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

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/


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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

A Crime Unlike Any Other book
                cover
Available in paperback and Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

clipper cover, b
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to access my scientific papers about time dilation, Special Relativity, etc.
Click HERE to go to my Facebook group about Time and Time Dilation. Click HERE to go to my notes about scientific topics discussed on this web site.


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

just trying to figure things out.


Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.                                   I have a fascination with Time and Time Dilation.         Other interests: Movies and Science Podcasts Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments


Comments for Sunday, May 9, 2021, thru Saturday, May 15, 2021:

May 13, 2021 - I'm getting indications that someone is talking about one of my papers, but I don't know where the discussion is taking place. All I see is unusual activity on on my vixra.org page for the number of "Unique IP downloads" of the paper.  A "Unique IP download" is a download by someone who has never accessed the paper before from a specific IP address.

In the past month I've had 56 new readers for my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  During that same time period, the total number of reads for my newest paper "Analyzing: 'Constancy of the speed of light'" is just 49.

The Radar Guns paper was first uploaded in May of 2018, and since then 771 new readers have access the 9 versions of the paper.  My most popular paper is "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments," which has had 1,308 new readers since the first version was uploaded, also in May 2018.  In the past month that paper has gotten 24 new readers, less than half the number for the Radar Gun paper. 

Looking over the Radar Guns paper, it seems like someone might be doing the experiment that the paper recommends: using two identical radar guns to measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck.  Or maybe they are just discussing it.  A couple days ago, a government agency that might be interested in such an experiment accessed my web site.  I might be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 74,504, but it certainly has perked my curiosity. 

Meanwhile, I've decided against starting a new discussion about "What is Time?" on the
sci.physics.relativity forum.  Any discussion there would almost certainly follow the pattern of all previous discussions, it would just turn into them calling me a lot of names while insisting that I take college courses in physics so that I can discuss mathematical formulae with them. 

That troll who posts insults to my web site log is still at it.  Most of his posts are just hurling insults, but he did pose an interesting question.  Yesterday he claimed that I had somewhere stated that "Time is a measurement of particle spin."  I said no such thing.  I said "Time is particle spin," and I said "you can use any particle as a clock to measure time."  Does that mean that "Time is a measurement of particle spin"?  No.  Time IS particle spin, is it NOT a measurement of particle spin.  There are many types of particles, and each type evidently spins at a different rate.  If Time was a measurement of particle spin, every particle would measure time differently.  So, Time definitely not a measurement of particle spin, it IS particle spin. 

If Time were a "measurement of particle spin" time could not dilate.  Twenty spins would always be twenty spins.  That is what we observe when we travel very fast.  All particles seem to spin at their standard rates.  No dilation is observed or measured.

Due to the fact that Nature has a natural speed limit, particles must slow down their spin when the particle is moving through space in order to stay within the "speed limit."  That slowing down OF TIME is measurable when you compare a clock against a second clock that is moving slower than the first clock.  You are not measuring particle spin, you are measuring time.  Time IS particle spin, it is not a measurement of particle spin.  If it were a measurement, there would be no measurable time dilation because x spins would always be y amount of time. 

There's probably a better way to explain that, but I've run out of time for today.
 


May 12, 2021
- I spent most of yesterday just staring at my computer screen trying to think of some way to explain "Time."  Of course, I also did a Google search for "What is Time?"  That didn't really help.  The standard answer seems to be:

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.
However, that same Wikipedia article also says:
Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads"
When you look at those two definitions, it seems clear that they are talking about different forms of time - or different views of time.  I would define those two views as "Observed Time" and "Measured Time."

"Observed Time," therefore, is "history" plus what we can predict in the future based upon what was observed in the past.

"Measure Time" is what a clock reads, and that includes any type of clock that measures amounts of time, from atomic clocks to orbits of the sun and moon.

But neither of those definitions is a true definition of "time" itself.  They are just ways of looking at time.  If you want to know "What is Time?", you have to ask that question in a different form: "What is Time if it can be slowed by motion and gravity?"

"Observed Time" doesn't explain how and why someone on a space ship can observe time passing at a slower rate than someone on earth.

"Measured Time" doesn't explain how the person on the space ship and the person on earth can use identical clocks and get very different measurements of time.

Furthermore, the way time is observed on the space ship has absolutely no effect on the way time is observed on earth.  Time is simply observed and measured to pass at two different rates in those two different locations.  The question remains: What is Time if it can be slowed by motion and gravity?

That brings us back to the answer I came up with in February of 2016: Time is particle spin.

The troll who posts to my log file would undoubted argue:
One does NOT measure Time... Time is the measure
Time is the measure of what?  How long it takes water to boil?  How do you get an answer?  You get the answer by measuring the time it takes water to boil.

Particle spin is not a measurement of time.  It IS time.  Every particle of every unique type can spin at a different rate than all other particles.  So, by itself a particle is not a measurement time.  You have to measure the spin of a particle to learn how fast it spins.  The key point is: Every particle spins at a steady rate.  If you have ten different kinds of particles, each can spin at a different rate, but each spins at a steady rate.  Therefore, you can use any particle as a clock to measure time.  You just need to know the spin rate.  Particle-A may spin x times per second, Particle-B may spin y times per second, and Particle-C may spin z times per second, but if you know the spin rates, each can be used to reliably measure seconds, minutes and hours.  The spin rates are all steady.

And all the spin rates will be proportionally slowed by motion and gravity.  We know that because that is how atomic clocks work.

So, Time is particle spin.  When you measure how fast a particle spins, you are not "measuring time," you are merely obtaining a basis for using the particle to measure time.  A machine that is designed  to measure time will operate at a steady rate because all the particles within the machine spin at steady rates.

If particles didn't spin, there would be no time.  If particles didn't spin at steady rates, there would be no time. We know that particle spin slows when motion and gravity are applied.  Concepts and ideas do not slow when motion and gravity are applied.  Thus: Time is particle spin.

At least that is how I understand things.  I wonder what the folks on the sci.physics.relativity forum would say about it.  Do I really care?  I'll have to think about that.
 

May 10, 2021
- A couple days ago, I decided it was time to download some more podcasts into my MP3 player.  One of the sites I visited while hunting for things of interest was "The Geeks Guide to the Galaxy," which is mostly about discussing new science fiction books, movies and TV series.  However, Episode #462, from April 8, was an interview with Julia Galef, someone I'd never heard of before.  The blurb about the episode said:

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?  What was that?  I looked it up, and it turned out to be a podcast I'd never heard of.  Here's the blurb for that podcast:
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.
I was a bit wary of any podcast that advertises itself as being about skeptics, but I started looking through the 255 episodes that have aired since the podcast first began on February 1, 2010.  Then I listened to four episodes, #1, #3, #5 and #228.  Here's the blurb for Episode #1:
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.
It was a very interesting discussion, even though one of the hosts, Massimo Pigliucci has a bit of an accent which occasionally makes him difficult to understand. (That may be why he is evidently no longer a host on the show.)  They also talked about Wikipedia's list of Paradoxes, which looks very interesting.  And they talked about "ad hominem" arguments, where people attack the person, not the argument made by the person.  That's something I'm very familiar with.  " Episode #3 had a guest with an even stronger accent, but I still managed to get through it and enjoy it.  Episode #5 had Neil deGrass Tyson as their guest, and it was fascinating.  Episode #228 was about Elsevier, "the world's largest scientific publisher."  It fit right in with the comment I wrote yesterday about my attempts to publish my science papers. 

My point here is that I'd discovered a new podcast that I really like.  This morning I added it as #5 in my list of favorite podcasts, bumping Joe Rogan off of my Top 10. 
I'm looking forward to listening to more of the podcasts.  All I need to do is find the time.

Meanwhile, that troll who posts insults to my log file was at it again yesterday.  He posted 5 copies each of 4 new messages.  Three of them were just the same crap he always posts, but one can be used to explain his problem.  He wrote:
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
Is someone measuring particle spin?  Who?  How?  As I see it, it is a basic FACT of Nature that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  No one is measuring the speed of objects relative to the speed of light.  It's just a fact of Nature.  And if fast-moving particles must slow down their spin to avoid conflicting with Nature's maximum speed limit, no one is doing any measuring.  The only time anyone does any measuring is when some human compares the time difference between two objects (such as atomic clocks) moving at different speeds or positioned at different altitudes.  When doing so, he is not measuring particle spin.  He is simply observing the difference in the tick rate of two clocks.  The question then becomes: What causes one clock to tick slower than another clock when the first clock is traveling faster or is at a lower altitude than the second clock?  The only answer I see is that the first clock is in greater conflict with Nature's maximum speed limit than the second clock.

If no one is doing any measuring, the first clock will still tick slower than the second clock.  If you do not use clocks, the faster moving object will age slower than the slower moving object.  How can that be?  It is because the atoms and particles that make up the first object are spinning slower than the atoms and particles that make up the second object.  If no one is doing any measuring, it is still happening.  That says that time is particle spin.  It is Nature's clock, i.e., Nature's way of measuring time.

I could go on and on, but I've explained all this many times before, including in some of my papers.  There's no point in explaining it again to a troll who refuses to discuss the subject, and who can only state his beliefs without any capability of explaining his beliefs.  So, I'm not going to write any more comments on this web site about that troll's posts to my log file.  Our disagreements cannot be resolved without a discussion.  And a discussion is best held in a public forum, such as my blog.  If the troll wishes to continue, here is the link to where to do so: https://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/02/what-is-time.html

And he can begin by answering a simple question: What is time?
  

May 9, 2021
- There were no new attacks in my log file, nor did the troll post anything to my blog file.  Someday I'd really like to get one of the mathematician physicists from the sci.physics.relativity forum into a discussion on my blog where we can try to discuss "What is Time?" or some similar topic. Usually, discussions on the sci.physics.relativity forum aren't very helpful, because anyone can join in, and it is very difficult to hold a discussion when 15 different people are asking complex multi-part questions, each of which would fill an entire page in a book. I am the moderator on my blog, and nothing gets shown there unless I first approve it.
  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.

Log file data from May 5, 2021

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.orgOn 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!


Comments for Saturday, May 1, 2021, thru Saturday, May 8, 2021:

May 7, 2021 - That troll posted 5 copies each of 5 more messages to my log file at around noon yesterday.  The messages were posted via a web site in Kharkiv, Ukraine, which he has used before.

In my comment here on May 5th, I'd asked him 5 questions:


1.  What is time?

2.  Why do clocks tick at a faster rate at higher altitudes versus at sea level?

3. Why do moving clocks tick slower than "stationary" clocks?

4.  What do you mean by "Time cannot sit in its own lap"? 

5.  Do you think the NIST was lying when they stated "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations"?

Presumably the troll read the questions and responded by just saying the same things he's always been saying.  Here are his latest 5 messages:
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]

Clearly he cannot answer the question: "What is time?"  Einstein answered it by saying "Time is what clocks measure."  The troll also ignored my question about gravitational time dilation, which does not require clocks to move.  And, instead of explaining what he means by "Time cannot sit in its own lap," he just repeats that mantra over and over.  The end result is that the troll makes it clear that he believes "Time" is just an idea or concept.  He appears to be saying that what happens to a clock when it is moved has nothing to do with time, it just has to do with the clock.  He claims Time as shown by the clock did not slow down.  Only the ticking of the clock slowed down when the clock was made to go faster.  In other words, the ticking of a clock has nothing to do with time, even though we use clocks to measure the passing of time.  Somehow that makes sense to him.

I think time is particle spin.  All objects are made from atoms, which we know are made from particles.  When an object is made to go faster, particle spin has to slow down in order to stay within the natural speed limit for matter in our universe, the speed of light.  Muons are a type of particle.  They are created when gamma rays hit atoms in our atmosphere.  Muons normally have very short life span, decaying in a tiny fraction of a second.  But if the muon is traveling at very high speeds, it lasts longer.  Why?  I'd say it is because it spins slower. 

When particle spin slows down, every function performed by those particles also slows down.  That includes the ticking of mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, and natural clocks such as hearts.  In addition, growth of all kinds will slow down, as will aging of all kinds, and decay of all kinds.  The troll, of course, would argue that time is time, it cannot be particle spin.  Why?  Because particles spin in time, which means they cannot be time itself.

Which brings us back to the question that the troll cannot answer: What is Time? He also cannot accept my answer: Time is particle spin.  FACTS show that Time must be something that is affected by motion and gravity.  That means Time cannot be just a concept or idea.  How can motion and gravity affect a concept or idea? 

Since it is too awkward to post answers via my log file, it makes more sense if the troll would create some fictitious name and post his response via my blog about "What is Time?"   That blog discussion has been idle since 2018 and is at this link: https://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2016/02/what-is-time.html  

Interestingly, none of the four responses to that blog entry in 2016 and 2018 were negative.  That's probably why there were only four responses.  It is only when people disagree that comments result in endless arguments.
 

Also, I evidently haven't been checking my blog for comments in the right way.  I just checked and found a couple comments, one from April 27 and another from February 27.  The post from April 27 is from "Paparios" claiming that he is not the person posting to my web site log.  Since I cannot be 100% certain that "Paparios" is the troll, I'll stop referring to him as "Paparios."

May 6, 2021
- Yesterday afternoon, I tried working on a science paper, but what I wrote didn't seem to belong in the paper I was working on.  So, I turned off my computer, sat on my couch and finished reading a library book on my Kindle.  The book was "The Last Stargazers: The Enduring Story of Astronomy's Vanishing Explorers" by Emily Levesque:

The Last Stargazers

It was a very enjoyable book about the history and science of astronomy. But it is a lot more than that, since it is also about Emily Levesque's experiences as an astronomer.  Getting time on a telescope is a major undertaking.  It can involve flying nearly half way around the world to get to the right telescope, after waiting many months to get put on the schedule, and then have the weather prevent you from doing any observations.  Here's a passage about astronomer superstitions:
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.
A lot of astronomy is being automated these days.  You program the telescope to look where you want when you want, and the telescope does it.  It is when you see something unexpected that you need to start doing things yourself.  The new Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile is expected to be fully operational in 2022 or 2023.  It will take millions of very high resolution digital photographs of the night sky every night, while computer programs analyze the photographs looking for anything that is different from previous photographs.  Here's a quote about what they expect from the Rubin Observatory:
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:

ISS in front of 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]
To me, that is just gibberish.  Experiments "only show A CLOCK'S MOTION slowing down"?  Presumably, he's talking about the Hafele Keating experiments. Those experiments involved a clock's motion SPEEDING UP when Hafele and Keating carried the clocks on airplanes while traveling around the world.  And because the clocks' motion was sped up, time as measured by the clocks slowed down.  And what does "Paparios" mean by "Time can NOT sit in its own lap," a phrase he repeats over and over as if it was some kind of religious mantra?  

His second message consisted of TEN copies of this:
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]
That is a VERY interesting question!  It clearly shows how he misunderstands what time is.  Paparios seems to view Time as some kind of concept or idea that affects everything and everyone the same way at the same time.  Einstein debunked that belief, and his theories about Relativity showed that time ticks at a different rate for virtually everything.  If you wave your hand, time will slow down for your hand.  But it slows down by such a small amount that it is nearly impossible to measure, and thus you cannot see any effect.  The FACT that time ticks at different rates virtually everywhere has been verified by a great many experiments.   I have a web page about time dilation experiments, including the NIST experiments in which it was demonstrated that time ticks faster for your feet than for your head.  An NIST (National Institute for Science and Technology) paper about the experiments stated:
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.
The only ways time can "stop" for you is if you have either reached the speed of light, or you have fallen into a black hole.  Photons travel from one end of the universe to the other without ever experiencing time.  Time does not exist for them.  But if YOU want to go that fast, you will need more energy than there is in the entire universe to accelerate to the speed of light.  The faster you go, the more energy you need to go faster.

The third message from Paparios consisted of 5 copies of this:
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
I've seen many physics textbooks which explain that time ticks at a different rate for almost everything.  I've never seen a textbook state that "experiments only show a clock's motion slowing down, not time itself." 

I cannot go on forever quoting Paparios's screwball comments.  But maybe I can get him to answer a few questions:

1.  What is time?

2.  Why do clocks tick at a faster rate at higher altitudes versus at sea level?

3. Why do moving clocks tick slower than "stationary" clocks?

4.  What do you mean by "Time cannot sit in its own lap"? 

5.  Do you think the NIST was lying when they stated "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations"? 

May 4, 2021
- Hmm.  That troll who posts messages to me via my log file was at it again yesterday.  Starting at 11:55 a.m., using a web site in Milan, Italy, he posted five copies each of seven messages. The first one said:
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
So, he's saying that time cannot possibly slow down?  Because Time performs the action of slowing down IN TIME?  What about all the experiments which show that time can slow down?  His second post seems to address that same issue:
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
Motion can slow down IN TIME, but time cannot?  Too bad he doesn't mention that GRAVITY can also slow time.  I wonder how he would argue against that.  Plus everyone knows that time stops when you travel at the speed of light -- everyone, apparently except the troll.  His third and fourth messages said:
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
It is a FACT that particles slow down when they move fast or get closer to a large gravitational body.  It is just a coincidence?  If particle spin isn't Time, then what is?  It cannot be just an idea or concept, because ideas and concepts cannot slow down or speed up as a result of motion and gravity.

The troll's fifth message was:
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
Hmm.  Actually my sci-fi novel "Time Work" has nothing to do with particle spin or time dilation.  I wrote the book before I started looking into the question of: What is time if it can slow down and speed up?  I wrote it simply because I was fascinated with the idea of being able to go backwards in time to solve crimes and mysteries.  If there was a hit and run accident with no witnesses, wouldn't it be nice if you could take some cameras back in time and film the accident from various angles, making certain to get a clear view of the driver of the car?  The question then becomes, of course, how do you get the evidence to the police without telling anyone about your ability to travel back in time?  If people are going nuts today because they think they are being tracked on-line or because someone put tracking devices in their Covid-19 shots, imagine what they would think if they were told that people could film them in their most intimate and secretive moments.

The troll's sixth and seventh messages were:
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
AH!  That's interesting!  But didn't Hafele and Keating break the "rules of Relativity" when they took airplane flights to measure time dilation?  An airplane is NOT an inertial system, even if the troll might think it is "an inertial system" from time to time, when there is no turbulence, when the plane is not changing speeds or altitudes.  And, of course, the two trips taken by Hafele and Keating weren't constant air travel.  From time to time they just sat on the ground while waiting for their next flight.  Meanwhile, their atomic clocks continued to tick.  Hafele and Keating broke every imaginable "rule" that the troll believes in.

Here on Earth, Time dilation is a FACT, it is not a set of rules.  The faster you travel, the slower time will pass for you.  That is a FACT.  PERIOD.  Once you understand that FACT, then the "rules" Einstein established in his 1905 paper in order to describe relativistic thought experiments related to time dilation make more sense.  It is a firm RULE that a moving body must be an inertial body when moving away from a light source if it is to measure passing light from the light source to be traveling at the same speed as light emitted from the inertial moving body.  But you do not need to have an inertial body in order to measure time dilation.  Hafele and Keating demonstrated that, as have many others. 

I realize that answering the troll's posts by replying on this web site probably just feeds the troll's ego in some way, but his logic is so screwed up, I cannot help but wonder who else thinks the way he thinks.  He seems to believe it is everyone in the world except me.  And right now he is the only Quantum Mechanics mathematician who is explaining how and what he thinks about time and time dilation.   It's fascinating.  And he claims to be a physics teacher!
 

May 3, 2021
- While doing some chores this morning, I finished listening to CD #8 in the 8-CD audio book version of "At the Edge of Time: Exploring the Mysteries of Our Universe’s First Seconds" by Dan Hooper.

At the Edge of Time

It was an okay book, interesting in parts, but also tedious and unbelievable in other parts.  Back on April 11, I commented on something I'd heard in the first part of the book back then. Here's what I'd heard:

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. 
And I wrote about how 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."

Mathematicians not only reject things that are totally logical and even obvious, they also spend countless hours on things that cannot be proven and which a busy scientist would consider to be a waste of time, such as multiple universes.

It probably would have been better if I had read the book on my Kindle instead of listening to the audio book.  That way I could have underlined passages and highlighted things I liked and disliked.  But, on the other hand, if I had been reading the Kindle version, I might have given up on it and just moved on to another book.  Of the many dozens of audio books I've burned onto CDs to listen to in my car while driving, I only gave up on one of them - an autobiography of a comedienne who I quickly learned wasn't very funny when talking about her personal life.  When driving while listening to an audio book, you can just turn off your ears and pay full attention to the road ahead when the book gets into subjects of no interest. I was able to do that with the book I just finished, which is why I managed to get through it.

May 2, 2021
- After writing yesterday's comment about the latest batch of insults from that troll who posts personal attacks to my log file, I kept thinking about that third insult in his latest tirade:

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:

milky way pulsar experiment

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. 
And, if I do not do things his way, then I'm doing things in an illogical way that he believes nearly everyone else in the world would find intolerable.  And nothing I can say can change his mind.

May 1, 2021
- There were more insults posted to my web site log file yesterday.  I realize that mentioning them just encourages the troll who posts them to post more, but it's also like posting interesting messages I got from someone on Venus or Mars, since the troll views things in a way that is totally alien to me. 

Here are the four messages he posted at about 2:30 p.m., yesterday afternoon via a web site in Dusseldorf, Germany:
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
"Time performing actions IN TIME"????  "Time is not an action that can occur in time"??????  What the HELL is he talking about????  All he would have to do is give an example of "time performing actions in time" and we might have some basis for a discussion, but he doesn't do that.  He just spouts absolute nonsense and assumes that I should be able to understand him. 

His third post is understandable, however.  He's clearly saying that mathematics is the only way to view and understand the universe.  In Einstein's 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, time dilation was explained by Einstein using only two "systems of co-ordinates."  However, in my paper about measuring time dilation using pulsars, the troll evidently believes I used three "systems of co-ordinates."  Actually, I didn't use any.

Once you understand that time slows down when you move fast, you do not need any "systems of coordinates" if you are merely talking about a spaceship traveling from Earth to Alpha Centauri.  The spaceship is moving at high speed away from the Earth.  We know the spaceship is moving because it had to accelerate in order to get to the speeds needed to demonstrate time dilation.  The earth does not accelerate. 

If you know how fast the space ship is traveling relative to the earth, you can calculate the exact amount of time dilation that people on the spaceship will experience.  Or you can approximate it, based upon prior calculations and your understanding of the patterns.  And if you have a pulsar that is in the right place, you can compare pulses from the pulsar to verify that time dilation is happening, while at the same demonstrating that the people on the spaceship can SEE that their time is passing slower than on earth because the pulses from the pulsar will arrive at a faster rate, something that is totally impossible if time dilation wasn't happening on the spaceship. 

What "systems of coordinates" am I using?  I'm really not using any.  I'm just using logic based upon established facts.  If you want to do the calculations, then you need to create "systems of coordinates." If you cannot do that using a pulsar as a third "clock," then you are probably not doing the math correctly.  And, presumably, you are a Quantum Mechanics mathematician, who most people know cannot cope with the realities of space and time, since they really only understand the probabilities of events that occur at the atomic and sub-atomic level.


Comments for Sunday, April 25, 2021, thru Friday, April 30, 2021:

April 30, 2021 - The troll who puts insults in my web site log file posted three more attacks yesterday, at about 4:45 p.m.  Here they are:
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'
Hmm.  Clearly we're still not speaking the same language.  I understand that I cannot sit in my own lap, but I don't understand how that relates to anything I've said about his posts.  HOW is MY logic "akin to claiming" I can sit in my own lap? 

What the troll appears to be demonstrating is that he only understands Quantum Mechanics mathematics, so he cannot explain anything except Quantum Mechanics mathematics.

His third message is almost comprehensible. I understand that relativity is about MEASUREMENTS, particularly about how clocks measure time.  But he seems to be saying that clocks and rods are not "things."  If they are not "things," what are they?  Just measurements?  As I see it, clocks are NOT "measurements." Clocks are THINGS we use to make measurements.

But I've seen mathematicians argue that every THING we see is just an illusion, because humans, cars, buildings, and the earth itself are just collections of atoms, and atoms are mostly empty space.   There is nothing "solid" about an atom, so atoms cannot form anything "solid."  If that is what the troll is claiming, I wish he'd say so.  But that would open him up to questions, which would take him out of "attack  mode" and put him in "defense mode."

If the world and the universe do not consist of "things," just mathematical measurements, then we are truly into the area of religious beliefs.  His religion is mathematics, and he views math as infallible truth. To argue otherwise is to attack his religion.  I have no interest in attacking his religion, I just wish he'd stop trying to convert me to his religion. 

Coincidentally, one of my favorite podcasts, Big Picture Science, recently released a new episode titled "Skeptic Check: Flat Earth."  I haven't yet had time to listen to it, but I'll try doing so sometime later today.  It's about Flat Earthers and the convention they had in England in May 2018.  Arguing with Flat Earthers is something like arguing with the troll, I'd be attacking their religion, even if all I'm trying to do is understand how they can believe what they believe. 

April 29, 2021 - Hmm.  The troll who posts insults to my web site log file posted three more messages yesterday.  I was going to simply ignore all posts from him, but these three are very interesting:
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
Ah!  He's a Quantum Mechanics mathematician!  No wonder he makes no sense to me and he cannot comprehend my elementary logic. 

I've never knowingly argued with a Quantum Mechanics mathematician before, and he makes it clear that there can be no point in arguing further.  I'm talking Relativity, he's talking Quantum Mechanics, and he is showing why the two views of the universe have been irreconcilable for over a hundred years.  If you reduce everything in the universe to mathematical equations, there is no need to understand "cause and effect" or any areas of science, you just need to understand mathematics. 

It's highly unusual for a Quantum Mechanics mathematician to venture into the real world to argue with normal people.  Does he expect me to convert to his beliefs?  Or is he just telling me that his way of thinking is superior?  Arguing opinion versus opinion isn't going to convert anyone.  And facts, evidence and logical reasoning are clearly alien to his thought processes.

In a strange way, we have no disagreements.  If he claims that "a photon is a measurement in Quantum Mechanics," I cannot argue with that.  I find it very interesting. The same with "a photon in Quantum Mechanics is akin to 'flow of water' not to 'water'."  I think I know what Quantum Mechanics is "about," but I certainly wouldn't argue the point with a Quantum Mechanics mathematician.  If I had known he is a Quantum Mechanics mathematician, I would have moved over to the other side of the street, rather than to risk any kind of encounter.  I learned long ago that there is no point in arguing with True Believers.  And I'm not really interested is examining what they believe.  What would be the point?
  There are still probably a million things about Relativity that I would like to understand better.  And there are only so many hours in a day.

April 27, 2021
- I'm still researching different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.  Yesterday, I was browsing through a book titled "The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics and Logic CANNOT Tell Us" by Noson F. Yanofsky, and I found this on page 216:
Postulate 1: All observers at a constant speed must observe the same laws of motion.
And this on page 219:
Postulate 2: All observers will always view the speed of light at the same rate.
I put it in my list of INCORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate, since Einstein only mentioned the emitter in this Second Postulate, and countless experiments have shown that light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer toward or away from the emitter.

But, what I found more interesting was this from the bottom of page 219 and into page 220:
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.
No! Both views are not "correct."  If I walk from my apartment to Monument Square in downtown Racine, which is 4.7 miles away, it will take about an hour and 20 minutes at a walking speed of 3 miles per hour.  If I go by car, it will take 13 minutes.  Does the distance change when I go by car and thereby move a lot faster?  No, of course not!  I covered the same distance in a shorter amount of time because I went faster.

Einstein, however, seems to disagree.  I have to wonder if it is because when he wrote his Time Dilation paper in 1905, humans knew nothing about The Big Bang, or about sub-atomic particles, or about radar guns.  As I see it, I really need to overhaul my paper about using a pulsar to measure time dilation.  It  shows that time slows down on the space ship and the observer on the ship can measure how much it slows down, even though he cannot feel any effects, and all clocks on the ship seem to be operating normally.  And who in their right mind would argue that  a ship traveling from Earth to Alpha Centauri somehow changes the distance to Alpha Centauri?  Only a mathematician could believe that.  Why don't they call it "distance contraction" instead of "length contraction"?  Is it because "distance contraction" is obviously mathematical nonsense?

Meanwhile, I assumed that if I mentioned the insults that troll put on my web site log on Sunday, it would cause him to post more insults to my log file.  And, as expected, there was a bunch of them in my log file this morning.  To verify that it was the troll in Santiago, Chile, who was doing the posting, I watched for him to view my site.  I posted my comments at about 10:50 a.m.  The troll who calls himself "Paparios" on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum viewed my site from his regular Santiago, Chile, IP address at 1:42 p.m., and starting at 4:22 p.m. he began spewing four insults from a web site in Enfurt, Germany, then a fifth from another site in Munich, Germany.  Here are his latest rantings:
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

No matter how many times he rants his gibberish, to me a photon is still NOT a measurement.  It's just a generic term for a type of sub-atomic particle.  A photon is a "thing."  It is also called "a particle." In colloquial English, a photon of light may also be a quantity of one photon, but is still not a "measurement" because we do not know what kind of photon it is.   To find out what kind of photon it is, you have to do a measurement of its wavelength or frequency.  Also, "an amount" is not a measurement because we do not know if the "amount" is 1 or 873,098,376,045 quadrillion or anywhere in between.  One kilogram is a measurement of mass, but a photon is not a measurement of light if you do not know what kind of "light" you are talking about.  

I remember reading a book years ago titled "The Old Patagonian Express: By Train Through the Americas" written by Paul Theroux, who wrote about a trip he  made from Boston down to Tierra Del Fuego at the southern tip of South America.  Somewhere along the way he met someone who only spoke Spanish, and that guy gushed on and on about how there were so many different ways to say something in English that could only be said one way in Spanish.  I think that may be the situation here.  But I see no point in mentioning any further posts by Paparios, since they will all be the same:  His Spanish language opinion against my English language opinion.  And opinion vs opinion arguments are a waste of time, no matter what the language.
 

The more I think about it, the more it seems like he wants me to put "the" in front of "photon" so that it will translate to "el fotón."  When speaking about THE photon, you aren't speaking about ONE photon, as you would if you mentioned "A photon."  You're speaking about the particle known as the "photon." "Para calcular la energía de un fotón del sol, tienes que conocer la constante de Planck y la frecuencia de luz emitida" translates to "
To calculate energy of a photon from the sun, you need to know Planck's constant and the frequency of the light emitted." 

The problem is:  If I use "the photon" in my writings, everyone who speaks English will wonder what the hell I'm talking about.
 

April 26, 2021
- When I went through my web site log file this morning, I found five copies each of four more insults from someone on the sci.physics.relativity forum
He posted them via a web site in Amsterdam, Netherlands, where he has posted from before.  However, this time the insults were really weird.  Here are the two weirdest:
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 photon is a measurement???  How can that make sense to anyone?  When people go to the beach and lay in the sun, to they bathe themselves in measurements?

According to Merriam-Webster, a "photon" is defined as:
a quantum of electromagnetic radiation
A "quantum" is defined as:
quantity, amount
And one of the definitions of "quantity" is:
the subject of a mathematical operation
I think the troll who posted those insults is from Chile, and his native language is Spanish.  But, still, it is very difficult to figure out what he is trying to say.  Here are his other two insulting messages:
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'.

No matter how you look at it, a wave is not a measurement.  However, if waves come in a regular order, you can use waves to measure something.  We use wave counts (or oscillation frequencies) to measure the energy in a photon.

And a photon is an oscillating particle that has no mass and always travels at the speed of light.   How anyone can call it a "measurement" is incomprehensible.

Meanwhile, after writing yesterday's comment, in which I mentioned "cause and effect," I did a Google search for "cause and effect" and found a book titled "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect."

NEW science of cause and effect???  I thought cause and effect was what science is all about!  The Amazon page for the book contains this information:

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.
I'm going to have to read that book.  It appears there is a revolution going on to get scientists to do what I thought they have always done.  Or maybe there was a "revolution" in the 1950s which overthrew "cause and effect science" and replaced it with "mathematical science," and now people have seen the "error of their ways" and are going back to "cause and effect science."

The problem is: I don't think any mathematicians are going to accept such a "revolution."  It will probably end up being like converting True Believers.  You just have to wait for them to die out and be replaced by new people willing to accept new beliefs.
 

April 25, 2021
- I awoke this morning wondering about the difference between science and physics.  I've had a life-long interest in science, but I never thought much about physics.  Yet, I've been in arguments with physicists for years.
  And, as far as I can recall, I've never had an argument with a scientist.

Researching the difference, I found an article that says this about science:
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.
Yep.  That's my interest.  The same article says this about physics:
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.
Nah.  That's not really my area of interest, although I get into parts of it sometimes.  Here's another definition of "physics":
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 have a major interest in astronomy and minor interests in chemistry and geology.  I tend to view them all as part of "science" without concern for where the dividing lines are between branches.  My major interest has become "Time Dilation," which I view the way I think a scientist would view it, which doesn't seem to be how a typical physicist views it.  A scientist would view Time Dilation by analyzing cause and effect.  It seems to me that a "typical physicist" just views Time Dilation as a mathematical formula.  They get really upset when I talk about "cause and effect."  But I've never analyzed why they do not like to talk about cause and effect.  I've saved copies of 88 different arguments I've had on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  Maybe I should search through them for mentions of "cause and effect."  Maybe I can find some clue as to why they hate talking about cause and effect.

Sigh.  I should also work on the two papers I want to write, one about "Analyzing Inertial and Non-Inertial Systems" and another about pulsars and time dilation, which would either be a major revision to an old paper or a totally new paper.

This morning, as I look at the dozens of new messages that were posted overnight in the sci.physics.relativity thread I started on April 19, I see only one that is interesting.  But it is an argument about "illusions."   If you are traveling away from the sun at 1,000 kilometers per second and you measure the light from the sun as passing you at 299,792.458 kilometers per second, while someone on the sun would measure it as passing you at 298,792.458 kilometers per second, are both measurements "real" or is the one you measure an "illusion"?  I would say it is an "illusion," since both measurements cannot be real, and it is known that you are moving at 1,000 kilometers per second away from the emitter which definitely emitted the light at 299,792.458 meters per second.  But the guy who posted the message is arguing that unless Einstein specifically stated that it is an "illusion," then it is not an "illusion." 

I think a scientist would say it is an illusion.  But physicists seem to have as many problems with "illusions" as they have with "cause and effect."  And they are not going to accept anything I say about either subject.


Comments for Sunday, April 18, 2021, thru Sat., April 24, 2021:

April 22, 2021 - Groan!  I've just got too many things going on at once!  I've been spending a lot of my time searching the Internet for different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.  Plus I've been arguing with the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum about Einstein's Second Postulate.  The research has been fascinating.  The arguments have become tedious and counter-productive. 

When I turned off my computer yesterday afternoon, there were 73 messages in the sci.physics.relativity thread I'd started on Monday about my paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'."  When I turned on my computer this morning, there were 111 messages in the thread.  Nearly all of the 38 new messages are just personal attacks between others on the group, having nothing to do with me or my paper.

My last message in the discussion yesterday was about how we measure light photon frequency and convert the frequency to "wavelength."   It's simple math, and I even provided a link to a calculator that does it for you.  After all, light consist of photons, not waves.  A photon is a particle, so it cannot be a wave.  Physicist Richard Feynman even stated it emphatically on page 15 of his book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter:
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.
Nevertheless, wavelengths is something mathematicians firmly believe in, evidently because it fits with their memorized mathematical equations.  And it is a total waste of time to try to convince them that light does not consist of waves.  So, I don't know if I'm going to post anything further about waves in that discussion thread.  But there is something else I'm tempted to mention.

My research yesterday came across Richard C. Tolman's book from 1917 titled "The Theory of the Relativity of Motion."  It's available for free in different formats on the Gutenberg web site.  I recalled reading parts of it long ago and how it conflicts with Einstein.  On page 23 it has this about Einstein's Second Postulate:
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.
The passages I highlighted in red-bold are WRONG.  The passage I highlighted in black-bold is true.  A moving observer approaching a light source will encounter that light arriving at c+v, where v is the speed of the observer.  It is the principle behind radar guns.  It is also demonstrated in many other experiments and observations.   I pointed that out to the people on the forum yesterday when I provided the link and wrote this:
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?
The first response was from Michael Moroney, who wrote:
Moving relative to what? Every inertial object is moving relative to
some frame and stationary in some other frame.
That's a mathematician's argument.  In one "frame" the speeder in his speeding car is moving toward the cop and his radar gun hiding in some bushes, in another equally valid "frame" the cop, his radar gun and the bushes are moving toward the stationary speeder parked in the middle of the road.  And to a mathematician, both "frames" are indisputable.  That is basically what Richard C. Tolman was also arguing 104 years ago.

I think it's time for me to just bow out of that latest thread and move on to other things.  No one else has provided any experiment where light from an emitter hits a MOVING OBSERVER at c.  "Sylvia Else" merely misquoted me and argued that all the actual experiments I listed are just "thought experiments."  And "tjrob137" responded that they weren't just "thought experiments," they were also not based on special relativity.

How can one reason with people who think that way?
 

April 19, 2019
- There was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'" is now on-line at this address: https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0104v1.pdf  When I checked the vixra.org page for the paper, I found that the person known as "Mikko" had made a comment about the paper, even though officially there have not yet been any "unique-IP document downloads."  Mikko seems to have made it his mission in life to comment on every paper and every version of every paper I put on vixra.

This time, however, his comment was somewhat interesting.  He provided a link to Wikipedia's version of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and added this comment "
The reader is adviced to compare the author's statements about Einstein's text to the text itself before making any conclusions."  Wikipedia's translation is slightly (but not significantly) different from the other three translations I used in my paper.  Here's the key part of the Wikipedia translation:
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.
None of the three other translations I found had used the words "guess" or "presupposition."  And no version in any textbook I found uses those words, either,  Using V instead of c as a symbol for the speed of light was in one of the other translations, but it was lower-case v not the upper-case V.  (In Einstein's original paper in German, upper-case V was used.)

As soon as I saw that my paper was on vixra.org okay, I put it on Academa.edu at this link: https://www.academia.edu/46943643/Analyzing_Constancy_of_the_Speed_of_Light_

Then I mentioned the new paper in a comment on the sci.physics.relativity forum to see what the mathematicians there will think of it.

Whew!  Now I can move on to my next project.

April 18, 2021
- Yesterday afternoon
I finished the first version of my new paper "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of Light'."  The plan is that I will submit it to vixra.org later today and that it should be on-line sometime tomorrow.

The paper is a step-by-step analysis of how Einstein's Second Postulate is incorrectly shown and explained in most college textbooks.  I've collected incorrect versions of the Second Postulate from 18 different books, including some top-rated college textbooks.  I also found correct versions in 5 books, and "helpful" versions in 9 books.  The weird thing is that of the 41 different books I've found so far which contain a version of Einstein's Second Postulate, only about 5 or 6 are exact copies of other versions.  The rest are all different.  I keep wanting to hunt for more, until I have an even 50 -- or an even 50 different versions. Or maybe an even 100.  Each time I find a version, there is usually something odd that comes with it.  For example, here is Einstein's version from the most common translation of his paper:
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
And here is what one college text book says is Einstein's Second Postulate:
The velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the source and the observer.
Einstein's postulate says NOTHING about observers!  And a few sentences further on in that book is this further explanation:
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.
"It is a postulate because it cannot be deduced from anything else"???   How did Einstein deduce it?  He deduced it by studying what was known about the speed of light from experiments.

I found the book yesterday when I went searching for the top rated physics textbooks and found a site that lists what it considers to be the "top 7."  The quote above is from book #2 on the list.  The book that is #1 on the list contains no mention of Einstein's postulates or Relativity.  The book that is #3 on the list contains this on page 1117:
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.
Einstein's postulate says nothing about "inertial reference frames."  It is about light that is "propagated in empty space," i.e., in a vacuum where gravity has no effect, instead of in air or in water or through an ether.  Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity doesn't even contain the word "inertial."  And, in reality, there can be no "inertial reference frame" anywhere on earth, since gravity has an effect on everything on or near the earth. And measuring a moving observer's motion relative to the speed of light is done countless times every day by radar guns.  How can so many textbooks say it is not possible?

I could go on and on, but that would just mean that I might not be able to finish my paper today.  When it is done and on-line, I'll then start a new thread about it on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  It should be interesting to see what the mathematicians there think about it.  And I also plan to work on a revision to my paper about pulsars and time dilation.  Somehow, the "revisions" I made to that paper over the years gradually eliminated all the original key points.  And there's a new "key point" about changes in photon frequency that I want to make.

Then maybe I can get back to work on my book about it all.


Comments for Sunday, April 11, 2021, thru Sat., April 17, 2021:

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":

pulsar time dilation experiment

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. 

wave frequency chart
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
ing there are 682 messages in the thread I started back on March 16.  The arguments now almost entirely just consist of some angry guys hurling insults at other angry guys and getting insults hurled back.  The conversations in which I took part, however, were generally (and surprisingly) without insults.  And they were very interesting.  When you explain something to someone in 20 different ways, you will understand it much better yourself, and it helps you see which way is the best way to explain something.

I still do not have a single word written for my new book "Logical Relativity." However, that is only because I've been doing some critical research.  About five years ago, I got into studying Time Dilation and Relativity because I was seeing endless arguments over Einstein's Second Postulate, and I was also seeing that nearly every book and textbook seems to include a slightly different version of that postulate.  That made no sense to me at all, since there can be no doubt about what Einstein wrote and meant.  It seemed to me the only reason for using a different Second Postulate is to argue against what Einstein wrote and meant by claiming that is not what Einstein actually meant

A few days ago, I started researching the different versions, going through one textbook after another to see which version they use.  I classified the first 27 of them into Good Versions (4), Helpful Versions (4), Unhelpful Versions (7) and Bad Versions (12).  Plus discovered I have 3 different translations of Einstein's paper from 1905 that started it all, each with a slightly different version of the Second Postulate.  Here are those three versions:
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.    
Compare them to these 3 "bad" versions:
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.”

Einstein's Second Postulate is only about the speed of light relative to the emitter.  The "bad" versions say the speed of light is the same for an observer as it is for the emitter.  As I see it, that is totally untrue and is demonstrated to be wrong every day.  Radar guns require that the target (the observer) receive light at c+v or c-v.  That's how radar guns measure v, which is the speed of the target.  Under some very specific circumstances, a moving observer can - in theory - observe a passing photon to be traveling at c, but Einstein clearly just described those circumstances to help people better understand how time dilation works, not to provide anyone with a different Second Postulate.

Meanwhile, as I was driving around doing some chores yesterday, I was listening to an audio book titled "At the Edge of Time" by Dan Hooper, and I heard something else I consider to be total nonsense:
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:
our
                          two univeses
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.  








Other interests:

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

Archives: 
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 2018
February 2018
March 2018
April 2018
May 2018
June 2018
July 2018
August 2018
September 2018
October 2018
November 2018
December 2018

January 2019
February 2019
March 2019
April 2019
May 2019
June 2019
July 2019    
August 2019 
September 2019
October 2019
November 2019
December 2019

January 2020            
February 2020  
March 2020                   
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
 July 2020            
August 2020                   
September 2020 
October 2020
November 2020
December 2020
January 2021  
February 2021
March 2021   
April 2021
May 2021
                                  
                                     
                              

            
© 2021 by Ed Lake