Ed Lake's web page
clipper cover
If you want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.
Welcome to Ed Lake's web site!

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

My latest comments are near the bottom of this page.
You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

A Crime Unlike Any Other book cover
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "Time Dilation Re-visualized."
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "What is Time?"

My interests are writing, books, movies, science, psychology, conspiracy theorists,
hotography, photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz, blues, and ...

just trying to figure things out.

Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
A major interest: Fact Finding
                              I have a fascination with Time, Time Dilation & Light.                                Another interest: Movies Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments

Comments for Sunday, October 16, 2016, thru Saturday, October 22, 2016:

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 the book.

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.

The 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 Star 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.  What is the 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 Relativity? 

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 files.

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 misunderstanding.

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 mean?"

"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 clock."

"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 happening?"

"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 location!"

"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."

"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 things happen."

"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 concept."

"Right!"  the scientist barks at me.

"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 away."

The scientist seems genuinely puzzled.  "What?"

"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 real?"


"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 feet higher?"


"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 different levels?"

"So, it wasn't moved to demonstrate Relativity?  It was moved to create an illusion?  


"So, you demonstrated Relativity by creating an illusion?  How does creating an illusion demonstrate anything other than an ability to create illusions?"

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 behind him.

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 theories.

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 correct. 

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?

The answer seems to be that this is the accepted understanding of Time Dilation:

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 15, 2016:

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 facts."

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 read. 

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 some TV.  

October 10, 2016 (B) - I don't know how many of seen it, but this video of Robert De Nero giving his opinion about Donald Trump is worth watching:

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.

A short history
                            of nearly everything

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 titled "Remote atomic clock synchronization via satellites and optical fibers."  I probably found it by doing a search through the ArXiv.org files 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 the article:
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 says,
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 found. 

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 a Wikipedia article on "Terrestrial Time," it says,
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 altitude. 

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 dilation.
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 Relativity.   

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 still? 

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, 2016:

October 7, 2016 - Ah! At last I see something worth writing a comment about besides my latest thoughts on Time, Time Dilation and Light.  According to a Newsweek article titled "Hurricane Matthew Truthers Claim the U.S. Government is Hiding Data,"
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 administration conspiracy.

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 reference."

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 real.

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 ago:

time dilation
                            with two clocks in one frame of reference
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:
time dilation
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 Relativity. 

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 Earth.    

October 5, 2016 - I spent part of this morning browsing through the passages I highlighted while reading Alexander Unzicker's book, "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century." 

Einstein's Lost

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 measuring equipment.

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 are flawed.

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 "On 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.

For example, this is a passage from page 2 of "What is the Theory of Relativity":
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.

My immediate chore at hand is to finish reading
"Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth" by Jim Baggott.  It's slow going, since the book frequently wanders into areas which are of little or no interest to me, such as particle physics and Quantum Theory.

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.

So, if I'm boring you, I apologize. 

October 4, 2016 - This morning I finished reading "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century," a self-published book by a retired German scientist named Alexander Unzicker.  At the bottom of page 55 and into page 56 I found this passage:
Galileo had 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 1 comment.

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 misinterpretation

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 train. 

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 arguing nonsense.

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 "interpretation."

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 on ViXra.org.  Endorsers are not required there, and the 4 of the 5 prior versions of the paper are already on ViXra.org.

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:
Page 1 of Time
                            Dilated Light in magazine format
to regular "scientific paper" format (which requires 5 pages), and page-1 looks like this:
Time Dilated light in ViXra format
So, to read it, the direct link is http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v5.pdf
The five latest versions are at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0289
And anyone interested can find the latest versions of all three of my "scientific papers" at this link http://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake 

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.

When I did a Google search for Dr. Unzicker's name to learn more about him, I found he'd written a book about his theory.  The book is titled "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century.

Einstein's Lost

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 second.
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":

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 result.
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.

wave lengths
                            for red and blue light shifts

But, I digress.   As I said, I'll have to study it more thoroughly when I get some time. 

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 29:
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.

Anyway, a
t about the same time I obtained Dr. Unzicker's book, I found another book which also seems to be about Einstein investigating a variable speed of light theory: "Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth."  It's written by a scientist with a doctorate in chemical physics who is evidently best known as a science writer: Jim Baggott.

Farewell to

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 confidence-trickery.
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 aesthetic sensibilities.
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:
Reality is 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 philosophical position.
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:

In 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 checked "Time 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 with that.

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 do that.

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 per second. 

He is viewing the "problem" this way:


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 = D/T

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 B.   Simple.

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 requires."
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.

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.     

Other interests:

fake picture of snow on
                    the pyramids
 Click HERE for an analysis of this fake photo.

January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016

© 2016 by Ed Lake