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

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

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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

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

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

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

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

just trying to figure things out.

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

My Latest Comments

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

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

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

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. 

Comments for Sunday, July 15, 2018, thru Saturday, July 21, 2018:

July 19, 2018 - This morning I awoke thinking once again about radar guns.  There is still something about them that bothers me.  I can describe the problem by explaining the two situations as shown in the illustration below:

Relative speeds from 2
                                    different points of view

In Situation A, the speeder is moving eastward at 100 miles per hour from the point of view of the Police officer.  The officer's radar gun emits photons which oscillate at a specific frequency and which travel at the speed of light (c or 299,792,458 meters per second) toward the speeding car.

Atoms in the car's bumper and front end encounter the photons at c + 100 mph.  The atoms react to that extra speed (also known as "the Doppler shift")  as being a higher energy or higher oscillation frequency.  So, they generate new Doppler-shifted photons which oscillate at the higher frequency and which are sent back to the radar gun. 

The police officer's radar gun receives the higher oscillating frequency photons, it subtracts the original oscillating frequency from the Doppler-shifted frequency of the returned photons, and it determines that the target car was traveling at 100 mph relative to the radar gun and the police officer.

The officer stops the speeder and gives him a ticket for traveling at 100 mph.

In Situation B, the speeder is again traveling eastward, but this time he is also being viewed by a physicist located at a point in space that is stationary relative to the center of the earth.  As in Situation A, the speeder is again traveling at 100 miles per hour from the point of view of the police officer.  However, from the point of view of the physicist, the car is traveling at 100 miles per hour car speed plus 1,000 miles per hour with the earth as the earth spins on its axis.

In this situation, the radar gun emitter is moving at backwards at 1,000 mph.  However, the speed of the emitter doesn't add or subtract from the speed of light,  so the photons emitted by the radar gun still travel at 299,792,458 meters per second (c) toward the speeding car. 

Atoms in the car's bumper and front end again encounter the photons at c + 100 mph.  The atoms again interpret that extra speed (also known as "the Doppler shift")  as being a higher energy or higher oscillation frequency.  So, they generate new Doppler-shifted photons which oscillate at the higher frequency and which are sent back to the radar gun.  Once again, because the speed of the emitter cannot add to or subtract from the speed of light being emitted, the new photons travel back to the radar gun at c.

Now here's the problem: According to the physicist in space, the radar gun is moving at 1,000 mph away from the point where the new photons were emitted.  But the radar gun will not register that speed because it does not measure any Doppler shift on the returning photons, it just compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons that came back.  So, it still computes and displays the speed of the oncoming car as 100 mph.

I do not fully understand how the radar gun can ignore the Doppler shift for the returning photons and just compare the oscillating frequencies of the original photons to the returned photons.  The radar gun is, in effect, a radio transmitter and receiver, since it sends out and receives photons oscillating in the radio frequency range.  And the radar gun evidently does the oscillation frequency comparison with a tuner.  I do not fully understand how a radio tuner works, but a tuner doesn't seem to care how fast a photon is traveling, it can compare photon oscillating frequencies regardless of velocities. 

That probably explains why your radio works just fine whether you are moving or not, even if you are on an airplane or a spaceship.  Radio signals sent to people on board the International Space Station (ISS) are not distorted when received.  If the ISS is moving toward the emitter, the signal might be louder than if the ISS is moving away from the emitter, because it receives more photons in a given period of time.  But the oscillating frequency of the photons will not change and thus the tuner will convert the photons into sound without any slowing or speeding up distortions. 

This is also why the police officer I talked with was able to say that when a radar gun in a patrol car moving at 60 mph is pointed at a highway sign planted next to the road, the speed of the highway sign will register as zero on the radar gun (actually as "no reading").  The speed of the patrol car did not change the speed of the photons the radar gun emitted, the photons still traveled at c just as they would if the patrol car was stationary, and the photons returning from the highway sign oscillated at the same rate as the emitted photons.  The fact that the patrol car was moving toward the highway sign did not generate any Doppler effect because the gun just compares oscillating frequencies of photons sent and received, it does not measure or compute incoming Doppler effects.

I can accept that the radar gun does work that way.  I think I can visualize how the "tuner" can compare photons without being affected by the incoming speed of the returned photons.  But what I am missing is some science book or physics paper that confirms what I wrote above or states in plain English where I am wrong.  Nothing I can find seems to address the issue of how emitted and returned photons are compared while ignoring the incoming Doppler effect.  They just say the two photons are "beat together."  "Beat together" supposedly means that they somehow combine (or "beat together") the two photons, and that somehow results in a brand new photon that oscillates at the difference between the original two oscillating frequencies.  And that difference is equal to the speed of the target vehicle. 

It's easy to write the words, and I think I can even visualize the process.  But I still need to find some quotable source that says that radio receivers and radar guns ignore the incoming Doppler shift when the receiver or gun is moving toward or away from an emitter or transmitter.  And that's my problem.  Until I can find a good source that states exactly that, I'll always feel that there could be something important I still do not understand. 

July 18, 2018 - One of the problems (and pleasures) of doing scientific research is that you can stumble across things that you weren't looking for, but which are very interesting, and that can result in getting distracted for hours and hours.  Today I was reading a scientific paper that used a book titled "Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time" as a reference, so I did a Google search for the book.  To my surprise, the third link in the list Google provided was to a place where I could get a free copy of the book in pdf format.  So, I downloaded it and browsed through it.  I found page 26  to be very interesting and did some underlining in red:

Splitting the Second - page 26

I hadn't really thought of clocks that way.  Or, maybe I did but I never quite phrased it that way.

So, everything that oscillates or rotates or pulses at a regular pace could be a clock - an atom, a particle, a metronome, a heart, or a balance wheel.  I knew that, I just hadn't thought about how all you need to do is add a counter to count and display the cycles, and you have a clock.  I was focused on how time dilation says that every one of those oscillating systems will slow down when they are part of something going very fast or part of something that is approaching a gravitational mass. 

The Google search also found some reviews for the book, which was published in 2000.  A review in Physics Today seems kind of snippy, complaining that the author gives too much credit to British scientists and omits what the (American-made) GPS system has done for timekeeping.  The review says:
The global positioning system (GPS), while mentioned, is not properly credited for its importance in the worldwide distribution of accurate time. GPS has now become the dominant means to obtain time, even in ways of which the ultimate user is unaware. Its success and easy availability in providing time even threaten the development of new, more expensive clocks.
Has the GPS system "become the dominant means to obtain time"?  I guess I am one of the "ultimate users" who is unaware of that.  And I still do not understand what the reviewer means.  As far as I know, I have never used the GPS system. From my point of view, the book seems to have a lot to say about the GPS system, including something I was totally unaware of.  This is from page 130:  
But the most significant development in time transfer since the 1980s has been the growth of two satellite navigation systems, GPS and GLONASS. GPS is a network of 24 Navstar satellites operated by the US Department of Defense. GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System) is a similar array of satellites operated by the Russian military.
I had never heard of GLONASS before.  This is from page 131 (remember that the book was published in 2000):
The Russian system, GLONASS, is taking longer to gain acceptance and suffers from reliability problems. Like GPS, the constellation is supposed to have 24 operational satellites, but many have failed and by the spring of 2000 only ten were working.
Checking GLONASS on Wikipedia, I found it says,

Development of GLONASS began in the Soviet Union in 1976. Beginning on 12 October 1982, numerous rocket launches added satellites to the system until the constellation was completed in 1995. After a decline in capacity during the late 1990s, in 2001, under Vladimir Putin's presidency, the restoration of the system was made a top government priority and funding was substantially increased. GLONASS is the most expensive program of the Russian Federal Space Agency, consuming a third of its budget in 2010.

By 2010, GLONASS had achieved 100% coverage of Russia's territory and in October 2011, the full orbital constellation of 24 satellites was restored, enabling full global coverage.
Hmm.  I wonder what President Trump would say about that.  He'd probably say that the Russians just didn't make their system a top priority. 

Searching for comparisons of the two systems, I found a web site that says:

In terms of positional accuracy GPS is slightly better than GLONASS overall, but due to the different positioning of the GLONASS satellites, GLONASS has better accuracy at high latitudes (far north or south).
I also found another web site that says GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of 19,130 kilometers and GLOSNASS satellites orbit at an altitude of 21,150 kilometers.  President Trump would probably argue that proves that the Russian system is superior, but further research shows that the European Union has another GPS system that is almost fully operational.  It is called GALILEO, and their satellites orbit at an altitude of 23,220 kilometers.  In addition, newer smartphones and other devices use signals from multiple systems to further improve accuracy.  

July 16, 2018 - It has always bugged me that mathematicians do not care if light consists of wave or particles.  They're not interested in how the universe works, they are only interested in the math.  They use one math formula when they want to solve a problem by viewing light as waves, and they use another math formula when they want to solve a problem by viewing light as photons.

In discussions on Usenet yesterday, I came to realize that they also do not care if the speed of light is variable or invariable.  They'll endlessly argue that the speed of light is invariable (claiming it is what Einstein's theories say, even though it it actually contrary to Einstein's theories), and then they'll argue that when light is emitted downward toward the earth it will increase in frequency and become "blueshifted" when it reaches the earth.  Likewise, light emitted upward from the earth will decrease in frequency and become "redshifted."

The problem is, if you view light as photons or waves, that means that, when you emit photons or waves downward, the photons or waves will arrive at a higher frequency (or faster rate) than you emitted themThat is impossible (It also means that when you emit photons upward, they will arrive slower than you emitted them.  That is equally absurd, but less easy to show to be absurd.)  I just slapped together the cartoon below to illustrate the situation.  I'll create a better one when I have more time.

Mathematicians' gravitational blueshift

Imagine dropping marbles from the top of a tower at a rate of one per second.  The marbles will accelerate as they fall, which means they will travel faster and faster as they fall, but the number of marbles cannot increase.  So, the marbles will still hit the ground at the bottom of the tower at the same rate of one per second that they were dropped.  The frequency will remain unchanged.

The frequency also cannot change when light photons or waves are emitted downward toward the earth without somehow creating more photons while en route!  The only thing that can change in their experiment is the speed of light.  That means that, according to the beliefs of mathematicians, the wave or photon is traveling faster when it hits the earth than it was traveling when it was created.

The most famous experiment they cite is Pound-Rebka.  Here is what Wikipedia says about that experiment:
If the two systems are stationary relative to one another and the space between them is flat (i.e. we neglect gravitational fields) then the photon emitted by the emitter can be absorbed by the electron in the receiver. However, if the two systems are in a gravitational field then the photon may undergo gravitational redshift as it travels from the first system to the second, causing the photon frequency observed by the receiver to be different to the frequency observed by the emitter when it was originally emitted. Another possible source of redshift is the Doppler effect: if the two systems are not stationary relative to one another then the photon frequency will be modified by the relative speed between them.
and this part fits better with the cartoon:
In the Pound-Rebka experiment, the emitter was placed at the top of tower with the receiver at the bottom. General relativity predicts that the gravitational field of the Earth will cause a photon emitted downwards (towards the Earth) to be blueshifted (i.e. its frequency will increase)
That last part says that the individual photon's "frequency will increase."  In other words, the individual photon oscillates at a faster rate.  But what would cause the photon to oscillate at a faster and faster rate as it move?  Why would gravity cause a photon to oscillate faster and faster?  Besides, mathematicians endlessly claim that photons do not oscillate.

Their beliefs make no sense.   What Einstein's theory says is that the emitter at the top emits one wave per second, and the guy at the bottom received 3 waves per second because a second is longer when you are closer to a center of gravity.  The guy at the top emitted one wave per his second, and the guy at the bottom received three waves per his second.

I'm thinking I need to write a paper about this.

July 15, 2018 - I keep thinking I should stop arguing with people on the different Usenet groups and just work on a book about it all.  But then, while I am explaining something to one of them, I'll realize something I hadn't realized before.  That happened a couple days ago on the sci.physics.research Usenet group when three things happened in succession.  First, Edward Prochak tried to create an experiment involving two moving trains passing each other where it would be impossible to prove anything.  Then, a moderator tried to set up rules for all time-dilation experiments where an observer must be in two places at once, thereby making it impossible to perform any such experiments.  Then, Tom Roberts once again argued that all time dilation experiments require some kind of mysterious "signals" which he cannot explain, but which he claims invalidate all time dilation experiments.

When those three arguments are combined with all the arguments from people who refuse to believe that time dilation is a real natural phenomenon unless you can see that your clock is running slower while you travel at high speeds (which makes no sense if everything that is moving is running slower, including your brain), the whole debate seems to be about not accepting the results of experiments.  They do not believe in experiments, particularly time dilation experiments, and they look for ways to discredit experiments. (I assume that they do believe in mathematical experiments, just not physical experiments.)

Sometimes, too, one of the people I'm arguing with will say something interesting. For example, yesterday Tom Roberts said atomic clocks

are specified by their manufacturer to operate only under accelerations less than 2 g.
Hmm.  That probably means gravitational time dilation will seriously affect the time shown by the atomic clock if you operate it under 2G conditions or higher.  So, unless you are measuring gravitational time dilation, gravitational time dilation can cause accuracy problems with atomic clocks.  (Tom Roberts was arguing that the clocks malfunction if you operate them at 2G or higher.  He claimed, "the mechanical structure might not remain stable.")

Something else happened yesterday while I was arguing about the centrifuge time dilation experiment mentioned in my Analyzing the "Twin Paradox" paper.  I then had to create the illustration below to help explain my thoughts to myself.
Clocks in a centrifuge time dilation
The argument was about how time dilation works in the centrifuge situation.  Unlike the Hafele-Keating experiments, the spin of the earth plays no role in this experiment.  Even though it might seem otherwise, both clocks move around the Earth's axis together.  The stationary clock (x1) in the control room and the moving clock (x2) on the centrifuge are mathematically stationary relative to one another.  Part of the time the x2 clock is moving sideways to the left (A) relative to the x1 clock.  Part of the time the x2 clock is moving sideways to the right (C) relative to the x1 clock.  Part of the time the x2 clock is moving away (B) from the x1 clock.  And part of the time the x2 clock is moving toward (D) the x1 clock.   All relative movement is balanced out.  It is just as if the two clocks were both stationary relative to one another (for purposes of location).  

However, relative to the speed of light (which is where time dilation occurs) the centrifuge clock (x2) is moving significantly faster than the control clock (x1).  The fact that the movement is in a circle makes no difference.

For some reason, people keep wanting to measure time dilation between x2 and some point midway between x2 and the center of the spinning centrifuge.  I think it may be because that is how they model their mathematical equations.  They have no standard model equations that compare a point on the centrifuge to a point outside of the centrifuge room.

It is all very interesting, and sometimes I am getting defenders who explain things the way I explain them.  And they also criticize Tom Roberts for arguing the same nonsense about "signals" over and over and over, even though he has been proved wrong again and again and again. 

Also, the feedback I am getting about the centrifuge time dilation experiment on Facebook's Astrophysics and Physics group has all been positive.   It has mostly just been people clicking on "like" or "love," but there has occasionally been an intelligent question for me to answer.

Comments for Sunday, July 8, 2018, thru Saturday, July 14, 2018:

July 13, 2018 - Yesterday, I tried to start a new thread on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group.  The moderators finally approved it and it appeared on the group about 45 minutes ago.  Unfortunately, it's a very popular group and about a dozen other threads have been started since then.  So, my new thread might get lost in the clutter.  Time will tell. (It got its first "like" about 35 minutes ago.)

Meanwhile, arguments continue on the sci.physics.research Usenet group, even though moderators continue to block some of my posts.  I received an email this morning from a moderator that said:

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is inappropriate for the newsgroup because its statements about special
relativity are simply wrong.  What Steve Carlip wrote,

SR says that in Alice's rest frame, Bob's
clock appears to tick slower than Alice's, and in Bob's rest frame, Alice's clock appears to tick slower than Bob's.  *You* don't get to decide which clock is "really" slower, unless you want to claim that your reference frame is better than anyone else's.
is correct.
Sigh.  The moderator is someone at the University of Indiana.  So, I'm going to reply to advise him that "you" can claim your clock is "really slower" because a everyone else will agree.  They'll agree because all of their clocks are running faster.  SR (Special Relativity) says so.  SR does NOT say that Bob's clock will appear to tick slower than Alice's and Alice's clock will appear to tick slower than Bob's. 

I'm beginning to feel once again that I'm never going to change anyone's mind.  So, the only purpose in arguing with them is to verify that I am correct.  They have no arguments that I am wrong.  All they have are incorrect beliefs about what Einstein wrote (as seen in the quote above).  And when I quote what Einstein wrote, they respond that it may be what he wrote, but it isn't what he meant.  And then it turns into an opinion vs opinion argument about what Einstein was "really" thinking in 1905.

July 12, 2018 - Nuts!  I got a typical Facebook response to the thread about atomic clocks on a centrifuge that I started in the Neil de Grasse Tyson group: I got 3 "likes," 1 "love" and 1 "share."  NO comments.  Not a single one.  Nada.

And in the past 24 hours there were only 10 views of my paper about it and the "twin paradox" that I put on vixra.org.  Of course, no one knows about the paper except for people who read this web site - and maybe someone who might stumble across it while browsing through vixra.org.  I didn't mention it in the Facebook post.  And I haven't yet mentioned it on any Usenet group.

Meanwhile, on the sci.physics.research Usenet group, a moderator allowed one of my posts to appear along with the moderator's thoughts about what I'd posted:

[[Mod. note -- As Tom Roberts (& others) have pointed out, in order
to directly compare clocks A and B, A and B must be colocated for
the duration of the comparison, i.e., they must be at the same
position and (be observed by *all* observers to be) moving at the
same velocity.

If these conditions don't hold, then we can't directly compare A
and B.  We may be able to compare (say) A to signals broadcast by
B, but that's a rather different sort of (indirect) comparison.
-- jt]]
That makes no sense at all!  In order to compare a clock that is traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light to a clock on earth, they must be "colocated" in the same position where they can be viewed by all observers????!!!!

In other words, you can't compare a clock in space to a clock on Earth unless they are both side by side on Earth!  You cannot even compare a clock on Earth to a clock that was sent into space and then returned to Earth, because the two clocks "must be colocated for the duration of the comparison."  What the f.....!?

Hmm.  On the other hand, it looks like a good opportunity for me to mention my "twin paradox paper" and the centrifuge experiment.  You can have all the observers you want watching the experiment.  Everything is "colocated" in one location: a human centrifuge test facility such as the one at NASA's Ames Research Center.  Or would they argue that if you cannot see the clock sitting outside of the centrifuge room at the same time as you see the clocks on the centrifuge, then the test is invalid?  You could do that with TV cameras.   Hmm.

July 11, 2018 - Okay, there was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my paper Analyzing the "Twin Paradox" is now on vixra.org at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf   The email was posted at 5:07 p.m. last night, but so far there have been no readers.

For what it's worth, yesterday I was informed by NASA's Ames Research center that, "we have never spun an atomic clock here in our centrifuge."  So, I'm going to make a suggestion to a couple well-known scientists that they perform such an experiment.  If you read my paper, you will see that I suggest a third way to slow down time - after velocity and gravitation.  You can do all three in a centrifuge.

Meanwhile, a censor/moderator on the sci.physics.research newsgroup rejected my reply to Tom Robert's latest message to me.  The moderator (located in Germany) sent me an email that said,
Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it doesn't contain any scientific arguments. BTW, the language of science, particularly physics, in fact is math, at least it's the only language adequate to formulate what physics is about.      
My post was, of course, filled with "scientific arguments," but I also mentioned that mathematical models do not necessarily represent reality.  I have to assume that the moderator is a mathematician-physicist, based upon the last sentence he wrote in the quote above.  So, he censored my post because it conflicts with his beliefs. 

On the positive side, he or another moderator allowed another post of mine to go through and appear on the forum.  It was a post to someone else.  On the negative side, this morning I noticed an error in that post and deleted it.  On the positive side, later I used Usenet to post a corrected message and a response to another post addressed to me.  Tomorrow I should find out if either one or both were approved by the moderators.

Added note: This afternoon I sent an email to a famous scientist who is an expert on time dilation, asking him if he thinks putting an atomic clock on a 20G centrifuge would cause the clocks to slow down just as if placed on a planet with gravity 20 times as strong as the gravity on Earth.  I'm awaiting a response. 

Then, instead of just sending an email to Neil de Grasse Tyson to ask him the same question, I posted the question to the Neil de Grasse Tyson Facebook group. I said it would make an interesting TV program.  I had never posted to that group before, and I discovered it is moderated.  But, a few minutes later the post was approved and appeared on the group  So, I should find out tomorrow if any of the 44,051 members has an opinion about the idea.  I don't know if Dr. Tyson has anything to do with the group, but it will still be interesting to see what others think.  I can always find some other way to contact Dr. Tyson.

July 10, 2018 - Hmm.  Past experience was not a proper guide to use regarding my new paper.  It did not appear on vixra.org this morning.  I don't recall any submission of mine ever taking more than a day to appear on vixra.org.  The paper either appeared within a few hours on the same day I submitted it, or it appeared the next morning.  I'm not concerned that it might have been rejected for some reason.  A check of recent submissions shows they haven't processed any papers submitted after 6:47 a.m. on July 9.  I submitted my paper at 11:05 a.m.  Maybe everyone at vixra.org has stopped work to study my paper.  ;-)

I'm really hoping to get some reaction to the idea of putting atomic clocks on a centrifuge.  If there is something wrong with the idea, I would like to have what is wrong explained to me.  How does gravity simulated by a centrifuge differ from gravity simulated by a moving elevator in Einstein's thought experiment?  I can see that the idea won't fit typical "mathematical models" used to calculate time dilation and gravity, but that would just confirm that "mathematical models" do not necessarily represent reality.  Mathematicians use one mathematical model when arguing that light consists of waves, and they use a different mathematical model when arguing that light consists of particles we call "photons."  It seems as if they do not care how light really works as long as all the mathematical models give them the answers they need.  If putting atomic clocks on a centrifuge shows that their mathematical models are wrong, I would see that as a step forward toward understanding the universe, not a step backward because someone needs to re-do some equations. 

Meanwhile, I'll be arguing with the people on the sci.physics.research discussion group.  Mostly I'll be explaining things to them.  They're asking valid questions about Relativity, and I try to provide helpful answers.  (They do not believe there is any "preferred frame of reference" in the universe, but according to Einstein you do not need one.  Time can be used to determine who is moving faster than  whom.)  One of my most rabid enemies on the sci.physics.relativity discussion group, Tom Roberts, has joined the argument once again.  He makes declarations and personal attacks and declares that arguing with me is a waste of time, then he says goodbye only to reappear again a day or two later to do the same thing over again. The moderators have been deleting some of my responses to him, but this morning it seems like a moderator has joined the discussion.  So, maybe my response to Roberts will get posted this time.  

July 9, 2018 - At 11:05 a.m. this morning, I submitted the first draft of my paper "Analyzing the 'Twin Paradox'" to vixra.org.  If past experience is any guide, the paper should be on-line tomorrow morning as the newest item in my collection of scientific papers.  The paper is just 9 pages long, but it seems to include just about every controversial topic related to Relativity.  I also included the proposed experiment I described in yesterday's comment, the experiment where atomic clocks are placed aboard a large centrifuge and spun at about 20 Gs for 22 hours.

Before doing the final reading of the paper this morning, I tried to find a "gravitational time dilation calculator" on-line, but no luck.  It would have been nice if I could have included a statement as to how many fewer nanoseconds the atomic clock on the centrifuge should record when compared to the reference atomic clock which remains outside of the centrifuge room during an experiment lasting 22 hours at 20 Gs.  I realize that virtually every atomic clock in the world ticks at a slightly different rate due to differences in the altitudes of the clocks, but I was hoping to find a calculator that uses some specific clock as representing zero altitude.  But then, of course, the calculator might not be able to calculate stronger gravity than at "zero altitude" on earth, it might only calculate lesser gravity as higher altitudes reduce the effect of gravity.   

As soon as my paper becomes available on vixra, I'll send out some emails mentioning the paper to scientists who would theoretically be in interested in what the results would show (and who inexplicably have not already performed such an experiment).  In theory, NASA could perform the experiment tomorrow at virtually no cost.

Of course, it's possible that there is something everyone else in the world understands that has never occurred to me, and thus such an experiment would .... would ... would show what?  I cannot even guess what it might show other than that time ticks slower for clocks on the spinning centrifuge. 

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to to a Discover magazine on-line article titled "Einstein Right Again: Even the Heaviest Objects Fall the Same Way."  The article begins with this:

Albert Einstein’s been having quite a few weeks! First his “imaginary elevator” thought experiment was confirmed with unprecedented precision, then his theory of relativity was shown to create gravitational lenses as expected even in other galaxies. And today, we learn that a central tenet of relativity still holds even at gravitational extremes. It’s no annus mirabilis, but it ain’t bad.

Today’s news, which appears in the journal Nature, concerns the equivalence principal, which roughly says that falling objects should all fall the same way. It sounds obvious put that way, of course, but the idea that heavier objects should fall at the same rate as lighter objects (discounting air resistance) still surprises people. The idea is that gravity accelerates heavier objects faster, sure, but because they’re more massive it’s harder for them to accelerate, so the two effects cancel out.
What the hell!?  Why are they performing experiments which simply confirm what has been known for hundreds of years?

The article held little interest for me, but the first link in the article was to a different Discover magazine article titled "Einstein’s ‘Imaginary Elevator’ Thought Experiment Proven Right Again."  While it appears to be about yet another experiment that does nothing but confirm what has been known for over a hundred years, at least it was on a subject related to what was in my new article: how simulated added gravity (like one experiences in a centrifuge) works the same as real added gravity (like one experiences on a larger planet).  The article at the link included a link to the article in Nature Physics magazine that generated the Discover article.  Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, the Nature Physics article is just about measuring something more precisely than was done in the thousands of times it was measured before.  Yawn.  

I'd really like to see a new experiment which measures time dilation in a different way than has ever been done before - like putting atomic clocks on a centrifuge.  Whatever results the experiment produces, it should be far more interesting than an experiment that just refines results that have been known for centuries.

July 8, 2018 - I've been working on a new paper that I have tentatively titled "The Twin Paradox Clarified."  Or maybe "Analyzing The Twin Paradox."  Since the paper will explain that there is no paradox, I've also considered titling it "The Twin Paradox Deparadoxified," but that might cause people to think it is a humorous paper or just a joke.

While doing the research, I once again read the paper that supposedly created the whole "twin paradox" idea: Paul Langevin's 1911 paper "The Evolution of Space and Time."  I still find it interesting that the paper doesn't even use the word "twin."  It only discusses how a space "traveler" will age compared to everyone he leaves behind on earth:
Let us assume that two portions of matter encounter each other a first time, separate, and then meet again. We are able to state that observers attached to one and to the other respectively during the separation will not have made the same evaluation of the duration of this separation and will not have aged to the same extent as each other, it follows from what has been said above that the ones that will have aged the least will be those whose motion during the separation has been farthest from being uniform, or who have undergone most accelerations.

In this observation there lies the means, for any one of us willing to devote two years of his life to it, of knowing what will have become of the Earth in two hundred years, of exploring the future of the Earth by taking a forward leap into its lifetime that will last two centuries for the Earth and two years for him, although it would have to be without any hope of returning or any possibility of becoming back to inform us of the result of his journey, since any attempt to do this could only carry him farther and farther forward.

To do this, our traveler would need only to agree to being shut up inside a projectile that the Earth would launch at a velocity sufficiently close to that of light, but still less than it, which is physically possible, arranging for an encounter with, say, a star to take place at the end of one year in the lifetime of the traveler and to send him back towards the Earth at the same velocity. Having returned to Earth two years older, he will emerge from his ark to find that our globe has aged two hundred years, provided that his velocity has remained within the range of only one part in twenty thousand less than the velocity of light. The most reliably established experimental facts of physics enable us to state that this is indeed what would happen.

I also found it interesting that Paul Langevin didn't attribute the slowing of time to traveling at a constant inertial speed that is close to the speed of light, he attributes it to acceleration.  It's interesting because a lot of papers about the "twin paradox" seem to say that acceleration somehow negates the effects of pure inertial velocity time dilation.  For example, here is the abstract for one paper on arxiv.org:
We discuss a rather surprising version of the twin paradox in which (contrary to the familiar classical version) the twin who accelerates is older on the reunion than his never accelerating brother.
I cannot make much sense of these papers, since as I see it, acceleration slows down time just as gravity and velocity do.  In practice, gravitational time dilation typically occurs in combination with velocity time dilation, which means that  one process can slow time while the other speeds up time.  That's what happens with GPS satellites.  The altitude above the earth (and the resultant reduced gravity) causes time to run faster, while the speed of the satellite as it orbits the earth causes time to run slower.  So, clocks on those satellites are set for the net difference.

The Hafele-Keating experiment also had to compensate for both gravitational and velocity time dilation.  While researching that experiment, I found this interesting illustration:
Hafele-Keating Experiments
The experiment is viewed from point "A," which is a "stationary" point in space such as the sun (or the observer depicted as scratching his head).  From that point of view, the clock at the Naval Observatory (B) used for comparisons was moving with the earth from west to east as the earth spins on its axis.  When Hafele and Keating flew west to east (C) their speed around the earth (v) was added to the speed of the earth and the Naval clock (vE).  So, time ran slower for them.  When they flew east to west (D) the Naval clock and the surface of the earth were going one way while Hafele and Keating were going the other way, so they were traveling slower than the earth was spinning.  Time ran faster for them.  As the table below shows, the moving clocks accumulated 59 fewer nanoseconds than the Naval clock during the eastward trip (time ran slower for the experimenters), and during the westward trip the moving clocks accumulated 273 more nanoseconds than the Naval clock (time ran faster for the experimenters).

Hafele Keating test results    
That caused me to wonder what would happen if you put an atomic clock on a human centrifuge like those used to test astronauts and fighter pilots.  The image below shows one of many such centrifuges.

Human centrifuge

It seems like such a simple test, and it uses existing equipment, so why hasn't it been done many times by now?  I did a Google search for atomic clock centrifuge and found that a few other people have been asking the same question, although they mostly seem to wonder about the difference in time dilation between the end of the centrifuge arm and the middle of the arm.  Who cares about that? 

Ames human centrifuge 

The human centrifuge shown above is located at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California.  According to their web site, it can carry a payload of 1,200 pounds, and it can
generate as much as 20 Gs (gravity 20 times normal earth gravity).  What happens to time at 20 Gs?  We know that atomic clocks run slower at the bottom of a mountain than at the top of a mountain because gravity gets weaker the higher your altitude is above mean sea level.  The movie "Interstellar" was about how time moved at a much slower rate on a planet orbiting a black hole than on Earth due to the higher gravity in the vicinity of the black hole.  But exactly what happens when you put an atomic clock on a centrifuge?  It should run significantly slower than a duplicate clock outside of the room.
I haven't been able to find how much an atomic clock weighs, but if Hafele and Keating could put four of them in two airplane seats, as seen in the photograph below, then they probably do not weigh much more than 150 pounds each.  So, the Ames centrifuge could easily hold four clocks.  

Hafele and Keating

I also haven't been able to find how fast the centrifuge travels.  The Ames site only mentions that it can travel at a maximum of 50 revolutions per minute and the centrifuge is 58 feet in diameter.  The speed of the centrifuge should slow down the atomic clock a bit due to velocity time dilation, and the increased gravitational effect generated by the centrifuge should slow down the atomic clock even more - maybe very significantly.   

A good mathematician should be able to compute almost exactly what the test results will show.  The longer they can run the test, the better the results should be.  (The Ames web site indicates they can run it as long as 22 hours at a time.) And it is all time dilation, the slowing of time relative to the atomic clock that will be outside of the room.  There is no offsetting speeding up of time.   
I'll probably make the suggestion in my paper.  I'd certainly be interested in knowing what the results would be.  I assume that others would, too.  All that is needed if for someone to do it.

Other interests:

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

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

© 2018 by Ed Lake