on the above image to view a larger version.
My Latest Comments
Comments for Sunday,
October 16, 2016, thru Saturday, October
October 20, 2016
- The library audio book "ASAP Science" I
mentioned in Tuesday's comment became available
this morning. I checked it out and found
it consisted of only 2 files, about 54 minutes
each. So, it's either an "abridged"
version of the book, or someone screwed up
somewhere and somehow lost most of the audio
files. Either way, I wasn't something that
was my fault, so there's no need for me to
wonder about it any further. I returned
Meanwhile, I think I may have been suffering a
bout with the flu for most of the past
week. I totally lost all ambition and
spend more daytime hours in the past
week watching TV than I've spent in the past six
months or more. Watching TV in the
daytime was always something that said "defeat"
for me. It meant I failed to find
something interesting to work on.
Heroes & Icons TV network has been
running every episode of every Star Trek
series, in order, six days per week, since
Sunday July 24. I have the original
Trek series and Star
Trek: The Next Generation on DVDs,
so I set my DVR to record every episode of Star
Trek: Deep Space 9, Star
Trek: Voyager and Star
Trek: Enterprise. And, after
I'd accumulated about 30 episodes of each
series, I'd occasionally "binge watch"
episodes of Deep Space 9 and Voyager,
as many as five in one evening. On
Tuesday, I got caught up. So, I began
binge watching the 68 episodes of Enterprise
I'd saved so far. They only made 98
episodes of Enterprise. They made
173 episodes of Deep Space 9, and 170
episodes of Voyager.
Most of this is just wasting time, of
course. I should be
thinking about how to revise my paper on "Time
Dilation without Relativity" so it will
hit home on the important points instead of just
explaining what seems obvious. Or is there
something else I should emphasize? It
seems I just need to sit down and
study the situation thoroughly. Whatisthe current attitude
toward Time Dilation? Why can't people
talk about Time and Time Dilation except as two
different subjects, one just a concept, the
other just an illusion resulting from
I feel like someone who is trying to solve a
problem in an area where no one admits there is
any problem, and where no one will cooperate
with anyone who is trying to argue
otherwise. It seems they can see no
possibility of positive
results from discussions in the area. And
they can easily envision total chaos if the
status quo somehow gets disrupted.
So, whatever I do, it is going to have to be
clear and undeniable, while at the same time
being non-confrontational. Maybe I just
need to present the clear and undeniable
evidence and study how they try to deny it by
clouding the issue.
But, I'm afraid I'm not going to accomplish much
of anything until I get totally over this case
of the flu.
October 18, 2016
- While I'm continuing to ponder what to do next
in getting my papers published, this morning I
decided I could also spend a couple hours
listening to an audio "book" that had been
setting about 1/4th done on my MP3 player for
months. The book is called "ASAP
Science" and it was "written" by Mitchell
Moffit and Greg Brown.
The audio book to which I listened consisted of
just two MP3 files, both of which were less than
60 minutes long. But then I checked
out the print versions and found it consists of
256 pages! Clearly, one explanation for
that is the fact that the
print book is mostly cartoons and
illustrations. But, looking through the
print book it also seems clear that while I only
had 2 files, the full audio book must definitely
be longer - maybe 3-times longer.
So, I put it on "hold" at my library to see if
their copy actually has more files in the MP3
version. It was enjoyable enough to listen
to, and I might as well listen to the whole
thing. Besides, I'm curious about what
might have happened to cause me to have only 2
October 16, 2016 -
I'm still pondering what to do next in my
efforts to determine if my "scientific papers"
are truly "scientific," or if there is something
about Time Dilation and Light that I'm simply
Without any real scientists to talk with, I can
imagine myself talking with an imaginary
scientist who has just lifted an atomic clock so
that it is six feet above an identical second
atomic clock. The two clocks were observed
to be ticking at the same rate when they were
side by side, but now it is clear that the lower
clock is running slower.
"That once again confirms relativity," the
scientist tells me confidently.
"It also confirms Time Dilation," I tell him.
He seems somewhat puzzled. "How do you
"The two clocks right in front of us show that
time runs slower at floor level than at six feet
above floor level."
"But it's only relative."
"What does that mean?" I ask.
"It means it is not real," he replies.
"Time is just running slower for the bottom
clock relative to the upper
"True, but that is irrelevant," I tell
him. "What is relative and important is
that Time is actually ticking at
a different rate at those two locations."
The scientist shakes his head. "No, no,
no. That is just how things appear
in Relativistic situations."
"So, you're telling me that what I'm seeing
happening right in front of me isn't really
"Right! It's a relativistic
illusion!" he declares.
"How do you know that?" I ask. "How do you
know that time isn't simply running at a slower
rate for the bottom clock?"
"Because that would make no sense! Time is
just a concept. A concept
cannot run slower and faster depending upon the
"Then maybe Time is not a
concept. If I can see time ticking at
different rates right in front of me, the
evidence says that time is not
just a concept."
He snorts with disbelief. "If Time is not
just a concept, what is Time?"
"It's something that needs to be
investigated. We need to investigate Time
to determine why and how it moves at different
rates at different heights."
"We already know the answer to that: It moves at
different rates at different heights due to
"Relativity can't cause
Time to move at different rates.
Relativity is just a concept. It's a human
invention. It's a theory developed to
explain how Time can move at different rates in
different locations. Relativity is a
theory, and theories do not cause
things to happen. They explain why
"Not in this case!" the scientist
declares. "In this case, Relativity is causing
Time to appear to run slower for
the lower clock.",
"And even though I can see the two clocks are
ticking at different rates right in front of me,
it isn't really happening because that would
meant that Time is ticking at different rates at
those two different levels, and time cannot move
at different rates because Time is just a
"Right!" the scientist barks
"Wrong!" I bark back.
"You are ignoring evidence that is right
in front of you because it conflicts with
your beliefs. You believe Time
is just a concept, so the evidence cannot be
what it appears to be."
"Right! It's called an 'optical
illusion.' Or don't you accept the
existence of optical illusions?"
"If it's an 'optical illusion,' then demonstrate
how it is just an illusion. Make it go
The scientist seems genuinely puzzled.
"Make the illusion go away. Tell me how I
can change my perspective so that those two
clocks right in front of me will no longer be
ticking at different rates. If I close one
eye, will the illusion vanish? If I move
my head from side to side, will that cause the
illusion to vanish?"
"No," he responds hesitantly. "Of course
not. It's not that kind of illusion."
"Then what kind of illusion is it?"
He has to think for a moment but finally
replies, "It's an illusion that results from the
relativistic bending of time and space."
"So what I'm seeing right in front of me is not
"Then what is real?" I walk over to the
clocks and touch them. "The clocks
certainly seem real to me."
"The clocks are real, but the time they are
showing is relative, it is not real."
"Was the time real when they were side by side?"
"But not when one clock was lifted to be six
"Which clock now shows the real time?"
The scientist seems hesitant, but he finally
responds. "The bottom clock."
"Why not the top clock?"
"Because that one was moved to create the
illusion that time ticks at a different rates at
"So, it wasn't moved to demonstrate
Relativity? It was moved to create an
"So, you demonstrated Relativity by creating an
illusion? How does creating an illusion
demonstrate anything other than an ability to
Whereupon the scientist gets up and heads for
the door declaring, "I don't have time for
this! Time dilation is not real!
Time is just a concept! If you believe
otherwise, you need to develop a theory and try
to get it published! Good luck on
that!" And, he's gone, slamming the door
So, I've confirmed that even in my imaginary
conversations with scientists I can never get
anyone to change their mind. I do
not need to develop a new theory, I was just
interpreting the data from his demonstration in
a way that differs from his beliefs.
He could not explain where I was wrong. He
could only state that he believes that I
am wrong ... almost certainly because I am not
interpreting Einstein's theories the way all of
his friends and colleagues interpret Einstein's
So, which way is the "correct"
interpretation? The facts and evidence
from the two clocks ticking at different rates
right in front of me say my interpretation is
And maybe all we need is to have some real
clocks demonstrate Time Dilation in an on-going
experiment that takes place right in front of
everyone who passes by. You just need two
atomic clocks, which reportedly cost about
$40,000 apiece. Three would be
better. Just place them one above
the other in some public location and let them
run with indicators showing the accumulated
differences in time between the three clocks in
billionths of a second. The only question
is: Why isn't that already being done?
It turns out that as an object
moves with relativistic speeds a "strange"
thing seems to happen to its time as observed
by "us" the stationary observer (observer in
an inertial reference frame). What we see
happen is that the "clock" in motion slows
down according to our clock, therefore we read
two different times. Which
time is correct??? well they both are
because time is not absolute but is
relative, it depends on the reference frame.
So, what I can see right in front of me is
not important if scientists can create an imaginary
observer in a different "reference frame" who
will see those clocks ticking faster or
slower. That means that the time on the
atomic clocks in front of me is not
"absolute." And without an
"absolute" time, all time is just "relative,"
which scientists seem to believe means it is
just "an illusion." And they have no
desire to understand how time works if all it
does is create "illusions."
Comments for Sunday,
October 9, 2016, thru Saturday, October
October 14, 2016
- Yesterday afternoon, I uploaded my paper on "Time
Dilation without Relativity" to ViXra.org, an
archive of scientific papers maintained by
Columbia University. The link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v2.pdf
I could have uploaded it weeks ago, but I
don't really know if putting the paper on ViXra
is a good thing, or if it can damage one's
possibilities for getting published, or if it is
the standard, expected thing to do.
I'm still trying to figure out the best way to
present the obvious fact that Time
Dilation works independently of Relativity to
people who may not see it as an "obvious fact"
but as "a totally absurd distortion of the
The problem, of course, is that I can't get them
to discuss anything. And I can finding
nothing in what they have written in the past
that would challenge what I describe in my
paper. All I find is what appears to be misunderstandings
of certain implications of Einstein's Theories
of Relativity. But, how does one go about
convincing a professional scientist that his
life's work involves a serious misunderstanding
of how the universe operates? The current
version of "Time Dilation without Relativity"
is an attempt to present just the basic undeniable
facts. Maybe there's a better way to do
it. But, until I can think of a better
way, the paper is now out there for everyone to
October 13, 2016
- I've got a version of my paper on "Time
Dilation without Relativity" all set to submit
somewhere, but I'm starting to think I didn't
address the issue of Time Dilation in the best
way. And I'm wondering: What is
the best way?
While trying to figure that out, I burned a
couple library books onto CDs, so that I can
listen to them in my car after I finish with the
book about the Civil War Navies that I'm
currently playing on the car's CD player.
Mostly, though, I seem to be just sitting in
front of my computer staring at it in hopes of
getting an idea I about what I should do
next. It's like I got this idea at the
back of my brain that isn't showing
itself. What I'm getting instead is hints
that I need to do some more thinking about Time
Dilation before I start submitting my
article. I need to understand what others
think about the subject. I've got a
feeling I'm trying to solve a
problem without first fully understanding the
problem. The problems people have with
Time Dilation seem to be more psychological than
scientific. Everyone has a different
opinion, and they all seem to be True Believers
who cannot be swayed by any kind of logic.
I don't know where to begin to try to analyze
problem so that I can fully understand it.
Maybe I need to start some arguments on
Facebook. Or maybe I should just watch
Supposedly, it was created for a "Get Out the
Vote" commercial that was intended to be
unbiased. But evidently Mr. De Niro
couldn't see any way to be unbiased about an
idiot like Trump. So, his interview is not
part of the final video.
October 10, 2016 (A)
- While running errands this afternoon, I
finished listening to the last of 15 CDs I
burned for the science book "A
Short History of Nearly Everything" by
Bill Bryson. Unless I drive an unusual
amount in one day, it takes 3 or 4 days to
listen to one 75 minute CD. So, listening
to the 15 CDs took at least 45 days.
I didn't even know it was a science book when I
borrowed it from my local library months ago and
burned the 15 CDs. I thought it was a
history book. It turned out to be a
history of science.
And it turned out to be one of the most
truly fascinating science books I've
ever encountered. When I was about half
done, I bought the paperback version so that I
could underline or highlight key passages.
But, I decided that I really need to listen to
the entire book again in order to make a mental
note of when I should remember a passage so that
I can find it in the paper copy and highlight
it. Or maybe I should just read
it and highlight the passages as I read them.
While I'm deciding what to do, I moved on to the
only remaining book I have on CDs that I haven't
yet heard, a history book about the Union and
Confederate Navies during the Civil War.
It also appears that before I can borrow another
audio book from my local library, I need to
figure out how to navigate through their new web
site software. It's totally different from
the previous software. I'd have to do some
research to figure out how long it has been
since I last downloaded a library book, but it
can't be more than a few months. And the
whole world seems to have changed since then.
October 9, 2016 -
I've been working on my paper titled "Time
Dilation Without Relativity," and I
somehow stumbled across an ArXiv.org paper
atomic clock synchronization via satellites
and optical fibers." I
probably found it by doing a search through the
for "atomic clocks." It's clear I didn't
find it by doing the normal search I do for new
articles about "time dilation." The
article doesn't contain the word "dilation."
Here is part of the "Introduction" section of
Clock comparisons are one of the
essential tasks of international time
metrology, e.g. for the harmonization of
national standards, for enabling the
interoperability between satellite navigation
systems, and for the dissemination of time to
the public. As an
internationally agreed reference the
Coordinated Universal Time UTC and, more
specific, the underlying International
Atomic Time TAI are computed by the Bureau
International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) by
using data from 391 atomic clocks
distributed all over the world in 69
different institutes (as of October 2010).
Most of them are National Metrology Institutes
(NMIs) (Arias, 2009, Circular T).
So, they are trying to "harmonize" atomic
clocks around the world, and yet they
make no mention of Time Dilation!
Nor is the world "relativistic" used, and the
word "relativity" only occurs in the title of a
reference article. I did a Google search
for "International Atomic Time" and found a
Wikipedia article on the subject which
In the 1970s, it became clear
that the clocks participating in TAI were
ticking at different rates due to gravitational
time dilation, and the combined TAI
scale therefore corresponded to an average of
the altitudes of the various clocks. Starting
from Julian Date 2443144.5 (1 January 1977
00:00:00), corrections were applied to the
output of all participating clocks, so that
TAI would correspond to proper time at mean
sea level (the geoid). Because the clocks had been
on average well above sea level, this meant
that TAI slowed down, by about one part in a
trillion. The former uncorrected time
scale continues to be published, under the
name EAL (Echelle Atomique Libre,
meaning Free Atomic Scale).
Ah! So, they do adjust
for gravitational time dilation, but they simply
make no mention of it in the article I
They've got 391 atomic clocks in 69
different locations around the world!
Why isn't this the ultimate test to confirm time
dilation? Instead, they seem to view Time
Dilation as just an annoying problem they
encountered while trying to establish a
time-coordination system for clocks around the
world, and they have temporarily fixed the
problem by assuming for now that Time
Dilation is real.
In relativistic terms, TT
[Terrestrial Time] is described as the proper time of a clock
located on the geoid (essentially mean
sea level). However, TT is now actually
defined as a coordinate time scale. The
redefinition did not quantitatively change TT,
but rather made the existing definition more
precise. In effect it defined the geoid (mean
sea level) in terms of a particular level of gravitational
time dilation relative to a notional
observer located at infinitely high
So, they understand that gravitational time
dilation is real and they cope with it by using
time as it would theoretically be measured at
sea level, instead of trying to deal with actual
atomic clocks that are ticking at slightly
different rates around the world because none of
them are actually at sea level.
I found several other papers that are about time
dilation problems encountered when using atomic
clocks in different locations. I just
haven't yet had time to study them.
They're just about how time dilation causes them
problems with finding an exact time as they try
to do some work unrelated to time
I also found an article titled "The
interpretations by experimenters of
experiments on ‘time dilation’: 1940 - 1970
circa." The authors of that
article from the year 2000 appear to be two
physics professors from the university in Pavia,
Italy, which is just south of Milan.
Professors Ilaria Bonizzoni and Giuseppe
Giuliani attempt to debunk time
dilation by arguing that normal clocks may not
keep proper time, and by arguing that atoms are
not clocks. It's a convoluted way of
arguing that they simply do not believe
in Time Dilation.
This morning, after posting the first version of
this Sunday comment, I found another article by
Giuseppe Giuliani, one of those two professors
from Pavia, Italy. The article is from
2015 and is titled "Experiment
and theory: the case of the Doppler effect for
photons." Again he rants that atoms
are not clocks. Why?
Because "the advent of quantum
mechanics forbids any description of
atoms as seats of periodic motion of
electrons: atoms are not clocks."
And he has other reasons as well. However,
if quantum mechanics has a serious problem with
atoms controlling time dilation, then that might
explain why mathematicians typically refuse to
acknowledge any possibility that Time Dilation
is real, and instead they argue that Time
Dilation is just an "illusion." And it
seems that answering "What is Time?" might
provide the key to finding a "Theory of
Everything" that combines Quantum Mechanics with
From my point of view, just about the most
important question anyone could ask is: What is
Time if it ticks at a slower rate at my feet
than at my head, and if it moves slower for my
hand when I wave it around than when I hold it
Clearly, Time is something that operates on the
atomic and subatomic level. It is not
just a concept! It is not
just an idea! And, understanding the true
nature of time could be the key to a totally new
understanding of how the universe works.
Comments for Saturday,
October 1, 2016, thru Saturday, October 8,
Residents of Florida nervously
awaiting the arrival of Hurricane Matthew
might be surprised to learn that for
conservative commentator Matt Drudge, the
forecasts are yet another example of an Obama
Drudge, in his debut as a hurricane
truther, tweeted that “The deplorables
are starting to wonder if govt has been lying
to them about Hurricane Matthew intensity to
make exaggerated point on climate,” and
“Hurricane Center has monopoly on data. No way
of verifying claims.”
It has brought out the inner
meteorologist not only in Drudge, but also in
Rush Limbaugh. “So with hurricane tracking and
hurricane forecasting, I’ve been able to spot
where I think they might be playing games
because it’s in the
interests of the left to have destructive
hurricanes because then they can blame it on
climate change, which they can
continue desperately continue trying to sell,”
he said, according to Wonkette.
The Wonkette article is titled "Rush
Limbaugh Pretty Sure Liberals Can’t Wait For
Hurricane Matthew To Kill Everybody."
It quotes Rush Limbaugh as also saying,
I’ve become an expert in spotting
the politics in hurricane tracking and
hurricane forecasting. And by that I mean
people that work at the — the National
Hurricane Center is part of the National
Weather Service, which is part of the Commerce
Department, which is part of the Obama
administration, which by definition has been
tainted just like the DOJ has.
Hmm. Just when it seems there must be
some limit to human stupidity, someone goes out
past that limit.
October 6, 2016
- I awoke this morning realizing I need to
change tactics. The paper I'm currently
working on shouldn't be titled "Time
Dilation is Real," as I was
previously thinking. It should be titled "Time
Dilation Without Relativity."
When scientists perform experiments which
confirm that Time Dilation is "real," the
article titles are "Optical
Clocks and Relativity" and "Relativity
passes new test of time." The
experiments are viewed as confirming the
principles of Special and General Relativity,
which is fine. However, many (possibly most)
scientists seem to interpret Relativity
as meaning that what you see is not necessarily
real. It is just what you see or
experience in your "frame of reference," which
will be very different in a different "frame of
So, when I talk about how those experiments show
that Time Dilation is Real, what mathematician
physicists interpret that to mean is that Relativistic
Time Dilation has been confirmed, and that
confirms what they have always believed: that
Time Dilation is just "relative" and is NOT
In the paper titled "Time
Dilation Re-Visualized" I wrote
early last year, I tried to eliminate Relativity
from the topic of Time Dilation by using only
one clock, a pulsar.
That is still a good illustration.
However, I understand the problem better
now. And what is really needed is for
people to discuss having two or more clocks
ticking at different rates is "one frame of
reference" right here on planet Earth. I
created a cartoon about that situation months
And when scientists "confirm" Relativity
by raising a single atomic clock to a different
height and noting that in the higher position
the clock ticks at a faster rate, they shouldn't
stop the experiment at that point, as they have
been doing. They also need confirm Time
Dilation by doing the same experiment with
two atomic clocks and leaving the
two clocks to continue
ticking at their different rates.
Better yet, they should stack a series of atomic
clocks on shelves one above the other in order
to show that the experiment works with multiple
clocks at different levels, like so:
The second clock at the bottom and top would
further verify that the experiment isn't some
kind of fluke. Those clocks would tick at
the same rate as the clocks beside them.
And the mathematical explanations should be
available nearby to show that the amount of Time
Dilation shown by each clock is in accordance
with Einstein's Theory of General
The key point being made is that Time Dilation
works without Relativity.
If a single "observer" can see all six
of those clocks ticking in accordance with
Gravitational Time Dilation, they can also see
that Relativity is not
a factor in Time Dilation.
In other words, Time Dilation has been confirmed
to be REAL, and it is time to
move on to the next question: What IS
Time if it passes at different rates in front of
a single observer? It certainly isn't just
a "concept." Concepts to not slow down
when they get closer to the center of the
His basic theory (i.e., "the best idea of
the 20th century") seems to be that the
speed of light varies with its proximity to
gravitational forces, which means that older
light is traveling much slower than newly
created light because older light
has been constantly slowed down by
gravitational forces over the ages.
Which also means that the universe is not
expanding, it just seems that way because
the farther away the source of light is, the
slower that light is traveling when it
reaches our telescopes and red-shift
And, if you disagree with his theory, he
doesn't care. Here's what he wrote on
page 216 of his 236 page book:
Incidentally, this is not the
place to give an all-encompassing review of
existing tests of gravity. Of course, there
are impressive observations in astrophysics
that are in line with the geometrical
formulation of general relativity from which
standard cosmology emerged. The fact that some of these
observations may go unmentioned here is
certainly a good opportunity for malevolent
reviewers of this book to bemoan the missing
mention of a certain experiment
(incidentally, from one’s own institute), to
allege the author is unaware of it, and to
conclude that the arguments made in the book
I would like to share a bit of scientific
logic with those people: confirmations of the
established theory are nice, but they do not
reconcile contradictions that have appeared
elsewhere. Moreover, they do not say anything
about the viability of an alternative that is
based on simpler concepts.
So, I see no value in sending him an email to
challenge his beliefs, much less to see if he
has any thoughts about my
theory. However, reading his book made me
aware of Einstein's 1911 paper titled
the Influence of Gravitation on the
Propagation of Light" and particularly
section 3 of that paper, "Time and the
Velocity of Light in the Gravitational
Field." And I also found and
downloaded free copies of Einstein's 1916
book "Relativity: The Special and General
Theory," his 1919 paper "What
is the Theory of Relativity," his 1922
book "The Meaning of Relativity," and his
1954 book "Ideas and Opinions." I don't know
if I'll ever read any of the books, but it's
nice to have them in case I need to clarify
a point as I plod ahead with getting my own
theory into print.
The second principle,
on which the special theory of relativity
rests, is the "principle of the constant
velocity of light in vacuo." This
principle asserts that light in vacuo always
has a definite velocity of propagation
(independent of the state of motion of the
observer or of the source of the light).
The section highlighted in red
would seem to argue that light "always has a
definite velocity" as it spreads (propagates)
through the universe and is not
slowed down by age.
I'm doing all this because I find the subject of
Time Dilation to be fascinating and largely
misunderstood (and/or disbelieved), even though
it has been repeatedly confirmed. That a
tough-enough subject to evaluate and clarify
without getting pulled into unrelated areas.
I don't know if anyone is reading this web site
anymore, other than a few people who still seem
to check in to see if I'll write some more
comments about the anthrax attacks of
2001. But, the writing of these comments
helps me clarify my thoughts, and it should
provide a good reference to the sequence of
events if and when I ever get around to writing
a book about all this.
understood that the laws of nature do not
depend on the motion of an observer, and
Einstein applied this insight to the speed
of light, c. He
realized that c did not depend on the
observer: the beam coming out of the
headlight of a moving train has always
the same speed, irrespective of whether
it is observed from the platform or from
the train itself. Einstein
understood this and built a consistent
theory by focusing on the fundamental
meaning of c.
This is very similar to what I discussed
with the guy at the major scientific institution
last week, and which I wrote about in my October
I don't really disagree with it, but it seems
clear it is being misinterpreted
by some people. Yes, "the beam coming out of the
headlight of a moving train has [...] the same
speed, irrespective of whether it is observed
from the platform or from the train itself."
HOWEVER, I don't like the word "always." I
agree that light always travels
at the speed at which it was emitted, but the
use of the word "always" in this context
includes the potential for
Light is emitted
and always travels at "the speed of light."
Therefore, a photon emitted from the train's
headlight will not be affected by the speed of
the emitter (the train) or by any
observer. The photon will always
travel at the "speed of light" whether the train
is moving or not and regardless of how many
thousands of observers are in motion
around the train. And,
any stationary observer in
the vicinity will observe the photon coming
toward him at the speed of light.
However, if an observer on the train
could somehow magically observe the photon
traveling away from him, he would not
observe the photon going away from him at the
"speed of light" of 299,792.458 kilometers per
second. That would require the light to
travel at the speed of light plus the
speed of the train so that the relative
speed is 299,792.458 kps. If there was
some way for the observer on the train to
measure the both the actual and
the observed or relative
speed of that photon, he would find that the
photon's actual speed (relative to a stationary
object) is 299,792.458 kps, while it's speed relative
to the observer on the train is the speed of
light minus the speed of the
And what about the situation where the
observer is moving toward the
source of the light? That
was the situation I discussed last week.
That situation had the observer on the rotating
earth moving toward a laser light beam that had
bounced off a reflector that was on the
relatively stationary moon. The light that
bounced off the reflector would definitely
travel at "the speed of light" relative to a
stationary object. But the observer on the
Earth was not stationary.
He was moving toward the incoming
light. Therefore the
observer's speed must be added to the speed of
the oncoming light to produce an "observed
speed of light."
As "always," the light is traveling at "the
speed of light." But if I'm moving
toward the source of emission, what
force is going to slow down the
incoming photons so that they arrive at my
moving eyes as if I wasn't moving?
Light always travels at a fixed
speed determined by the time dilation factors
effecting the emitting source. Anyone who
thinks that light is "always" observed
to travel at the speed of light regardless of
the movement of the observer is
just misinterpreting something. He is
Is anyone really arguing such nonsense? Or
is it just how they interpret relativity?
Or is it just how I interpret their
arguments? The guy I argued with last week
was arguing that his interpretation didn't agree
with the facts, and I agreed. But he
didn't agree with me siding with the
facts. And he didn't agree that his
interpretation was just an incorrect
October 3, 2016
- While I haven't given up on the idea of
finding an "endorser" who will enable me to put
my paper about Time Dilated Light on ArXiv.org, and
thereby allow me to submit it to various
"specialized scientific journals," I've run out
of ideas on how to find an "endorser."
Maybe some idea will occur to me later, but this
morning I decided to put the most recent version
Endorsers are not required there, and the 4 of
the 5 prior versions of the paper are already on
As I went through the steps for submitting the
latest version, I found that they do not want
magazine-formatted papers. So, I had to
covert my paper from the 3-page ArXiv.org
magazine format where page-1 looks like this:
to regular "scientific paper" format (which
requires 5 pages), and page-1 looks like this:
As soon as I finish reading the two books I
obtained last week, I plan to return to working
on a new version of "Time
Dilation - Revisualized," which will
be very different and will be titled "Time
Dilation is Real." At this moment, I
don't see any way to find an "endorser" for that
paper, either. But, if the paper turns out
to be as good as I hope it will be, I can try
submitting it to science journals that do not
require acceptance on ArXiv.org first.
That's the plan ..... such as it is.
October 2, 2016 -
On Wednesday of last week, I was trying to
figure out who else I might contact in my
attempts to find some scientists willing to read
my paper on "Time Dilated Light" and give me
their opinions. I found a paper on
ArXiv.org where a German scientist named Alexander
Unzicker states that around 1911 Einstein
was working on a theory about the speed of light
being variable, but Einstein never actually
finished anything on the subject. That is
what I say in my paper, too. So, hoping
that Dr. Unzicker would find my paper
interesting, I sent him a copy.
He responded that he found my paper interesting,
and said "It's nice to see that other people
work in this direction." Then he added,
"When dealing with the matter, you might want to
refer to Einstein's 1911 paper." And that
was the end of the email exchange.
Fortunately, I was able to
quickly obtain a copy of the book. I
immediately started reading. It says
this on page 12:
It appears that around 1911,
Einstein had in his hand the key to an even
greater discovery, a ground-breaking idea that
would have explained gravitation directly from
the characteristics of the universe: a theory
based on a variable speed of light. Not only
would c, the speed of light, be affected by
all the mass in the universe, so would the
very definitions of the meter and the second.
These then variable
yardsticks of length and time would join to
create the illusion that light travels at a
constant velocity of 299,792,458 meters per
That was a good start, although I wouldn't
call it an "illusion" to have the length of a
second vary depending upon velocity and the
nearness of a gravitational mass.
Unfortunately, the book gradually gets into
mathematics, and the author tries to explain his
theory using mathematics instead of plain
English. It seems he has a theory of his
own, which he evidently believes is the same or
similar to Einstein's theory. I'm only on
page 50 of the 236 page book, but from what I've
read so far, his theory seems to be about
gravity bending light to produce
a "variable speed of light." So, it is
nothing like my theory. And, I don't think
it is anything like Einstein's theory.
Yesterday, I found an English version of
Einstein's 1911 paper titled "On
the Influence of Gravitation on the
Propagation of Light." I tried a
quick reading of section 3 of the paper, "Time
and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational
Field," and found it very slow
going. I can also see that it really just
requires me to spend some time on it in order to
decipher the math and the scientific
jargon. I even had to look up the term "first
Approximation: When one is
doing certain numerical computations, an
approximate solution may be computed by any
of several heuristic methods, then refined
to a final value. By using the starting
point of a first approximation of
the answer, one can write an algorithm that
converges more quickly to the correct
Okayyyy, if that's the way you want to do
things. And, evidently, it's the way
Einstein did things.
Section 3 appears to be about the
frequency of light changing due to
velocity and gravitation. If so, that
could agree with my theory in that slower moving
light will be measured to have a "lower"
frequency because it will go through the
measuring equipment more slowly than the
equipment was designed to assume.
But, I digress. As I said, I'll have to
study it more thoroughly when I get some
At the bottom of page 50 of Dr. Unzicker's book
he provides this quote from Albert Einstein:
A theoretical construct has
very little prospect of being true if it
is not logically very simple.
I'd never seen that quote before, and it
seems almost as if Einstein was talking to me
about how very simple my theory is compared to
all the others. A Google search for the
quote found no results. A reference
number, however, indicates it is from page 29 of
"Conversations with Einstein" by Ilse
Rosenthal-Schneider. I quickly obtained a
free copy (in German) of that 137 page
book and found the original is indeed on page
Er hat wenig Gefühl dafür
gehabt, daß eine theoretische Konstruktion
kaum Aussicht auf Wahrheit hat, wenn sie
nicht logisch sehr einfach ist.
Google translates that to:
He has had little sense that a
theoretical construction has little chance of
truth when it is not logically very simple.
Hmm. The Internet never ceases to amaze
me. And it is so
easy to go off-track when researching something.
I browsed through many of the sample pages of
the book on Amazon's web site to make certain it
was something I should read, and I found that
the beginning of the book was filled with lots
of very readable and very quotable
passages. So, I bought a Kindle copy for
$10.99 and started reading.
The first passage that I highlighted on my
Kindle reads as follows:
Now, modern science has
discovered that the reality of our physical
existence is bizarre in many ways, but this is
bizarreness for which there is an accumulated
body of accepted scientific evidence. There is
as yet no observational or experimental
evidence for many of the concepts of
contemporary theoretical physics, such as
super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the
multiverse, the universe as information, the
holographic principle or the anthropic
cosmological principle. For some of the wilder
speculations of the theorists there can by
definition never be any such evidence. This
stuff is not only not true, it is not even
science. I call it ‘fairytale
physics’. It is arguably borderline
I somewhat hesitantly and tentatively agreed
and continued reading, highlighting the
following passage as being an observation with
which I totally agree and wrote about
last Sunday, on September 25:
They [many scientists] have
chosen to abandon the scientific method.
And this one also hit home:
With no observational or
experimental data to ground their theories in
reality, these theorists have been guided
instead by their mathematics and their
And this one, too:
Speculative theorizing of a kind
that cannot be tested, that cannot be verified
or falsified, a kind that is not subject to
the mercilessness of the scientific method, is
now almost common currency.
But, then I read this:
a metaphysical concept — it lies beyond the
grasp of science. When we adopt
specific beliefs about reality, what we are
actually doing is adopting a specific
Suddenly, the author and I were no longer on
the same track. And I realized I might
need to be careful about using the words "real"
and "actual," if scientists think reality is
just a "metaphysical concept." But, how
many scientists actually believe that? It
certainly seems to fit well with the arguments
I've been getting from mathematicians
who seem to believe that nothing can be
considered to be "real" since it may appear
different in another "frame of reference."
They even refuse to accept what is right before
their eyes when clocks can be shown to run
slower at the bottom of a mountain than at the
top of a mountain.
Nevertheless, since I was learning a lot, I
continued reading. The author then started
describing what he saw as some
fundamentals of how things appear to him to work
in Nature. Then I read this:
essence, producing a so-called
‘relativistic’ theory — one that meets the
requirements of the special theory of
relativity — is all about ensuring that
the theory treats time as a kind of fourth
dimension, on an equal footing with the
three dimensions of space.
Whoa! Reading that made
me suddenly realize that, since Time is
variable, it cannot be a true "4th dimension."
It's a "dimension" that can be different for
everyone. If you use Time as a
"dimension," your measurements for that
"dimension" may be different from everyone
else's. For most practical purposes, such
as describing where some object was at different
times in three dimensional space, time can
certainly be viewed as a "4th dimension."
But it is certainly not on an
"equal footing" with the other three dimensions.
That made me recall writing something about Time
being the 4th dimension. I checked my
paper on "What
is Time?" and found the word "dimension"
isn't used in that paper at all. So, I
Dilation Re-Visualized." Yup.
That paper ends with this sentence: "Time is
the fourth dimensional distance from the Big
Bang to another point." But shortly
before that, I wrote:
We may all be in different
locations as measured by the first three
dimensions, but we are all in the same
location as measured by the Fourth Dimension.
That location is called "now."
In that context, even though Time can be
variable for everything and everyone, it is
still the same "now" everywhere and for
everyone. And a year ago we were all in
the same "now" then, too, even though over the
course of the past year we may have each been
aging at different rates.
I wonder how many mathematicians would agree
I'm only 17% done with reading "Farewell to
Reality." I'm going to try to focus on it
until I can figure out exactly what Baggott's
theory is. I have no doubt that it will be
very different from my theory. And that
would mean that the only way we could ever come
to a meeting of the minds would be to discuss
our different theories in mutually
understandable terms. And I've never found
anyone with a personal theory who is willing to
Last week, I had to take a couple days off from
thinking about all this in order to spend time
with visiting relatives. During that time
it occasionally occurred to me that I might just
be wasting my time on all this research and
analysis of Time, Time Dilation and Light.
But, now that I'm back into it again, I cannot
think of a more important and fascinating way to
spend my time.
If I'm right, my theory would mean that
virtually everyone else with a published theory
is mistaken on how the Time and
Time Dilation works. If I'm wrong,
all it requires is for one of them to explain to
me in everyday English how and
where I'm wrong. So far, I haven't been
able to find anyone willing to discuss anything
unless I learn the same math they learned so
that I can believe as they believe. And
those who seem to agree with me by indicating
that they "like" my arguments just stay on the
sidelines and refuse to get involved, as if
they've all been in my predicament in the past
and found no way out of it.
And, don't forget: "A
theoretical construct has very little
prospect of being true if it is not
logically very simple." And
my theory is logically very simple.
October 1, 2016
- In my September
22 comment on this web site, I mentioned a
discussion I was having with a scientist at a
very large organization. There's no reason
to believe that he is a "top" scientist at that
organization. He could just be some
low-level guy who, instead of asking the
scientists around him, simply decided to write a
scientific paper describing the problem he is
having and to put it on ArXiv.org. Here's
how he described his problem in his paper:
The speed of laser light pulses
launched from Earth and returned by a
retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated
from precision round-trip time-of-flight
measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of
light (c) in the moving observer’s rest
frame was found to exceed the canonical
value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s,
just the speed of the observatory along
the line-of-sight due to the rotation of
the Earth during the measurements.This result is a first-order violation of
local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light
seems to depend on the motion of the
observer after all, as in classical
wave theory, which implies that a preferred
reference frame exists for the propagation of
light. However, the present experiment cannot
identify the physical system to which such a
preferred frame might be tied.
In other words, his problem is that he's
measuring the speed of light by bouncing a laser
beam off of one of the laser reflectors left
behind on the moon back in the early 1970's,
and, as he says, he believes he's getting a
result that is greater than the
maximum speed of light of 299,792.458 kilometers
In the line above, "A" represents the location
of the observatory where the light is emitted
and received, and "C" represents the reflector
on the moon. He sent a beam of light from
"A" to "C" where it bounced off the reflector
and returned to "A" once again. He believes
that the speed of light ("V) should
have been the time ("T") it
took the light to travel the distance
("D") from A to C and back again. I.e., V
And, as the paper shows, he's fully aware that
he is bouncing the beam off the reflector as the
Earth turns on its axis and as the moon moves in
its orbit around the Earth. And he's aware
that the "error" exactly matches "the speed of the
observatory along the line-of-sight due
to the rotation of the Earth during the
measurements."Both points on
the moon and on the Earth are moving towards
each other (although the moon's movement is too
small to measure).
So, I pointed out to him that he should be using
the line below as his model:
That way, the beam of light sent from A to C
will bounce off the reflector on the moon at
point C and will return to Earth at point B,
because the Earth will have moved closer while
the light was en route traveling back and
forth. So the distance the light actually
traveled was only from A to C plus C to
To my amazement, he argued that that couldn't be
right. He fully agreed that the Earth was
spinning on its axis and that the movement would
fully explain his "error," but he disagreed that
there was an "error." He
wrote "I was talking about
the speed of light not being invariant in
moving inertial frames, as special relativity
He refused to discuss it any further.
In other words, he wasn't interested on how to
get a correct answer to the
problem. He was only interested in showing
that the correct answer did not agree with his
understanding of relativity.
And, as far as he is concerned, there is no
way his understanding could be wrong.
So, as a result of our discussion I
learned a little bit more about science and a
little bit more about human psychology.
But, he learned nothing.
That's one for the book .... literally.
The above comment will definitely be going into
my book about all this.
September 27, 2016
- I'll be kind of busy on personal matters for
the next couple days, so I won't be writing many
comments. However, this morning I found
another experiment which confirmed Time
Dilation. It's presented in the form of a YouTube Video:
It's also interesting to look at the comments
that follow the video to see how many people do
not believe the evidence from the experiment,
and how many people do not even understand what
2016 - On Friday morning, I sent
an email and a copy of the latest version of my
Time Dilated Light article to a well
known scientist whose opinion I truly
respect. On Friday afternoon, I received a
reply that said my way of thinking about Time
Dilation was one he'd never seen before, and
he'd have to think about it. So, I'm
awaiting his next response.
Unfortunately, I don't know what it is about my
thinking about Time Dilation that he'd never
seen before. Certainly it can't simply be
that I think that Time Dilation is real.
Or could it? I not only think it's real, I
cannot understand how anyone can think it is not
real after it has been proved
real so many times.
The day before, on Thursday morning, I was stunned
when a scientist from one of the largest
scientific organizations in the world told me
that he didn't "think that Time Dilation is a
real effect in nature."
What's going on? Since
when do experiments mean nothing, and
since when do only beliefs have
I've always thought that virtually all
scientists agreed with Richard Feynman's famous
"It doesn't matter how
beautiful your theory is, it doesn't
matter how smart you are. If it doesn't
agree with experiment, it's wrong."
There have been many experiments
which show very clearly that Time Dilation is real.
Here are a few of them:
2.) In October 1971, the
Hafele-Keating Experiment was
performed. Four cesium atomic beam clocks
were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet
flights around the world twice, once eastward
and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of
relativity. The results fully confirmed
that Time Dilation is real.
3.) In 2007, physicists
in Germany and Canada timed the “ticking”
of lithium ions as they hurtled around a ring at
a fraction of the speed of light. They
confirmed that Time Dilation is real.
4.) In September 2010, scientists
at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) raised one atomic clock
by one-third of a meter (about a foot) above a
second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran
at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock,
exactly as Einstein predicted. They had
once again confirmed that Time Dilation is real.
5.) In May 2016, PBS aired a 6-part
science series called "Genius
by Stephen Hawking." Part 1 was
titled "Can We Time Travel?" In that
show, two of the three
experimenters took an atomic clock to
the top of a mountain. After spending
the night there, the third experimenter
brought up another atomic clock which
had spent the night at the bottom of the
mountain. They found that the clock that
was on top of the mountain was 20
nanoseconds (billionths of a second)
ahead of the clock that was at the
bottom. It was another experiment
demonstrating that Time Dilation is real.
And, of course, GPS
satellites confirm every day
that Time Dilation is real. Each
satellite in the GPS system has an orbital speed
of about 14,000 kilometers per hour. At
that speed, a clock aboard the satellite runs slower
than clocks on the ground by about 7
microseconds (millionths of a second) per
day. Each GPS satellite also orbits the
Earth at an altitude of about 20,000
kilometers. At that altitude, a clock
aboard the satellite runs faster
than clocks on the ground by about 45
microseconds per day. So, each day the
clocks aboard about 30 GPS satellites must be
adjusted by 7 microseconds to compensate for
velocity time dilation and by 45 microseconds to
compensate for gravitational time
dilation. If they weren’t adjusted by 38
microseconds (45 – 7 = 38) per day, the
satellites would quickly become useless and
unable to pinpoint the location of anything on
the ground, with an error rate that would
increase by the minute.
There are certainly other experiments which also
show that Time Dilation is real. So why
are there so many scientists who cannot accept
the evidence and argue their beliefs instead?
Evidently, it is because no one is asking or
answering the question: "What is
Time if velocity and gravity can cause it to
slow down?" The standard answer to
the question "What is Time? is that "Time is a
concept." But, as I've made clear many
times on this web site, concepts do not
slow down and speed up. So,
what is Time if it can slow down and speed
up? And would anyone believe any answer
other than "Time is a concept," or any answer
that is far removed from how we intuitively
think of time?
Being a logical person, I had absolutely no
problem visualizing Time as being something that
operates on the atomic and subatomic
level. It's what all the facts and
evidence say. But when I did a
search on ArXiv.org
is Time" I got links to only 6 papers (in
a collection of 1,186,732 papers)
which contain those three words in that
paper seems to be philosophical, three
others are by the same Indian scientist who
seems to be discussing religion instead of
science, and one is titled "What is
Time in Quantum Mechanics?" It seems
only concerned with "time of arrival." And
sixth paper also seems to be an attempt to
define "time" for mathematicians who work with
Quantum Mechanics. It gives this answer to
the question "What is Time?":
We are tempted to answer: time is
just a measure of the number of events that
happened in a given place. If so, then time is
discrete, and there is another time, that
counts the deterministic steps between events.
It seems like such a basic question: What
is Time if velocity and gravity can cause it
to slow down? Yet, no one else
phrases the question that way, and most
scientists don't seem to want the question
asked, much less answered.
I keep downloading and digging through
scientific papers looking for some hint that I'm
on the wrong track, that my theory of Time
Dilated Light is wrong - or some hint that
others have asked the same questions I
ask. All I'm finding are papers which
argue one "frame of reference" against another,
as if reality has no meaning whatsoever.
And I keep remembering the physics class I took
twice and how Professor Brian
Greene from Columbia University summarized his
lectures: "What this collectively
tells us is that the traditional way we
think about reality - the present is
real, the past is gone, the future is
yet to be - that is without any real
basis in physics. What
we are really learning from these ideas is
that the past, the present and the future
are all equally real."
That is not physics. It certainly is not
science. It is religio mathematica,
the religion of mathematics. If the
math works, it must be believed.
Sometimes I think I should just write and
self-publish a book about all this and forget
about finding someone willing to intelligently
discuss it. It's been an absolutely
fascinating experience getting this far.
But then I wonder: What if I do a slightly
different search of ArXiv.org or the entire
Internet, what kind of results will I get?
And what if I ask people a slightly different
question, what will their answers be?
Every time I explain things to people in a
slightly different way, I understand those
things better myself.
Maybe one of these days I'll get that damn
idea all the way to the top of the mountain and
it won't just roll back down
September 23, 2016
- This morning I was discussing the absurdity of
"light clocks" with someone who was posting in
the comments section after the
YouTube video about light clocks that I
first mentioned here in my
September 4 comment. When the person
got tired of not being able to convert me to his
beliefs, he wrote "If you think that math
could ever be wrong, then you don't know math,
and what it is." I felt he should
have said "Hallelujah!!" and "Amen" after
that pronouncement of his beliefs.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I need
to go back to the beginning and write a paper
titled "Time Dilation is Real!"
All the arguments I'm having seem to be
traceable back to a general belief that Time
Dilation is just some kind of illusion
resulting from relativity, i.e., nothing more
than the illusion of looking outside a train
window and momentarily thinking that the
railroad station is moving and not the train you
just boarded. And no tests or examples
showing that time dilation is real
can change their minds. That would require
thinking of Time as something other than just a
"concept" or another "illusion."
It's all very disheartening. I would like
to discuss science. But now
it seems I'm going to have to discuss psychology
and why so many scientists absolutely refuse to
accept that Time Dilation is real and that time
is not just a "concept." It's going to be
another battle against "True Believers."
And I've never yet changed the mind of a "True
September 22, 2016
- Hmm. Yesterday I exchanged a series of
emails with an American scientist who has a
problem that my paper on Time Dilated Light
seems to solve. However, he pointed out a
possible problem in verifying my
The "problem" has to do with the level of
accuracy of current equipment used to measure
the speed of light. It's supposedly
incredibly accurate, but, assuming my theory is
valid, is the equipment accurate enough to tell
the difference between the speed
of light at ground level and the speed of light
30 feet above ground level? If not, how
far apart do the measuring devices have to be in
order to get a meaningful measurement of
differences in the speed of light?
Light is said
to travel approximately 1 foot per
nanosecond. A nanosecond is one billionth
of a second or .000000001 seconds. So,
what is the length of a second at 30 feet in
height versus at 0 feet? Is it 9,192,631,770
atomic clock "ticks" at both
heights because a lot of decimal places are
needed to show any difference, or is there
already a measurable difference of 1 or 10 or
100 ticks? I dunno. And I'm not sure
how to find out. I'll have to think about
As a result of the email discussion, I changed
my paper to add 9 words before the proposed test
for gravitational time dilation. I added
these 9 words: "Assuming that current
equipment and methodologies are sufficiently
precise, ..." then you can measure the
speed of light differences in the ways I
The conversation ended this morning when the
scientist advised me, "I don't think Time
dilation is a real effect in nature. If
you do. So I guess we can disagree on that."
That was a surprise to me, since I got the
impression from his previous writings that he
did indeed think Time Dilation was a real effect
in nature. I'd showed him several
scientific papers proving that time dilation was
real, and he didn't challenge any of them.
I guess I just assumed they would be enough to
convince any scientist. Unfortunately, he
also wrote, "I just don't have the time or
the energy to get into a long discussions with
all the people who would like to share their
ideas with me. There's only one of me, and
thousands of them."
So, I guess that's that. I'll just have to
move on to the next scientist who has some kind
of problem that my theory appears to solve.
September 21, 2016
- I awoke this morning realizing that there is
no reason I cannot continue submitting my
article on Time Dilated Light to science
journals that do not require placement on ArXiv.org
first. I only tried 3 such journals, and I
have no idea how many others there may be.
Meanwhile, I can continue trying to find an
"endorser" who will assist me in placing my
article on ArXiv.org.
In the past 24 hours, 4 people read one or more
versions of the original "Time Dilated Light"
article that I first put on ViXra.org
back in July. They were the first readers
in over a week. It makes me wonder what I
did or what happened to suddenly cause four
people to read my article. Did the
scientist who received the copy of the article I
sent out yesterday decide to research me?
Or is it just some kind of coincidence?
I'll probably never find out.
But, one thing is certain: I should be
trying as many routes as possible to get my
article in the hands of people who can tell me
if it is as important as I think it is, or if it
is just the result of something I
September 20, 2016
- I'm still spending most of my time studying
articles on ArXiv.org,
looking for someone who might be interested in
discussing my paper on Time Dilated Light with
me. Yesterday, I sent out a copy of my
paper to a scientist who had a problem that my
paper seems to solve. It was
the first copy of the magazine-format article
I've sent to anyone. The scientist may
still have the problem, but his paper describing
his problem was written in 2009, and a lot could
have happened in the past 7 years. He
could have received ten thousand emails with all
sorts of crazy arguments and nutty proposed
solutions. And he could be fed up with
responding to them.
If past experience holds true, he simply won't
respond to my email. He may be fed up
after getting crappy suggestions for 7 years, he
may just reject any email that has attachments,
he may be too busy to respond to emails from
people he does not know, or he may simply
disagree with my paper and not want to tell me
so because he assumes it will lead to an
argument he doesn't have time for.
Another problem is: The scientist has a problem,
and he's looking for a solution that is defined
the way he defined his problem. My
solution says that he is looking at the problem
incorrectly. He may not want
that kind of solution.
I was just looking at his paper again. A
printed copy is setting beside my computer as I
type these words. I just used a yellow
marker to highlight some additional questions he
asks. I'm tempted to send him a pdf copy
of his own paper with my highlights and
notes on it. But that could to force me to
discuss his problem using his terms and his
examples. It could be a lot of work for
me, and he might just delete the file without
ever reading it.
But, it could be educational. I'll have to
think about it. Maybe I'll just try the
first couple pages to see if it's worth
Or maybe I'll continue looking for someone else
who has a more recent problem my paper can
Or maybe I'll work on my book about all this.
September 18, 2016 -
Uh oh. I've got nothing prepared for
today's "Sunday comment." So, once again
I'm going to have to "wing it." Here goes
I was surprised this morning to be advised by
email notification that someone had posted a
comment to my
YouTube video about the anthrax letters of
2001. I thought it was the first comment
in over a year, but then I found another comment
someone posted two weeks ago that I wasn't
The most recent post was from "Mark Wahlburg,"
That's strange.. The profile of
someone who is trying to figure out how to write
r's does not fit the profile of a scientist....
It's not the "Mark
Wahlberg" from movies, who spells his last
name differently. But I also noticed that
his post was a "highlighted post" for some
reason. I'd never seen a "highlighted
post" before, and I have no idea what it means
or how one creates a "highlighted" post.
I responded to that post, telling him that the
fact that the writer of the anthrax letters was
"someone who is trying to figure out how to
write r's" was the point of the
video. Ivins must have had someone else
write the letters for him, like someone from his
wife's day care center.
I also responded to the post from two weeks ago,
which was just some guy telling me how he found
Meanwhile, in the comments following the
YouTube video about "light clocks" that I
mentioned in my
September 4 comment, I'm arguing mostly
the same things I'm arguing on WorldScienceU.com.
I'm arguing that "light clocks" are nonsense,
and that if they existed they would disprove
General Relativity. All the arguments
about "light clocks" and "relativity" just
convince me that my theory of Time Dilated Light
is absolutely correct.
The main reason I had nothing ready to post this
morning was because I've been incredibly busy
revising my paper on Time Dilated Light while
researching scientific articles on ArXiv.org.
I now have 96 ArXiv.org articles saved on my
computer, 15 more than last week at this
time. Most of the time was spent just
studying the articles I already
had to see if anything in them disproved my
theory. I couldn't find anything. I
found dozens of articles arguing different
theories, but arguing a different theory doesn't
disprove my theory.
The most important thing I found was that there
are a LOT of theories about the speed of light
being "variable." In fact, everyone seems
to use a the same acronym "VSL" (Variable
Speed of Light) to
identify such theories. They are "VSL
My research also finds that there are a LOT of
problems with the FIXED speed of light theory
that is currently used. That's why so many
people are trying to develop a good, testable
VSL theory. Mine seems to be the only
easily testable VSL theory.
My research also finds that none
of the people who have constructed their own VSL
theories are "qualified to endorse" the
publishing of papers on ArXiv.org. So, I
can't ask them to "endorse" my paper for two
reasons: (1) they are not "qualified to
endorse," and (2) they have different theories,
which would likely mean they would give my paper
a "negative endorsement" if I were
to ask them to endorse my paper.
Of course, I cannot ask those who argue in favor
of the FIXED speed of light and how the VSL
theorists are just nut cases who do not
understand mathematics, since they would certainly
give my paper a "negative endorsement."
That leaves one group that may
offer some hope: the group that is publishing
papers describing problems they are having with
the FIXED speed of light. They have no VSL
theory to promote, but they wonder and speculate
on how to test for a variable
speed of light. Interestingly, their ideas
for testing methods directly relate to the
problems they are having. Their problems
are incredibly complex, so their
tests are incredibly complex. And there's
one additional problem: none of
those people are "qualified to endorse,"
either. At least I haven't found any.
BUT, somehow those scientists found people to
"endorse" the papers they put on ArXiv.org.
So, what I'm going to try to do is get a
scientist who has a problem with the FIXED speed
of light, but no testable solution, to read my
paper which not only has a solution, but has an
easily testable solution. If he agrees
with my paper (or even if he doesn't fully
agree), I'm hoping he will help me find someone
to "endorse" the paper so I can get it on
It's a plan. If it doesn't work, I'll try
a different plan. And, meanwhile, I'll try
to get to work on a book about "Time Dilated
Light" and how I developed the theory, a book
that I can self-publish if all else fails.