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!
 
email
                  address

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
                  detective
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 go to my Facebook group about Time and Time Dilation. Click HERE to go to my notes about scientific topics discussed on this web site.


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.


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

My Latest Comments


Comments for Sunday, September 16, 2018, thru Saturday, Sept. 22, 2018:

September 20, 2018 - It's really depressing to keep banging against walls as I try to recover from last week's disaster.  I still cannot check my emails at my outlook.com address.  I had been accessing those emails using an application
which got the emails from outlook.com, newsguy.com and from my Time-Warner account automatically.  That application vanished last Wednesday.  I found out how to get my emails from newsguy.com and Time-Warner, but I still haven't figured out how to get them from outlook.com.  I probably just need to focus on the problem.  I've got too many other things on my mind.

I also couldn't check on my book sales.  I set things up years ago so that I just clicked on a bookmark and that took me to Amazon's web page that showed
how many Kindle books I sold in the past month.  Then I would click on the bookmark that would take me to the CreateSpace page that would tell me how many paperback copies of my book I sold in the past month.  I just recovered the ability to check on CreateSpace during a pause in typing the previous sentence on this post, but I have to wait for an "idea" to occur to me to figure out how to get to my Kindle sales.  I must have spent at least a half hour this morning going through countless links on Amazon's web site trying to find the link to the page that shows my sales.  So far, no luck.  Oops.  Just figured out how to do it.  So, that problem is solved.

One bookmark that was interesting to find again was the bookmark to the web site where I convert IP addresses into locations.  I use it every day when I go through my web site logs to see who has been visiting this site.  I did a Google search for IP and location" and found dozens of places that supposedly tell you where an IP is located.  But the one I used wasn't on the first two pages of places.  And when I tried looking up an IP address using a couple of the sites on the first two pages, I got "Not Found" results.  So, I hunted through the list until I found the one I have been using on the third page.  And now it is a bookmark again, and I am saving a copy of all of my bookmarks.    

I sometimes don't know what bookmarks I'm missing until I want to do something and find that I can't do it because I no longer have the bookmark to the page where I do whatever it is.  Sigh.  At least I am making some progress.   


September 19, 2018
- Today marks one week since the "disaster" where I lost all my bookmarks, my emails, my email addresses, and all the contents of all the parameters that I have to fill in to access thing on the Internet.  I've only partially recovered.  However, I'm still arguing with mathematicians on Google's sci.physics.relativity forum.  It's like arguing with robots.  They are constantly telling me, "That does not compute," and "You must use the key words I am programmed to understand," or words to that effect.

I've been trying to get them to discuss experiments instead of mathematics, and I picked the Hafele-Keating experiment to start the discussions.  But they only want to discuss the mathematics used in the experiment.  As part of my research, I found the routes that Hafele and Keating took.  

When Hafele and Keating flew eastward, they flew from Washington's Dulles airport to London, to Frankfurt, to Istanbul, to Beirut, to Tehran, to New Delhi, to Bangkok, to Hong Kong, to Tokyo, to Honolulu, to Los Angeles, to Dallas, and then back to Washington.

When they flew westward, they flew from Washington to Los Angeles, to Honolulu, to Guam, to Okinawa, to Taipei, to Hong Kong, to Bangkok, to Bombay, to Tel Aviv, to Athens, to Rome, the Paris, to Shannon Ireland, to Boston, and then back to Washington.

Here's how the routes look on a world map:

Hafele Keating routes

Red is their eastward route, black is their westward route.  Notice that they never got within 500 miles of the equator. 

What strikes me about this image is that they were able to reasonably accurately estimate the time dilation figures ahead of time.  At the same time, what their mathematics showed was an estimate, a projection, not reality.  They had to make the actual flights to get actual numbers.  I keep arguing with mathematicians that mathematical models do not represent reality.  Now I can argue that the model Hafele and Keating created ahead of time was amazingly close, but it still did not represent reality. 

It also interesting how many stops Hafele and Keating made when they flew in October 1971.  They made 12 stops on  their eastward trip and 13 stops on their westward trip.  In contrast, when I recently argued with Flat Earthers about flying around the world near the South Pole on regularly scheduled airlines, I found I could do it in just 4 hops:
heAround the world trip on a spherical
                            planet 

Now it is time to go back to arguing with the mathematicians.  I see there are about a half dozen posts that came in overnight requiring a response from me.  Meanwhile, yesterday someone wanted to be added as member of my Facebook group on Time and Time Dilation.  I added him, and this morning he's asking all kinds of questions which I answered while writing this comment.  Correcting all the remaining problems from last Wednesday's "disaster" will just have to wait.

September 17, 2018 (B) - Okay, it is now Monday morning and it appears that I can now update this web site once again. I lost the ability to make changes to this site on Wednesday morning, Sept. 12.  I'm not certain exactly what happened, but it seems that I somehow downloaded a bad copy of my website maintenance software.  It's possible it was a deliberate hack by someone.  But the effects were catastrophic.  I lost all  my bookmarks, I lost all the information that gets put into boxes automatically when I fill out forms (I think it was all in a "cookies" file).  All my passwords were lost.  (Fortunately, I had 95% of my passwords written down.)  So, I've been bumbling around trying to fix things ever since.

While I was trying to recover from the "catastrophe," I was still arguing with people on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  The bookmark for that forum was one of the first I was able to recover.  I suppose it would have made more sense to have spent all my time trying to recover my ability to update this web site, but there were times when I had to wait for answers from people at my host site and from people on the support forum for my web site maintenance software.  So, I used that time to argue about physics.  

One of the more bizarre things that happened during the catastrophe was that all the links in my copy of this web page were lost.  All the links to images were changed somehow.  For example, the email address at the top of this page was made accessible by somehow changing the link address from email-1.jpg to fttps://ftp.ed-lake.com/index.html/email-1.jpg.  The image below shows the bad link after I inserted the image back right above the bad link: 
bad link example #1

As another example, in my September 10 (A) post I included an image I got from someone else's web site.   After the catastrophe, an image of how an atomic clock works was just another empty square on my web page with a broken link indicator in the upper left corner.  Below is a screen capture of it with my notes added and showing the screwed up link that appeared when I held the cursor over the image box:

bad links

I just made the necessary corrections to show those images correctly.  There were just six of them.

I had to recover by going back to a copy of this page I saved on Sept. 1.  It was all very bizarre, and I've got a long way to go to fully recover - if it is possible to recover.   I may have lost all my saved emails. 

September 17, 2018 (A) - While eating breakfast this morning I finished reading a book on my Kindle.  The book was "The Taking of K-129: How the CIA Used Howard Hughes to Steal a Russian Sub" by Josh Dean.

The Taking of K-129

It was a fairly enjoyable read, going into endless detail about the CIA operation to recover a Soviet submarine that sank in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in 1968.  The CIA had to build a supership, the Glomar Explorer, to try to raise the sub from the ocean floor, 17,000 feet down.   The sub broke apart while it was being lifted, but they managed to get some of it.  It was a very BIG story when the news broke about it in 1975.


Comments for Sunday, September 9, 2018, thru Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018:

September 15, 2018 - Ouch!  Microsoft installed a new version of Windows 10 on Wednesday morning and some related problem nearly put me out of business.  I lost all my bookmarks, and I have to recreate my three email accounts.  I've recreated two of them.  The last time I did a backup of my bookmarks was on October 6, 2014.  And it appears I lost all my saved emails!

I've been doing things almost by rote for years.  Then suddenly I had to figure out how to get to things that used to be almost automatic.   It turned out it wasn't a problem with Windows 10, it was a problem with my website software.  I was asked to download a new version of SeaMonkey that morning, and there was something wrong with that download.  It's possible is was some kind of hack.

I couldn't even access my copy of Microsoft Word that morning.  The icons "pinned" at the bottom of the screen were all gone.  I had to hunt for the program in the directory, and then when I found it, it was like I had just bought it and had never used it before.  However, all my Word documents are okay.  Whew!

I was right in the middle of some very interesting arguments on Google/Usenet, and then I had to figure out how to get into those newsgroups again.  I managed to do that later in the morning.

I've given up on the idea of adding a detailed description of how atomic clocks work to my paper on "What is Time?"  It doesn't seem worthwhile.  And I also need to recover from this morning's disaster.

Groan!  When I first tried to put this message on-line and found that all my saved file information is gone.  So, I couldn't even update this web site without first contacting my host and getting information from them.

That is what I've been doing for the past few days.  I was in a state of total panic part of the time.  But now I feel things are starting to work again.  I got a lot of information from the Seamonkey users forum.  But mostly it was just a matter of spending the time to figure things out.

September 11, 2018
- Yesterday, in a thread I had started on a Google/Usenet forum, I finally got a mathematician to answer a question.  The question was based upon the use of a pulsar to measure time as described in my time dilation page.  Here is the question I asked:

1. There is a pulsar that flashes once per second when viewed from Earth.  

2.  You are on Earth boiling a 3-minute egg using the pulsar as a timer.

3. I am traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light at right angles to that pulsar, and I am also boiling an egg using that pulsar as a timer.

4. Will we have counted the same number of pulses when the 3-minute egg is done?
The answer was:
No.
Of course, that wasn't a meaningful answer, so I had to ask another question:
Who will have counted the larger number of pulses and why?
And the answer was:
Should be rather obvious.

Moving at 99.5% of c inertially relative to the pulsar (at right angles,
so no Doppler, good) is equivalent to using the frame of reference where the spaceship is stationary and the pulsar is moving the opposite direction at 99.5% c.  Since moving clocks are perceived to run slow by the stationary observer, the pulsar will be seen as running slow. At 99.5% c gamma is about 10, so the pulsar will be perceived as ticking ~1 time per 10 seconds.
For me, that was a jaw-dropping answer.  I had to study it for a few minutes to make sure I was reading it correctly.  He was using a mathematical model where the spaceship is stationary and the pulsar is moving.  Evidently, he had no mathematical model that represented reality, a reality where the observer is moving and is observing a stationary clock.

I responded with a point by point explanation of where he was wrong, and he responded to each of my points, then I responded to his points, and the result looked something like this:

Me: Nope.  BZZZZZ!  WRONG!!!  Sorry.  

Why do you complicate this simple experiment by imagining the spaceship is stationary and the pulsar is moving in the opposite direction?
Him: Relative motion. Galileo. First Postulate of Relativity.

I explicitly spelled it out in more detail since I knew you'd trip yourself up responding to it. Thanks for taking the bait!
Me: So, your answer is your MISINTERPRETATION of those subjects?
Me: I assume you ignore reality in order to use some mathematical model. Well, your math is WRONG. 
Him: Sorry, reality does show time dilation (moving clocks are perceived as slowing down). Regardless of whether you like the math or not.
Me: Nope.  WRONG AGAIN.  Reality shows time dilation CAUSES clocks to ACTUALLY slow down.  In reality, you cannot "perceive" the clocks because they are a long distance away and probably traveling at very high speeds.   Plus, "perceiving clocks" like that adds problems with the time it takes light to reach the observer. 
Me: What is important to realize is that the twin on Earth will measure 180 pulsar ticks (180 seconds) while boiling a 3-minute egg.  And his local clock will also measure 180 seconds or 3 minutes.

The traveling twin will experience time dilation, i.e., the slowing of time.   
Him: So WTF do you have the pulsar speeding up?!
Me: What is WTF?  Why TF?  What TF?  When TF?

The pulsar does NOT speed up.  It just sits there pulsing away at its regular rate.  That's the whole point for using the pulsar.
Me: At 99.5% of the speed of light, one second for him will equal 10 seconds back on Earth.
Him: You'll have to deal with Mr. Doppler, but ignoring that, the traveling  twin will see the earth clock running 10 times slower.
Me: Nonsense.  There is no Doppler shift involved, and the traveling twin cannot see the earth clock.  It is trillions of miles away. The main purpose of using a pulsar is so you do not have to use MAGIC to see a clock that is
trillions of miles away.
Me: The pulsar doesn't move and it doesn't change tick rates.
Him: Doesn't move relative to whom? Are you screwing up by assuming some sort of absolute rest frame, in which the pulsar is stationary?
Me: No, I am talking about REALITY.  The pulsar just sits there spinning.  It may be moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, but that has nothing to do with anything.  You are adding in nonsense and complicating a situation that is really very simple.
Me: So, the twin on the space ship will measure the passing of 3 minutes or 180 seconds according to his own clocks while boiling his 3-minute egg, but the pulsar will have ticked 1,800 times during that same period.
Him: WTF with the speeding pulsar? Sounds like you have got time dilation back assward.  SR time dilation never speeds things up.
Me: THERE IS NO SPEEDING PULSAR - except in some idiotic mathematical model you seem to be obsessed with.  You clearly do not understand time dilation at all.  No one said SR time dilation speeds things up.  Where did you get that from?

The traveling twin is moving at 95% of the speed of light.  Time for him moves at 1/10th the rate that it moves for the twin on Earth.  So, because time is moving so slowly for the traveling twin, he sees the Earth orbit the sun every 36.5 days.  And he sees the pulsar pulsing 10 times per second.
Him: Sorry, I don't care for your fantasy science. Especially since you refuse to read/listen to experts in the field (called LEARNING). I'll stick with what that Einstein fellow said, no matter how many people here hate him.
Me: But your BELIEFS have nothing to do with what Einstein wrote.  That is what I am trying to explain to you.

Because of their high speed, time slows down for the traveling twin and everything on his ship.  That means he ages slower, he thinks slower, he digests food slower, etc.  And, to him, everything outside of the ship seems to be moving faster than normal.  That includes the pulsar.  It also includes his twin brother back home.  That is what time dilation means.
This morning I checked the thread and was very disappointed to find no further response.  He last posted 22 hours ago, and my last response to him was posted 19 hours ago.  It could be that he is contemplating how to respond to what I wrote, but it seems more likely that he has just decided I am too dumb to bother with.

Strangely, no one else has put in their two cents, either (except for a post by Wilbur Foley, who couldn't understand why my adversary believed the pulsar had to be moving).  The thread simply stopped, although it is getting more "views," meaning people are still reading it.

I found the exchange to be absolutely fascinating.  He simply could not relate his memorized mathematical formulas to reality.  To him, the spaceship cannot be moving because it contains an observer, and for the math to work all observers have to be stationary when they are observing.  It's a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's First Postulate.  And since the observer must be stationary, that means the pulsar must be moving.  If the pulsar isn't moving that means it must be some kind of fictional "absolute reference frame."

It seems to go back to the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics:

#1.  All motion is reciprocal.
If you are flying a space ship to Alpha Centauri, it is no different mathematically from Alpha Centauri flying to your space ship.  The fact that humans only know how to move space ships, they do not know how to move stars and universes to make them come to a stationary spaceship is irrelevant.  It works mathematically.

September 10, 2018 (B)
- While I was working out at the gym this afternoon, they had CNN on one of the TVs, and the discussion was partly about that op-ed piece in the New York Times.  The author of the piece used the word "lodestar," which is a rarely used, very odd word, that Vice President Mike Pence uses quite often.  A lot of people are speculating that Mike Pence wrote the op-ed piece.  If it were a betting man, I'd bet they are right.  According to other sources, Mike Pence thinks God wants him to be President.  And getting Trump impeached is the fastest and only reliable way to make that happen.       


September 10, 2018 (A) - Each morning I check the statistics for this web site, and for several weeks I kept noticing that every day a few people who had never visited this site before were accessing my time dilation page.  I created the page back on March 23, 2014, and last modified it on May 11, 2015.  I hadn't really looked at it since then.  Then, a couple days ago, I decided to read the page to see what was attracting all the attention.

Hmm.  Wow.  I'd forgotten about the argument I use in the page.  I wrote it because of all the stupid arguments over whose clock runs faster in a time dilation experiment.  Was it the clock next to the homebody twin on Earth or the clock next to the space traveler twin on his way to Alpha Centauri?  Some of the arguments were about magically looking at a clock that was a trillion miles away and traveling millions of miles per hour.   Other arguments were about how motion is relative and each twin will see the other's clock as running slow.  I had gotten tired of such arguments, since they were mostly about the complications of actually seeing clocks at such distances, so I decided the best way to discuss time dilation was to use a "clock" that both of the twins in the experiment could easily see.   I used a pulsar.

Wow!  How could I have forgotten about that!?  Each twin has a clock next to him, plus he can use a telescope to check the spin rate of the pulsar and compare that spin rate to his own clock's tick rate.   There is no need for either twin to see the other's clock.  The experiment can be performed by simply having each twin compare the tick rate of his own clock to the "tick rate" of the pulsar.  And when the two twins get back together again, they can compare the total time measured by their personal clocks and the total ticks they counted for the pulsar.

The pulsar will "tick" or spin once per second for the twin on Earth.  But, due to time dilation, the traveling twin will see it tick or spin much faster than that.  If he is going 99.5% of the speed of light, he will see the pulsar tick 10 times per second.  Is there any argument against that?  I've certainly never heard any.  So, I started a new thread on the Google discussion forum to see if there are any arguments.  So far, I haven't encountered any.  Mostly the response is just personal attacks and claims that I do not understand physics.  No one has actually discussed the pulsar idea.  But, I'll keep trying to get them to discuss it.  It appears they have no mathematical equations or memorized dogma that involves pulsars, so they have nothing to say.

Meanwhile, this morning my subconscious made me aware of what was preventing me from writing a description of how an atomic clock works.  I am hung up on the fact that the quartz crystal that generates the microwave photons that hit the cesium atoms doesn't seem to experience any change in the rate that time passes.  The microwave generator evidently generates photons of the same wavelength regardless of any movement of the rest of the clock.  It is only because of the feedback system that the microwave generator changes photon frequencies.  It is told to change frequencies by the part of the clock that checks how many cesium-133 atoms changed their polarity.

Here is the schematic of an atomic clock I used yesterday:

How an atomic clock works

The "Quartz Oscillator" near the bottom right of the illustration evidently creates the photons that are shot upward to hit the cesium-133 atoms that are moving from left to right between the two arms of the goalpost-like "Microwave Interrogation Cavity."  The Quartz Oscillator wouldn't change the photon oscillation frequency if the "Servo Feedback" didn't tell it to.

It's like the oscillation rate of the particles in the cesium-133 atoms are affected by changes in altitude and/or velocity for the clock, but the atoms that comprise the equipment in the lower right of the diagram are not affected by changes in altitude and/or velocity.  Or, they are affected but not in any way that affects how the equipment functions.  

To put it another way, one part of the clock is affected by altitude and velocity, but the rest of the clock is not affected.  I still need to figure out how to make sense of that so I can describe it to others.      


September 9, 2018 - It seems like I've been saying for about two weeks that I'm adding a description of how atomic clocks work to my paper on "What is Time?" In reality, I started to do that, I wrote a few paragraphs, but for the past week or so I've mostly just been staring at what I've written.  The problem seems to be that I could write 15 pages on the subject of how atomic clocks work, but who would care?  I've learned how atomic clocks work, so I can argue the subject, but the only part of a cesium atomic clock that that I think is extra important for people to understand is what is called the "Microwave Interrogation Cavity" (the football goal post-like device) in the illustration below:

how an atomic clock works

A large number of Cesium atoms are ejected at high speed from the Cesium Oven on the left.  Some are magnetically positive, some are negative.  They all pass between magnets which get rid of the positively charged atoms.  The remaining negatively charged atoms then pass through the cavity and are bombarded with photons oscillating 9,192,631,770 times per second (Hz), which causes the atoms' magnetic charge to change from negative to positive. 

Interestingly, all that is changed is the orbit of one electron, the atom that orbits all by itself in the outermost "shell" as described and illustrated in my Sept. 2 comment.  It's the one in the upper right corner of the illustration below.  The orbit is flipped like flipping a pancake, so that the outermost electron orbits in the opposite direction as the nucleus in the center: 

cesium 133 atom

All the moving cesium atoms in the atomic clock then pass between more magnets which get rid of those that are still negatively charged.  The atoms then enter into the detector which counts the positively charged atoms. 

If the detector shows that the number of positively charged atoms reaching that point is less than "maximum," adjustments are made to the oscillation rate of the photons that are used to bombard the atoms.  It's much like fiddling with the tuning knob on a radio to get the strongest signal.  The oscillation rate of the photons in the bombardment is adjusted upward and downward from
9,192,631,770 Hz.  Whatever the oscillation rate is change to, the number of oscillations that constitutes one second is always 9,192,631,770. 

So, if the clock is lifted to a higher altitude where time moves faster, it will take less time to count
9,192,631,770 oscillations, but one second is still officially 9,192,631,770 oscillations. 

What this also means is that a cesium-133 atom oscillates at a faster rate at higher altitudes and at a slower rate at lower altitudes.  And so do all other kinds of atoms. Cesium-133 is just easier to work with than other kinds of atoms when building atomic clocks.  (Cesium, like mercury, is liquid at room temperatures.  So, it is easier to turn into the gas that allows sending individual atoms through the magnets and the cavity to the detector.)

It also says that a photon doesn't change its oscillation rate when traveling upward or downward.  A photon oscillating at
9,192,631,770 Hz can change the polarity of a cesium-133 that is at the same altitude, but it won't be able to change the polarity of that same atom if the atom is at a much lower (or higher) altitude.  

I guess my point is: If I write a 15-page description of how an atomic clock works, that description can cite a dozen papers and books as references, except for what is happening inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity."  My paper would focus on what external conditions can cause the clock to change the oscillation frequency of the microwave photons used to bombard the cesium-133 atoms.  I cannot find a single paper or book that addresses those external causes.  They just explain how the atomic clock's internal workings adjust the microwave photon oscillation frequency to compensate for tiny deviations that result from pure happenstance.

If I cannot cite any papers or books that address those external causes, will anyone accept the logic?  Or will they demand that I cite references about those causes?

That's what I've been thinking about as I stare at what I wrote so far and wonder if I should continue.  


Comments for Saturday September 1, 2018, thru Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018:

September 6, 2018 - This morning someone sent me a link to a new blog web page about problems with LIDAR and radar.  The page is titled "FMCW LIDAR is coming, what does it mean?" and it was written by Brad Templeton, a famous software architect who seems to be one of the founders of Usenet.

What I found most interesting in the article are two mentions of driverless robocars that crashed into vehicles crossing their paths.  Radar guns use the Doppler shift to check speeds of vehicles moving relative to the radar gun.  A vehicle moving across its path can evidently be confused with the ground, which can be considered to be moving relative to the radar gun but does not register on the radar gun.  The article says,  

It should be noted though, that things moving horizontally, perpendicular to you, show almost no Doppler signature. That's why you see problems like the Tesla fatality in Florida, where Tesla's system could not identify a giant truck crossing the road in front of it. With no Doppler [effect], the radar could not tell it from the regular radar returns that come from stationary objects, which are always present. (LIDAR would have of course seen the truck and braked, but taken time to figure out how it was moving.)
And,
Sadly, many of the "nightmare" scenarios for robocars involve things that are crossing your path rather than moving along with it or towards you.
That seems to strongly support what I was told about how basic radar guns work.  I was told that if the radar gun is used from a moving vehicle, it would measure the speed of a highway sign next to the road to be zero.  That agrees with the article above in that something moving across the radar guns beam would also register as having a speed of zero, just like the highway sign.  You get Doppler shifted photons back from an object only if the object is moving toward you or away from you.  If you are moving toward it, there is no Doppler shift.  So, contrary to what many have argued, the radar gun will NOT show the highway sign to have a speed of 60 mph if the gun is in a car going 60 mph.

I still need to find a good source that describes the physics of how that works.   I describe my understanding of it in my paper about radar guns, but it would help greatly if I also had some good sources to support what I wrote.

September 4, 2018 - Hmm.  I awoke this morning with another idea that I just can't stop thinking about.  Evidently, my subconscious put together some pieces that my conscious mind wasn't even thinking about, and now I have to decide if I should just ignore my subconscious, or if it is really an important idea that I should investigate more thoroughly.

The idea is that Black Holes aren't what scientists believe and claim they are.  They are not locations where gravity is so powerful that light cannot escape.  My subconscious tells me that they are locations where gravity is so powerful that light photons cannot be created.   I think that either way the results are what we observe when black holes are examined via telescopes.

I'm not sure what pieces fell together to make my subconscious come to that conclusion, but it seems to be that (1) gravity affects the spin rate of atoms, (2)  photons cannot be absorbed by atoms that normally absorb them if the difference in gravity between emitter and absorber is very great, (3) atoms cannot emit light photons if they cannot absorb light photons, (4) black holes probably do not contain intact atoms, only highly compressed particles, and (5) a black hole consisting of super-compacted particles makes much more sense than a black hole that consists of an imaginary "singularity." 

On top of that is another "piece" I read that has been bugging me ever since I found it.  I was browsing through a book titled "When Einstein Walked with Gödel: Excursions to the Edge of Thought" by Jim Holt, when I read this:
Suppose—to make things vivid—that the speed of light is a hundred miles an hour. Now suppose I am standing by the side of the road and I see a light beam pass by at this speed. Then I see you chasing after it in a car at sixty miles an hour. To me, it appears that the light beam is outpacing you by forty miles an hour. But you, from inside your car, must see the beam escaping you at a hundred miles an hour, just as you would if you were standing still: that is what the light principle demands. What if you gun your engine and speed up to ninety-nine miles an hour? Now I see the beam of light outpacing you by just one mile an hour. Yet to you, inside the car, the beam is still racing ahead at a hundred miles an hour, despite your increased speed. How can this be? Speed, of course, equals distance divided by time.
That bugged me, since if an object is traveling at 99% of the speed of light and emits a light, that light must travel at the same speed in all directions.  When an atom emits a photon, it emits it in a completely random direction.  And that photon travels at c where c is the speed of light measured using a very very long second.  So, it is actually a very slow moving photon.  How can a slow-moving photon emitted from a fast moving car travel faster than the car if it is a certainty that the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of  the car?

Groan!  I'm going to have to think about that some more.  And I really wanted to think about describing how atomic clocks work.  Hmm.  Would an atomic clock stop working if gravity was too strong to allow photons to change the polarity of cesium-133 atoms in the small space provided within the clock?  I think I'd need to create an illustration before anyone else could make sense of that question.  

September 3, 2018
- This morning I decided I needed to keep better track of things I find while doing research.  The prime example is the list of time dilation experiments I compiled yesterday.  I should have that list somewhere that is both easy to locate and also easy to make changes and additions.  So, I created a new web page for the list.  It is still under construction, but the plan is to not only include a list of all the time dilation experiments I can find, but to also include comments, images, and links to scientific papers, news articles and books about each experiment.

Because I figure there would probably be other things I would want to keep track of in a similar way, I also created a directory to the lists.  And I put a link to that directory in the right-most of the four "click here" boxes near the top of the main page of this web site.   (I haven't been paying much attention to those boxes, and I discovered this morning that one contained a link that no longer works, and another contained a link to Facebook pages that I haven't visited in years.  Both have been replaced by new links.)

Unfortunately, I also found that it's a lot of work to create a web page when you already have a lot of stuff to put in it.  The new list of time dilation experiments requires that I research each one of the experiments (all 12 of them!) in order to create links, quotes, etc.  It will probably be a long time before I get just the first 12 to show the information I think should be on such a page.  Meanwhile, it will be a work in progress.     


September 2, 2018 - I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed again.  I feel like I'm spending all my time looking for needles in a haystack.  The "needles" are facts and statements which clearly and logically explain some topic of interest to me, and the "haystack" is a mountain of irrelevant facts, incorrect information, and endless mathematical equations I'm finding via the Internet.

I'm still researching how atomic clocks work.  I think I understand how they work, but it would be very helpful if I could find some source that says that the cesium-133 atoms used within the clock spin at different rates at different altitudes and velocities.   I haven't been able to find a single source about atomic clocks that says that, but it is definitely implied in articles about time dilation.

Here are four different illustrations
I found on the Internet of the cesium-133 atom used in standard atomic clocks:

Cessium-133 atom
Cessium-133 atom
Cessium-133 atom
Cessium-133 atom

The dots along the circles around the center are electrons.  There are 55 of them.  In the center is a rotating tightly packed clump of 55 protons and 78 neutrons.  The 4 images above seem to suggest that there is no coherent pattern to where the 55 electrons are positioned, but then I found this information on page 63 of a book titled "The Physics of Metrology":
Cesium atoms have six electron shells, housing a total of 55 orbiting electrons in numbers of 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 1.  With this distribution, each shell houses the highest possible number of electrons it can support, except for the outermost shell with its single electron. Only the latter will flip in response to radiation at the cesium’s critical frequency, while the inner shells are too stable to be affected. This critical frequency turns out to be 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second. And by international agreement, the SI second (atomic second) became the interval of time for 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium 133 atom when exposed to suitable excitation.
Then you can look at the four illustrations again, and, sure enough, there is 1 electron in the outermost circle (or shell or orbit), there are 8 electrons in the next circle, 18 in the next, another 18 in the next, 8 in the next, and 2 in the circle closest to the nucleus.  

The key to making atomic clocks work is the 1 lone electron that is spinning around the nucleus in the outermost orbit.  It can be made to spin in the same direction the nucleus spins, or in the opposite direction.  When you change the direction of the spin of that electron, you do not stop it and send it in the opposite direction, you flip the orbit like you would flip over a phonograph record (remember those) or a 2 sided DVD, except that the electron keeps moving as its orbit (or shell) flips.  The result is a change in the magnetic properties of the entire atom.  Instead of negative, the atom becomes magnetically positive.

And what can cause that electron to flip its orbit?  Being hit by a photon that is oscillating
9,192,631,770 times per second. If the photon is oscillating faster than that or slower than that, the electron won't flip.  So, you know an atomic clock is ticking at the correct rate when, inside the atomic clock, a ray of photons hits a beam of negatively charged cesium atoms and most of the outermost electrons in the atoms flip their orbits to a positive charge.

If fewer than the acceptable number of atoms flip their magnetic charges, then the clock will adjust the oscillation frequency of the photons until the maximum flips are again reached.  Changing the oscillation frequency of the photons doesn't change the length of a second, because, for time keeping purposes, a second is still a count of
9,192,631,770 oscillations.  But, if you were to compare how long it takes to count 9,192,631,770 oscillations at one altitude versus another, you would see it takes longer at lower altitudes and it takes less time at higher altitudes.

The problem is: The books and papers about how atomic clocks work do not say what will cause the number of flips to decrease.  They just tell you how the clock adjusts the oscillation rate of the photons to get the flip rate back to maximum.  But, logically, the decrease in the number of flipped electrons must be caused by movement of the clock (whether is is done by man or by Nature) or by some fluctuation of the power source.  The clock is shielded from changes in the magnetic environment and most other possible causes for error.  

One of the recent arguments I had on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum was again about a claim from a mathematician that time does not change rates at different altitudes or velocities.  He claimed that is shown by many experiments, but he didn't name any such experiments.  His exact argument was:
If your claim were true, experiments could not possibly confirm the validity of SR [Special Relativity]. They do.
In my response I listed 5 experiments which show that time ticks at different rates at different altitudes and velocities:
1. Hafele-Keating.
2. NIST aluminum ion clock experiment (1 foot change in altitude)
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Ives-Stillwell.
5. Muon experiments
Then I realized I should add to that list and maintain such a list for future arguments.  The Wikipedia entry for the Hafele-Keating experiment lists a bunch of additional experiments which confirmed the variability of time:
University of Maryland experiments performed between September 1975 and January 1976 involved putting three atomic clocks aboard a slow-moving aircraft and flying them around in circles for 15 hours at an altitude of 10 kilometers (32,808 feet).  The time difference was measured by direct clock comparison at the ground before and after the flight, as well as during the flight by laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration. 

Between 1975 and 1977, Japanese scientists carried a commercial cesium clock back and forth from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan in Mitaka, at 58 m (190 ft) above sea level, to Norikura corona station, at 2,876 m (9,436 ft) above sea level.

In 1976, Briatore and Leschiutta compared the rates of two cesium clocks, one in Turin 250 m (820 ft) above sea level, the other at Plateau Rosa 3,500 m (11,500 ft) above sea level.

In 1996, the National Physical Laboratory repeated the Hafele-Keating experiment by flying back and forth between London and Washington D.C. 

In 2005, van Baak measured the gravitational time dilation of a weekend at the top of Mt. Rainier using two ensembles of three HP 5071A cesium beam clocks.

In June 2010, the National Physical Laboratory again repeated the Hafele-Keating experiment, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hong Kong - London). 

In 2016, van Baak repeated his experiment on Mt. Lemmon for the television show Genius by Stephen Hawking.
All seven of those experiments verified time dilation.  So, I just need to give each one of those experiments a name and merge them with the list of 5 to produce a new list of a dozen experiments that I can throw at mathematicians every time they argue that time moves as a constant rate and does NOT change rates with changes in altitude and velocity.  There are probably other experiments that can be put on the list, too. 

And, while doing that, I need to work on my paper "What is Time?" to include how atomic clocks work and how atomic clocks demonstrate that "time is particle spin."  Sigh.



Comments for Sunday, August 26, 2018, thru Friday, August 31, 2018:

August 31, 2018 - Grumble grumble.  While doing research this morning I stumbled across something I wrote about on December 3, 2017.  At that time I also showed this image from page 17 of the April 19, 1921 issue of the The New York Times: 

Einstein article about the variable
                            speed of light

How could I have failed to include that news story as a reference in my article about
"Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light"?!  And why didn't I use it in my arguments on the sci.physics.relativity forum?  Somehow I'd forgotten about the NYT article, which more clearly than any other source explains why the speed of light is variable.  The image is from a web site HERE, which also includes images of the rest of the article, and the entire article was also included in a book titled "Albert Meets America," which I have in my collection.
 

August 30, 2018 - The discussion about my paper on "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light" that I started on August 15 is continuing even though I haven't posted any comments to the sci.physics.relativity forum since August 25th.  I don't think the discussion is about my paper anymore, since my name is not being mentioned.  I'm not sure what it is about, since it is arguments between mathematicians, and half of each argument consists of mathematical equations with most of the rest referring to various theories and theorists.

I'm still trying to describe the workings of an atomic clock in layman's terms for the revision to (or overhaul of) my paper on "What is Time?".  But, I've run into an unexpected problem.  Here is the official definition of a second:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
When I first read that definition, I thought it meant something totally different from what it now seems to say.  I thought it had to do with the creation of light photons.  I thought it was some kind of measurement of how fast two cesium 133 atoms can toss an excess light photon back and forth, or how fast one cesium 133 atom could reject light photons shot at it from a laser.  But, I now see that an atomic clock doesn't do anything like that.

Understanding the term "corresponding to" is the trick.  It's all about how a microwave photon oscillating at the rate of
9,192,631,770 cycles per second corresponds to a "transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."  You need a microwave photon of that frequency to cause a "transition of hyperfine levels" in a cesium 133 atom.

I had to create illustrations to make sense of what is meant by a "transition of hyperfine levels."  It is also very different from what I'd thought.  It's not about changing orbits, it's about flipping an electrical or magnetic charge from positive to negative.  I won't go into details here, since I could spend all day on it, I still don't fully understand it myself, and I need to get back to doing research to make sure I do truly understand the process.

The problem is that most of the books and articles on the subject of how atomic clocks work do not really explain how atomic clocks work, they just repeat or rephrase what the author read somewhere was an explanation.  So, they are usually just a lot of buzzwords which generate unanswered questions.  This morning I found two books which have sections which go into great detail about how atomic clocks work.  "The Physics of Metrology" has just five pages on the topic, but the number of pages isn't as important as the clarity of what is said.  It seems very clear.  I just need the time to study it.  "The Quantum Beat" has 25 pages on the subject, and seems to go into great detail about every step and how each piece of equipment works.  Again, I just need time to study it. 

I just hope that when I finish all this research and studying of atomic clocks I'll have something I can use to disprove the claims by some mathematicians that time does not slow down or speed up, claims that time passes at the same rate everywhere, and claims that it is just an illusion when we think we measure time as slowing down or speeding up in another "frame of reference."

August 28, 2018 - While driving around doing chores this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #10 from the 10-CD set for "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership" by James Comey.

A Higher Loyalty

I found it to be a very interesting and enjoyable book, unexpectedly so.  I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but what I got was a book about management and ethics. and a book about how "tribalism" seems to be creeping back into American life.  It's a book about how respect for the law is what keeps us from going back to tribalism, where everyone is subject to the whims of the chief who leads the tribe.  And that is what Donald Trump wants (or wanted) to be - some kind of Chief of some kind of White American Tribe.  Or the head gangster in some nation-wide gang.

The book is an autobiography, so James Comey spends a lot of time going through all his experiences before be became the head of the FBI during the Obama administration.  Early in the book Comey describes how he and his younger brother were at home alone one night and a burglar broke in, not expecting anyone to be home.  So, the Comey brothers (both less than 13 years old) had to figure out how to deal with a man pointing a gun at them.  They convinced the burglar to lock them in a room in the cellar where they knew how to escape via a window high on the wall.  But, when they escaped, the burglar was outside waiting for them.  That resulted in a lot of screaming and yelling, which attracted neighbors, and the burglar finally ran away.  It was the kind of story that you do not want to hear while driving, since when you reach your destination you either have sit in your car and listen to the rest of it, or you have to turn your car off right in the middle of the story.  I turned it off, but it was still fresh in my mind the next day when I got back in my car to hear how things ended.  (It is the reason why I do not listen to novels while driving.)

Comey's book doesn't really get into the Trump Presidency until nearly 3/4ths of the way through.  But there's still plenty of interesting stuff there.  I also borrowed the Kindle version from my library, so I can quote passages of interest, such as the time (after Trump was elected, but before he was sworn in) when Comey had to advise Trump of some things that Trump needed to know about:
After Trump finished with his opening monologue, which lasted for a minute or so, I explained the nature of the material I was about to discuss and why we thought it important that he know about it. I then began to summarize the allegation in the dossier that he had been with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013 and that the Russians had filmed the episode. I didn’t mention one particular allegation in the dossier—that he was having prostitutes urinate on each other on the very bed President Obama and the First Lady had once slept in as a way of soiling the bed. I figured that single detail was not necessary to put him on notice about the material. This whole thing was weird enough. As I spoke, I felt a strange out-of-body experience, as if I were watching myself speak to the new president about prostitutes in Russia. Before I finished, Trump interrupted sharply, with a dismissive tone. He was eager to protest that the allegations weren’t true. I explained that I wasn’t saying the FBI believed the allegations. We simply thought it important that he know they were out there and being widely circulated. I added that one of the FBI’s jobs is to protect the presidency from any kind of coercion, and, whether or not the allegations were true, it was important that he know Russians might be saying such things. I stressed that we did not want to keep information from him, particularly given that the press was about to report it. He again strongly denied the allegations, asking—rhetorically, I assumed—whether he seemed like a guy who needed the services of prostitutes.
Trump certainly acts like he's afraid that Putin might put that "filmed episode" on YouTube if Trump ever does something to cross Putin.

There are other interesting things about Trump I hadn't really noticed before, but when they are mentioned you realize they are correct.  For example, Trump almost never laughs.  And the only time he does laugh is when something cruel happens to someone he dislikes.

The part of the book where Trump fired Comey is fascinating.  Comey was in California talking with perspective FBI agents when everyone saw it appear on the news that Comey had been fired.  The room had TVs on the back wall.  But then things got really nasty, and we can see how petty Trump can be.  Trump wanted Comey to have to find his own way home from California, but the FBI flew him back. 
President Trump, who apparently watches quite a bit of TV at the White House, saw those images of me thanking the cops [who escorted him to and from the airport] and flying away. They infuriated him. Early the next morning, he called McCabe and told him he wanted an investigation into how I had been allowed to use the FBI plane to return from California. McCabe replied that he could look into how I had been allowed to fly back to Washington, but that he didn’t need to. He had authorized it, McCabe told the president. The plane had to come back, the security detail had to come back, and the FBI was obligated to return me safely. The president exploded. He ordered that I was not to be allowed back on FBI property again, ever. My former staff boxed up my belongings as if I had died and delivered them to my home.
The book ends with some of Comey's thoughts about Donald Trump.  An example:
Donald Trump’s presidency threatens much of what is good in this nation. We all bear responsibility for the deeply flawed choices put before voters during the 2016 election, and our country is paying a high price: this president is unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values. His leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty.
and:
I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served presidents of both parties. What is happening now is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay. Whatever your politics, it is wrong to dismiss the damage to the norms and traditions that have guided the presidency and our public life for decades or, in many cases, since the republic was founded. It is also wrong to stand idly by, or worse, to stay silent when you know better, while a president brazenly seeks to undermine public confidence in law enforcement institutions that were established to keep our leaders in check.
I could go on and on, but I recommend you read the book.

By the way, while I was working out at the gym this afternoon, a news show on one of the gym's TVs was interviewing an author whose new book came out today.  The book is titled "The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence," by Michael D'Antonio.  As soon as I got home, I made a recommendation to my local library that they buy the book.  It looks like it could be an interesting read. 

While I think Trump is a total jerk and by far the worst President this country has ever had, I do not want to see him impeached.  Trump may be stupid and sleazy and even a criminal, but if he was impeached he would be replaced by Mike Pence.  And Mike Pence is just plain evil.
 
August 27, 2018 - Uh oh.  This morning I started overhauling my April 19, 2016 paper titled "What is Time?"  While doing so, I noticed this on page 3:
The speed of light is not only fixed, we know of nothing that can move faster than the speed of light. That suggests that Time Dilation must be caused by some kind of “conflict” with the speed of light. Time, or something that controls or causes Time, is forced to slow down because it cannot exceed the speed of light.

It appears there is only one “thing” that can cause Time to slow down when it conflicts with the speed of light, and that is “particle spin.” That observation seems to indicate that particle spin IS Time, and Time IS particle spin.
Hmm.  At that time I thought, like most other people, that the speed of light is fixed.   My most recent paper, however, says that the speed of light is variable, and so do all other recent papers of mine.  The turning point seems to have been my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate.  Beginning with the first version of that paper in April 2017, I began to see that if time is variable because of how fast atoms and particles spin or oscillate, the speed of light must also be variable, since atoms create light.

Needless to say, my overhaul of the "What is Time?" paper will eliminate any suggestion that the speed of light is fixed.  In 2016, I wasn't thinking about how light is created.  I don't know if I'd ever even looked into the subject.

I imagine mathematicians will see this as a "mistake," even though, at the time, I agreed with them on this subject.  They'll just see it as proof that I make mistakes and therefore cannot be trusted.  If I were to just recite memorized dogma as they do, then I could never make such a mistake. 

I see it as proof that I have an open mind, I can recognize my mistakes, and I will correct my mistakes when I see them.

August 26, 2018 - Because I want people to understand that I am not alone in siding with Albert Einstein in his arguments with mathematicians, I am always looking for other people who agree that mathematics is more like a religion than like physics or science.  Retired Caltech Professor Carver Mead agrees with that, and yesterday I found another quote from him:
Most of us took mathematics courses from mathematicians—Bad Idea!

Mathematicians see mathematics as an area of study in its own right.  The rest of us use mathematics as a precise language for expressing relationships among quantities in the real world, and as a tool for deriving quantitative conclusions from these relationships. For that purpose, mathematics courses, as they are taught today, are seldom helpful and are often downright destructive.
The quote is from the "Forward" that Prof. Mead wrote for a book titled "Street-Fighting Mathematics: The Art of Educated Guessing and Opportunistic Problem Solving," written by Sanjoy Mahajan.

Further research led to a quote from the book "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld:
The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.
And, I also found another relevant quote expressing that same idea.  It is by Carver Mead and from the "Forward" to his book "Collective Electrodynamics":
Many phenomena that in the past were seen as separate are now understood to be the same: Fire is a chemical reaction, not a separate element; temperature is energy; light is electromagnetic radiation; molecules are aggregations of atoms; mechanical forces are electromagnetic in origin; . . . Each of these equivalences represents a major unification and simplification of the knowledge base.  Ideas formerly occupying separate conceptual spaces now occupy the same conceptual space.  Each unification was made possible by a deeper understanding of existing facts, often triggered by the discovery of a crucial new fact.
I've been arguing about time and time dilation for over two years, trying to convince people that those subjects are a lot simpler than they seem and much simpler than how they are typically taught.  In the past week, those discussions and arguments have caused me to realize that I need to know exactly how atomic clocks work.  They seem to work in a way that clearly and undeniably answers the question: Is the frequency of a photon determined at the time of emission, or does the frequency of a photon change as it moves up or down through a gravitational field?  Mathematicians believe the latter, the facts seem to support the former.

If the oscillation frequency of photons changes when you raise or lower an atomic clock, that says that the mathematicians are wrong.  Mathematicians claim that the photon oscillation frequency changes as the photon travels from a high location to a low location, or from low to high.  The basic idea of an atomic clock, however, says  that the atoms and photons change frequencies when they are raised or lowered.  There is no traveling up or down by photons involved.   

As I wrote in my August 22 comment, the term "atomic clocks" is a somewhat of a misnomer.  An actual "atomic clock" would tell time by the oscillations or spinning of an atom - such as a cesium-133 atom, using those oscillations instead of a pendulum or balance wheel to measure time.  Atomic clocks do not do that.  Instead, an atomic clock that utilizes the cesium-133 atom consists of a regular quartz-crystal clock that does the oscillating and time keeping, and then there is a lot of extra equipment that adjusts and corrects the quartz-crystal oscillations if the quartz-crystal clock is not oscillating at the same rate that a cesium-133 atom oscillates.  

Quartz-crystal clocks usually have the word "quartz" on their face:
 
quartz clock

The problem is that any normal clock, even a quartz-crystal clock, will "drift" and lose or gain time depending upon temperature changes, fluctuations in its power source, etc.  After a few months or years, you may note that the time it displays is no longer the exact time as provided by the "Naval Observatory" or the "Bureau of Standards" or from wherever you obtained the exact time when you set the clock. It has become a minute or two off.  Or more.

If you do not want your clock to "drift," you can buy a radio-controlled clock, which will automatically check with the Naval Observatory every day or every hour and automatically reset your clock to that standard. 

A cesium-133 atomic clock does the same thing, except it doesn't check with the Naval Observatory, it checks the spin rate of cesium-133 atoms at your location.  It makes certain your quartz-crystal clock is ticking at the same rate as local cesium-133 atoms.  And, it appears that the atomic clock doesn't check and compare every hour or every day, it apparently checks every second

By design, an atomic clock will NOT keep the same time as the U.S. Naval Observatory clock or a clock at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  Atomic clocks aren't for "keeping time."  They are for "measuring time."  "Keeping time" is keeping in sync with some other clock that is a "standard."  "Measuring time" involves measuring how fast time passes at your location.  If you have two atomic clocks, you can measure how fast time passes at your location versus some other location.  

Maybe things will become more clear when I try to describe how an atomic clock works in a planned revision to my 2016 paper on "What is Time?".  I'm going to have to describe the process in a way that makes perfect sense to me, while at the same time trying to avoid conflict with all the articles I've read.  The problem I'm having is finding some source that makes clear exactly how the atomic clock adjusts to the correct tick rate or frequency.  I've read many different articles and papers on the subject, but they just say the clock "fine tunes" the frequency. 

It's probably a very simple process, but I'll have to make certain I fully understand it by going through each of steps described in the articles, making sure I fully understand each step before going on to describe the next step.   

It's become my #1 priority because I think it could contain irrefutable proof that photons oscillate at the rate they have when they are created and do not increase their oscillation rates as a result of "falling" toward the Earth or slow their oscillation rates as a result of " struggling against gravity" to move away from the Earth - as so many mathematicians believe.

What I cannot understand is: if scientists know and proclaim that the atomic clocks they have built can measure differences in altitude of just a foot or so, why don't they describe exactly how that is done?  The articles describe how atomic clocks work, but they do not describe how a change in altitude affects the workings of the clock.  They do not clearly state that atoms and particles change oscillation rates when raised or lowered to different altitudes.  They just say that atom oscillation rates are used to correct the time measured by a quartz-crystal clock.  I cannot find a single article that says, "atoms change their oscillation rates when their altitude or motion changes."  It is vaguely implied, but it is never clearly stated.  And if it is never stated, then mathematicians will argue that there is no article which states such a thing.  They claim that anyone who believes time ticks at different rates at different altitudes is simply wrong and those people need to take the physics courses the mathematicians took and read the books the mathematicians have read so that they will believe as mathematicians believe.   

I also cannot help but wonder if scientists do not state that time changes when the oscillation rate of an atom changes because that would directly conflict with Einstein's theory that time is related to length and distance.  Einstein's theory that time is related to length and distance seems to be the only Einstein theory with which mathematicians fully agree.  So, when you describe how an atomic clock works, and how time is related the spin or oscillations of atoms, you cannot state or even imply that Einstein was wrong. 

I'm still searching, but so far I've found eight articles and 1 book describing how atomic clocks work.  The book, which was written by scientists from the NIST in 1999, argues the mathematician's argument that Einstein claimed that time dilation is reciprocal, which is just plain absurd.  Seven of the articles, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, do not mention Albert Einstein at all.  The eighth article was written by NASA and says,
If all goes as planned, a laser-cooled clock named PARCS will be installed on the ISS in late 2004 or 2005. Experts expect it to be the most stable clock ever, keeping time within 1 second every 300 million years (1 part in 1016).

According to Einstein's theory of gravity and space-time -- called "general relativity" -- clocks in strong gravity tick slower than clocks in weak gravity. Because gravity is weaker on the ISS than at Earth's surface, PARCS should accumulate an extra second every 10,000 years compared to clocks ticking on the planet below.    
The idea of having an atomic clock on the ISS seems terrific.  So, this morning I researched PARCS.  I found this:
The Primary Atomic Reference Clock in Space or PARCS was an atomic-clock mission scheduled to fly on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2008, but cancelled to make way for the Vision for Space Exploration.
Sigh.  I just found another NASA article about PARCS from May 1, 2009, which says,
The purpose of the PARCS project is to place an advanced laser-cooled cesium atomic clock in orbit and utilize it to test a variety of predictions of the Theory of Relativity. One of these predictions, made by Albert Einstein in 1915, is that clocks tick slower in strong gravity than they do in weak gravity. An orbiting satellite might place PARCS at an altitude of 220 miles (360 kilometers), where gravity is slightly weaker than that found at the Earth's surface. Thus the PARCS clock aboard the satellite ticks faster than a clock on the surface of the Earth by about 1 second in every 10,000 years.
I cannot find any article which says that PARCS was ever launched to the ISS.  Maybe NASA gave up on the idea of putting PARCS in orbit because they just didn't want to get into a lot of arguments with mathematicians.  They certainly would have.

Further research this morning indicates that another atomic-clock-in-space program is literally having trouble getting off the ground.  ACES (Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space) has had launches postponed and is currently scheduled for launch by the Japanese some time this year.  Another such project, RACE (Rubidium Atomic Clock Experiment) was scheduled for launch in 2006 or 2007, but now seems to have been totally forgotten about.  The same with SUMO (Superconducting Microwave Oscillator).



Comments for Sunday, August 19, 2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 25, 2018:

August 23, 2018 - Explaining things in a dozen different ways really does help me understand things better.  This morning on the sci-physics.relativity discussion forum, "Paparios" continued to argue about how atomic clocks work in orbit versus on the ground.  We often seemed to agree, but it was how things were phrased that was confusing him.  Spanish is evidently his native language, and English phrasing was confusing him.  So, I explained things in a different way than how I'd previously explained and phrased things.  I wrote:
1.  We have two atomic clocks, A & B.  Both use 10.23 MHz as their operating frequency, meaning they both "tick" 10.23 million times per LOCAL second.

2.  We adjust Clock-B to tick slower.  We adjust it to tick 10.2299999954326 times per LOCAL second.  That is 10.2299999954326 MHz.

3.  We put Clock-B in a GPS satellite and send it into orbit at 20,200 kilometers (12,550 miles) above the Earth.  At that altitude, a LOCAL second is shorter.

4.  In that orbit, Clock-B continues to tick 10.2299999954326 times per LOCAL second.  HOWEVER, the LOCAL second at that altitude is shorter than a second on Earth.  The LONGER LOCAL SECOND on Earth includes a few more ticks. 

5.  So, Clock-B now ticks 10.23 million times per EARTH second.

6.  That means that Clock-A and Clock-B now tick at the same rate once again.
Wow!  I think that may be about as simple and clear as I can get.  It seems the only way it can be made more clear is with illustrations.

Meanwhile, it keeps bugging me that the way an atomic clock works confirms that photons do not speed up as they "fall" toward the Earth.  When you raise an atomic clock, the clock automatically adjusts its "tick rate" to the new altitude.  And it's "tick rate" is the photon oscillation frequency at that altitude.  The photon oscillation frequency is higher whenever the altitude is higher.

That means that when photons are sent down to earth from a high altitude, they do NOT change oscillation frequency.  They remain at the same fixed rate high frequency at which they were created at the high altitude.  Scientists down below measure the photons as being "blue-shifted" because those fixed rate photons oscillate faster than fixed rate photons created at that lower level.

It "bugs" me because it seems so clear and undeniable, yet there seem to be many mathematician-physicists who will argue that the photons change speed as they "fall," being pulled down faster and faster by gravity, or as they struggle upward against the pull of gravity and go slower and slower. 

Frustratingly, you get the same test results either way, the fixed rate way and the changing speeds way.  But, we know for certain that atomic clocks demonstrate that the cycle rates of photons and atoms speed up when the clock is moved upward and slow down when the clock is lowered.  So, there is undeniable evidence that the photons created at a higher location oscillate faster than photons emitted at a  lower altitude, and it is only a belief that photons change oscillation rates when falling or climbing.  There seems no way to demonstrate via experiment the "change speeds theory" which wouldn't also confirm the "fixed rate" version.  But logically, only the fixed rate version can be correct. 

Unfortunately, I know that the mathematician-physicists will say.  They'll use #9 from their "Current World View" as described by Carver Mead:

9. It is acceptable for a theory to be logically inconsistent.      
August 22, 2018 - The arguments on the sci.physics.relativity group seem to have changed to others arguing with each other.  They are not arguing with me as much as usual.  That's fine.  I need some time to do research.  I was researching how others describe and define a photon, but somehow while doing that it occurred to me that I do not fully understand how an atomic clock works.  And when I started researching that, it became very interesting.

I read through article after article about how atomic clocks work, and they didn't seem to say anything about keeping or measuring time.  They were just about counting certain types of atoms that absorb photons in order to find the situation or location where the greatest number of such atoms absorb photons.  What does that have to do with keeping time?

Gradually, I began to realize that that process those papers describe isn't about keeping time, it is about adjusting a regular quartz crystal clock to tick at the correct rate.  Atomic clocks aren't "atomic clocks" that somehow count the "ticks" of atoms.  They are regular quartz crystal clocks with an automatic correction feature to keep an ordinary quartz crystal clock ticking at the proper rate.

The article that first opened my eyes about that is titled "Radio-Controlled and Atomic Clocks."  Radio-controlled clocks are clocks that periodically get radio signals from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) or some other source to reset the clock so that it will reach noon or midnight at the exact same instant as the "standard" clock at the NIST.   The article begins with this:
You might have the most expensive watch in the world, but if it's set to the wrong time to begin with, it's no use to you at all. Even really good quartz clocks struggle to keep time to better than a second a day; if they wander out by just a couple of seconds in 24 hours (an amazing accuracy of 99.998 percent), and the errors don't cancel out, that could add up to a minute a month or almost a quarter of an hour a year. That's why most people regularly check their watches against a reliable time signal—like the ones you hear before news broadcasts on radio stations. Now wouldn't it be neat if your watch could listen to those broadcasts and set itself to the right time automatically without you ever needing to worry? That's the basic idea behind radio-controlled clocks and watches, which set their time by super-accurate atomic clocks.
And how do the "super-accurate atomic clocks" keep the correct time?  The article goes on to say,
Atomic clocks are actually quartz clocks—just like the ones you have at home. The difference is that an ordinary quartz clock relies purely on the oscillations of its quartz crystal to count seconds. As we've already seen, the rate at which quartz vibrates is affected by things like ambient temperature, so although a quartz clock is generally very accurate, it doesn't necessarily keep time as well as you might think. By contrast, an atomic clock has an extra mechanism—pulsating atoms—that it uses to keep an ordinary quartz clock to time.
Researching the subject further, I found another article says the same thing, but adds some new details about the the quartz clock:
The quartz-crystal oscillator in turn controls some display device such as a wall clock. Of course, the wall clock runs at a much lower frequency-usually 60 hertz, like an ordinary electric kitchen clock. To produce this lower frequency, the crystal’s frequency is reduced by electronic circuitry in a manner similar to using a train of gears to convert wheels running at one speed to run at another speed.
Then I found a free book titled "From sundials to atomic clocks: Understanding time and frequency," that was written by scientists at the NIST, and the quote above is from page 56 of that book, word for word.

So, as I understand it, an atomic clock includes mechanisms that can periodically check the oscillation frequency of photons traveling between atoms of a specific type (cesium atoms, for example) and the vibration frequency of a quartz-crystal oscillator used to control a standard digital clock.  If the frequencies do not match, the atomic clock mechanisms adjust the quartz-crystal oscillator to match the photon oscillation frequency. 

So, instead of making certain that your clock reaches the top of the hour at the exact same instant as the clock the NIST provides as a "standard" for setting all normal clocks, an atomic clock makes certain that the NIST "standard" clock is ticking at the exact same rate as cesium-133 atoms "tick" at its location.

Live and learn.

August 20, 2018 - When I hunted down, located and downloaded the 20 papers about photons mentioned on the edkurtzbooks.com web site, the second paper on the list grabbed my attention.  It is titled "The Nature of Light: What are 'Photons'?" by Carver Mead.  The name "Carver Mead" was very familiar to me, but it took a few minutes for me to realize that I had written a lot about him on this web site two years ago.  On August 7, 2016, I quoted from his 2001 American Spectator interview:
"Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game."
And, there was also an interview with Carver Mead in a British newspaper that said this:

Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe."

We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from."

If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe.

Professor Mead's arguments that mathematicians are destroying science fit very well with my thinking at the time (and still does), and I'd even tried exchanging emails with him, with no success.  

The article Prof. Mead wrote about photons contains more of the same thing.  Here are four things he lists as "The Current World View" which are certainly consistent with most arguments I get from mathematicians:
6. Mathematical elegance is the most important attribute of a theory.
7. The mathematics of a theory constitutes the entire theory.
8. It is not necessary for a theory to enable conceptual reasoning.
9. It is acceptable for a theory to be logically inconsistent.
That last one is the argument that really drives me nuts.  If you argue that a theory does not have to be logically consistent (as mathematicians constantly do), you ignore all arguments that undeniably show your theory is illogical. 

Professor Mead then says,
Once these prejudices are articulated, it becomes clear that not every person subscribes to all of them. Some seem self-evident, some seem irrelevant, and some seem nonsense to any given person. Yet no two people, even if they are working in the same discipline, agree on which is which. And all of these ideas are, in one way or another, effectively shaping current scientific discussion.
Mead then proposes an "Alternate World View" which includes these items:
14. It is centrally important for a theory to be logically consistent.
15. Mathematical elegance is important in a theory when it aids conceptual reasoning. It is destructive when it obscures otherwise accessible conceptual understanding.
16. It is rare for theory to predict new physical phenomena. In most cases each new phenomenon is discovered/invented experimentally, and the current theory is quickly "adjusted" so as to "predict" the observed result.
17. The successes in technological enterprise are attributable to conceptual reasoning. "Fundamental" physical theory, as taught in universities and and propagated in the literature, has a long history of hindering conceptual reasoning, and therefore technological progress.
And the paper also includes this:
Efforts on the old quantum theory persisted well into the 1920's. In the mid-to-late 1920's, the work of DeBroglie, Schroedingier, Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, and Dirac led from the old quantum theory to the quantum theory that is taught in schools today. Experiments during that formative period were still based on spectra from excited gasses, and hence were, by their very nature, only statistical in nature. The limitations of those experiments were built into the conceptual foundations of the new quantum mechanics, and remain there to this day. In fact, the limitation to statistical predictions was turned into a religion by Bohr and Heisenberg.

They championed the notion that "there was no deeper level to be understood.
Yes, mathematics, as promoted by Bohr and Heisenberg, has become a RELIGION.  I see it every time I argue with mathematicians.

While I certainly agree with Professor Mead that mathematicians are destroying science, the paper is titled "The Nature of Light: What are Photons?"  And I cannot agree with his theory about photons. 

His theory is difficult to decipher, since it is buried in a lot of information about what other people believe.  However, Carver Mead seems to believe that photons are "transactions" between atoms.  One atom emits a photon to another atom which accepts and then emits a new photon to another atom which repeats the process with another atom, and on and on and on.

While that is generally true, I think the important point is that the "transaction" process is not continued when a photon hits an atom that converts it into chemical energy.  I see photons as "excess energy" looking for some place where it can be put to use.  And the main place where the excess energy is used is by living things.  The energy is not destroyed, it is converted into heat and other forms of energy that living things need to thrive.

It might not be that simple, but until I see other ways that Nature utilizes the "excess energy" that photons carry from point to point, I definitely like the idea that it is in search of life.


August 19, 2018 - My new paper on Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light isn't generating much discussion.  I'm certainly getting a lot fewer arguments about it on the sci.physics.relativity discussion group than I expected.  In fact, after just 73 posts in 4 days, the thread seems to have gone stagnant.  The last post (17 hours ago as I type this) wasn't even about my paper.  It was a post from someone on my "Do Not Reply" list calling me an "idiot" because I responded to a comment from Sushika Imaki who is evidently the same person who is posting as Lovu Biftek.  Since I don't recall ever seeing any posts by either Sushika Imaki or Lovu Biftek in any previous discussions in which I participated, the claim means nothing to me.

The arguments from Sushika Imaki, Lovu Biftek and "Paparios" were all basically the same.  They all endlessly argued that the term "length of a second" makes no sense, since length is about measuring distance, not about duration

It appears that they are all Spanish-speakers.  If you try using Google's translator program, most languages translate "length of a second" properly, but translating it into Spanish results in "duración de un segundo."  And translating "duración de un segundo" back into English gives you "one second duration."  

Since "span" is also a term about distance, not time, just for the hell of it, I translated "The visit lasted a span of two weeks" into Spanish.  That gave me "La visita duró un lapso de dos semanas."  When I translate that back into English, I got "The visit lasted two weeks."  The metaphor is just ignored.

I suppose my interest was piqued because it reminded me of something I read about the Spanish language in a book titled "The Old Patagonian Express" maybe 15 years ago or more.  I cannot find the passage right now, but it was something about someone telling the author, Paul Theroux, that the English language was so much more interesting than Spanish, because there was such a great choice of words to use to describe anything, largely due to so many English words originating in other languages.  But, in Spanish there is usually just one way to say something.

So, "duration of a second" is correct and "length of a second" makes no sense at all - unless your primary language is something other than Spanish.

I suppose it also interested me because I have regular visits (almost daily) to this web site from people in Spain, the Canary Islands and Chile.   

But, that wasn't what I was planning to write about this morning.  I was planning to write about how I feel I've answered the question that got me so interested in the subjects of time, time dilation and the speed of light.  The question was: How can so many college text books be so wrong in what they say about those topics?

The answer appears to be described very well in this book cover:

Einstein and Bohr 

Einstein was correct, but Neils Bohr won the game.  People found it easier to understand mathematics than a universe that works in ways that no one has yet fully figured out.  So, they believe in math and that their math is correct to the point of it being a religion that is blasphemous to question.

I find it totally insane that physicists will argue that light consists of waves when it is known beyond any doubt that light consists of individual photons.  But it is okay with mathematicians, because they simply use different equations when they want to discuss waves versus photons.  They do not care how light actually works.

I also find it totally insane that physicists will argue that motion is reciprocal simply because they cannot find a "preferred frame of reference" to use in mathematics to measure motion against.  They were blissfully happy when they could measure motion using a totally imaginary ether, but when Einstein stated that the ether was "superfluous" and unnecessary, the mathematicians became lost and unable to compute the motion of objects in space - real or imaginary.  So, they require that the motion of an object be measured relative to some other object, and that "relative motion" is reciprocal, since, without any ether or "preferred frame of reference" to measure movement against, it is not known which object is actually moving.   My arguments that you can use time to measure who is moving faster than whom just doesn't make sense to them because it doesn't provide a "preferred frame of reference."

I've got a new question that has me curious.  I want to see how people answer the question "What is a photon?"  One web site has 20 different papers supposedly answering that question.  You have to join something to access the papers via that site, and I'm not a joiner, but they provide enough information to allow all of the papers to be found via Google searches.  So, I've downloaded those 20 papers and a few others to see what sense I can make of them.  Then I'm hoping I will be ready to work on a book about all this. 


Comments for Sunday, August 12, 2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 18, 2018:

August 17, 2018 - Hmm.  While browsing through some college textbooks yesterday, I came across this:
811. Mode of Propagation. - Only three methods are known by which energy may be transmitted from one point of space to another.

First, by the movement as a whole of some medium reaching from one point to the other
, as in the case of ropes, belts, or shafting.


Second, by projectiles, as in the case of a shot from a gun or a ball thrown.

Third, by waves, as in case of sound or water waves.
Hmm.  The text then asks how light is "communicated" from one point to another.  It rejects the first mode as "inconceivable."  Light isn't a shaft that you can push on one end to cause the other end to move.  The text then says that Isaac Newton favored method #2, but Christiaan Huygens favored method #3.  And the author goes on to say,
The velocity with which a projectile travels depends on the initial impulse.  If light is communicated by means of particles shot out from the luminous body we should expect to find the velocity depending on the source and that particles emanating from the sun would have a different velocity from those from an electric light.

On the other hand, the velocity of a wave depends only on its wave length and the nature of the wave (whether compressional or transverse, etc.) and the properties of the medium of which it is a disturbance.  Sound waves from fiddle, pipe, or drum advance with the same speed through air. If light is a wave motion we may expect to find light waves, whatever their source, traveling with the same velocity through space, and this is precisely what experiment shows to be the case. This consideration therefore points to its being a wave motion.
Hmm.  He seems to be saying that the sun, being much larger, should shoot out light projectiles at a much faster speed than a light bulb.  That is not the case, so light must be a wave.

I'd never seen the problem described that way.  Is it the basic thinking behind the endless arguments over whether light consists of "projectiles" or waves?

The quotes are from "A College Text-Book of Physics" by Arthur L. Kimball.  It was first printed in 1917.

What I'm seeing is that light is neither a "projectile" nor a "wave."  It is a photon, and a photon uses a fourth "mode of propagation."  The problem is: what should that fourth mode of propagation be called?  A pulse?  An emission?  "Emission" seems to be appropriate, even though it also fits with waves.  When light is emitted, it is emitted at the speed of light.  It doesn't have to accelerate to get to that speed.  In that way it is not like a projectile.  However, it is not a wave because (1) waves require a medium to travel through, and (2) a photon retains its size and shape like a "projectile," it does not spread out like a wave. 

So, as I see it, Kimball would have been more accurate if he had written:
811. Mode of Propagation. - Only four methods are known by which energy may be transmitted from one point of space to another.

First, by the movement as a whole of some medium reaching from one point to the other, as in the case of ropes, belts, or shafting.

Second, by projectiles, as in the case of a shot from a gun or a ball thrown.

Third, by undulation of a medium, as in case of sound or water waves.

Fourth, by emission, as in the case of light photons and other forms of electromagnetic energy.

Yeah.  Now I just have to go back in time 101 years and persuade Kimball to change what he wrote.  It certainly seems just as easy to do that as it is to change the minds of anyone living in our current time who still believes what Kimball wrote.

August 15, 2018 - There was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my paper "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light" is now on vixra.org at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0289v6.pdf.  And, of course, now I can only think about things that I cut from the paper but shouldn't have, and things I should probably change.  

For example, I used this quote from Dr. Sten Odenwald on a Stanford University web site to illustrate the claim that light changes frequencies as it goes toward or away from the Earth:
The gravitational redshift happens when light tries to escape from a gravitational field. This is actually a phenomenon that you can explain using ordinary newtonian physics. Thanks to Einstein's famous E= m c squared, and Planck's equally famous law relating the energy of light to its frequency, E = h x frequency, we can see that as a particle of light (photon) moves out of a gravitational field, it must loose energy working against the gravitational field. Since photons always travel at the speed of light, the only place where this energy loss can show up is in a change of frequency. The frequency of the photon must decrease so that the energy carries by the photon is lower, and this corresponds to a 'red shift' to longer wavelengths. This phenomenon has been confirmed in laboratory experiments carried out by Pound and Rebka at Harvard University over 30 years ago. It's not a theory, its real.
Yesterday, while browsing through some physics books, I found this quote from Dr. Michio Kaku on page 104 of his book "Einstein's Cosmos": 
Next, Einstein calculated how gravity would affect the frequency of a light beam. If a rocket is launched from the earth and sent into outer space, the gravity of the earth acts like a drag, pulling the rocket back. Energy is therefore lost as the rocket struggles against the pull of gravity. Similarly, Einstein reasoned that if light were emitted from the sun, then gravity would also act as a drag on the light beam, making it lose energy. The light beam will not change in velocity, but the frequency of the wave will drop as it loses energy struggling against the sun’s gravity. Thus, yellow light from the sun will decrease in frequency and become redder as the light beam leaves the sun’s gravitational pull. Gravitational red shift, however, is an extremely small effect, and Einstein had no illusion that it would be tested in the laboratory any time soon. (In fact it would take four more decades before gravitational red shift could be seen in the laboratory.)
And it says this on page 209:
In an era of atomic clocks, lasers, and supercomputers, scientists are mounting the kind of high-precision tests of general relativity that Einstein could only dream about. In 1959, for example, Robert V. Pound and G. A. Rebka of Harvard finally confirmed Einstein’s prediction of gravitational red shift in the laboratory, that is, that clocks beat at different rates in a gravitational field. They took radioactive cobalt and shot radiation from the basement of Lyman Laboratory at Harvard to the roof, 74 feet above. Using an extremely fine measuring device (which used the Mossbauer effect), they showed that photons lost energy (hence were reduced in frequency) as they made the journey to the top of the laboratory.
A book by Michio Kaku would be a better reference source than a quote from some on-line web site, even if it is a Stanford University web site.  But, the Michio Kaku quotes are too convoluted and vague.  (The part that I highlight in red and bold is correct.)  Plus, neither source mentions the belief that light also increases in frequency as it "falls" to earth.  I had written something in an earlier draft of my paper that said that that would mean that all light reaching Earth from distant sources, such as stars, must be extremely blue-shifted, since the photons would be picking up speed as they fell for thousands of miles (perhaps millions), not just the 74 feet measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment.  That would also mean that images taken from a ground-based telescope should show far more blue-shifting than images taken by the Hubble telescope.  Why haven't we heard more about this extreme blue-shifting of light if light increases in frequency as it falls?  The obvious answer: Because the claim is nonsense.  Light doesn't increase in frequency as it "falls," it is emitted at a higher frequency at higher altitudes.

Somehow, in some edit I did, I cut that blue-shift argument out of my paper.   

As I was typing this comment this morning, I began to wonder if they just aren't seeing the relationship between time and the speed of light.  They seem to understand that clocks tick faster at higher altitudes, but they do not see how that means that light also travels faster when it is emitted at a higher altitude. 

And somewhere I noticed information about "Gravity Probe A" in which NASA launched an atomic clock in a suborbital flight, measuring time as the rocket lifted higher and higher and then fell back down again.  It confirmed that a clock does tick faster as it moves away from the Earth and it ticks slower as it falls back toward the Earth.  Here is the way a Georgia State University web site explains the experiment:

The Gravity Probe A payload was launched in 1976 from the NASA-Wallops Flight Center in Virginia. It followed an elliptical flight trajectory over the Atlantic, attaining an altitude of 10,000km (6,200 miles) above the Earth before crashing into the Atlantic Ocean. During this short trip, GP-A transmitted accurate measurements of slight changes in the clock's rate in lower gravity, and provided the best test of this portion of Einstein's theories that has been performed to date.

At the peak height of 10,000 km the clock should run 4.5 parts in 1010 faster than on the Earth's surface according to general relativity. The MASER clock's accuracy was reported to be 1 part in 10-15. The observed effects matched the prediction to an accuracy of about 70 parts per million.

Somehow, I don't recall ever reading about "Gravity Probe A" before this morning.  Or if I did, its significance never registered before.

I also cut from my paper a proposed experiment which would theoretically measure the difference between the speed of light at the top of a mountain and at the bottom of the mountain.  The idea probably needs a lot more thought, but basically it was to have a light measuring device emit light at the top of the mountain into a fiber optic cable.  The light would then exit the cable in another light measuring device at the bottom of the mountain as the light being emitted there.
Speed of light experiment
The problem is that the mirror will not reflect the light back at the emitted rate, it will reflect light back at the local rate.  So, the light going to the mirror might travel at 299,792,460 meters per second, and the light returning from the mirror will travel at 299,792,458 meters per second, producing a measured two-way speed of light of 299,792,459 meters per second.  Then, of course, you would have to argue that the true speed of light is 2 meters per second faster at the higher level, not just 1 meter per second faster.

The idea could be completely nuts.  But, if it is, right now I don't see how.  I just didn't feel the paper was the right place for it.  Maybe I should see what the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum have to say about it.

August 14, 2018 - I awoke this morning thinking about another important change I needed to make to my new paper "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light."  I was afraid it would require a lot of time to make the change, but it turned out to be very simple.  Moreover, it made the paper much easier to read and understand.  And at 10:46 a.m. (Central Time) I submitted the paper to vixra.org as a replacement for my previous paper "Time Dilated Light."

The way vixra.org works, the new paper will show up as version 6 of "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of light."  That way all the previous versions of the paper (and their different titles) remain on-line for people to study, and for me to use if someone should claim that they discovered that the speed of light is variable before I did, and they attempt to use a paper they produced a month ago is proof of that.  The previous versions of the paper show I've been writing about the speed of light being variable since July 18, 2016.  And this web site probably shows that I've been writing about it here for longer than that. 

The last time I submitted a paper to vixra.org it took two days for it to appear on their site.  However, the time before that it took less than a day.

Of course, as soon as the paper appears on vixra.org I'll probably start a thread about it on the sci.physics.relativity Google/Usenet group to see what kind of reaction it gets there and to see if they can find any real errors.  They'll almost certainly claim that the paper is just one whole mass of errors because it shoots down a lot of beliefs they have used in previous arguments.  But, it could be interesting to see what they have to say about a paper that disproves many of their most cherished beliefs.


I think it may also be my final paper.  I had ideas for a paper about light being photons not waves, but that topic is addressed in the new paper and in several other papers I wrote.  I also had ideas for a couple other papers, but none seems to be particularly important right now, and it seems more important for me to get to work on my book which will incorporate and organize all the ideas in all of my papers.

But first I have do a thousand personal chores that I've been putting off for months because all I could think about was finishing that new paper.

August 12, 2018 - I keep thinking I'm almost done with my new paper titled "Variable Time and The Variable Speed of Light," but then I'll get into an area or topic that requires that I do a lot of research.  And that becomes a serious problem when my research shows conflicting arguments about some topic. The topics that are currently driving me nuts are the Pound-Rebka experiment and the Mössbauer Effect.  Did the Pound-Rebka experiment show that light is emitted at different frequencies at different altitudes, or did it show that light changes frequencies when it travels from one altitude to another?  Both conclusions are advocated by numerous on-line and printed sources.  And there are others that are simply ambiguous.

The two images below illustrate the conflict.  The image on the left (from some foreign language web site) shows light changing speeds - i.e., gaining speed as it "falls" from the light source at the top and slowing down as it "climbs" away from the light source at the bottom.  The image on the right shows how Einstein and I view the situation: Light is emitted at a faster rate at a higher altitude and it is emitted at a slower rate at a lower altitude, and it does not change speeds as it travels.    
 
light changing speeds
Light emitted at different speeds
Light changes speeds
Light emitted at different speeds

Both produce the same results: the observer at the bottom sees the received light as being a higher frequency than light emitted at the bottom, and the observer at the top sees the received light as being a lower frequency than light emitted at the top.
 
Which one did Pound-Rebka demonstrate?  I'm not sure.  First of all, Pound-Rebka used gamma rays, not any kind of visible light photons. And gamma ray photons are not created by the changing energy of electrons like ordinary photons, they are created by radioactive decay of the nucleus of a large atom, such as iron.  And the key Pound-Rebka paper  is titled "Apparent Weight of Photons", because it is about gamma ray photons, whereas ordinary photons evidently have no mass nor weight.  I don't see how anyone can use gamma ray photons to describe how all photons work.  It's like using an apple to describe how to peel an orange.

My research found that Bowling Green State University's physics web site uses this illustration
Pound-Rebka from BGSU.edu

Note these words in the lower left corner: "frequency higher after falling."  And note that it is talking about "gamma radiation." 

Here is how Wikipedia defines the Pound-Rebka experiment:

The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity. 
The term "gravitational redshift" implies that the light "shifts" or changes its frequency or wavelength as it travels.  It doesn't.  It is just measured to be a different wavelength because wavelength involves the distance a wave travels in a given period of time.  Time moves at a different rate at different locations, but the photon's wavelength does not change.  It is measured to be different because you are using a different length for a second when doing the measurements. 

Here is how "gravitational redshift" is illustrated on Wikipedia:

gravitational redshift

The text that goes with the illustration says:
The gravitational redshift of a light wave as it moves upwards against a gravitational field (produced by the yellow star below).
But light consists of photons, not waves!!!!  And only the length of a second changes!!!!!
 
The Pound-Rebka papers also mention a Doppler shift somehow occurring in the experiment.   A University of Iowa web site uses the images below to discuss that Doppler shift.

doppler shift indoors
The web page says that because gravity is equivalent to acceleration (and vice versa), an emitter at the bottom of the building is uniformly accelerating upward and an "observer [at the top] will notice a redshift (since the observer is moving away from the source of light) caused by the Doppler effect."  And, "Since the equivalence principle requires that all such experiments must also produce the same result in a stationary lab with the equivalent gravitational acceleration, we must also see this effect in labs on Earth. This is called the gravitational redshift effect, and was first measured by Pound and Rebka at Harvard in 1960."

Would there be a Doppler effect in this situation?  The light is going to appear "red shifted" because of time dilation and the fact that light emitted at the bottom travels slower than light emitted at the top.  But there are no waves, and the bottom and top of the building are stationary relative to one another.  However, this situation is somewhat like the situation in my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" where a person with a radar gun inside a closed lab on a inertial moving railroad train can measure his movement by measuring the Doppler effect.  But there is no actual movement in the building example, at least none that a radar gun could measure.  The only effect would be the result of time dilation.  I just cannot see how the Doppler effect has any relevance in the Pound-Rebka experiment.   

Complicating matters is the fact the Pound and Rebka evidently got the idea for their experiment from the
the Mössbauer Effect.  When I researched the Mössbauer Effect, I found this quote on a Harvard University web site:
Robert Pound and Glen Rebka performed their historic experiments here at Harvard in the Jefferson Physical Laboratory. They were able to demonstrate that the frequency of gamma radiation measured at its source (on the building's roof) differed from the frequency measured in the basement. The incredibly small shift (about 1 part in a million billion) showed that clocks run slower in the basement than the roof because, being closer to the Earth, the gravitational field, and hence the space-time curvature, is larger there. The faster clock on the roof would read a lower frequency of gamma radiation and thus the wavelength would be longer, or red-shifted.
It's saying that Pound-Rebka was not about gamma radiation photons changing speeds, it's about gamma radiation being emitted at different speeds because time runs faster at higher locations and slower at lower locations. 

To further complicate matters,
the Mössbauer Effect seems to be mainly about an atom recoiling when it is hit by a photon and when it emits a photon.  It says that if the atom is part of a solid mass of atoms, the recoil is almost entirely absorbed by all the atoms in the mass, and the atom that actually got hit or did the emitting is barely effected.  There is nothing in that of interest to me.

The problem is how to describe the Pound-Rebka Experiment in my paper.  I started out by saying it was all wrong.  Gradually I started thinking it isn't "wrong," it is just confusing.  Everyone seems to interpret it differently.

I could just ignore the Pound-Rebka experiment, but if I do that, people will point to the Pound-Rebka experiment when they argue against my paper.  If I include Pound-Rebka in the paper, people will ague that I misinterpret it.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do, but, either way, I expect to put the new paper on vixra-org sometime this week.



Comments for Sunday, August 5, 2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 11, 2018:

August 9, 2018 - I'm still working on my new paper which is now tentatively titled "Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light," and which will be posted to vixra.org as a total rewrite of my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  Again and again I seem to be nearing completion, but then I realize I need to add something or clarify a point. 

Yesterday, I typed this thought into the paper:
Photons are excess energy moving from atom to atom until they are observed or consumed
I'm not sure where that thought came from.  Evidently, it was something from my subconscious mind that suddenly popped into my conscious mind.  Wherever it came from, I had to stop typing and study it to try to figure out if it was correct or not. 

Photons definitely seem to be "excess energy."  A photon is emitted by an atom that cannot retain that "excess energy" because it makes the atom unstable.  So, the atom ejects that energy and the energy travels as a photon until it hits another electron in another atom which also cannot retain the excess energy.  The atoms may be right next to one another or they may be trillions of miles apart.  Either way, the process is repeated until the photon happens upon someone's eyeball, which activates a nerve cell which sends a message to that person's brain, thereby consuming or using the "excess energy" and stopping the atom to atom travel.  Plants also "consume" the excess light energy carried within a photon and transform it into chemical energy via photosynthesis.  "Consume" is probably not the right word to use.  "Transform" seems better.  "Transform" says the energy is not destroyed, it is just converted into a different form of energy which will no longer zip through space at the speed of light looking for some atom that can accept it and retain it.  The sentence should probably say:

Photons are excess electromagnetic energy moving from atom to atom until they are transformed into a different form of energy. 
I'm not sure that any of this fits within my paper.  But it was interesting to think about.      

August 7, 2018 - In my Sunday comment I mentioned how Einstein's General Theory of Relativity says that gravity will bend the path that light travels.  That evening I sat down to watch TV, and I chose an episode of a TV series from the mid-1960s called "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."  In June of 2016, the Decades channel did one of their weekend "binges" and aired about 50 episodes of the series, one after another  I recorded them all on my DVR. The episode I happened to watch Sunday night was from season 3 and was titled "The Monks of St. Thomas Affair."  It's about U.N.C.L.E. agents stopping some bad guys who took over a monastery atop a mountain in Switzerland and planned to use a powerful ray gun to destroy the Louvre museum in Paris, a few hundred miles away.  I only mention it because at one point Illya Kuryakin (David McCallum) starts talking about Einstein's theory that gravity bends the path that light travels.  Needless to say, my jaw dropped open at the coincidence.

I can't use that episode as a reference in any scientific paper, of course, but it might be fun some day to cite it as a source in some argument on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum, just to see what the reaction would be.

Meanwhile, the next morning I returned to working on a paper about how both time and the speed of light are variable.  As I was writing, I started going off on a tangent about how time moves faster during the day than it does at night.  This is because of the Earth's velocity as it orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.  During the day, due to the spinning of the Earth on its axis at about 1,000 mph, a clock would be moving against the orbital movement, so the clock would be traveling a 66,000 mph.  And at night, the same clock would be on the side away from the sun and would be moving at 68,000 mph with the Earth in its orbit. 

I should probably create an illustration for this, but I don't have the time right now.  So, I found this one on the Internet:

oEarth spinning while orbiting the sun

The illustration shows the Earth orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph, while the Earth also spins on its axis at 1,040 mph at the equator.  During the day the Earth (the one at the top) is turning against the orbital direction, and during the night (the one at the bottom) it is turning with the orbital direction.

At dawn and dusk, a clock on the Earth is momentarily moving at the same speed as its orbit around the sun.  Then time starts moving in the opposite direction to how it was moving for the past 12 hours.

When you sit down and think about it, a clock ticks at its "correct" rate at dawn, it then ticks faster and faster until noon, then it starts slowing down more and more until it reaches that "correct" rate again at dusk.  Then it slows more and more during the night, until midnight when it reaches its minimum, then it starts gradually speeding up back to that "correct" rate again.  And all the slowing down and speeding up averages itself out, so the clock ticks at the "correct" rate - on average - all day and night long. 

But then I sat down and thought about it some more and realized it wasn't a big deal, and it wasn't worth a paper of its own.  It's no different than getting into your car with an atomic clock.  The clock will tick slower as you gain speed, and it will tick faster as you apply the brake and slow down.  The clock will tick faster when you go uphill, and it will tick slower when you go downhill. 

And time ticks faster for your head than for your feet.  Your time is your time, and what happens to time for you has no effect on anyone else.  It doesn't take you into anyone else's future or past.  It just affects how fast (or slow) you age.  Or, to put it another way, it just affects how fast you accumulate time.

August 5, 2018 - Since I am no longer arguing with the mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet/Google group, I've managed to make some good progress on a new scientific paper.  Or maybe it is best described as a total overhaul of an old paper.  Either way, that "good" progress slowed to a crawl yesterday when I hit the question of whether or not light has weight.  It seems no one can provide a straight answer to that question - except those who do not seem to know what they're talking about.

Here is how one web site describes the problem:
Photons are the smallest measure of light, and no, they don't have mass. So that's easy, right? Light is composed of photons, which have no mass, so therefore light has no mass and can't weigh anything.

Not so fast. Because photons have energy -- and, as Einstein taught us, energy is equal to the mass of a body, multiplied by the speed of light squared. How can photons have energy if they have no mass?
And here how another web site describes the problem:
Does light have mass?  The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle.  According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.  Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface.  This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. 
Yada yada yada.

The best answer I've found so far was on a University of California Santa Barbara web site
Well if you read a textbook, you will find out that light can be thought of as being made up of particles called photons. These photons have no mass! So there is the simple answer, light has no mass and no weight. This is a lot like knowing the name of the bird, you know that light has no mass and no weight, but you don't know how light behaves.

Well it turns out that even though light has no mass, it is attracted by gravity. This effect is so small that we are not aware of it in ordinary light, but astronomers must keep this in mind, because there are certain situations when this effect will be observable. Now in order to see this effect, you need a large body with a lot of mass which will bend the path of light due to its gravity. One example of a big body is the Sun, but since the Sun gives off so much light itself, it is often difficult to see this. It turns out that during a total eclipse of the Sun, scientists can see the effect of the Sun's gravity bending starlight from distant stars. Incidentally, this effect was first predicted by Einstein, but scientists had to wait several months for the next eclipse to see if he was right. (He was, of course, correct.)
And that same UCSB web site also has this:
Light does not have mass, and therefore there is nothing for the force of gravity to pull on, so light doesn't have weight either.  However, light does have energy.
I highlighted part of one particular sentence in the first UCSB quote above in red and in bold because it makes a very important point.  It says that "a large body with a lot of mass" (and gravity) doesn't change the speed of a light photon, nor its frequency, it just bends the trajectory or path the photon is traveling.

There are probably other sources that say the same thing, but mathematicians will just say they are "dumbing down" physics for the layman, which is the same as saying they are lying, since they are saying the complete opposite of what mathematicians believe to be true.

The question is important to me right now because it is what the Pound-Rebka experiment was all about.  According to Pound-Rebka, light must have weight, because gravity pulls light down just the way gravity pulls solid objects down.  And it pulls light fast and faster as it falls further and further, compressing its wave frequency, causing the light to be more and more "blue-shifted." 

Of course, that would mean that all the light we see from distant stars must be blue-shifted to a high degree, since it is falling for thousands of miles, not just 74 feet from the top of a building to the bottom, as was done in Pound-Rebka.  But Pound-Rebka doesn't address that inconsistency.  And how can light from distant galaxies be red-shifted due to their motion away from us if everything we see from earth is blue-shifted by gravity?

The answer that mathematicians would give is that physics doesn't have to make sense.  Physics doesn't have to be logical.  You just have to memorize the math equations and be able to recite them on demand.

My frustrations over that attitude also caused me to respond to a post someone made to the Neil deGrasse Tyson Facebook group last week.

The thread was started by Sidney Patterson, who wrote:

If you find it hard to understand quantum physics, theory of relativity, dark matter & dark energy, Unruh effect, standard model e.t.c...just know that...
Questionable quote from Neil deGrasse
                            Tyson

So, I wrote,

That is a VERY IGNORANT thing for Mr. Tyson to say. It basically tells people that they shouldn't TRY to make sense of the universe. It also echoes what some university physics professors teach when they tell their students that physics doesn't have to be logical. They are just telling their students to BELIEVE what they are being told and don't ask questions!
I'll ask questions until I find answers that are logical and make sense. And if those answers do not fit with what Mr. Tyson or physics textbooks say, then I'll ask more questions and do research to find out which is correct.
To which Mike Norieka responded to everyone,
that is what Einstein said. He cannot accept anything that to him is not logical. Therefore he never accepted Quantum Theory even though he had mathematically proven it he disregarded it. Who really knows?? They say you can mathematically prove almost anything but maybe our math is not the end it all.
And Jeremy Warner responded to me specifically,
Ed Lake, No No!!! You have to hear it in the right context!!

Mr Tyson was talking about things like quantum mechanics and the "bizarre things that molecules do"...Some of the things we find to be true about the universe are FRIGGIN BIZARRE and make NO sense whatsoever...he was saying that the nature of the universe is under no obligation to make sense!

He wasn't trying to say we shouldn't try to make sense of it.
And I responded:
Yes, Quantum Mechanics is a problem in that it argues things which defy logic and common sense. To me (and Einstein), that means QM cannot be trusted to be true. And, as Mike Noreika stated, "They say you can mathematically prove almost anything." I agree. Solving science problems with math tends to begin with an answer and then they develop equations that produce that answer.

Until I see solid proof to the contrary, I think the universe makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. And if there is something that SEEMS illogical or contrary to common sense, then it is a near certainty that there is something about it that we just do not yet fully understand.
And Jeremy Warner had the last word by posting,
well then...you never asked the universe to make sense and Mr Tyson wasnt talking about you
I'm not asking the universe to make sense.  I am assuming it does make sense.  We just need to figure out how everything works.

Right now, I want to know how light works.  How can it fall faster and faster as it heads toward the earth, as Pound-Rebka indicated?  Why wouldn't that mean that all light from everywhere beyond Earth is blue-shifted when we see it?  Clearly the light from stars and planets is NOT blue-shifted when we see it. 

According to Einstein (and me) light from the top of a building is blue-shifted when viewed by people at the bottom of the building because light that is created at the top of a building is created by atoms which are less affected by gravity, thus the light those atoms produce travels faster than light created at the bottom of the building where gravity is stronger.  The light didn't shift to blue as it fell, as Pound-Rebka claimed, it started out bluer (oscillating at a higher frequency) than light created the same way at ground level.

All we need is for someone to perform an experiment to confirm or disprove that.


Comments for Wednesday, August 1, 2018, thru Saturday, Aug. 4, 2018:

August 2, 2018 - I've been trying to organize the digitized books about physics I have in my computer.  I seem to have at least 400 different books scattered through a library of 1,031 items, more than half of which are scientific articles.  I keep track of everything on a computerized spreadsheet, but I haven't been making any detailed notes about what is contained in each book.  Below is a list of just 15 books (the spreadsheet also contains the file name, a ranking, the document type, the number of pages, whether it is digitally searchable or not, and a space for a brief note):

Books about special relativity

The only note I made about the book by Carl Ramirez was "Very heavy in mathematics, but might contain something worthwhile."  The notes also say that a couple others seem to be self-published, so they wouldn't make good references.

One book I browsed through this morning was the 3rd edition of "Physics for Scientists and Engineers - With Modern Physics" by Paul M Fishbane, Stephen Gasiorowicz and Stephen T Thornton (one of two books I have with that exact title).  When I read the underlined sentences below, I had to stop to make an image of them:

Fishbane quote 

To me, the underlined sentences illustrate the insanity of what is being taught in many colleges today.  They say the particle theory of light cannot explain certain observations, so the book is going to promote the wave theory of light, which can explain those observations.   What is not mentioned is that the wave theory of light cannot explain other observations, primarily that light definitely consists of particles, not waves.  As Richard Feynman put it on page 14 of his book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter":
Newton thought that light was made up of particles—he called them “corpuscles”—and he was right (but the reasoning that he used to come to that decision was erroneous). We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon - and if the light is all one color, all the “raindrops” are the same size.
And he wrote this on page 15:
I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.
Instead of incorrectly teaching students that light behaves like waves, the students should be taught that light consists of particles that have some as-yet-unknown properties that make them act wave-like under certain conditions.  For example, the path a photon follows appears to bend around obstacles. 

The purpose of science is to figure out exactly how a photon works, and in colleges and universities students should be informed that there are things about light photons that are not yet fully understood.  They shouldn't be taught an incorrect theory just because it is easier to describe things that way or because some author believes one theory over another.  

August 1, 2018 - Whew!  Sigh!  I finally decided to put an end to my latest round of arguments on Google's sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  I advised each one of the NINE people I was arguing with today (Paparios, Tom Roberts, Edward Prochak, Chris M. Thomasson, Ecký Zcitná, Cliff Hallston, RichD, Michael Moroney and Paul B. Anderson), that I wasn't going argue any further in that thread because I wanted to work on some scientific papers and on my book.

The fact that I was arguing with at least nine different people doesn't mean that it was just me against them.  When not arguing with me, they would argue with each other.  If I had the time to sit down an analyze each one of their arguments, I feel reasonably certain that I would find that each one of them has a slightly different understanding of the physics of light, time and time dilation.

Nevertheless, it was a very interesting discussion that began on July 13, when I first posted a comment suggesting that someone put atomic clocks into the large centrifuge at NASA's Ames Research Center to see how gravitational and velocity time dilation will work together to slow down time.   As of my last message today, there are 649 posts by 38 different authors in the thread, with about 1,110 "views."

It was surprising to see how many people cannot discuss or even think about light consisting of photons, instead of waves.  When I quoted from "reliable" sources about how light photons are absorbed by atoms in an object (like a mirror or the bumper of a car) and then emitted again as totally new photons, that was totally incomprehensible to most of them, and some argued that the authors I was citing didn't really mean what they wrote - or that the sources were not reliable and just made stuff up.

So, I need to do some research to see what college textbooks say about how light photons are created and "reflected."  If they have details about how light waves are created and reflected that don't just claim it works the same way sound waves work (which is absurd), then I'll need to make notes about that, too.

But mostly I want to study some scientific papers about putting atomic clocks on centrifuges.  In one argument, someone cited about 5 such papers.  So, it appears it has been done at least five times, but not the way I wanted it done nor for the reasons I wanted it done.  The five experiments evidently all had atomic clocks at the center and/or at various locations along the arm of the centrifuge.  And their purpose appears to have been to verify the findings of the Pound-Rebka experiment.  As I see it, Pound-Rebka produced nothing but an incorrect understanding of how light works.  Their findings were incorrectly interpreted, and I assume all the centrifuge experiments to verify or reproduce the Pound-Rebka findings were also misinterpreted.  They all start with a belief and then just verify that belief. 

They believe that light changes its frequency to be faster and "blue-shifted" as it "falls toward the earth," or as it "falls" toward the end of a centrifuge's arm.  Likewise, they believe that light changes it's frequency to be slower and "red-shifted" as it move upwards away from the earth or away from the end of a centrifuges arm.  Like so (using flashlights as emitters):

Pound-Rebka experiment 

The facts, as I see them, say that the light is created at a higher ("blue") frequency at the high starting point and does not change as it "falls."  Likewise, light is created at the lower "red" frequency when it is created at the low point or end point and sent upward, and it does not change.   Like so:

Pound-Rebka experiment reconsidered

My understanding also seems to be an incredibly easy thing to confirm (I think it has already been confirmed countless times) or disprove, but how do you get people to perform an experiment which might show their unshakable beliefs are wrong?

About all I can do is write about it to see if anyone can prove that I am wrong.  More arguments that I am wrong simply because it conflicts with a mathematical model that mathematicians have been using for decades won't change my mind, it will just make me chuckle and shake my head in amazement over the unbelievable things that some people believe.      


Comments for Sunday, July 29, 2018, thru Tuesday, July 31, 2018:

July 31, 2018 - This morning, in an argument on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet group, I was explaining how a photon consists of oscillating electrical and magnetic fields, as shown in the illustration below:

A photon

I was arguing with a couple people who insist that photons do not oscillate.  I also quoted from page 197 of a book "Gravity From the Ground Up" by Bernard Schultz:
“What actually happens on a microscopic level is that the incoming photon is absorbed by the electrons of the mirror, which are set into oscillation by the photon’s oscillating electric field. The result is, for some materials (shiny ones), that the electrons’ oscillation creates a new photon that moves away from the mirror in the opposite direction. The incoming and outgoing photons are free and move at speed c, but they are not the same photon…”[
Then, as part of another argument, someone posted the ramblings below as part of an argument about how radar guns work:
Also, in the radar gun circuitry, it is NEITHER photon nor waves. It is
electrical signals going from some sort of antenna likely in a waveguide, down a copper circuit trace here, an IC package lead, a
transistor gate etc. Here we have a signal from the continuous wave signal generator at 23 GHz to the transmitter circuit. The receive circuit amplifying a weak Doppler shifted signal, this plus a small amount from the CW oscillator are combined in a mixer circuit and lowpass filter and now we have a much lower frequency which is the difference between the transmitter frequency and the (Doppler shifted) received frequency from the radar target. This frequency can be directly displayed as a speed by (virtually) multiplying it by a constant. Again, inside the gun there are NO photons involved, no waves, it is all electronic signals.
I certainly didn't understand all of that, but it seems to include a very important clue to the workings of radar guns that I have been looking for.  It seems to be saying that when a photon is returned from the target to the radar gun, the gun doesn't "accept" the entire photon in any meaningful way, it only measures the electric field of the photon.  And that electric field isn't affected at all by the speed of the returning photon.  It is the same value regardless of how fast the gun may be moving toward the oncoming photon. 

So, the gun processes the electric field from the photon and combines it with a stored electric field inside the gun (representing the photon it originally emitted, and the difference in the electric fields is "displayed as a speed by (virtually) multiplying it by a constant."  In other words, an x amount of difference in the electric fields equals speed z.

That seems to be what I was looking for to explain how a radar gun in a moving police car can measure the speed of a highway sign to be zero.  The speed of the car and gun toward the sign doesn't affect how the gun measures things.  The matching of electric fields will produce zero difference between the emitted electric field from the gun and the returned electric field from the highway sign.

Now I just need to verify it somehow, and then I need to describe in it easy to understand terms - maybe with illustrations.   It's like a HUGE "bombshell" that no one else seems able to see.  I really have to be certain about it before I continue to try opening their eyes.    


July 29, 2018 - Recently, I've been bumping up against yet another weird belief that mathematicians have - at least some of them.  Many mathematicians seem to believe that time ticks at the same rate everywhere.   They do not believe in time dilation at all.  I've been encountering that belief for years.

Others, however, seem to accept that time ticks slower and slower the closer you are to the Earth's surface.  But then they tell you they believe that time will also continue to tick slower and slower as you go deeper and deeper into the earth.  They believe that at the center of the Earth, clocks will tick at their slowest rate.  I cannot make sense of that belief at all.

So, I've started proposing that scientists send atomic clocks down in mine shafts to test their theory.  The deepest mine shafts seem to be in Africa, where there are some shafts that go as deep as 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles).   That is only a very tiny fraction of the 3,959 miles from sea level to the center of the earth, but atomic clocks should be able to detect the difference.

As I see it,  the deeper you go, the more earth (and matter) there is above and around you, and the less there is under you.  So, clocks will tick faster and faster as you go deeper and deeper.  And when you reach the center of the earth (ignoring the fact that it is molten iron), clocks will tick faster there than anywhere else on Earth.

According to one mathematician-physicist on Usenet, however,
If you drop a hammer in a well, it falls down into the well, it doesn't fall up from the bottom of the well to the Earth's surface. ... Things fall in the direction of where time runs slower... that's WHY things fall.  If you don't understand this, you don't understand the first thing about general relativity.
So, according to his beliefs, below the earth's surface things would fall upward if gravity didn't increase and increase until you reached the center of the earth.  And he keeps talking about "gravitational potential" and how "gravitational potential" says that you have to exert more energy to move upward from the center of the earth than anywhere in between that point and the surface.   According to Wikipedia:
In classical mechanics, the gravitational potential at a location is equal to the work (energy transferred) per unit mass that would be needed to move the object from a fixed reference location to the location of the object.  It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge. The reference location, where the potential is zero, is by convention infinitely far away from any mass, resulting in a negative potential at any finite distance.
Hmm.  As I read that, it appears to ignore any situation where there are two or more gravitational masses pulling at an object.  In the case of a clock at the center of the Earth, there are countless atoms with mass and gravity that pull the clock in every direction.

After thinking about it a bit, I figured it would be easier to make an argument using a clock on a rocket heading for the moon as an example.  At some point the gravitational pull from the Earth will be equal to the gravitational pull from the moon.   One web site I found says that Wernher von Braun calculated that point to be 43,495 miles from the moon before men actually went to the moon:

gravitational midpoint between earth
                            and moon   

That is the point where astronauts heading to the moon stop thinking about accelerating to escape Earth's gravity, and they turn their ship around and being thinking about decelerating to counteract the moon's gravity in order to avoid crashing into the moon.
 
While researching that, I noticed articles about the Lagrange points where gravity is equally balanced between the moon and the Earth (or between the sun and the Earth) just as it is at the center of the earth.  It has been a long long time since I last read or thought about Lagrange points.  There are five Lagrange points (L1 - L5)  around the Earth, and they park satellites in them.

LaGrange Points

L1 is the point shown in the illustration with von Braun's calculation.  Here is one web site's definition of Lagrange Points:
A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body. The interaction of the forces creates a point of equilibrium where a spacecraft may be "parked" to make observations.
Hmm.  Suddenly I realized I understood L1, but I couldn't recall how the other 4 Lagrange points worked.  It was also interesting that the quote above relates centrifugal force to gravity.  Yesterday, someone sent me an email mentioning that centrifugal force does a better job of simulating gravity than does acceleration, since with gravity and centrifugal force your head will be less affected than your feet, but with acceleration your head and feet are affected equally (unless both we're misunderstanding something).

There are also 5 similar Lagrange points related to the Earth's orbit around the sun.  The WIND spacecraft has been parked in the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point since 2004.

Sun Earth Lagrange points

Lagrange points L1 and L2 are relatively "unstable."  If a satellite parked in one of them drifts a bit away from the Lagrange "point," gravity from one body or the other will dominate and pull the satellite toward it.  So, satellites parked in those positions have to have the capability to propel themselves back to the correct "point" when they drift. 

Lagrange points L4 and L5 are relatively stable.   They are more like the situation at the center of the earth.  If a satellite drifts away from either of those points, it won't drift toward a stronger gravity, it will drift toward a weaker gravity, and the stronger gravity will pull it back - or cause it to go into a small orbit around the L4 or L5 point.  I'm not totally sure how it works, but I think it has to do with the fact that the smaller body is moving and the larger body is not, as depicted in the animated illustration below.  So when a satellite moves away from L4 or L5 point, it won't be irretrievably grabbed by the larger body, the smaller body will move closer and apply more gravity to pull it back

Animated Lagrange points

I'll have to think some more about all this, to make certain I fully understand it.  The explanations in the web sites I've checked mostly just explain things in mathematical terms and images.   They describe L4 and L5 as being like the bottom of a bowl in flat space.  So, if an object drifts away from the center of the bowl, the curvature of the bowl will cause it to slide or drift back to the center again.  I cannot visualize curved space or invisible bowls in space.  Those are just mathematical models.

Looking at the arguments that were posted overnight to the sci.physics.relativity Usenet group where I've been arguing these topics, I see a guy (evidently named "Cliff," based upon his email address) has posted this argument in response to my argument about a zero gravity point between the earth and moon:

General relativity is a *local* field theory.  There is no spooky action at a distance.  Objects do not sense the direction of the lowest clock rate anywhere in the universe, they merely sense the *local* direction of reducing clock rates, and move in that direction.
Groan!  What he is saying, in effect, is that he has a mathematical model for the Earth and it does not apply to locations where the Earth's gravity is balanced out by the moon's gravity.  So, he cannot compare his mathematical model to the reality of there being a point in space where gravitational forces are in balance. 

"Spooky action at a distance" is a phrase Einstein coined when talking about mathematicians' beliefs about the workings of sub-atomic particles.  Einstein didn't believe it applied to the workings of larger bodies like planets and moons.

It is interesting that "Cliff" talks about how "Objects do not sense the direction of the lowest clock"  and "they merely sense the *local* direction of reducing [reduced?] clock rates, and move in that direction."  It fits with his belief that   "
Things fall in the direction of where time runs slower... that's WHY things fall."

Is it possible to change his mind and convince him that things fall toward the object that creates the greatest amount of gravity?  Probably not.   But his belief that "Things fall in the direction of where time runs slower" is a belief I want to examine to see if I can figure out his thinking.  I think it pertains to the mistaken belief held by many mathematicians that light speeds up ("blue shifts")  as it falls away from the center of a centrifuge or
falls toward a gravitational mass.  And light slows down ("red shifts") as it moves toward the center of a centrifuge or away from a gravitational mass.  I don't believe it does.  I think they are viewing things incorrectly.  They are simply making the universe fit a mathematical model they like.

As I see it, due to gravitational time dilation effects, light emitted at the top of a mountain travels faster than light emitted at the bottom of a mountain.  That is something that had been confirmed countless times (every time someone in a different location measures the speed of light knowingly or unknowingly using a different length for a local second).  It also means that light emitted at the top of the mountain can be viewed as being "blue shifted" relative to light emitted at the bottom of the mountain, and light emitted at the bottom of the mountain can be viewed as being "red shifted" relative to light emitted at the top of the mountain. But, the mathematicians believe that light is emitted at the same speed in both locations, and it changes speed (or just wavelengths) as it goes from the lower to higher or higher to lower location.


It seems to be a disagreement that would be incredibly easy to resolve, but, inexplicably, no one has done so.   Possibly because they do not want to get into arguments and upset the "scientific community".  But more likely because they are convinced they are right and no one sees any reason to do any tests which cannot possibly show they are wrong.   



Comments for Sunday, July 22, 2018, thru Saturday, July 28, 2018:

July 28, 2018 (B) - While easing my car into my garage this afternoon after running an errand, I finished listening to CD #11 of the 11-CD audio book set for "The Road to Little Dribbling" by Bill Bryson.

The Road to Little Dribbling by Bill
                            Bryson

It's the second book by Bill Bryson about touring England that I finished this week.  (See my July 23 comment.)  I enjoyed both of them very much, and I can't really say which I enjoyed more.  Listening enjoyment is a bit different from reading enjoyment.  I probably laughed more while listening than while reading.  And there were places in the audio book which really grabbed my attention.  There were several times when I had to get on the Internet as soon as I got home to check out something I'd just heard about in the book.  For example, I had to check out the oldest major iron bridge in the world.  It's from 1781. 

 Oldest iron bridge in the world  
Oldest major iron bridge in the world

I also had to check to see if there really is a town named Mousehole (pronounced "mossel") on England's southern coast.  There is.

This afternoon, near the end of the book, the author mentioned visiting some of the "brochs" of Scotland.

Scottish broch

Evidently, there are lot of them in many different places in northern Scotland (maybe 120 or more).  They were all built about 3,000 years ago, and no one has any clue as to what they were used for.  I don't think I'd ever heard of them before.

Before getting out of my car, after I ejected CD#11 of Bryson's book, I inserted CD #1 of James Comey's book.   A very different subject.

July 28, 2018 (A)
- As I was checking some news web sites this morning, I spotted an article dated yesterday from Forbes magazine titled "There Was No Big Bang Singularity."  It grabbed my attention because belief #10 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics is:

#10.  Singularities are real.
It is always nice to find a science article that says the same thing I've been saying.  I was afraid, however, that the article might promote the theory that the "Big Bang occurred everywhere," which is #9 on the list:
#9.  The Big Bang didn't occur at  any spot, it happened everywhere.
Reading through the article, I was relieved to find that the article did not promote that idea.  It basically just says that we do not know exactly how the Big Bang happened, but we know it did not begin with a "singularity" because that makes no sense mathematically.  (It's like dividing something in half, then in half again, then again, again, again, etc.  You can always divide it in half again, you never reach a point where you cannot divide it in half - which would be a singularity.)

A key paragraph in the article says,
There is a theorem, famous among cosmologists, showing that an inflationary state is past-timelike-incomplete. What this means, explicitly, is that if you have any particles that exist in an inflating Universe, they will eventually meet if you extrapolate back in time. This doesn't, however, mean that there must have been a singularity, but rather that inflation doesn't describe everything that occurred in the history of the Universe, like its birth. We also know, for example, that inflation cannot arise from a singular state, because an inflating region must always begin from a finite size.
Hmm.  Maybe I should give them my idea of how the Big Bang worked and how the universe began.  Or maybe not.  (It basically says that particles that exist today are different from how particles existed before the Big Bang.)  I should probably write it down for myself first, to see if it makes total sense to me.  If it does, then I can write a paper about it and see what others say.

All I need is to find the time to do that.

July 27, 2018 - I awoke this morning thinking about belief #2 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in Physics:
#2. Scientists routinely LIE to the public.
I was thinking about it because that claim was made a couple more times in the past few days. Mathematicians basically claim that scientists "dumb down" things so the public can understand.  But when you actually make comparisons between technical papers and articles written for a general audience, you find there is no "dumbing down" going on, there are just "generalizations."  The general audience articles just avoid using too much technical jargon.

In any profession or trade there will be terms which are unfamiliar to people who are not in that business.  I keep thinking I should create a cartoon where two carpenters are chuckling to themselves inside a house under construction while a man waits outside.  The man wants to borrow a saw for a few minutes.  The carpenters laugh over how "dumb" that guy outside is because he doesn't know the difference between a miter and a cope.  The guy outside is Albert Einstein.

What bothers me is the term "dumb down."  Mathematicians use the term to imply that the general public is just too dumb to understand real physics.  And because what the general audience articles say is often in direct conflict with what the mathematicians believe, they even insinuate that the articles are LIES. 

The NIST experiment where they measured time dilation differences between one clock and a duplicate clock that was just one foot higher than the first clock keeps coming back as the prime example.  To mathematician-physicists who claim that time ticks at the same rate everywhere (Tom Roberts being a prime example) the claim that the higher clock ticks at a faster rate than the lower clock is nothing but an outright LIE.  Or the NIST scientists are totally incompetent.  Others are less confrontational and claim that it is just "dumbing things down" which results in the kind of nonsense that the public enjoys reading. 

I find it endlessly amazing that people can think that way.

July 26, 2018 - Today was another day spent arguing on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet group.  But it was an important day because it became abundantly clear that I am arguing Einstein's Relativity against Quantum Mechanics (QM) and the distorted views QM people have about Relativity.   It's a 100-year-old argument that I am certainly not going to resolve.  All I'm trying to do now is show people what they are arguing about.

The breakthrough came when a guy who has been talking about some screwball belief about how time dilation works for a series of clocks on a train versus a series of clocks on the embankment cited a book as his source.  It turns out that the book he was using just repeats what one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics, Max Born, wrote in another book back in 1922 when Born was twisting Einstein's relativity theory to make it fit his own understandings of Quantum Mechanics.

So, the debates I've been having are really just about Relativity versus Quantum Mechanics, and the people I'm arguing with have no understanding of Relativity because all they know about it are distortions created by people who didn't understand Relativity and preferred Quantum Mechanics.  


July 25, 2018 - For the past two days I've been arguing almost endlessly with the mathematician-physicists on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet group.  And today I realized something.  It is something I've realized many times before, but now it appears to be the reason mathematicians can never agree with basic science.  They have absolutely no interest in cause and effect. 

This afternoon, when I searched this web site for the term "cause and effect," I found that I have used it less than 10 times.  Examples:

From my May 31, 2017 comment:

The mathematicians point of view makes no sense unless you inexplicably believe the universe operates like a mathematical equation and there is no such thing as "cause and effect."
From my May 30, 2017 comment:
It appears that, to mathematicians, cause and effect are alien concepts.  Time Dilation is just an "illusion."
From my June 4, 2017 comment:
How can any scientist ignore cause and effect?   Answer: a scientist can't, but a mathematician can. 
From my July 19, 2017 comment:
Their beliefs are INSANE in any world where cause and effect are an important part of science. And their Prophet, Neils Bohr, didn't believe that cause and effect could explain the universe the way mathematics can.
From my September 4, 2017 comment:
In reality (and in SCIENCE), of course, HOW the clocks got to be moving is the key to everything.  But science is very much about CAUSE and EFFECT, which the mathematicians consider to be meaningless, worthless and just part of some philosophy.

If you CAUSE one of the clocks to move, you KNOW that that clock is moving and the other is still stationary.  And you know the "relative" speed is actually one clock's speed away from the other.  Therefore the clock that is moving will experience Time Dilation and the clock that is stationary will not.  It's as simple as that.  Yet, it seems incomprehensible to mathematicians. They can only view situation A and situation B, they cannot think about how one situation developed into the other. 
From my March 7, 2018 comment:
I was rather surprised to see this absurd belief stated so emphatically by mathematician physicists.  They equate understanding "cause and effect" to asking why 2 plus 2 equals 4.  They claim it is philosophy, not physics.  Cause and effect is all about why things happen.  The mathematician physicists do not care why things happen.  In one argument I was told that once the mathematical model is found, "cause & effect" becomes obsolete.  We understood this 2000 yrs ago!"
That was also when I created my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics and put this as #3:
#3. "Cause and effect" has no meaning in science.
The problem is that you can argue with mathematician-physicists for days and even weeks without realizing that it is an argument about cause and effect, because that term may never actually be used.  The arguments are about some different way of looking at things, but when you analyze it, that different way is that scientists look for cause and effect and mathematicians have no interest in cause and effect.

Now I just hope I have finally learned the lesson.  Maybe the next time I get into an argument I'll be able to quickly see where it is heading, and instead of arguing for days only to find that it is an argument where I am talking about cause and effect and they do not believe in cause and effect and avoid talking about it, I can just jump to the cause of the argument. 

I wonder if I should write a paper titled "Cause and effect versus mathematics."  It will certainly be an important part of any book I write about Relativity.  It is at the root of nearly all the arguments I've been having.  But it's very hard to show how that argument is behind so many arguments where that term in never used. 

July 23, 2018
- While eating breakfast this morning, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "Notes from a Small Island" by Bill Bryson.

Notes from a small island by Bill
                            Bryson

It's a very enjoyable humor-travel book about wandering around England by  road and rail, starting at Dover at the very southeastern-most corner, then over to a far-west corner, then up the middle of England, and ending at John o' Croates at the most northern tip of mainland Scotland.  The wandering, which took place in 1995, lasted several months.  The book is very funny and filled with strange facts and screwy names of places.  ("Zebra crossings" are pedestrian walkways that are painted with zebra-like white stripes to identify them as being for pedestrians.)  And there's a lot of humor in meeting people along the way, although Bryson seems to have a problem with new things, greatly preferring leaving everything the way it was a hundred years ago.  And he has serious problems with the British railway system, which according to him, never seems to go directly from one place to another.  You always have to change trains.    

For some reason, while reading that book I was also listening to the audio book version of another book by the same author that is also about about wandering around England, but twenty years later, in 2015.  So, writing a comment about both books is a bit of a problem, since it's difficult to remember which book said what.  But I enjoyed them both.  I've got about 90 minutes left on the audio book, so I'll probably be writing a full comment about it later this week.

I've been to England a few times, and I always enjoyed myself there.  My brother and I wandered around a bit by road, too, visiting Dover, but going no farther north than Coventry, and no farther west than Bath.  


July 22, 2018 - This morning is another one of those Sunday mornings when I have nothing prepared for this Sunday comment, so I have to start from scratch.   So, here goes.

Yesterday, I sat down at my computer and tried to write something, but I had so many things on my mind as a result of some very interesting arguments on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet/Google discussion forum that I didn't know where to begin.  I had also been thinking about writing a new paper titled "The Speed of Light is Variable," but then, as I was doing research for it, I realized that much of what I was thinking of writing about I had already written about in my 2016 paper "Time Dilated Light."  So, if I continue working on "The Speed of Light is Variable," it should really be a new version of that earlier paper, but with the new and more eye-catching title.

On the Usenet forum, Paparios came up with an argument I'd never seen before.  I think he was arguing that time dilation isn't real.  He set up an elaborate situation where a train with a clock in each car (all synchronized to run at the same rate) was passing an embankment where more clocks (also synchronized) were lined up with the clocks positioned one car-length apart.  Like so:

The train:  |__o__| |__o__| |__o__| |__o__| |__o__|  Embankment: ___o___ ___o___ ___o___ ___o___ ___o___

The argument was that as the first car in the train passes by each one of the clocks on the embankment, the time shown by each successive clock on the embankment will be slightly later than the time on the previous clock. (Duh!)  And, likewise, from the point of view of the last clock on the embankment:

                 <--    |__o__| |__o__| |__o__||__o__|
___o___ ___o___ ___o___ ___o___
     
Paparios argued that, when the first clock on the train passes the last clock on the embankment, their times will be identical, and when the first clock on the train passes the next clock on the embankment their times will also be identical.  And the time on the first clock on the train will be identical to the time of each succeeding clock that is passed on the embankment. 

But, according to Paparios, when the accumulated passage of time for all six clocks is tallied, the clocks on the train will show less time has passed for those clocks, and the clocks on the embankment will show that less time has passed for those clocks.


At least that is what I think he is arguing.  I can't make any sense of it.  And the matter became even more confusing when someone named Hallston posted a vaguely similar argument.  Hallston is someone who I had never argued with before, and I've never seen him post before.  He posts very lengthy and well-written arguments.  They are just a bit loony.

Hallston's first argument was similar to Paparios's argument:
Consider two rows of clocks in relative motion, such as one row of clocks sitting along an embankment and another row of clocks on a moving train. (Each row of clocks has been synchronized using the usual physical processes in its frame.) We find that the readings on each clock on the train advance at a slower rate than the readings on the successive clocks on the embankment as it passes them, BUT we also find that the readings of each clock on the embankment advance at a slower rate than the readings on the successive clocks on the train as they pass it. So, which clocks are running faster? 
When I argued that that was a nothing more than another preposterous claim that all motion is reciprocal, he responded with a different argument:
The crucial fact is this: When compared with the clocks on the embankment, the clocks on the train are not just ticking at a slower rate, their values are offset from each other by different amounts. When the clock at the middle of the train reads 12:00, the clock at the front of the train reads (say) 11:59 and the clock at the back of the train reads 12:01. (The clocks in between are all offset in proportion to their distance from the center).
That was an argument I had never seen before.  When I asked him where he got that idea from, he responded:
It's standard in introductory texts. See for example Figure 2.4 in Rindler's "Essential Relativity".
There is a free copy of that book on-line, so I looked it up.  It's on page 40.  Below is a screen-capture of that page:

--------------------- start screen capture of page 40 -------------------
Wolfgang Rindler's "midframe
                          lemma" theory
------------------------ end screen capture of  page 40 ----------

It's a bizarre theory that between any two reference frames (S and S') there will be another reference frame
(S'') "relative to which S and S' have equal and opposite velocities."  Huh?

I didn't really have the time to try to decipher that, but I did look up a term that Rindler uses as if it was a common term.  (I
t's highlighted in the screen capture above.)  I looked up "midframe lemma" via Google, and got only 8 results, all of them referring to Wolfgang Rindler.  So, it's one person's theory that another person (Hallston) has seemingly distorted to mean something totally different.

On the train you can have clocks in every car, but the entire train is one "inertial frame of reference."  You can't create a new inertial frame of reference in the middle of another inertial frame of reference and argue that it will somehow show different test results.

I could go on and on and on.  My point is that arguing with Paparios and Hallston causes me to view things from different angles, and that enables me to understand things better - and to find new things I hadn't thought about before.

The key thing I learned yesterday, which I didn't realize until I thought more about it as I lay in bed this morning waiting for it to be time to get up, is that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second relative to me and the length of my local second.  I've always known that, of course, but no one ever before asked me how the speed of light is measured relative to the maximum, where time stops and nothing can travel any faster.  I had been suggesting it could somehow be measured that way - against the maximum.  It can't, because the "maximum" is different depending upon your local zero and the length of your local second.  It is different atop a mountain versus at the bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are on a moving train versus being on the "stationary" embankment.   So, the speed of light is measured relative to you in your "inertial frame of reference" regardless of where that frame is located.    

And I've finally reached the end of another Sunday comment.  I don't know if any of what I wrote makes any sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me.  And now I'm ready to get back on sci.physics.relativity and argue some more ---- after lunch. 








Other interests:

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

Archives: 
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
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 2018
February 2018
March 2018
April 2018
May 2018
June 2018
July 2018
August 2018
September 2018
                           

            
© 2018 by Ed Lake