Ed Lake's web page

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 25, 2016, thru Friday, Sept. 30, 2016:

September 27, 2016 - I'll be kind of busy on personal matters for the next couple days, so I won't be writing many comments. However, this morning I found another experiment which confirmed Time Dilation. It's presented in the form of a YouTube Video:

It's also interesting to look at the comments that follow the video to see how many people do not believe the evidence from the experiment, and how many people do not even understand what was demonstrated.

September 25, 2016 - On Friday morning, I sent an email and a copy of the latest version of my Time Dilated Light article to a well known scientist whose opinion I truly respect. On Friday afternoon, I received a reply that said my way of thinking about Time Dilation was one he'd never seen before, and he'd have to think about it. So, I'm awaiting his next response.

Unfortunately, I don't know what it is about my thinking about Time Dilation that he'd never seen before. Certainly it can't simply be that I think that Time Dilation is real. Or could it? I not only think it's real, I cannot understand how anyone can think it is not real after it has been proved real so many times.

The day before, on Thursday morning, I was stunned when a scientist from one of the largest scientific organizations in the world told me that he didn't "think that Time Dilation is a real effect in nature."

What's going on? Since when do experiments mean nothing, and since when do only beliefs have meaning?

I've always thought that virtually all scientists agreed with Richard Feynman's famous quote:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

There have been many experiments which show very clearly that Time Dilation is real. Here are a few of them:

1.) In 1938, the Ives-Stillwell experiment was the first test to confirm that time dilation is real.

2.) In October 1971, the Hafele-Keating Experiment was performed. Four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity. The results fully confirmed that Time Dilation is real.

3.) In 2007, physicists in Germany and Canada timed the “ticking” of lithium ions as they hurtled around a ring at a fraction of the speed of light. They confirmed that Time Dilation is real.

4.) In September 2010, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) raised one atomic clock by one-third of a meter (about a foot) above a second clock. Sure enough, the higher clock ran at a slightly faster rate than the lower clock, exactly as Einstein predicted. They had once again confirmed that Time Dilation is real.

5.) In May 2016, PBS aired a 6-part science series called "Genius by Stephen Hawking." Part 1 was titled "Can We Time Travel?" In that show, two of the three experimenters took an atomic clock to the top of a mountain. After spending the night there, the third experimenter brought up another atomic clock which had spent the night at the bottom of the mountain. They found that the clock that was on top of the mountain was 20 nanoseconds (billionths of a second) ahead of the clock that was at the bottom. It was another experiment demonstrating that Time Dilation is real.

6.) And, of course, GPS satellites confirm every day that Time Dilation is real. Each satellite in the GPS system has an orbital speed of about 14,000 kilometers per hour. At that speed, a clock aboard the satellite runs slower than clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds (millionths of a second) per day. Each GPS satellite also orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 20,000 kilometers. At that altitude, a clock aboard the satellite runs faster than clocks on the ground by about 45 microseconds per day. So, each day the clocks aboard about 30 GPS satellites must be adjusted by 7 microseconds to compensate for velocity time dilation and by 45 microseconds to compensate for gravitational time dilation. If they weren’t adjusted by 38 microseconds (45 – 7 = 38) per day, the satellites would quickly become useless and unable to pinpoint the location of anything on the ground, with an error rate that would increase by the minute.

There are certainly other experiments which also show that Time Dilation is real. So why are there so many scientists who cannot accept the evidence and argue their beliefs instead?

Evidently, it is because no one is asking or answering the question: "What is Time if velocity and gravity can cause it to slow down?" The standard answer to the question "What is Time? is that "Time is a concept." But, as I've made clear many times on this web site, concepts do not slow down and speed up. So, what is Time if it can slow down and speed up? And would anyone believe any answer other than "Time is a concept," or any answer that is far removed from how we intuitively think of time?

Being a logical person, I had absolutely no problem visualizing Time as being something that operates on the atomic and subatomic level. It's what all the facts and evidence say. But when I did a search on ArXiv.org for "What is Time" I got links to only 6 papers (in a collection of 1,186,732 papers) which contain those three words in that sequence. One paper seems to be philosophical, three others are by the same Indian scientist who seems to be discussing religion instead of science, and one is titled "What is Time in Quantum Mechanics?" It seems only concerned with "time of arrival." And the sixth paper also seems to be an attempt to define "time" for mathematicians who work with Quantum Mechanics. It gives this answer to the question "What is Time?":

We are tempted to answer: time is just a measure of the number of events that happened in a given place. If so, then time is discrete, and there is another time, that counts the deterministic steps between events.

It seems like such a basic question: What is Time if velocity and gravity can cause it to slow down? Yet, no one else phrases the question that way, and most scientists don't seem to want the question asked, much less answered.

I keep downloading and digging through scientific papers looking for some hint that I'm on the wrong track, that my theory of Time Dilated Light is wrong - or some hint that others have asked the same questions I ask. All I'm finding are papers which argue one "frame of reference" against another, as if reality has no meaning whatsoever.

And I keep remembering the physics class I took twice and how Professor Brian Greene from Columbia University summarized his lectures: "What this collectively tells us is that the traditional way we think about reality - the present is real, the past is gone, the future is yet to be - that is without any real basis in physics. What we are really learning from these ideas is that the past, the present and the future are all equally real."

That is not physics. It certainly is not science. It is religio mathematica, the religion of mathematics. If the math works, it must be believed. Hallelujah!

Sometimes I think I should just write and self-publish a book about all this and forget about finding someone willing to intelligently discuss it. It's been an absolutely fascinating experience getting this far.

But then I wonder: What if I do a slightly different search of ArXiv.org or the entire Internet, what kind of results will I get? And what if I ask people a slightly different question, what will their answers be? Every time I explain things to people in a slightly different way, I understand those things better myself.

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 again.

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 18, 2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 24, 2016:

September 23, 2016 - This morning I was discussing the absurdity of "light clocks" with someone who was posting in the comments section after the YouTube video about light clocks that I first mentioned here in my September 4 comment. When the person got tired of not being able to convert me to his beliefs, he wrote "If you think that math could ever be wrong, then you don't know math, and what it is." I felt he should have said "Hallelujah!!" and "Amen" after that pronouncement of his beliefs.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I need to go back to the beginning and write a paper titled "Time Dilation is Real!" All the arguments I'm having seem to be traceable back to a general belief that Time Dilation is just some kind of illusion resulting from relativity, i.e., nothing more than the illusion of looking outside a train window and momentarily thinking that the railroad station is moving and not the train you just boarded. And no tests or examples showing that time dilation is real can change their minds. That would require thinking of Time as something other than just a "concept" or another "illusion."

It's all very disheartening. I would like to discuss science. But now it seems I'm going to have to discuss psychology and why so many scientists absolutely refuse to accept that Time Dilation is real and that time is not just a "concept." It's going to be another battle against "True Believers." And I've never yet changed the mind of a "True Believer."

September 22, 2016 - Hmm. Yesterday I exchanged a series of emails with an American scientist who has a problem that my paper on Time Dilated Light seems to solve. However, he pointed out a possible problem in verifying my theory.

The "problem" has to do with the level of accuracy of current equipment used to measure the speed of light. It's supposedly incredibly accurate, but, assuming my theory is valid, is the equipment accurate enough to tell the difference between the speed of light at ground level and the speed of light 30 feet above ground level? If not, how far apart do the measuring devices have to be in order to get a meaningful measurement of differences in the speed of light?

Light is said to travel approximately 1 foot per nanosecond. A nanosecond is one billionth of a second or .000000001 seconds. So, what is the length of a second at 30 feet in height versus at 0 feet? Is it 9,192,631,770 atomic clock "ticks" at both heights because a lot of decimal places are needed to show any difference, or is there already a measurable difference of 1 or 10 or 100 ticks? I dunno. And I'm not sure how to find out. I'll have to think about it.

As a result of the email discussion, I changed my paper to add 9 words before the proposed test for gravitational time dilation. I added these 9 words: "Assuming that current equipment and methodologies are sufficiently precise, ..." then you can measure the speed of light differences in the ways I describe.

The conversation ended this morning when the scientist advised me, "I don't think Time dilation is a real effect in nature. If you do. So I guess we can disagree on that." That was a surprise to me, since I got the impression from his previous writings that he did indeed think Time Dilation was a real effect in nature. I'd showed him several scientific papers proving that time dilation was real, and he didn't challenge any of them. I guess I just assumed they would be enough to convince any scientist. Unfortunately, he also wrote, "I just don't have the time or the energy to get into a long discussions with all the people who would like to share their ideas with me. There's only one of me, and thousands of them."

So, I guess that's that. I'll just have to move on to the next scientist who has some kind of problem that my theory appears to solve.

September 21, 2016 - I awoke this morning realizing that there is no reason I cannot continue submitting my article on Time Dilated Light to science journals that do not require placement on ArXiv.org first. I only tried 3 such journals, and I have no idea how many others there may be. Meanwhile, I can continue trying to find an "endorser" who will assist me in placing my article on ArXiv.org.

In the past 24 hours, 4 people read one or more versions of the original "Time Dilated Light" article that I first put on ViXra.org back in July. They were the first readers in over a week. It makes me wonder what I did or what happened to suddenly cause four people to read my article. Did the scientist who received the copy of the article I sent out yesterday decide to research me? Or is it just some kind of coincidence? I'll probably never find out.

But, one thing is certain: I should be trying as many routes as possible to get my article in the hands of people who can tell me if it is as important as I think it is, or if it is just the result of something I misinterpreted.

September 20, 2016 - I'm still spending most of my time studying articles on ArXiv.org, looking for someone who might be interested in discussing my paper on Time Dilated Light with me. Yesterday, I sent out a copy of my paper to a scientist who had a problem that my paper seems to solve. It was the first copy of the magazine-format article I've sent to anyone. The scientist may still have the problem, but his paper describing his problem was written in 2009, and a lot could have happened in the past 7 years. He could have received ten thousand emails with all sorts of crazy arguments and nutty proposed solutions. And he could be fed up with responding to them.

If past experience holds true, he simply won't respond to my email. He may be fed up after getting crappy suggestions for 7 years, he may just reject any email that has attachments, he may be too busy to respond to emails from people he does not know, or he may simply disagree with my paper and not want to tell me so because he assumes it will lead to an argument he doesn't have time for.

Another problem is: The scientist has a problem, and he's looking for a solution that is defined the way he defined his problem. My solution says that he is looking at the problem incorrectly. He may not want that kind of solution.

I was just looking at his paper again. A printed copy is setting beside my computer as I type these words. I just used a yellow marker to highlight some additional questions he asks. I'm tempted to send him a pdf copy of his own paper with my highlights and notes on it. But that could to force me to discuss his problem using his terms and his examples. It could be a lot of work for me, and he might just delete the file without ever reading it.

But, it could be educational. I'll have to think about it. Maybe I'll just try the first couple pages to see if it's worth continuing.

Or maybe I'll continue looking for someone else who has a more recent problem my paper can solve.

Or maybe I'll work on my book about all this.

September 18, 2016 - Uh oh. I've got nothing prepared for today's "Sunday comment." So, once again I'm going to have to "wing it." Here goes ....

I was surprised this morning to be advised by email notification that someone had posted a comment to my YouTube video about the anthrax letters of 2001. I thought it was the first comment in over a year, but then I found another comment someone posted two weeks ago that I wasn't notified about.

The most recent post was from "Mark Wahlburg," stating:

That's strange.. The profile of someone who is trying to figure out how to write r's does not fit the profile of a scientist....

It's not the "Mark Wahlberg" from movies, who spells his last name differently. But I also noticed that his post was a "highlighted post" for some reason. I'd never seen a "highlighted post" before, and I have no idea what it means or how one creates a "highlighted" post.

I responded to that post, telling him that the fact that the writer of the anthrax letters was "someone who is trying to figure out how to write r's" was the point of the video. Ivins must have had someone else write the letters for him, like someone from his wife's day care center.

I also responded to the post from two weeks ago, which was just some guy telling me how he found the video.

Meanwhile, in the comments following the YouTube video about "light clocks" that I mentioned in my September 4 comment, I'm arguing mostly the same things I'm arguing on WorldScienceU.com. I'm arguing that "light clocks" are nonsense, and that if they existed they would disprove General Relativity. All the arguments about "light clocks" and "relativity" just convince me that my theory of Time Dilated Light is absolutely correct.

The main reason I had nothing ready to post this morning was because I've been incredibly busy revising my paper on Time Dilated Light while researching scientific articles on ArXiv.org. I now have 96 ArXiv.org articles saved on my computer, 15 more than last week at this time. Most of the time was spent just studying the articles I already had to see if anything in them disproved my theory. I couldn't find anything. I found dozens of articles arguing different theories, but arguing a different theory doesn't disprove my theory.

The most important thing I found was that there are a LOT of theories about the speed of light being "variable." In fact, everyone seems to use a the same acronym "VSL" (Variable Speed of Light) to identify such theories. They are "VSL theories."

My research also finds that there are a LOT of problems with the FIXED speed of light theory that is currently used. That's why so many people are trying to develop a good, testable VSL theory. Mine seems to be the only easily testable VSL theory.

My research also finds that none of the people who have constructed their own VSL theories are "qualified to endorse" the publishing of papers on ArXiv.org. So, I can't ask them to "endorse" my paper for two reasons: (1) they are not "qualified to endorse," and (2) they have different theories, which would likely mean they would give my paper a "negative endorsement" if I were to ask them to endorse my paper.

Of course, I cannot ask those who argue in favor of the FIXED speed of light and how the VSL theorists are just nut cases who do not understand mathematics, since they would certainly give my paper a "negative endorsement."

That leaves one group that may offer some hope: the group that is publishing papers describing problems they are having with the FIXED speed of light. They have no VSL theory to promote, but they wonder and speculate on how to test for a variable speed of light. Interestingly, their ideas for testing methods directly relate to the problems they are having. Their problems are incredibly complex, so their tests are incredibly complex. And there's one additional problem: none of those people are "qualified to endorse," either. At least I haven't found any.

BUT, somehow those scientists found people to "endorse" the papers they put on ArXiv.org.

So, what I'm going to try to do is get a scientist who has a problem with the FIXED speed of light, but no testable solution, to read my paper which not only has a solution, but has an easily testable solution. If he agrees with my paper (or even if he doesn't fully agree), I'm hoping he will help me find someone to "endorse" the paper so I can get it on ArXiv.org.

It's a plan. If it doesn't work, I'll try a different plan. And, meanwhile, I'll try to get to work on a book about "Time Dilated Light" and how I developed the theory, a book that I can self-publish if all else fails.

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 11, 2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 17, 2016:

Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - Some scientific discussions on Facebook get really interesting. Below is part of a conversation my alter ego Ralph Maggio had recently with a few other people on the Facebook page at the link HERE.

-----------------------
Neil: This post is not to imply quarrel between us, friends, is this group. I have read it in the dictionary, but those definitions didn't gave me the satisfaction I want. Now here's my question, please answer it without fights and opposing other's opinion: What is Time? Others will disagree but I'd define time as an idea we use to describe change. It's certainly not a 'thing' that has any physical existence.

Gian Carlo: I'm surprised that we have the exact same idea

Neil: There will be other views, believe me.

Ralph: Good question. One thing we KNOW about time is that it can dilate (run slower). Over a hundred years ago, Alfred Einstein explained that time runs slower the faster you move, and time runs slower the closer you are to a gravitational mass. MANY experiments over the years using atomic clocks have proved he was right.
     You can set a stack of atomic clocks atop each other and SEE that the higher the clock is in the stack (the farther it is from the center of the Earth's gravitational mass) the faster it ticks.
     Clocks are not "time," but they definitely MEASURE time.
     So, one thing we can be certain about. Time is NOT just a "concept," or an "idea." Concepts and ideas do not run slower when they move fast or get close to a gravitational mass.
     We can also be certain that time works on the atomic or sub-atomic level, because experiments have shown that certain types of sub-atomic particles (muons) experience time. The faster they move, the longer they exist.
     Is time a "thing"? Probably not. It seems more like it is a property of matter.
     The only thing we know for certain is: It's a fascinating subject.
     I suppose I should add, Neil and Gian Carlo, that we CREATE ideas and concepts. We do NOT create time. We are simply AWARE of time.

Neil: We create the IDEA of time. Only change is real.

Ralph: We created the word "time" to identify and give a name to something that is real.

Bill: In my mind, relative.. many different definitions - perhaps a distance between 2 points, a clock, slows down when I walk, steady in a resting state, Time?.. ..clueless. :-)

Dave: Time is a human construct. The ways that time is measured, including Atomic clocks, are human constructs. Einstein's observations only validate that atoms slow down as higher gravitational forces are applied to them.
     Time is NOT change; change, however, is man's concrete evidence that time has passed. If you place a sensor in a sealed, darkened, 100% hypothetical vacuum, it will measure no changes, but time will still pass.
      Finally, although our measurement of it is arbitrary, it's existence is not- Calculus and most advanced science is impossible to define without it.

Neil: The evidence of time still passing would be the continuing change in the observer's system. I use the term evidence advisedly; we consider that time is passing because we witness change. If we were locked inside the sealed container we would think that time had stopped.

Dave: The fact that we were still thinking would be evidence in of itself. We don't need to see change to know that time had passed. We need measured change to know how much time has passed.

Ralph: I would have written what Dave wrote in a slightly a different way. I would write: "Time is not change. Change is just another way of MEASURING Time."
Isn't there an Edgar Allen Poe story where some guy gets sealed in a coffin and thinks that days have passed when, in reality it is only minutes before the coffin is opened? Our own heartbeat and rate of breathing will tell us that time is passing.
     Time is real. Change is just a way of measuring the passage of time. Processes are also ways of measuring time. According to Einstein (and I fully agreed), the process of aging will occur at a slower rate when you are moving very fast or get closer to a large gravitational mass. The process of decay will also occur more slowly. So will our sensory processes. We will FEEL no slowing of time even when we KNOW that it is happening. When we look out the window of our space ship and see the Earth orbiting the Sun once a week or once a day, we will KNOW our Time is running slower than Earth time, even though we feel and can measure no changes to our life processes.

Dave: There have been countless sensory deprivation experiments that document the acceleration of the perception of time while so deprived. In short: without feedback for reference, a combination of boredom and anxiety conspire together to give the childhood feeling: "are we there yet?" :)

Neil: The argument that "Time is real. Change is just a way of measuring the passage of time" is putting the cart before the horse. We only perceive or measure change. Time is the idea we invented to describe and discuss change. To say that our measurements and perceptions are evidence of the idea we use to explain them is circular.

Dave: It is impossible not to think that way. If locked in a hypothetical state of complete sensory deprivation, we would detect no changes, yet our thoughts would confirm that time is passing, even if we think of nothing but "one one-thousand, two one-thousand..." While you could argue (and I would agree) that our thoughts are themselves nothing more than electro-chemical changes, so is life itself. It is impossible to detect change without experiencing the passage of time, and vice-versa.

Neil: I don't entirely disagree that it is impossible to think any differently but we experience change and call it time. We don't experience time. (BTW I would never argue that thoughts are electrochemical changes).

Dave: I would :) e-c changes with purpose and intelligent direction, but changes nonetheless.

Neil: Sure. When two things correlate how do you identify which is cause and which effect?

Ralph: Neil Creamer wrote: "we experience change and call it time. We don't experience time." And, "When two things correlate how do you identify which is cause and which effect?"
     The two things do NOT correlate. That is what time dilation proves. We can CAUSE processes (i.e., change) to slow down by slowing down time. We can also CAUSE time to slow down by moving very fast or by getting closer to a gravitational mass.
     We cannot CAUSE time to change by slowing down change. That doesn't even make sense. How do you slow down change other than by slowing down time? Time is the cause, change is the effect.
     We do not typically experience time dilation, that is why it is difficult to imagine time as something that can be manipulated to CAUSE a slow down of the aging process.
------------------------------------------

That's the kind of conversation I can only have on Facebook. I know no one personally who has any interest whatsoever in science, much less in discussing a question like "What is time?"

September 13, 2016 - I've got a new magazine article-style version of my paper on Time Dilated Light all set to publish, but I don't know who to ask for an "endorsement" so I can put it on ArXiv.org. I hesitate to ask just anyone for an endorsement. I'd like to exchange emails with them first, to get their views on critical points. I just need to work out a strategy for doing that. I almost certainly need to begin with a discussion of one of their papers to see if there is a chance for a meeting of minds. But, will anyone have the time to discuss their paper with me? I suppose it all depends upon how I open the conversation.

To complicate matters, this morning I awoke with an idea for a different version of my Time Dilated Light article, a version specifically directed toward mathematicians. I realized that I can put together a mathematical formula for Velocity Time Dilated Light, and, if I think about it for a while, and do a bit of research, I can probably put together a mathematical formula for Gravitational Time Dilated Light. And maybe even a combined formula for light that is slowed by both velocity and gravity. I just need some time to sit down, to think about it, and to put it in writing. And then, once again, I'll need to find someone to discuss it with, someone who will explain to me where I'm wrong -- if I'm wrong. In the past two years I haven't been able to find such a person. They just tell me that I need to study mathematics the way they did, and I need to read and learn what they learned, so that I can believe what they believe.

September 12, 2016 - I awoke this morning realizing that when I searched through ArXiv.org for those 81 scientific articles last week, I'd totally forgotten that all my scientific papers are on ViXra.org. So, this morning I checked ViXra.org to see if they had any additional papers about "Time Dilation." I found 28 of them that seemed worth downloading and checking out. I also see that ViXra.org currently has only 15,653 articles on file, compared to the 1,182,505 articles on ArXiv.org.

Strangely, when I searched for the phrase "time dilation" on ViXra.org, my article on the subject was not one of the ones displayed. But I also noticed that the search was done by Google, not by ViXra.org. On ArXiv.org, the searches are done by ArXiv.org software. Both sites are owned and run by Cornell University, but ArXiv.org is clearly the web site that gets priority and attention.

All I did this morning was download those 28 articles after briefly skimming their first pages to see if they might be of interest. I didn't attempt to create a list of details about them. I've got to set priorities, otherwise I'll be continuously finding something new that is interesting and which takes my attention away from what I should be doing, which is getting my paper on Time Dilated Light onto ArXiv.org so that I can submit it to an actual scientific journal.

Hmm. I just noticed that VIXRA is ARXIV backwards. Groan! I really do not want to wonder about that!

September 11, 2016 - I mentioned in my September 8 comment that I had downloaded and saved 81 scientific articles that might relate to my scientific papers. I've been going through them and making notes in a WORD file with this name: "list-of-papers.docx". It's in the same directory as the 81 papers:

It's a slow but often fascinating task to skim through each paper to see if it has something of interest or value to what I'm writing. I've only read two or three of them all the way through. Basically, I'm just reading the first few pages to see if the paper might be worth reading fully. Then I put a summary of my findings in the list-of-papers.docx file. I also make notes about strange problems I notice with the format of the article. If the article looks like something I can use in support of my theory, I make a note as to whether the author is "Qualified to Endorse" or not, i.e., whether or not the author can endorse my article when I try to submit it to ArXiv.org.

For example, here is what I noted about the very first article on the list (with parts of the author's email address blocked out to avoid causing him problems):

ID: 0710.0428.pdf

TITLE: Nature of time and causality in Physics

AUTHOR: Francisco S. N. Lobo Qualified to endorse.

EMAIL: fxx@cxx.fix.fx.ux.pt

LOCATION: Portugal

DATE: 2008

COMMENTS: Worth further reading. Lots of stuff about time.

And here is what I noted about the second article on the list:

ID: 0803.2061.pdf

TITLE: Time dilation and Langevin paradox

AUTHOR: A López-Ramos Cannot endorse

EMAIL: lxxx@unxxxx.es

COUNTRY: Spain
DATE: 2008
COMMENTS: Worth further reading. Lots of stuff about relativity.

Below are my notes on an article that was of great interest to me, but research showed that the author cannot endorse articles on ArXiv.org, and there are indications that he is now retired and may not be responding to emails:

ID: 0904.1590v3.pdf

TITLE: A homogeneous and isotropic universe must have a time varying light speed.

AUTHOR: Robert C. Fletcher     Cannot endorse.

EMAIL: robert.c.fxxxx@xxx.edu

LOCATION: Utah

DATE: 2010

COMMENTS: Argues for a variable light speed. Close to what I say, but viewed from a different angle. The author, however, may be retired and unreachable.

Here's an article by a mathematician who attempts to disprove Einstein's theories:

ID: 0312189.pdf

TITLE: Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Special and General Relativity - The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-Clocks

AUTHOR: Robert A. Herrmann

EMAIL: dxxxx@hotmail.com

LOCATION: Unknown

DATE: 2014
COMMENTS: Tries to disprove Einstein. 109 pages! “It is actually dangerous for me to present the material that appears within this book due to the usual misunderstandings. Any scientist who claims that there are fundamental errors within the foundational methods used to obtain Einstein’s General and Special Theories of relativity may be greatly ridiculed by his colleagues who do not read carefully. The reason for this has nothing to do with science but has everything to do with scientific careers, research grants and the like. Thousands upon thousands of individuals have built their entire professional careers upon these two theories and their ramifications. The theoretical science produced is claimed to be “rational” since it follows the patterns of a mathematical structure. As a mathematician who produces such structures, it is particular abhorrent to the scientific community if I make such a claim. Mathematicians seem to have an unsettling effect upon some members of the physical science community, especially when a mathematician delves into a natural science.”

Note that the author's location is unknown. It's the only article I found where the location of the author wasn't clear or easy to determine. Also note that I copied a long section from the first page of the article to help remind me what it is all about. The section I highlighted in red supports what I've been saying about mathematicians, although it's from the mathematicians' point of view. From my point of view, it's the mathematicians who are "picking on" the scientists, not the other way around.

And below is an article that seems definitely worth reading even though it won't help me with my paper. And, when I tried to copy a few lines from the article, I found a problem with doing so.

ID: 1503.08305.pdf

TITLE: The Warped Science of Interstellar

AUTHOR: Jean-Pierre Luminet

EMAIL: jean-xxxre.xxxxnet@xxxx.fr

LOCATION: France

DATE: 2015
COMMENTS: Looks like it could be interesting reading, but I don’t see anything in it that relates to my paper. Plus, for some reason when I copy passages from it, the paste function puts each word on a separate line.

I could go on and on. I read the articles in the order they are listed in the image at the top of this comment. I soon realized that the ID number contains the year the article was submitted, starting with 2007, which meant that I was reading the oldest first. But when I finished reading the only article from 2016 and reached the fourth article from the bottom of the fourth column, the numbering system changed. And I was once again reading oldest articles first, starting in 2003.

On Friday I found a recent paper that was truly of great interest. It was written by an astronomer/astrophysicist who had encountered a problem with some of his astronomical measurements. Studying the paper, it appeared that my paper is the solution to his problem. Then, after thinking about it for awhile, I realized that his problem may be verification and proof of my Time Dilated Light theory.

But what do I do next?

Clearly, the first thing I have to do is study his paper in detail to make certain I fully understand the parts that seem to directly relate to my theory. Then, I may try emailing the author to verify that my understanding of his problem is in agreement with his understanding. I'll be writing my understanding in "layman's language." I may even write what I plan to put in my paper about his paper. His paper isn't overwhelmingly technical, but it contains a lot of technical jargon.

If we are in agreement, then I'll have to decide what to do next. It appears that I would be changing plans once again, and I would try to submit my paper on Time Dilated Light to ArXiv.org instead of first trying to "set the groundwork" with my earlier articles on "Time Dilation Re-Visualized" and "What is Time?"

But, as I write these words, I still haven't finished going through all 81 articles. Furthermore, I've found that there are articles in the fifth column that are of truly great interest, even though they are older articles. Here are some sample titles:

V ‘c’ is the speed of light, isn’t it?

Singularities of varying light speed cosmologies

Locality hypothesis and the speed of light

V Coordinate time and proper time in the GPS

V A Test to Verify the Change of Light’s Speed in the Gravitational Field of the Earth

NASA’s astonishing evidence that c is not constant: The pioneer anomaly

V Note on Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies

The Notion of Time in Special Relativity

V V The last article listed above has three defintions for "time":

Definition 1. Time is the magnitude measured by clocks.
Definition 2. The time standard was defined by the angle of the earth’s rotation around its axis.
Definition 3. Any process has its own time which characterizes the rate of this process.

None of those definitions matches my definition.

I awoke yesterday morning and this morning thinking of revisions I might make to my paper on Time Dilated Light. I definitely think I can eliminate the references to my previous two papers. In some ways, Time Dilated Light might be put to good use to "set the groundwork" for "What is Time?" And I think I can use the beginning from the article I tried to get printed in a newspaper as the beginning of "Time Dilated Light." It's a good attention grabber. And it would "set the groundwork" before I go into the more complex and controversial areas.

So, I've got a LOT of work to do. But things are definitely looking good.

Comments for Sunday, Sept. 4, 2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016:

September 8, 2016 - Hmmm. I did several searches of the ArXiv.org article files yesterday and this morning, looking for the terms "time dilation" and "speed of light" and articles where the words "reality" and "relativity" are both used. I found about 2,500 articles that contain those terms. Looking through the titles of those 2,500 articles, I found a few hundred that seemed of interest. I downloaded each one and skimmed through the first page or two to see if they were actually about topics of interest to me. I found 81 articles that seemed of interest. I saved copies of all 81 articles.

The next step is to do a more detailed examination of the 81 articles, to make a computerized list of them, and to make some notes on the list as to whether the article is worthy of closer examination and study. Some of them seem of great interest. Others may contain information I need. And, of course, I'm also looking for authors who might be willing to read and "endorse" my article when I submit it to ArXiv.org.

Meanwhile, I learned that a reader can give a "negative endorsement" for an article. If I get a "negative endorsement," that means I have to get at least two "positive endorsements" before ArXiv.org will accept the article.

I can already see that I need to change my tactics. My article on "Time Dilated Light" mentions two earlier articles I wrote but never tried to get published. Now it seems clear and certain that I need to go back to the first article I wrote on "Time Dilation Re-Visualized," I need to revise it to also be about "relativity versus reality," and I need to try to get it published first. In other words, I need to "lay a foundation" for people to read my article on "Time Dilated Light." "Time Dilated Light" contains too much that is new and different for a typical reader to accept it without prior conditioning.

After I've described what is real about Time Dilation, and after I've described how Time Dilation needs to be understood by itself before complicating matters with Relativity, I then need to go to the next step, which is to get my second paper, "What Is Time?" onto ArXiv.org (and maybe into some scientific journal). I'll undoubtedly have to revise and rework that paper, too, before attempting to get "endorsers" to read it and before I try to submit it to ArXiv.org.

If I can get my "Time Dilation Re-Visualized" article onto ArXiv.org, I will have also gotten at least one "endorser." I theory, I can then try to enlist the aid of that endorser (or those endorsers) to get "What is Time?" onto ArXiv.org.

If I can get both articles on ArXiv.org, then and only then I can think about getting "Time Dilated Light" onto ArXiv.org and getting it published in some journal.

Meanwhile, I should probably work on a book about it all. If I can't get all three articles onto ArXiv.org, and if I can't get "Time Dilated Light" published in a scientific journal, I will undoubtedly have to self-publish the book. But, at least it will be out there for anyone to read who has the interest.

But, the first step in all this is to examine those 81 articles, to see what they have to say, and to see if any of their authors are possible endorsers for "Time Dilation Re-Visualized." I see articles which question the "universal speed of light," I see articles which point out scientific findings and observations which indicate that the speed of light is not a universal constant, and I see articles which question what is real and what is just "perceived" about Time Dilation.

And I see articles which say you are very likely to get crucified if you try to publish an article that attacks main-stream thinking. Fortunately, crucifixion is only a concern for professional scientists who have to worry about keeping their jobs. That's not something I have to be concerned about.

September 6, 2016 - DAMN! I was all set to submit my nicely typeset paper to a scientific journal. So, I started going through the steps for submitting it. Then I found that I have to first submit it to ArXiv.org. And then I learned I can't submit it to ArXiv.org until I have someone to "endorse" it. The instructions for getting an "endorsement" are as follows:

If you need to be endorsed by someone, it is best for you to find an endorser who

you know personally and

is knowledgeable in the subject area of your paper.

A good choice for graduate students would be your thesis advisor or another professor in your department/institution working in your field.
Alternatively this is the recommended way to proceed.

Start by finding related articles in your field. Your preprint surely has cited works that are already posted in the arXiv, some of these works will be particularly relevant.

Bring up these abstracts from the arXiv page.

You can find somebody qualified to endorse by clicking on the link titled "Which of these authors are endorsers?" at the bottom of every abstract page.

Using that information, you can then find the email address of the submitter on the abstract page just under the "Submission history" heading.

It is a good idea to send eligible endorsers a copy of your proposed submission along with the endorsement request.

So, it looks like I'm going to have to try to find an "endorser." At first, I thought this was a setback of some kind.

However, after studying what the process is all about, I learned that this is probably where I should have started in the first place. ArXiv.org contains about 1,100,000 scientific papers on file, written by thousands of scientists from all over the world. ArXiv.org provides a way to search for articles in the scientific area where my paper belongs, and when I find an article on a similar subject, ArXiv.org shows whether or not any of the scientists who authored the paper are willing to read and endorse papers written by others. So, in effect, I have a list of thousands of scientists from all over the world who are open to people asking them to read their articles, and those scientists may be prepared to give me their thoughts about my paper.

Here's more information from the ArXiv.org web site:

It is a good idea to send eligible endorsers a copy of your proposed submission along with the endorsement request. Please note, however, that it is inappropriate to email large numbers of potential endorsers at once, or to repeatedly email the same endorser with a request for endorsement.
At least one positive endorsement is required per endorsement domain to be considered endorsed for that domain. The number of positive endorsements, however, must exceed the number of negative endorsements. In other words, you must maintain a net positive endorsement per domain to be considered endorsed. Therefore, you should consider carefully to whom you make endorsement requests.

So, there's nothing wrong will sending out emails to four or five per day and having them all read it and give opinions. I just have to be careful about getting "negative endorsments." And, presumably, if I get multiple positive "endorsers," that might enhance the chances of me actually getting published. But, I only need one positive endorser to become eligible to submit my paper.

Live and learn.

September 5, 2016 - I think my paper on "Time Dilated Light" is correctly typeset and ready for submission. I'll submit it tomorrow morning. Every time I think I'm done, however, I notice some missing apostrophe or something that should be italicized but isn't. But I'm noticing fewer and fewer such problems.

Meanwhile, I just received a copy of an email addressed to my alter ego, Ralph Maggio, advising him that someone posted this message to the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group:

Besides, nobody here is mistaking the map for the territory, except for you. Let me simplify this to a more condensed form. The current mathematical model matches experimentation, so what difference does it make? Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken? What practical use do you expect us to be granted with your allegedly more practical viewpoint (which has repeatedly not matched experiment, by the way)? Instead of screaming about "imaginary light clocks" and the supposed dense skulls of mathematicians, why don't you get to your point? What magically changes if we all agree with you, Ralph?

The first question highlighted in red assumes that things are not "broken," when they really are broken. And there have been no experiments to compare the speed of light at different locations where time is known to tick at a different rate. The second question in red is a much more interesting question. My paper really only describes one "change" that acceptance of the theory would cause: calculations for red-shifting. Equipment which determines how much "red-shift" (or "blue-shift") there is in a wave of light coming from outer space is constructed to assume that all light in the universe is traveling at the same speed as light is measured in a lab here on Earth. So, the equipment cannot tell how much a light wave is red-shifted (or blue-shifted) because the object is moving away from (or approaching) the Earth and how much the light wave merely appears red-shifted (or blue shifted) simply because the light measuring equipment is incorrectly calibrated.

That would mean that objects in the distant universe are closer than is currently believed. And the expansion of the universe is slower than is currently believed. And all calculations about "dark energy" will have to be redone. It may even turn out that "dark energy" is simply a mathematical error resulting from using an incorrect number for the speed of light.

There could be massive changes in other areas that I cannot foresee because I know so little about those areas.

The biggest change I would like to see is to have physics teachers stop teaching crap to their students about how time and relativity work. Albert Einstein and Carver Mead have both pointed out the problems with mathematics and mathematicians taking over science. Learning that the speed of light is not a "fixed universal constant" just might teach mathematicians that they need to learn what the numbers they are using really mean. They have to stop assuming that because the math works, everything must be correct.

September 4, 2016 - Yesterday, on the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group, someone provided a YouTube video which uses another "light clock" to explain the same nonsense that Prof. Greene explained in his course (see last Sunday's comment). Here's the video:

So, naturally, I had to go to the YouTube page and add a comment after the video. Here's what I wrote:

A "light clock" is just nonsense. First, if there was such a thing as a "light clock," it would DISPROVE gravitational time dilation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Since a "light clock" uses a fixed speed of light, it would tick at the same rate on Earth as on Jupiter and as in empty space. Gravitational mass would not affect its tick rate, thereby disproving gravitational time dilation. Any REAL clock would tick slower on Jupiter than on Earth, and on earth it would tick slower at the bottom of a mountain than at the top of the mountain.

Secondly, in our real world, light travels in a straight line, so moving the clock would simply cause the light to miss the mirror. The further apart the mirrors are, the easier it would be for the mirrors to move out of the way as the photon travels from one mirror to the other. What magic would cause the photon to follow the mirror? What the guy on the space ship would see is that his "light clock" stopped working as soon as the rocket ship moved.

If the speed of light is fixed, then moving the clock requires that light bounce up and down at "light speed" while ALSO moving LATERALLY at a different speed. Why not turn the clock on its side? That way the light would travel faster than the speed of light when going in the same direction as the rocket, and at a different speed when going in the opposite direction.

The part of the video about trains is just trying to add relativity into a situation where relativity doesn't belong. What we see on a train and off a train is about RELATIVITY. It illustrates how two observers see the same thing differently. It has NOTHING to do with time dilation. Distorting it to involve a "light clock" just creates a situation where the "light clock" wouldn't work at all with Special Relativity and it would DISPROVE General Relativity.

The video is JUST PLAIN WRONG. It's not only WRONG, it's SILLY.

Time dilation needs to be understood by itself before complicating it with relativity. An atomic clock will tick at a slower rate if you lift it by just one foot. You don't need a second observer, and it has NOTHING to do with the speed of light. Check this link: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

Maybe it will start some kind of discussion. The posting of the video to the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group started a long argument, but it was all pointless, since the people arguing with Ralph Maggio (who argued my point of view) mostly refused to answer any of Ralph's questions, and when they did make comments, the comments were distortions of what Ralph said, combined with personal attacks and a lot of mathematics-based gibberish. It proved once again that there is no way to have an intelligent conversation with a True Believer -- including a lot of mathematicians who seem to truly believe that mathematics and science are the same thing.

I really wish I could find someone who can discuss this topic in layman's terms. If all they can do is argue mathematics and argue that I need to learn the math in order to understand what they are saying, that just means they cannot understand or discuss the science involved. Math is "garbage in, garbage out." And the mathematicians are proud of the fact that if you put garbage into an equation and get garbage out of the equation, that proves that the math is right. They don't care about the garbage. That's for non-mathematicians to worry about.

Will I ever find anyone (except Ralph) who fully agrees with me? I dunno. I still see a lot of people "liking" what I post on Facebook, but few of them join the conversation to add additional points to my arguments. If I'm wrong, why is it so difficult for the mathematicians to explain in simple terms where I am wrong. I keep showing them this quote from Einstein:

Hmm. While looking for the link to the above quote, I found the quote below in a web site about Einstein quotes:

It seems to be the same argument I am having with mathematicians! Unfortunately, the site doesn't provide any information about the context of the quote and where it came from. Then I found this quote:

That quote is from an address Albert Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1921. It's a long talk which I didn't find until this morning as I was typing this comment. I'll have to study it in detail to see exactly what Einstein was talking about. Here's another quote from the first part of the talk:

All linear measurement in physics is practical geometry in this sense, so too is geodetic and astronomical linear measurement, if we call to our help the law of experience that light is propagated in a straight line, and indeed in a straight line in the sense of practical geometry.

I don't know if it was a coincidence or not, but I awoke this morning with the realization that I might have to write another scientific paper about a "Reality Check." As illustrated by Professor Greene's lectures and by the video at the top of this comment, according to mathematicians, a person on a fast moving space ship who bounces a beam of light straight up and down will see no effect of movement. The mathematicians claim the photon will appear to go straight up and down no matter how fast the rocket is moving. Meanwhile, some mythical stationary observer outside of the space ship will see the light traveling at angles to keep up with the moving mirror.

But, according to me, and I think according to Einstein, just the opposite is true. The person on the space ship will see the light clock stop working because light travels in a straight line, and on a moving space ship the light will appear to travel at angles until the mirrors move fully out of the way. And the mythical stationary observer will see the light traveling in a straight line at all times -- just the opposite of what the mathematicians claim.

Most interestingly, I think a "reality check" can be performed to see who is right and who is wrong.

All that is needed is to perform the same tests I proposed in my paper on "Time Dilated Light," but include one additional test. On or near the Equator, in some place like Singapore or at the space station in French Guiana, they should measure the speed of light traveling vertically. At those locations, the light measuring equipment would be moving at about 1,000 miles per hour as the Earth spins on its axis. Unfortunately, we might need some mathematicians to tell us how far "out of plumb" light will travel if we emit a photon of light from equipment on the floor of an assembly building, bounce it off a mirror straight up at the top of the building, and record its impact as it hits a detector next to the emitter on the floor. Will the photon travel in a straight line as Einstein and I claim and thereby, as a result of the movement of the earth, appear to travel at angles as it goes up and down? Or will the photon go straight up and down as the mathematicians claim?

If the photon goes straight up and down, as mathematicians predict, that will prove that light does not travel in a straight line. It will show that light somehow magically follows the mirror. It will prove the mathematicians are right.

If the light seems to travel at a slight angle toward the west due to the spinning of the Earth around its axis at 1,000 mph, then Einstein and I are right.

Easy peasy. We just need someone to perform the tests.

This whole subject gets more fascinating every day.

Comments for Thursday, Sept. 1, 2016, thru Saturday, Sept. 3, 2016:

September 1, 2016 - I found an "easy way" to construct a magazine article using the RevTEX typesetter programming language. I found a web site where they show a sample article on the right side of your computer screen, and on the left side they show the LATEX code used to typeset the article. You have the option of selecting various page formats to conform with what is required by the journal to which you plan to submit the article. Once you have the right format template in place, you can then type the title of our article into the proper spot in the code, and a moment later the sample article changes to show your title. Then you replace the sample abstract with your abstract, etc. In theory, all you need to do is replace the parts of the code that belong to the sample with parts from your own article, and the result is you have typeset your article. Like so:

In reality, it is a lot more complicated. If you have any percentage symbols (%) in your paper, the RevTEX compiler will interpret them to indicate a co-writer's non-printing comment in the code version. So, you have to replace "%" with "percent." Apostrophes (') do not work, either. I think I read somewhere that they need to be replaced by accent marks (´). So, "Joe's" becomes "Joe´s." I haven't gotten around to doing that yet. And I think quote marks also have to be replaced, since they are a LATEX code for something else.

And that's just the beginning. I think on the two column format shown above, all references have to appear as footnotes at the bottom of the page on which the reference is used, instead of at the end of the article, which is where my WORD version of my paper currently has them. I have no clue how that is done. I also have no clue how to encode a mathematical equation so it will look like a mathematical equation. I only use one in the paper, but one is enough to require a lot of study and research.

Nonetheless, I'm hoping to have a typeset version of the article in the hands of the editor of some specialized scientific journal by next Tuesday.

Comments for Sunday, August 28, 2016, thru Wednesday, August 31, 2016:

August 31, 2016 - Wow! I just discovered something that I wouldn't have believed if someone else had told me about it and I hadn't discovered it myself.

It appears I have to learn a typesetter programming language in order to submit papers to many different "specialized scientific journals." The program you need is called "RevTEX 4.1," but it is spelled with the second E printed lower than the other letters. Here's part of some instructions for submitting an article:

As the articles for the [magazine] will be available online in different formats – one of these is full-text-searchable hyper-text – we strongly suggest you strictly obey the LATEX conventions.

The [magazine] document class was derived from the LATEX2" article.cls based on TEX version 3.141 and LATEX2". You may use it with the LaTeX engine or the pdfLATEX engine. Be sure that the LaTeX version is at least the 2007 version. Hence formulas and text are typed using the standard LATEX2" commands. The standard sectioning commands are also kept. Using aa.cls with other versions or implementations may cause difficulties. If this is the case, please contact us and we will try to help you.

But that's not how many of the words actually look in the instructions. Here are how the phrases highlighted above in red actually look:

$LATEX code$

I wasn't aware of any of this as I went through the various steps to submit my article to one of the journals. One of the very last steps was to submit your pdf file or files. Then it unexpectedly asked for two different pdf files, the first in 1-column RevTEX format for readers and viewers, and the other in 2-column RevTEX format for printing. Huh?

I turns out that the pdf files have to be as they would look if they were already typeset and printed in the journal. The headings and sub-headings have to be in the right print format, and so do pictures and charts and mathematical formulas and everything else.

I decided to look around for another "specialized journal" that might be better suited for my article. I found one that seemed perfect, but it, too, requires that articles be submitted in RevTEX format.

Further reading and research showed me that this is the format used on the arXiv.org print archive. It's similar to the viXra.org archive where I put my pdf articles, except for the fact that on arXiv.org, the files look typeset and ready for printing. (Click HERE for an example.) Interestingly, viXra.org and arXiv.org are both owned and run by Cornell University.

I learn something new every day. And it now looks like I'm going to have to learn how to use RevTEX 4.1. The problem with that is: The instructions seem to assume that you already know all the basics. I don't. Groan!

There's a sample RevTEX coded article at the link HERE. Here's some of what it looks like:

\begin{document}

\title{Introduction to \LaTeX}
\author{Harvey Gould}
\affiliation{Clark University, Department of Physics, Worcester, MA 01610}
\affiliation{Boston University, Department of Physics, Boston, MA 02215}

\date{16 June 2013}

\begin{abstract}
We give a brief introduction to the use of \LaTeX\ in the context of 
REVTeX~4.1.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}
\LaTeX\ looks more difficult than it is. It is
almost as easy as $\pi$. See how easy it is to make special
symbols such as $\alpha$,
$\beta$, $\gamma$,

One positive note: This should make an interesting chapter in the book about all this that I'm planning to write some day.

CRAP!!!!! I downloaded RevTEX 4.1 and then discovered that it can't do anything without some other "required" packages that must also be downloaded. It's going to take me some time to figure it all out. As I said, all the instructions seem to assume that you already know something I do not know.

August 30, 2016 (B) - I just received a rejection email from the science journal that was reviewing my article on Time Dilated Light. They wrote:

It is [our] policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in [our magazine]. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.

That doesn't seem to be a form letter response. It seems like they are actually trying to be helpful.

A specialist journal? What science journal specializes in the subjects of light and time dilation? I guess I'll have to do some research.

Aargh!! The first search I performed found a Frontiers in Psychology paper titled "Time dilation induced by object motion is based on spatiotopic but not retinotopic positions." It says time dilation is just an illusion. However, it is clearly about some kind of psychological issue, not about physics.

Still searching .....

August 30, 2016 (A) - I awoke this morning thinking I should go back and modify my Sunday "A" comment to make it less confrontational and insulting. I just did so. I removed all uses of the word "crap" and replaced it with "nonsense." I also added a comment about how Professor Greene interrupted his course several times to explain to his students that if what he was saying didn't seem to make any sense, they should take the mathematics-based version of the course. Then it would make sense.

Sure. Why not? In mathematics, apparently, "garbage in, garbage out" is perfectly acceptable. The only thing that is important is that the math works.

August 29, 2016 - Hmm. My "B" comment yesterday got me interested in "light clocks," so I researched the subject a bit this morning. I found a video that has so many screwball things wrong with it that I won't bother to list them.

What was more interesting to me was the first comment following the video. It was posted a year ago by "Galileo Galilei," who makes several interesting points, some correct, some incorrect.

If a light clock is moving in the same direction light is moving, instead of perpendicular to the movement of the light, the mirrors will not move out of the way. However, a light clock moving that way will also not show velocity Time Dilation. But if you add acceleration, it will show the equivalent of gravitational Time Dilation.

More interesting than that, is the valid point he makes in this part of his comment:

Albert Einstein also stated that time dilation can be due to an increase of gravity (according to General Relativity). It is evident, however, that a stationary light clock would measure the same time on Jupiter’s surface as it was placed on Earth’s surface (despite the stronger gravity of Jupiter). In both cases, the photon or light beam moves up and down in a vertical direction (perpendicular to the planet surface) at the same constant speed.

He's right. A light clock that uses a universal fixed speed of light would tick at the same rate on Jupiter as it would on Earth or in empty space. That would disprove Einstein's theory of general relativity. According to Einstein, it should tick more slowly on Jupiter where the gravity is stronger, as any other type of clock would.

It's another example to show that the way physics is being taught in schools today is wrong and can be proven wrong. And it also helps (a little bit) to confirm my theory.

August 28, 2016 (B) - Hmm. I learn something new every day. This morning, in an argument about Time Dilated Light on my "Time and Time Dilation" Facebook group, I wanted to illustrate that moving a mirror will not magically cause the light bouncing off the mirror to follow along - as Professor Greene implied in his physics course (see my "A" comment). I found this image:

It was on a web page titled "The Sagnac Effect: Does it Contradict Relativity?" The article on the page begins with this:

A number of authors have suggested that the Sagnac effect contradicts the original postulates of Special Relativity, since the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light is violated in rotating systems.

So, naturally I had to research "the Sagnac effect." What I found was that the Sagnac effect does indeed cause problems with Special Relativity IF you interpret Special Relativity the way most scientists seem to do, as stating or proving that "the speed of light is a universal constant."

If you interpret Special Relativity the way I do, that the speed of light is determined by the time dilation factors affecting the atom that emitted the light, the Sagnac effect is no problem. It seems to explain the Sagnac effect very nicely.

It also makes me wish I had included a comment to that effect in my paper on Time Dilated Light. It would be a good attention getter.

August 28, 2016 (A) - The "change in tactics" that I attempted on Wednesday is still pending. Essentially, the change was to write a different kind of article about Time Dilated Light, an article intended for the "general reader." It would only explain the problem, not the solution. The "problem" is that the speed of light is being incorrectly viewed by mathematicians as a "universal constant," a fixed speed per second. Meanwhile, scientists are demonstrating that the length of a second is different everywhere, depending upon your altitude and velocity. I submitted the short article (just 3 pages) to a popular science magazine, and I'm awaiting a response. As it turns out, the person who reviews such proposed articles was on vacation last week, but he is expected to return tomorrow. And, as it also turns out, I know a reporter who works for the company that owns the magazine. That might make it a little more difficult to simply ignore my article.

On Friday, I decided that there would be no harm in also submitting the article to another "peer-reviewed" science journal. I created a new version of the article, shortening it by 1 page to 7 pages, and I changed a few things to hopefully get the point across at the very beginning that my paper agrees with Einstein. I am not disputing Einstein. I removed everything about Einstein's theory being "principled" while mine is "constructive," since that can easily be misinterpreted to imply that I was disputing Einstein. I submitted the article on Friday. (The new version will not be placed on ViXra.org.)

Meanwhile, I've been thinking more about writing a book with a title something like "Time Dilated Light - The Forbidden Theory." I'll undoubtedly have to self-publish it, but I'm now an expert on self-publishing, so that won't be a problem. And, it will be many months before it is ready, so I'll have plenty of time to try the peer review route at least one more time if the current attempt is rejected, and I'll have time to submit the "popular science" article elsewhere, if the people who currently have it reject it.

When I did research to find out where the whole subject of Time Dilated Light first came to me, I found that the first mention I ever made of "Time Dilation" was on my old web site, in a comment I wrote on March 16, 2014. Here it is:

--------------------

March 16, 2014 (B) - Wow! I did a LOT of very heavy thinking last week. It kept me from just sitting around waiting for a response to my query letters to literary agents.

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.

-----------------------

A week later, I created a web page titled "Time Dilation - As I Understand It."

But, yesterday I couldn't recall exactly what it was about Professor Brian Greene's lecture on "The Reality of Past, Present and Future" (Module #8) that bothered me so much. So, I watched part of that lecture over again.

I soon realized what it was that bothered me back then. Prof. Greene (who teaches at Columbia University in New York City) was breaking time down into "quanta," i.e., into moments like 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.

Looking over the course schedule yesterday, I noticed that Module #3 was titled "The Speed of Light." So, I watched it again. Wow! It's total nonsense!

Professor Greene explains that the fact that the velocity of the light emitting object (when it is coming toward you or going away from you) cannot be added to or subtracted from the speed of light you perceive is proof that the speed of light is a "universal constant." It proves no such thing! It is simply proof that the direction an object is moving does not affect the speed of light coming from the object. I couldn't remember any of that from when I took the course in early 2014. Evidently, it had no significance to me then. Now I see it is just plain wrong.

But there was even more nonsense to come. I then watched the lecture on "Time In Motion" (Module #5), which is about Time Dilation. In the screen capture below, he is explaining how the stationary clock by his hand runs faster than the moving clock off to his right because light bounces off mirrors more slowly when the mirrors are moving while light is being used to measure time. It's total nonsense, and it is also a demonstration that has very little to do with Time Dilation or reality!

He was teaching his students that Time Dilation is just "an optical illusion." He didn't use that term, of course. He was carefully explaining how a stationary person will view an object as moving while a moving person will view the stationary person as moving. Furthermore, it is a totally wrong and silly demonstration. It's twisting the facts to rationalize a belief! In reality, light would not bounce at angles between moving mirrors, light would move in a straight line and the mirrors would simply move out of the path of the bouncing light!

It would have been better if Prof. Greene had used the explanation of how a ball is perceived to move if a child on a jet plane tosses it up and down as the plane moves at 500 miles per hour. The child will see the ball going straight up and straight down, while some imaginary viewer on the ground will see the ball travel in an arc that covers over a thousand feet laterally between the time the ball leaves the boy's hand and the time he catches it again. It really has nothing to do with Time Dilation, it only has to do with Relativity, and therefore it is the same as saying Time Dilation is just an optical illusion.

That is where everyone goes wrong! They do not think of Time Dilation as a real phenomenon all by itself, they only think of it in terms of relativity!

And, it was really bizarre when I watched Module #7, "Time Dilation - Experimental Evidence," in which Prof. Greene explains how Time Dilation has been confirmed by people carrying atomic clocks aboard airplanes, and he explained how muons exist longer when they are traveling faster. Professor Greene makes absolutely no mention of gravitational time dilation. Nor does he explain who was the "observer" when the atomic clocks were flown around the world. He doesn't put 2 and 2 together.

Module #9, which is titled "Time Dilation - Intuitive Explanation," appears to be Professor Greene's personal way of rationalizing how Time Dilation works. It has nothing to do with reality and is totally laughable. He has a change in the direction of motion causing the slowing of time.

And Module #12 was the most absurd of all. It's titled "The Twin Paradox," and it shows how preposterous the explanations can get when they try to rationalize and distort Time Dilation to make it fit mathematical equations. Prof. Greene uses "fraternal twins," George and Gracie. While George remains on Earth, Gracie goes off on a space ship to some nearby star and then returns. That's simple enough, but Prof. Greene then explains how neither twin knows who is really moving. He has Gracie arguing that her space ship is standing still while George and the planet Earth moved away from her, while George argues just the opposite. Prof. Greene then explains that George is right because Gracie felt acceleration, which wouldn't happen if she had been standing still. It's an absolutely silly explanation of Time Dilation. In what universe would a space traveler think that she was standing still while the planet she just rocketed away from must be moving away from her and then somehow it reversed course to come back to her once again? It's idiotic!

It also shows how mathematicians do not care about logic or reasoning. They only care about how the math works. The math says that an astronaut can stand still while the Earth moves away from his rocket, therefore it must be possible.

At several points in the course, Professor Greene pauses to explain to his students that if what he is saying doesn't seem to make any sense, then they should take the version of his course that focuses on mathematics.

Yes, why not? After all, in the world of mathematics "garbage in, garbage out" is totally acceptable if the equation looks clever. Nothing needs to be logical or make sense if the mathematics work. Science today is about mathematics, not about logic -- or science.

Since I've completed the course, I could ask some "zinger" questions on the class discussion pages or try to ask Prof. Greene directly. But, I think I'll delay that until I've found out how my "peer review" science journal paper and my "popular science" magazine article are received by the people that currently have them. Besides, Prof. Greene is just teaching the same nonsense other physics professors are teaching. Prof. Greene merely put his course on the Internet where I could take it and view the lectures over again. I should be grateful. It taught me a great deal, but definitely not what Prof. Greene intended to teach.

Comments for Sunday, August 21, 2016, thru Saturday, August 27, 2016:

August 24, 2016 - Last night, in order to take my mind off the subject of Time Dilated Light, I rented and watched a new movie titled "The Man Who Knew Infinity." The Rotten Tomatoes movie review site gives it a 62% favorable rating (audiences give it a 78% favorable rating) and describes the movie this way:

"The Man Who Knew Infinity" is the true story of friendship that forever changed mathematics. In 1913, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel), a self-taught Indian mathematics genius, traveled to Trinity College, Cambridge, where over the course of five years, forged a bond with his mentor, the brilliant and eccentric professor, G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons), and fought against prejudice to reveal his mathematic genius to the world.

While I found the movie interesting and certainly worth watching, I couldn't help but scratch my head over the absolute fascination mathematicians have with things that the average person would view as pointless and a waste of time. Most of the movie involved Ramanujan and Hardy discussing obscure mathematical problems, but once in the movie they actually went through the steps of solving a problem. It was a problem of how many ways you can add together whole numbers and get an answer of 4. (1+1+1+1+1=4, 1+2+1=4, 2+2=4, etc.) All I could do as I watched them go through the steps is wonder: "Who cares?!"

Undoubtedly there was some benefit to what they were doing, but the movie did nothing to explain those benefits. It just hinted at one point that it helped with calculating ballistic trajectories for cannon fire during World War I.

What I got out of the movie more than anything else was how terribly Srinivasa Ramanujan was treated at Trinity College because he was not one of "their kind." He was Indian and from the lower classes. And yet he was challenging the best mathematical minds at Trinity College. Harrumph! Egads!!

Meanwhile, my attempts to get mathematicians and physicists to discuss my paper on "Time Dilated Light" (even though I am not "one of their kind") are undergoing a temporary change in direction and tactics. I don't know if it is going to work, but I should find out in a week or two.

August 22, 2016 - When I turned on my computer this morning, there was an email from Science magazine in my inbox. Here is the entire text of the email:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Time Dilated Light - A Constructive Theory" to Science. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of work that we publish and we are thus not considering it for publication. We appreciate your interest in Science.

It's not the sort of work they publish. So, I was right when I guessed that that is what "NotSort" meant.

Like the others, they say nothing about whether the theory is valid or invalid. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I may change tactics.

August 21, 2016 - There's something that has been in the back of my mind for many months, and yesterday morning it finally came forward to where I could see it:

The speed of light has been measured many many times in lab experiments all over the world, and it always comes out the same: 299,792.458 kilometers per second. Yet, the length of a second is almost certainly different in every one of those places. The length of a second differs depending on your location between the poles and the equator, and it differs depending upon elevation. The problem is: When they measure the speed of light, they never compare the difference between the length of a second at their location and the length of a second at any other location. They ignore Time Dilation. Why? Apparently, they assume it isn't relevant. Or they assume that the speed of light is fixed and the difference in the length of a second can be somehow rationalized away.

After doing some research into the science journal that currently has my paper on "Time Dilated Light," I found that I should get some indication within two weeks as to whether they will reject the paper, accept it, or postpone a final decision until after discussing possible revisions, additions and deletions with me.

When I checked the status this morning, I found that it had been assigned to an evaluator (a senior editor), and the status had changed from "Received" to "Under Evaluation." That was good. But, then I saw they had also changed the "Article Type" from "Research Article" to "Notsort," whatever that means. Not sorted? Not the sort of article we print? I dunno. But, it punched a big hole in my confidence. After doing some new research, it appeared that the journal just prints "peer reviewed" articles for which the author has already gotten all the necessary "peer reviews." In their instructions for authors, they indicate that they welcome submissions from "any source." I then did more research and found a web page that is part of their web site where they clearly say that THEY do peer reviewing. It's like playing a game where the rules are written in Sanskrit!

I've stopped discussing the paper on Facebook. And, I'm not going to try to contact any more scientists about it, until after I hear from the journal that has it. While arguing about the speed of light on Facebook was truly fascinating, the subject has now become a very serious matter. I had thought that the paper was at the perfect place for an evaluation, and that I just needed to wait patiently for that evaluation. Now I don't know whether or not I've once again sent it to the wrong place.

Meanwhile, whenever I need to drive from place to place around town, I've been listening to DVDs for "A Short History of Nearly Everything," by Bill Bryson. As I was driving home from the gym on Friday, this part of page 141 of the book was read to me:

The picture that nearly everybody has in mind of an atom is of an electron or two flying around a nucleus, like planets orbiting a sun. This image was created in 1904, based on little more than clever guesswork, by a Japanese physicist named Hantaro Nagaoka. It is completely wrong, but durable just the same. As Isaac Asimov liked to note, it inspired generations of science fiction writers to create stories of worlds within worlds, in which atoms became tiny inhabited solar systems or our solar system turns out to be merely a mote in some larger scheme. Even now CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, uses Nagaoka's image as a logo on its website. In fact, as physicists were soon to realize, electrons are not like orbiting planets at all, but more like the blades of a spinning fan, managing to fill every bit of space in their orbits simultaneously (but without the crucial difference that the blades of a fan only seem to be everywhere at once; electrons are.)

What the f...? I never heard of electrons being described that way before. And that's all that part of the book says about it. Electrons are like fan blades???

So, yesterday, when I got to this point in writing this comment, I did a Google search for "electrons are like fan blades" (without quote marks). The first link Google provided was to an Ask Yahoo! source which begins by citing Bryson's book and doesn't add much to it. The next source I found just says:

In some ways, rapidly moving fan blades are similar to electrons moving about the nucleus of an atom. Like fan blades, electrons move very quickly and we can never tell exactly where they are.

Okay, so they are supposedly more like rapidly moving fan blades than orbiting planets just because they move so fast that you cannot see where they are at any given moment. I still prefer the orbiting planet model, since the planets are not physically attached to the nucleus, and fan blades cannot change orbits, while I can visualize a planet-like electron changing orbit instantly when it adds or loses energy. Besides, reading further into that source, I find that the fan blade analogy is a creation of Quantum Mechanics. So, it is a model that fits better with unthinking mathematics than with logic, imagination and visualization.

When I heard the passage about fan blades, I immediately tried visualizing spinning lightning-bolt-like fan blades and I tried to figure out how they can control time. I couldn't But now I know I can just stick with visualizing the orbits of electrons getting distorted and stretched by velocity and gravity, and I can just forget about fan blades.

I keep expecting to find something that will totally shoot down my Time Dilated Light theory. What I'm finding instead is that Time Dilated Light might shoot down some bogus Quantum Mechanical mathematical constructs.

Time will tell.