Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads"

One does NOT measure Time... Time is the measure

Julia Galef, host of Rationally Speaking, joins us to discuss her new book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t.

Rationally Speaking is the official podcast of New York City Skeptics. Join Julia Galef and guests as they explore the borderlands between reason and nonsense, likely and unlikely, science and pseudoscience. Rationally Speaking was co-created with Massimo Pigliucci.

Why is "speaking rationally" a worthwhile goal, anyway? It’s not self-evident, at least not to many people. Human beings certainly don’t seem made for it. Aristotle may have famously dubbed us "the rational animal," but cognitive science tells a different story, with plenty of evidence that our brains blithely flout logic all the time and are excellent at rationalizing our irrational decisions after the fact. Indeed, it is reasonable to ask why fight our irrational natures to begin with? After all, some argue that irrationality can make us happier, at least in certain situations. Then again, perhaps there is a problem with the whole idea of arguing for irrationality.

Imbecile Ed Lake quotes Einstein: "Time is what clocks measure" ... moron Ed Lake will die without ascertaining the fact that by that definition -Time is MEASURING 'particle  spin'- NOT 'partilce spin' itself

  On the other hand, the last time I had a lengthy discussion there was in July of 2015, which was before I started writing science papers.  Back then I was mostly arguing on blog files.  It now seems centuries ago.

Meanwhile, last week I got another view into the past when I checked my web site log file for May 5.  Here's a small part of that file.  You can click on it to view a larger version.



As you can see, there were 17 accesses from IP address 2.187.160.242 which is located in Tafresh, Iran.  The fact that it was someone in Iran wasn't particularly unusual, since I get visitors from just about everywhere.  What struck my eye was the fact that the access seemed to come via Google Scholar.  Plus, they were accessing a file on my web site that I couldn't recall putting there.  The file is Second-Postulate-01.pdf   The log entries indicate that someone did a full access of the file at 06:55:35 a.m, and then 16 partial accesses.  I have no idea what that is all about, nor why the full access shows up last in the log.

Checking my web site, the pdf file is there, of course.  And it appears I uploaded the file on the morning of April 20, 2017.  Since my web site is somewhat like a diary, I just had to look to see what I was doing on April 20, 2017.  What I was doing back then was trying to get that paper published in a journal and placed on arXiv.org.  On May 2, 2017, I was informed that it would cost me $127 per page to get it published in the journal that had agreed to publish it.  It's an 18 page paper!  I hadn't seen the part of their web site where the cost of publishing was given.  I thought they published for free.  Later, arXiv.org turned the paper down because I didn't have the proper credentials for putting papers on their web site.

I remember all that.  It basically ended my attempts to get my papers published.  Paying thousands of dollars to get my papers published would be a waste of money.  I am not in any "publish or perish" situation.  I just wanted to get other people's reactions to the ideas in my papers.

I put my first paper on viXra.org on February 22, 2016.  It was the first version of my paper "What is Time?"  ViXra.org doesn't have editors. So, you just upload your paper and it's on-line within a day.  When arXiv.org turned down my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, I put it on viXra.org, too.  And, just as with my paper on "What is Time?", I gradually buried the paper under "revisions" that didn't include all the stuff that got me started.  I was writing new papers on the same topic, not revising the original paper.  The originals are still amazing, while the revised versions just seem to address some specific issue.  Plus, for some reason, I also started double-spacing the papers.  I'm going to have to find some way to fix all that and put the best version at the top of each list of versions.  I should also put the best ones in book format, too, but maybe getting the best versions into separate files will help me decide exactly what should be in the book.  All I need to do is find the time to do it all.  Groan!

An  explanation  for  kindergartens=  Actions  sit  in  the  lap  of  Time...  Time  can  NOT  sit  in  its  own  lap

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake  will  never  ever  understand  the  simple  FACT  that  ACTIONS  OCCUR  IN  TIME...  The  moron  will  never  ever  understand  that  TIME  CAN  NOT  OCCUR  IN  ITSELF  [Sit  in  its  own  lap]

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake  will  never  ever  understand  that  TIME  CAN  NOT  PERFORM  ACTIONS  IN  TIME  [IN  ITSELF]  Time  can  NOT  'tick  in  Time'...  just  in  the  same  way  that  Space  can  NOT  expand  by  taking  up  more  Space,  more  of  itself

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake  will  never  ever  understand  the  simple  FACT  that  it  is  NOT  Time  the  one  that  'ticks  at  different  rates',  CLOCKS  do  that      Moron  Ed  Lake  confuses  TIME  with  a  CLOCK'S  MOTION

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake's  religion  basically  consists  in  confusing  TIME  with  MOTION  [Time  is  not  the  one  doing  the  ticking,  stopping,  or  slowing  down...it's  the  motion  of  a  clock]

Astronomers’ helpless dependence on weather has spawned a wacky cocktail of tricks and superstitions, amusingly incongruous among such scientifically minded folks. One colleague has lucky observing socks she dons for every run; another swears eating a banana at roughly the same time every afternoon staves off clouds. People have lucky cookies, lucky snacks, even lucky tables in the dining room they’ll sit at before runs. I’ve developed the strict habit of refusing to check the weather until the day of the run itself. I tell myself that this forces me to always plan for a clear and productive evening, but deep down, it’s just as much about not jinxing the night as anything else. Some astronomers also seem to have famously bad luck on observing runs. In a few cases, it’s gotten to the point where colleagues on the mountain will groan if they see one of their supposedly cursed colleagues on the schedule, convinced their mere presence will summon clouds or rain or high winds and extend their bad luck to every telescope unlucky enough to be nearby. With only a night or two on the telescope, you also can’t just bail if it’s bad at the start of the evening. The first half of the night may be cloudy, but those clouds could clear away at midnight and reveal a pristine sky. Following the philosophy that it’s criminal to waste so much as a minute of good observing time, this sometimes leaves astronomers camped out in closed domes for hours, chowing down on lucky pretzels and periodically sticking their heads out the door to see if things look better. A scourge of observers is the “sucker hole,” a brief patch of clear sky between the clouds that’s just enough to excite an observer into opening the telescope. The problem here is that opening a telescope is a bit more complex than popping the lens cap off a camera. By the time you’ve run indoors, opened the dome, started and prepared and focused the telescope, and swung into position, the hole in the clouds will often have disappeared, leaving you back at square one.

The sheer volume of science that the Rubin Observatory will produce is almost impossible to contemplate. Imaging the sky over and over, it’s expected to detect over one thousand new supernovae in a single night (right now, we detect fewer than one thousand supernovae in a year).

I'm a big fan of astronomy and check the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day web site every morning, downloading and saving images that I find particularly interesting.  Here's a photo from a few days ago showing the International Space Station passing in front of the sun:



Somewhat by coincidence, when I started reading the next book on my Kindle while eating breakfast this morning, it was another astronomy book - sort of.  It is one astronomer's ponderings about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

May 5, 2021 - As expected, that person who calls himself "Paparios" and claims to be a physics teacher, responded to the comment I wrote yesterday with some more personal attacks in my web site log file. This time, however, he really showed where his misunderstandings are.  He posted just three messages from a web site in Akersberga, Sweden, at about 1:15 p.m., yesterday afternoon.  The first message consisted of 5 copies of this: 

Stupid  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  the  experimets  only  show  A  CLOCK'S  MOTION  slowing  down...NOT  TIME  ITSELF  slowing  down  IN  TIME  [Time  can  NOT  sit  in  its  own  lap  AKA,  Fallacy  of  self  reference]

Moron  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  his  logical  fallacy  leads  to  the  following  question...If  time  stops,  how  much  time  has  to  pass  before  it  can  start  again[Question  mark]

Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.

Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.

If  imbecile  Ed  Lake  understood  BASIC  LOGIC  he  would  realize  that  his  inhability  to  give  a  coherent  answer  is  a  very  clear  indication  that  he    is  a  follower  of  a  stupid  religion

Stupid  Ed  Lake  does  not  seem  to  know  that  'stopping'  and  'slowing  down'  are  actions  that  occur  IN  TIME      It's  a  logical  contradiction  to  claim  that  Time  performs  the  action  of  slowing  down  IN  TIME

Moron  Ed  Lake  confuses  TIME  with  MOTION...Motion  CAN  slow  down  or  stop  IN  TIME...Time  can  not  stop  in  ITSELF  [sit  on  its  own  lap]  It's  a  logical  contradiction  worthy  of  a  world  class  imbecile

Moron  Ed  Lake  illogically  writes  'Once  you  understand  that  TIME  slows  down  when  you  move  fast'  when  he  clearly  MEANS  'Once  you  understand  that  PARTICLE-SPIN  slows   down  when  you  move  fast'

Ed  Lake's  'particle  spin'  CAN  slow  down  or  stop  IN  TIME  therefore  'particle  spin'  is  NOT  Time  itself

Ed  Lake  defines  Time  as  'particle-spin'  then  proceeds  to  write  a  book  about  'travelling  through  particle-spin'  and  'anti-particle-spin  dimension  where  particle-spin  moves  backward'  [anti-time  dimension  where  time  moves  backward]  UTTERLY  STUPID

Moron  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  that  his  'third  frame  pulsar'  goes  against  'the  rules'  of  Relativity  in  the  same  way  that  kicking  a  ball  goes  against  the  rules  of  basketball

Cretin  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  by  replacing  'the  rules'  he  is  no  longer  'playing  Relativity',  he  is  instead  playing  some  sort  of  backyard  'Lakeian'  Pseudoscience

And just as there is no center of the surface of the Earth, there is no  center of the expanding universe. Any observer, located anywhere in our universe, will observe the same recession of galaxies that Hubble discovered.
          When I’m explaining this idea in a classroom or in a public lecture, it’s usually around this time that someone asks, “But what is space expanding into?” Most people picture expanding space as a process of space growing into, or gradually taking up, some other region of space—like the volume of an inflating balloon. But this misses the point of what we mean when we say “space.” Space can’t expand into other space. When we say that space is expanding, we mean all of space, not just some of it. There is nothing for space to grow or expand into. If there were, we would call that thing space. The space of our universe is getting larger, but without moving into anything else. 

Cretin  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  adding  a  third  frame  [pulsar]  goes  against  the  tenets  of  Relativity  [Let  us  in  "stationary"  space  take  TWO  systems  of  co-ordinates]  yet  he  BELIEVES  he  is  the  ONLY  ONE  who  understands  Relativity

There is no "third frame" in the thought experiment I created for my paper about measuring time dilation using a pulsar.  Each observer merely has a second clock.  He has the clock inside his frame, and he has a second clock that he can observe by looking outside his frame.  That second clock - a pulsar - is "stationary" relative to both observers.  I put "stationary" in quotes because a mathematician would argue that it is not stationary at all.  Here's the illustration I used:



The experiment involves a pair of scientist twins, one who takes a 1-year round-trip to the vicinity of Alpha Centuari while the other twin stays waiting at home on Earth for 10 years.  In addition to measuring time using the normal clocks they have next to them, they also both use a pulsar as a clock.  The pulsar ticks once per second when viewed from Earth and is at a right angle to the flight from Earth to Alpha Centauri as shown in the illustration.  When viewed from the space ship, the pulse rate of the pulsar varies as time dilation varies.  It tells the traveling twin how much time dilation he is experiencing, even though he can feel and see no effects of time dilation inside his spaceship.

From the point of view of a scientist or astronomer, it is a relatively straight-forward experiment.  For a mathematician, however, using a clock that is outside the "system of co-ordinates" or "frame of reference" is strictly forbidden.  In addition, it is an experiment filled with intolerable variables.  The earth is not going to be stationary during the ten year trip.  It will rotate on its axis about 3,652 times and will orbit the sun 10 times (which both twins can measure and also use as " clocks," although the ship's direction of travel adds complications that moving at a right angle to a pulsar doesn't have).  Plus, the sun is moving in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.  From a scientist's point of view, those motions simply average out during the trip or don't affect the experiment in any significant way.  But if all you understand is the math, the distances between the "stationary" earth and the moving spaceship change every second in different ways. While the spaceship is traveling through space at a relatively constant speed (most of the time), the "stationary" earth is actually moving in multiple directions at varying speeds.

In some ways, my pulsar thought experiment is comparable to the Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971.  Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating had no way to calculate exactly how much time dilation they would measure as they flew around the world.  There were too many variables.  They couldn't be certain about the exact altitude at which the planes would fly, nor the exact speed. Instead, they used estimates.  And their estimates gave them an answer that was within a reasonable margin of error when compared to the end results of their experiment. 

You could say that Hafele and Keating viewed their experiment as scientists, not as mathematicians.  They understood how atomic clocks work, they understood the variables that are part of air travel, and they could deal with them with confidence by using estimated averages.  They also understood that time dilation does not require the vacuum of space, nor does it require any inertial system, even though that is how Einstein originally envisioned time dilation. And the results of their experiments confirmed the science.  If all you understand is math, however, you could spend the entire duration of the experiment - and many years afterwards - just trying to define and calculate all the variables.   

The troll who posts to my log file would probably argue that doing things as done in the pulsar thought experiment, or as Hafele and Keating actually did them, is illogical because the only valid form of logic is mathematics. 

If  by  now  Ed Lake  hasn't  realized  that  Time  performimg  actions  IN  TIME  is  a  logical  contradiction,  he  never  will

Actions  occur  in  Time,  Time  is  not  an  action  that  can  occur  in  Time      Time  can  not  sit  in  its  own  lap      not  that  there  is  any  hope  for  moron  Ed  lake  to  understand  the  logical  contradiction

Cretin  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  adding  a  third  frame  [pulsar]  goes  against  the  tenets  of  Relativity  [Let  us  in  %E2%80%9Cstationary%E2%80%9D  space  take  TWO  systems  of  co-ordinates]  yet  he  BELIEVES  he  is  the  ONLY  ONE  who  understands  Relativity

Narcissist  and  senile  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  how  illogical  his  stupid  religion  is...yet  he  claims  to  follow  logic

The  reason  stupid  Ed  lake  claims  that  statements  posted  here  'make  no  sense  to  me'  is  because  he  does  not  understand  basic  logic---like  he  can  sit  in  other  people's  lap  but  he  can't  sit  on  his  own  lap

The  reason  stupid  Ed  lake  claims  that  '[other  people]  cannot  comprehend  my  elementary  logic'  is  because  his  logic  is  akin  to  claiming  that  he  can  sit  in  his  own  lap

The  number  one  thing  out  of  the  'million  things  about  Relativity  that  [moron  Ed]  would  like  to  understand  better'  is  the  fact  that  Relativity  is  about  MEASUREMENTS=CLOCKS  &  RODS  not  'things'

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  that  the  Photoelectric  EFFECT  is  NOT  'a  thing'    'a  photon'  is  a  measurement  in  QM  irrespective  of  his  stupid  opinion

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  that  'water'  is  not  the  same  as  'flow  of  water'      a  photon  in  QM  is  akin  to  'flow  of  water'  not  to  'water'

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  states-'to  me  a  photon  is  still  NOT  a  measurement'      that  is  because  he  is  too  fucking  stupid  to  comprehend  what  Quantum  Mechanics  is  about      CAN'T  FIX  STUPID

Postulate 1: All observers at a constant speed must observe the same laws of motion.

Postulate 2: All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.

Imagine Captain Kirk firing a phaser gun while two space shuttles are observing the action. One space shuttle is stationary and the other is moving in the same direction as the light.

Postulate 2 tells us that they both see the light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. Let us say that the stationary space shuttle has measured the “ correct ” distance and time to calculate the speed. What about the moving space shuttle? Since it is moving, one would expect its passengers to perceive the light going a little slower. But in fact they also see the light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. The only way this “ error ” can occur is if they measure the distance and time “ incorrectly. ” That is, their measuring rods must have shortened so that the distance they measured is “ incorrect, ” and their time clock must have slowed down so that the duration they measured is “ incorrect. ” In fact, this is exactly what happens! Their measuring rods get shorter in a phenomenon called “ length contraction” and their clocks go slower in a phenomenon called “ time dilation.” Since this is a natural process, it is wrong to call one view correct and the other incorrect. Both views are correct.

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  still---even-after-posting-the-definitions---does  not  comprehend  that  a  photon  is  a  MEASUREMENT

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  comprehend  that  'a  quantity'  or  'an  amount'  are  MEASUREMENTS

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  comprehend  that  a  photon  is  to  light  what  a  kilogram  is  to  mass

These  concepts  are  so  alien  to  imbecile  Ed  Lake  that  he  thinks  they  are  bad  translations  from  a  foreing  language  although  HIS  definitions  are  in  plain  English

Imbecile  Ed  Lake  does  not  comprehend  that  in  Quantum  Mechanics  PARTICLES  ARE  MEASUREMENTS

Stupid Ed_Lake doesn't understand that a photon is a measurement.

Saying that light is 'composed of photons' is as stupid as saying that 'space is composed of meters'.

a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

quantity, amount

the subject of a mathematical operation

Stupid Ed Lake doesn't understand that a wave is a measurement.

Saying that light is 'composed of waves' is as stupid as saying that
'space is composed of yards'.

A Turing Award-winning computer scientist and statistician shows how understanding causality has revolutionized science and will revolutionize artificial intelligence

"Correlation is not causation." This mantra, chanted by scientists for more than a century, has led to a virtual prohibition on causal talk. Today, that taboo is dead. The causal revolution, instigated by Judea Pearl and his colleagues, has cut through a century of confusion and established causality -- the study of cause and effect -- on a firm scientific basis.

Generally, Science is a system of knowledge acquisition. Through different processes such as observation, experimentation and making inferences, the system can describe and explain the many why’s and how’s in the environment. Science describes and rationalizes natural occurrences on earth. The main purpose of Science is to produce essential facts and truth through world explorations. These are all possible by application of scientific method in every scientific investigation.

Physics embodies knowledge of the natural world. Basically, physics is the study of matter, which is anything that consists mass and takes up space. This is a natural science that focuses on matter and its motion and conduct in space and time.  It is also related to energy and force. Physics is one of the most ultimate disciplines in the world of science aiming to explain and understand the behavior of the whole universe.

Physics is a kind of science. Even though the real boundaries of a type of science are not known, physics is often regarded as the science of the way things move or simply put; the science of energy. Physics deals mostly with the physical universe without including some chemistry, geology, and astronomy. 

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.

18. The second postulate of relativity states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless of the relative motion of the source of light and the observer. This postulate may be obtained by combining the first postulate of relativity with a principle which has long been familiar to the ether theory of light. This principle states that the velocity of light is unaffected by a motion of the emitting source, in other words, that the velocity with which light travels past any observer is not increased by a motion of the source of light towards the observer. The first postulate of relativity adds the idea that a motion of the source of light towards the observer is identical with a motion of the observer towards the source. The second postulate of relativity is seen to be merely a combination of these two principles, since it states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless both of the motion of the source of light and of the observer.

Light from a source always travels at c, but it will hit a MOVING OBSERVER at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward or away from the light source.

That is demonstrated by radar guns every day. And I have a list of other ways it is verified: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
a MOVING OBSERVER at c?

Moving relative to what? Every inertial object is moving relative to
some frame and stationary in some other frame.

Examples of a similar kind, as well as the unsuccessful attempts to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "light-medium", lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of the phenomena correspond to the concept of absolute rest, but rather that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we will elevate this guess to a presupposition (whose content we shall subsequently call the "Principle of Relativity") and introduce the further assumption, — an assumption which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former one — that light in empty space always propagates with a velocity V which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

The velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the source and the observer.

As per postulate II, if a light beam is emitted by a moving rocket, it doesn’t matter: it travels at c. If a light beam is seen by a moving rocket, it doesn’t matter: it will measure c. All people will get the same answer for the velocity of light. It is a postulate because it cannot be deduced from anything else.

2. The Speed of Light Postulate: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.

We can also phrase this postulate to say that there is in nature an ultimate speed c, the same in all directions and in all inertial reference frames. Light happens to travel at this ultimate speed.

April 16, 2021 - Hmm.  When I woke up this morning, my subconscious mind presented me with the solution to a problem I hadn't realized existed.  It relates to the thought experiment where a pulsar is used to measure time dilation.  Here's the illustration I used in the thought experiment described in my May 31, 2015, paper "Time Dilation Re-Visualized":



The pulsar rotates, sending a beam of light out like a lighthouse, hitting the earth once per second.  Using that beam as a clock that can be seen from both the earth and from a space ship traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light toward Alpha Centauri, because a second will be 10 times longer on the space ship, it will see the pulsar pulsing 10 times per second.

Yet, in the sci.physics.relativity UseNet/Google Discussion thread I started about this topic on March 16 someone named "Mitchell Raemisch" kept posting messages saying the clock would run slow and therefore be inaccurate.  When I asked several times what he meant, getting no answer, people on the forum told me "Mitchell Raemisch" was actually a robot.  I thought that was interesting, but it was also time for me to stop responding to posts in the thread, so I did.  Then, this morning, I realized the "robot" was right - sort of.

The pulsar rotates counter-clockwise once per Earth second.  The space ship heading to Alpha Centauri is moving at a right angle to the light from the pulsar.  That means that every revolution of the pulsar the light will hit the moving space ship a very tiny fraction of a second later than on the previous revolution.  If the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri is one degree of revolution for the pulsar, and if the pulsar flashes 31,536,000 times during the ten year experiment, during the entire trip from Earth to Alpha Centauri, the pulsar clock will run about a billionth of a second slow.  But on the return trip from Alpha Centauri back to Earth, the pulsar clock will run about a billionth of a second fast.  So, it has absolutely no effect on the experiment.  However, if you are a mathematician, it might be a serious problem to incorporate that change in clock times into an equation. 

This morning I posted a message to "Mitchell Raemisch," addressing him as "Mr. Robot," and thanking him for bringing the issue to my attention.  Then "Odds Bodkin" immediately responded, advising me that "Mitchell Raemisch" is NOT a robot, he's a "homeless drifter, living in the Pacific Northwest, sometimes in other people’s unlocked cars."  Either way, I'm glad he brought the issue to my attention.  And I stated so in the 706th message in the thread.

April 15, 2021 - Two days ago, while working on my new book, tentatively titled "Logical Relativity," I began working on a chapter about Einstein's Second Postulate.  I did some research and found a couple dozen different versions of that Postulate in textbooks and science books, some of them referring to "the constancy of the speed of light."  Then I started studying what Einstein wrote about "the constancy of the speed of light." BOOM!  It blew my mind!  What Einstein wrote didn't stun me, it was my analysis of what he wrote and the implications I hadn't thought about before.

I immediately stopped working on the book and copied everything I had written in that chapter into science paper format, titling the paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'."  Yesterday evening it seemed like I was about 80% finished with the paper, but, when I woke this morning, my mind was racing on about things I hadn't previously thought about.  So, I'm probably more like 50% done.  But I still hope to have it on-line sometime next week.

One idea that never occurred to me before relates to the pulsar experiment, where one twin travels at extremely high speeds to Alpha Centauri while the other twin stays at home on earth, and they use a pulsar as a clock to measure time in both locations.  If you are moving toward a star at high speeds, the photons from that star are going to hit you the same way photons from a radar gun hit an oncoming car -- at c+v.  And when the car receives those photons, it receives them as if they were oscillating at a higher rate.  Atoms in the car then emit NEW photons that have the higher oscillation rate back to the radar gun.  The gun measures the difference in oscillation rates between what it emitted and what it received back and computes the speed of the car.

Now, suppose that instead of moving at earth traffic speeds, you are in a space ship heading for Alpha Centauri at speeds approaching the speed of light.  Alpha Centauri is now the "radar gun" emitting photons at you. It is emitting photons in the visible light range, but as you increase speed toward Alpha Centauri, the photons will start hitting you as if they had shorter and shorter wavelengths and higher and higher energy levels. 


As you can see in the chart above, very quickly the visible light photons will hit you as if they were ultra-violet light photons.  Then as if they were X-ray photons.  Then as if they were stronger and stronger Gamma ray photons.

I haven't done the math, but if you travel toward Alpha Centauri at 298,290 kilometers per second, which is the speed you need to reach in order to make 1 second on your space ship equal to 10 seconds back on Earth, your space ship is going to be hit with ever-increasing numbers of extremely energetic Gamma ray photons that will blast apart every atom in your space ship.

Meanwhile, of course, if there are any mathematicians aboard your ship, they will all be arguing that it doesn't matter how fast you go, the light photons from Alpha Centauri will still only hit you at c, never at c+v, which is their screwball interpretation of "the constancy of the speed of light."  

April 12, 2021 - I've finally managed to get started on my book "Logical Relativity."  It's currently 7 pages long, all of which require a lot of revising.  I decided to begin with the conflict over Einstein's Second Postulate.  All other problems and conflicts I plan to write about seem to stem from there. 

I suppose I should be spending my time promoting my sci-fi novel, "Time Work," but I just cannot resist working on "Logical Relativity."  I didn't write "Time Work" to make money, and I certainly do not expect "Logical Relativity" to be a "runaway bestseller."  I'll probably be lucky if it sells 10 copies.  I write because I like writing.  That's why I have this web site, too.  The biggest problem I have is: Which should I work on?  You cannot write two different things at once.  So, to write this comment I had to stop working on "Logical Relativity" for awhile.  And I think I've done enough to qualify as a "comment," so now I'll get back to work on "Logical Relativity."

April 11, 2021 - I finally managed to stop arguing on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  But that doesn't mean the arguments have ended.  As of this morn

1) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

2) in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity v which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

3) light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body.    

1) Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.

2) The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.

3) The speed of light in vacuum has the same value, c = 3.00 x 10⁸ m/s in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.”

And just as there is no center of the surface of the Earth, there is no center of the expanding universe. Any observer, located anywhere in our universe, will observe the same recession of galaxies that Hubble discovered.
          When I’m explaining this idea in a classroom or in a public lecture, it’s usually around this time that someone asks, “But what is space expanding into?” Most people picture expanding space as a process of space growing into, or gradually taking up, some other region of space—like the volume of an inflating balloon. But this misses the point of what we mean when we say “space.” Space can’t expand into other space. When we say that space is expanding, we mean all of space, not just some of it. There is nothing for space to grow or expand into. If there were, we would call that thing space. The space of our universe is getting larger, but without moving into anything else. 

To me, that is just mumbo jumbo obfuscation. When looking at things logically, there is absolutely no reason why the Big Bang universe cannot be expanding into an "infinite universe" that we can also call "space."  I illustrated that concept in a drawing I created about a year ago:

This view of the universe, which I describe in detail in my paper "Logical vs Mathematical Universes" is perfectly logical, but mathematicians simply cannot cope with it.  They cannot cope with an "infinite universe" because there is no way to measure where it ends.  If they cannot measure it, then it cannot exist!

This will go into my book somewhere, as will a discussion of using a pulsar as a clock to measure time dilation, and a detailed description of the crazy arguments about which Second Postulate is the one Einstein used and why the version used in many many textbooks is wrong.

My biggest problem right now just seems to be: where to start?  What do I write about first?  I'm leaning toward writing about measuring time dilation with a pulsar first.  It's a good "lead in" that won't scare people off, as a lengthy analysis of all the different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate might.  That analysis might cause mathematicians to rise up and view me as a warlock or sorcerer.