" here on Earth, the supernova occurred 6,300 years ago.

In reality, of course, neither that neutrino nor we on earth are really "at rest."  "Rest frame" is just a scientific term meaning "point of view."

In my reality, there is only one relevant point of view: the point of view of the observer who understands the entire situation.  That point of view says the boat is moving, it is not "at rest," and the neutrino is not "at rest," it is experiencing time dilation which makes it "think" or "feel" that it left the supernova just a short while ago.  If the boat or the neutrino understood the entire situation (as we humans should), it would have the same understanding as we do:  Neither of us is "at rest," and our points of view are affected by local conditions of Time.

Arguing in favor of Relativity over reality requires that everyone be ignorant of the entire situation.  And that allows the Relativists to argue that we do not know if the train is moving or if the train is stationary and the earth is moving under the train.  In the real world, we know from experience that trains move, not the earth under the trains.  We understand things.  Relativists seem to be arguing that understanding is irrelevant - unless it is understanding their point of view. 

No science magazine would ever publish that description of the situation.  But it would work very well as part of a book about Reality vs. Relativity.   

November 15, 2016 - Looks like my idea of writing a book Time and Time Dilation was premature.  I've been writing different "Introductions" to the book, and none work.  The first attempt read like the book was an autobiography; it described how I came to write the book.  The second attempt went straight into the logic for Time Dilated Light.  That should be at the end of the book, after I've made a solid and undeniable case for it.  The third attempt addressed a topic that isn't well described in my papers, and it made me wonder if I should write a paper about it before putting it in a book.  Moreover, it suggested a different title for the book: "Reality vs. Relativity" or "Relativity vs. Reality."  

It was hard to imaging that no one else has written a book with one of those titles.  So, I did a Google search for them and only found a web site titled "Reality vs. Relativity" which seems to be saying some of what I've been saying.  I'll have to study it further, along with the lengthy comment after it.  I also found  a "Physics Forum" blog where someone provided a link to a page about special relativity that I'd never seen before.  It looks very interesting.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I need to write more papers before I write the book, and the book might turn out to be nothing more than a collection of my papers.  I haven't made any firm plans, but the "more papers" idea is making more and more sense.

November 13, 2016 (B) - Last week, I got into an email discussion with someone who I assume is either a student or an assistant professor at Cambridge University in England.  He "published" a paper on ArXiv.org that contained a section about "The Twin Paradox" and how he'd have the twins use clocks that emitted a burst of photons once per year.  His explanation of his reason for doing that is wildly convoluted and requires a lot of patient study to understand.  I didn't have that kind of patience, but I sent him a copy of "Understanding Time Dilation" and asked what he thought of the idea of using a pulsar as a clock that both twins could see. 

He responded, telling me that "The idea to use a pulsar as a common clock is a good one."  Then he stated an interpretation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that made no sense to me.  So, in my response I explained the same point about Special Relativity as I understand it.

His response was a list of disagreements between what I understand and what he understands.  In response, I sent another email where I explained in detail where the facts say his understandings were wrong and why they were wrong.  Now I'm waiting to see if he responds further.   I'm assuming he won't.  It looks like his understandings are really "beliefs," and he's not going to change what he believes just because it doesn't fit the facts. 

In a perfect world, everyone should be willing to discuss disagreements to see if they can be resolved.  But our world is far from perfect.  People seem ever ready to declare their beliefs, but people are not willing to discuss their beliefs, even when they argue that their beliefs are not beliefs but conclusions they've reached after analyzing the facts.  For example, here is one of his statements of belief:
"The problem with relativity is that it is not logical; because the speed of light is constant, simple arithmetic addition will not do."
I responded that Relativity is logical if you view it correctly, and I explained how to view it correctly.  But viewing Relativity "correctly" requires accepting that Time actually runs at a different rate virtually everywhere.  If he responds, he'll almost certainly tell me that Time Dilation is just an illusion, and Time must be the same everywhere because "the speed of light is constant."  And no  facts or evidence showing how Time Dilation works can change his mind.

Of course it's possible that he will respond with a question instead of a statement, but I would be highly surprised if he responds at all.

What I've decided to do is to start work on a book about all this.  The book will be about how understanding Time Dilation provides answers to how Time works, and understanding how Time works will provide clear answers to how Light works.  The three conclusions the book will explain in detail are
1.  Time Dilation is real.
2.  Time is a property of matter.
3.  Time Dilation at the emission point determines the speed of light.
The first idea I had for a title for the book was "The Key to Understanding the Universe."  But then I decided that that might generate too many arguments, so I changed it to "My Key to Understanding the Universe." 

But, after thinking about it for a day or so, I decided I will almost certainly title the book "Analyzing Time and Time Dilation."  That will emphasize that I'm looking at things from the point of view of a (systems) analyst, not as a physicist.  I'll probably also have a sub-title of "An Analyst Evaluates Disputes Over How the Universe Works."  Or maybe, "An Analyst Evaluates Disputes Over Time, Light and Time Dilation." 

The more I think about that new title, the more I like it.  It fits with my what I tried to do with an earlier book "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks" and with what I actually did with "A Crime Unlike Any Other."  I did what an analyst is supposed to do: I sorted through all that was being written about the anthrax attacks of 2001, I separated the facts from the beliefs and opinions, and then I wrote a book describing what the facts said.

That's what I'm going to do with "Analyzing Time and Time Dilation."  I'll be sorting through all the opinions and theories and facts, and writing a book about what the facts say.  In some ways, the arguments over Time Dilation are worse than the arguments over the anthrax attacks.  With the anthrax attacks there was an "authority" who was also analyzing the facts: The FBI.  With Time Dilation there doesn't seem to be any "authority" other than the genius who came up with the idea in the first place: Albert Einstein.  All we have now is a lot of people who argue their bizarre misunderstandings of Time Dilation as if it is also Einstein's understanding, even when a check of the facts quickly shows they do not understand Einstein's theories at all.   

Of course, it will be a self-published book.  I'm not even going to try to get any regular book publisher to agree to publish it.  They wouldn't have clue as to whether I was right or wrong.  All they would know is that I'm writing about something for which I have no credentials, no credibility and no support.

Writing has been a life-long hobby of mine, and figuring things out has been another life-long pastime.  So, I'm anxious to get back to work.  I wrote one page on Friday, but with the new idea for a new title, that one page is going to require some major changes.

That's what writing is -- rewriting.  And rewriting.  And rewriting.

Meanwhile, I'll continue looking for ways to get my papers published in some journal or at least included on ArXiv.org.  However, that situation looks nearly hopeless at the moment.  So, the book will be my focus.

It will keep my mind off the fact that we just elected an ignorant, egotistic racist jerk as President of the United States.

November 13, 2016 (A) - Hmm.  Yesterday, someone posted a message in Spanish to a thread from July 2015 in my interactive blog.  I converted the message from Spanish to English and found it was a valid post for the thread - even though it was nothing but a statement of beliefs about time and space.  So, I wrote a response in English, translated it to Spanish, and posted my reply.

This morning I found three more messages in Spanish on that same thread.  I responded to one of them (another statement of beliefs), then I decided I should work on my Sunday comment before responding to the two others.


Comments for Sunday, Nov. 6, 2016, thru Saturday, Nov. 12, 2016:

November 11, 2016 - On the remote chance that someone might find it of interest, on my way home from the gym this afternoon I finished listening to the 11th and last CD for another audio book.  The book was "War On The Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865" by James M. McPherson.  It was an OK book, but it might have been more enjoyable if I could have somehow seen the illustrations and maps that are in the other versions.  I'd run out of science books on CDs.  I'd burned the CDs for War on the Waters many months ago when I noticed it on my library's web site and thought it might be a worthwhile listen.  It was. 

Many years ago I did a lot of research and wrote a screenplay about the captain of a Civil War ironclad gunboat and the problems some people had with adapting to the new technology of ironclad warships.  I thought War on the Waters might go over some of that same territory.  It devoted maybe 5 sentences to it.      

The 11th CD ended as I was waiting to exit the parking lot at the gym.  So, I ejected that CD and inserted CD #1 of another non-science book that I had started listening to on my MP3 player months ago but never finished.    The book is only 3 CDs in length.  A science book is in the queue after that.  Listening to books on CD while driving is one of the best discoveries I every made.


November 10, 2016 - The second scientific journal to which I sent my article "Understanding Time Dilation" sent me a form-letter rejection email this morning.  They simply said it wasn't the kind of work they publish.  That means, if I want to understand why they turned it down, I would have to sit down and study articles in their magazine to see how mine is different from what they regularly publish.  I certainly met all their "submission guidelines."

I awoke this morning realizing that if my understanding of Time Dilation is correct (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), there are some very interesting implications that I hadn't thought about before.  For example, the term "spacetime" becomes a bit silly, since Time is a property of matter, which means there is no time in empty space where there is no matter.

Anyway, this morning I uploaded "Understanding Time Dilation" to ViXra.org.  It went on-line a couple hours later.  It can be viewed as version 3 (v3) at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0234 or you can access it directly at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v3.pdf   I also submitted it to Academia.edu where it showed up as a "draft paper" instead of a new version of an old paper.  Maybe someday I'll figure out how to fix that.

While I might prowl around on ArXiv.org to see if I can find someone who might be willing to discuss the paper with me, I see little hope of finding an "endorser" who will help me upload/publish the paper there.  So, that leaves self-publishing a book as the only option for bringing an end to this "search for understanding."  I can't just abandon the idea.  It seems far too important.  Which means my next task might be to think up a good title.  I knocked around "Tell Me Where I'm Wrong!" as a potential title, but I've had a lot of people tell me I'm wrong simply because they do not believe the facts and evidence I present.  And "Explain to Me Where I'm Wrong!" is probably a big turn-off, since it asks for a discussion, and most people only want to give opinions.  

It might be better if the title contains some indication of what the book is all about.  "Answering Science's Forbidden Questions" might work.  It would fit with the idea I have for an opening chapter which would illustrate that scientists today seem to be forbidden from asking the questions I'm asking.

On the other hand, it's probably a bad idea to start by thinking about a title.  I should probably begin by laying out the chapters.  Or maybe I should just start writing and see where things go.  We'll see.

November 9, 2016 - I suppose I could write a long comment about Donald Trump's victory and what I think caused the majority of Americans to vote for him, but I'm just going to study the situation for awhile.  Or maybe I'll just curl up on the couch and watch TV and eat some cookies.

Until today, I would never have thought that the American people could elect someone like Donald Trump to be President.  Now, I can only think that he must have awakened "the silent majority," and "the silent majority" turned out to be unthinking, isolationist racists who would rather have a sleaze-ball game show host for President than a woman whom they totally hate for some unspecified reason. 

We could be in for some interesting times ahead.
 
November 8, 2016 - I went out at 9 a.m. this morning to vote.  I don't recall ever seeing a longer line at my voting place, but I was still in and out in 25 minutes.  I was also pleased to see that virtually everyone in the line seemed very happy to be there.  That gives me some hope that the election results will not be dominated by people who are filled with hate.

Meanwhile, while I was at the polls, the scientific journal to which I sent my paper on "Understanding Time Dilation" yesterday send me an email rejecting it.  Their note says,

while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication
That's kind of what I was afraid of.  The article is thought-provoking but it doesn't provide any information that would be considered "a firm advance" in understanding the subject.  I think it does, but that's just my opinion.

So, I immediately sent the paper to another scientific journal.  I don't expect their response will be any different.  I'm not sure what I'll do next.

November 7, 2016 - Okay.  I just submitted my paper on "Understanding Time Dilation" to a major scientific journal.  So, now it's a matter of waiting to see if they will simply turn it down or if they will want to consider it for publication.  I'm going to assume they will not approve it, although I have no idea why they would turn it down.  It is a simple, straight-forward presentation of how Time Dilation has been repeatedly proven to be a real natural phenomenon, and how it can and should be understood and viewed as a real natural phenomenon, instead of just as an "illusion" or incomprehensible scientific anomaly.

I view understanding time dilation as the key to a major change in our understanding of how the universe works.  I'm hoping the magazine will publish it so that scientists around the world can either consider it or explain why they cannot believe it - even though it is in total agreement with Einstein's theories.  If the magazine decides against publishing it and gives me no reason for doing so, I'll try another scientific journal.   

Meanwhile, it has not escaped my notice that tomorrow is election day.  I sometimes feel like I'm in Germany in 1933, and I'm surrounded by hoards of crazy people cheering for Adolph Hitler.  I'm not the only one who has this feeling.  There's an interesting article in The Washington Post this morning titled "What Germans really think about those Hitler-Trump comparisons."  The video in the article that compares Trump to Hitler is really chilling.  Here it is:



Tomorrow we find out if those unthinking, uncaring people who cheer for Donald Trump are a minority or majority.  I view tomorrow with dread.

November 6, 2016 - A couple days ago I noticed someone had posted the following questions and statements to a Facebook group:
Is time eternal? Or is it finite? If time is eternal, then an infinite amount of time has passed. Thus, there will be no future. If there is a future, then there is more time left. Thus, an infinite amount of time has not passed. Time is then finite; it had a beginning.
While I saw the comment as just clever word definition gibberish, it caused me to suddenly come to a jaw-dropping realization that Time does not exist in a vacuum.  I should have realized it long ago, way back in February when I was working on my paper "What is Time?"  If Time is a property of atoms and particles (which the facts and evidence say is true), then there can be no Time where there are no atoms and particles.  Duh!

I find that easy to understand and visualize.  But anyone (and everyone) who believes Time is some abstract concept will probably find it next to impossible to visualize.

I can't be alone in understanding Time this way.  Scientists have been stating for decades that the Big Bang created Time.   Stephen Hawking states "
the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

But they do not define the exact nature of Time.  They merely logically conclude that, if the universe began 15 billion years ago, Time must also have begun 15 billion years ago.  Why?  Because there could not have been anything before the beginning of everything.

My view is much simpler and easier to understand than that: Time is a property of matter.  When matter first formed, Time started as a property of that matter.

So, yesterday morning I tweeked my paper on "Understanding Time Dilation" to include a question in a paragraph near the end of the paper, "Is there any way to demonstrate that Time does not exist in a vacuum?"

I'm also wondering if I shouldn't try to include some reconciliation between "real time" and "conceptual time," i.e., between the real Time that is controlled by atoms and particles, and the "concept" of Time as visualized by most people.  But, I think that will just lead to more "True Believer" situations where people will declare, "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe!"  And, it would probably fit better in a revised version of  my paper "What is Time?"

So, my paper "Understanding Time Dilation" seems ready to submit to a scientific journal.  If it is turned down by all the journals I try, then I'll put it on ViXra.org and begin working on a book about all three of my papers.  I really think the ideas in the papers are very important and that my ideas are logically and scientifically sound.  I just wish I knew some scientists who would discuss them with me and show me where I might be wrong or where some argument I hadn't thought of would be more convincing than the arguments I used.

Looking around in hopes of finding someone who might see things my way or explain where I am wrong, I found that there are 344 scientific papers on ArXiv.org which contain the phrase "time dilation."  Here is the context from one recent paper:

time dilation explanation

That is totally indecipherable to me, as are lot of other mentions of "time dilation."  However, after digging through dozens of others papers that used the term,  I found one that says:
Both Stark and Einstein assumed that the atom is a clock. Clearly, this assumption is justified only if the atom is the seat of some periodic motion.  This motion could be, for instance, the supposed harmonic motion of bound electrons; or the supposed elliptical motion of the electron in Bohr’s model of hydrogen atom: however, in this case, the frequency of the light emitted by the hydrogen atom differs from the frequency of the electronic motion.  Anyway, the advent of quantum mechanics forbids any description of atoms as seats of periodic motion of electrons: atoms are not clocks.
There's a lot in that paragraph to wonder about.  It was Einstein who gave me the idea that the atom is a clock.  The fact that the author of that particular paper disagrees with us is of no great concern.  Neither is the author's belief about quantum mechanics.  If quantum mechanics is not compatible with Time being controlled by atoms and particles, then that is just further evidence that any valid "Theory of Everything" will NOT be based on quantum mechanics.  The rest of the paper seems to be an argument that Einstein was wrong because the author of the paper has a different interpretation of how things work.  So, there would be no point in me trying to start a conversation with him.   

When you do a search for "time dilation" on ViXra.org, Google is used to do the search, and Google provides 224 results where the phrase appears in the abstract, and "about 832" results where the phrase appears anywhere within a paper.   Browsing through those papers, I find they are mostly arguments that Time Dilation cannot be real because the authors do not understand the logic behind such a thing.  How can Time be slowed by both velocity and gravitation?  It makes no sense, one author claims. 

There's probably something to be learned from reading all those papers, but I've reached the point where I just want to know if I am right or wrong.  None of those papers will answer that question.  The papers are just about what the authors believe to be true.  And no two authors seem to be in full agreement.

So, I'm going to try to get "Understanding Time Dilation" published.  If no one will publish it, and if no one will explain to me if I'm right or wrong, then I'll publish it myself as part of a book.  It seems too important to just forget about.  And my curiosity is limitless.


Comments for Tuesday, November 1, 2016, thru Saturday, Nov. 5, 2016:

November 3, 2016 - I seem to be making progress again on my scientific paper about Time Dilation.  While working out at the gym on Tuesday afternoon, an idea for a new title occurred to me: "Understanding Time Dilation."  When I got home, I started revising the paper with that title in mind.  Yesterday, I completed a "first version" of this latest version.  It still needs work, but it seems to present the subject of Time Dilation in the right way -  laying out the facts in a manner that not only makes the subject very clear to the reader but also makes it nearly impossible for the naysayers to challenge.

I even awoke this morning thinking of further improvements I can make.  All seems right with the world when I wake up thinking of improvements I can make to whatever project is currently at the my center of attention.  It sets the day on the right track.

November 1, 2016 - It's a bit like having "writer's block," except that I know what I want to write about; I just haven't figured out the best way to organize and present things.  I don't think the current version of my paper says what it is supposed to say in the best way I can say it.

I've been thinking that instead of the current title, "Time Dilation without Relativity," I should use the title "Time Dilation: The Key to Everything."  It sometimes seems to me that understanding Time Dilation could be the "key" to unlocking a clear understanding of the universe.  Unlike many other "mysteries of the universe," Time Dilation is something that can be clearly demonstrated with experiments in a laboratory.

It's simply crazy for a scientist to look at two atomic clocks setting one above the other, clocks which are conclusively demonstrating that time moves slower the closer you are to the center of the Earth, and the scientist will shake his head and argue that the evidence in front of him must be wrong or misleading in some way, since it doesn't agree with his personal screwball interpretation of Relativity.    If you perform the experiment over and over with a hundred clocks, he'll still shake his head and refuse to accept it.

Yet, that seems to be what is currently going on.  The problem is: You cannot get the scientist to explain himself and why he doesn't accept the evidence that is right in front of his eyes.  The main reason he won't accept it could very well be that he believes that his fellow scientists would also refuse to accept it, and he is not willing to be placed on the wrong side of a dispute where the "main stream" majority rules and anyone challenging the "main stream" majority could find himself publicly humiliated.  

The problem with the title "Time Dilation without Relativity" is that it could lead to meaningless arguments over word definitions.  If you have two clocks, one atop the other, that demonstrate Time Dilation, it can be argued that the top clock is running faster relative to the bottom clock, so Relativity is still an issue - even if you have only one observer.

The problem with the title "Time Dilation: The Key to Everything" is that it can be argued that Time Dilation isn't "the key."  It's just a pointer to "the key."  If you have those atomic clocks running at different speeds right in front of you, you cannot help but ask the question: "What is time if it runs faster for the higher clock than for the lower clock?"  It's certainly not a concept.  It's certainly not an illusion.  Concepts and illusions do not change speeds when you move them.  There must be something physical going on.  But what?

The answer to that question could be "the key to everything."  It seems that Time is a property of matter.  It seems that Time is running slower for my ankle than for my knee.  How can that be?  I have no problem visualizing it.  I just have a problem explaining how that kind of "time" relates to the kind of "time" I see when I look out the window and watch leaves flutter down from the trees because the summer has once again turned into fall.

The atomic clocks are measuring time at the atomic and sub-atomic level for their specific location.  The change in seasons is part of a "natural clock" that measures time at an astronomical level where objects on Earth go through physical changes as the Earth orbits the sun.  How do those two methods for measuring time relate?  Is that the right question to ask?

I often ask myself, "How do I know what I know until I see what I write?"  That's actually a misquote from E. M. Forster who wrote, “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”   Or maybe it's from Flannery O'Connor who wrote, “I write because I don't know what I think until I read what I say.”

I've spent the past two hours writing this comment in hopes that putting my thoughts down in writing might help me clarify what I'm thinking about Time Dilation and Time.  It seems very clear that Time Dilation is "the key" to understanding Time, and understanding Time could be a "key" to understanding a lot more about the universe.   And it seems clear that such an understanding will be in direct conflict with how a lot of scientists understand Time and Time Dilation.  

That's not a problem.  That is how science is supposed to work.  The problem is finding the right words and steps to use in a scientific paper that assembles undeniable evidence to show that what is commonly accepted as "established science" today by countless scientists is actually just a simple misunderstanding that has been compounded by other misunderstandings and misinterpretations over the past century until Einstein's search for "reality" has not only been forgotten, but is now being claimed that "reality" is irrelevant.  Who cares about "reality" if a scientist can become famous for creating a concept that has nothing to do with reality?

Oops.  Lunch time.  That's enough "thinking in writing" for today.











© 2016 by Ed Lake
RETURN