Archive for
July 2016

Comments for Sunday, July 24, 2016, thru Sunday, July 31, 2016:

July 31, 2016 - Based upon the statistics I get each morning showing visitors to this site, it seems that no one but me is interested in my theory about "Time Dilated Light."  Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about that.

This site has become a "journal" of my thought processes and actions as I try to get someone to explain to me why my theory of "Time Dilated Light" is wrong, or what additional thoughts they may have of the theory if they agree that it is correct.

I produce the first version of the theory on July 11.  But I was arguing about relative motion versus actual motion for a long time before that.  Over a year ago, I created a blog page titled "Time Dilation: Reality versus Relativity." 

But, in all my discussions about Time Dilated Light, I never found anyone who could provide any intelligent explanation for why they disagree with it.  I even created a form that they can fill out based upon the responses I've gotten:
disagreement form
While no one has actually filled out the form, it seems that, so far, no one can fill in response #8.  Most argue response #1, the next largest group consists of those who argue response #2, and the numbers get smaller as you go down the list until you reach ZERO people responding to #8.

Late last week, I realized that I should be contacting astrophysicists about my theory, not ordinary physicists.  I sent an email to a top astrophysicist and got a response that she won't be able to respond to emails until Aug. 3.  I could try someone else while waiting, but I decided instead to think things over while waiting.  I'm trying to see if I can find some reason why the theory might be incorrect.  It's a win-win situation.  If I find that the theory is incorrect, I'll have learned something I didn't know before.  And, if it is correct, it is very important to physics and astrophysics.  It shoots down a mistaken belief that seems to be held by millions.

Perhaps more importantly, the reason why so many people seem to have that mistaken belief can be exposed: It appears that, in schools, they are not being taught about what is actually happening in the real world, they are only being taught about what is theoretically happening in an imaginary world.

Back on June 19, I provided this quote from an article titled "Einstein’s Mistaken Time Dilation Prediction" by Harry Ricker III:

The purpose of this short note is to expand upon a conclusion I discussed in my paper on the Irksomeness of Einstein’s Special Theory Of Relativity . There it was pointed out that the famous prediction made by Einstein in his 1905 paper was false.  Einstein said that a clock placed at the equator should run more slowly than an identical one located at one of the poles of the earth. Obviously it was implicitly assumed that the earth’s rotation would produce a relative motion between the clocks that could be used to test the prediction. As was pointed out in that paper, there is no relative motion at all, so the prediction is a false one.
Mr. Ricker's "implicit assumption" is total nonsense. But it's a very good example of how someone can think that Relativity is ONLY about relative motion and not about ACTUAL motion. So, Mr. Ricker bizarrely believes that Einstein somehow saw some "relative motion" between a stationary clock at the equator and a stationary clock at one of the poles, and Mr. Ricker helpfully points out that there is no relative motion since both clocks are stationary relative to one another.  Mr. Riker corrects an error that is only in his mind.  What Einstein was talking about was that both clocks are moving relative to the earth's axis, one at about 1,000 mph, and the other just spinning in place.

Interestingly, he cites another author who evidently argued the same thing:

Dr. Carl Zapffe had published a similar conclusion in his booklet “Seven Short Essays”. There he states the following: “…the Einstein clock had no real motion with respect to the coordinate axes of the Earth’s field…” He drew the conclusion that since there was no real motion, there would be no time dilation observed in the experiment. From this it is obvious that Einstein’s most famous “discovery” was based upon a mistake.
So, what I'm doing is arguing that Einstein was right, and Mr. Ricker and Dr. Zapffe are wrong.  And all the people who think that time dilation doesn't occur unless to objects are moving relative to each other, are also wrong.  And there seem to be a great many such people.  They just never noticed what Mr. Ricker and Dr. Zapffe noticed, and thus they never disagreed with Einstein.

(This morning I found a copy of "Seven Short Essays" on the Internet.  It looks interesting.  I'll have to study it to see what else it says.)  

I just wish I could get an astrophysicist, or even a physicist, to discuss this topic with me.  I'm waiting on a response from the first astrophysicist I've tried to contact.  So far, the best I've been able to do with physicists is to get them to check box #6.  And they refuse to explain why they checked box #6.  The "peer reviewer" at the General Relativity and Gravitation journal seems to have checked box #5, although he didn't specifically say he disagreed with anything.

I've also decided to produce version 3 of "Time Dilated Light."  I'll update it tomorrow, changing the next to last paragraph to use a different way to prove the theory using gravitational time dilation.  Instead of using equipment at different altitudes in New York and Denver, I'll use light traveling vertically in a single lab that could be anywhere.  You just need to measure the speed of light traveling down to a mirror from the top of the lab, using a clock and equipment at the top of the lab, and then measure it again using a clock and equipment at the bottom of the lab and a mirror at the top of the lab.   As I wrote in my July 29 comment, it would also show how light can travel faster than the speed of light.  And that is guaranteed to make headlines.

July 29, 2016 - I awoke this morning with another idea.  It's a relatively "simple" way to prove my Time Dilated Light theory. 

I think it is probably safe to assume that all experiments to measure the speed of light have been done in vacuum chambers with light moving horizontal to the surface of the earth.  Or, if anyone measured the speed of light moving other than horizontally, it was almost certainly only measured by one clock.

My theory says that if you measured the speed of light moving vertically, you would be very different results depending upon whether the light is emitted downward from the top or upward from the bottom. 

If we verify that two atomic clocks both measure a "second" as 1,000,000 ticks when they are side by side on the surface of the earth, we can then move one of the atomic clocks to the top of a vacuum chamber that is say 30 feet in height, and leave the other one at the bottom. Using light emitted vertically in the chamber, we can first measure it when it is emitted at the bottom to be reflected off a mirror at the top, and then again when the emitter is at the top of the vacuum chamber and the mirror is at the bottom.

We will first see that the two clocks stopped being in sync when one of them was raised to the top of the chamber.  Due to gravitational time dilation, the raised clock will tick faster - say 5 extra ticks for every 1,000,000 ticks by the surface clock.  That is because time ticks faster as you move farther from the center of the earth. 

So, light will appear to travel at the same speed when you measure the speeds by the clocks next to the emitters, but everyone can see that the length of a second is not the same, since the bottom clock is ticking slower.  Therefore, in reality, the speed of light is not the same.

And if the length of a second for light emitted from the top emitter is 1,000,005 ticks when measured by the bottom clock, it would be a simple matter to determine what the speed of light is from the top emitter when it is converted to the speed as it is measured by the bottom atomic clock.

Easy peasy. 

Technically, it's no different than the test I used in my paper with one set of equipment at the top of a mountain and another at the bottom.  But, this version puts everything in one lab to be handled by one team of scientists.

PLUS, it makes it easy to make headlines.  If the speed of light is that measured by the equipment at the bottom of the lab, then the light emitted from the emitter at the top of the lab would travel "faster than the speed of light," since it was emitted where a "second" is shorter.

July 28, 2016 - Duh!  I awoke this morning realizing I've been talking with the wrong people.  Physicists have too many areas of specialization.  I should have been talking with astrophysicists.  Astrophysicists are the ones with the mysteries to solve, e.g., the rate of expansion of the universe, dark matter, and particularly dark energy.  My paper "Time Dilated Light" should be of great help toward solving those mysteries, plus it explains that their equipment to measure red shifting doesn't work as well as they think it does.

Here are some statements made by a man on the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group who claims to be a physicist:
"Logic is nonsense.  The infinitesimal of logic is probably a point consisting of pure stupidity."

"I'm a physicist. I know nothing of logic.  I can calculate the position of Saturn using Newtonian gravitational equations, and get a craft there. I can calculate where a given lens will focus, and it does focus there. I have no way of calculating anything using logic. I'm not even sure what "logic" is!"
I need to talk with some astrophysicists.  And, if the science journal that currently has my paper turns it down because it doesn't contain enough math, I'll try some astronomy and astrophysics journals.

July 27, 2016 - Hmm. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this web site was visited by robots or people from 62 different IP addresses in the course of about 1 minute, around 7:43 a.m. (EDT) yesterday morning.  That is about the normal number of visitors for an entire day.  And, I can't find any real pattern to the IP addresses: - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:51] - Bangkok, Thailand - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:18] - Washington, DC - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:20] - Dublin, Ireland - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:06] - Ashburn, VA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:04] - Paris, France - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:02] - Culver City, CA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:01] - Brea, CA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:06] - Burlington, MA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:15] - Mtn View, CA (Microsoft) - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:15] - Mtn View, CA (Microsoft) - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:04] - Los Angeles, CA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:40] - Houston, TX - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:13] - Google - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:13] - Google - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:13] - Google - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:12] - St. Louis, MO - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:26] - St. Louis, MO - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:14] - Lansing, MI - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:36] - Istanbul, Turkey - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:55] - Moscow, Russia - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:58] - Gosport, England - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:15] - Dusseldorf, Germany - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:55] - Koeln, Germany - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:34] - Moscow, Russia - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:11] - Nuremburg, Germany - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:09] - Nuremburg, Germany - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:49] - Czech Republic - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:17] - Celje, Slovinia - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:42] - Moscow, Russia - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:51] - Roubaix, France - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:23] - Ashburn, VA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:35] - Maidenhead, England - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:03] - Cambridge, MA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:15] - Cambridge, MA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:41] - Tokyo, Japan - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:38] - Tokyo, Japan - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:00] - Nuremburg, Germany - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:14] - Paris, France - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:59] - Jersey City, NJ - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:04] - Jersey City, NJ - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:25] - Amsterdam, Netherlands - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:56] - Sundbyberg, Sweden - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:01] - Scottsdale, AZ - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:45] - Moscow, Russia - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:58] - Roubaix, France - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:09] - Roubaix, France - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:55] - Roubaix, France - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:23] - Quebec, Canada - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:10] - Moscow, Russia - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:10] - Stockholm, Sweden - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:00] - Newark, NJ - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:45] - Provo, UT - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:40] - Sterling, VA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:57] North KC, MO (hacker) - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:59] - Baltimore, MD - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:15] - St. Louis, MO - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:58] - St. Louis, MO - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:43] - Atlanta, GA - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:03] - Karlsruhe, Germany - - [26/Jul/2016:07:43:06] - Tokyo, Japan - - [26/Jul/2016:07:42:56] - Tokyo, Japan
Logic says that it's probably a hacker of some kind, and he uses all kinds of IP addresses to disguise his true IP address.  Since Google was doing its thing at the same time, looking at most of my web site, it could have been an attempt to interfere with Google.  But, who knows?  My web site is located on a server in Alabama, so I don't have to be concerned that anyone is trying to use my web site to hack into my personal computer.

July 26, 2016 - Well, that was quick.  The science journal General Relativity and Gravitation just rejected my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  They only had one "peer reviewer" look at it, and he stated:
The technical and conceptual level of this paper is far below that of articles that normally appear in international research journals such as GRG. Furthermore, the subject matter is special relativity while GRG is devoted to general relativity and gravitation. Therefore I recommend rejection.
Hmm.  I focused on Special Relativity instead of General Relativity because the math is easier.  And, of course, there is nothing I can do about my "technical and conceptual level."  I was hoping they would be more open minded and read what I wrote.

On the positive side, the rejection says absolutely nothing about anything in my conclusions or my paper being incorrect.  The rejection also means I don't have to worry about angering the other journal to which I submitted the paper a couple weeks ago (the one who told me it could take three months to get a response).  They're now the only publisher looking at it.  And, since its a journal about general physics, it should be in their bailiwick.  My paper looks like it is also out of the bailiwick of the other journal that the physics professor recommended.  That journal's bailiwick is gravity.  

Live and learn.

Plus, I'm a strong believer in the adage: "If at first you don't succeed, try a different method."  I just got an idea for a different method for finding some "expert" who might give me some feedback.     

July 25, 2016 - I just sent the revised version of my scientific paper on "Time Dilated Light" to the scientific journal a local physics professor recommended to me last week.  The confirmation email I got from the journal gives no indication of how long it will take for someone to get to reading my paper.  It just says that a "reference number" will be assigned to it when an editor is assigned to it.  And, once the reference number is assigned, I can check on "progress" by visiting their site.  That's encouraging.

I made a very important change to the paper yesterday, as a result of another Facebook argument.  Many people I've been arguing with seem to have accepted that Einstein did NOT say that the speed of light is a "constant" in our universe, he only said it was a "universal constant" in an "imaginary" universe he created to illustrate problems with achieving simultaneity of observation times.  However, yesterday someone argued that Jame Clerk Maxwell also established that the speed of light is a "constant."  I did a little research and found that is not true.  Maxwell merely determined that the speed of light cannot be added to the velocity of a source of light.  Therefore, if a rocket traveling 1,000 kps is shining a beam of light at you as it comes directly toward you, the speed of light is not C + 1,000 kps.  It is still just C.  And, if the rocket is traveling directly away from you at that same speed, the speed of light emitted from the rocket will not be C - 1,000 kps.  It will again just be C.

I mentioned all that in the previous version in the section about "Emission Theory" on page 2, but I didn't mention James Clerk Maxwell.  So, I added the following two sentences:
James Clerk Maxwell supposedly discovered that the speed of light was a “universal constant” when he disproved Emission Theory. However, his “universal constant” was nothing more than a declaration that the velocity of an object does not combine with the speed of light.
I also added a new last paragraph where I explain a second method to confirm my theory.  The first method would confirm it using gravitational time dilation.  The added paragraph would confirm it by using velocity time dilation.

So, now I'm going to try to avoid any more Facebook arguments, and I'm just going to wait to see what the "peer reviewers" say about my paper.

July 24, 2016 - WOW!!  What an interesting time the past week was for me!  I wrote about most of it in comments I posted during the week, but a lot of things have happened since my last comment, and they continue to happen.

First of all, on Friday I received a response to an email I had sent to a Professor of Physics at a major university in my area.  His response was,

This is way out of my wheelhouse, I'm afraid; I have a working knowledge of relativity as it pertains to particle acceleration, but nothing like the level that a helpful analysis of your paper would require.

My suggestion for getting a thorough (and free!) analysis from experts in the field would be to submit the paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

And then he suggests two "peer-reviewed journals" I should try, even providing the email addresses for submission.  That made me wonder what kind of "peers" they would find for me.  Hopefully, it won't be 79-year-olds who are just science buffs who read three science books at once and watch science shows on TV.

After examining the web sites for the two journals, and after thinking it over, I'll be submitting my paper to only one of those two journals tomorrow.  I'll save the other for later -- after I see what happens to the first one.  Besides, the publisher I won't be sending the article to on Monday seems to have a lot of formatting rules that do not seem to fit with the nature and content of my paper.  And I don't know how "firm" those rules are.

Before sending out anything, however, I have to add a few sentences about another way I thought of to prove my theory.  The way I've described in the paper would prove the slowing of light due to gravitational time dilation.  What I'm going to add is a way to prove the slowing of light due to velocity time dilation.  All it requires is putting the same equipment used in the other experiment on a ship and measuring the speed of light in the harbor at Nome, Alaska (or further north if possible), and then again in the harbor at Singapore, which is less than 2 degrees latitude away from the equator.   The earth is spinning on its axis at around 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and probably something like 10 miles per hour in Nome.  That should produce a measurable difference in the length of a second and the speed of light per the different length seconds.

I also realized something else I should try to add to my paper.  I was reading a science book during lunch, and I came across a passage that reminded me that a photon is not emitted from the surface of the sun, it is emitted from the core of the sun, and the photon spends thousands of years making its way to the surface.  That means that the gravitational time dilation effect on the photon would not be calculated on the surface but at the core where the effect of gravity might be significantly greater.  And I have no clue as to what the effect of spending thousands of years inside the sun will do to the velocity of the photon.  Another problem is:  The mathematics involved in figuring out exactly how different the effect of time dilation would be is beyond my abilities.

Plus, instead of referencing a random Internet copy of Einstein's 1905 paper, I'll use my annotated copy as the reference.

Yesterday, someone posted his cartoon to show that he didn't agree with me:
relativity cartoon

But, his arguments appear to show he cannot be bothered with theories from anyone who isn't a mathematician.  So, who cares what he thinks?

Strangely, nearly all of the arguments I've been involved with on Facebook are with people who seem to think only in terms of a hypothetical universe where many things are not possible that appear to be relatively simple in our REAL universe.  For example, they simply cannot envision someone in a "reference frame" at the top of a mountain communicating with someone in a "different reference frame" at the bottom of the mountain.   Evidently, people do not communicate with one another in their hypothetical universes. 

This situation was presented to them:
We have measuring instruments like atomic clocks, which measure time very precisely. If we have TWO atomic clocks that "tick" 1,000,000,000 times per second while at the base of a mountain, that means the length of a second at that location is 1,000,000,000 ticks.

If one of the clocks is moved to the top of the mountain where time moves faster, the moved clock will still tick at 1,000,000,000 ticks per local second. BUT, it will now be ticking faster than the clock at the bottom of the mountain.

The problem then becomes: How do you MEASURE the difference in the number of ticks? Naysayers seem to believe it cannot be done because in their HYPOTHETICAL universes it cannot be done. But, in our REAL universe it CAN be done.

One way to do it is to simply CALCULATE the difference using Einstein's equations for gravitational time dilation.

Another way would be to set up TV cameras before each of the two clocks, and then monitor the differences from two TV sets side by side midway up the mountain (or anywhere). You can also try setting both clocks to "zero" or to "noon" at the same moment. While you probably can't do it EXACTLY at the same moment, that doesn't really matter. What matters is that you will be able to see that the clock at the top of the mountain IS ticking a significant number of MORE ticks than the clock at the bottom of the mountain. And every day the gap in the number of ticks will widen.

That proves that time moves faster at the top of the mountain. The next step is to measure the speed of light at both locations. It will be 299,792.458 kilometers per SECOND at BOTH locations, even though we've proved that the length of a second is different.

Because the length of a second is longer at the bottom of the mountain, the speed of light will actually be slower there.
That argument seems to have stopped all discussion.  In their hypothetical world, they cannot deal with TV cameras showing people in multiple "reference frames" what is going on.  I found no new posts had been made overnight last night. 

But the biggest puzzle for me may be what the people who "like" the discussions on Facebook think.  In the four groups where discussions have been taking place, there are a total of 57 people who "like" the discussions.  But there are only 5 names on the lists who have actually posted questions or attempted to discuss anything with me, and all 5 have problems with the theory.  What do the other 52 people "like"?  Do they "like" what I wrote?  Do they "like" the discussions?  Do they "like" the theory.  Or do they just "like" the elephant in the living room cartoon I used to illustrate a point?

likes 1
likes 2
likes 3
likes 4

So, the plan right now is to send out one more copy of the paper tomorrow, and then to just sit back and wait for a response to that paper or to the two papers I sent out last week.  I should get some kind of response before Halloween, or certainly before Election Day.

If the replies are negative and Trump wins the election, I'll probably give up all  hope for the human race and just forget about sending out another copy to another science journal.  If the replies are negative and Clinton wins the election, I may assume that there is still hope for the human race and send out the other copy to the other science journal.  And maybe another after that -- depending upon what the "peer" reviewers say.

If I get a positive reply, then we'll be entering a totally different "reference frame."

Meanwhile, my DVR is running day and night as it records 42 episodes of the 1970's cop show "Kojak."  That will give me something to do in my spare time.  And, of course, I'll try once again to work on my 3rd sci-fi novel.

Hmm.  After posting the above comment, I did a Google search for "how does velocity cause time dilation" and found someone asked that exact question two years ago on and got nothing but crap answers that repeat crap examples from books.  The poor guy tried to get a meaningful answer, but no one could provide one.  And it appears there is no way that I can get to him to give him the answer he was seeking back then.  He's anonymous, and the thread is closed.  I might, however, try to think of a new question I can ask that will enable me to supply the answers the guy was looking for.

Or maybe I just need to relax and stop thinking about this.

Damn!  I couldn't resist.  I noticed that someone on asked the question "Is it possible to slow down light?"  So I posted a loaded answer.

Comments for Sunday, July 17, 2016, thru Saturday, July 23, 2016:

July 22, 2016 - If I keep writing comments here every day, I won't have anything left to write about in my regular Sunday comment.  But, here goes anyway.

Yesterday I did some more Google searching, and I found articles titled

Physicists find a new way to slow the speed of light

Scientists slow the speed of light

Physicists Slow Speed of Light

Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light

The second article contains this:

They sent photons - individual particles of light - through a special mask. It changed the photons' shape - and slowed them to less than light speed.

The photons remained travelling at the lower speed even when they returned to free space.

The experiment is likely to alter how science looks at light.

The third article contains this:
Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light.
The articles don't have anything to do with what I wrote about in my paper, but it's nice to have someone agree that "Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light."

Today I made my first contact with an actual scientist (someone I know from my days investigation the anthrax attacks of 2001).  He suggested I do a Google search for "Speed of Light Controversy."  I did so, and WOW!  I found articles with these titles:

Was Einstein wrong all along? Controversial theory suggests the speed of light is SLOWER than we think

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say

Speed of light not so constant after all

What is so great about those articles is that they are about a "theory" that is very different from mine.  They have a very different CAUSE for the slowing down of light.  I think my explanation is infinitely better and easier to prove. 

July 21, 2016 - I sent an email to a Professor of Physics at a university in my area asking for his thoughts on my paper about Time Dilated Light.  I haven't received a reply, but, of course, it is July and he could be backpacking in the Swiss Alps for all I know.  Next week I'll try another Professor of Physics at another university in my area.

I also sent an email to a general science magazine.  I got this reply:

We are sorry we have to reply to you by means of a standard letter but due to the very large volume of similar proposals we receive, we are unable to reply to each letter personally. Please accept our apologies.

We do not accept original scientific work for publication or review in [xxxxxxx], we regret we do not have the pool of expert referees needed to assess original research or theories. Similarly, if you have sent us a proposal, press release or an article for publication, we hope you can appreciate that the vast majority of our articles are commissioned from our own writers and consultants. We receive dozens of offers every week which must compete for very limited space and unfortunately we have to turn down many interesting pieces.

However, we do read every email and if your submission is of interest it will be forwarded on to the appropriate editor for review.
So, they might reply, but they probably won't.

I also sent an email to a magazine that specializes on physics-related subjects.  They sent an automated reply that said it may take as long as 3 months for them to get around to reading my paper.   I'm pondering whether or not I should try some other science magazines.  Is that a good idea or a bad idea?  Regular publishers HATE it when authors send out proposals to many different publishers.  They don't want to say "yes" and find out that some other publisher already agreed, so the proposal was no longer valid.

I'm also still pondering whether or not I should try to contact some of the scientists I exchanged emails and phone calls with during my investigation of the anthrax attacks of 2001.  The problem is, they may not be physicists, so they would have to ask someone else to read my paper.  I don't want to bother them in that way.

I did ask a science writer I know for his opinion about my paper.  He told me it was way over his head.  He didn't know enough about physics to comment on it.

July 20, 2016 - Hmm.  I couldn't believe that others haven't asked the same questions about the speed of light that I've been asking, so I did a Google search for "time dilated light from the sun," and I found a web site where someone asked,

I understand that if something is moving with constant speed in respect to an observer, the time of the moving one runs slower, so the more your speed is, the more your time ticks slower.

Which means if i were on the Moon and went to Earth in slow speed, I will get to their in like 3 days, but if i were to go to earth almost in the speed of light, my time will almost stop, which means 1 second to me will equal to like 50000 years to those on earth, so according to an observer on Earth I will disappear and reappear after 50000 years!

Am I understanding this right? If this is right, how is [it that] the light from the Sun can reach us in just 8 minutes? Shouldn't the time of the photon be dilating which means 1 minute in the frame of the photon be like a million years in our frame?

The answer is standard blather about "frames of reference" and "observer perspectives."  So, of course, I posted my answer. 

Another web site seems to provide something I was looking for.  In a response to the question "If I go near the sun, will I experience time dilation?" someone wrote this:

Time dilation is about the same order as m/r.  You poke in something like m=1.476 km for the sun, and r = 600,000 kms, so the fraction is about the order of less than a minute per year near the surface.
Now I just have to decipher it.  What is "m/r"?  I assume m = "mass," and r could be "ratio" or is it "radius"?  Then what does "1.476 km" mean?  And what does "kms" mean?  Whatever they mean, it seems to say that the time dilation at the surface of the sun is not very significant.   Okay, I can understand that, since gravitational time dilation would also begin with small number and become big numbers only around things like a massive black hole.

Hmm.  I just found an interesting article that I probably should have used as a reference in my paper. The article says that time on Earth is dilated about 1 second per week compared to "stationary time."

Still researching. 

July 19, 2016 - Yesterday, I started discussion threads about my new scientific paper on a few different Facebook groups.  Some very quickly got very heated.  On one group, "Science, Philosophy, and Psychology Discussion," which has 11,642 members, someone posted this image after just a few comments:

news announcement

The conversation on the "Astrophysics and Physics" Facebook group has just started, because it had to be cleared by an administrator first.  It has 73,076 members, but it seems the vast majority have problems with the English language. 

The "Science, Technology, and Society Discussion Corner" Facebook group is where I've been discussing (in two threads) my paper since July 11 when I  mentioned the first version of the paper.  It has 9,439 members.

I also created a thread about it on my interactive blog.  I've added a section to this web site where the paper is displayed in website format.

I've also contacted a science writer I know, and I'm pondering how to contact some reporters and scientists I got to know during my investigation of the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Needless to say, I think I'm right about this, and I'd really like to know if I'm wrong.  It seems so obvious that I'm amazed that there isn't more about it on the Internet.  It definitely does seem like "an elephant in the room" that no one wants to talk about because it will either generate angry arguments or it will lead to embarrassing confessions.

July 18, 2016 (B) - Lately, I've been so focused on matters related to time dilation and the speed of light that I haven't had time to write anything about Donald Trump.  But today I saw something I really need to mention.  There's a article in the Los Angeles Times by David Willman that is titled "Donald Trump's running mate once peddled conspiracy theories about anthrax and Saddam Hussein."  It begins with this:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s running mate stirred public concern after the 2001 anthrax letter attacks by asserting — without any scientific evidence — that the material had been “genetically modified” to make it more deadly.

The statement by then-Rep. Mike Pence, now governor of Indiana, suggested that a foreign source — likely Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — was responsible for the letter attacks, which killed five people, disrupted mail delivery and temporarily shut down congressional office buildings.

The FBI ultimately concluded that an Army anthrax scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, carried out the attacks. Ivins, based at Ft. Detrick, Md., committed suicide in July 2008 after his lawyers informed him that he would be indicted.

Pence made his claims in June 2002, nine months after the first of two batches of anthrax-laced letters were put in the mail in Princeton, N.J.

“Why has the FBI apparently concluded that the source of these anthrax attacks was domestic when there is significant evidence to suggest an international source for these materials?” Pence wrote in a public letter to Atty Gen. John D. Ashcroft.  ...

“The material found in my office and in others on Capitol Hill was finely milled weapons-grade anthrax that had been genetically modified to increase its virulence,” Pence wrote.
Pence’s claim of genetically altered anthrax was unfounded.  And since Donald Trump is also a conspiracy theorist (remember his comments about President Obama's birth certificate?), if the American people are dumb enough to elect them, we'll have two conspiracy theorists in the White House.  Plus, there is a lot of evidence that Mike Pence doesn't believe in science.  Click HERE.

July 18, 2016 (A) - Since no one that I've been arguing with seems able to explain their belief for why it is impossible for light to travel slower when coming from a star, I did a Google search for summaries of Special Relativity to see how they might simplify things. I found this:
"Lengths and Times must change for different inertial observers because the speed of light is constant"

That appears to be the source of our disagreements in one sentence. The question I have is: How does Time change to allow a photon to travel at the "constant" speed?

My hypothesis is that Time changes due to the motion of the atom emitting it, and thus the atom creates a slower moving photon.

The paper also says:
"If you construct a thought experiment where the amount of time it takes light to travel some distance is measured by two observers, one at rest and the other in motion, you see that the times measured are different. An observer at rest sees an observer in motion's clock as running slow by the dilation factor."
That is a "thought experiment" based upon a nonsense premise. It requires the observer at rest to MAGICALLY see a clock used by the observer in motion. It doesn't say who emitted the light. It doesn't explain what is actually happening. It doesn't allow the observer at rest to measure the speed of the light. It is just about what the observer at rest MAGICALLY sees.

I don't disagree with the quote. It just doesn't seem to address what is most important: how does the speed of light change time? And who emitted the light?

Searching further, I found this:
Einstein's relativity theory was presented as a principled, rather than a constructive, theory. A principled theory is one that begins with principles and then uses these principles to explain the phenomena; a constructive theory starts with the observations and culminates in theories that explain and reconcile those observations. Einstein's principled account began with the postulate that the laws of science should appear the same to all freely moving observers. In particular, all observers should measure the speed of light as the same regardless of how fast they are moving. Thus, there is no "universal time" that all clocks measure; rather, everyone has his or her own personal time. If one person is moving with respect to another, their clocks will not agree. To an observer moving in one frame of reference with uniform velocity relative to a second frame of reference, the clock in the second frame will appear to move more slowly than his own clock. Moreover, since velocity is the measurement of distance per unit of time, a measuring-stick in the second time frame would appear contracted to the observer in the reference frame. Of course, we do not observe these effects in everyday situations of movement; we do not see a ruler as contracted if we are moving by on a bus. Rather, these phenomena are noticeable only at speeds near the speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein's relativity paper showed that time and space are not a priori categories of human understanding; rather, they are relative quantities that are defined operationally."

Holy CRAP!  Clearly, I was presenting Einstein's relativity theory as a constructive theory, and that is why I ended up with time changing the speed of light rather than the speed of light changing time! I began with observations and developed a theory to explain those observations - a theory that does not ignore the principles Einstein used, it just views them from another angle.

Further research found this:
In a theory of principle, one starts from some general, well-confirmed empirical regularities that are raised to the status of postulates (e.g., the impossibility of perpetual motion of the first and the second kind, which became the first and second laws of thermodynamics). With such a theory, one explains the phenomena by showing that they necessarily occur in a world in accordance with the postulates. Whereas theories of principle are about the phenomena, constructive theories aim to get at the underlying reality. In a constructive theory one proposes a (set of) model(s) for some part of physical reality (e.g., the kinetic theory modeling a gas as a swarm of tiny billiard balls bouncing around in a box). One explains the phenomena by showing that the theory provides a model that gives an empirically adequate description of the salient features of reality.

Yes!  My "theory" is definitely a "constructive" theory! It represents REALITY. I keep talking about REALITY while others keep talking about IMAGINARY "frames of reference."  That is why I can never get them to understand what I'm saying!  They do not understand Relativity in any other way that what was taught in school - as a principle based theory!

So, this morning I "published" a new version of my paper with a new subtitle:

Time Dilated Light
(A Constructive Theory of Relativity)

It can be viewed by clicking HERE.  Now I just need to find some physicists and astrophysicists who will take the time to read the paper and explain to me where I might be right or wrong.

July 17, 2016 - It seems like I spent nearly all of last week discussing the speed of light and Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity on three different Facebook groups.  On two of the groups I was arguing with people who cannot explain what they believe, they just believe it, and they get frustrated with people who do not believe as they believe.  They seem to believe that if a clock in one location is ticking faster "relative" to a clock at another location closer to a gravitational mass (or on a fast moving space ship), the word "relative" somehow means that it isn't "actual."  It is just a perceived difference, like an optical illusion.  And nothing I said could change their minds.

On the third group, however, things were somewhat different.  On the "Science, Technology, and Society Discussion Corner" Facebook group, virtually everyone found my comments to be interesting, and many joined in the discussion to help clarify things.  Three people "shared" the discussion (whatever that means), and 15 people (so far) indicated that they "liked" the thread.

However, I did get into a prolonged argument with one person there who seemed to have a problem thinking about any situation that did not have a mathematical "frame of reference."

Meanwhile, I am revising my "scientific paper" on "Time Dilated Light" to incorporate all that I've learned during the past week.  The previous version is still available on, but I withdrew it from (As soon as I withdrew it, I regretted doing so, since I quickly realized that the error I made wasn't anywhere as great as I thought it was.  That's why I didn't remove it from

I used this illustration of "an elephant in the room" to start two of the Facebook discussion threads.

The elephant in the room

It appears that the "elephant in the room" no one wants to talk about is the "fact" that light does not travel at a "universal rate" as popularly believed, it travels at a different rate for each emitting object depending upon the object's gravitational mass and the object's velocity as it moves through space.  That is also the "fact" that I "discovered" a couple weeks ago.  In the previous version of the paper, I stated no one wants to talk about it because the fact that no one knows how to measure the speed of light coming from distant stars is an annoying problem that they can't do anything about.  Now I think they don't want to talk about it because it will just generate heated arguments from people who endlessly argue about "frames of reference" or who think the word "relative" just means what is "perceived" and has nothing to do with what actually occurs.

The more I get into issues related to the speed of light, the more mind-boggling it gets.  And since it seems that the only people who disagree with me are people who cannot explain anything, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the "Time Dilated Light theory" is not only correct, it is very important.

I can do calculations to show that light emitted from an object moving at 10 percent of the speed of light would arrive at the Earth traveling slower than "the official speed of light" as measured here on earth.  This is what I wrote in the new version of my paper on "Time Dilated Light":

Therefore, we can use Einstein’s formula for calculating Time Dilation to calculate the difference in the speed of light emitted from a stationary object versus a moving object.  If light is emitted from an object that is traveling at 10% of the speed of light (29,979.2 kps), one second at a stationary location (assume Earth is stationary) will be 1.0050377997499 seconds aboard that space ship.  That means that the emitted light from the space ship will be traveling 299,792.458 kilometers in 1.0050377997499 seconds.   And light traveling at that speed would be traveling at 298,289.675 kps when it reaches “stationary” Earth, or 1,502.78 kps slower than the speed of light is measured here on Earth. 

If a stationary observer (i.e., an observer on Earth) mistakenly assumes that all light is coming to him at 299,792.458 kilometers per his second, he may mistakenly assume the moving object in the previous paragraph is farther away than it really is.  If the moving object is actually 298,289.675 kilometers away, he may mistakenly assume that it is 299,792.458 kilometers away if he calculates it took one Earth second for the light from it to reach him, an error of 1,503 kilometers.  In other words: Distant objects may be closer than they appear.

Mathematics is definitely not my forte, so it took awhile for me to get that right (assuming it is right).  And I'm trying to figure out how slow light from the sun is coming due to the sun's gravitational mass versus earth's gravitational mass, but I fear that the math will be far too complex for me.  I can't find a "gravitational time dilation calculator" on the Web like I found the "special relativity (time dilation) calculator."

I realize this is probably of no interest to any readers of this web site, but it has been of such great interest to me that I haven't been able to do much else during the past couple weeks.  I stopped taking my MP3 player to the gym because I couldn't pay attention to the books being read, since my mind was on the speed of light problem.  I stopped watching movies in the evening because I couldn't focus on them.  Instead, I've been watching old TV shows which do not require me to pay much attention.  In the past few weeks I've recorded hundreds of old TV shows on my digital video recorder (DVR).  
I've got about 60 episodes of "Peter Gunn."
I've got about 40 episodes of "Burke's Law."
I've got 15 episodes of "Amos Burke, Secret Agent."
I've got about 50 episodes of "Vega$."
I've got about 70 episodes of "Hart to Hart."
I've got about 50 episodes of "Barney Miller."
I've got about 60 episodes of "Cybill."
I've got about 60 episodes of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents."
I've got about 60 episodes of "The Twilight Zone."
I've got about 50 episodes of "Mannix."
I've got about 50 episodes of "Hunter."
I've got about 30 episodes of "Spin City."
And I've got my DVR set to record about 50 episodes of "Kojak" next weekend. The DVR is currently 80% full.  "Kojak" will put it up to around 85%.

Plus, I'm about half way through watching Season 1 of "Once Upon a Time," which I bought on DVDs.

And, of course, I've got my 3rd sci-fi novel to write. 

So much to do, so little time in which to do it.  Sigh.

Comments for Sunday, July 10, 2016, thru Saturday, July 16, 2016:

July 14, 2016 - Now I'm regretting having withdrawn my paper on "Time Dilated Light" from  I think it just needed some tweeking.  Plus I have some great additions to make.  I still have it on  I just need some time to get my thoughts in order.  Then I'll probably put an updated version back on 

July 13, 2016 - Wow!  I just made what could be a major discovery.  In Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," he used the phrase "a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space."  But he was using "universal constant" as a hypothetical universe where two clocks are in sync.  He was NOT talking about the entire universe around us.  In our universe, clocks at different locations are almost NEVER in sync.

Einstein stated that for two clocks to be in sync, the speed of light has to be the same when measured traveling from Clock-A to Clock-B as it is when measured traveling from Clock-B to Clock-A.  When you have done that, you have created a "universe" where clocks are in sync.

Now I'm thinking that a LOT of people are misinterpreting that to mean that the speed of light is "universal" throughout our Big Bang created universe.

If you search his 1905 paper for the word "universal," you will find it occurs in only two places, and both uses refer to the hypothetical "universe" he created where two clocks are in sync.

July 12, 2016 - (^&#@%&%!!!!  Someone on the "Science, Technology, and Society Discussion Corner" Facebook group just explained gravitational red shifting to me, showing me that scientists are aware that light coming from distant stars is coming slower than "the speed of light" as is measured here on Earth.  They just do not refer to it as "coming slower," they refer to it as being "velocity or gravitation red shifted."  As a result, I withdrew my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  It was mostly right, but its purpose was to explain that light can travel at different velocities, and astronomers know that.  They just have no means to measure those velocities, so they use red shifting instead.  My bad.

July 11, 2016 - I just submitted my new "scientific paper" for publication on  It was accepted about an hour later.  The paper is titled "Time Dilated Light - (Emission Theory Recalculated)" and can be accessed by clicking HERE.

It says that light coming from distant stars comes at a wide variety of speeds, most of them slower than what we typically consider to be "the speed of light."

I made a major change this morning when I decided that "Time Dilated Light" has got to be something that nearly every astronomer and physicist probably already knows about.  I modified a paragraph about "Dark Energy" to be instead about "The Elephant in the Room."  It says "Time Dilated Light" appears to be something that most scientists already know about but are just ignoring because it's an annoying problem they can't do anything about

Scientists only know how to measure the speed of light here on earth.  Inside a vacuum, they shoot a photon of light at a mirror a carefully measured distance away and then they time how long it takes the photon to bounce off the mirror and hit a detector that is next to the gun.  The time it took for the photon to go from the gun to the mirror and back is "the speed of light" in a vacuum at that location.  It's 299,792.458 kilometers per second.

However, due to Time Dilation, the length of a second is different depending upon how far you are from the center of the Earth and how fast you are going.  And if the light measuring equipment is in the U.S., it is moving at hundreds of miles per hour around Earth's axis, while also moving a many thousands of miles per hour as the Earth orbits the Sun and the Sun orbits the Milky Way Galaxy. 

If they take their light measuring equipment to the top of a mountain and do the same experiment, they will get the exact same result:
299,792.458 kilometers per second, even though they know the length of a second would be shorter there.  And because the length of a second is shorter, the speed of light must be different.

What they do not know how to do is measure the speed of light coming from some distant star.  They don't know when the light photon was emitted, because they don't know what the speed of light is at the star, and thus they cannot use that "speed of light"  to measure the length of a second.

What bothers me is that, because they have no way of determining the speed of light coming from distant stars, they use the "earth standard" which is known to be incorrect.  And they develop theories like "Dark Energy" using an invalid speed of light and what appear to be some invalid assumptions based upon that invalid speed of light.

Because they use triangulation and other methods to measure distances to nearby stars, the affect of using an invalid speed for light may be minimal in most astronomical situations.  But, I think it's time for the "Elephant in the room" to become part of discussions about physics and astrophysics. 

July 10, 2016 - I don't know if anyone will find this interesting or not, but when I was going through my various closets a few weeks ago, I came across a couple containers full of mostly foreign coins that I'd accumulated over the years.  I dumped them on a credenza and took this picture:

pile of coins

The coins just sat there for a week or so as I tried to think of what I should do with them.  It would take time to sort them, and I wasn't sure why I needed to sort them or if I should sort them.  Finally, I found some time to sort them out on the same credenza.  Here's a side-angle shot of the sorted coins:

coin collection

They looked kind of impressive as they sat there.  They look like a city with circular buildings of various sizes all made from coins.   All except for the 6 pachinko balls in the upper right corner.   They were in the cups, too.  In a way, they are like money, in that you have to pay to get a cup full of them to play the pachinko machines in Japan, and most of the pachinko machines use the same size balls, so you can take them from one pachinko parlor to another. 

But, I digress.  I also took this picture of the collection from above (before I included the pachinko balls):

coin collection

The coins from the USA consist of eleven copper pennies from the 1940's and 1950's, one zinc penny from 1943, and one Susan B. Anthony dollar coin.  The British coins include a 1 shilling coin from 1948 and a 2 shilling coin from 1949.

The miscellaneous coins consist of one strange coin with the words "Gettone Telephonico," which is an Italian telephone token, a Japanese coin of unknown denomination that could also be a phone token or something, and two bus tokens from the Bloomington, Illinois bus system.  I don't think I've ever been to Bloomington, Illinois, much less ridden on their bus system.  I think someone was passing them out at some occasion I was at in Chicago many years ago.

The sorted coins have been just sitting there all week while I try to decide what to do with them.  I have no interest in selling them, but I'd sure like to know if they are worth anything more than - say $50 or so.   I could probably figure that out for myself.  All I need is to find some time to do the research.

Something else that I did last week that might be worth mentioning:  I received a junk mail letter that was addressed to the doctor who used to live at my current address about 4 years ago.  There's nothing special about that, but about three weeks ago, the postman brought a package to my door and asked if I wanted to sign for it.  It was for that same doctor, and it was obviously some medical samples.  I wondered how many felonies I'd be committing if I signed for it.  I didn't sign for it, of course, but I gathered from talking with the postman that the post office was getting a great deal of mail for the long-gone doctor.

Anyway, after I got the junk mail letter I did a Google search for the doctor.  I found that there were several medical web sites where the doctor's name still appeared at my address.  I wondered if he was aware of this, so I called him at his current location out on the West Coast.  He wasn't aware of it and seemed stunned, declaring he could get into a lot of trouble if medical samples that were intended for him were being delivered to me (or someone else).  He said he would contact the medical web sites and get them to change addresses.  So far, that hasn't happened.  But the detective work I performed was interesting. 

I spent most of the past week working on my latest "scientific paper."  I think I've got the logic and mathematics of my new "scientific theory" all defined, and it seems to be solid science.  Now I'm working on the part of the paper where I try to describe some of the implications of the theory, i,e., how does the theory affect cosmology as it is taught and accepted today.  That is where it really gets "mind boggling," not because it requires such a big change in thinking, but because it requires me to explain things I never thought about much before.

For example, I've known for decades that the red-shift is used to determine the velocity of distant galaxies as they move away from us due to the expansion of the universe resulting from the Big Bang.  But, the red-shift doesn't work the way it is commonly described.  For example, here's what it says on Wikipedia:

A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth.     
A red-shift doesn't just occur when a light source moves away from an observer, as the first sentence above states.  It occurs when the distance increases between the light source and the observer.  That means it also occurs when the observer is moving away from the light source, which is presumably included in the second sentence above. 

That seems to mean that if a distant galaxy is "moving away from us" at a million miles per hour, half of that velocity may be due to us moving away from the other galaxy.  Or it may be more than half.  How do astronomers determine who is moving how fast?  The answer may be simple, but it's a question I've never thought about before, and as a result, I'm not sure how to determine the "implications" of my new theory on such calculations.

Last week, two people were booted out of the Time and Time Dilation Facebook group to which I belong.  One was booted out because he wanted to preach Christianity to us.  The other was booted out because she wanted to preach her philosophical beliefs to us.  Neither one was interested in Time or Time Dilation. That leaves only 4 people in the group.  A friend created the group with the idea that we'd get a lot of people together who are interested in science, so that I could bounce ideas about my theories off of them.  The problem is finding people who are interested in such things.  Both of the people who were booted out had asked to join, but they evidently only asked to join so they could try to convert us to their religious and philosophical beliefs. 

I had tried going through various science-related Facebook groups to see if I could find people who might be interested in discussing Time and Time Dilation, but it seems I have to check out about fifty people to find just one who might be interested.  And from any ten who I figure might be interested, only one or two might actually join the group. Who has the time for that when I'm supposed to be writing my new scientific paper?  But, the group was created before I ever thought about this latest paper.  So, when my new paper is finished, then I might have the time to hunt down people who might want to discuss it.  Maybe they'll be able to tell me where I am mistaken.  If I'm not mistaken, maybe they'll spread the word to get others to read it. Or maybe I'll learn for myself that I'm mistaken before I ever finish the paper. 

Time will tell.

Comments for Friday, July 1, 2016, thru Saturday, July 9, 2016:

July 3, 2016 - Uh oh.  This is another one of those occasions when I have absolutely nothing ready for my Sunday comment.  So, everything I'm writing here is being written from scratch.  All I have to start with is a note I made yesterday, when I read this during lunch:
Theorists are always saying something. That’s their job. They don’t need to believe what they’re saying. The theorist’s goal isn’t to be right but to be reasonable—to make an internally consistent argument that observers can then go out and reinforce or disprove. For their part, observers regard theorists with patience and exasperation, like a dog that’s always depositing gifts at their feet: a stick, a squeaky toy, a dead bird. Often these offerings just lie there. But once in a while the observers will throw them a bone. Go fetch.
That is a passage I highlighted in "The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality," the science book I've been reading on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch for the past several weeks. The fact that I read those words right after finishing the blog description of my "Theory of Everything" was kind of spooky.  I certainly have no way of proving that my "Theory of Everything" is right.  I just thought it was a "reasonable" description of how black holes and dark matter seem to work.  And I'm hoping that some "observer" (or some "expert" on such matters) will throw me a bone and explain to me where I am wrong -- or right.  I'm ready to fetch.

I've also been hoping that the book will get better.  I now see that some on-line reviewers of "The 4%  Universe" have the same problem I'm having.  The book is too much about scientists and not enough about science.  The quoted paragraph appears in a long, long argument over attempts to define a number, a number that determines if the universe will expanding forever or if it will stop expanding and collapse due to gravity.  The various scientists in the book are trying to define the number by using a different number they assume to be valid regarding a specific type of supernova.  If that type of supernova can be used as a measuring stick, then they believe they'll be able to determine whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

The Amazon web page for "The 4% Universe" contains these questions and answers between the author, Richard Panek, and some unnamed person who interviewed Panek about his book:

Panek: In the 1990s, two independent teams of astronomers set out to discover the fate of the universe. They knew the universe was born in a big bang and has been expanding ever since. Now they wanted to know how much the mutual gravitation among all this matter—dark or otherwise—was affecting the expansion of the universe. Enough to slow it down so that the universe would eventually grind to a halt, then collapse on itself? Or just enough that the expansion would grind to a halt and stay there? In 1998 the two teams came to the same conclusion: the expansion of the universe isn’t slowing down at all. In fact, it’s speeding up. And whatever force is counteracting gravity is what they call dark energy.

Q: Do astronomers have any clue as to what dark matter and dark energy might be?

Panek: Yes and no. As for dark matter, they think it might be one of two subatomic particles, but physicists have been looking for these particles for thirty years and still haven’t found them. As for dark energy, they don’t even have an idea of what it might be. They’re still trying to figure out how it behaves. Does it change over space and time or not? If they can answer that question, then they can start to worry about what dark energy is.

Q: If astronomers themselves don’t know what dark matter and dark energy are, why should people believe that they exist?

Panek: Scientists like to quote a saying of Carl Sagan’s: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Many astronomers in the 1970s strongly resisted the idea of dark matter until the evidence became overwhelming. And even the two teams of astronomers that discovered the evidence for dark energy in 1998 resisted the idea until they could no longer come up with another explanation.

The subject of whether some new calculation will fit expectations might make an interesting paragraph in a book about science, but it gets tedious for me when the arguments go on and on in chapter after chapter.  And I have a distinct feeling that I'm not going to accept their conclusion - if or when they eventually come to one.   That's because I have this "idea" that light from a moving object does not travel at the same speed as light from a stationary object. 

It's not a yet "theory."  It's just a question I keep wondering about.  I realize that if a star is moving away from me at 1,000 miles per second, the light from that star will not be coming to me at 185,000 miles per second (the speed of light - 186,000 miles per second - minus 1,000 miles per second).  BUT, if Time has slowed down for that star due to its velocity, doesn't that mean that the light it emits will travel at 186,000 miles per its second, not per my second?

Red shifting of light from an object gives us a clue as to how fast the object is moving away from us.  But it doesn't tell us how fast that specific wave of light was traveling.  As I understand it, we don't seem to have any way to measure the speed of light except for light we create in device right next to us.

This is the first time I've put any of these thoughts down in writing.  And as I'm writing this I'm forcing myself to examine what I'm writing to see if it makes any sense.  I'm not sure if I'm making sense even to myself. 

I guess what I'm driving at is that, if the existence of dark energy is solely determined by computations involving the speed of light, then there could be a major error if the speed of the specific light waves coming from a distant galaxy or supernova are 186,000 miles per its seconds, not per our seconds.  If the light coming from those galaxies and supernovae is coming much slower than we are calculating, then the whole idea of dark energy is baloney.  Dark energy isn't pulling the universe apart; we're just calculating the velocity of distant objects incorrectly due to our inability to measure the velocity of incoming light. 

Moreover, when we measure the velocity of a distant galaxy that is moving away from us, we are not measuring its actual velocity relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred, we're measuring its velocity relative to Earth.

While I'm very tempted to just set "The 4% Universe" aside and start on some other book, I'll probably continue reading "The 4% Universe" with the hope that something will be said that will answer some question I have.

I'm a science buff.  I love science.  And searching for answers to questions is what science is all about.  I have lots of unanswered questions.  And sometimes answers appear in the most unexpected places. 

July 2, 2016 - I didn't really forget my "Theory of Everything" yesterday.  I just didn't have time to think it through and write it down.  I spent this morning writing it down on my interactive blog at this link: "Dormant Black Holes and Dark Matter."  Whether or not I've "thought it through" is still a question.

July 1, 2016 - I awoke this morning thinking I had just figured out a "Theory of Everything."  But, then while shaving, I forgot what it was.

© 2016 by Ed Lake