December 9, 2016 -
Yesterday's comment contained errors.
I suppose I could just go back and correct
the errors and pretend I never made them,
but making errors is part of the learning
process, so they're nothing to be ashamed
I awoke this morning realizing I'd made
errors yesterday. (In reality, I awoke
without realizing anything. But it was
too early to get up, so I just laid there
thinking. And while thinking, I
realized that I made some errors yesterday -
and in my May 31, 2015
paper. I figured out a way to simplify
the problem.) Here's what I came up
Assume that I'm in my car on a side road
that connects with Highway 41. On the
highway I see army trucks moving north,
traveling from Fort Able down south to Fort
Baker up north. I see one truck pass
every minute, each traveling at exactly 50
miles per hour. I sit there and watch
for ten minutes and see ten trucks
I then turn onto Highway 41 and head south
at 50 miles per hour. Now the trucks
are passing me at our "closing speed" of 100
miles per hour. I'm going 50 mph,
they're going 50 mph in the opposite
direction. A truck passes me every 30
seconds. I drive south for 10 minutes
and 20 trucks pass me.
I them make a U-turn across the divider and
head north at 50 miles per hour. I am
now traveling at the same speed as the
trucks. So NO trucks pass me.
After driving north for 10 minutes without a
single truck passing me, I turn off onto
that same side road. In 20 minutes, I
saw 20 trucks pass me. That's the same
number of trucks that would have passed me
in 20 minutes if I'd have stayed on the side
road and hadn't made the trip south.
So, 20 trucks passed me when I was going
south, and zero trucks passed me when I was
going north. Total trucks that passed
me in 20 minutes: 20. The number of
trucks that would have passed me if I had
been standing still: 20.
In my paper I wrote that while heading
toward a pulsar at 99.5% of the speed of
light, I would count the pulses coming at me
at about twice the rate they came
when I was standing still. That was
basically correct. But then I wrote
that on the return trip I would count about
half the number of pulses I
would count when standing still. That
was wrong. I would count zero
pulses. I don't know what I was
thinking, but I clearly wasn't thinking
about the truck analogy.
So, now I feel comfortable using the pulsar
example to explain some basic facts about
Time and Light in my new paper "The Twin
Paradox in a Real Universe."
December 8, 2016 -
I awoke this morning with a terrific
idea for another paper, which would also
make a great new addition to my book.
It's basically a major rewrite of my May 31,
2015 paper "Time
The new version will probably be titled "The
Twin Paradox in a Real Universe."
That should have been the title of the May
I also awoke realizing I made a serious
error in the May 2015 paper. I'm not
sure what I was thinking when I wrote this
on page 4:
The only thing that was
measured differently during Homebody's
voyage was that, while traveling toward
the pulsar, the pulses from the pulsar
arrived at an average rate of 2 per
second. And while traveling on the return
trip, the pulses arrived at an average
rate of one every 2 seconds. However, once
again there were exactly 31,553,280 pulses
measured by both the device on earth and
the device on the space ship during the
you are traveling toward a pulsar at 99.5%
of the speed of light, where 1 second on
your space ship is 10 seconds of Earth time,
why would the pulses from a pulsar arrive
only twice as fast as if you traveling
perpendicular to the pulsar? What was
I thinking? I'm now thinking that the
pulses would come at about 10 per
second. And when traveling away from
the pulsar, the pulses would come at about 1
every 100 seconds. I could be
wrong. I'll have to think about
it. But what it does that is exciting
to me is it attacks all the misconceptions
about Einstein's second postulate in his Special
Theory of Relativity. That
postulate reads as follows:
light is always propagated
in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body.
The speed of
light in a vacuum is the same for all
observers, regardless of their motion
relative to the source.
2nd postulate simply states that the
relative velocity of the emitting body does
not add to the velocity of light emitted by
that body, i.e., if the emitting body is
coming toward you at 1,000 meters per
second, the speed of its light will not be c
plus 1,000 meters per
second. But many people have
inexplicably twisted it to say that all
observers looking at a beam of light will
see that light traveling at 299,792,458
meters per second regardless of their own
motion relative to the source of the
light. That's preposterous. I've
read that students tell their teachers it is
preposterous, and the teachers tell the
students that they have to believe it
anyway, or they'll get a failing grade.
If you are traveling toward a pulsar, the
pulses will arrive at a faster rate than if
you are traveling away from the
pulsar. It's not exactly the same as
measuring the speed of light, but the net
result or effect is the same. Every
observer will see the number of pulses per
minute change in accordance with their own
So, now I've got to stop writing about it
here and start writing that new paper.
December 7, 2016 - This morning, I received an
email from the science journal to which I'd
submitted my article "Time
Dilation without Relativity."
The email said to "see attachment(s)," but
there were no attachments. If the
editor meant the text of the email, which
was just information about the journal, it
could be that he was referring to some need
to register with the magazine before sending
in articles. So, I registered.
Now I have to wait to see if he re-sends his
email with some attachments, or if what he
wanted was for me to register. Or if
he meant something else entirely.
Maybe the attachments were reviews turning
down the article. Who knows?
I'll just have to wait.
ADDED NOTE: Ah! Whew!
At about 11:30 a.m. I received the exact
same email note from the chief editor of
that science journal, except that this time
he included the attachment. It
turned out to be a letter thanking me for
submitting the paper, saying he'd review it
to determine its suitability for the
journal, and his request that I notify him
if three months have passed
and I still haven't received his
review. Okayyy. I guess I can do
I'd been assuming that the missing
attachment was a rejection letter. So,
I'm very happy to wait to see what
happens. And I'm going to assume I
won't have to wait 3 months.
December 5, 2016 - Okay, I dood it. I
just sent my paper "Time Dilation without
Relativity" to a scientific
journal. If they turn down the paper,
they supposedly will give me their reasons
for doing so. It's a quarterly
journal, and they just released their
December issue, so, if they decide to
publish the paper, it won't be available
until their March issue.
Now comes the waiting. Will they
accept it or won't they? If they
don't, will they provide some good scientific
reasons for turning it down, or will they
turn it down for vague reasons that are of
no help to me at all? Time will tell.
Meanwhile, I'll have to try to get back to
work on other papers or on my book, or
December 4, 2016 - I've been
revising and revising and revising my paper
about "Time Dilation without Relativity"
all week. I've probably read it over about
fifty times, typically making minor
changes every time. I'm planning to send
it to a scientific journal tomorrow. I
have no idea how their particular reviewing
system" works, so I have no idea how long it
will take to get a response.
I think the new paper is very readable and easy
to understand, perhaps more so than any previous
paper I've written. The references are
impeccable, the science is undeniable, yet it
could be extremely upsetting and controversial
to much of the scientific community -
Best of all, the scientific argument I make in
the paper is fundamental and doesn't
really require accepting any other argument
first. If you accept that Time Dilation is
real (as hundreds of experiments have proved),
then everything else in the paper follows
logically and undeniably.
If the journal to which I'm sending the paper
doesn't want to publish it and doesn't give any
meaningful reason for turning it down, I'll
probably try sending the paper to a bunch of
other journals - one by one, of course.
The journal's web site, however, seems to say
that they give reviewer feedback on all papers
they receive. I hope so.
source I found says that there are 12,000
science and social science journals published
around the world. But, I'll probably only
try four or five.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do while waiting
for a response from the journal. I should
get back to working on my book. The basic
idea for my latest paper came from working on
the book. The title of the paper
is the same title I used on a
paper I wrote in October, but the content
of the new paper is very different. It was
rewritten from scratch and presents the facts in
a totally different way.
Maybe I should start working on a chapter for my
book, a chapter which I can title "The
Absurdity of 'Light Clocks.'" Light clocks
(theoretical clocks which bounce a photon back
and forth to measure time) is another screwball
notion that Professor Brian Green uses in his
on-line course on "Space, Time and Einstein" at
And I saw the idea of "light clocks" was being
used in at least a half dozen scientific papers
I read last week. It's another popular
idea that has a fundamental flaw that some
scientists seem to ignore.
This is all probably very boring to readers of
this web site. People who have never tried
to get something published seem to have no idea
of how the process works. They cannot
imagine anyone trying year after year to get a
paper or book published with no success.
They would just give up after the first
try. Or, if they knew he difficulties,
they wouldn't even try to get published at
all. Worst of all, they seem to think that
if a paper isn't immediately accepted and
published, then it probably isn't any good and
the writer is probably a lousy writer.
I keep recalling the recent movie, "The
Man Who Knew Infinity," which was about a
super-intelligent Indian mathematician who tried
for years to get his papers published, but
couldn't get anything published until he went to
Trinity College at Cambridge, England, and
attracted the attention of some top professors
who helped him get published.
Frequent publication is one of
the few methods at scholars' disposal to
demonstrate academic talent. Successful
publications bring attention to scholars and
their sponsoring institutions, which can
facilitate continued funding and an
individual's progress through a chosen field.
In popular academic perception, scholars who
publish infrequently, or who focus on
activities that do not result in publications,
such as instructing undergraduates, may lose
ground in competition for available
tenure-track positions. The
pressure to publish has been cited as a
cause of poor work being submitted to
That may explain all the crap I saw in the
articles I've been reading. They're just
made-up, nit-picking arguments because the
writers have nothing new to publish.
I've been writing as a hobby all my life.
I was writing short stories when I was a kid,
occasionally sending them off to magazines to
see if they would be published. None of
them were. In my adult life, I wrote six
or seven books which I and a top literary agent
tried to get published, but to no avail. I
finally had to publish some of them myself. And
I wrote about ten screenplays which a Hollywood
agent tried to sell for me, with no
So, I may not have had any success so far in
getting officially published. But as a
hobby, writing is an endless area of total
fascination and enjoyment. I can get fully
absorbed in writing all day long. It's not
my fault that non-writers cannot understand
Who else but a writer who loves writing would
write comments for a web site every week, often
many times per week, accumulating enough written
material for a dozen books, and just keep on
writing and writing?
December 2, 2016
- I've been very busy lately working on
preparing another scientific paper for
submission to another scientific journal.
The paper is a rewrite of "Time
Dilation Without Relativity,"
incorporating some thoughts I had while I was
writing the Introduction and opening chapters
for my new book. The scientific journal is
one I found while reading those 76 papers from
The journal publishes quarterly and costs $55 a
copy. It has very strict rules on
formatting. While following those rules I
realized that it was probably a very bad idea to
include Wikipedia articles as references on my
previous papers. So, when I wrote about
how the 391 atomic clocks used by 69 different
institutions around the globe to determine
International Atomic Time were found to all be
ticking at different rates due to gravitational
time dilation, I didn't use Wikipedia
as the reference in the new paper, I used the
book that Wikipedia uses as a reference: TIME:
From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics.
I found it very interesting that the book
sells for $706.59 per copy.
Meanwhile, this morning someone sent me an
article about Albert Einstein that wasn't among
the hundreds I've recently browsed. The
article is titled "When
Einstein Tilted at Windmills" and
it's from Nautilus
magazine, which doesn't appear to be a magazine
that ever showed up in my research before.
It's an interesting article and contains this
Following Mach’s lead, Einstein
wanted to assert that motion was not defined
by reference to absolute space, but only
relative to other motion. Unfortunately, the
laws of physics seemed to suggest otherwise.
The laws of electromagnetism, in particular,
insisted that light had to travel at 186,000
miles per second regardless of the observer’s
frame of reference. But if
all motion was relative, the light’s motion
would have to be relative too—traveling
186,000 miles per second in one reference
frame and some other speed in another, in
blatant violation of electromagnetic law.
And then this veryinteresting
It all dawned on Einstein then: It was possible for
all observers to see light moving at exactly
186,000 miles per second regardless of their
own state of motion. The light’s
speed is a measure of how much distance it
covers in a given amount of time. But time changes depending on
your state of motion. So even if
you’re moving relative to the light, time
itself will slow down precisely long enough
for you to measure light’s speed at the very
one required by Maxwell’s equations.
That's not exactly how I would phrase things,
but the result is the same. I'd say: the
speed of light depends upon the speed of the
emitting source (which is the same speed at
which the observer is moving). Or as one
source at the University of California -
Riverside puts it:
the speed of light is only
guaranteed to have a value of 299,792,458 m/s
in a vacuum when measured by someone situated
right next to it.
Now I just need to find a way to use that
comment in my paper by referencing some
scientific paper or book, instead of a
www.ucr.edu web page.
It isn't in the current version of the
paper. But, I'd certainly like to use it.
"An artist never really finishes his work, he
abandons it." - Paul
November 30, 2016
- This morning I finished going through the last
of the 76 scientific papers related to Time
Dilation that I downloaded a couple days
ago. I only read a few of them in their
entirety, since the vast majority were just
nit-picking arguments about some obscure facet
of Time Dilation. I should have realized
long ago that scientific papers aren't written
to reiterate what is stated about some subject
in the text books, they are written to argue
against or correct or expand upon what is stated
about some subject in the text books.
Another thing that reading those articles made
me realize is that mathematicians who argue that
Time Dilation is just an "illusion" are doing so
because they view Time Dilation as a solution
to problems with Relativity and
simultaneity. In the world of mathematics,
solutions have no meaning without the problems
that created them. 4 has no real meaning
all by itself. It only has meaning when it
is the solution to a problem: What is 2 +
2? Or when it is a component of a
problem: What is 4 - 2?
In the real world, however, the solution to a
problem can be a real thing. A tree
falling on a power line can be the solution to
the question of why the lights suddenly went
out. The tree is real and so are the power
lines, even if you didn't have a problem.
What caused the problems with determining
simultaneity? The problems were caused by
Time Dilation and the fact that time ticks at a
different rate for everyone and every
thing. Einstein discovered that Time
Dilation exists. If you do not have the
problem, you still have a fact that Time
Dilation exists and produces a different time
for everyone and every thing.
Mathematicians seem unable to comprehend that.
Anyway, reading those 76 papers also provided me
with a new journal where I can try to get my
scientific papers published. So, I
promptly wrote a new version of "Time Dilation
Without Relativity" which will discuss Time
Dilation as if the problems of Relativity and
simultaneity were solved a hundred years ago and
what we need to do now is understand what the real
phenomenon of Time Dilation means to our
perception of matters related to Time and
I have a first draft. I hope to submit the
final draft on Monday. We'll see.
November 28, 2016
- Groan! Yesterday, I spent
some time learning more about the library web
site I was informed about when I visited my
local library a couple weeks ago. The web
site is called www.BadgerLink.net.
You need a library card from a Wisconsin library
to access the documents on it.
I had just been looking for articles in Nature
and Physics Today magazines. But
yesterday I did a search for "time dilation"
through their entire data base. I was
provided with a list of 430 papers that
contain that exact phrase. I went through
the first 350 on the list (which was in order by
"relevance"), and I downloaded about SEVENTY
papers that looked to be of interest.
Now, I have to go through the papers to see if
they contain anything I should know. One
paper I have already studied, which was
published in May, 2016, and which also happens
to be available to the general public on line at
another web site, is titled "A
logical examination of the nature of time."
It was written by a systems analyst
and programmer (as I used to be) who uses logic
instead of math to draw conclusions (as I
do). Some of his conclusions match mine
(e.g., "In physical time, all events occur
during 'Now.'"). Many others do not.
But, more importantly, the author seems to have
reached his conclusions via a very different
line of logic than what I used. His logic
is sometimes very hard to follow, and I don't
know how much time I should spend to decipher
it. The article is published in a Canadian
science journal that I've never checked out
before. (One minor stumbling block: the
abstract must be provided in both English and
Most of the other seventy or so papers I
downloaded were published in other
science journals that I never checked out to see
if I should try submitting to them.
I've been complaining that I haven't found
anyone with whom I can discuss my theory, but
now I may have found something that could be
very helpful. I found a treasure trove of
articles on the same subjects that interest me,
and I can study those articles to see if any of
them verify or disprove my theory.
And then I might try to submit my articles to
these different science journals to get the
feedback I've been seeking.
My first task: To produce a list of the 70
or so articles and to get a better idea of what
each article is about.
So, my book is "on hold" for awhile.
November 27, 2016 -
In spite of the Thanksgiving holiday, I did get
some work done on my book last week. I've
got 14 pages (a 3-page Introduction, a 5-page
first chapter and a 6-page second chapter) that
look pretty good, but the odds are that I'll
revise them many times before I'm
What I'm also seeing is that the book (as I now
envision it) won't be more than 150 pages
long. In fact, it might not make it to 100
pages. But, who knows? I could get
into some area that I haven't even thought about
that could add many more pages to the
book. Plus, I can always change the font
size, which would certainly increase the number
of pages. And I have been thinking of
adding a lot of drawings and cartoons to
illustrate the concepts and points. In
addition, what I've written so far suggests that
I may have a lot of very short chapters, which
means there can be a lot of blank space at the
end of chapters and almost about a third of a
page at the start of each chapter that contains
nothing but the chapter number and the title of
the chapter. A book with 50 chapters will
have the equivalent of about 50 pages that are
just blank space. So, my worries about the
length of the book could just be concerns about
plunging into the unknown.
I probably should have created an outline for
the book before I started, but it may turn out
that that is what I'm doing now - only in a
longer, more detailed form.
One thing I noticed that might be worth a
mention somewhere in the book is that I'm
finding some articles from major science
magazines that can be viewed as attacks
on Albert Einstein.
The first article was one I found while at my
local library eight days ago. While
looking for articles that mention Time Dilation,
I found an article from the November 19, 2015,
issue of Nature titled "Einstein
was no lone genius." The
article is all about various people who helped
Einstein think through this theories as they
were being developed, and, in particular, helped
him with mathematical equations.
Mathematics was not one of Einstein's strong
points, and he admitted that on many
occasions. But, does the fact that
Einstein discussed his ideas with others mean
that the ideas weren't his? No, of course
not. It's a quibble over whether the term
"lone genius" can apply to someone who discussed
his ideas with others and got help in expressing
his ideas in mathematical form.
The second article attacking Einstein was first
brought to my attention by the science student
in Switzerland who wrote me an email on November
22 to criticize my paper on "Understanding
Time Dilation." He mentioned a paper
from the March 2005 issue of Physics Today
Small Puzzle from 1905" by
Alex Harvey and Engelbert Schucking. The
Swiss student claimed the article showed that
Einstein was wrong when he wrote that
Time would run slower for a clock at the equator
than for clocks at either of the poles. I
couldn't find a free copy of that paper at any open
on-line source, but it was available on
the library site where I found the Nature
articles. The paper goes on and on about
how Einstein was in error because
it was learned years later that
the Earth is not a perfect sphere, it bulges at
the equator, which means that gravitational time
dilation almost exactly negates velocity time
dilation at the equator.
What the f...? Here's one part of what the
It seems strange that, despite
intense scrutiny of the groundbreaking 1905
paper, no historian of science has ever noted,
much less discussed, the incorrectness of its
prediction of a rate difference between
equatorial and polar clocks. There is no
mention, even, in the exhaustive discussion in
the collected Einstein papers. There is no
record of Einstein's having corrected the erroneous 1905 prediction.
The 1905 paper has been studied
by numerous historians of science, and this
year the world celebrates its centenary.
Nonetheless, we have found only two references
to the error in
the many commentaries on the paper.
The reason no one is making a fuss because there
was no error. Time does,
in theory and in reality, run slower at
the equator than at the poles due to the fact
that the Earth is rotating at 1,040 miles per
hour on its axis at the equator, while at the
poles there is only a very slow, once-per-day
rotation. It is a greater error to ignore
that fact and falsely claim it was a
"prediction" instead of a theoretical
finding. And it's an even greater error to
argue that the velocity time dilation difference
doesn't exist because it is offset by
gravitational time dilation. It's like
saying that clocks on GPS satellites have to be
corrected by 38 microseconds each day due to
gravitational time dilation. NO!
GPS satellites have to be adjusted to run slower
by 7 microseconds per day due to velocity
time dilation, and they have to be adjusted to
run faster by 45 microseconds per day
due to gravitational time dilation,
giving a net adjustment of 38
microseconds per day.
I might copy parts of what I just wrote above
and paste them into "Part Two" of my book, if I
decide it needs a "Part Two" about all the silly
arguments I've encountered over the years from
people who either do not believe Einstein's
theories or who erroneously interpret Einstein's
theories. The problem with having such a
"Part Two" is that it could be vastly longer
than "Part One" while also being very
I awoke this morning wondering if I shouldn't
try writing another science article for
publication in some science magazine. What
I wrote for the book last week gave me an idea
for an article. I also awoke wondering if
I shouldn't do some more exploration of that
library research site I was told about.
It's got magazine articles that aren't generally
available on-line, so a Google search won't find
them, specifically articles from Nature
and Physics Today magazines. I
just spent a few minutes looking for articles
from Physics Today and downloaded a
couple. I don't know if they will contain
anything new, but they look interesting.
Damn! When you are working on writing a
book, there are so many ways to get
distracted. And that is probably never
more true than when you are writing a book that
overturns "standard ideas" about basic
scientific principles regarding Time, Time
Dilation and Light. I'm constantly on the
lookout for something that will say I'm wrong,
but all I'm finding is more and more evidence
that the "standard ideas" are wrong. The
situation is also complicated by the fact that
there seem to be countless scientists who have
their own personal theories about Time, Time
Dilation and Light, which they believe disprove
the "standard ideas." It seems that for
every article I find that explains some detail
about the "standard ideas," I find a hundred
articles which question the ideas and propose
personal theories to replace the ideas.
And I'm writing another about one. Who's
going to read it?
It doesn't really matter. I need to figure
things out for my own personal reasons. If
things do not make sense to me, I need and want
to know why they do not
make sense. I want to know if there is any
factor that can be changed or replaced to cause
things to make sense. I'm an
analyst. Analyzing things is what I
do. I can't help it. I have to keep
analyzing things until they make sense to
me. And when they do make sense to me, I
cannot resist trying to explain things to others
- even if no one wants to listen.
November 23, 2016
- I wish everyone a very happy Thanksgiving!
November 22, 2016
- I awoke this morning anxious to get to work on
a chapter for my book (or a new paper) about
Albert Einstein's "second postulate" to his
Special Theory of Relativity. Copied from
page 1 of his
1905 paper, it says,
light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the
The speed of light in a vacuum is
the same for all observers, regardless of
their motion relative to the source.
How does one arrive at that
interpretation of what Einstein wrote?
Einstein was simply saying that the velocity of
a body emitting light does not affect the speed
of light emitted from that body, i.e., the speed
of light will be C, not C plus V or C minus
V. He didn't say anything about the
motion of any observers - relative or
otherwise. He only wrote about
the emitting body, which, if considered
to be an "observer" would be an observer with a
very special perspective that would
not in any way relate to any other observers.
Wikipedia twists and distorts Einstein's second
postulate this way:
As measured in any inertial frame
of reference, light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c
that is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in
free space has the same value c in all
inertial frames of reference.
No matter how fast or slow you
move, light always moves at the same speed.
Imagine, for instance, that Marco is on a
spaceship traveling toward the sun at 99.99
percent of the speed of light, and Sophia is
on a spaceship heading away from the sun at
99.99 percent of the speed of light. Even
though they're heading in different
directions, sunlight is rushing past them
both. How fast is that light traveling
relative to Marco? It's traveling at the speed
of light—about 300,000 kilometers per second.
How fast is that light traveling relative to
Sophia? It's traveling at the speed of
light—about 300,000 kilometers per second.
That interpretation is just plain absurd.
I've read that students often argue that to
their professors, and the professors argue back
that it is "counter-intuitive" but totally valid
(and you have to accept it if you want to get a
Anyway, that was what I wanted to write about
this morning. I still felt hopeful when
that fellow in Spain who has been discussing
things with me in Spanish on my
interactive blog posted a
farewell note indicating that he wouldn't
be posting any more messages. He said it
had been a pleasure to discuss the issues with
me, even if we didn't agree on much of anything.
But then, moments after I responded, I received
an email from a scientist or science student in
Switzerland who had read my paper on "Understanding
Time Dilation" and provided a lengthy
analysis of it. He disagreed with almost
everything, because of course, he has his own
unique theory about light, time and time
dilation. It took me over an hour to
analyze what he wrote and to write a
reply. I also researched him a bit and
found that his has 43 papers on
ArXiv.org expounding his beliefs. I
skimmed though a bunch of them and found them
all virtually incomprehensible due to his
convoluted writing style and the way he
organizes his papers. As near as I can
figure, he doesn't believe in Gravitational Time
Dilation, only in Velocity Time Dilation.
And his papers explain why.
But as a result of the time I spent writing my
response and researching him, I got no
work done on my book this morning. Maybe
tomorrow I'll be able to copy some of what I
wrote this afternoon in this comment to start
some new chapters.
The book was undoubtedly a lot funnier when it
was first published in 2012, back when Donald
Trump was just a silly blowhard jerk on TV and
not the silly blowhard jerk who will become
President of the United States on January
20. It still has a lot of amusing
jokes, but nothing seems to be as funny as it
was before election day.
November 21, 2016
- On Saturday afternoon, I drove to my local
library to browse through some back issues of Science
and Nature magazines. They had
plenty of issues of Science on their
shelves, but no copies of Nature.
Talking with one of the librarians, I learned
that they had back issues of Nature
available on line, but nothing from within the
past year. Since I was more interested in
a particular subject than in how old an article
might be, that was fine with me.
The subject of interest to me, of course, was
Time Dilation. However, the library's
software didn't seem to provide any way for me
to do a search through back issues of Nature
to find that term. The only way I could do
a search for the term "time dilation" was to
search their entire magazine collection data
base. I did such a search and found a
couple articles from Nature that
mentioned the term, but I also found 33 articles
from other magazines that mentioned the
term. I'd been told by the librarian that
I could email PDF copies of the articles to my
email account. So, I sent myself a half
dozen articles in PDF format, including the two
from Nature. I'd only put enough
money in the parking meter to spend 45 minutes
in the library, so I had to go home to read the
articles in full.
Unexpectedly, the article that interested me the
most when I got home was from Fantasy
& Science Fiction
magazine. Since I wanted to write this
comment about the article, I wondered if it was
on-line anywhere for the general public. I
couldn't find the PDF version anywhere, but an
html copy of "Weirder
Than You Think" was available on their
web page for the authors of the article.
The article explains a lot of things about
Special Relativity in layman's terms, but it
also explains them in the way the authors
understand them. For example,
the article begins with these two paragraphs:
IN 1905, Albert Einstein
published a paper that described his special
theory of relativity for the first time. That theory, condensed to
its essence, is this: Space and time are not
two separate things. They are two parts of
the same thing: spacetime.
One consequence of special relativity is
that your motion
through space is linked to your motion
through time. The faster your
spaceship moves, the more slowly the clock on
your spaceship moves compared to a clock on
Earth. This apparent slowing of a fast-moving
clock is known as time dilation.
Ah! That's another fundamental
disagreement I have with many people. As
far as I am concerned, Space and Time are NOT
"two parts of the same thing." But now I
understand why many others
see them that way.
From my point of view, space is just
space. Emptiness. Yes, if you do not
want to remain stationary and you want to move,
you have to move through space. But, empty
space has no effect on anything. Particle
spin and the fixed speed of light are the two
parts or factors that cause Time
Dilation. It appears that all matter
consists of particles that spin at the fixed
speed of light when the particles are
stationary. If something were
to cause the particles to move laterally, their
spin would exceed the speed of light by the
speed of their lateral movement. Since the
speed of light is fixed, that means the particle
spin must slow down. So, in theory, for
every kilometer per second the particle moves
laterally, its spin must slow down by one
kilometer per second.
That makes sense to me, and it appears to be
confirmed by experiment. Atomic clocks
(which measure particle movement) slow down when
in motion and/or when close to a gravitational
mass. There are no experiments which
support the notion that space and time are "two
parts of the same thing."
And the ramblings above are just my thoughts
about the first two paragraphs
from the Fantasy & Science Fiction
article. There's a much bigger area for
disagreement later in the article. But,
I'll have to write about that some other time --
or just write about it in my book (or in some
paper). It's almost lunch time and it's
time for me to end this comment.
End of comment. There. I did
it. It took all morning.
November 20, 2016 -
I'm still conversing in Spanish
with a guy in Spain who is posting to my
interactive blog. I don't speak
Spanish, which means it's a lot of work for me
to translate his Spanish comments into English
so I can try to understand them, then to write
an English reply, then to translate my English
reply into Spanish, and then to post everything
to the blog. I complained to the guy (who
posts as "anonymous") that I probably can't
continue arguing that way for much longer.
But then he'll post some interesting question or
comment that requires me to do a lot of thinking
before I can reply. That's good, since
there's no way to tell where a really good idea
or solution to a problem might come from.
For example, this morning he wrote:
O sea que el tiempo es un
subproducto proveniente del movimiento de un
cuerpo o partícula, lo que termina siendo nada
menos que una idea creada a través de nuestra
mente. Lo cuerpos o particulas en movimiento
que observamos, de eso nace la idea de tiempo.
Conclusión: el tiempo no existe por
si solo, mientras que una partícula en
I used Google to translate that into English:
That is, time is a byproduct from
the movement of a body or a particle, which
ends up being nothing less than an idea
created through our mind. The bodies or
particles in motion that we observe, from that
is born the idea of time.
Conclusion: time does not exist by
itself, while a moving particle does.
He was responding to something I wrote about
being particle spin. It's an
interesting response and something I've been
thinking about. I think he's saying that
particle spin is just another "clock" like the
movement of the Earth around the Sun. We
observe those "clocks" and come up with the idea
of time, which makes Time just an idea.
The problem with that "idea," of course, is that
we can observe Time ticking at different rates
by watching two atomic clocks, one higher than
the other. The "idea" of Time only works
when Time ticks at one rate for everyone.
When Time ticks at a different rate for my feet
than it does for my knees, that doesn't fit any
"idea" of Time that also measures time by
planetary spin or by orbits around the
I can maintain the "idea of Time" while I'm
trying to understand exactly how different
particle spin rates affect the "idea of Time,"
but how do I respond to the guy in Spain?
I'll have to think about it after I finish
writing this Sunday comment. I'll post a
response on the blog later today.
I suppose I should be happy that he isn't
arguing about the topic that occupied most of my
time last week: the difference between
"stationary" and "at rest." I shudder to
think about arguing over word definitions when
everything has to be translated from one
language to another.
If I begin with this question in English:
What is the difference between
being stationary and being at rest?
And use Google to translate it into Spanish,
¿Cuál es la diferencia entre
estar parado y estar en reposo?
And if I take that translation and translate
it back into English, I get:
What is the difference between
standing and being at rest?
Nope. That's not the question. So, I
better not mention it to the guy in Spain.
Last week I came to the tentative conclusion
that the source of many of the conflicts I have
with others about Time and Time Dilation stem
from one fundamental disagreement: the
difference between "stationary" and "at rest."
It appears that most people with an interest in
science believe there is no such thing as
"stationary," and they believe the closest you
can get to being "stationary" is to be "at
rest," which means to be traveling at the same
rate as everything around you. (See my
November 16 comment.)
From my point of view, Einstein made it very
clear that time could not be understood unless
you understood it in a stationary
context. In his
1905 paper Einstein wrote on page 3:
essential to have time defined by means of
stationary clocks in the stationary system,
and the time now defined being appropriate to
the stationary system we call it “the time of
the stationary system."
It seems he is making a distinction between
"stationary" and "at rest," but his way of doing
so requires a lot of deciphering and working out
I have no problem understanding a "stationary"
system, but others are translating Einstein's
comments to mean that there is no such thing as
a stationary system - or that a "stationary
system" is the same thing as "a system at rest."
I'd really like to find someone to discuss this
with - someone who can converse in
English. Everything becomes infinitely
easier when you can bounce ideas off of someone
else. I've argued much of it with others
before. Last week, while doing research, I
came across the web page titled "Why
Time Dilation Must be Impossible."
Back in April
of last year, I exchanged a bunch of
emails with the author of that web site and
page, Mr. Bernard Burchell. I also
exchanged a bunch of emails with Dr.
Thomas Smid, who has beliefs about Time
Dilation that are similar to those argued by Mr.
I could try restarting the discussions, or I
might just study our past emails to see if they
contain anything that would help me now.
Before I can continue with my book, I
think I need to determine what Einstein meant
when he wrote about "the time of the stationary
system." Doing a Google
search for that term just finds copies of
Einstein's 1905 paper, quotes from the paper
that include the clause, and passages from books
where authors are writing about the viewpoints
of "moving observers." Plus a few sites
which attack Einstein as being wrong.
I'm now thinking I'm just going to have to try
to translate most of pages 2 and 3 of Einstein's
1905 paper (i,e., the entire section titled "1.
Definition of Simultaneity") into plain
English. Maybe then I'll have the material
I need for the first chapter of my book (or for
another scientific paper).
Time will tell. I'm also tempted to just
sit down and watch some TV. But, no, I
can't do that until after I answer the posts
from the guy in Spain. Groan!
Added note: Here is my reply
No, there is a difference between
an “idea of time” and how time actually
works. Our “idea of time” is that it is
the same for everyone. It is
universal. A second for me is a second
for everyone everywhere.
Our “idea of time” does not agree with
In reality, the length of a second is
different for me than it is for an astronaut
on the International Space Station
(ISS). Because I am closer to the center
of the earth than the astronaut, time runs
slower for me, and the length of a second for
me is longer than the length of a second for
The problem is that the length my second is
around one trillionth of a second longer than
the astronaut’s second. So, it is not
noticeable. Only precision clocks
can measure the difference.
But the difference is real.
So, how do we reconcile our “idea of time”
with “the reality of time?” We can do so
by just ignoring the difference.
However, if we want to try to understand the
difference, we can envision “now” as being the
same for everyone, even though time is moving
at a different rate for everyone.
Imagine we are on a large rotating disk on
a playground or at a carnival. I am in
the center of the spinning disk facing you,
and you are at the edge of the disk facing
me. Midway between us is a white
spot painted on the rotating disk. You
are moving much faster than I am but you
appear stationary to me. The spot midway
between us doesn’t change its position, even
though it is moving at a different rate than
both you and me.
That is how time works. Time is
moving at different rates for all of us, but
“now” is the same for all of us. So, you
do not disappear into the past because you are
moving slower, and I do not jump into the
future because I am moving faster. We
are all in the same “now.”
My feet move slower through time than my
hips, and my hips move slower through time
than my head. I do not fly apart because
“now” is the same for all parts of me.
And if it is simpler and easier for me to
imagine that time is the same for all parts of
me, I can do so, even if it is untrue.
If anyone wants to read the Spanish
translation for that, it is HERE.
Thinking through that answer may have provided
some bits I can use in my book.
November 16, 2016
- Hmm. I'm back to thinking I need to
write a book.
This morning I decided I needed to know exactly
what certain "scientific" terms mean if I am
going to argue in favor of viewing things as
they exist in "reality" versus the Relativistic
view which says that no "frame of reference" is
any more "real" than any other "frame of
I started checking out the definitions of
various terms. That process led me to
realize that the first term I needed to fully
understand was "rest
frame." I quickly learned that it
has nothing to do with being "at rest," i.e.
being stationary (which would have been the way
I would have defined "rest frame"). It
has to do with the specific situation.
The rest frame of a river would
be the frame of an unpowered boat, in which
the mean velocity of the water is zero.
So, the unpowered boat is "at rest" in a
river that is moving at the same speed as the
in the rest frame of a neutrino
particle travelling from the Crab Nebula
supernova to Earth the supernova occurred in
the 11th Century AD only a short while before
the light reached Earth, but in Earth's rest
frame the event occurred about 6300 years
Which means that the "rest frame" for the
neutrino is at nearly the speed of light.
As a result of Time Dilation, the neutrino
"thinks" or "feels" the supernova occurred just
a "short while" ago. But, in our "rest
frame" here on Earth, the supernova occurred
6,300 years ago.
In reality, of course, neither that neutrino nor
we on earth are really "at rest." "Rest
frame" is just a scientific term meaning
"point of view."
In my reality, there is only one relevantpoint of view: the point of view
of the observer who understands
the entire situation. That point of view
says the boat is moving, it is not "at rest,"
and the neutrino is not "at rest," it is
experiencing time dilation which makes it
"think" or "feel" that it left the supernova
just a short while ago. If the boat or the
neutrino understood the entire situation (as we
humans should), it would have the same
understanding as we do: Neither of us is
"at rest," and our points of view are affected
by local conditions of Time.
Arguing in favor of Relativity over reality
requires that everyone be ignorant
of the entire situation. And that allows
the Relativists to argue that we do not know if
the train is moving or if the train is
stationary and the earth is moving under the
train. In the real world, we know from
experience that trains move, not the earth under
the trains. We understand things.
Relativists seem to be arguing that
understanding is irrelevant - unless it is
understanding their point of view.
No science magazine would ever publish that
description of the situation. But it would
work very well as part of a book about Reality
November 15, 2016
- Looks like my idea of writing a book Time and
Time Dilation was premature. I've been
writing different "Introductions" to the book,
and none work. The first attempt read like
the book was an autobiography; it described how
I came to write the book. The second
attempt went straight into the logic for Time
Dilated Light. That should be at the end
of the book, after I've made a solid and
undeniable case for it. The third attempt
addressed a topic that isn't well described in
my papers, and it made me wonder if I should
write a paper about it before putting it in a
book. Moreover, it suggested a different
title for the book: "Reality vs.
Relativity" or "Relativity vs.
It was hard to imaging that no one else has
written a book with one of those titles.
So, I did a Google search for them and only
found a web site titled "Reality
vs. Relativity" which seems to be
saying some of what I've been saying. I'll
have to study it further, along with the lengthy
comment after it. I also found a "Physics
Forum" blog where someone provided a link
page about special relativity that I'd
never seen before. It looks very
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that I need
to write more papers before I write the book,
and the book might turn out to be nothing more
than a collection of my papers. I haven't
made any firm plans, but the "more papers" idea
is making more and more sense.
November 13, 2016
(B) - Last week, I got into an
email discussion with someone who I assume is
either a student or an assistant professor at
Cambridge University in England. He
"published" a paper on ArXiv.org that
contained a section about "The
Twin Paradox" and how he'd have the twins
use clocks that emitted a burst of photons once
per year. His explanation of his reason
for doing that is wildly convoluted and requires
a lot of patient study to understand. I
didn't have that kind of patience, but I sent
him a copy of "Understanding
Time Dilation" and asked what he
thought of the idea of using a pulsar as a clock
that both twins could see.
He responded, telling me that "The idea to use a
pulsar as a common clock is a good one."
Then he stated an interpretation of Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity that made no sense
to me. So, in my response I explained the
same point about Special Relativity as I
His response was a list of disagreements between
what I understand and what he understands.
In response, I sent another email where I
explained in detail where the facts say his
understandings were wrong and why
they were wrong. Now I'm waiting to see if
he responds further. I'm assuming he
won't. It looks like his understandings
are really "beliefs," and he's not going to
change what he believes just because it doesn't
fit the facts.
In a perfect world, everyone should be willing
to discuss disagreements to see if they can be
resolved. But our world is far from
perfect. People seem ever ready to declare
their beliefs, but people are not willing to discuss
their beliefs, even when they argue that their
beliefs are not beliefs but conclusions they've
reached after analyzing the facts. For
example, here is one of his statements of
problem with relativity is that it is not
logical; because the speed of light
is constant, simple arithmetic addition will
I responded that Relativity is logical
if you view it correctly, and I explained how to
view it correctly. But viewing Relativity
"correctly" requires accepting that Time
actually runs at a different rate virtually
everywhere. If he responds, he'll almost
certainly tell me that Time Dilation is just an
illusion, and Time must be the same everywhere
because "the speed of light is constant."
And no facts or evidence showing how Time
Dilation works can change his mind.
Of course it's possible that he will respond
with a question instead of a statement, but I
would be highly surprised if he responds at all.
What I've decided to do is to start work on a
book about all this. The book will be
about how understanding Time Dilation provides
answers to how Time works, and understanding how
Time works will provide clear answers to how
Light works. The three conclusions the
book will explain in detail are
1. Time Dilation is real.
2. Time is a property of matter.
3. Time Dilation at the emission
point determines the speed of light.
The first idea I had for a title for the book
was "The Key to Understanding the
Universe." But then I decided
that that might generate too many arguments, so
I changed it to "My Key to
Understanding the Universe."
But, after thinking about it for a day or so, I
decided I will almost certainly title the book "Analyzing
Time and Time Dilation." That
will emphasize that I'm looking at things from
the point of view of a (systems) analyst, not as
a physicist. I'll probably also have a
sub-title of "An Analyst Evaluates
Disputes Over How the Universe Works."
Or maybe, "An Analyst Evaluates Disputes
Over Time, Light and Time Dilation."
The more I think about that new title, the more
I like it. It fits with my what I tried to
do with an earlier book "Analyzing
the Anthrax Attacks" and with
what I actually did with "A
Crime Unlike Any Other."
I did what an analyst is supposed to do: I
sorted through all that was being written about
the anthrax attacks of 2001, I separated the
facts from the beliefs and opinions, and then I
wrote a book describing what the facts said.
That's what I'm going to do with "Analyzing
Time and Time Dilation." I'll
be sorting through all the opinions and theories
and facts, and writing a book about what the
facts say. In some ways, the arguments
over Time Dilation are worse than the arguments
over the anthrax attacks. With the anthrax
attacks there was an "authority" who was also
analyzing the facts: The FBI. With Time
Dilation there doesn't seem to be any
"authority" other than the genius who came up
with the idea in the first place: Albert
Einstein. All we have now is a lot of
people who argue their bizarre misunderstandings
of Time Dilation as if it is also Einstein's
understanding, even when a check of the facts
quickly shows they do not understand Einstein's
theories at all.
Of course, it will be a self-published
book. I'm not even going to try to get any
regular book publisher to agree to publish
it. They wouldn't have clue as to whether
I was right or wrong. All they would know
is that I'm writing about something for
which I have no credentials, no credibility
and no support.
Writing has been a life-long hobby of mine, and
figuring things out has been another life-long
pastime. So, I'm anxious to get back to
work. I wrote one page on Friday, but with
the new idea for a new title, that one page is
going to require some major changes.
That's what writing is -- rewriting. And
rewriting. And rewriting.
Meanwhile, I'll continue looking for ways to get
my papers published in some journal or at least
included on ArXiv.org. However, that
situation looks nearly hopeless at the
moment. So, the book will be my focus.
It will keep my mind off the fact that we just
elected an ignorant, egotistic racist jerk as
President of the United States.
November 13, 2016
(A) - Hmm. Yesterday,
someone posted a message in Spanish to a
thread from July 2015 in my interactive blog.
I converted the message from Spanish to English
and found it was a valid post for the thread -
even though it was nothing but a statement of
beliefs about time and space. So, I wrote
a response in English, translated it to Spanish,
and posted my reply.
This morning I found three more messages in
Spanish on that same thread. I responded
to one of them (another statement of beliefs),
then I decided I should work on my Sunday
comment before responding to the two
November 11, 2016
- On the remote chance that someone might find
it of interest, on my way home from the gym this
afternoon I finished listening to the 11th and
last CD for another audio book. The book
On The Waters: The Union and Confederate
Navies, 1861-1865" by James M.
McPherson. It was an OK book, but it might
have been more enjoyable if I could have somehow
seen the illustrations and maps that are in the
other versions. I'd run out of science
books on CDs. I'd burned the CDs for War
on the Waters many months ago when I
noticed it on my library's web site and thought
it might be a worthwhile listen. It
Many years ago I did a lot
of research and wrote a screenplay about the
captain of a Civil War ironclad gunboat and the
problems some people had with adapting to the
new technology of ironclad warships. I
thought War on the Waters might go over
some of that same territory. It devoted
maybe 5 sentences to it.
The 11th CD ended as I was waiting to exit the
parking lot at the gym. So, I ejected that
CD and inserted CD #1 of another
non-science book that I had started
listening to on my MP3 player months ago but
never finished. The book is
only 3 CDs in length. A science book is in
the queue after that. Listening to books
on CD while driving is one of the best
discoveries I every made.
November 10, 2016
- The second scientific journal to which I sent
my article "Understanding Time Dilation"
sent me a form-letter rejection email this
morning. They simply said it wasn't the
kind of work they publish. That means, if
I want to understand why they turned it
down, I would have to sit down and study
articles in their magazine to see how mine is
different from what they regularly
publish. I certainly met all their
I awoke this morning realizing that if my
understanding of Time Dilation is correct (and
there is no reason to believe otherwise), there
are some very interesting implications that I
hadn't thought about before. For example,
the term "spacetime" becomes a bit silly, since
Time is a property of matter, which means there
is no time in empty space where there is no
Anyway, this morning I uploaded "Understanding
Time Dilation" to ViXra.org.
It went on-line a couple hours later. It
can be viewed as version 3 (v3) at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0234
or you can access it directly at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v3.pdf
I also submitted it to Academia.edu
where it showed up as a "draft paper" instead of
a new version of an old paper. Maybe
someday I'll figure out how to fix that.
While I might prowl around on ArXiv.org to see
if I can find someone who might be willing to
discuss the paper with me, I see little hope of
finding an "endorser" who will help me
upload/publish the paper there. So, that
leaves self-publishing a book as the only option
for bringing an end to this "search for
understanding." I can't just abandon the
idea. It seems far too important.
Which means my next task might be to think up a
good title. I knocked around "Tell Me
Where I'm Wrong!" as a potential title,
but I've had a lot of people tell me I'm wrong
simply because they do not believe the facts and
evidence I present. And "Explain to Me
Where I'm Wrong!" is probably a big
turn-off, since it asks for a discussion, and
most people only want to give
It might be better if the title contains some
indication of what the book is all about.
"Answering Science's Forbidden Questions"
might work. It would fit with the idea I
have for an opening chapter which would
illustrate that scientists today seem to be
forbidden from asking the questions I'm asking.
On the other hand, it's probably a bad idea
to start by thinking about a title. I
should probably begin by laying out the
chapters. Or maybe I should just start
writing and see where things go. We'll
2016 - I suppose I could write a
long comment about Donald Trump's victory and
what I think caused the majority of Americans to
vote for him, but I'm just going to study the
situation for awhile. Or maybe I'll just
curl up on the couch and watch TV and eat some
Until today, I would never have thought that the
American people could elect someone like Donald
Trump to be President. Now, I can only
think that he must have awakened "the silent
majority," and "the silent majority" turned out
to be unthinking, isolationist racists who would
rather have a sleaze-ball game show host for
President than a woman whom they totally hate
for some unspecified reason.
We could be in for some interesting times ahead.
November 8, 2016
- I went out at 9 a.m. this morning to
vote. I don't recall ever seeing a longer
line at my voting place, but I was still in and
out in 25 minutes. I was also pleased to
see that virtually everyone in the line seemed
very happy to be there. That gives me some
hope that the election results will not be
dominated by people who are filled with hate.
Meanwhile, while I was at the polls, the
scientific journal to which I sent my paper on "Understanding
Time Dilation" yesterday send me an email
rejecting it. Their note says,
while your findings may well prove
stimulating to others' thinking about such
questions, I regret that we are unable to
conclude that the work provides the sort of firm
advance in general understanding that would
That's kind of what I was afraid of.
The article is thought-provoking but it doesn't
provide any information that would be considered
"a firm advance" in understanding the
subject. I think it does, but that's just
So, I immediately sent the paper to another
scientific journal. I don't expect their
response will be any different. I'm not
sure what I'll do next.
November 7, 2016
- Okay. I just submitted my paper on "Understanding
Time Dilation" to a major scientific
journal. So, now it's a matter of waiting
to see if they will simply turn it down or if
they will want to consider it for
publication. I'm going to assume they will
not approve it, although I have no
idea why they would turn it down. It is a
simple, straight-forward presentation of how
Time Dilation has been repeatedly proven to be a
real natural phenomenon, and how it can and
should be understood and viewed
as a real natural phenomenon, instead of just as
an "illusion" or incomprehensible scientific
I view understanding time dilation as the key to
a major change in our understanding of how the
universe works. I'm hoping the magazine
will publish it so that scientists around the
world can either consider it or explain why they
cannot believe it - even though it is in total
agreement with Einstein's theories. If the
magazine decides against publishing it and gives
me no reason for doing so, I'll try another
Meanwhile, it has not escaped my notice that
tomorrow is election day. I sometimes feel
like I'm in Germany in 1933, and I'm surrounded
by hoards of crazy people cheering for Adolph
Hitler. I'm not the only one who has this
feeling. There's an interesting article in
The Washington Post this morning titled "What
Germans really think about those
Hitler-Trump comparisons." The
video in the article that compares Trump to
Hitler is really chilling. Here it is:
Tomorrow we find out if those unthinking,
uncaring people who cheer for Donald Trump are a
minority or majority. I view tomorrow with
2016 - A couple days ago I
noticed someone had posted the following
questions and statements to a
Is time eternal? Or is it finite?
If time is eternal, then an infinite amount of
time has passed. Thus, there will be no
future. If there is a future, then there is
more time left. Thus, an infinite amount of
time has not passed. Time is then finite; it
had a beginning.
While I saw the comment as just clever word
definition gibberish, it caused me to suddenly
come to a jaw-dropping realization that Time
does not exist in a vacuum.
I should have realized it long ago, way back in
February when I was working on my paper "What
is Time?" If Time is a property of
atoms and particles (which the facts and
evidence say is true), then there can be no Time
where there are no atoms and particles.
I find that easy to understand and
visualize. But anyone (and everyone) who
believes Time is some abstract concept will
probably find it next to impossible to
I can't be alone in understanding Time this
way. Scientists have been stating for
decades that the Big Bang created
Hawking states "the universe,
and time itself, had a beginning in the Big
Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
But they do not define the exact nature of
Time. They merely logically conclude that,
if the universe began 15 billion years ago, Time
must also have begun 15 billion years ago.
Why? Because there could not have been
anything before the beginning of everything.
My view is much simpler and easier to understand
than that: Time is a property of matter.
When matter first formed, Time started as a
property of that matter.
So, yesterday morning I tweeked my paper on "Understanding
Time Dilation" to include a question in a
paragraph near the end of the paper, "Is there
any way to demonstrate that Time does not exist
in a vacuum?"
I'm also wondering if I shouldn't try to include
some reconciliation between "real time" and
"conceptual time," i.e., between the real Time
that is controlled by atoms and particles, and
the "concept" of Time as visualized by most
people. But, I think that will just lead
to more "True Believer" situations where people
will declare, "I don't care what the facts and
evidence say, I'm going to believe what I want
to believe!" And, it would probably fit
better in a revised version of my paper "What
So, my paper "Understanding Time Dilation"
seems ready to submit to a scientific
journal. If it is turned down by all the
journals I try, then I'll put it on ViXra.org and
begin working on a book about all
three of my papers. I really think
the ideas in the papers are very
important and that my ideas are logically and
scientifically sound. I just wish I knew
some scientists who would discuss them with me
and show me where I might be wrong or where some
argument I hadn't thought of would be more
convincing than the arguments I used.
Looking around in hopes of finding someone who
might see things my way or explain where I am
wrong, I found that there are 344 scientific
papers on ArXiv.org which contain the phrase "time
dilation." Here is the context from
That is totally indecipherable to me, as are lot
of other mentions of "time dilation."
However, after digging through dozens of others
papers that used the term, I found one
Both Stark and Einstein assumed that the
atom is a clock. Clearly, this
assumption is justified only if the atom is
the seat of some periodic motion. This
motion could be, for instance, the supposed
harmonic motion of bound electrons; or the
supposed elliptical motion of the electron in
Bohr’s model of hydrogen atom: however, in
this case, the frequency of the light emitted
by the hydrogen atom differs from the
frequency of the electronic motion. Anyway, the advent of
quantum mechanics forbids any description of
atoms as seats of periodic motion of
electrons: atoms are not clocks.
There's a lot in that paragraph to wonder
about. It was Einstein who gave me the
idea that the atom is a clock. The fact
that the author of that particular paper
disagrees with us is of no great concern.
Neither is the author's belief about quantum
mechanics. If quantum mechanics is not
compatible with Time being controlled by atoms
and particles, then that is just further
evidence that any valid "Theory of Everything"
will NOT be based on quantum mechanics.
The rest of the paper seems to be an argument
that Einstein was wrong because the author of
the paper has a different interpretation of how
things work. So, there would be no point
in me trying to start a conversation with
When you do a search for "time dilation" on ViXra.org, Google
is used to do the search, and Google
provides 224 results where the phrase appears in
the abstract, and "about 832" results where the
phrase appears anywhere within a paper.
Browsing through those papers, I find they are
mostly arguments that Time Dilation cannot be
real because the authors do not understand the
logic behind such a thing. How can Time be
slowed by both velocity and
gravitation? It makes no sense, one author
There's probably something to be learned from
reading all those papers, but I've reached the
point where I just want to know if I am
right or wrong. None of those
papers will answer that question. The
papers are just about what the authors believe
to be true. And no two authors seem to be
in full agreement.
So, I'm going to try to get "Understanding
Time Dilation" published. If no one
will publish it, and if no one will explain to
me if I'm right or wrong, then I'll publish it
myself as part of a book. It seems too
important to just forget about. And my
curiosity is limitless.
Comments for Tuesday,
November 1, 2016, thru Saturday, Nov. 5,
November 3, 2016
- I seem to be making progress again on my
scientific paper about Time Dilation.
While working out at the gym on Tuesday
afternoon, an idea for a new title occurred to
me: "Understanding Time Dilation."
When I got home, I started revising the paper
with that title in mind. Yesterday, I
completed a "first version" of this latest
version. It still needs work, but it seems
to present the subject of Time Dilation in the
right way - laying out the facts in a
manner that not only makes the subject very
clear to the reader but also makes it nearly
impossible for the naysayers to challenge.
I even awoke this morning thinking of further
improvements I can make. All seems right
with the world when I wake up thinking of
improvements I can make to whatever project is
currently at the my center of attention.
It sets the day on the right track.
November 1, 2016
- It's a bit like having "writer's block,"
except that I know what I want to write about; I
just haven't figured out the best way to
organize and present things. I don't
think the current version of my paper says what
it is supposed to say in the best way I can say
I've been thinking that instead of the current
Dilation without Relativity," I
should use the title "Time Dilation: The
Key to Everything." It
sometimes seems to me that understanding Time
Dilation could be the "key" to unlocking a clear
understanding of the universe. Unlike many
other "mysteries of the universe," Time Dilation
is something that can be clearly demonstrated
with experiments in a laboratory.
It's simply crazy for a scientist
to look at two atomic clocks setting one above
the other, clocks which are conclusively
demonstrating that time moves slower the closer
you are to the center of the Earth, and the
scientist will shake his head and argue that the
evidence in front of him must be wrong or
misleading in some way, since it doesn't agree
with his personal screwball interpretation of
Relativity. If you perform the
experiment over and over with a hundred clocks,
he'll still shake his head and refuse to accept
Yet, that seems to be what is
currently going on. The problem is: You
cannot get the scientist to explain himself and
why he doesn't accept the evidence that is right
in front of his eyes. The main reason he
won't accept it could very well be that he believes
that his fellow scientists would also refuse to
accept it, and he is not willing to be placed on
the wrong side of a dispute where the "main
stream" majority rules and anyone challenging
the "main stream" majority could find himself
The problem with the title "Time Dilation
without Relativity" is that it could lead
to meaningless arguments over word
definitions. If you have two clocks, one
atop the other, that demonstrate Time Dilation,
it can be argued that the top clock is running
faster relative to the bottom
clock, so Relativity is still an issue - even if
you have only one observer.
The problem with the title "Time Dilation:
The Key to Everything" is that it can be
argued that Time Dilation isn't "the key."
It's just a pointer to "the key." If you
have those atomic clocks running at different
speeds right in front of you, you cannot help
but ask the question: "What is
time if it runs faster for the higher clock than
for the lower clock?" It's certainly not a
concept. It's certainly not an
illusion. Concepts and illusions do not
change speeds when you move them. There
must be something physical going on. But what?
The answer to that question could be "the key to
everything." It seems that Time is a
property of matter. It seems that Time is
running slower for my ankle than for my
knee. How can that be? I have
no problem visualizing it. I
just have a problem explaining how that kind of
"time" relates to the kind of "time" I see when
I look out the window and watch leaves flutter
down from the trees because the summer has once
again turned into fall.
The atomic clocks are measuring time at the
atomic and sub-atomic level for their specific
location. The change in seasons is part of
a "natural clock" that measures time at an
astronomical level where objects on Earth go
through physical changes as the Earth orbits the
sun. How do those two methods for
measuring time relate? Is that the right
question to ask?
I often ask myself, "How do I know what I know
until I see what I write?" That's actually
a misquote from E.
M. Forster who wrote, “How do I know what
I think until I see what I say?” Or
maybe it's from Flannery
O'Connor who wrote, “I write because I
don't know what I think until I read what I
I've spent the past two hours writing this
comment in hopes that putting my thoughts down
in writing might help me clarify what I'm
thinking about Time Dilation and Time. It
seems very clear that Time Dilation is "the key"
to understanding Time, and understanding Time
could be a "key" to understanding a lot more
about the universe. And it seems clear
that such an understanding will be in direct
conflict with how a lot of
scientists understand Time and Time Dilation.
That's not a problem. That is how science
is supposed to work. The
problem is finding the right words and steps to
use in a scientific paper that assembles
undeniable evidence to show that what is
commonly accepted as "established science" today
by countless scientists is actually just a
simple misunderstanding that has been compounded
by other misunderstandings and
misinterpretations over the past century until
Einstein's search for "reality" has not only
been forgotten, but is now being claimed that
"reality" is irrelevant. Who cares about
"reality" if a scientist can become famous for
creating a concept that has nothing to do with
Oops. Lunch time. That's enough
"thinking in writing" for today.
Comments for Sunday,
October 30, 2016, thru Monday, October 31,
Over the course of decades,
Donald Trump’s companies have systematically
destroyed or hidden thousands of emails,
digital records and paper documents demanded
in official proceedings, often in defiance of
court orders. These tactics—exposed by a
Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court
filings, judicial orders and affidavits from
an array of court cases—have enraged judges,
prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many
ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with
Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he
controlled also erected numerous hurdles that
made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing
courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of
money in legal fees as they
struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.
It's a very long article that describes in
detail what is normally only seen in crime
movies, where corporate lawyers play every legal
(and illegal) game in the book in order to avoid
complying with court orders. They destroy
records, they lie, and they make false
accusations against their accusers. It's
all done to confuse and delay things until the
people filing lawsuits against Trump and his
companies just give up and settle the
cases. The corporate lawyers are on the
Trump payroll, so they can delay things for
years and years and it costs Trump
What it shows is some background for "the game"
Donald Trump is currently playing to get what he
wants - to be President of the US: Lie,
cheat, steal, throw up smoke screens, and
sidetrack the issues. It's all part of
October 30, 2016 -
I'm still in the situation best described by the
cartoon I created months ago:
I don't know how to get anyone to discuss the
simple fact that if you have two atomic clocks
in front of you, one atop the other, the lower
clock will tick at a slower rate than the upper
clock due to gravitational time dilation.
People can accept the theory, but they cannot
accept the reality. When talking about the
theory, they can happily babble mindlessly and
endlessly about curved space and time and how it
all fits together. But when talking about
reality, they become hostile and cannot accept
what is visible right in front of them.
They'll just argue that it is a "trick," or one
of the clocks is simply malfunctioning.
And, of course, they won't even attempt to
answer any questions such as, "What is
time if it ticks at a different rate at
I've been searching the Internet looking for
someone who views Time and Time Dilation the
same way I do. Yesterday, I spent a
couple hours browsing through two of Lee
Smolin's books to see if there was
anything in them that might help me figure out
why no one seems to be willing to discuss what
might be the biggest question in science today:
Time if gravity and motion can cause it to run
faster or slower?
The first book by Dr. Smolin that attracted my
attention yesterday was "The
Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What
Comes Next." Like other
physics books I've recently read, it obviously
argues that String Theory is a waste of time and
resources, and that we need to take a look at
the state of science today to see if it is
really valid "science" or if it is only
about playing logic and mathematical "games"
which prove nothing. However, I have a
problem with Dr. Smolin's writing style.
For me, he never seems to get straight to the
point. Instead, he always seems to wander
into all kinds of side issues before making a
point that is as clear as mud.
Browsing through "The Trouble with Physics,"
I found some interesting passages and some
interesting topics, but there was nothing that
grabbed my interest and made me want to sit down
and read the book. Moreover, I did a
"Search inside this book" for the word
"dilation" and got zero results. Time
dilation is really what is of most interest to
me right now.
The other book by Dr. Smolin, "Time
Reborn," poses some interesting
questions and makes some interesting statements,
but it all seems to lead nowhere - or to some
jumble of an idea that Dr. Smolin doesn't fully
explain. In the past, I've tried reading
some of his papers, but I just got lost in the
technical jargon. "Time Reborn" was
supposedly written for the "general reader," but
I couldn't find anything in it that really
grabbed my interest. Instead, I found
stuff like this:
I used to believe in the
essential unreality of time. Indeed, I
went into physics because as an adolescent I
yearned to exchange the time-bound, human
world, which I saw as ugly and inhospitable,
for a world of pure, timeless truth.
Later in life, I discovered that it was pretty
nice to be human and the need for
transcendent escape faded.
More to the point, I no longer believe that
time is unreal. In fact, I have swung to
the opposite view: Not only is time real but
nothing we know or experience gets
closer to the heart of nature than the reality
It's a lot of words, but it says
nothing. Another passage:
Much of this book sets out the scientific argument for
believing in the reality of time. If
you are one of the many who believe that time
an illusion, I aim to change your mind. If
you already believe time is real, I hope to
give you better reasons for your belief.
Same thing. Just words that tell me
nothing of value. The topic is of interest
to me, but there's nothing of interest in what
is being said about the topic.
The book's "Introduction" starts with this:
The scientific case for time
being an illusion is formidable.
That is why the consequences of adopting the
view that time is real are revolutionary.
Is the "scientific case for time being an
illusion" really "formidable"? What are
the components of this "scientific case"?
I went to the chapter that is supposed to be
about this, and found it begins with a lengthy
description of how Greek philosophers believed
that "Nature loves to hide," which is why we
have to dig deep to figure things out.
Then Dr. Smolin gets into how and why things
fall, and how all falling objects trace a
parabolic curve, and yada yada yada. The
sample pages from the book end without any
"hook" to grab my interest. And, he
certainly does not answer any questions I have.
Worst of all: I did a "Search inside this book"
for the word "dilation" and got ZERO
results. How can anyone write a
book about Time without mentioning Time
Dilation? How can anyone
argue that "time is real" without using Time
Dilation as evidence of Time being real?
Whatever Lee Smolin's answer is, I could find no
indication that it would be an answer of
interest to me. So, there's no reason for
me to pay good money to buy his books if there
seems to be no hope of finding anything of value
in the books.
It's becoming more and more clear that I'm just
going to have to give up on finding someone who
views Time and Time dilation the way I do and
the way the evidence tells me Einstein
did. There also seems no hope of finding
someone who can intelligently explain to me why
my understandings of Time and Time dilation are
incorrect. Their arguments all boil down
to the same nonsense: "You need to study what I
studied, learn what I learned, and then you will
believe what I believe."
Getting published is still the immediate
goal. My paper on "Time
Dilation Without Relativity" hasn't
been submitted anywhere. Understanding
Time Dilation without Relativity still seems the
key to understanding everything else. I'm
going to have to revise the paper again to see
if I can present my case in a more clear and
undeniable way. Then we'll see what
Meanwhile, I'm setting my DVR to record a "binge"
of 13 episodes from season 1 of "77
Sunset Strip" that are scheduled to
be broadcast on the "Decades"
cable channel starting on November
11. The TV series originally started
airing in October of 1958. I think I very
much enjoyed watching it back then. Will
it still be interesting and watchable in
2016? I dunno. But it costs nothing
to record the 13 episodes in the "binge," and if
the first few shows turn out to be hopelessly
dated or otherwise unwatchable, it will cost
nothing to delete them.
Comments for Sunday,
October 23, 2016, thru Saturday, October
October 26, 2016
- Groan! I'm sitting here
at my computer trying to think of something
interesting to write about. Instead, all I
can think about is how I just want to sit in
front of my TV and watch some old episodes of Star
Trek: Enterprise. I also cannot
focus on revising my paper on Time
Dilation Without Relativity.
Maybe it's the weather. It's rainy,
gloomy, overcast and nasty outside. Yeah.
Watch TV. That's what I need
to do. It doesn't require thinking.
And, right now I just do not have the energy to
think - or even to try to think.
The book was written by Jim Baggott, a
scientist with a doctorate in chemical
physics who is evidently best known as a
science writer. I quoted from
the book quite a bit in my
October 2 comment, when I was only 17%
done. The file of quotes I saved from
the book is now 21 pages long. The
author wrote a lot of things with which I
would tend to agree, but he also says a few
things with which I do not fully
agree. And sometimes we are in total
I had hoped the book would clarify some things
for me. That is the general reason I read
science books. But, instead, it clarified
nothing. Here's a quote:
In shaping his special theory of
relativity, Einstein established two
fundamental principles. The first, which
became known as the principle of relativity,
asserts that observers who find themselves in
states of relative motion at different (but
constant) speeds must observe precisely the
same fundamental laws of physics. This seems
perfectly reasonable. For example, if an
observer on earth makes a measurement to test
Maxwell’s equations and compares the result
with that of another observer making the same
measurement on board a distant spaceship
moving away from the earth at high speed, then
the conclusions from both sets of observations
must be the same. There cannot be one set of
Maxwell’s equations for one observer and
another set for space travellers. We can turn this on its
head. If the laws of physics are the same
for all observers, then there is no
measurement we can make which will tell us
which observer is moving relative to the
other. To all intents and purposes, the
observer in the spaceship may actually be
stationary, and it is the observer on earth
who is moving away at high speed.
While I have no problem with the first part
of that quote, which is a summary of Einstein's
theories, I have a BIG problem with section I
highlighted in red. While the laws of
physics may be the same for all observers, there
is no law that says an observer must
imagine himself to be in a totally empty
universe where nothing is happening other than
the experiment he is working on. That
appears to be a requirement of the author's
(and many others') beliefs about
Here's another quote where the author says the
same thing in a different way:
The principle of relativity
demands that the laws of physics must be the
same irrespective of the relative motion of
the observer, and you
cannot use physics to tell whether it is you
or the passenger who is in motion.
Where would the section in red be true?
Only in an imaginary totally empty universe
where nothing is happening other than the
experiment being worked on.
How are the laws of physics changed if I can
plainly see that the passenger is the one who is
moving and that he is confirming
that we knew what we were doing when we spent billions
developing the space ship and the experiment?
Besides, one of the first things we did
when we started the project was to make sure
there where no "physicists" working on the
project who wouldn't be able to tell if the
rocket was taking off or if the earth was moving
away from the rocket. Being able to understand
the project was a key factor for getting hired
onto the project.
The book is frustrating in that the author and I
are in full agreement on many topics, and he
produces some very nice quotes. For
Now, I don’t wish to
underestimate the intellectual capabilities of
theoretical physicists, who, I’m sure, are a
lot smarter than actuaries, bankers and
mortgage lenders. But it does seem to me that
if a relatively small number of very smart
people in the financial sector can delude
themselves in a way that almost brought down
the entire world economy, and which four years
later still threatens to cause some European
countries to default on their sovereign debts,
then it’s surely possible that a few theorists
can delude themselves about what qualifies as
After all, what does it matter if
a few theorists decide that it’s okay to
indulge in a little self-delusion?
What real harm is done? I believe
that damage is being done to the integrity of
the scientific enterprise. The damage isn’t
always clearly visible and is certainly not
always obvious. Fairy-tale physics is like a
slowly creeping yet inexorable dry rot. If we
don’t look for it, we won’t notice that the
foundations are being undermined until the
whole structure comes down on our heads. Here
are the signs. The fairy-tale theorists have
for some time been presenting arguments
suggesting that the very definition of science
needs to be adapted to accommodate their
particular brand of metaphysics. The logic is
really rather simple. Developments in
theoretical physics have run far ahead of our
ability to provide empirical tests. If we hang
our definition of science on the Testability
Principle, then we have a problem — this stuff
clearly isn’t science.
While there are many physicists
prepared to take the tellers of fairy tales to
task, this is extremely sensitive ground. It
is hard to criticize fairy-tale physics
without being perceived to be criticizing
science as a whole.
Then, when we seemed to be nicely in
agreement, he'd write some more of his
interpretations of Einstein's theories:
In a bold move touched by genius,
he [Einstein] now
elevated the constancy of the speed of light
to the status of a fundamental principle.
Instead of trying to figure out why the speed
of light is independent of the speed of its
source, he simply
accepted this as an established fact.
He assumed the speed of
light to be a universal constant and
proceeded to work out the consequences. One immediate consequence is
that there can be no such thing as absolute
"There can be no such thing as absolute
time?" Really? In my
reading of Einstein's 1905 paper, although he
doesn't use the exact phrase "absolute time,"
Einstein repeatedly explains that the equivalent
to "absolute time" is the time measured in a
"stationary system." All Time is compared
to time in a "stationary system" to see how it
I could go on and on and on, but the point I'm
trying to make is that "Farewell to Reality"
does a very good job of explaining the status of
science today, and how it appears to be in the
process of being taken over by "theoretical
physicists" who not only have no interest
"reality," they do not even believe that there is
such a thing as "reality."
At the same time, the book was a very tedious
read for me because it went into too many areas
in which I have little interest. And the
book made no attempt to make those areas seem
interesting. It was like going to a
lecture on the "Status of Science Today" and
finding that 50% of the lecture was about areas
where there is absolutely nothing of interest
going on, finding that another 40% of the
lecture is about the author's bizarre
misinterpretations of what science is really
about, and finding that only 10% of the lecture
is about how there are many many scientists
today who have absolutely no interest in the
"scientific method" and who believe science is a
mathematical game, and the "winner" of "the
game" is the scientist who can produce the
convoluted mathematical model of the universe
which can never be confirmed to be either valid
or invalid. Realty is irrelevant. So
is actual science.