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

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

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

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

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

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
                  detective
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to go to my Facebook group about Time and Time Dilation. Click HERE to go to my notes about scientific topics discussed on this web site.


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

just trying to figure things out.


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

My Latest Comments


Comments for Sunday, October 21, 2018, thru Saturday, October 27, 2018:

October 23, 2018 - I spent nearly all day yesterday studying various papers written by Norman Ramsey on the topic of his "separated oscillatory field method," for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1989.  And I browsed through a bunch of other papers and documents on the same topic.  The problem is: I cannot visualize what is happening inside the two arms of the Ramsey cavity.

atomic clock
****************************************************************

Ramsey cavity
****************************************************************
Ramsey cavity
****************************************************************
Ramsey cavity
***************************************************************
And, if I cannot visualize what is happening, then I cannot describe it in writing.  And if I cannot describe it in writing, then I cannot describe how it relates to time dilation.  And, if I cannot do that, then I cannot continue with my paper on how atomic clocks work.

Here is what is written in the rightmost column on page 58 of Ramsey's paper "Accurate Measurement of Time":
In simplified form, atomic beam resonance involves three steps. The first is to select only those atoms in the appropriate energy level. This selection is accomplished by using a specially shaped magnetic field, which acts as a kind of filter. It allows atoms in one energy level to pass and blocks all others by bending the beam. Only atoms in the correct energy level are bent the correct amount to reach and pass through the aperture that serves as the entrance to the cavity.

The second and crucial step is to send the selected atoms into another energy level. The task is accomplished by passing the atoms through an oscillating microwave field inside a cavity. The atoms will go to another energy level only if the frequency of the applied oscillating microwaves matches their Bohr frequency.


The third step is to detect those atoms that have changed energy levels. At this point, the beam of atoms passes through another magnetic field filter, which allows only atoms in the correct energy level to strike a detector that records the atoms as current flow.
I cannot visualize "an oscillating microwave field inside a cavity" when the "cavity" is U-shaped and has a microwave input at the bottom of the U, but no output, and the beam of cesium atoms appears to enter and exit through holes in the sides of the arms of the U.  

I hadn't thought about it before, but I assume my microwave oven has no output.  What happens to the microwaves inside the oven when I turn off the oven?  I can visualize them bouncing around inside the oven until they hit something that can absorb them.  Do microwaves bounce around inside a Ramsey cavity?  It seems like the purpose of the cavity is to keep the microwaves from bouncing around, so that the atoms pass through a stream of microwaves.  But you cannot have a "stream" without an input and output.

I also cannot visualize a microwave photon crashing into the screen on the door of my microwave oven.  One source says,
Even though you can see into the microwave oven when your food is cooking, the microwaves are effectively blocked from getting out into the room because the holes in the metal screen on the microwave oven door are about 1 mm in diameter compared to a 120 mm wavelength for the microwaves. The wavelength of the microwaves is about 120 times the size of the holes, and can't "see" the holes to get out.
That's like saying a spear cannot get through a porthole because the spear is much longer than the porthole is wide.  Huh?  Evidently, there is something I do not understand about microwaves and photons, and I have no idea what it is that I do not understand.  So, I have no idea how to figure out a solution to the problem.

I'm just going to drop the idea of writing a paper on how an atomic clock works until I figure how exactly what happens inside the Ramsey cavity.   And I don't even know where else to look for answers to that question.

One additional point:  While reading another one of Norman Ramsey's papers, "Precise Measurement of Time," I highlighted interesting passages in yellow, I highlighted important passages in red, and I highlighted passages I disagreed with in green.  Here are the only two sentences I highlighted in green:

Quote from Norman Ramsey
 
Einstein's special theory of relativity does NOT say, "if two observers with clocks are moving relative to each other at a constant velocity, each will find that the other's clock is going at a slower rate than his own clock."   Einstein's theory says that inside a closed inertial frame, everything will seem normal, BUT when you compare one frame to another, the frame that is moving fastest will have the clock that is ticking slowest.  Or as Einstein put it: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator [where the earth is spinning fastest] must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles [where the earth is spinning slowest] under otherwise identical conditions." 

That is the second time I encountered reciprocal time dilation in the past week.  It was also mentioned in Tony Jones' book "Splitting the Second." I wrote about it in my October 19 comment.  In both cases it is something just mentioned in passing, not something explained in depth.  It's like something the authors read about in school that was never of any great interest to them.  So, all they can do is recite what they learned in school.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do next.  I'll have to think about it.    

October 21, 2018
- Yesterday, I looked back through all the passages I had highlighted and underlined while reading Tony Jones' book
"Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time," and I found three sections which somewhat addressed the problem I am having in describing the workings of an atomic clock.  And those sections also clear up some of my confusion about how cesium atoms work.

On page 39, the book says this about the "spin-flip transition" that is at the heart of an atomic clock:
The spin–flip transition occurs at a frequency of 9193 megahertz, equivalent to a “vibration” of almost 10 billion times a second. The frequency of this “clock transition” is the highest of all the alkali metals and can be measured more precisely than any of the others. It corresponds to a wavelength of 3.26 centimetres, which lies right in the middle of the microwave radio spectrum.
There is nothing new in that, except for relating the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hertz to a wavelength of 3.26 centimeters, which has no significance at the moment, but will have later.

On page 40 the book says:
caesium is the biggest of all the atoms. As a more or less direct consequence of this, its outer solo electron is only loosely attached. It is easier to knock an electron off a caesium atom than any other atom, and this makes it easy to detect.
I wasn't sure what that meant, but it clearly says that it is easy to knock off the outermost electron of a cesium atom and turn the atom into an ion.  An "ion" is defined as:
an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons
So, if you knock off the outermost electron instead of just flipping it into a different orbit, that gives the atom a positive electrical charge, instead of being basically neutral.  I suppose that makes it "easy to detect."  But, that didn't mean much to me until I read what Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about it:
Because cesium is strongly photoelectric (easily loses electrons when struck by light), it is used in photoelectric cells, photomultiplier tubes, scintillation counters, and spectrophotometers. It is also used in infrared lamps
Okay, that first part I highlighted in red is the important part.  It says that hitting a cesium atom with photons in the visible light range can knock the outermost electron off of the atom and turn the atom into an ion.  And we know from the previous passage that hitting a cesium atom with a microwave photon will just cause the outermost electron to "flip."

On page 48, the book also says this:
Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state. In each case the outer electron is turned over by the incoming wave and changes the state of the atom.
I didn't highlight the part about "9193 megahertz" because it is misleading, since it implies other frequencies won't have any effect.  The important part is what happens to the microwave photon when it hits the atom.  It is absorbed by the atom if the atom is in the "lower energy state," and the atom then flips to the "upper state."  However, if the atom is already in the "upper state" when hit by the photon, the photon will still be absorbed, but the atom will then eject a new photon.  So, the atom went from a "upper state" to a "too high state" and then back down to an "upper state" once again when it emitted the new photon.

The key point is that different photons oscillating at different frequencies will have different effects on a cesium atom.  And photons in the infrared frequency range will have a very different effect than microwaves or visible light.  The book says this on page 164:
If a caesium atom is exposed to light of wavelength 852 nanometres, it will absorb a photon and almost immediately re-emit it again, as if the photon has bounced off the atom. Indeed, this process is known as “scattering” of light. When the atom absorbs the photon it receives a little kick of momentum in the direction the photon was travelling.  When it re-emits the photon the atom recoils with another little kick in the direction opposite to the photon’s travel. At first sight one might think that these kicks would cancel out: for every incoming photon there is an outgoing photon too. But if the atom is in a laser beam, the absorbed photons all come from the same direction while the scattered photons are sprayed out at random. The kicks do not balance out and the atom in the beam gets pushed along by the light, scattering photons as it goes
Hmm.  A wavelength of 852 nanometers puts the light just beyond the 750 nanometer edge of the visible light range and into the infrared range.

electromagnetic





                                                          spectrum
 
So, photons in the visible light range will knock the outermost electron off of a cesium atom, while photons oscillating at a specific longer wavelength in the infrared range will be absorbed and then ejected by a cesium atom, and photons oscillating at an even longer specific wavelength in the microwave range will merely cause the outermost electron to flip its orbit, but a new photon won't be emitted if the atom was in a lower energy state when hit.

What might be the most important fact is that virtually all photons oscillating at other frequencies will simply pass through the cesium atom as if it wasn't there.  And that means that if the cesium atom is moving, it will encounter the oncoming photons as oscillating at a different wavelength than if the cesium atom was stationary.  The section about infrared photons explains further:
Now suppose the atom is moving towards the source of the laser light. Does it absorb photons still? No, because although the photons are the right wavelength for a stationary atom, the Doppler effect (Chapter 2) ensures that the moving atom sees them blue-shifted to a slightly shorter wavelength. The atom sees photons streaming past that are too short to be absorbed and nothing happens. But if we now adjust the wavelength from the laser to make it slightly longer than 852 nanometres, then provided we get it just right the moving atom will see these longer photons blue-shifted to 852 nanometres and begin to absorb them!
Bingo!  That same effect would undoubtedly work with microwave photons, too! Microwaves at 9,192,631,770 Hertz and a wavelength of 3.26 centimeters will cause the outermost electrons on a cesium atom to flip.  If, however, the cesium atoms start to move away from the microwave emitter, the atoms will encounter the microwaves as if they had a longer wavelength, and the outermost electrons will not be affected.  They will not "flip." The photons will just pass through the atoms as if they didn't exist.

If you want to cause the outermost electrons of a moving cesium atom to "flip," you need to adjust the microwave emitter to a slower or faster rate.  In cesium atomic clock, of course, there is a "feedback system" to make such adjustments.

The question then becomes: Will things work the same way if the source of the photons is moving away from the cesium atoms?  Answer: No.  Einstein's Second Postulate says,
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
So, the microwave emitter within an atomic clock will emit microwaves at the same wavelength regardless of how fast the clock and emitter may be moving (or at what altitude they might be located), unless some kind of feedback system changes things

According to my paper "What is Time?", the cesium atoms within the clock will slow their oscillation rate when they move faster and when they drop to a lower altitude.  That would mean that the microwaves will just pass through them unless the microwave emitter changes the oscillation frequency of the microwaves it emits to match the oscillation frequency of the atoms.  And that is, of course, exactly what the feedback system within the atomic clock is designed to do.

The problem is that it is very difficult to visualize exactly what is happening inside an atomic clock that is moving at high speed.  Does it make any difference how the clock is oriented?  Experimental results seem to say, no, it doesn't make any difference if the clock is moving sideways or backwards or up and down. 

If you shoot microwave photons at a stream of cesium atoms that is shooting across the path of the microwaves, do the atoms hit the photons or do the photons hit the atoms?  The photons supposedly have a length of 3.26 centimeters (1.28 inches), and they are passing in front of atoms that are 3.38 nanometers (3.38 billionths of a meter) in diameter, far too small to be seen.  It would seem that the atoms are going to be hitting the photons, not the other way around.  On the other hand, the photons are moving at the speed of light, and the atoms are just moving at the speed of an escaping gas.

atomic clock

The first cesium atomic clocks had the cesium atoms getting bombarded by microwave photons for the entire distance between Magnet 1 and Magnet 2.   But in 1949 Norman Ramsey of Harvard University devised the U-shaped cavity configuration shown above that is used in modern atomic clocks. (The "cavity" is evidently the microwave-filled space inside the base and arms of the U.)  On page 49 of "Splitting Time" it says this:
The caesium beam passes first through a hole in the end of one arm of the U and then through a similar hole in the other arm. At each pass through the cavity the atoms receive an identical burst of microwaves. If the frequency of the radiation corresponds to the transition frequency, the first burst puts the atoms into a ghostly quantum mixture of the two states and the second completes the transition to the opposite state. The sharpness of the transition frequency is now proportional to the length of time the atoms are coasting in limbo between the two bursts of radiation. The longer the coast, the more accurately the frequency is defined.

Because the atoms are all streaming in nearly parallel lines and because the radiation is directed at right angles to the beam, the microwaves hit the atoms from the side, so to speak, rather than head on. That means there is no Doppler shift in the wavelength of the radiation seen by the atoms and so, unlike the ammonia clock, the frequency remains sharp.
I suppose it doesn't make much difference if the photons hit the atoms or if the atoms hit the photons if the clock is in a fixed location.  But, I still haven't figured out what happens differently when the clock is moving, or what happens differently when you have identical clocks at different altitudes.

I feel I need to understand more about how things work inside the "cavity."  I cannot visualize that part at all.  I discovered I have a copy of a paper co-written by Norman Ramsey for Scientific American in 1993.  It's titled "Accurate Measurement of Time."  It looks like it might help me understand things.  And I just found a paper written by Normal Ramsey in 1988 for American Scientist.  It's titled "Precise Measurement of Time."  Maybe I also need to study "Primary Atomic Frequency Standards at NIST" and see how much I can decipher from "NIST Primary Frequency Standards and the Realization of the SI Second."  If I can't figure out what happens differently to two atomic clocks at different velocities and/or altitudes, maybe I can figure out some way to explain how the feedback system does not adjust for time dilation conditions, but the clocks will still differ in the amount of time they accumulate.

I was hoping I could figure things out as I wrote this comment.  It didn't happen. I still think the feedback system is what causes the atomic clock to tick at different rates at different altitudes and velocities, but I haven't found what I need to confirm or disprove that hypothesis.    


Comments for Sunday, October 14, 2018, thru Saturday, October 20, 2018:

October 19, 2018 - Instead of working on my paper tentatively titled "Atomic Clocks and Time Dilation," I've been reading the book "Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time," by Tony Jones.  In a way, reading the book is part of working on my paper.  It is research.  The book will be a key source for material in my paper.  It is a highly readable book, with virtually no mathematics and lots of very interesting details about how atomic clocks were developed, how they work, how they replaced astronomical time, and how time is measured.  And it also gets into a few other areas of physics.

For example, this is from pages 146 & 147:
Several observatories around the world now make routine timing measurements of pulsars. The arrival times of pulses are recorded with atomic clocks to accuracies of a few microseconds, and these times are the raw data for numerous astrophysical investigations. By averaging over many years—and billions of pulses—the rotation periods can be determined to a few parts in 1014. ...

One consequence of this high accuracy is that pulsar observations are very sensitive to Doppler shifts. The speed of the Earth around the Sun, about 30 kilometres per second, causes slight changes in the apparent frequency of the pulses which show up very clearly in the timing data. When the Earth is moving towards the pulsar the pulses come more frequently than when the Earth is moving in the opposite direction. Pulsar astronomers correct their observations for the Earth’s motion as a matter of routine.
The section I highlighted in red supports my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate, since it says that when the Earth is moving toward a pulsar, the light from the pulsar arrives at c+v where v is the speed of the Earth.  And when the Earth is moving away from the pulsar, the light from the pulsar arrives at c-v.  Many textbooks and nearly all the mathematicians on sci.physics.relativity would rabidly disagree with that obvious fact.

However, the book doesn't answer all my questions about atomic clocks.  It doesn't seem to answer the key question: What is physically different within a clock atop a mountain and an identical clock at the bottom of a mountain that causes them to tick at different rates?  Seeking an answer to that question (that I can quote) is the main reason I am reading the book. 

The author also seems to go astray on at least one occasion.  The book says this on page 134:
There are three relativistic effects we need to consider. The most famous of these is time dilation, summed up in the phrase, “moving clocks run slow”. A clock in an aircraft, for example, would be seen to run slow as judged by an observer on the ground. (Equally, clocks on the ground would appear to run slow as seen from the aircraft, but we do not have space in this book to discuss the subtleties of relativity!) Time dilation only becomes appreciable at speeds close to that of light—indeed at light speed time stops altogether — but with the nanosecond accuracy now possible with modern atomic clocks, time dilation has to be taken into account whenever clocks are moved.
He doesn't explain why clocks on the ground would appear to run slow when viewed from an airplane, but the only explanation would seem to be a belief that velocity time dilation is reciprocal.  And that belief stems from the absurd belief that motion is somehow reciprocal (#1 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in physics).   But, that belief doesn't change the fact that I think it is an excellent book.  One flaw can be ignored, particularly since he doesn't dig into it.

Interestingly, beginning on page 136, the author also discusses three relativistic effects on time.  1. Gravitational time dilation.  2. Velocity time dilation.  3.  The Sagnac Effect.  

But his examples of the Sagnac Effect are Hafele-Keating-type experiments.  And he says "the Sagnac effect is really time dilation in disguise."  His view of the Sagnac effect seems a bit different from the "normal" view, but I don't think it can be described as "wrong."  It's just not the "standard" view.

The book also provided an answer to one question I had about cesium atomic clocks.  Such clocks contain an "oven" which heats up cesium atoms and shoots them out as a gas.  I had a hard time visualizing that, since I tended to wonder how long the oven could do that before the supply of cesium atoms ran out.  Do they have to add a new supply of cesium ever day?  Every week?  Every month?

On page 69, the book says,
Aside from unexpected breakdowns and interruptions for maintenance, caesium beam clocks eventually run out of caesium. It is boiled away at one end of the beam tube and transported to the other end. After running for a few years a caesium beam clock will need to be replenished.
So, that question is answered.  The book also answered a lot of other questions I had.  It just doesn't seem to answer the key question.  But no other book or paper I've found does either.

Added Note: At 11:39 a.m. this morning I finished reading
"Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time," by Tony Jones.

Splitting the
                                                      Second by Tony
                                                      Jones

I've already commented on how interesting the book is and how easy it is to read, so there's not much point in adding a full review here.  What I have to do now is mull over what I learned from the book so that I can cite it in my paper. 


October 17, 2018
- I've been working on a new scientific paper, which I have tentatively titled "Atomic Clocks and Time Dilation," but it is slow going.  I keep getting distracted.  Yesterday, I tried doing a different Google search in hopes of finding some article that explains a detail about atomic clocks that still puzzles me.  The search found a Scientific American article titled "How does one arrive at the exact number of cycles of radiation a cesium-133 atom makes in order to define one second?"  The article raised more questions than it answered, but there were a couple of interesting things in it.  The first was this:
In a collaboration between Essen and Markowitz, the relative durations of the astronomical and atomic (cesium) seconds were measured over an averaging time of 2.75 years with a final determination that the cesium frequency was 9,192,631,770.20 Hz.
That was the first time I'd seen the cesium frequency with decimal places.  More interesting, however, was the first part of the last paragraph:
The story of these measurements is nicely detailed in Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time, by Tony Jones (Institute of Physics, 2000).
When I looked through my collection of physics books, I found I had that one in my collection.  It is a 199 page book that describes the workings of atomic clocks in great detail, particularly cesium atomic clocks.

My first impulse was to visually scan through it to see if it answered the question I have.  But I'm not sure what the question is that I have.  Basically, it is just something I do not fully understand.  Exactly what speeds up when an atomic clock is raised to a higher altitude?  According to mathematicians, nothing speeds up, the two clocks just take different routes through a mathematical model of spacetime that the mathematicians concocted.  But we know that if you have two identical atomic clocks in front of you, one higher than the other, the higher clock will tick faster.  They can't take different routes through a mathematical model when you have one observer watching both clocks.   So, the concocted mathematical model does not represent reality.  Reality says that the higher clock ticks faster.

Here's an illustration and text from page 135 of "Splitting the Second":
Illustration from Spittling the
                                Second by Tony Jones
Why even have a debate when one observer can view both clocks concurrently?  All the use of different "inertial frames of reference" accomplishes in this instance is to complicate a very simple situation.  High clocks run faster than low clocks.  Period.  Inertial frames are irrelevant.

That brings us back to my original question: 
Exactly what speeds up when an atomic clock is raised to a higher altitude? 

If the entire clock speeds up, the quartz crystal microwave generator serves the same routine function at the higher altitude as at the lower altitude: it simply corrects for minor fluctuations in the quartz crystal oscillation rate due to minor unfixable imperfections in the design of the clock.  If the oscillation rate of the cesium atom increases when the clock is raised, but the quartz crystal microwave generator continues to generate microwaves at the same frequency as at the lower altitude, then the change in the oscillation frequency of the cesium atom will cause the microwave generator to generate matching microwaves.

Which is it?

It seems to me to be an easy question to answer, but no one is answering it, probably because no one else is asking it.  Here is a typical diagram for the workings of a cesium atomic clock:

Atomic clock diagram

As I understand it from browsing through "Splitting the Second," the above diagram represents an atomic clock viewed from above.  That means that the microwaves come in from the side and hit the cesium atoms at the same altitude where the microwave generator is located.  The question I'm trying to resolve seems to be: If the microwave generator is at a different altitude than the cesium atoms would that affect the time shown by the clock?  In other words, if the above diagram with the cavity "fork" pointed upwards was a side view, and if you flipped the image around 180 degrees to produce a second side view but with the cavity fork pointing down, will the two versions of the clock show different tick rates because the "Frequency Synthesizer" is lower than the "interrogation cavity" in one clock and higher than the "interrogation cavity" in the second clock?

There's probably a better way to phrase that question.  I'll have to think about it before I ask the question again in my paper.  And what I've done here once again is get sidetracked.  I've spent nearly all morning writing this comment instead of working on my paper.  But, it hasn't been totally wasted time, since this comment is a record of my thought processes, and I think I now have a better understanding of exactly what it is that I do not understand.        

October 15, 2018
- The Flat Earthers are at it again.  They had some kind of gathering in a park in Arcadia, California (a suburb of Los Angeles), over the weekend.  I noticed a CBS news story about it when I was doing a check of the news as part of my morning routine.

Interestingly, this weekend's gathering seems to have involved a lot of women.  Past gatherings seemed to consist exclusively of men.  Or maybe it is just the fact that the CBS reporter was a woman, so she mostly interviewed women:
Netta Hagler, who arranged the meet-up of the Flat Earthers, questioned the fact that Earth is spinning through space at 1,000 miles per hour. “But we can’t feel it. I don’t believe I’m spinning right now. No,” said Hagler.

Patricia Steere, who is one of what you might call the “stars” of today’s Flat Earth movement (which mostly orbits around YouTube), told [CBS correspondent Brook] Silva-Braga, “Probably most people who hear of it will laugh at it, think we’re idiots. But we’re not idiots; we’re intelligent people from all walks of life and all ages.”
I keep wanting to compare the Flat Earthers to the Time Dilation Deniers.  They all seem immune to scientific evidence, and they can rationalize away every argument against their beliefs.  Here's more from the CBS article:
Did we really go to the moon? “No. We didn’t go to the moon,” said Steere. “And we don’t have a rover on Mars. And we didn’t do a fly-by of Pluto. We’ve never been to space. Period. End of.”

In short, Flat Earthers don’t believe much of anything unless they see it for themselves. They believe NASA is just part of a broad conspiracy.

According to Steere, “It’s a giant game of chess. We, all of us in humanity, are the pawns. Part of the whole Flat Earth thing is keeping us locked down, not knowledgeable about who we are, who we really are as people, and what we’re capable of.”

National security expert Tom Nichols, who teaches at the Harvard Extension School, takes a dim view of Flat Earth. He told Silva-Braga he thinks something new is happening: “People have really become obsessed with the idea that, if it’s not part of their direct experience, it can’t be true.
And if they haven't personally observed time dilation, then it cannot be real.

It would seem that it should be easy to come up with an experiment that can determine which side is right.  If you put a Flat Earther on an airplane and fly him around the world, how will he argue that he didn't really go around the world but went around a flat surface?  Answer: It doesn't make any difference how he will deny it, he will deny it.  So, no one is going to pay to fly a Flat Earther around the world to prove a point, when you know he won't believe the point. And nothing you can say or do will change his mind.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that it is all about which part of the brain they are accustomed to using.  Do they use the part that works with logic, or do they only use the part that is driven by emotions?  If they only work with emotions, no logic can change their minds.  If you argue that they are wrong, they will view that as a personal attack and as a threat.  And they will defend themselves to the death.  If you then try using logic to change their minds, they'll just see it as an attempt to trick them in some way. 

The only good part of arguing with them is that it makes people who use logic think more deeply about how things really work.  You may never be able to change the mind of someone who only thinks emotionally, but the arguing may help you see things more clearly and understand things you never even thought about before.


October 14, 2018
- Yesterday, I decided to stop arguing with the mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum - at least for awhile.  I felt I needed to work on a couple papers, one about how atomic clocks measure time dilation, and maybe another about simplifying Einstein's 1905 paper that introduced Special Relativity to the world.  It's like all the arguments I've been having for the past couple years boil down to disagreements over those two subjects.  According to the mathematicians, an atomic clock does NOT run faster when you raise it higher.  They believe it takes a different route through "spacetime."  And the mathematicians (and a lot of other physicists) are absolutely certain that if clocks ran at different speeds at different altitudes it would violate Einstein's First Postulate in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, which they seem to view as the not-to-be-questioned word of God.  In reality, Einstein's First Postulate is a postulate, which means it is something that is simply raised as the topic for discussion.  And Einstein explained that it doesn't work at all the way the mathematicians believe it does.  The whole paper is about how time moves at different speeds at different velocities.  

I went to bed last night feeling good that the debates with the mathematicians were "on hold" for awhile so that I could work on those papers.  Then, about 4:30 this morning I awoke when my subconscious mind suddenly threw a monkey wrench into the workings of my conscious mind.  My subconscious was telling me that I have a logic problem in my understanding of how atomic clocks work.

It also made me realize that "logic problems" are probably behind all scientific discoveries.  The universe is very logical, but you have to figure out the logic.  One logical idea may work for awhile, until a discovery shows that there is something illogical about it.  Then you have to resolve the logic problem.  Mathematics only comes into play when you need to do measurements.

This morning I realized that my understanding of how an atomic clock works required that time be measured at two different speeds within one clock, and the clock adjusts one speed to match the other.  But that IS how an atomic clock works.  A feedback mechanism keeps the quartz crystal clock ticking at the same rate as the cesium atomic clock.

That poses the question: Would a quartz crystal clock by itself show time speed up when you raised it to a higher altitude?  If not, why not?   It should, but it might simply be incapable of showing such small changes in time without having the atomic clock attached.  Plus, it would show a different number of ticks per second.

That poses another question: How many ticks per second do you get when measuring time with an atomic clock that uses a different kind of atom?  That's an easy question to answer.  According to one source:

All atoms have naturally consistent vibrational frequency (for strontium its about 430 trillion times per second) and the measurement of these movements is used to create the clock's "tick."
And according to another source:
All commercial rubidium frequency standards operate by disciplining a crystal oscillator to the rubidium hyperfine transition of 6834682610.904 Hz.
So, we have three different atom clocks ticking at three different rates:
      6,834,682,611 ticks per second for rubidium
      9,192,631,770 ticks per second for cesium
430,000,000,000,000 ticks per second for strontium
Quartz is not an atom.  It is a molecule consisting of silicon and oxygen atoms.  Its tick rate is related to the power source that causes it to tick.

So, a second is only 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium atomic clock.  For every other kind of atomic clock a second is a different number of ticks.

In reality, of course, one second is 1/31,557,600th of a year.  An atomic clock second is just an attempt to refine that number down into smaller increments in order to do very precise measurements of events unrelated to a solar year.  After all, a year has a different length on every planet.  

Which brings me back to the question that woke me up this morning.  Does an entire atomic clock run faster when raised to a higher altitude, or do only the cesium atoms within the clock run faster, and the "feedback system" then causes the other parts of the clock to adjust to that faster rate?

The answer is that the cesium atoms run at one rate, and the feedback system causes the rest of the clock to adjust to that rate.  

Mathematicians wrong in believing that the clock doesn't change tick rates at all, that it is just the rate of some "signals" from the clocks that change, making it appear that the clock changes rates. 

That, of course, would mean that if you had two strontium atomic clocks in front of you, one six feet higher than the other, and if there was some way to display their tick rates down to 430 billions of a second, according to mathematicians the two clocks would always show the same amount of time has passed.  Meanwhile, scientists say that the higher clock will show that time is passing at a faster rate than what the lower clock shows.  And the mathematicians will argue that that is not possible, because it would violate Einstein's First Postulate.

Why hasn't anyone done such an experiment?!

The NIST did an experiment something like that, but, unfortunately, their atomic clocks were not stacked one atop the other so that one observer could view both clocks, the clocks were in different rooms.  That means that "signals" were required to make any comparison.  Sigh.

What I don't understand is why hundreds of scientists haven't addressed these same issues before.  They seem to realize that there is an endless disagreement over the so-called "twin paradox" or "clock paradox."  But no one seems to have ever tried to pin down the exact cause of the disagreement.  Maybe it is because they do not want to get into opinion-versus-opinion arguments.  If you tell someone that they are misinterpreting Einstein's First Postulate, that person will just say, no, YOU are misinterpreting Einstein's First Postulate, they are interpreting it correctly.  And it seems nothing you can say will change it to a resolvable scientific argument.  It will always remain just opinion versus opinion.

Performing experiments is supposed to be the way to resolve arguments.  That is why Hefele and Keating did their experiments involving flying atomic clocks in different directions around the globe.  They wanted to show that time dilation is real, and moving clocks really do run slower than stationary clocks.  But the mathematicians will just smile and shake their heads in wonder over how anyone can be so stupid as to believe that time doesn't tick at the same rate everywhere.

In the process of discussing and researching these topics, I've accumulated nearly 500 physics books and close to a thousand papers and articles.  While I've tried to keep them organized, they really aren't organized. I would put all the books and papers about Einstein's First Postulate in one place, books about the Second Postulate in another place, and books about time dilation in another place, but then I'll get into an argument about how atomic clocks work, and I have nothing that tells me which books have good material about that subject.  What I'd do instead, is find new papers and books about atomic clocks, only occasionally finding that I already have some good sources about that subject. 

Yesterday, while browsing through some of the books I have, I noticed several Richard Feynman books and realized I never checked them to see what they have to say about time dilation and atomic clocks.  It says this on page 85 and 86 of my hardcover copy of Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law":
It is evident, is it not, that if you are in a space ship
going at 100,000 miles a second in some direction, while I
am standing still, and I shoot a light beam at 186,000 miles
a second through a little hole in your ship, then, as it goes
through your ship, since you are going at 100,000 miles per
second and the light is going at 186,000, the light is only
going to look to you as if it is passing at 86,000 miles a
second. But it turns out that if you do this experiment it
looks to you as if it is going at 186,000 miles a second past
you, and to me as if it is going 186,000 miles a second past
me!

The facts of nature are not so easy to understand, and the
fact of the experiment was so obviously counter to commonsense,
that there are some people who still do not believe the
result! But time after time experiments indicated that the
speed is 186,000 miles a second no matter how fast you are
moving. The question now is how that could be. Einstein
realized, and Poincare, too, that the only possible way in
which a person moving and a person standing still could
measure the speed to be the same was that their sense of
time and their sense of space are not the same, that the
clocks inside the space ship are ticking at a different speed
from those on the ground, and so forth. You might say, 'Ah,
but if the clock is ticking and I look at the clock in the space
ship, then I can see that it is going slow'. No, your brain is
going slow too! So by making sure that everything went
just so inside the space ship, it was possible to cook up a
system by which in the space ship it would look like 186,000
space-ship miles per space-ship second, whereas here it
would look like 186,000 my miles per my second. That is a
very ingenious thing to be able to do, and it turns out, remarkably
enough, to be possible.
I wish I'd found that quote while I was still arguing with the mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  But, they'd undoubtedly just argue that Feynman wasn't saying what he seems to be saying.  He's saying that time and clocks tick at the same rate everywhere, it's just that I am misinterpreting what he wrote because I have some irrational idea that time and clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and velocities.  That would violate Einstein's First Postulate.  


Comments for Sunday, October 7, 2018, thru Saturday, October 13, 2018:

October 13, 2018
- While driving around doing chores this afternoon, I finished listening to CD #10 in the 10-CD audio book version of Bill Bryson's "In A Sunburned Country."
 
In a Sunburned Country

I think it's either the fifth or sixth book by Bryson that I've read or listened to.  And it is definitely one of his best.  It's about Australia and about traveling around that country/continent/island by train, car and on foot.  It also contains a lot of history about Australia, particularly about all the people who have died exploring it.  If you don't die of thirst or sunstroke in the outback, Australia has more deadly animals, insects, snakes, fish and vermin than any other country in the world.  And yet Bryson's book makes you want to visit every corner of the country.  Even the trees are probably unlike anything you've ever seen before:

Australian trees

It was a highly enjoyable book, just perfect for listening to while driving back and forth in my daily routines.  And at times it was extremely funny, too.

October 11, 2018 - As I sat watching TV last night, I kept thinking about how to begin a book about time and time dilation.  If I write about arguing the subject of time and time dilation with mathematicians on the Internet, the readers will probably think I am nuts for arguing with people on the Internet.  There are all sorts of people on the Internet who claim to be experts on things which they actually know nothing about.  If you do not know exactly who you are arguing with, you cannot trust anything they say.  And, even if you do know who they are, why are they arguing on the Internet instead of discussing things with their colleagues?  The answer seems to be that their colleagues do not want to argue with them, so they take their screwball arguments onto the Internet. 

I keep trying to find some scientist who will discuss time and time dilation with me via emails or in person, but they are all too busy to have long discussions with strangers.  I began this whole "project" by taking a physics course, but that offered no way of having a discussion about things in the course that made no sense.  And the professor stated in his course that if you didn't understand or had questions about what was being taught, then you needed to take the version of the course that delved into the mathematics of time and time dilation.

The arguments that I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum recently have centered on how atomic clocks work.  I appear to have a fundamental disagreement with the mathematicians about that.  They claim that an atomic clock ticks at the same rate at all altitudes and velocities, regardless of what has been demonstrated by Hafele and Keating and all the other time dilation experiments involving atomic clocks.  I say an atomic clock adjusts its tick rate to match the oscillation rate of cesium atoms, and those atoms change their oscillation rates when they are raised or lowered in altitude and when they are caused to move laterally. 

This would seem to be a great subject for a scientific paper.  So, I checked arxiv.org to see if they had any papers which explain how atomic clocks measure time dilation.  A search found 210 papers with the term "atomic clock" in the subject of the paper.  Scanning through those 210 papers, I was surprised at how many are about using atomic clocks to check for "dark matter."  Many others were about making better atomic clocks by one method or another.   However, some papers seem to be about time dilation and atomic clocks.  One such paper (#94 on the list) is titled "Optical Atomic Clocks" and was written by scientists at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).   It says on page 4:
As Maxwell realized, an atom can be an ideal frequency standard because, as far as we know, one atom is exactly identical to another atom of the same species. Therefore, if we build a device that registers the frequency of a natural oscillation of an atom, say the mechanical oscillations of an electron about the atom's core, all such devices will run at exactly the same frequency (except for relativistic eff ects discussed below), independent of comparison. Therefore, the requirement for making an atomic frequency standard is relatively easy to state: we take a sample of atoms (or molecules) and build an apparatus that produces an oscillatory signal that is in resonance with the atoms' natural oscillations. Then, to make a clock, we simply count cycles of the oscillatory signal.
I highlighted one part in red, because it is about "relativistic effects," and those "relativistic effects" are described on page 9:
In addition to environmental eff ects that perturb an atom's internal states and clock frequency, there can be errors in our determination of the clock atoms' frequency, even when atoms are perturbation free. The most fundamental of these eff ects are relativistic shifts, due to the di fferent frames of reference of the atoms, probing lasers, and other atomic clocks.
The problem is that, except for the items in red above, it is difficult to find things that can make good quotes when arguing with mathematicians.  The whole paper is an argument against their beliefs, but if it argues against their beliefs they either won't read it, or they'll claim I am misreading it.  Here's one simple quote from page 30:
The dominant uncertainty of both clocks arises from time dilation shifts caused by micromotion and residual secular motion of the ions.
That directly conflicts with claims from mathematicians, but they will never see things that way.

I'm now thinking that I need to write a paper about how atomic clocks measure and confirm time dilation.  The NIST paper mentioned above will make a good reference.  And if I ever write a book, it will be good to have a chapter describing how atomic clocks measure and confirm time dilation.  

October 10, 2018 -
I know I keep saying that arguments on sci.physics.relativity discussion forum are becoming a waste of time, but I just cannot understand how anyone - much less a physicist - can argue that when a physicist writes in a scientific paper that "moving clocks run slow," he really means that "moving clocks do NOT run slow."  But that is what the mathematicians on the forum keep telling me.   Today, one wrote:

Do you not realize that all scientists (including me) use a language which has been developed for over 100 years?

We use some words and terms which, for someone like you, may appear to be nonsensical (black hole, time dilation, spin, genetic algorithms, ant colonies, hot potato, etc. etc.) but we know to what they refer.

"Clocks tick faster", "clocks run slow", "time runs slow", etc., are all
terms we understand refer to the PASSING OF TIME. We are not confused nor we are mistaken. We know the language!!! You do not know the language!!!!
His argument is that clocks do NOT run slow.  TIME runs slow.  Clocks tick at their normal rate.  But TIME appears to slow down at lower altitudes when viewed from higher altitudes.  His arguments often seem to be gibberish, as if he only knows how to explain things in mathematical terms, and trying to explain in ordinary English is next to impossible for him, because the math cannot be turned into ordinary English. 

My argument is that you do not understand anything unless you can describe it in ordinary English so that everyone else can also understand it. 

And that is what I plan to do in the book I keep mentioning.  I'm not sure what I'll use as a title for the book, but my thinking at this moment is that I will title it "Logical Relativity: The Theory of Relativity as I understand it."  I haven't yet written a single word.  All I have is a folder into which to place everything. 

And I'm pondering where to begin.

October 9, 2018
- Yesterday morning, I decided I'd try once again to discuss how radar guns work with a local police officer.  The last time I talked with a police officer about radar guns was on May 21.  I was hoping to talk with the same officer when I called them yesterday morning.  Instead, I first had to call about five or six times before I could find someone who knew anything at all about radar guns.  And when I finally got someone, he didn't know much about "single beam" radar guns.  He said they only use two-beam radar guns.

He was willing to discuss the subject, but he seemed to be guessing most of the time.  I asked him what speed a single-beam radar gun would show if the gun was in a police car traveling at 60 mph and the gun was pointed at the back of a semi truck directly ahead also traveling at 60 mph.  His answer was that the gun would show 60 mph.  Correct.  But when I tried to discuss the implications of that reading, I lost him.  He couldn't follow what I was saying.  And he didn't know the answers to a lot of my other questions.

I finally gave up, thanked him, told him I hoped I hadn't wasted his time, and I hung up.  I definitely cannot bother them again with more questions.  I need to find some other way to get my questions answered.

A radar gun pointed at the back of a semi truck traveling at the same speed as the gun would show 60 mph, not zero.  And certainly not 120 mph.  And, if the gun shows 60 mph when pointed at the back of a semi-truck moving at the same speed as the gun, then if the gun is redirected to point at a highway sign, the gun must show a speed of zero.  If the gun showed the speed as 60 mph, it would be the speed of the gun, not the speed of the sign.  And the gun would be worthless, because it shows the speed of the gun, not the speed of the target.

I just need to find some source that I can quote which says that.

Knowing exactly how single-beam radar guns work would disprove one of the most widely held beliefs in physics. 

This is from page 957 of the 4th edition of “Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics” by Douglas C. Giancoli:
First postulate (the relativity principle): The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.

The first postulate can also be stated as: There is no experiment you can do in an inertial reference frame to tell if you are at rest or moving uniformly at constant velocity.
If a single-beam radar gun is in a police car traveling at 60 mph and is pointed at the back of a semi-truck traveling at 60 mph, and the radar gun gives a reading of 60 mph, then you would get the same reading if you were inside the trailer of the semi-truck and pointed the radar gun at the front wall.  In other words, you can tell in an inertial reference frame that you are not at rest but are moving at constant velocity of 60 mph.  That directly contradicts the sentence I highlighted in red above.

Of course, those who believe the First Postulate is equivalent to the word of God will argue that any object on the surface of the earth cannot be "inertial," because the earth spins on its axis, and "inertial frames" must move in a straight line, they cannot go around in circles.  And that means, of course, that the First Postulate has no meaning in this universe, since there is no laboratory or test facility on Earth that truly moves in a straight line, plus the Earth moves in an orbit around the sun, and the sun moves in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

It's really not that complicated.  I really need to get to work on a book that shows just how simple Relativity and time dilation are. 

Meanwhile, I keep thinking that my arguments with mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum are coming to an end.  I've found a key point where we disagree and where they have no intelligent answers.  The mathematicians claim over and over that the scientists who perform time dilation experiments showing that clocks run at different rates at different altitudes and different velocities do not mean what they write when they write such things as "Another consequence of Einstein's theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects."  The mathematicians claim that the scientists are "dumbing down" their findings to make them easier to understand, even when they are describing their findings in scientific journals.  And in the process of "dumbing down" their findings, they write things that are just the opposite of what they really mean.  

I'm trying to get them to explain why scientists would do such a thing.  I'm going to try to hammer away with that question until they provide answers. 

One mathematician who is on my "Do Not Reply" list because of his personal attacks and actual threats, just wrote:

Ed, we know this, because many of those authors have TOLD YOU
that what they wrote doesn't quite mean what they mean. They have told you that they are dumbing down.
No author of any scientific paper about using atomic clocks to measure time dilation has ever said such a thing.  I think "Rotchm" is arguing that some of the mathematicians on the forum have explained to me why they believe the scientists "dumb down" their findings, and some of those mathematicians may have written scientific papers.  But, clearly the claim is nonsense.  It's just another false argument created in an attempt to avoid answering my question.   

October 8, 2018
- The arguments I've been having with mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum seem to be coming to another impasse.  I provided them with a large number of quotes from scientific papers, quotes stating that clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and different velocities, but the mathematicians just claim the quotes do not mean what they say.  Or as Michael Moroney wrote:
You do copy stuff correctly and post it here, but then you come up with a completely goofy claim about what the quote means.
Since all the quotes say basically the same thing, "According to Einstein, fast-moving clocks run slow (special relativity), and high-elevation clocks run fast (general relativity)," I asked them to provide me with scientific papers or books that state that clocks do NOT change their tick rates with changes in velocity or altitude.  I have over 1,200 scientific papers and books in my collection, and while some of them make very bizarre claims, I do not recall any that say that clocks tick at the same rate when moving at different velocities and when at different altitudes. 

What Michael Moroney was trying to do, of course, was turn the discussion into an opinion versus opinion argument about who is misinterpreting what is in the scientific papers written by time dilation experimenters.   Opinion versus opinion argument are never resolved, and they are just a waste of time.  But the person who has the better credentials can claim his opinion is superior.

Meanwhile, I updated my web page about Time Dilation Experiments to include  a lot of relevant quotes, so that I can easily access them and their sources, or I can just refer people to that page. 

The mathematicians arguments seem to be claims that time is not a clock.  So time can work in one way while clocks work in another way.  In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote:
It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for “time.” And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located.
Then he goes into discussing how time can be different in different locations.  But, even so, watches in those different locations will show the time "for the place where the watch is located."  I also found this quote from "Relativity and Common Sense: A New Approach to Einstein," by Sir Hermann Bondi:
Time is that which is measured by a clock. This is a sound way of looking at things. A quantity like time, or any other physical measurement, does not exist in a completely abstract way. We find no sense in talking about something unless we specify how we measure it. It is the definition by the method of measuring a quantity that is the one sure way of avoiding talking nonsense about this kind of thing. 
I couldn't have said it better myself.  The mathematicians appear to be talking about time in a totally abstract way, as if it has no real relationship to clocks.  And there seems to be no way to get them to discuss clocks changing tick rates if time, as the mathematicians view it, is the same everywhere.   So, further arguments on this subject would just be a waste of time. 

October 7, 2018 - I'm still arguing on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum. I've been trying to get the people there to discuss how atomic clocks work, since I see it as a possible way to resolve a lot of disagreements.  Incredibly, there is  a big disagreement over whether atomic clocks tick at a constant rate everywhere or tick at different rates depending upon altitude and velocity.

It's difficult to believe that anyone can think that atomic clocks (actually all clocks) tick at the same rate everywhere when so many scientific experiments confirming time dilation confirm beyond any doubt that atomic clocks tick slower at lower altitudes and at higher speeds.

Then, yesterday, in a discussion with three mathematicians on the forum, the cause of the disagreement was made crystal clear.

First, Michael Moroney stated:
GR predicts that more time is experienced in lower gravitational potentials than higher, science knew about this since Einstein's first GR work in 1915.
And then Tom Roberts responded:
Yes. And this happens WITHOUT a clock ever changing its tick rate; it's just geometry.
My jaw dropped open when I read that.  Geometry can cause time to pass at different rates?  How can geometry cause anything?  He was giving some God-like power to mathematics!  So, I responded:
Tom, aren't you saying that we can forget reality, where clocks tick at different rates, and just look at the math (geometry) where you can CLAIM that every clock is "at rest" (i.e., stationary) in its own reference frame and therefore ticks at the same rate as every other clock that is IMAGINED TO BE "at rest" in its own reference frame?
This morning I see there is a response from Tom Roberts.  He wrote:
Nope. Because you are WRONG -- there is not one single instance of an experiment showing that identical clocks actually tick at different rates. In EVERY CASE you ignore something essential: either the signals used in the comparison of tick rates, or the different paths through spacetime of the clocks in the comparison of elapsed proper times. The aspects that you ignore are what actually generate the observed differences, not clocks ticking at different rates.
How far removed from reality can a mathematician get?  Every time dilation experiment that uses clocks has shown that identical clocks tick at different rates at different altitudes and velocities.  That is the purpose of the experiments.  But Tom Roberts imagines that the "signals used in the comparison of tick rates" somehow make it appear that clocks tick at different rates while the clocks actually tick at the same rate.  (He seems totally incapable of explaining how this happens.)  OR, the clocks move in different paths through spacetime, and that makes it appear that the clocks tick at different rates.

I've had this argument with Tom Roberts before.  When I show him all the experiments which show that clocks run at different rates at different altitudes and velocities, and that the experimenters clearly state that clocks run at different rates at different altitudes and velocities, Roberts claims the experimenters do not really mean what they say and write.  He says they are just "dumbing down" the science for the general public, because the general public is too dumb to understand how time dilation really works.

It's insane.  I'm hoping to get him to say that same thing again, so I can ask some questions I've been wanting to ask.  He tends to disappear when the questions start to show that his beliefs disagree with the words of the experimenters. 

In yesterday's discussion, right after Tom Roberts wrote his comment, Paparios wrote something along the same lines (with my highlighting in red):
All real experiments COMPARE the elapsed readings of these clocks to verify what SR and GR models predict. They are not comparing the instantaneous clock rate. In the Hafele-Keating, the elapsed time was 636 hours and 140000 seconds in the Chou at al experiment.
To which I replied with this question:
In order to have "elapsed readings," clocks MUST tick at different rates.  You make no sense.  How can clocks have different "elapsed readings" if they did NOT tick at different rates?
And Paparios responded with this:
Easy...because when reunited (see Hafele-Keating), the clocks are showing the elapsed readings of their different paths through spacetime. This should be easy to you to understand: The ground clock had coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t1) the same coordinates than the flown clocks, AT THE BEGINING OF THE EXPERIMENT. The path the ground clock followed is clearly different from the path the flown clocks followed.

Hafele-Keating clearly give the equations which describe this difference of path, specifically equation 2:

T-To=[gh/c^2 - (2R Omega v + v^2)/(2c^2)]To

So the clocks, being extremely accurate and not changing their tick rates, were able to measure these elapsed times differences.
This agrees with earlier arguments in which they claimed that clocks are like odometers.  When you travel a shorter route in a car, the car's odometer shows fewer miles were traveled.  And when you travel a shorter route through spacetime, clocks show less time has elapsed. 

space time and curved
                                            space

In the illustration above, one clock is traveling along the straight line and the other clock is traveling along the path that is curved by gravity.  And therefore the clock on the curved path should show that more time has passed if you consider a clock to be like an odometer.  

Here is one description of how spacetime works:

General Relativity effects are caused by the altitude of the flying clock - space time near the surface of the Earth is more steeply curved than at the height of the aircraft, so the airborne clock (and everything else on the aircraft) is travelling through space-time that is slightly less 'stretched' than it is at the Earth's surface. This stretching of space-time is what makes time run slower on the ground relative to on the aircraft.
So, in the illustration above, spacetime is less stretched at high altitudes.  That means that time passes faster there than at lower altitudes where spacetime is more stretched.  If, however, a clock is like an odometer in a car, the clock will show that more time has passed at the lower altitude, not less as was claimed by Paparios.  I cannot find any spacetime illustration which shows that less time passes for an object due to its velocity.

I'm not sure how to argue with Paparios.  One problem is that there is no good way to use illustrations in arguments on sci.physics.relativity. 

All I can do, it appears, is to show them what the experimenters say about their own experiments.  They claim over and over and over that moving clocks and clocks closer to the earth run slower.  I agree with what the experimenters write and say.  But Tom Roberts and Paparios claim that I disagree with what the experimenters say, because Tom Roberts and Paparios know and believe that the experimenters do not mean what they say.  I.e., when the experimenters say over and over and over that the faster a clock moves the slower the clock ticks, and the closer the clock is to a gravitational mass the slower it will tick, they don't mean it.  What they actually mean is that identical clocks tick at the same rate when traveling at different velocities and at different altitudes, just the opposite of what they say.  Why?  Because that is what mathematicians believe must be true.  Otherwise, the mathematicians would be in total disagreement with the experimenters and their experiments.  And the mathematicians cannot believe such a thing is possible.


Comments for Monday, October 1, 2018, thru Saturday, October 6, 2018:

October 4, 2018 - Yesterday was another one of those days.  I sat down to write a comment for this web site, but I had so many things bouncing around inside my head that I couldn't focus.   How can you convince someone that a postulate is not the same as a principle if they truly believe they are the same?  How can you convince people that the first section (page 1 and the top of page 2) of Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is not the "abstract," when they truly believe it is an "abstract."  How can anyone even think it's the abstract?  An abstract would be a summary of what is in the paper.  The first part of Einstein's paper is a "setup" or "introduction."  It presents an idea that is going to be examined in detail in the rest of the paper.

When I have a puzzle to solve, one way to try to find a solution is to do a Google search for some part of the puzzle.  I'm not sure what I searched for yesterday when I found part of a Stanford University physics course titled "Einstein's starting point: the two postulates" as presented by Academic Director Larry Randles Lagerstrom.

Stanford University Physics Course

I watched it twice looking for something I could quote to resolve some argument, but everything Lagerstrom says could be argued by the mathematicians on the sci.physics.relativity forum to mean something else.  He calls the first part of Einstein's paper the "introduction," and does a great job of describing the puzzle about magnets and rings that got Einstein to wondering about the principle of relativity that had been around for centuries. 

Stanford University Physics Course -
                          Image 2

But he never actually says anything that would firmly resolve any argument.  And he doesn't get into the second postulate in the lesson I watched.  I'll have to search around to see if I can find that part without actually signing up to take the whole course (it's free, but I dislike signing up for things and giving out my email address).    

Anyway, at the end of the day yesterday I hadn't even started on writing a comment for this web site, I was fed up with getting nothing but opinions from the mathematicians, and I kept thinking about ways to get them to discuss facts and experiments instead of opinions, so I told them I was going to end my participation in the thread about "Time Dilation as I understand it."  The thread had over 600 comments in it, and threads that long are difficult to work with.  Google keeps condensing and hiding parts of the comments. Then, purely on impulse, just before shutting down operations for the day, I started a new thread about "How Atomic Clocks Measure Time." I immediately regretted it, but the more I thought about it the more I saw it as a way to stop them from arguing mathematics and to start talking about the science of atomic clocks.  Plus, I can quote from many different sources to shoot down the mathematicians' beliefs instead of creating my own arguments.

This morning I see there are 10 new comments.  Four are just personal attacks, three are arguments between posters, but three are questions addressed to me that I need to answer.  And I think I can do so.  I think there is a VERY important lesson about time dilation within the workings of an atomic clock.  And if I can explain it to others in a few dozen different ways, maybe it will become clear and simple to me and everyone else.  We'll see.

Meanwhile, as I was looking at my web site logs this morning, I saw that some from Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada had visited this site yesterday.  Iqaluit, Nunavut?  I had never heard of the city or the province.  It's a village on the southern end of  Baffin Island, at about the same latitude as Iceland.  Live and learn.


October 2, 2018 - I was planning to write a comment yesterday, but I first had to do a complete backup of all my computer files.  I make partial backups on the first of every month, and I make complete backups on the first of every quarter.  After doing the backups, I made the mistake of first responding to a comment on the sci.physics.relativity forum.  And then another, and then another, then I was in the middle of a fascinating argument.  And before I knew it, the day was over and I hadn't written any comment.

The argument was fascinating because it made me realize that the people I was arguing with didn't know what the word "postulate" means.  And, when I did some research into what is said about Einstein's postulates in various textbooks, it was clear a lot of physics teachers also do not know what a postulate is.  They assume a "postulate" is the same as a "principle" or maybe even more of a "fundamental truth" than a "principle."

I know I wrote about this on September 30, but one of the people I was arguing with found a different translation of Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.  It's HERE, on page 140 of the second volume of books containing Einstein's papers.  The papers in that book were translated from German to English by Anna Beck, while the version of his 1905 paper that I've been using (click HERE or HERE or HERE) was translated by someone else.  And, as I was searching to find who translated that second version, I found a third translation in the 1998 book
"Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics" by John Stachel and others.  It says at the bottom of page xv that the translations are all "new" and it lists a bunch of people who did the translating.

The important point, however, is all three of those versions use the word "postulate."  But, in my September 30 comment, when I used Google's translator program to translate that key paragraph from the original German to English, Google did not use the word "postulate."  Instead, Google used the words
"conjecture," "assumption" and "conditions."

That suggests to me that "postulate" was a common word used by scientists in 1905, but it is no longer a common word (as a noun).  And it is certainly clear that the people on the sci.physics.relativity forum do not understand what the word means.  And instead of looking it up, as I did, they just assumed it means whatever fits with their beliefs.

In comments posted overnight, I see these three statements from two different people:
Einstein was clearly "raising" the conjecture to a postulate, in the sense that, he is elevating/strengthening/defining it as a postulate.

The postulate IS the principle!

No, he was raising it to a POSTULATE so instead of being a conjecture (seems to be true based on incomplete info) to ASSUMED TO BE TRUE for the following. The whole idea of the paper was that if both postulates really are true, this (SR) is what happens. It was NOT a subject for discussion, it was ASSUMED TRUE for the purpose of the paper.
That last section in red is the direct opposite of what I claim.  It seems very clear to me that Einstein was taking an established truth (a "principle") and was turning it into a "postulate" (a topic for argument).  And his paper says that, while this principle appears valid:
the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good 
in reality, the "laws" contain variables, which means even though you measure the speed of light to be the same in two different frames of reference, the speeds are actually different because time is a variable, and that makes the length of a second variable when measuring speeds.

I wanted to say a lot of other things when I started this comment, but when I browsed through "Einstein's Miraculous Year," I found a few things I need to quote in new arguments with the folks on sci.physics.relativity.  One example from page 18:
After a profound critical study of the concept of simultaneity of distant events, Einstein realized that the principle of relativity could be made compatible with Maxwell’s equations if one abandoned Newtonian absolute time in favor of a new absolute: the speed of
light, the same in all inertial frames.
That seems to be clearly saying that there is no such thing as "absolute time," yet the speed of light PER SECOND is "the same in all inertial frames."  But who would agree with that?  They'll just say I am misunderstanding it.  

I was about to close this comment when I decided to look up "postulate vs principle" via Google.  At a web site HERE I found this:
A postulate is an (usually fundamental) assumption a writer makes in order to discuss a subject in a coherent fashion. Examples of postulates are the Born rule in quantum mechanics (which defines how the wave function is to be interpreted), or in classical mechanics the existence of a Lagrangian (which defines the starting point of theoretical mechanics).

A principle is a more or less universally observed (usually fundamental) fact. Examples of principles are the second law of thermodynamics (universal dissipation), the principle of relativity (independence of the reference frame), or Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.

A hypothesis is a theoretical assumption made to develop a (usually alternative) theory. Examples are Planck's and Einstein's hypothesis of quantized light, or the existence of supersymmetry.

One can turn a principle or hypothesis into a postulate, but not a postulate into a principle.
That is almost word for word what I argued, particularly the last sentence.  But, I cannot find any other quotes that say the same thing.  I'd need a LOT of quotes if I want to avoid just generating claims that I am misunderstanding things.


Comments for Sunday, September 23, 2018, thru Sunday, Sept. 30, 2018:

September 30, 2018 - I'm still spending most of my computer time arguing with people on the sci.physics.relativity forum instead of working on my book.  Over and over again, just when I think the discussions have reached a point where they are no longer of any value, something will be said that causes me to perk up because it is an argument I never heard before.  Or something is said that makes me feel that it might be possible to get some agreement.  Or something is said that suggests it might be possible to show beyond any doubt that the person I am arguing with has no understanding of Relativity or time dilation.

Things got a bit bizarre the other day when one "Paradoxer" (i.e., someone who believes there is a "paradox" if observers in different reference frames experience different clock tick rates) gave these as Einstein's First and Second Postulates:
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
When I argued that those were NOT Einstein's postulates, the Paradoxer argued that I was misunderstanding Einstein's paper and that what was written earlier in the paper was just a lead-in and of no importance.

After doing some research, it turned out that the two items above are from page 4 of Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity.  The real postulates are on page 1 and are highlighted below in red:
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. 
I highlighted the uses of the word "postulate" in purple.  Those 3 uses of the word "postulate" are the only times that word is used in the entire paper.  The two items at the top of page 4 are described as "reflexions .. based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

The Paradoxer then argued,

The used verb (will raise) has a very clear meaning in English, right?
It means that from there on the words "principle" and "postulate" are the same.
My jaw dropped open when I read that.  He was referring to this part of what is on page 1:
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate
To me, Einstein was just saying he was going to "raise a question" or change a "conjecture" into a question.  But, somehow, the Paradoxer was interpreting it to mean that Einstein was making the words "principle" and "postulate" mean the same thing!!  Google search for definitions of those words, I found:
A principle is: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

A postulate is: a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
One is a "fundamental truth," the other is "a thing suggested or assumed" in order to start a discussion.  To argue that they are the same is just plain NUTS.  So, after I provided the above definitions of the words, I wrote the following explanation:
Einstein was trying to explain something.  So, he created two POSTULATES, which are things ASSUMED for the sake of discussion.  What he wanted to discuss was "a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies."

His new theory did "not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."  It's a theory based upon the movement of objects. 

It's a theory that says time moves at different rates for objects moving at different speeds.  So, you do not NEED any "absolutely stationary space" to measure movement from.  You can measure movement by the different rates at which time passes for different objects.
And then they all argued that I couldn't read, that my understanding was wrong, and that postulates and principles are the same thing.  It was all very bizarre, and it made me remember that about a year ago I wrote a paper about this exact same argument.  It was titled "Relativity: The Theory vs The Principle."

And it made me realize that what Einstein was merely setting out as a subject for discussion was being interpreted by Paradoxers as Holy Writ!  And that is why they believe that, if anyone claims that time passes at different rates when traveling at different velocities, they are creating a "paradox," because the Paradoxers interpret the First Postulate as a "First Principle," which means it is an unquestionable truth that everything works the same within and between all frames of reference.

Holy crap!!!

This morning, everyone seems to have jumped on the bandwagon and agreed that the two items at the top of page 4 are the true "postulates."  One Paradoxer even found the original German versions and posted them along with a Google translation into English.  The word "postulate" doesn't appear in the translation, only the word "principle."  Even so, another Paradoxer then declared:

Yes. These are the ACTUAL postulates Einstein used to derive the theory we now know as Special Relativity. Not the paraphrases he gave in his Introduction.
I have dozens of college text books which provide different versions of Einstein's First and Second Postulates, and I don't think a single one of them uses the "principles" from page 4 as his postulates.  I also have Einstein's 1905 paper in its original German.  I ran the material from page 1 though Google's German to English translation program and got this:
Examples of a similar kind, as well as the experimental attempts to state a movement of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the conclusion that the concepts of absolute calm not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics do not correspond to properties of phenomena but rather for all coordinate systems, for which the mechanical equations apply, also the same electrodynamic and optical laws apply as this has already been proved for the first order.  We want this conjecture (its content in the following, principle of relativity") and, besides that, introduce the only apparently incomplete assumption that the light is in empty space always with a certain, from the state of motion of the emitting body independent speed Y propagate.  These two conditions are sufficient to become a simple one and to achieve consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of Maxwell's theory for resting body.
Interestingly, while it seems to be gibberish, the word "postulate" never appears, but instead is translated to "conjecture," "assumption" and "conditions." 

While this is all very interesting to me, it also shows that it is a side issue.  The only "postulates" mentioned in college textbooks are the postulates from page 1 of Einstein's paper.  So, now I suppose I have to go through a bunch of those textbooks, cite what they say, and post an argument to the Paradoxers that they are claiming Einstein's postulates are different from what everyone else in the world sees as Einstein's postulates.

It all reminds me of when I was arguing with "True Believers" during the anthrax investigation.  True Believers truly believe they are right, so they'll state their beliefs as if they are facts, they'll make stuff up when they need to, and they'll just twist and distort everything you say to show that you are wrong, because, as they see it, there is absolutely no possibility that they could be wrong.  

September 27, 2018 - Yesterday, someone on a discussion forum for my web site maintenance software advised me on how he thought I could recover my emails.  This morning I did as he instructed.  It involved me deleting a lot of email files with a suffix of .msf.   The idea was that those files would be automatically regenerated when I restarted my maintenance software, and that should or might solve my problem. 

The first try accomplished nothing.  Everything was the same.  But then I decided to shut down my computer and do a total restart it to see if that would change the results.   When I restarted my computer I saw right away that things were different.  Previously, ever since September 13, the startup screen was a Microsoft image of blue windows on a black screen, but this time I saw the startup screen I created about 4 years ago:

my startup screen

And when I started up my browser by double-clicking on the bluebird icon in the middle of the second row from the top, everything returned to the way it was back on September 12!  All my emails were back, all my bookmarks were back, and the only difference was that I had 25 emails waiting in my inbox that I needed to file away.  WOW!  What a relief!  I'm not sure what happened.  I cannot recall if ever I did any total restarts since the "disaster."  Maybe that was all I had to do to get things back to normal.

So, now I will make sure I backup my bookmarks, and then I'll go through them to see which ones can be deleted.   I have about 150, but I think less than 30 are the ones I need.  The other are just bookmarks I created in case I wanted to go back to that site again, but I never did.  I saved my emails a couple days ago.  I should probably go through them to see what can be deleted.  Do I really need all the bills and payment receipts from my web site host?  Each one is a pdf file, and they go back all the way to December 29, 2014.

Meanwhile, the arguments with the "Paradoxers" on the sci.physics.relativity forum have tapered off.  I managed to get one "Paradoxer" to declare:
If clocks actually ticked at different rates, as you FANTASIZE, GR and SR would have been refuted long ago.
That is a statement that clocks ticking at different rates in different frames is a violation of Einstein's First Postulate.  In other words, it creates a "paradox," which is defined as: "a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Another "Paradoxer" argued something different, but it was essentially the same argument, that things CANNOT be different in different inertial frames without violating the First Postulate.  When I told him that that means he would see it as a "paradox," he argued that it wasn't a paradox, it was just wrong.

With the email and bookmark problems solved, maybe I can focus on writing a book about Time Dilation and Relativity as I understand it.  I don't know who would want to buy such a book, but I'd really like to get all my understandings down on paper just for my own education.  Writing things down makes me see things more clearly.


September 25, 2018 (C)
- As I was pulling out of my garage to head to the gym this afternoon, the audio book I'm currently listening to informed me of something I never knew before.  The book is about Australia, and it says that Australia has earthworms that grow to be 12 feet long and 6 inches in diameter. So, as soon as I got back home I did a Google image search for large Australian earthworms, and I found these images (among many others):

large Australian earthworm
giant Australian earthworm

Live and learn.  They really exist.  The one on the bottom was probably a lot longer, but it may have gotten torn apart when they tried to pull it out of the earth.  So, what you see is only the part they could pull out.

September 25, 2018 (B)
- Hmm.  I'm making some progress in recovering from the September 13 computer disaster.  I remembered how to find "hidden" files in my computer.  I turned on that option and PRESTO! I was able to locate all of my email files.  I still cannot access them in a normal way, but I was able to make a copy of them onto my external hard drive.  So, now I can experiment without fear of losing all those emails.


September 25, 2018 (A)
- Yesterday, I tried an experiment.  I used that filelocatorlite program I mentioned in yesterday's comment to look for the word "Family" in my computer.  All my emails from my relatives were filed away in a folder I had titled "Family."  The program found it.  I was able to copy it and paste it to a folder I have set up for saving all my findings related to the "disaster."  I was then able to look at the contents of that file using Notepad, which views everything in .txt format.  That enabled me to see that the first email in the folder was dated December 8, 2014 (which is shortly after I bought the laptop computer I am now using and stopped using my desktop computer), and the last was dated September 12, 2018 (the day before the "disaster").  I can read the text in the emails, but pictures cannot be decoded, and the text gets very difficult to read when there are older messages as part of the email.  Only the new email is easy to read.

As far as I can tell, no one knows how to recover those emails.  There might have been a way, but that way was lost when I lost all my "profile" data," i.e., the names and codes in my "cookie" file that would be automatically be filled in when I accessed something I accessed many times before.  And no one knows how to decode my old bookmark files, either. 

I guess I'll just have to live with it.  I still cannot understand what happened and how thousands of others didn't have the same "disaster." 

Meanwhile, I have been arguing once again on the sci.physics.relativity Google forum, and it is becoming clear how some "Paradoxers" think.  Unfortunately,  here is no hope of changing their thinking.  And, it sometimes seems that every one of them has a slightly different view on how Relativity works.  But some of their arguments should make good material for a book. 

September 24, 2018
- When I turned on my computer this morning, there was an email from my local library in my inbox advising me that a copy of "Fear: Trump in the Whitehouse" by Bob Woodward was available for downloading into my Kindle.  Yesterday, I was number 41 on a waiting list for 14 copies.  I'm not sure what happened, but I now have the book in my Kindle, and I'll start reading it at lunchtime.  I'll set aside the science book I was reading.

Meanwhile, yesterday I checked the support forum for my web site maintenance software and found that someone had posted instructions for checking to see if I can recover my lost bookmarks.  The instructions were as follows:

Seamonkey makes regular backups of your bookmarks, in files that that starts with bookmarks, have a date and a bunch of numbers, and end in the extension .jsonlz4. You can use a file search utility, here is one https://www.mythicsoft.com/filelocatorlite/download/ to look for all files on your computer that end in .jsonlz4. Once you find them, look for ones dated before the "event" that lost data. Then copy that file somewhere you can find it such as the desktop. (X)  Within Seamonkey's CTRL-SHIFT-B window, first backup whatever bookmarks you currently have from the menu bar in that window, and also "export" them from that same menu. Then, restore the .jsonlz4 file you found one dated before the data loss using options in that menu bar. Import and export do not work with jsonlz4 files, only restore works. Restore does replace/overwrite your current bookmarks with the ones from the file you have found.
Wow.  To me that looked something like instructions for defusing a bomb.  Make one mistake and BLOOEY!  But I started going through the steps very slowly, one by one, getting as far as the red (X).  That "file search utility" mentioned in the third line with the link in the fourth line worked very well.  It's something that used to be available as part of Windows XP but was no longer available after that.  You can search for a word or string of letters and the software will go through your entire computer to see where that string of letters appears.  Here are the results I got when I searched for ".jsonlz4":

saved bookmark files 
The list shows that I have 14 automatic backups of my bookmark file in my computer.  Ten of them are from before the "disaster" (when the file was 24 KB in size), and four are from after the disaster.  Those four are at the bottom of the list, and you can see how the file increased in size as I found some of the lost bookmarks and re-bookmarked them.
 
So, now I just need to focus and go through the rest of the steps (after making sure I understand what each step does).

There were no new messages for me on the sci.physics.relativity forum, but it is what I keep thinking about, and it is what breaks my focus on recovering from the September 12 "disaster."  I keep thinking that a quiz of just a few questions can determine if you are a "Paradoxer" who misunderstands Einstein's theories, or if you are a "Relativist" who understands Einstein's theories.  But, I also realize that no amount of questions or arguments will convince a "Paradoxer" that he is the one who is mistaken.

Added note: Ah!  I figured out how to get back into my outlook.com email files! There was just one email waiting in the server inbox, and it was a carbon copy of an email that someone sent to my newsguy.com address.  So, I missed nothing.  It's just an email account I set up for some reason and never really used. 

September 23, 2018 - I've been talking about the Hafele-Keating experiments for years, yet somehow I'd either forgotten or I had failed to notice and realize why Hafele and Keating did their experiments back in 1971.  Most articles on the subject do not mention why they did the experiments, and I basically just assumed it was to confirm that time dilation is real and can be demonstrated with atomic clocks.  That is certainly true, but the papers Hafele and Keating wrote make it clear that they did their experiments to prove to the mathematician naysayers that time dilation is real.  They were having the same arguments I'm having today.  The mathematicians believe that motion is reciprocal and velocity time dilation is reciprocal.  I.e., if Observer-A is stationary and watches Observer-B move away at high speed, Observer-B can also consider himself stationary and he can watch Observer-A move away at high speed.  Or as the mathematicians sometimes put it, "physics cannot determine if the car hit the wall or if the wall hit the car."

It's a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's First Postulate.  It is also #1 on my list of the 10 DUMBEST beliefs in Physics.

Here is what Hafele Keating wrote at the beginning of their first paper as their explanation for doing the time dilation experiments:
One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), which stemmed originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round trip.  This seemingly endless theoretical debate, which has flared up recently with renewed vigor (2, 3), begs for a convincing empirical resolution with macroscopic clocks. A simple and direct experimental test of the clock problem with portable atomic clocks is now possible because of the unprecedented ability achieved with these clocks (4).  
So, they did the experiments in hopes of bringing an end to the "seemingly endless theoretical debate" over whether time dilation is real or not.

And at the end of their second paper, they concluded,

In conclusion, we have shown that the effects of travel on the time recording behavior of macroscopic clocks are in reasonable accord with predictions of the conventional theory of relativity, and that they can be observed in a straightforward and unambiguous manner with relatively inexpensive commercial jet flights and commercially available cesium beam clocks. In fact, the experiments were so successful that it is not unrealistic to consider improved versions designed to investigate aspects of the theory that were ignored in the predicted relativistic time differences (1). In any event, there seems to be little basis for further arguments about whether clocks will indicate the same time after a round trip, for we find that they do not.
Hafele and Keating were attempting to firmly establish that time dilation is real and it is not reciprocal.  As one of the references in their first paper they used a letter published in the "Letters" section of the January 1972 issue of Physics Today.  The letter is titled "The Clock 'Paradox' - Majority View."  The article says that "There have perennially been a few physicists who have refused for philosophical reasons to accept" the easily demonstrated fact that a moving clock will run slower than a clock 'at rest'."  The article also says,
The standard reason for rejection of Einstein's result is the feeling held by [Mendel] Sachs that a paradox would exist if Einstein were correct - that all reference frames should be equivalent and that the Lorentz rest-frames so basic to special relativity have no right to their special property, that of the simplest description of physical events. 
That is certainly the "standard reason" I am given by mathematicians for their rejection of the time dilation experimental results.  They claim it means that all reference frames are NOT equivalent, and the mathematicians believe all reference frames MUST be equivalent.  They claim that Einstein didn't mean what he wrote.

The "majority view," according to the letter is that a moving clock does indeed run slower than a clock "at rest."  And that "few" who disagree do so for philosophical reasons, not for any scientific reason.

I would tend to say they disagree for religious reasons, not philosophical reasons, since their minds seem closed on the subject and they recite their dogma as if they were quoting from some kind of Bible.  Plus, there are certainly a lot more than just a "few" of them.  And they seem to have taken over a large section of the education sector.  They are teaching their beliefs in schools, and thereby increasing their numbers every day.

One major problem, as I see it, is that they are not identified by any name.  They are just the "few" who believe that motion and time dilation are reciprocal.  I have been calling them "mathematicians," even though all mathematicians certainly do not believe as the "few" believe.

As my arguments went on and on and on, I've been gradually seeing that the disagreement over whether or not motion and time dilation are reciprocal is at the heart of all the disagreements.  And, if you try to change the mind of someone who truly believes that time dilation is reciprocal, a true believer will have absolutely no doubt that he is right, and he will just play games with you.  He will change the argument to be about words.  What does "stationary" mean?  What does "reality" mean?  And why don't you use the same words as in their dogma?  Is it because you cannot understand the dogma terms?  And, as I've said many times, their final argument always seems to be the same: "If you read the books I have read and take the college courses I have taken, you will then believe as I believe."  Only they do not phrase things that way.  Then tend to say, "If you read the books I have read and take the college courses I have taken, then you will understand why you are wrong."

The arguments I've been having on the sci.physics.relativity forum seem to have come to an end.  I changed the arguments to be about experiments, and they do not care about experimental results.   They claim all the experiments support their beliefs, but I cannot get them to name any such experiments.  When I explain the experiments, they argue about word definitions.

I just wish this problem was better known.  When I tell people that I am arguing with physicists about physics, and I am not a physicist, they will automatically assume that the "professional" is correct.  If I try to explain to them that there are two groups of "professionals" that disagree with each other, they tend to assume that it can't be a very important issue or everyone would know about it.  If I tell them that colleges are teaching nonsense, they simply do not believe it.

It is all very interesting for me, but it is also getting somewhat repetitious.  I think I have all that I need to write a book on the subject.  And, I think I should focus on writing that book.  Otherwise, all that I have learned will just be lost.

Another reference that Hafele and Keating used in their first paper is a 1971 book titled "Time and the Space Traveller" by Leslie Marden. Here is the first paragraph from the Preface to that book:  
This book was at first conceived as a review of the literature on the clock paradox in relativity theory. The wealth of material which exists on this controversial issue is widely scattered in numerous books and journals, with the result that each time the controversy flares up, the same arguments are put forward with the firm belief that they are original. It seemed desirable, therefore, with the phenomenon of time-dilatation rapidly becoming commonplace (in the laboratory, at least) to gather the material together 'under one roof' and to sort and to examine the arguments in a unified way. The clock paradox has long occupied the attention of the layman. as well as the practising scientist, and so it has been my aim to make the book self-contained and to keep the mathematics as simple as possible.
The arguments I would put forward in my book might not be "original," since they are basically Einstein's arguments, but maybe I can write them down in a way that will make scientists and physicists view them from a different angle and hopefully cause them to draw a "line in the sand" and identify who is on which side of the line.   Maybe the mathematicians who believe Einstein's theories result in a "paradox" (i.e., "a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory") can be called "Paradoxers," and those who see no paradox can be called "Relativists."

If the two sides are routinely identified, then maybe colleges and universities wouldn't be hiring so many "Paradoxers" to teach their beliefs in physics courses. That is how I got onto this subject.  I took a college physics course and the teacher taught what I considered to be total nonsense.

Added note:  When I mentioned some of the above information on the sci.physics.relativity forum, someone responded that the mathematics-obsessed people who I was planning to call "Paradoxers" are commonly referred to as "Einstein Dingleberries."  I did a Google search for "Einstein Dingleberries" and got 7 results, one of which referred to the guy who just mentioned the term to me.  Then I did a Google search for the singular "Einstein Dingleberry" and got 1,100 results.  Then I did a Google search just for "dingleberry" and got 337,000 results, but those results showed that "dingleberry" evidently has nothing to do with Herbert Dingle, it's a term that means

  • Dingleberry, a common name for Vaccinium erythrocarpum, a type of cranberry
  • Dingleberry, a slang term for a stupid or foolish person;
  • Dingleberry, a slang term for dried feces adhering to anal hair
So, I think I'll go back to using the term "Paradoxers." Or maybe "Einstein Paradoxers."  That way no one can claim that I'm attacking them by calling them stupid or a chunk of dried feces.

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

September 21, 2018 - I just set up Adobe Acrobat to be my default pdf file reader.   It is what I've always used, but last week's "disaster" changed my default pdf reader to become the Edge browser.  That means that when I double-clicked on a pdf file in my computer, Edge opened it.  Their pdf reader is CRAP compared to Adobe Acrobat.  More than once I used it to search for a word and it showed me a page that didn't contain that word.  It appeared twice on the next page.  I never got around to other options, such as highlighting passages and adding notes.  I don't know if Edge has that ability or not.  All I had to do to set Adobe Acrobat up once again as my default pdf reader was to go to their web site, where it is an option they can set.  I still had the program in my computer. 

I still haven't figured out how to access my outlook.com emails.  It is also probably very simple to do.  I just haven't been able to focus on it. 

I'm arguing about science on Google most of the day.  It's a very enjoyable way to pass the time, and it can be very educational.   It's only when there is a pause in the arguments that I sit back and remember that I still have to recover a lot of stuff from the "disaster."  It's work I don't want to have to do, so I sometimes can't get myself to do it.  Instead, I read the news or check my emails, or just think about a killer argument I can use against the mathematicians on Google.

I wrote this "killer argument" a few minutes ago in response to arguments that time dilation is reciprocal and that, if it wasn't reciprocal, it would work contrary to Einstein's theories about time dilation:
It seems clear that mathematicians have problems with the word "stationary."  They fantasize that object-A moving at high speed is "stationary" when the mathematician needs to compute the speed of object-B moving relative to object-A.

Therefore, since they can fantasize that object-A is stationary when it
is actually moving, they can also fantasize that object-B can also be "stationary" as they imagine that object-A moves away from it.

This is a screwball misinterpretation of Relativity.  Einstein wrote that
his theory made the aether "superfluous," which mathematicians somehow wildly misinterpret to mean it makes motion reciprocal.

The aether was made "superfluous" because TIME can be used to determine who is moving faster than whom.  You do not need the aether.  If I am moving faster than you, time is moving slower for me, and a second on my clocks will be longer than a second on your clocks. 

Since mathematicians fantasize about "frames of reference," they argue that this requires some kind of "preferred frame of reference" that is TRULY stationary in the universe.  It doesn't.  While there COULD BE such a location, if I move faster than you and time thus moves slower for me, that just requires TIME to have a speed limit.  And, according to Einstein, TIME DOES HAVE A SPEED LIMIT.  It is the speed of light.  When an object moves at the speed of light, it experiences no time.  Photons experience no time.

Everything moving slower than the speed of light experiences time.  The slower you move, the faster time moves for you.

And there is nothing reciprocal about it.
And THERE ARE NO EXPERIMENTS WHICH SHOW TIME DILATION TO BE RECIPROCAL.
It is really bizarre the way the mathematicians repeatedly claim that all experiments show that velocity time dilation is reciprocal, but when I ask them to name such an experiment, they just ignore my request and change the subject.

I've been trying to get them to discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment, which certainly has absolutely nothing reciprocal about it.  The stationary clock at the U.S. Naval observatory never became a moving clock while the clocks on the aircraft somehow became stationary.  Nor did the time dilation results become reciprocal and show that the Navy's clock ran slower.

It's really a brain teaser to find good arguments to shoot down the theories held by the mathematicians.  The problem is: when I find a good argument, there's no way to prevent them from ignoring it or turning it into an argument over words and phrasing.  They just do not seem able to understand anything unless it is phrased the way it appears in some text book.  And if I do not phrase things that same way, they argue that I do not understand whatever it is.  That tells me they just memorized mathematical dogma instead of actually learning the science involved.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Hafele Keating routes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bad links

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

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

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

The Taking of K-129

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








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
                           

            
© 2018 by Ed Lake