Archive for ed-lake.com
March 2018

Comments for Sunday, March 25, 2018, thru Saturday, March 31, 2018:

March 30, 2018 - Wow!  I've really been extremely busy for the past few days.  I kept thinking I should write a comment about it, but then I'd get busy again and there would be no time to write a comment.  Basically, all I've been doing is arguing on Google's Science, Physics and Relativity Discussion forum, but the arguments have been extremely interesting.

I've only been arguing with two people, but each exchange sometimes seems to be fifty arguments at once.  I started by describing three experiments from one of my papers which proved that an outside observer can measure light arriving at c+v or c-v, where v is the observer's speed toward or away from the light source.  Then "rotchm" and "kenseto" picked my comment apart and started arguments about each paragraph, and some sentences within the paragraphs.  I responded to most of the arguments.  Then "kenseto" dropped out and only "rotchm" continued to pick apart my responses and start new arguments about virtually every sentence I wrote.  My last comment yesterday took about 2½ hours to write.  If I make a copy of it (including many quotes from prior exchanges) and paste it into a WORD file, it is 8 pages long.  "Rotchm's"  response this morning has deleted big sections of the argument, but it is still 5 pages long if I copy and paste it into a WORD file. 

Interestingly, after I referred to him as a "mathematician," in his new post, "rotchm" wrote: "
I'm also a psychopathologist & work in med labs. But here in this NG, yes, I'm a mathematician."  (Psychopathology is the study of mental disorders.  And I seem to be having a problem getting him to understand reality.)

He is constantly  referring to reference frames.  A couple days ago, he asked,

Is not the speed of any observer zero (wrt his frame)?
And I responded,
It depends upon what you are measuring.  If you are in a lab with the windows closed, then yes, your speed is THEORETICALLY zero.
And the next day he asked,
Are you saying that if you then open the windows, your speed magically  changes from zero to some other value????
And the next day I responded,
No, I'm saying that before you opened the window you had NOTHING to use to determine if you were moving or not.  You had no capability of determining if you were moving or not.  It's Einstein's First Postulate.

When you opened the window, you HAD ways to determine if you were moving or not.

Evidently, this cannot be stated in mathematics.  In mathematics, a formula is a formula, and what can be done in the real world is irrelevant. That is why we cannot agree.  You are talking mathematics.  I am talking about reality.
And "rotchm's" response this morning was ("RF" = reference frame):
Yes I did have something to use to determine my speed: MY RF.
Speed (as position) is ALWAYS relative to a given RF.
Speed is contingent to an RF, else 'speed' doesnt make sense  (and undefined). This is basic stuff ed, which you should know. In experimental physics, we always use RF's (coordinates, coordination procedures)
I cannot make sense of his answer, which seems to be mindless mathematical dogma.  He seems to be saying he has something to use to determine his speed, he has his reference frameAnd I think he's saying that his speed is always zero, and therefore everything else is always moving relative to him. 

In science no one can assume their speed is always zero.  It is virtually never zero.  But in a mathematical model you can assume your speed is zero.  And if you mindlessly believe the dogma, you can also believe it is true.

I had also created a hypothetical situation where he was heading back toward the sun and earth as he returned from a trip to Alpha Centauri, and my question was whether the sun was moving toward him or was he moving toward the sun?  His answer,
In my (constricted) RF, the Sun is getting closer & closer to me. 
So, his speed is zero and the sun is somehow moving closer to him.  Here are a bunch of his other answers with my questions removed:
Yes, my speed is v wrt the sun's RF (syn: as measured by the sun)

In *my* RF, my position is always x'=0, thus my speed wrt my RF is always 0.

But the sun is coming towards *me*, so I will "get home".

In my frame, when I measure the SoL, I still get c.
In the frame of the Sun, the *closing speed* between
the light & me is c + v. Closing speed is not the speed of "something"; it refers to the rate of change of the distance between the "two things"; its NOT the SoL.
So, he acknowledges that light is arriving at c+v, but he calls it the "closing speed," which he says is not the speed of anything, it is the rate of change of the distance between two things.  He doesn't explain why the "closing speed" is in the reference frame of the sun.  And why can't he measure the "closing speed" in his reference frame?  Is it because his speed is always zero and there can be no "closing speed" unless you have two moving objects?

And my question is: Do I really want to ask him and continue the debate? 

Hmm.   Looking at this morning's post from "rotchm," it appears he deleted all of the comments I made yesterday about measuring light frequency.  It seems I may have won that debate.  (The way to tell if you have won a debate with a mathematician is if they stop answering or change the question.)  I'd argued that there is no "red- or blue-shift" in frequency of light from a star.  There is only red- or blue-shift in wavelength.  If a star is coming toward you, you will receive more photons per unit of time than if it was going away from you, and receiving more photons means the star seems brighter than it really is, but there is no blue-shifting in the light.  If you are stationary, the wavelength of the photons you receive will be the same as when they were emitted.  That is because of Einstein's Second Postulate.  The speed of the emitter does not change the speed of the light emitted.  It is always emitted at c.

If you are moving toward the star, however, you will again get more photons per unit of time, making the star appear brighter, plus the wavelength of the photons will be blue-shifted.  The photons will be arriving at c+v, where v is your velocity.  So, you know that you are moving and your speed is not zero.  But "rotchm" will never accept that.

Meanwhile, last night I watched the rerun of the April 15, 2015, PBS "NOVA" episode titled
"The Great Math Mystery" which was subtitled "Is math invented by humans, or is it the language of the universe?"  The program turned out to be fairly neutral on the answer, pointing out that there are a lot of things in nature that have not yet been reduced to mathematical formulas, a prime example being the weather, which involves too many variables and unknowns to turn into a formula.  There as also a moment in the show where they mentioned something that I still do not understand:  how the magnetic and electric fields cause a photon to act like a wave:
 
a theoretical photon 

I just cannot visualize that even though there is an image before me.  I cannot visualize how it works.   I visualize a photon as a particle that vibrates, moving up and down, and when it travels at the speed of light, that up-down motion turns into a wave-like pattern with the "wavelength" being one up and one down.  That is somewhat like what the image above shows, but there is no particle.

Sigh.  It's now lunch time and time for me to head to the gym.  All I did all morning was work on this comment.  So much to do, so few hours in a day.    


March 27, 2018 - While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  The book was "The Importance of Being Funny: Why We Need More Jokes in Our Lives" by Al Gini.

The Importance of Being Funny

I'd started reading it eight days ago after finishing a very very depressing book about Donald Trump.  I needed to read something humorous after that.  While the book certainly has funny comments and contains some funny jokes, it is more of a psychology book than a humor book.  It analyzes why we need humor in our lives.  Here's one passage I underlined;
Joking about a “deep topic” or “dangerous topic” is a way of talking about it, examining it in a way that doesn’t scare us, numb us, and rob us of our joy in life. Jokes allow us to dwell on the incomprehensible without dying from fear or going mad. Laughter and joke telling are a way to speak of the unspeakable.
That probably explains why so many comedians are joking about and poking fun at Donald Trump.  It's a way of coping with our fear of what dangers Trump might get us into and what horrors he might commit.  
As the great American philosopher Joan Rivers succinctly put it, “If you can laugh at it, you can live with it.”
The book also has some interesting historical information.  For example:
Historical evidence indicates that the ancient Greeks had been collecting jokes and putting them into “jokebooks” or “jestbooks” since the time of Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BCE). Like all good things that originated in Greece, the tradition of jokebooks migrated to Italy in the time of Caesar Augustus (63 BC–14 CE), and it is said that a scholar named Melissus compiled approximately 150 joke anthologies. Unfortunately, only one book of humor from ancient Roman times has survived. The Philogelos, or Laughter-Lover is a collection of 264 jokes put together in the fourth or fifth century CE. The jokes in the collection are brief and to the point, but happily they still have a certain cachet. For example: “How shall I cut your hair?” a barber asked a customer. “In silence!” replied the wag. And: How does a man with bad breath commit suicide? He puts a bag over his head and asphyxiates himself!
I only highlighted a few of the longer jokes from the book.  Here's one that addresses a favorite subject of mine:
Logic: The Art of Reasoning (Inductive Reasoning: Moving from a Particular to a General)

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are on a camping trip. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up and gives Watson a nudge. “Watson,” he says, “look up in the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions of stars, Holmes,” says Watson.

“And what do you conclude from that, Watson?”

Watson thinks for a moment. “Well,” he says, “astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Homologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I see that God is all powerful, and we are small and insignificant. Uh, what does it tell you, Holmes?”

“Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!”

During lunch I'll start on a science book, which might actually be more of an adventure book.  Either way, it looks like a good one.  (It's definitely not a mathematics book.)

March 26, 2018 - This morning I had another little "epiphany," a Eureka! moment when it seemed like the last piece in a puzzle might have suddenly fallen into place.  It began yesterday when "danco" posted this to the Google forum:
In physics, & "higher' science, 'understanding' relates to the capacity of applying the models and *calculating*, predicting, the outcome of exps. [experiments]
We 'understand the math' or we can work out the implications of the model.
Thats whats meant by 'understanding'.

Then, there is the word 'interpretation', which is more what YOU call 'understanding'.  Interpretations in physics is irrelevant and obsolete; "shut up & calculate" as the famous quote from Mermin. This is because, 'interpretations' wont change the model, wont change the math. Therefore, interpretations' are useless *in physics*. Yes, in early years of physics, or for the lay, interpretations can help them develop an 'understanding' and mental image of the situations. But further down the line, the lay gets to understand that 'interpretations' are irrelevant, and drops such options. You havent crossed that line and are still stuck at 16th century science so to speak.
Hmm.  Interpretations are useless in physics??  Who would believe such nonsense?  I then did a Google search for "shut up and calculate" and found a Wikipedia entry that says,
Thinking about foundations pays off in the long run. David Mermin once summarized a popular attitude towards quantum theory as “Shut up and calculate!”. We suggest an alternative slogan: “Shut up and contemplate!
  • Lucien Hardy and Robert Spekkens, "Why Physics Needs Quantum Foundations" (2010)
Hmm.  I found the article that contains the phrase "Shut up and contemplate!", but that didn't quite make sense, either.

Then, this morning as I lay in bed waiting for it to be time to get up, it suddenly occurred to me that for the past 4 years I haven't been studying a conflict between mathematicians and scientists, the conflict is actually a 3-way battle:
mathematicians versus scientists versus philosophers
The battle cry of mathematicians is "Shut up and calculate!"
The battle cry of philosophers is "Shut up and contemplate!"
And, meanwhile, the scientists are saying, "Let's talk about this!  Let's work together, exchange ideas, explore, do some experiments, and let's try to figure out how this complex universe works!"

The mathematicians are like a cult that sees mathematics as the word of God, and they battle against all non-believers who disagree with their beliefs.  The philosophers are like a cult that believes nothing is real, everything we see is just illusions in our minds, and they battle against all non-believers who disagree with their beliefs.   Meanwhile, most scientists have probably long understood that they are being criticized from two sides, from the mathematicians and from the philosophers.  I just hadn't realized that before.  And it is something that definitely belongs at the beginning of my book.

Coincidentally, last night I was watching the most recent episode of the PBS show "NOVA" from my DVR, and they mentioned that this Wednesday's episode of "NOVA" is going to be a rerun of an April 25, 2015, program titled "The Great Math Mystery," subtitled "Is math invented by humans, or is it the language of the universe?"  
 
Hmm.  I'm afraid of what their answer might be.  But, I'll watch it anyway.  

March 25, 2018 -  I recently received a bunch of happy birthday wishes from people on Facebook.  And, as I did last year, I had to tell them that the date Facebook had as my birthday wasn't correct.  When I sighed up to get on Facebook I gave them a somewhat incorrect birth date.  I gave them the right month, but the day was off by a few days and the year was off by a few years.  I'd used an incorrect birthday when signing up for Facebook because I didn't see any reason to give them my true birthday, although I could understand why they might need to know if I was over 21 or not.  I was concerned that identity thieves might steal the information from them.

It turns out I was correct in being concerned.
Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach
But, I didn't actually sign up for Facebook until after the "data breach" that is in  the news these days.  That breach occurred in "early 2014."  Searching for the term "Facebook" on this web site, I find that that the first time I used it was in a comment I wrote on May 5, 2015.  On that day I wrote:
It's possible that if I were on Facebook, I could find some true experts on the anthrax attacks of 2001 and Time Dilation to talk with.  But, I tend to think that such people also have "better things to do."  My primary interest is in writing, and writing is mostly a solitary activity.  Facebook looks like a trap where you wander around in a crowded world looking for someone with the same interests as you have.  I have to allocate my time to fit my current mood and interests.  I don't have much time left for wandering the world to find someone to exchange small talk and gossip with.  And that also means I very rarely encounter Trolls.
So, I wasn't yet on Facebook at that time.  Note, too, that the comment indicates I was already heavily into arguing about Time Dilation, even though I was still very much interested in learning more details about the anthrax attacks of 2001 and all the screwball conspiracy theories about that case.

So, when did I first mention "Time Dilation" on a web site?  It turns out the first mention was on my old web site, anthraxinvestigation.com, and it was on March 16, 2014.  In my (B) comment on that day I wrote:

I completed the course on Space, Time & Einstein at the WorldScienceU.com site.  The basic principles of time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light are very familiar to me and required learning nothing new.  I think I fully understand them.  Here's one of the comments I wrote explaining my view of time dilation:

I think I understand time dilation okay. If I'm on a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light, where time is slowed down to 1/10th what it is back on earth, everything will still SEEM normal aboard the ship. The clock will seem to keep normal time. I'll still need a haircut every month (more or less). If a woman aboard gets pregnant, she'll still have a 9 month gestation period.

AND, if I had a magical "simultaneous viewer" device aboard that could show me the eastern horizon back on earth as it was happening at MY time rate, I'd see the sun rise every 2 hours and 24 minutes.

AND, if the people back on earth also had a magical "simultaneous viewer," the parents of the pregnant woman aboard would have to wait 90 months for the child to gestate and be born. And, if they could see the clock we have aboard the spaceship, they'd see it was moving at 1/10th the rate of the clocks they have.

However, there was one video (Module #8) that contained a section that was really puzzling for me, and, evidently, also very puzzling for a lot of other students.  So, I played it over and over until I could spot the exact sentence where Professor Greene lost me.  Then I looked at all the comments by the other students to see if any of them could clarify anything.  (My outdated computer software prevents me from getting any direct feedback from Professor Greene.)  Eventually, I realized the problem was all the result of a confusing choice of words used by Prof. Greene.  Am I right?  I dunno.  But, I've finished the only course I see of interest.  I'll just check the student comments from time to time to see if anyone clarifies anything further for me. 
Hmm.  I'd forgotten that I became interested in researching conflicting arguments about Time Dilation as a result of taking Professor Greene's course.  I'd been thinking it was the other way around: that I took the course because I was interested in Time Dilation.  Thinking back on it, I now recall that I had watched Professor Greene talk about his on-line courses on either Jon Stewart's or Stephen Colbert's TV show, and that was how I knew about it and became interested in taking a course. That moment in time was also right after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 had disappeared, and I was also heavily into arguing with conspiracy theorists about that mystery.

My comment for March 23, 2014, includes this additional information:

Another area of very heavy thinking last week involved me trying to figure out exactly what Professor Greene was talking about in the on-line course about Space, Time & Einstein on the WorldScienceU.com web site.  I understand time dilation, okay, I think.  To confirm it, I created a new web page about it HERE.  The idea is that if I can explain it to others and get them to understand, that means I also understand it.  I think just about anyone should be able to understand my explanation.  I may add some drawings, if I can find the time.
What was the "confusing choice of words used by Prof. Greene" that caused me to spend much of the next couple years doing research about Time Dilation?  It turns out I took the course a second time a couple years later and found those words no longer confused me, they just irritated me, since I saw them as "mathematical nonsense."  I wrote a blog page about it titled "Physics teachers are teaching mathematical nonsense, not science."  In that blog page I wrote:
I want to make it clear before continuing that Professor Greene is not teaching anything that other physics professors aren't also teaching.  The only difference is the Professor Greene's course and lectures are on-line where I can easily access them.

I soon realized what bothered me about "Module #8" back then.  Prof. Greene was breaking Time down into "quanta," i.e., into moments, like the individual frames of a movie.  And he was viewing time as a mathematician would view time.  Plus, the lecture concludes with Professor Greene saying that, "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."

If you believe that, then you can also argue that everything we see may be equally unreal - from a mathematician's point of view.
And I rambled on and on about the absolute nonsense being taught in that course.  Interestingly, the comments I received about that post are still relevant today.  The first comment was from "Science Guy" who wrote:
It's unbelievable how many wrong conclusions you have here.
To which I responded,
It's unbelievable that someone would write such a comment without specifying which "conclusions" are "wrong" and what the FACTS and EVIDENCE say are the CORRECT "conclusions." Do you have only PERSONAL OPINIONS?
And "Science Guy" responded:
Since all of your conclusions were only personal opinions, you wouldn't want anything else.
And that basically ended the discussion.  It had become nothing by an opinion versus opinion argument, which I consider to be a total waste of time.  And that was like a model for today's arguments.  I want to discuss facts and evidence, and all the mathematicians want to discuss is opinions. 

And today I am still looking for someone - anyone - who can explain where I'm wrong, but all I'm getting is opinions that I'm wrong, with no explanations of specifically what is wrong and how facts and evidence show I am wrong.  The facts and evidence show that I am right.  That is why I cite the experiments.

And that is also why I write in this web site.  It's a record of how my thinking changed over the years and how and why I became interested in writing books and scientific papers about my findings.  And now I'm working on another book.


Comments for Sunday, March 18, 2018, thru Saturday, March 24, 2018:

March 23, 2018 - Yesterday, I actually started writing a book I have tentatively titled "Logical Relativity."  It was a totally disorganized attempt.  I just sat down and started writing about how logical Relativity is -  if you understand it.  What I wrote looks pretty good, but, like so many other things I've started to write without first getting organized, I kept adding new and different things before what I'd already written.  If I was organized, the new stuff would go at the end.  When I'm disorganized, I realize that before I wrote what I had already written I should have explained something, and I add the explanation at the beginning.  Sometimes in the middle.

But, at least I'm writing.

Then, this morning, I woke up thinking about the two animated gifs I used in Wednesday's comment, particularly this one:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif

Note that the image is named "doppler_source_blue.gif."  Here it is again:

moving emitter stationary observer

It occurred to me that the name of the gif is a misnomer.  The light would NOT be blue shifted in that situation, where the emitter is moving toward the observer.  The photons would be arriving faster, thus the frequency would be higher, but that just means the light would be brighter than when the emitter was stationary.  The observer is receiving more photons per unit of time.  So, the light is brighter.  There would be no shift in color.  Light is only blue shifted when the observer is moving toward the emitter.  That is depicted in the animated gif with the name "doppler_detector_blue.gif:

Moving observer stationary emitter

In the above situation, the light encountered by the observer/detector would be both brighter and blue-shifted.  It would be brighter than if the observer was stationary, because the observer would be receiving more photons per unit of time than if it was stationary, and the light would be blue-shifted because each photon would be traveling faster when it arrives than when it was emitted.  The photon would arrive at c+v, where v is the observer's speed.  That, of course, is not how things are taught in most colleges and universities, and it is the point of my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate.

I had to track down the source of the first gif above to find the second gif.  The source is http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/.  That source also has animated gifs showing how waves "bunch up" when the emitter is moving, versus when the emitter is stationary:

 stationary emitter
Stationary Emitter
 moving emitter
Moving Emitter

The problem is, of course, that there are no actual waves.  Light does NOT travel in waves.  Light consists of photons, not waves.  And the photons are emitted in random directions.  They just spread out somewhat in the way that is shown in the two images.  The further two individual photons get from the point where they were emitted, the farther apart they become - unless, of course, the two photons just happened to be emitted one after the other in the exact same direction. 

And now I'm wondering if I should go back to that now-inactive Google discussion thread where Pentcho Valev used the animated gifs to illustrate his mistaken point, so I can show him the two gifs directly above.  But that would probably mean restarting the arguments and insults from the others who were posting.  And Pentcho Valev is unlikely to respond anyway. 

Hmm.  While Pentcho Valev did not respond to my comment to him, he did post again in that same thread.  The post provided a link to the actual web site where the animated gifs are used as illustrations: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html   That web page contains this rhetorical question:
Is the Doppler effect for light different, depending on whether the source is moving or the receiver?
and this answer:
If it were, we would have a way to define absolute motion - we could define, using only the laws of physics (more concretely, of light propagation) whether or not the source, or the receiver, or any other object is at rest or not. This is in sharp contrast with the basic tenets of special relativity, which state that there is no absolute motion, and that the physical laws do not allow us to determine a state of absolute rest.
Groan.  Yes, BUT, decades after special relativity was developed, others realized that astronomical observations together with Special and General Relativity indicated the universe started with a "Big Bang."  And if there was a "Big Bang," the point where the Big Bang occurred is a stationary point (i.e., "a state of absolute rest") from where all movement in the universe can be measured.    

The web page also mentions "the relativistic Doppler effect."  If you are moving toward the source of light, the pulses will arrive at a faster rate, PLUS because you are moving time slows down for you.  That means a second is longer for you. And that means that even more pulses will arrive per your second.  That's a complication I hadn't thought about before.  It's also something that wouldn't work unless all movement is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.

And time dilation also says that if the source of light is moving relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, time slows down for the source.  That means all of its processes slow down.  Therefore, if it emits one pulse per second, that will be a longer second than for a stationary observer.  Photons are emitted instantaneously, so there is no effect on an individual photon due to the speed of the emitter, but photons will be emitted at a different rate.    

It also makes me think I need to explain something about this near the beginning of my new book - before most of what I've already written.  And I think I should forget about responding to Pentcho Valev's post, since what I learned from it has nothing to do with what he wrote in his post. 
 
Sigh.

March 21, 2018 - Ah!  There was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my state income tax forms were accepted by my state.  So, I am all done with my income taxes and can focus on writing either a book or some papers.

The problem is that when I think about writing a book, I think about telling the story of how I got to the place where I am, i.e., how did I (a non-scientist) arrive at the point where I want to write a book about Relativity?  I find that topic very interesting, but would anyone else care?  I suspect not.  So, I need to re-think the book, maybe turning it into a collection of my scientific papers, with maybe some info between the papers about how I came to write each paper.

But that may require that I "fix" at least one of my papers.  I keep thinking I definitely need to removed the word "illusion" from my paper Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle.  I only use the word 4 times in the paper, but there is no "illusion," there is just a definition of "the speed of light" that is valid inside different frames of reference but it is not valid when frames are compared.   

So, while I was thinking about that this morning, I noticed Pentcho Valev had started another silly new thread on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  He titled the thread "Einstein's False Light Postulate."  Here's the entire post he used to start the thread:

Whether Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true or false depends on whether light pulses bunch up in front of the moving source or not:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif

Light pulses don't bunch up - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Here are the two animated gifs he used:
stationary emitter and receiver
moving emitter, stationary observer
Note how the lower gif shows the photons are much closer together ("bunched up"), yet the photons move at the same rate between emitter and observer.
 
And here is my entire response to Mr. Valev:
Pentcho, if I am stationary and the source of light is stationary and emits one light photon toward me every second at 299,792 kilometers per second (kps), that means there will be 299,792 kilometers between each photon that I detect and I will detect one photon arriving every second.

If, however, the source is traveling at 100,000 kilometers per second (kps) toward me and away from you (and we are both stationary), then there will be 199,792 kilometers between each photon that I detect (the photons "bunch up" and I detect more than one per second), and there will be 399,792 kilometers between each photon that you detect (the photons are "spread out" and you detect fewer than one per second).  But each photon still travels at 299,792 kps.

That is depicted in the two illustrations you provided.  The blue.gif shows that the photons are closer together than in the static.gif.  But the photons still travel at c.

The speed of light does NOT vary with the speed of the source, the FREQUENCY at which the photons arrive at the observer varies with the speed of the source AND the direction in which it is traveling. 
So, now I'm waiting to see if he will respond.  I don't recall ever seeing him respond to a post.  He just posts something else in support of his beliefs, usually something that in no way responds to any questions asked.

I wonder if there is something in this that is going to set off the mathematicians.  The first response was a personal attack from David (Kronos Prime) Fuller.  Then came a post from "rotchm" telling me it was "impolite" to move to a new thread without finishing the argument on the previous thread.  Sigh.  I'll just have to wait and see if anything worthwhile comes of this.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to think about working on a paper or a book.

March 20, 2018 - This morning I did my income taxes, so I don't have to worry about that chore anymore.  And, I see that all the people on Google's Science, Physics & Reality discussion forum are doing today is arguing personal beliefs and theories among themselves.  There has been no response from "trjrob137" regarding my dissection and debunking of his March 17 comment and email to me.  He hasn't responded via email, and it appears he hasn't posted anything at all since then to the Google forum.  Maybe he spent the past three days digesting what I wrote.  But, until he does reply, I'm going to assume that that argument has ended, and so have all the debates I was involved with there.

So, I'm free to work on some scientific paper or a book.  I think about writing a paper when I am in the middle of an argument, but I think about writing a book when the arguments are over.  I'll have to wait to see which direction I will take, but it appears I cannot think about it until I get the confirmations that my tax forms were accepted by the IRS and by my state.  Until then, I'll probably just stare at the computer screen and think about where to begin.

Ah!  I was just notified that the IRS accepted my federal forms.

I was also thinking I should show this image:

Chicago equinox

It's a shot of Upper Wacker Drive in Chicago, taken during the autumn equinox last September.  On NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day website they say, "Sometimes, in a way, Chicago is like a modern Stonehenge. The way is east to west, and the time is today."  In other words, there should have been a similar view this morning.  As I write this, spring began about 15 minutes ago.

March 19, 2018 - Yesterday afternoon, I took a break from arguing on the Internet and I sat down on my couch to finish reading a book on my Kindle.  It was "It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America" by David Cay Johnston.

It's Even Worse Than You Think

Wow.  What a depressing book!  Here's one quote from early in the book:
Viewed properly in the context of their times, the last forty-four presidents all pursued policies that they believed would make for a better America tomorrow. The Trump presidency is about Trump. Period. Full stop. He says so himself all the time, but because he mixes it in with lines about how he loves everyone and what a terrific job he will do, millions of Americans believe he is at one with them even though he is not even at one with himself.
Another:
Trump has also lived a life of thumbing his nose at conventions and law enforcement, learning lessons as a boy from his father, Fred, whose business partner was an associate of the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He has long been in deep with mobsters, domestic and foreign, along with corrupt union bosses and assorted swindlers.
Here's a another quote about Trump's father:
Not many people go so far as to support the Ku Klux Klan, as Trump’s father, Fred, was doing in 1927 when New York City police arrested him during a violent demonstration.
But mostly the book is about Donald Trump himself.  Another quote:
Trump himself has reduced his life philosophy to a single word—revenge.
Another:
“I love getting even,” Trump advised in one of his books, adding “go for the jugular, attack them in spades!” Repeatedly he has said in talks and in his books that destroying the lives of people he considers disloyal gives him pleasure.
And another:
His entire life Trump has been a con artist. In The Art of the Deal he brags about deceptions that enriched him. He has boasted about not paying banks that loaned him billions of dollars. He conned thousands of people desperate to learn what Trump said were the secrets of his success into paying up to $35,000 to attend Trump University. In a promotional video, Trump said his university would provide a better education than the finest business schools with a faculty he personally picked. Lawsuits forced Trump’s testimony and documents that showed that there were no secrets he shared with the “students.” The faculty never met Trump. These professors turned out to be fast-food managers and others with no experience in real estate, the focus of the “university.” Because of the lawsuits, Trump paid back $25 million to the people he conned so the scam would not follow him into the White House.
Near the end of the book I highlighted this question:
How can it be that millions of people do not see Trump for what he is—a narcissistic, ill-informed, thieving old blowhard?
And the last passage I highlighted in the book was this:
Donald Trump is not the political disease afflicting America, he is a symptom. That millions of people voted for a narcissistic, know-nothing con artist who has spent his entire life swindling others while repeatedly urging followers to commit criminal acts of violence against his critics reveals more about America than about Trump.
I have family members who voted for Trump.  They no longer see him as being whatever it was they thought he was when they voted for him, but I doubt that they now view Trump the way I view Trump.  If the 2016 election were to be repeated, I think just they might vote for Trump again.  And the book makes it clear that about a third of the American voters would also vote for Trump again.

I have several other books about Trump on my Kindle.  But I'm not in the mood to read more about him - or about why anyone would vote for him.  When I think about what I've already read about why people voted for him, it's really chilling.

So, this morning at breakfast I started reading a book from the "Humor" section at the library.  And the next book in the queue after that is half humor and half science.  Then I'll probably shift to only science for awhile.  Science generally provides a hopeful view of the future.  Current political books certainly don't. 

The audio book I'm currently listening to while driving here and there about town is a humor book about politics.  That one is getting a bit depressing, too.  But learning how people like Trump and other far right wingers routinely lie and justify their lying with more lies is also both educational and funny.  It's only depressing because there isn't anything I can do about it -- unless a lot of other voters also want to do something about it.  

March 18, 2018 -  On Friday morning I decided I wouldn't respond to any further posts to the "Those LYING Scientists" thread I had created on the Google Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum unless "tjrob137" answered my question about the purpose of the NIST, Italian and Hafele-Keating experiments.  He didn't respond before I shut down for the day on Friday afternoon. 

On Saturday mornings I have all kinds of chores to do, so I didn't check the Google forum.  But, later in the morning I checked my email inboxes, and in the email inbox that gets all my junk mail I was surprised to find an email from "tjrob137" giving his response to my question about the three experiments.  I spent the next two hours writing my answer to his response, using a lot of bold and red highlighting, plus underlining, to emphasize things.  You can't do any of that on the forum.  Then, after sending the email, I checked the forum and found that "tjrob137" had posted the same message there with a carbon copy to my email account.  So, I copied and pasted my email message to the forum, then modified parts of it before posting.

I'd really hoped "tjrob137" would not respond.  I'd really gotten tired of arguing on that forum, even though it is occasionally very interesting.  But, in response to my question about the purpose of the three experiments, "tjrob137" wrote:

They don't really demonstrate anything about "time", because that is NOT what they are measuring.
And then he added:
They did not measure "the rate of time", they measured FREQUENCY DIFFERENCES of SIGNALS BETWEEN THE CLOCKS."
And about the Italian experiment specifically, he wrote:
Had you bothered to actually READ THEIR REPORT (in Nature Physics, linked to the LA Times article), you would KNOW that the authors never mentioned "difference in time" or "difference in clock tick rates". For instance, in the caption to Fig. 1 they specifically mention "Frequency of the transportable Sr clock as seen by the INRIM Cs fountain clock" -- they are using words in precisely the way I advocate. That figure explicitly shows the fiber-optic link between them, so it is QUITE CLEAR that they are comparing SIGNALS BETWEEN THE CLOCKS."
Yes, "tjrob137" constantly writes about one clock "seeing" another clock, which makes no sense at all.  And he found a sentence in the Italian article which uses a clock "as seen by" another clock to justify all his claims.

As best as I can figure, he believes the clocks tick at the same rate at the top of the mountain as at the bottom (see #5 in my list of The 10 Dumbest Beliefs in Physics), and it is the speeding up (the blue-shifting) of the "signal" that is sent down the mountain for comparison that accounts for the difference in clock rates.  But, I'd already explained to him that the "signals" can have no affect on the experiment.  So, evidently I needed to explain that to him again - in some different way.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like this needs to be the subject of a scientific paper.  And I also needed to create some illustrations to help me explain the situation.

According to what I read in the articles about the Italian experiment, time ticks at a faster rate at the top of the mountain than at the bottom.  In other words, seven ticks of an atomic clock at the top of a mountain when compared to seven ticks of an identical atomic clock at the bottom of the mountain can be depicted as seen in Illustration #1 below.

Time
                Dilation Grid #1
Illustration #1
According to "tjrob137," however, a clock at the top of a mountain ticks at the same rate as a clock at the bottom of the mountain.  So, in Illustration #2 below we have 7 ticks of the clock at the bottom of the mountain and at the top of the mountain with  equal intervals between the 7 ticks.

Time
                dilation grid illustration #2

Illustration #2

"Tjrob137" evidently believes that the signals sent down the mountain are affected by gravity and speed up as they descend, so when someone at the bottom of the mountain compares the two clock tick rates it merely appears that there is a shorter interval between ticks atop the mountain.  It simply looks like Illustration #1 above while the clocks actually tick like Illustration #2.

The problem with that belief is that it is not logical.  If the signal for each tick speeds up as it descends, the amount of time that is removed from between ticks will always be the same.  The same amount of gravity is applied to each signal, and the same amount of time is required for each tick to descend.  So, if the clocks are ticking at the same rates as in Illustration #2 above, the only actual difference will be how long it takes for the signals to travel from the top of the mountain to the bottom at the speed of light.  After that, all signals will arrive with the same intervals as observed at the top of the mountain.  Illustration #3 below shows in red the travel time interval of time being observed at the bottom of the mountain for the first tick signal to arrive due to the speed of light.  Plus the illustration shows that although the signals are delayed, the interval between signals once they arrive are the same duration they were at time of transmission. 

Time
                dilation grid illustration #3
Illustration #3

IF some speeding up of signal times could somehow magically cause the results seen in Illustration #1, we'd get the situation shown in Illustration #4 below:

Time
                Dilaiton grid illustration #4
Illustration #4

There is the viewing delay caused by the time it takes for a signal to get down to the bottom of the mountain at the speed of light, and then the signals are somehow perceived as being closer together.  While there wouldn't be any serious problem with the first few signals, as Illustration #4 shows, that would mean that signal #5 would have to arrive at the same instant it was transmitted, and signal #6 would have to arrive before it was emitted at the top of the mountain.  Even more so for signal #7.   That is simply NOT LOGICAL.  But, of course, mathematicians do not believe in logic.  To them, math is the only real logic,  (See #6 in my list of The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics), and all other forms of logic are equal to "common sense," and as even their text books will tell you, there are things about physics that run counter to common sense.  But you must believe it anyway.

Near the end of his post and email, "tjrob137" added this tidbit of information:

In physics, "time is what clocks measure" [[according to] Einstein and others], for the simple reason that in any experiment that involves time, a clock is used to measure it.  No experiment measures time, they all measure clocks or signals between clocks.
I'm not positive that I know what he means by that.  However, 'tjrob137" seems to disagree with Einstein.  Perhaps he believes, as many others do, that "time is just a concept," therefore no experiment can actually measure time. 

If "time is just a concept," then how can it run at different rates under different circumstances of gravity and velocity?  I imagine 'tjrob137" would simply say "It can't and it doesn't, " adding, "That is just what 'Einstein and others' believe." 

I really feel I should put all this in a scientific paper.  There are a lot of other fascinating angles to it, some angles that are probably more important than those mentioned above.  Specifically, the fact that the Italian experiment can be viewed as a repeat of the Pound-Rebka experiment.   In my explanation above, I make it clear that there can be no difference in the frequency of light signals between emission at the top of the mountain and receipt at the bottom of the mountain.  However, I have not argued that there is no difference in wavelength.  #8 in my list of The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics is:

#8.  Light travels as waves.
There can be no difference in frequency for light emitted at the top of a mountain (or at the top of a building at Harvard) when it is received at the bottom of the mountain (or the bottom of the building), but can there be a "blue shifting" in the wavelength?  Either Pound-Rebka was wrong about frequency shifting, or it was wrong about both frequency shifting and wavelength shifting.  I think I can make a good case for the "both" idea.  (As I see it, the differences in frequency and wavelength did not occur as the light traveled, they occurred at time of emission.)  Differences in photon frequency and photon wavelength result from the velocity of a receiving body moving toward or away from the body that emitted the photons.

I should probably add that, before I received "tjrob137's" response to my question about the three experiments, I had been thinking of writing my Sunday comment to be about the blue-shifting and red-shifting of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) as the earth, sun and the Milky Way galaxy head toward the Constellation Hydra.  That red- and blue-shifting must relate to the fact that radiation from the CMB is arriving at c+v, where v is our velocity as we head toward Hydra and the CMBR ahead of us, and at c-v as we head away from the CMBR behind us.  And that of course is an argument against #4 on my list of
The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics:
#4.  The speed of light is always measured to be the same by the emitter and all outside observers, regardless of their own velocity.
Sigh.  Now I have to work on a paper about all this.  And somehow I also have to find time to do my income taxes.


Comments for Sunday, March 11, 2018, thru Saturday, March 17, 2018:

March 15, 2018 - Groan!  Twenty new messages were posted to the "Those LYING Scientists" discussion thread overnight.  Most are arguments between others on the forum, one is by someone on my "Do Not Reply" list, but there are six messages addressed to me that seem to be genuine attempts to communicate, which means I feel I should try to respond to the posts from
rotchm
JanPB
tjrob137 (his first post in this thread)
danco
Paparios and
Paul B. Anderson
Plus, while I was typing the list above, kenseto posted a message addressed to JanPB recommending that JanPB should read Ken Seto's book "Model Mechanics: The Final Theory," which is available on-line at that link for free.  Ken Seto (kenseto) was responding to a response to a statement from me.  I posted this question:
What is the CAUSE of clocks ticking at different rates when the velocity is different and/or when gravity is different?
JanPB had answered with this example of lunacy:
In physics the CAUSE of ANYTHING is unknown.
And Ken Seto replied,
That’s because you mathematicians took over physical development  and invented all sorts of non-existing mathematical objects (such as: virtual particles (force messengers), extra dimensions, spacetime,  curvature in spacetime, length contraction, time dilation....etc) to explain the physical universe. Once you done that there is no way to go back to find the CAUSE of ANYTHING.
Fortunately I think I found the PHYSICAL CAUSE OF EVERYTHING in my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Except for the "time dilation" part and the recommendation to read his book,  Ken Seto and I seem to be mostly in agreement.  There are others who also seem to agree with me sometimes, but then they say something that I totally disagree with.   It reminds me of the cartoon I created a long time ago:

Science Truthers
Everyone agrees that something or someone is wrong, but they totally disagree on what is right.  Each has his own theory.  And, of course, so do I.  But I do not fit into the cartoon because I would be arguing that "mainstream scientists are RIGHT in what they believe.  They are correct when they do experiments which confirm that time ticks at different rates in different locations where gravity and velocity are different.  And the people I am arguing with disagree, but we cannot find the right words to define our disagreement because they only understand mathematics and cannot discuss anything except in mathematical terms.

And, two more messages just appeared in the "Those LYING Scientists" thread.  Fortunately, neither was addressed to me.  I've got an hour and a half to reply to the six messages addressed to me before it will be lunchtime and time for me to head to the gym for a workout.  Sigh.  I really need to get out of this situation so that I can do my taxes and maybe start writing a book.  


March 14, 2018 - Hmm.   Stephen Hawking died in Cambridge, England, in the "early hours" of this morning, which could have been late last night where I am in Midwest America.  This morning as I was doing my morning "chores," one "chore" is to look through my web site visitors log to see who visited during the previous day.  I noticed that at 16:08:01 (4:08 p.m.) yesterday afternoon, someone from Cambridge University visited my Time Dilation page.  It's probably just a coincidence, but I think it's been months since I've noticed any visitors from Cambridge University.

Meanwhile, there was only one comment worthy of a response among the six comments that were posted overnight to the "Those LYING Scientists" thread on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  Most of the comment from "danco" was just same-old same-old, in response to this comment from me:

To me, all movement is relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
Danco wrote this:
Making allowances for your unfamiliarity with the relevant concepts from cosmology, it's true that one can define a cosmological time in a way that corresponds to what you said, but it would be expressed by saying that we can define all movement in terms of the local frames of reference at any given point in which the radiation reaching that point from the big bang is the same frequency in all directions.  This gives an unambiguous definition of motion, and indeed this is used for some astronomical and cosmological studies.  However, it remains true that local inertial coordinate systems are perfectly reciprocal.
And I responded with this:
You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of cosmology.  The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the same in all directions because it formed about 378,000 years AFTER the Big Bang.  It is from the time when hydrogen atoms first formed.  Photons emitted when an atom forms do not go in any specific direction, they are emitted RANDOMLY in EVERY direction.  So, the CMB tells us NOTHING about the direction to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
Wow.  I hadn't even thought about that before.  I'd read a lot about the CMB, but I never wondered how it could be the same in all directions if the Big Bang occurred off in some direction outside of the visible universe. 

Big Bang Universe vs Visible Universe
Before responding to danco's comment, I had to do some more research.  I found a very interesting article on space.com from five years ago that I've probably read several times before, but this time I paid particular attention to the part about how the CMB seems "redder" or "hotter" when viewed from the southern hemisphere versus the view from the northern hemisphere.  That poses the question: Is it "redder" meaning "hotter," or does it indicate that the earth is moving toward the CMB as viewed from the northern hemisphere and away from the CMB as viewed from the southern hemisphere, resulting in a "red-shift" in the radiation?  But that should mean the view from the northern hemisphere should contain "blue-shifted" radiation.  However, only noticeable spot of "blue-shifted" radiation is also in the view from the southern hemisphere.

Groan!  Does anyone actually care about any of this except me?  It sometimes seems to me that the Quantum Theorists know what they know and they are ready to argue with anyone who disagrees, while the Relativists know what they know and they don't have the time to argue with anyone who disagrees.  So, if I was looking for support, I would be looking for it from Relativists who do not have the time to provide support for people arguing with Quantum Theorists. 

Sigh.       


March 13, 2018 - I think it may be time for me to stop posting arguments to Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum for awhile.  I see 7 new posts were addressed to me overnight.  There were many more yesterday morning, so many that I spent all day responding to them and didn't have time to write a comment here.  This morning's comments are a bit different, though.  All are just statements of opinions, personal attacks and insults.  None seems worthy of a response.

I tried 3 or 4 times to get someone on the forum to tell me what the scientists who performed the NIST, Italian and Hafele-Keating experiments demonstrated with their experiments.  No one would answer the question. They do not believe that time ticks at different rates at different speeds and different altitudes, which is what the experiments demonstrated, so the people on the forum just obfuscate, change the subject and hurl insults.

One of last night's responses was from Gary Harnagel, who is on my "Do Not Reply" list.  He ridiculed me for having such a list.  If I respond, he'll ridicule me for violating the rules for my "Do Not Reply" list by replying to someone who is on the list.  It's tempting to respond anyway, since this post last night shows how he thinks.

I had written a comment about Person-1 waking up in a closed room with a golf ball in his lap and knowing from previous discussions that he is part of an experiment and he is supposed to toss the ball into the air and catch it again.  He does so, and, as expected, the ball goes straight up and comes straight down again.  Then the experiment rules say he is supposed to raise the curtain on the window in a nearby wall.  He does so, and he sees that he is aboard an airplane traveling at about 500 mph.  So, he now knows that the ball did not actually go straight up and down, due to his velocity it actually came down hundreds of feet from where he tossed it upwards.  

And Person-2 on the ground who set  up the experiment also knows this.  So, no one still believes the ball actually went straight up and down.

Gary Harnagel's response this morning was:

And a person in a [reference] frame where the sun is stationary sees the plane moving at 66000 mph and the ball comes down many THOUSANDS of feet from where it went up, so he knows that Person-2 is wrong :-)
So, Harnagel is saying that Person-2 is "wrong" because the ball came down thousands of feet from where it was tossed upwards, not merely hundreds of feet as I stated.  So, Harnagel changed the argument.  My point was - and still is - that no one believes that the ball went straight up and came straight down.

Gary Harnagel then added a further comment:

But since he knows astronomy, he knows that the earth is moving around the sun at 30 km/second.  And since he also knows the First Postulate, he understands that motion is purely relative, as Galileo proclaimed centuries ago.
I'd like to ask him what does the First Postulate (i.e., the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames) have to do with the idea that "motion is purely relative"?  Later in his post he actually states,
the velocity of an object is NOT a law of physics.
So, what was he trying to say?  I suspect it has something to do with what I list as the #3 dumbest belief in physics: "All Motion is Reciprocal."  If you corner a mathematician, he will explain that "all motion is relative" means that "all motion is reciprocal," since mathematicians believe there is no "preferred frame of reference."  Therefore, if a child gets on his tricycle and starts peddling around on the sidewalk, it is just as "possible" that the child is actually stationary and somehow his peddling is causing the sidewalk, the earth (and the universe) to move around under him.  All motion is relative.  All  motion is reciprocal.  There's no way to tell (mathematically) who is moving and who is not.

If you want to separate the idiocy of "all motion is reciprocal" from the idea that "all motion is relative," you have find something that all motion is relative TO.  Einstein helped to confirm that there is no "ether" (or "aether") to use as a "preferred frame of reference," but he seems to have left open the question of "What is all motion relative to if it is not relative to the stationary ether?"  Einstein didn't believe in the Big Bang theory, so he didn't believe (as I do) that all motion is relative to the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred.  It seems he went in the other direction and believed that all motion is relative to the maximum speed of light.  But that just pertains to velocity, not to a location.  According to one source:
He came to realize that since all the laws of physics remain the same whether you’re at rest or in steady motion, the speed of light has to be constant as well. No one can catch up with a light beam. But if the speed of light is identical for all observers, something else has to give: absolute time and space. Einstein concluded that the cosmos has no universal clock or common reference frame. Space and time are “relative,” flowing differently for each of us depending on our motion.
Hmm.  I've concluded that the cosmos does have a universal clock and a common reference frame.  It is the point where the Big Bang occurred.  At that point, time ticks at its maximum rate, and all motion in the universe is relative to that point.

It greatly simplifies and helps make sense of everything.  But nothing can be accomplished by arguing about it with the people on the Google forum.   I just need to write more papers about it - maybe a book.  And, if someone can explain to me where I'm wrong, I'd like them to do so.  Just don't argue that I'm wrong because I do not understand the mathematics, and do not argue that I'm wrong because I appear to disagree with Einstein.  If I'm wrong, only experiments can show that I'm wrong.
 
Feynman quote

And, as far as I know, all experiments say I'm right, although there are definitely a lot of people who will claim that that there are experiments which show I am wrong, but they have never actually cited any such experiments much less tried to explain how the experiment shows I'm wrong. 

Hmm.  This isn't the comment I set out to write.  It's more like a demonstration of the famous quote from
Flannery O'Connor: "I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.”  I tried tracking down that quote, too, to make sure it wasn't a misquote, but I just found it repeated in dozen of places without anyone identifying what book or short story or article or interview it was quoted from.

I spent all morning writing this comment.  Then it was time for lunch and then it was time for me to head to the gym for a workout.  Now I'm back and revising the comment I wrote this morning.  I still haven't replied to the overnight posts on Google.  And looking at the four posts that were made while I was at lunch and at the gym, I see one that is worthy of a response.  So, I'm going to write a response.  And, while doing that I'll think about telling everyone that I'm going to stop responding to posts and stop writing new post on that forum for awhile.  I need time to think.  And I need to do my taxes.

March 11, 2018 - Once again I was too busy to write my Sunday comment ahead of time, so I'll have to write it from scratch this morning.  Here goes:

While the arguments I've been having on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum have been intense and heated, they also seem to be running out of steam.  And I've been thinking I need to break away from those arguments and get to work on a book - or at least on a scientific paper or two - or three.  I keep thinking of writing a book titled "How I Understand Relativity."  I've always been a science-buff.  I never really took any college physics courses.  I just learned to understand Time and Time Dilation by reading about the subject and by watching TV documentaries on the subject.  There was never anything difficult to understand about it.  I saw nothing that went "against common sense."  There was nothing that was 'counter-intuitive."  And now I'm wondering WHY, for me, was there never anything difficult to understand about it?

The answer seems to be that there was nothing that I ever had to unlearn.  There was never anything that I understood clearly that turned out to be totally false.  At least not as far as I can recall.  I never had to learn other theories which I then would be told were incorrect and were replaced by new theories which turned out to also be incorrect and had to be replaced by new theories.  I started with the theories of Einstein, and I was only vaguely aware of the previous theories that Einstein had debunked.  And I was only vaguely aware of the workings of Quantum Mechanics, which fundamentally conflicts with Einstein's theories.  Science was just an interest of mine, not a "field of study" or a vocation.  If I started reading a science book that turned out to contain some theories that conflicted with what I understood, I would just shrug and toss the book aside.

Then "social media" and Facebook entered my life. 

Since I was interested in science, and I was curious about this thing called "Facebook," I thought it would be interesting to discuss science subjects with people on Facebook.  And that was when I learned that there were many many many people out there who had totally different views of science and Relativity than I had.  And I started arguing with them. 

The first group I encountered was a science cult led by Bill Gaede and a couple others.  That was early in 2015, or maybe late in 2014.  The first comment on this site where I mentioned Mr. Gaede is dated May 14, 2015.   According to Google, I mentioned his name 22 times that May.  I also learned that Gaede was one of the organizers of "Rational Physics," a group/cult that holds conventions every year just like the "Flat Earthers."  My first blog page about Gaede is dated July 8, 2015.  Gaede believes that all the atoms in the universe are bound together by tiny "ropes."  His logic can easily be shown to be illogical, but doing that just gets him and his followers very angry.

The arguments got so heated that Gaede's followers actually sabotaged my Facebook page.  I could go on and on about that, and maybe I'll do so in the book.  But for this comment, I'm just saying that was the beginning

I'd have to research exactly what I did after I stopped arguing with Gaede and his followers, but eventually I learned that college physics teachers, books, and courses were teaching things that I considered to be total nonsense.  Not only that, but countless experiments showed that what they were teaching was total nonsense.  And I started writing scientific papers about what I was discovering.

And now, more than three years after the first arguments, I find I am arguing with mathematicians and Quantum Theorists who seem to have no understanding of science at all.  They just understand math.  They cannot discuss anything but math.  And they attack anyone who attempts to discuss science without talking purely in mathematical terms.  This is no small group.  It appears to be a huge portion of the physicists in the world.  It's just difficult to gauge just how big the group is.  It probably also consists of lots of factions who do not believe exactly what the others believe, but have their own unique central argument.

The most dumbfounding argument I've ever been in is the one I am in now where the mathematicians are arguing that no intelligent scientist really believes that time ticks at different rates in different frames of reference.  The mathematicians believe that time ticks at the same rate everywhere - evidently in accordance with Quantum Mechanics.  So, when scientific articles are published about experiments which demonstrate and confirm Time Dilation and the fact that time ticks at different rates in different frames of references, the mathematicians argue that that is not what the scientists really believe, that is just a "dumbing down" or a "vulgarization" of what they really believe.  If it were what the scientist really believe, of course, that would mean the scientists are actually totally incompetent.

That belief caused me to put it as #1 on my list of The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics, which might be the central focus of my book.
 
Yesterday, just before turning off my computer for the day, I posed this question to the mathematicians on the Google forum:

The NIST experiment involved building atomic clocks that could detect the difference in the rate of time at one level versus 1 foot above that level.  The experiment was successful.

The Italian experiment involved building portable atomic clocks that could be used to measure the height of an object by measuring the difference in the rate of time at the base of the object versus the rate of time at some higher point on the object.  The experiment was successful.

The Hafele-Keating experiments involved using atomic clocks to measure the difference in the passage of time between a relatively stationary atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory and four clocks that were moved by transporting them around the world on commercial aircraft.  The experiment was successful.  

All three experiments were designed to confirm Einstein's theories that time runs at different rates in different frames of reference.

The question:  If the above sentence is NOT true, what WERE the experiments designed to do?       
The first response was from "rotchm" who wrote:
They are neither true nor untrue because they are meaningless.
This is because the expressions "time runs at different rates" are not defined; we cant know the meaning of something if we haven't given it a definition. And relativity does NOT say "time runs at different rates". Relativity says, for instance,  t' = (t - xv/c²)g. Then *authors* personally voice this as "time runs at different rates".
I haven't yet responded, but if I try to define words and terms, "rotchm" will just argue that my definitions are not correct because they do not match the definitions used by mathematicians.

"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" responded in his typical way:
Stupid Stupid Ed.
"Koobee Wublee," who tends to agree with me on some things, wrote:
These experiments indicate either of the following.  <shrug>

1)  Time ticks at different rates at different altitudes while measuring the same value in the speed of light.  <shrug>

Or

2)  Measurement of time ticking rate depends on the local value of the speed of light which can be different at different altitudes.  In reality, time does not dilates, but the speed of light varies while satisfying the null results of the MMX that show the speed of light is isotropic in constancy locally.  <shrug>

The self-styled scientists bet on the first case, and all subsequent experiments never looked for latter case.  After all, the calibration reference of these experiments is the Cs atomic clock which depends on temperature and the local value of the speed of light itself.  <shrug>
I'm not sure how I'm going to respond to that, but I think Time does dilate, and that causes the speed of light to be variable.

And "Kenseto" replied,

Clock time ticks at different rates but all the processes of nature do no operate of clock time--they operate of absolute time. However there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame and that’s why we invented the LT to predict the tick rate of a moving  clock.
I think "the LT" means the "Lorentz Transformation."  Kenseto uses the abbreviation LT constantly, but he never explains what it means.  It could also have something to do with "IRT" which is the "Improved Relativity Theory" that Ken Seto dreamed up.  It will take me awhile to decipher that response, too.

No one, of course, simply answered my question.  And I'll have to tell them that.  But, they'll probably just argue over the definition of "answered."   Sigh.

I should really get to work on a book or on some scientific papers.


Comments for Sunday, March 4, 2018, thru Saturday, March 10, 2018:

March 8, 2018 - I awoke this morning thinking about the conflict between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and also about a subject that came up the other day in a post to my Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity Google discussion thread.  In response to something I posted about all time and movement being relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, "Silvia Else" asked if that didn't mean that time dilation could be measured for the earth's velocity around the sun.  I.e., shouldn't time pass at a different rate when the earth is spinning toward the direction of its orbit around the sun versus when the earth is spinning against the direction of its orbit around the sun?

Wow!  That's an interesting question.  The answer should be "Yes."  But how would you test it?  It also falls into a discussion we had about the Scientific Method.  The method begins with a question like the one Silvia asked.  The next step is to do some research.  I already did some.  The earth is supposedly moving at 108,000 kilometers per hour around the sun.  So the next step would be to develop an hypothesis for how time dilation can be measured in that situation.  That's going to take some thinking.  But it poses another question: If I could measure time dilation that way, is there some way to also use time dilation and velocities to find the direction and/or the location of the point where the Big Bang occurred?  I dunno.  And it gives me a headache just to think about it.

When I checked Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum this morning I found that my "Proper Time" thread now has 478 posts and 519 views, which means there were 24 new posts overnight.  I also noticed a new thread titled "Ed doesnt know what "a zillion" is..."  It was created by "rotchm" and has only 2 posts, including the one "rotchm" wrote to start the thread.  Here is that entire post:

In recent discussions, it quickly became clear that Ed does not know nor understand the meaning of the words used, ... in any conversation.

Another example:

Tom made the remark that he was not interested in reading Ed's "zillions" of posts or lines.  Ed replied:

"Does 320 equal 'zillions'?  It's amusing that a mathematician
 physicist could think that they do."

Ed, can not 320 be called a "zillion"?     
Under what definition would 320 be called a "zillion"?  I didn't expect "zillion" be in dictionaries, but it is.  The Merriam-Webster definition of "zillion" is "an indeterminately large number - zillions of mosquitoes."  The Oxford Dictionary definition is "An extremely large number of people or things. ‘we had zillions of customers’." 

I've always thought of "zillions" that way, as being larger than millions, billions, trillions, etc.  It never occurred to me that anyone else would have a different definition, particularly one which says 320 is a "zillion."  But, when I posted a response in that thread, I was provided this example of the word "zillion" in a sentence:

"It's been a zillion years since I've seen her."
Of course, they didn't provide a source for that example.  But, when I did a Google search for that exact phrase in quotes, I found it was from The Collins Dictionary, which is printed in Glasgow, Scotland.  And the Collins Dictionary provides other other examples:
Many women try to get a flat stomach by doing zillions of crunches.

He had raised zillions for charity!

We were two in a zillion who walked or crawled away from a fatal air accident.

Paint them all the same colour and you've made the space a zillion times bigger.

We won a zillion awards.
Is it a word that has gotten into common speech only in Scotland?  I dunno.  And, I certainly didn't want to argue about it.  I would tend to use "kazillion" in the sentences like those above, but the Collins Dictionary doesn't include "kazillion" as a word.  It has bazillion, gazillion and bajillion, all with exactly the same definition as zillion, but not kazillion.

Live and learn.

Meanwhile, someone sent me an email this morning with a link to an article titled "Taming the quantum spooks: Reconciling Einstein with quantum mechanics may require abandoning the notion that cause always precedes effect."  It fits well with a bunch of articles I came across recently while doing some research into reconciling Relativity to Quantum Mechanics.  The articles all seem to want to change Relativity to fit into Quantum Mechanics.  As I see it, time dilation experiments support Relativity, NOT Quantum Mechanics.  And, as Richard Feynman stated, "
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."

More and more I'm once again looking at mathematics as a religion.  I keep encountering people who seem to believe mathematics is infallible, that it is the key to understanding everything, and all non-believers must be converted.  And I'm one of those "non-believers."


March 7, 2018 - The Google thread I started last week and titled Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity now has 446 posts with 473 views.  I spent the morning adding to those numbers, but this afternoon I decided it was time to update and modify my list of The 10 DUMBEST BELIEFS in Physics.  (It still says "Ideas" instead of "Beliefs," but that's because I can't change it to "Beliefs" without screwing up all the links I've created using the old title.)  I added 2 additional beliefs, bringing it to the full 10.  Moreover, the two newly added beliefs were added as #1 and #2.  Here they are:
#1. Scientists routinely LIE to the public.

I spent a lot of time discussing this belief with mathematician physicists.  They go to great pains to avoid using the word "lie."  Instead, they say that scientists "dumb down" or "vulgarize" explanations of their work for the public, because the public is "too dumb" to understand what is really happening in science and particularly in physics. 

The debate is usually over time dilation, and whether or not clocks moving fast through space "tick slower" than stationary clocks, and whether or not a clock at the bottom of a mountain "ticks slower" than a clock at the top of the mountain.  Scientists and physcists routinely make such claims in news stories and even in scientific papers when they report the results of new experiments.  Quantum Mechanics, however, says that clocks tick at the same rate everywhere.  Time is the same everywhere.  So, clocks cannot tick slower in one situation versus another.  And when a scientists writes something that says "clocks tick slower" for a moving object (even if it is Albert Einstein), the mathematician physicists who accepts Quantum Mechanics will claim that is just a "vulgarization" or a "dumbing down" of what really happens, and what "really happens" is some mysterious problem with "signals" that are sent between observers and their clocks that just make it appear that the "clocks tick slower."  So, instead of acknowledging that experiments disprove their Quantum Mechanical belief that time ticks at the same rate everywhere, they rationalize what was said and argue that it was just a "vulgarization" or "dumbing down" of the topic.    

#2.  "Cause and effect" has no meaning in science.

I was rather surprised to see this absurd belief stated so emphatically by mathematician physicists.  They equate understanding "cause and effect" to asking why 2 plus 2 equals 4.  They claim it is philosophy, not physics.  Cause and effect is all about why things happen.  The mathematician physicists do not care why things happen.  In one argument I was told that once the mathematical model is found, "cause & effect" becomes obsolete.  We understood this 2000 yrs ago!"

Why things happen is what a scientist wants to know.  It's what the "wonders" of science are all about. A mathematical model is only good until someone notices that it isn't always correct.  Then someone asks "What is the cause of that error effect in the mathematical model"?  And the model awaits an overhaul as scientists investigate cause and effect.
I've previously written about the cause and effect debates in comments I made to this web site on May 31 of last year and June 11 of last year.

Interestingly, although it doesn't really pertain to the question of whether "clocks tick slower" at the bottom of a mountain versus the top, this afternoon someone sent me a link to an article from June of last year titled "Continuing frequency deviation in the Continental European Power System originating in Serbia/Kosovo: Political solution urgently needed in addition to technical."  It's about how some clocks in Europe were running slow because the electrical frequency had been slow.  The article says:

The decrease in frequency average is affecting also those electric clocks that are steered by the frequency of the power system and not by a quartz crystal: they show currently a delay of close to six minutes.
It does illustrate the time dilation arguments I've been having.  If the clocks tick at a slower frequency (i.e., RATE) they still COUNT the same number of ticks as being "one second" as they did when they were ticking at the normal frequency.  So, they run slow for the same reason clocks traveling fast tick slow.  But, in this case they can compare frames of reference by making a phone call to someone who is not on the same electrical grid. The phone call says that their clocks have accumulated 6 fewer minutes since the problem began. 

March 6, 2018 - Groan.  I see there are now 320 posts by 28 different authors in the Google thread I started last week and titled Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity.  And 385 views.  That means there were 28 new posts overnight, and when I signed off last night I hadn't even finished looking through all of what had already been posted at that time.  Groan.

Well, it's my own fault.  And before I can respond to any more posts in that thread, I need to write a comment here about what's happening there.  A couple days ago, a mathematician who calls himself "rotchm" posted this:

Math doesn't care about "reality". Physics uses math to make models, predictions; no need to invoke the concepts of "reality". "Reality' is a philosophical concept.
The first quote in red is what I've been saying.  It's very interesting to see a mathematician say the same thing.  The second quote in red appears to explain why so many scientists and physicists seem to hate those who preach "the philosophy of physics."  They blur the line between reality and philosophy.  It puts my teeth on edge to have someone argue that maybe there is no universe, maybe everything you see around you is just in your mind and doesn't exist at all, maybe you are just a living brain and everything else is part of your imagination.  How can you prove otherwise?

The physicist who posts as "tjrob137," who I mentioned in the message I used to start the thread, finally posted something in the thread yesterday.  It was an 845 word post addressed to me that goes on and on and on and really says nothing of interest.  It begins with this:
Analogy:
In the Euclidean plane construct Cartesian coordinates (x,y); draw a line y=x.
  * The SLOPE of the line relative to (x,y) is 1; that is analogous to
    measuring the tick rate of a clock. This is a DIFFERENTIAL measurement that can be made at any point along the line (but for a straight line every point has the same value).
  * the LENGTH of the line from (x,y)=(0,0) to (x,y)=(1,1) is 1.414; that is analogous to measuring the elapsed proper time of a clock. This is an INTEGRAL measurement and must be made over the ENTIRE INTERVAL of interest.    
Yawn!  And the second to last paragraph says,
Until you learn to read well enough to distinguish those quantities, you will remain confused, and unaware of your own confusion. There's no point in reading the rest of your post, or reading the zillions of articles in this thread, as all you do is repeat your errors. You have an amazing ability to avoid learning anything, and an amazing persistence in repeating your errors.
Does 320 equal "zillions"?  It's amusing that a mathematician physicist could think that they do. 

Meanwhile, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller, who is one of the people on my "Do Not Reply" list, started a brand new thread titled "Eduardo Del Lago debates Relativity & Time Dilation with himself."  It includes a link to this YouTube video which is supposed to represent my thinking:



He started the thread yesterday, and today it has 2 posts in it, including the one he posted to start the thread.  The other is just someone amused by the video.  

Am I debating with myself?  I've responded to probably close to 100 posts, and I don't recall responding to any of my own posts.  So, I would say no.  But, I do seem to be fighting against mathematicians whose numbers sometimes seem to equal those of the Klingons in Star Trek.  And I find it interesting that David (Kronos Prime) Fuller would compare mathematicians to Klingons, who were always the villains in Star Trek.

March 5, 2018 - Yesterday afternoon, while running some errands, I finished listening to CD #8 in the 8 CD audio book version of "My Week With Marilyn" by Colin Clark.
My week with Marilyn

It was a very interesting and enjoyable audio book.  I was surprised, however, when the book seemed to end at the completion of CD #3.  When I put in CD #4, it turned out to be the start of another book titled "The Prince, The Showgirl, and Me."  Both books were excellently read by Simon Prebble, who does a great job of imitating Marilyn's soft, breathless voice in contrast with the snappish, angry voice of Sir Laurence Olivier.  One strange thing about both books, but mostly with the second book, is how initials are used so often instead of names.  So, the narrator would be saying, "SLO was angry with MM, but MMP owned half the picture, so LOP couldn't do anything."  That translates to "Sir Laurence Olivier was angry with Marilyn Monroe, but Marilyn Monroe Productions owned half the picture, so Laurence Olivier Productions couldn't do anything."

The first book, My Week with Marilyn, is particularly enjoyable, since it is like a wonderful adventure as the author spends a week with Marilyn visiting castles in England, nude swimming in a river, and generally enjoying themselves.  The Prince, the Showgirl, and Me, is a lot more serious and foreboding.  It's about the making of the movie "The Prince and the Showgirl," which Marilyn evidently hoped would cause people to view her as a serious actress, but the situation during the filming was incredibly bad for her.  She was having fights with her 3rd husband, Arthur Miller, she was having trouble remembering her lines, she was taking too many pills, and it seemed like everyone on the crew hated her because she was causing so many delays during the filming, always showing up late to work, running off to her dressing room when she flubbed a line, etc.

The movie was filmed in 1957.  It wasn't particularly successful in theaters.  Her next movie would be Some Like it Hot, which would be a smash hit.  Marilyn died of apparent suicide at age 36 in 1962.  There are a lot of conspiracy theories about her death, but The Prince, The Showgirl and Me seems to describe things in a way that makes her suicide seem inevitable.        

March 4, 2018 - Yesterday, I really wanted to write a comment for this web site, but I spent nearly the entire day in very interesting discussions on the "Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity" thread on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum, and I couldn't break away from them.  This morning I see there are 185 posts in the thread, with 260 views, which means 13 new posts were made overnight.  And I didn't even have time to finish responding to yesterday's posts before suppertime, when I shut down my computer for the day.  (If I were to spend the evening arguing in the forum, I'd never be able to fall asleep when it was bedtime.  By turning off my computer at 5 p,m., I was able to get a very good night's sleep.)

I'm discussing or arguing with about a half dozen different people at once on the forum.  The most interesting argument was with Paul B. Anderson of Norway.  He was arguing basically the same argument I was getting from "tjrob137" on the previous thread in which I had argued.  Their claim is that physicists are LYING to the public about physics because the public is just "TOO DUMB" to understand what is actually going on in physics.

Here a direct quote from Paul B. Anderson in the current thread:
"They are not lying; they are "dumbing it down" because yes, most of the public is too dumb to understand.
That is also what "tjrob137" actually wrote in the previous thread, and probably in other threads.  As of last night, "tjrob137" hasn't joined the new thread, even though it is primarily about his beliefs. 

JanPB wrote "They are not LIES, they are METAPHORS." 

Rotchm wrote "
Some may be actual lies, some are vulgarizations..."
 
Paul B. Anderson is equally wishy-washy about making the bald-faced claim that "physicists are lying to the public."  And I've been trying to corner him into actually stating it clearly.  All of them claim that clocks do NOT "run slow" when they are traveling very fast, nor do clocks "run slow" when they are nearer to the earth (or some other gravitational source) than other clocks.  They claim that time (and clocks) all tick at the same rate everywhere, and it is just some issue with "signals" going from place to place, and with "spacetime," that makes it appear that clocks are "running slow."

 
When I quote from science articles which state very clearly that "clocks run slow" when traveling at high velocities or when closer to a gravitational mass, "tjrob137" and Paul B. Anderson state that the articles are "wrong" and that the physicists who wrote them are "dumbing down" the physics to make things understandable for the general public.  Since they are arguing that clocks do NOT run slower, while the articles the physicists write say that clocks DO run slower, that qualifies as LYING by anyone's standards.  Some examples of what the science articles say:

Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.

Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.
and
Similarly, the NIST researchers observed another aspect of relativity—that time passes more slowly when you move faster—at speeds comparable to a car travelling about 20 miles per hour, a more comprehensible scale than previous measurements made using jet aircraft.
and
The NIST experiments focused on two scenarios predicted by Einstein's theories of relativity. First, when two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster.
and
In one set of experiments, scientists raised one of the clocks by jacking up the laser table to a height one-third of a meter (about a foot) above the second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as predicted.
Those quotes are from an article written by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "NIST Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale."  "Tjrob137" says it is a "lie" and Paul B. Anderson says it is "dumbing down" but implies that it is all lies, since he thinks the scientists actually believe that clocks run at the same rate everywhere.

Here's another quote:
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, time moves differently depending on where you are in a gravity field.

For example, a clock on top of a tall mountain — far from the center of the Earth — will move a tiny bit faster than a clock at the base of that mountain, where the gravity is stronger.

It's not a mechanical error. Time itself actually passes faster at the top of the mountain.

That means your friend who lives in the Rockies is aging just a tiny bit faster than your friend who lives on the beach in Malibu.
That one is from a recent LA Times article titled "Scientists take an atomic clock on the road and use it to measure the height of a mountain."

I could probably cite hundreds more such articles, all of which would be considered to be "lies" by "tjprob137," Paul B. Anderson and other physicists on the Google forum.  But what would be the purpose?  Those physicists won't change their minds.  They firmly believe that time ticks at the same rate everywhere.  It is evidently demanded by Quantum Mechanics.  And the conflict has been going on for over one hundred years

All I am doing is presenting the conflict in a different way.  I'm showing how Quantum Theorists are currently arguing against solid facts and evidence.   

I think I also need to add a new "dumbest idea" to my list of "The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics."  Number 3 on the list should probably be: "Physicists are lying to the general public about physics."  I'll modify the list when I get the time.  I wish I had titled it "The 10 DUMBEST Beliefs in Physics," since they seem more like beliefs than ideas.  Beliefs tend to be unshakable.  Ideas less so.

Meanwhile, in another discussion on that Google forum, someone who calls herself "The Starmaker" is arguing that
"light originated at and before the moment of the big bang."  She has pictures which she claims prove it.  And she's dead serious.

When I went looking for some articles about the first moments after the Big Bang, when light had not yet appeared in the universe, I found one that was just a few days old.  It's titled "Scientists detect 'fingerprint' of first light ever in the universe."  I provided the link to "The Starmaker," and she responded, "But ... they are Wrong.  Maybe you didn't understand the photograph I showed you." 

She is obviously seeing something in that photo that I cannot see.  Since she is in disagreement with virtually everyone else, and her "slide show" doesn't help explain what she's talking about, I'm putting her low on my list of priorities.  I have to figure out what she's talking about before I can intelligently respond. 

There also seems to be a language problem on the forum.  It seems that some people are reading Google translated versions of my comments, they then write their responses in their native language, they translate the responses via Google's translator programs, and they post the translations.  That's getting us into all kinds of problem with definitions of words. 

But it is all very interesting to me, and now I'm going to have to end this comment and get back to arguing and discussing on the Google forum.  I see that there was one additional post while I was writing this Sunday comment.  The totals for the "Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity" discussion thread are now 186 posts, 263 views, by 23 different authors.  Sigh.  So much to do, so little time to do it.


Comments for Thursday, March 1, 2018, thru Saturday, March 3, 2018:

March 2, 2018 - Yesterday, I really wanted to write a comment about the very interesting discussions and arguments I was having in the new "Proper Time, Clock Tick Rates and Relativity" thread I started Wednesday on Google's Science, Physics & Relativity discussion forum.  But I couldn't find the time to write something here, since the Google discussion is basically me talking with 16 different people at once. 

There were 47 posts in the thread when I turned on my computer yesterday morning, and there were 79 posts in the thread when I turned off my computer yesterday evening.  This morning there are 95 posts in the thread.  Right now, they are all on one page.  The way the Google system works, as soon as the number of posts reaches 101, the thread is busted up into multiple pages with 25 posts per page, except for the latest page.  So, right now I can look at the thread and see all the authors and how many times they posted.  For some unknown reason, even though I addressed the initial post to "tjrob137," "tjrob137" has not yet posted even once.

Not everyone disagrees with me.  Several people seem to be on my side against the mathematicians and Quantum Theorists, but they all tend to phrase things in a different way than I do, so I cannot be certain that we are in 100% agreement.

Looking through the 95 posts in the thread this morning, I count THIRTY by me, including the initial post that started the thread.  The biggest arguments I had were with "Paul B. Anderson" from Norway, who has 12 posts in the thread.  He is firmly against any theory which says that time actually ticks at different rates in different frames of reference.  And that is what Relativity theory says.  So, Mr. Anderson is definitely a Quantum Theorist.  "Paparios" has posted 9 times, and we mostly argue about the definitions of words, making it difficult to determine where we agree and where we disagree.  He's evidently translating everything into Spanish.  "Kenseto" has also posted 9 times, and we seem to be in general agreement, although he's evidently translating things into Japanese, and it's sometimes difficult to decipher the translations.

The most interesting arguments may have been with "Sylvia Else," who has posted only three times.  Each time she argued that all motion is relative and/or reciprocal, which is what I listed as #1 on my list of The 10 DUMBEST Ideas in Physics.

Someone calling himself (or herself) "The Starmaker" just asks the same question over and over: "WHEN does a clock tick slower than another clock?"  He doesn't seem able to comprehend the idea that a clock atop a mountain ALWAYS ticks faster than a clock at the bottom of that mountain.  He insists on me defining some specific moment in time.  I think he doesn't know what to plot "always" on a graph or put it into a spacetime model.  I see nothing new from him this morning, so maybe he is reconsidering his method of arguing.

What I'm getting from the arguments and discussions is better ways to make my points.  The Quantum Theorists definitely cannot comprehend what Hafele and Keating did.  They cannot fit it into a spacetime model.  So, they seem to suggest that Hafele and Keating were incompetents, although they don't actually say that.  They do not understand the Hafele-Keating experiments, so they seem to be looking for me to say something which they can then use to argue that Hafele and Keating were incompetents. 

Of course, there are also some posts by Odd Bodkin, Python, Dono, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller, Gary Harnagel, Thomas 'Pointed Ears' Lahn and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog, who are all on my "Do Not Reply" list and who seem to do nothing but hurl insults at me and others.

Okay.  I guess it is time for me to jump into the fray and get back to those discussions and arguments.  Unfortunately, I also need to take month-end backups of my computer files.  Windows just notified me that they want to do an update and have me do a restart.  I need to make copies of the most recent posts in the Google discussion.  And I need to do my taxes.  Hopefully, there will be a lag in the discussions where I'll find the time to do those tasks.









© 2018 by Ed Lake
RETURN