Ed Lake's web page

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
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

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

just trying to figure things out.

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.

 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 diff erent 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 difficulties. 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:   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.

Other interests: