Archive for
August 2016

Comments for Sunday, August 28, 2016, thru Wednesday, August 31, 2016:

August 31, 2016 - Wow!  I just discovered something that I wouldn't have believed if someone else had told me about it and I hadn't discovered it myself.

It appears I have to learn a typesetter programming language in order to submit papers to many different "specialized scientific journals."  The program you need is called "RevTEX 4.1," but it is spelled with the second E printed lower than the other letters.  Here's part of some instructions for submitting an article:
As the articles for the [magazine] will be available online in diff erent formats – one of these is full-text-searchable hyper-text – we strongly suggest you strictly obey the LATEX conventions.

The [magazine] document class was derived from the LATEX2" article.cls based on TEX version 3.141 and LATEX2". You may use it with the LaTeX engine or the pdfLATEX engine. Be sure that the LaTeX version is at least the 2007 version. Hence formulas and text are typed using the standard LATEX2" commands. The standard sectioning commands are also kept. Using aa.cls with other versions or implementations may cause difficulties. If this is the case, please contact us and we will try to help you.
But that's not how many of the words actually look in the instructions.  Here are how the phrases highlighted above in red actually look:
LATEX code descriptions
I wasn't aware of any of this as I went through the various steps to submit my article to one of the journals.   One of the very last steps was to submit your pdf file or files.  Then it unexpectedly asked for two different pdf files, the first in 1-column RevTEX format for readers and viewers, and the other in 2-column RevTEX format for printing.  Huh?

I turns out that the pdf files have to be as they would look if they were already typeset and printed in the journal.  The headings and sub-headings have to be in the right print format, and so do pictures and charts and mathematical formulas and everything else. 

I decided to look around for another "specialized journal" that might be better suited for my article.  I found one that seemed perfect, but it, too, requires that articles be submitted in RevTEX format.

Further reading and research showed me that this is the format used on the print archive.  It's similar to the archive where I put my pdf articles, except for the fact that on, the files look typeset and ready for printing.  (Click HERE for an example.)  Interestingly, and are both owned and run by Cornell University.

I learn something new every day.  And it now looks like I'm going to have to learn how to use RevTEX 4.1.  The problem with that is: The instructions seem to assume that you already know all the basics.  I don't.   Groan!

There's a sample RevTEX coded article at the link HERE.  Here's some of what it looks like:


\title{Introduction to \LaTeX}
\author{Harvey Gould}
\affiliation{Clark University, Department of Physics, Worcester, MA 01610}
\affiliation{Boston University, Department of Physics, Boston, MA 02215}

\date{16 June 2013}

We give a brief introduction to the use of \LaTeX\ in the context of 
REVTeX~4.1. \end{abstract} \maketitle \section{Introduction} \LaTeX\ looks more difficult than it is. It is almost as easy as $\pi$. See how easy it is to make special symbols such as $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$,
One positive note:  This should make an interesting chapter in the book about all this that I'm planning to write some day.

CRAP!!!!!  I downloaded RevTEX 4.1 and then discovered that it can't do anything without some other "required" packages that must also be downloaded.  It's going to take me some time to figure it all out.  As I said, all the instructions seem to assume that you already know something I do not know.

August 30, 2016 (B) - I just received a rejection email from the science journal that was reviewing my article on Time Dilated Light.  They wrote:
It is [our] policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in [our magazine]. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.
That doesn't seem to be a form letter response.  It seems like they are actually trying to be helpful.

A specialist journal?  What science journal specializes in the subjects of light and time dilation?  I guess I'll have to do some research.

Aargh!!  The first search I performed found a Frontiers in Psychology paper titled "Time dilation induced by object motion is based on spatiotopic but not retinotopic positions."  It says time dilation is just an illusion.  However, it is clearly about some kind of psychological issue, not about physics.

Still searching .....

August 30, 2016 (A) - I awoke this morning thinking I should go back and modify my Sunday "A" comment to make it less confrontational and insulting.  I just did so.  I removed all uses of the word "crap" and replaced it with "nonsense."  I also added a comment about how Professor Greene interrupted his course several times to explain to his students that if what he was saying didn't seem to make any sense, they should take the mathematics-based version of the course.  Then it would make sense.

Sure.  Why not?  In mathematics, apparently, "garbage in, garbage out" is perfectly acceptable.  The only thing that is important is that the math works.

August 29, 2016 - Hmm.  My "B" comment yesterday got me interested in "light clocks," so I researched the subject a bit this morning.  I found a video that has so many screwball things wrong with it that I won't bother to list them.

What was more interesting to me was the first comment following the video.  It was posted a year ago by "Galileo Galilei," who makes several interesting points, some correct, some incorrect.

If a light clock is moving in the same direction light is moving, instead of perpendicular to the movement of the light, the mirrors will not move out of the way.  However, a light clock moving that way will also not show velocity Time Dilation.  But if you add acceleration, it will show the equivalent of gravitational Time Dilation.     

More interesting than that, is the valid point he makes in this part of his comment:
Albert Einstein also stated that time dilation can be due to an increase of gravity (according to General Relativity). It is evident, however, that a stationary light clock would measure the same time on Jupiter’s surface as it was placed on Earth’s surface (despite the stronger gravity of Jupiter). In both cases, the photon or light beam moves up and down in a vertical direction (perpendicular to the planet surface) at the same constant speed.
He's right.  A light clock that uses a universal fixed speed of light would tick at the same rate on Jupiter as it would on Earth or in empty space. That would disprove Einstein's theory of general relativity.  According to Einstein, it should tick more slowly on Jupiter where the gravity is stronger, as any other type of clock would.
It's another example to show that the way physics is being taught in schools today is wrong and can be proven wrong.  And it also helps (a little bit) to confirm my theory.

August 28, 2016 (B) - Hmm.  I learn something new every day.  This morning, in an argument about Time Dilated Light on my "Time and Time Dilation" Facebook group, I wanted to illustrate that moving a mirror will not magically cause the light bouncing off the mirror to follow along - as Professor Greene implied in his physics course (see my "A" comment).  I found this image:

                            versus moving mirrors 

It was on a web page titled "The Sagnac Effect: Does it Contradict Relativity?"  The article on the page begins with this:
A number of authors have suggested that the Sagnac effect contradicts the original postulates of Special Relativity, since the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light is violated in rotating systems.
So, naturally I had to research "the Sagnac effect."  What I found was that the Sagnac effect does indeed cause problems with Special Relativity IF you interpret Special Relativity the way most scientists seem to do, as stating or proving that "the speed of light is a universal constant."

If you interpret Special Relativity the way I do, that the speed of light is determined by the time dilation factors affecting the atom that emitted the light, the Sagnac effect is no problem.  It seems to explain the Sagnac effect very nicely.

It also makes me wish I had included a comment to that effect in my paper on Time Dilated Light.  It would be a good attention getter.

August 28, 2016 (A) - The "change in tactics" that I attempted on Wednesday is still pending.  Essentially, the change was to write a different kind of article about Time Dilated Light, an article intended for the "general reader."  It would only explain the problem, not the solution.  The "problem" is that the speed of light is being incorrectly viewed by mathematicians as a "universal constant," a fixed speed per second.  Meanwhile, scientists are demonstrating that the length of a second is different everywhere, depending upon your altitude and velocity.  I submitted the short article (just 3 pages) to a popular science magazine, and I'm awaiting a response.  As it turns out, the person who reviews such proposed articles was on vacation last week, but he is expected to return tomorrow.  And, as it also turns out, I know a reporter who works for the company that owns the magazine.  That might make it a little more difficult to simply ignore my article.

On Friday, I decided that there would be no harm in also submitting the article to another "peer-reviewed" science journal.  I created a new version of the article, shortening it by 1 page to 7 pages, and I changed a few things to hopefully get the point across at the very beginning that my paper agrees with Einstein.  I am not disputing Einstein.  I removed everything about Einstein's theory being "principled" while mine is "constructive," since that can easily be misinterpreted to imply that I was disputing Einstein.  I submitted the article on Friday.  (The new version will not be placed on

Meanwhile, I've been thinking more about writing a book with a title something like "Time Dilated Light - The Forbidden Theory." I'll undoubtedly have to self-publish it, but I'm now an expert on self-publishing, so that won't be a problem.  And, it will be many months before it is ready, so I'll have plenty of time to try the peer review route at least one more time if the current attempt is rejected, and I'll have time to submit the "popular science" article elsewhere, if the people who currently have it reject it. 

When I did research to find out where the whole subject of Time Dilated Light first came to me, I found that the first mention I ever made of "Time Dilation" was on my old web site, in a comment I wrote on March 16, 2014.  Here it is:


March 16, 2014 (B) - Wow!  I did a LOT of very heavy thinking last week.  It kept me from just sitting around waiting for a response to my query letters to literary agents. 

I completed the course on
Space, Time & Einstein at the site.  The basic principles of time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light are very familiar to me and required learning nothing new.  I think I fully understand them.  Here's one of the comments I wrote explaining my view of time dilation:

I think I understand time dilation okay. If I'm on a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light, where time is slowed down to 1/10th what it is back on earth, everything will still SEEM normal aboard the ship. The clock will seem to keep normal time. I'll still need a haircut every month (more or less). If a woman aboard gets pregnant, she'll still have a 9 month gestation period.

AND, if I had a magical "simultaneous viewer" device aboard that could show me the eastern horizon back on earth as it was happening at MY time rate, I'd see the sun rise every 2 hours and 24 minutes.

AND, if the people back on earth also had a magical "simultaneous viewer," the parents of the pregnant woman aboard would have to wait 90 months for the child to gestate and be born. And, if they could see the clock we have aboard the spaceship, they'd see it was moving at 1/10th the rate of the clocks they have.

However, there was one video (Module #8) that contained a section that was really puzzling for me, and, evidently, also very puzzling for a lot of other students.  So, I played it over and over until I could spot the exact sentence where Professor Greene lost me.  Then I looked at all the comments by the other students to see if any of them could clarify anything.  (My outdated computer software prevents me from getting any direct feedback from Professor Greene.)  Eventually, I realized the problem was all the result of a confusing choice of words used by Prof. Greene.  Am I right?  I dunno.  But, I've finished the only course I see of interest.  I'll just check the student comments from time to time to see if anyone clarifies anything further for me. 

A week later, I created a web page titled "Time Dilation - As I Understand It."

But, yesterday I couldn't recall exactly what it was about Professor Brian Greene's lecture on "The Reality of Past, Present and Future" (Module #8) that bothered me so much.  So, I watched part of that lecture over again.

I soon realized what it was that bothered me back then.  Prof. Greene (who teaches at Columbia University in New York City) was breaking time down into "quanta," i.e., into moments like frames of a movie.  And he was viewing time as a mathematician would view time.  Plus, the lecture concludes with Professor Greene saying that, "What this collectively tells us is that the traditional way we think about reality - the present is real, the past is gone, the future is yet to be - that is without any real basis in physics.  What we are really learning from these ideas is that the past, the present and the future are all equally real."

If you believe that, then you can also argue that everything we see may be equally unreal - from a mathematician's point of view.

Looking over the course schedule yesterday, I noticed that Module #3 was titled "The Speed of Light."   So, I watched it again.  Wow!  It's total nonsense!   

class module 3

Professor Greene explains that the fact that the velocity of the light emitting object (when it is coming toward you or going away from you) cannot be added to or subtracted from the speed of light you perceive is proof that the speed of light is a "universal constant."  It proves no such thing!  It is simply proof that the direction an object is moving does not affect the speed of light coming from the object.  I couldn't remember any of that from when I took the course in early 2014.  Evidently, it had no significance to me then.  Now I see it is just plain wrong.

But there was even more nonsense to come.  I then watched the lecture on "Time In Motion" (Module #5), which is about Time Dilation.  In the screen capture below, he is explaining how the stationary clock by his hand runs faster than the moving clock off to his right because light bounces off mirrors more slowly when the mirrors are moving while light is being used to measure time.  It's total nonsense, and it is also a demonstration that has very little to do with Time Dilation or reality! 

class module 5

He was teaching his students that Time Dilation is just "an optical illusion."  He didn't use that term, of course.  He was carefully explaining how a stationary person will view an object as moving while a moving person will view the stationary person as moving. 
Furthermore, it is a totally wrong and silly demonstration.  It's twisting the facts to rationalize a belief!  In reality, light would not bounce at angles between moving mirrors, light would move in a straight line and the mirrors would simply move out of the path of the bouncing light!

It would have been better if Prof. Greene had used the explanation of how a ball is perceived to move if a child on a jet plane tosses it up and down as the plane moves at 500 miles per hour.  The child will see the ball going straight up and straight down, while some imaginary viewer on the ground will see the ball travel in an arc that covers over a thousand feet laterally between the time the ball leaves the boy's hand and the time he catches it again.  It really has nothing to do with Time Dilation, it only has to do with Relativity, and therefore it is the same as saying Time Dilation is just an optical illusion. 

That is where everyone goes wrong!  They do not think of Time Dilation as a real phenomenon all by itself, they only think of it in terms of relativity!

And, it was really bizarre when I watched Module #7, "Time Dilation - Experimental Evidence," in which Prof. Greene explains how Time Dilation has been confirmed by people carrying atomic clocks aboard airplanes, and he explained how muons exist longer when they are traveling faster.  Professor Greene makes absolutely no mention of gravitational time dilation.  Nor does he explain who was the "observer" when the atomic clocks were flown around the world.  He doesn't put 2 and 2 together.

Module #9, which is titled "Time Dilation - Intuitive Explanation," appears to be Professor Greene's personal way of rationalizing how Time Dilation works.  It has nothing to do with reality and is totally laughable.  He has a change in the direction of motion causing the slowing of time.

And Module #12 was the most absurd of all.  It's titled "The Twin Paradox," and it shows how preposterous the explanations can get when they try to rationalize and distort Time Dilation to make it fit mathematical equations.  Prof. Greene uses "fraternal twins," George and Gracie.  While George remains on Earth, Gracie goes off on a space ship to some nearby star and then returns.  That's simple enough, but Prof. Greene then explains how neither twin knows who is really moving.  He has Gracie arguing that her space ship is standing still while George and the planet Earth moved away from her, while George argues just the opposite.  Prof. Greene then explains that George is right because Gracie felt acceleration, which wouldn't happen if she had been standing still.  It's an absolutely silly explanation of Time Dilation.  In what universe would a space traveler think that she was standing still while the planet she just rocketed away from must be moving away from her and then somehow it reversed course to come back to her once again?  It's idiotic!

class module 12

It also shows how mathematicians do not care about logic or reasoning.  They only care about how the math works.  The math says that an astronaut can stand still while the Earth moves away from his rocket, therefore it must be possible. 

At several points in the course, Professor Greene pauses to explain to his students that if what he is saying doesn't seem to make any sense, then they should take the version of his course that focuses on mathematics. 

Yes, why not?  After all, in the world of mathematics "garbage in, garbage out" is totally acceptable if the equation looks clever.  Nothing needs to be logical or make sense if the mathematics work.  Science today is about mathematics, not about logic -- or science.

Since I've completed the course, I could ask some "zinger" questions on the class discussion pages or try to ask Prof. Greene directly.  But, I think I'll delay that until I've found out how my "peer review" science journal paper and my "popular science" magazine article are received by the people that currently have them.  Besides, Prof. Greene is just teaching the same nonsense other physics professors are teaching.  Prof. Greene merely  put his course on the Internet where I could take it and view the lectures over again.  I should be grateful.  It taught me a great deal, but definitely not what Prof. Greene intended to teach.   

Comments for Sunday, August 21, 2016, thru Saturday, August 27, 2016:

August 24, 2016 - Last night, in order to take my mind off the subject of Time Dilated Light, I rented and watched a new movie titled "The Man Who Knew Infinity."  The Rotten Tomatoes movie review site gives it a 62% favorable rating (audiences give it a 78% favorable rating) and describes the movie this way:
"The Man Who Knew Infinity" is the true story of friendship that forever changed mathematics. In 1913, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel), a self-taught Indian mathematics genius, traveled to Trinity College, Cambridge, where over the course of five years, forged a bond with his mentor, the brilliant and eccentric professor, G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons), and fought against prejudice to reveal his mathematic genius to the world.
While I found the movie interesting and certainly worth watching, I couldn't help but scratch my head over the absolute fascination mathematicians have with things that the average person would view as pointless and a waste of time.  Most of the movie involved Ramanujan and Hardy discussing obscure mathematical problems, but once in the movie they actually went through the steps of solving a problem.  It was a problem of how many ways you can add together whole numbers and get an answer of 4.  (1+1+1+1+1=4,  1+2+1=4,  2+2=4, etc.)  All I could do as I watched them go through the steps is wonder: "Who cares?!"

Undoubtedly there was some benefit to what they were doing, but the movie did nothing to explain those benefits.  It just hinted at one point that it helped with calculating ballistic trajectories for cannon fire during World War I. 

What I got out of the movie more than anything else was how terribly Srinivasa Ramanujan was treated at Trinity College because he was not one of "their kind."  He was Indian and from the lower classes.  And yet he was challenging the best mathematical minds at Trinity College.  Harrumph!  Egads!!

Meanwhile, my attempts to get mathematicians and physicists to discuss my paper on "Time Dilated Light" (even though I am not "one of their kind") are undergoing a temporary change in direction and tactics.  I don't know if it is going to work, but I should find out in a week or two. 

August 22, 2016 - When I turned on my computer this morning, there was an email from Science magazine in my inbox.  Here is the entire text of the email:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Time Dilated Light - A Constructive Theory" to Science. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of work that we publish and we are thus not considering it for publication. We appreciate your interest in Science.
It's not the sort of work they publish.  So, I was right when I guessed that that is what "NotSort" meant.

Like the others, they say nothing about whether the theory is valid or invalid.  I'm not sure what I'm going to do next.  I may change tactics.

August 21, 2016 - There's something that has been in the back of my mind for many months, and yesterday morning it finally came forward to where I could see it:

The speed of light has been measured many many times in lab experiments all over the world, and it always comes out the same: 299,792.458 kilometers per second.  Yet, the length of a second is almost certainly different in every one of those places. 
The length of a second differs depending on your location between the poles and the equator, and it differs depending upon elevation.  The problem is:  When they measure the speed of light, they never compare the difference between the length of a second at their location and the length of a second at any other location.  They ignore Time Dilation.  Why?  Apparently, they assume it isn't relevant.  Or they assume that the speed of light is fixed and the difference in the length of a second can be somehow rationalized away.

After doing some research into the science journal that currently has my paper on "Time Dilated Light," I found that I should get some indication within two weeks as to whether they will reject the paper, accept it, or postpone a final decision until after discussing possible revisions, additions and deletions with me.

When I checked the status this morning, I found that it had been assigned to an evaluator (a senior editor), and the status had changed from "Received" to "Under Evaluation."  That was good.  But, then I saw they had also changed the "Article Type" from "Research Article" to "Notsort," whatever that means.  Not sorted?  Not the sort of article we print?  I dunno.  But, it punched a big hole in my confidence.  After doing some new research, it appeared that the journal just prints "peer reviewed" articles for which the author has already gotten all the necessary "peer reviews."  In their instructions for authors, they indicate that they
welcome submissions from "any source."  I then did more research and found a web page that is part of their web site where they clearly say that THEY do peer reviewing.  It's like playing a game where the rules are written in Sanskrit!  

I've stopped discussing the paper on Facebook.  And, I'm not going to try to contact any more scientists about it, until after I hear from the journal that has it.  While arguing about the speed of light on Facebook was truly fascinating, the subject has now become a very serious matter.  I had thought that the paper was at the perfect place for an evaluation, and that I just needed to wait patiently for that evaluation.  Now I don't know whether or not I've once again sent it to the wrong place. 

Meanwhile, whenever I need to drive from place to place around town, I've been listening to DVDs for "A Short History of Nearly Everything," by Bill Bryson.  As I was driving home from the gym on Friday, this part of page 141 of the book was read to me:
The picture that nearly everybody has in mind of an atom is of an electron or two flying around a nucleus, like planets orbiting a sun.  This image was created in 1904, based on little more than clever guesswork, by a Japanese physicist named Hantaro Nagaoka.  It is completely wrong, but durable just the same.  As Isaac Asimov liked to note, it inspired generations of science fiction writers to create stories of worlds within worlds, in which atoms became tiny inhabited solar systems or our solar system turns out to be merely a mote in some larger scheme.  Even now CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, uses Nagaoka's image as a logo on its website.  In fact, as physicists were soon to realize, electrons are not like orbiting planets at all, but more like the blades of a spinning fan, managing to fill every bit of space in their orbits simultaneously (but without the crucial difference that the blades of a fan only seem to be everywhere at once; electrons are.) 
What the f...?  I never heard of electrons being described that way before.  And that's all that part of the book says about it.  Electrons are like fan blades??? 

So, yesterday, when I got to this point in writing this comment, I did a Google search for "electrons are like fan blades" (without quote marks).  The first link Google provided was to an Ask Yahoo! source which begins by citing Bryson's book and doesn't add much to it.  The next source I found just says:
In some ways, rapidly moving fan blades are similar to electrons moving about the nucleus of an atom. Like fan blades, electrons move very quickly and we can never tell exactly where they are.
Okay, so they are supposedly more like rapidly moving fan blades than orbiting planets just because they move so fast that you cannot see where they are at any given moment.  I still prefer the orbiting planet model, since the planets are not physically attached to the nucleus, and fan blades cannot change orbits, while I can visualize a planet-like electron changing orbit instantly when it adds or loses energy.   Besides, reading further into that source, I find that the fan blade analogy is a creation of Quantum Mechanics.  So, it is a model that fits better with unthinking mathematics than with logic, imagination and visualization. 

When I heard the passage about fan blades, I immediately tried visualizing spinning lightning-bolt-like fan blades and I tried to figure out how they can control time.  I couldn't   But now I know I can just stick with visualizing the orbits of electrons getting distorted and stretched by velocity and gravity, and I can just forget about fan blades. 

I keep expecting to find something that will totally shoot down my Time Dilated Light theory.  What I'm finding instead is that Time Dilated Light might shoot down some bogus Quantum Mechanical mathematical constructs.

Time will tell.

Comments for Sunday, August 14, 2016, thru Saturday, August 20, 2016:

August 18, 2016 (C) - Okay.  While I was working out at the gym this afternoon, I thought of a good way to find the "right" peer reviewed scientific journal to submit my paper to.  When I checked that journal out after getting home, I found it was absolutely perfect.  So, I immediately submitted it.  Interestingly, it is not some obscure journal like General Relativity and Gravitation.  It is at least as well known as the last magazine I tried, probably a lot more so. 

So, they now have the latest version of "Time Dilated Light" with all the improvements and just 8 pages in length, instead of the 11 pages I sent to the previous magazine.  And they provide a way to watch the progress of my paper through the "system," which is another indicator that it is a "peer reviewed" journal.    

Fingers crossed.

August 18, 2016 (B) - Hmm.  I just received a response from the magazine to which I'd submitted my "Time Dilated Light" paper last month.  Here is what they wrote:

We appreciate receiving the article proposal that you sent to Physics Today, titled “Time-Dilated Light (A Constructive Theory of Relativity).”  A committee of our editors recently met to discuss several article proposals that we had received, including yours. The committee determined that it does not meet our editorial needs at this time.

 As a magazine, we do not generally publish original research results.  We feel that such work is best evaluated through the peer-review system of archival research journals. You might consider pursuing that route.

 Thank you for your understanding and for your interest in Physics Today.

So, they say nothing about the validity of my findings.  They just say I submitted it to the wrong place.  It's not the type of paper they publish.  Shit!!  I thought they were a peer reviewed journal.  Now it looks like I'll have to try figuring out which journal would be best for submission.  I'll try asking the physicist to whom I sent an email about it this morning.

August 18, 2016 (A) - I spent most of yesterday arguing with a mathematician on my "Time and Time Dilation" Facebook group.  I tried to get him to discuss our disagreements in a step by step manner to see if we could find the exact point where we disagree, but he would keep changing the subject or simply declare his opinions.  Then he said something I hadn't expected:
for the last last and last time. you cannot use logic here>
experiments and observations agree with the theoretical calculations. what else you want?
Wow!  I had found another mathematician who argues against using logic!  I was, of course reminded the argument from a different mathematician on the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group that I mentioned in my July 28 comment:
"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!"
It appears what they are really saying is that they unshakably believe their math is correct, and they cannot be persuaded by any reasoning or logic, only by someone showing them where their math is incorrect. The problem is: Their math isn't incorrect.  Their understanding of what the math represents is incorrect.

The guy on my Facebook group kept arguing that I was claiming that Einstein was wrong, and I kept telling him I was arguing with his beliefs, not with Einstein.  He repeatedly declared that the whole universe would collapse if the speed of light was not a "universal constant."  Here's one quote:

"I don't know if the term 'constant' means anything to you.  It's like the constant PI(3,1435...), without it this universe will not exist."
I explained that it appeared that my paper primarily affects calculations for the expansion of the universe and probably calculations for Dark Energy.  It doesn't affect day-to-day physics.  Of course, I could be wrong about that.  It might affect areas of physics I know very little about, like Quantum Mechanics.

The conversation ended with the guy refusing to discuss anything with me any further.  But, he was back again this morning to argue that he is not being "closed minded" when he refuses to listen to "crap."

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for some sign that the scientific journal that has my paper will actually comment on it, instead of just rejecting it for some format or procedural reason.   I'm seeing a surge in visitors to my interactive blog page on the topic.   I'm not sure what period of time "23 page views" represents, but I think I can safely assume it is better than no "page views," which was the situation until a couple days ago.  I'm also seeing an increase in the number of people who view my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  This is what the statistics look like this morning: > Edward G. Lake

Edward G. Lake

[3] viXra:1607.0289 replaced on 2016-08-08 09:46:18, (58 unique-IP downloads)

Time Dilated Light

Authors: Edward G. Lake
Category: Astrophysics

[2] viXra:1602.0281 replaced on 2016-04-19 09:39:42, (97 unique-IP downloads)

What is Time?

Authors: Edward G. Lake
Category: Astrophysics

[1] viXra:1505.0234 submitted on 2015-05-31 15:49:09, (79 unique-IP downloads)

Time Dilation Re-visualized

Authors: Edward G. Lake
Category: Astrophysics

58 "unique-IP downloads" certainly isn't a large number for a paper that has been available since July 18, exactly one month.  But, when I see 5 people view it on Monday and I know 5 people viewed it the previous Monday, I think it's safe to assume that "unique-IP downloads" means they weren't the same 5 people.

I haven't contacted any physicists this week.  (Of course, within an hour of typing those words I sent an email to a physicist at a nearby university.)  I keep thinking that they might be on vacation, so I should wait until after Labor Day.  However, yesterday I did start a new thread on the "Astrophysics and Physics" Facebook group.  I used this cartoon I created:

time dilation argument

So far, there have been no comments.  But it got two "likes," whatever that means.

August 17, 2016 - Facebook discussions about my Time Dilated Light theory seemed very interesting yesterday, but today ... not so much. The mathematician I'm arguing with has declared "if you ever calculate something going faster than light it only means one thing. you made a mistake."  He has resorted to arguing opinions instead of facts and evidence.

In a thread on my Facebook group "Time and Time Dilation," he argued that if a second changes length with altitude and velocity, then the length of a kilometer must also change in order for the speed of light to remain a "universal constant" at 299,792.458 kilometer per second.  I tried to get him to explain how the length of a kilometer can change with altitude, and he started talking about curved space and time being real and part of "spacetime." And, thus, he believes somehow a kilometer shortens because it is curved by spacetime. 

I told him "spacetime" isn't real.  It's just a metaphor or a mathematical model.  Nothing actually bends.  I've stated that before in similar arguments, but this time I did Google searches to see if anyone agrees with me.  I found two places in agreement.  The first says,

Have you ever heard the term “spacetime” thrown around in various science articles around the web?  Just what exactly is “spacetime” and how does it relate to standard theories about space? I think Wiki manages a rather good description of this odd substance, so let’s start there.  Wiki defines spacetime as:

spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the ‘fourth dimension’. By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels…In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.

From this summary we get the clear picture that spacetime is a purely mathematical construct used to build mathematical models.  In physical reality, there is no such thing as a substance called spacetime.  This important fact is often overlooked when scientific theories are presented to the public.

Unfortunately, the source is not exactly reliable, and there are other things in the article that I may not agree with. 

Another source says,

1.- spacetime is just a mathematical model that's useful for predicting the interaction of mass-energy 2.- it has no independent existence of its own and without mass or energy there would be no meaningful concept of spacetime 3.- when we talk about spacetime being curved we are just talking about properties of the theoretical 4-dimensional manifold we use to determine what path light rays will follow, particles will fall etc.

1.- spacetime is just a mathematical model that's useful for predicting the interaction of mass-energy 2.- it has no independent existence of its own and without mass or energy there would be no meaningful concept of spacetime 3.- when we talk about spacetime being curved we are just talking about properties of the theoretical 4-dimensional manifold we use to determine what path light rays will follow, particles will fall etc.

1.- spacetime is just a mathematical model that's useful for predicting the interaction of mass-energy

2.- it has no independent existence of its own and without mass or energy there would be no meaningful concept of spacetime

3.- when we talk about spacetime being curved we are just talking about properties of the theoretical 4-dimensional manifold we use to determine what path light rays will follow, particles will fall etc.

However, that is just an opinion on a science blog.  Others on the blog agree, but there are mathematicians who do not agree.  So, it boils down to an argument over what the word "real" means.  I hate arguments over word definitions!

In another thread on my Facebook group, I was trying to calculate the difference in the speed of light between light emitted at the surface of the earth and light emitted 10 meters above the surface.  Back on August 3, someone had provided a link to a gravitational time dilation calculator program which I've been trying to understand ever since.  Yesterday, I briefly thought I was understanding it. 

The calculator is HERE.  Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any explanations or instructions to go with it.  What is the difference between "time in rest frame" and "time seen by stationary observer"?  The calculator supposedly calculates the difference, but it's the difference between what and what?  To me, "time in rest frame" and "time seen by stationary observer" are the same thing.  "Rest" = "stationary."

And what does "radius" signify?  I assumed it represented the surface of the Earth as zero so I could calculate the length of a second above or below the surface by plunking in a positive or negative number.  Since I was looking for the length of a second 10 meters above the surface, I replaced "12 km" with "-.01 km", and it gave me a "time seen by stationary observer" of 0.999782 seconds.  That looked like it might be a meaningful number, but then someone else on the group said they plunked in 22 km (which was assumed to represent 22 kilometers below the Earth's surface), and they got "Radius lies within the Schwarzchild radius" as the answer.  So, the calculator wasn't calculating what we wanted to calculate.

In my paper on "Time Dilated Light," I provide velocity time dilation numbers for how fast light would travel if emitted from an object moving at 10% of the speed of light, and I just say that similar calculations can be done for gravitational time dilation.  I would have liked to provide some actual calculated numbers for gravitational time dilation, but it seems any calculations would involve an imaginary point 6,353 kilometers from the center of the Earth, and then some imaginary point higher than that.  Since the Earth is not a perfect sphere, and 6,353 km probably represents some point above the surface at the poles and below the surface at the equator.  It seems that the only way to have truly meaningful numbers is to put an atomic clock on some surface and another 10 meters above that surface, as I describe in the latest version of my paper, then measure the speed of light at those two points.  

It's difficult to imagine why no one has done that.  

August 16, 2016 - This morning, someone brought to my attention a conspiracy theory that I don't recall ever hearing about before (even though I tracked conspiracy theories for over a decade following 9/11), but which is apparently prevalent enough for scientists to take action to debunk the theory.  The email I received contained a link to a New York Times article from yesterday titled "Scientists Just Say No to ‘Chemtrails’ Conspiracy Theory."  The article begins with this:

Conspiracy theories can be stubborn, particularly in the echo chamber of the internet.

One persistent belief in some quarters is that the government — or business, perhaps — is deploying a fleet of jet aircraft to spray chemicals into the sky to control the population, food supply or other things.

As evidence, they point to what they call “chemtrails,” which are more commonly known as contrails, or condensation trails, produced at high altitudes as water vapor in jet engine exhaust condenses and freezes.

The paper the scientists produced to debunk the conspiracy theory can be viewed by clicking HERE.  (Interestingly, it is published in an "open access" journal, which confirms that there is a definite value to such journals.)

The email I received also contained a link to a conspiracy theorist web site.  Just click HERE to view it.

What the email and research into that conspiracy theory did for me was cause me to break focus for awhile, i.e., to stop thinking about Time Dilated Light and to think about something else.  Yesterday and this morning, I've been arguing with a mathematician on my own Facebook group "Time and Time Dilation."  Click HERE to go to the specific discussion thread.  It looks like it's going to be another thread I'll have to make a copy of and save for posterity.  It's a continuation of a thread HERE that was started on July 11, the day I published the first version of "Time Dilated Light."
When scientists work on a project, they save all their notes and documents so they prove and show how and when they came up with their findings -- if necessary.  My "findings" about Time Dilated Light resulted mostly from arguments on Facebook.  Looking over some of them, it's like looking at a trial transcript.  They show how I started by thinking one thing and then realizing I was wrong and changing my mind.  (Example, I first thought that time dilated light from stars would be traveling faster than light is measured here on Earth.  Then I realized it would be traveling slower.)  The discussions also show how I produced my first paper on "Time Dilated Light" and then almost immediately withdrew it because I learned something new that I thought was important and disproved something I had written.  Then I realized the new information was NOT important.  But, it was too late.  The paper was already withdrawn.  So, I had to publish version #2 as a totally new paper.

If I had the time, I could probably track down the discussions from a couple years ago which first caused me to think about Time Dilation and how to stop people from constantly talking about imaginary space ships in an imaginary universe and to try to get them to talk about REAL demonstrations of REAL time dilation in our REAL world.  Those discussions would really show how messy things were as I looked for what was really happening in a world where people just want to talk about theoretical happenings in an imaginary universe.  Those discussions with anti-science theorists may be of no interest to anyone else, but I find them fascinating.  And they were the start of it all.       

August 15, 2016 - I awoke this morning with the realization that I've been going about my "discussions" with physicists and mathematicians the wrong way.  I've been going straight to the final argument, when I should have started with the first point of contention.  It's the basic logic for resolving arguments: Break the argument down into pieces, and discuss each piece to see where the disagreement appears.  When you find a specific disagreement, define it and see if that one specific disagreement can be resolved.  If it can be resolved, then go on to the next specific disagreement, and then the next, and the next, instead of arguing everything all at once.  If it can't be resolved, figure out why and see if agreement can be reached on why there can be no agreement.  

I should begin by asking if they accept Einstein's theories about Time Dilation as being real, and if they know that those theories have been repeatedly confirmed.

There's no point in continuing with any discussion if they do not accept Time Dilation as being real.  In my discussions with them, they are always vague and evasive on the subject, only accepting that in one "frame of reference" time will "appear" to pass at one rate while in another "frame of reference" time will "appear" to pass at a different rate.  It seems they cannot accept that anyone can see both "frames of reference" at the same time.  It seems such a situation cannot be defined as a mathematical equation, therefore it they feel it is not possible.

If we cannot get past that first step, there is no point in going to the next step, which would be to see if they can accept that, when time runs faster at the top of a mountain than it does at the bottom of the mountain, that means that a second is shorter at the top of the mountain than it is at the bottom of the mountain.  They have to understand and accept that before we can move on to the third step.  If they somehow believe that a "second" is defined by their personal wrist watch and not by any theory from Albert Einstein or by any scientific tests, then there is no point in continuing on to the third step.

The third step is to see if they can answer this question:  If a second is shorter at the top of a mountain than at the bottom of the mountain, which "second" do you use when measuring the speed of light in kilometers per second?

I see that Sabine Hossenfelder did indeed ignore my questions and delete them.  On her blog this morning, she started a new thread titled "The Philosophy of Modern Cosmology," which seems to offer an opening for a pointed question about Time Dilation.  This time, if I post there, I'll save a copy of what I posted, so if she ignores it and just deletes it, I'll have a copy of what she deleted.  I failed to make a copy of the previous posts I made there.

Live and learn.  

August 14, 2016 - Last week was another week mostly spent waiting for some physicist or astrophysicist somewhere to discuss Time Dilated Light with me.  Finally, yesterday, I received an email from one of the world's top astrophysicists.  On August 9, I had emailed him to ask this question:
Velocity and gravitational Time Dilation have also been demonstrated with GPS satellites. So, we know time dilation is "real," not just some mathematical curiosity. A second is actually longer when you are moving than when stationary, and a second is actually shorter at the top of a mountain than at the bottom of the mountain.

My question: Won't light travel faster at the top of the mountain than at the bottom of the mountain, since light is measured as speed per second, and a second is shorter at the top of the mountain?
The full answer I received yesterday was as follows:
No. Light travels at precisely the same speed everywhere.
Unfortunately I am so overwhelmed that I’m not able to
carry out email correspondence about this.
So, his answer is just a robot's answer: "Light travels at precisely the same speed everywhere."  He doesn't address the fact that the length of a second is different virtually everywhere.  And therefore, if you are measuring "speed per second" anywhere, the speed of light must be different virtually everywhere.  
The answer is an opinion, not a fact, and it cuts off any discussion.  I suspect it was sent by one of his assistants.  I received the same kind of "robot" answer to a different question I asked about a year ago.  

Yesterday, a reader of this web site made an interesting suggestion.  He suggested I pay a physicist to talk with me.  And he provided a link to a web site where physicists are available to talk at the rate of $50 per 20 minutes.  Just click HERE to visit their home page.  The physicist operating the site and blog is Sabine Hossenfelder.  When I prowled through her site, I found she also has an interactive blog where she discusses her own favorite science topics for free.  Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to be the right physicist to discuss my questions.  A thread she created on August 2 is titled "Math Blind."  In that thread she says,
Yes, mathematics is an entirely self-referential language. That’s the very reason why it’s so useful. Complaining that math isn’t about some thing is like complaining that paint isn’t an image – and even [commentor Andrew] Hacker concedes that math can be used to describe much of the world. For most scientists the discussion stops at this point. The verdict in my filter bubble in unanimous: mathematics is the language of nature, and if schools teach one thing, that’s what they should teach.
But most importantly, you need math to understand what it even means to understand. The only real truths are mathematical truths, and so proving theorems is the only way to learn how to lead watertight arguments. That doesn’t mean that math teaches you how to lead successful arguments, in the sense of convincing someone. But it teaches you how to lead correct arguments. And that skill should be worth something, even if Hacker might complain that the arguments are about nothing.
Nevertheless, I ended up posting a comment to her most recent blog thread titled "The Unbearable Lightness of Philosophy."  As of this morning, I see she has let through a bunch of comments that were posted after I posted my comment.  She may be pondering my comment, but it seems more likely that she just deleted it because she didn't have the time to think about a response.  I'll keep checking for a day or two to see if she does let my comment through and respond to it. 

While looking for examples of screwball arguments from mathematicians, I found a paper titled "The Irksomeness Of Einstein’s Special Theory Of relativity" and an article titled "Einstein’s Mistaken Time Dilation Prediction."  The article says,
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.
Evidently, like so many mathematicians I've encountered, the author cannot visualize time dilation in two "frames of reference" that can be seen by one "observer."  The two clocks are moving relative to the Earth spinning on its axis, not relative to one another.  He evidently cannot convert that basic situation to a mathematical equation.  It's the same problem I've been having with physicists and mathematicians who are unable to comprehend one "observer" watching time pass at different rates when there are two clocks at different heights relative to the center of the Earth.  They cannot make a mathematical equation out of that, so they believe it is impossible.

Every day in every way I become more and more certain that my theory of "Time Dilated Light" is correct.  However, sometimes my confidence gets a jolt when I find something that seems to explain time dilation issues in a different way, and I have to ask myself: Does this affect my theory?   For example, while looking for the papers I recalled reading about Einstein's theory being false, I found this question and answer on
Does time run slower on the equator than at the poles?

There is a effect from things whizzing in circles because of the earth's rotation, and although it's quite small, of order 1.4E-11, it's well within the precision of modern atomic clocks.

Unfortunately you can't detect it by comparing a clock at the equator to a clock at one at the poles because there's an effect of exactly the same size but opposite sign due to the fact that the earth is distorted into an Oblate spheroid due to centrifugal force and the equator is 22 km further from the centre of the earth than the poles. That is, the poles are lower in the earth's gravitational potential and so are subject to Gravitational time dilation. (It's not a coincidence that this happens - in the frame rotating with the earth, centrifugal force is equivalent to gravity according to the Equivalence principle and has the same effect on clocks. And the earth, being only semi-solid, sloshes around until the combined effective gravitational+centrifugal potential is even over the surface.)
The problem is: At first I couldn't tell if the answer really addressed the issue of velocity time dilation.  It seemed to say that the gravitational time dilation is offset by centrifugal force.  Yet, the question is about velocity time dilation.  I finally came to the conclusion that he's saying that gravitational time dilation is the same at the equator as it is a the poles because of centrifugal forces, and he simply didn't understand that the question was actually about velocity time dilation, not about gravitational time dilation.   

So, unless I discover that I'm misunderstanding something, I'll leave my paper the way it is until I see some clear reason to change it.

One last comment for today:  Yesterday, I received an email from Stephen J. Crothers.  The email contained nothing but this statement: "The mathematical foundations of LIGO are fatally flawed" and a link to his latest paper which attacks the LIGO gravitational wave findings.  It's the first time he's ever emailed me.  Our only previous contact was in arguments on various "Rational Science" Facebook groups where I shot down his unscientific beliefs.  He must have somehow tracked down my newsguy email address.  What's most interesting about that is that I am just one of about 50 people to whom he sent the email.  He also sent the email to a bunch of people at the University of Amsterdam and Leiden University in the Netherlands, another bunch of people at the Argonne National Laboratory, Fermilab, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and another big bunch of people at the University of Chicago.  And then there is me and one other person without such prestigious email addresses.  I wonder what the other guy did to get such attention.   

Glancing through the 32 page paper, I see a lot of mathematics.  LIGO isn't something I'm interested in at the moment, so I'll have to do as others are doing to me, put off reading the paper until I get some free time.

Arguing with mathematicians is very much like arguing with conspiracy theorists and True Believers.  They believe they have the "true" answers to everything, and their faith in their deductive ability seems unshakable.  With mathematicians, it is math that they believe in, not some nutty personal theory they worked out.  I find the psychology of it absolutely fascinating.  I'm tracking down Facebook threads where I argued with mathematicians while developing my theory of Time Dilated Light.  I want to study them to see if I can find some way to get through their fixed beliefs.  If I can, maybe I'll start some new arguments.   I could go on and on with examples of such arguments, but I think I'll save them for some later comment.  Or maybe someday I'll put them in a book.

Comments for Sunday, August 7, 2016, thru Saturday, August 13, 2016:

August 12, 2016 - Hmm.  I just had to correct a mistake Stephen Hawking made.  Someone brought this video to my attention:

The link is HERE.  At about the 3:50 mark, the voice says that at 99% of the speed of light, 1 day on a space ship going that fast will be 1 year back on earth.  That is incorrect.  At 99% of the speed of light, 1 day on the space ship will only be 7 days back on Earth.  That's according to the time dilation calculator found HERE.  Just plunk in a relative velocity of 296794.53342 km/s, press EXECUTE and the calculator will show you that 1 second on the space ship would be equal to 7.0888120500834 seconds for the observer on Earth.

So, either the video is wrong or the calculator is wrong.  I added a comment to that effect after the video.

I also checked out a different calculator, the one found HERE. It gives the same answers.  And it tells me that I have to travel at 99.999624693694% the speed of light, or 299791.33286 kilometers per second, in order for one second for me to 365 seconds for someone back on Earth.

August 10, 2016 - I still haven't been able to make contact with any physicist or astrophysicist who is willing to discuss my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  I suppose it could be because it's August and everyone is on vacation somewhere in the mountains where it is cool.  But I think it may be because they don't know what to say.  They certainly wouldn't accept what the paper says without a LOT of thought.  I doubt that they can make a good argument against it that isn't just mathematical hogwash.  They may not have the time.

Meanwhile, I've been looking around for another science journal to send the paper to if the one that currently has it rejects it because it doesn't have enough mathematical equations.  I checked out a magazine I subscribed to for many many years, Scientific American, but they don't really publish science papers.  They publish articles about science.  While checking them out, I found an article from September 2014 titled "Einstein's 'Time Dilation' Prediction Verified."  The paper begins with this:

Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.

The article says that the tests were "the culmination of 15 years of work."  And, yet all they did was "verify" what was already known from other tests.  They just did it with greater accuracy.

Searching around, I found some other articles, too:
How Time Flies: Ultraprecise Clock Rates Vary with Tiny Differences in Speed and Elevation
Does time dilation destroy quantum superposition?

New Quantum Theory Could Explain the Flow of Time

Exactly what is ... Time?
The articles do not contain anything that challenges my theory, but they do seem to make time a lot more complicated that my paper says it actually is.   The papers also contain names of physicists who are interested in Time Dilation, and who I might try to contact if my most recent attempts prove fruitless.  I might try two or three a week until I get some kind of answer.

August 9, 2016 - Hmm.  There are hackers in Carrollton, Texas, who seem to be trying to hack into my web site nearly every day.  I wondered if anyone else had noticed them, and I did a Google search for "Carrollton, TX hackers."  I found that "Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator v8 (CHFI) Classes" are being taught in Carrollton, TX.   I wondered if there is any connection.  

There are also hackers in Provo, UT, trying to hack into my web site almost as often.  I did a Google search for "Provo, UT hackers" and, sure enough, I found that there is a "Provo Ethical Hacker Training & Courses" hacker school there.

And there's a third place where hackers seem to be trying to hack into my web site a little less often: Scottsdale, AZ.  Sure enough, there is a hacker club near there, "The Phoenix, Arizona Network of Hackers."  Scottsdale is a 25 minute drive from Phoenix.

It seems like I should be doing something about it.  I set up a blocking routine on my old site years ago.  It's still in place.  I suppose I could do the same for  I've forgotten exactly how to set things up.  When I get some free time I may look into it.  The hackers are trying to hack into my web site host's computer, not mine.  But, when I checked the first two web sites, they did some kind of chat connection to ask what questions I had.  That could mean they have some data about my home computer now, too, even though I didn't respond.

August 8, 2016 - It's another Monday, and I've produced another version of my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  I submitted the paper to at 9:46 a.m. CDT this morning, and it was accepted and available for viewing at 10:09 a.m., 23 minutes later.  That's a record.  Usually, it takes a few hours.

This new version of the paper is 8 pages long, instead of the 11 pages for the prior four versions.  Mostly I just trimmed out unnecessary comments about what impact the paper may have.  Plus, I changed the subtitle from "A Constructive Theory of Relativity" to simply "A Constructive Theory."  That was done to avoid any implication that I was producing a new Theory of Relativity.

I also sent an email to a top physicist to ask his opinion on the paper.  I got his name and email address off of a scientific paper about time dilation.  And I'm contemplating sending another such email to a top astrophysicist.  The problem is: I tried contacting that astrophysicist once before, about a year ago when I had a question about cryostasis ("stopping time" by freezing), and I ended up exchanging emails with an assistant who could only spout mathematical blather about "frames of reference."

Just for the hell of it, I posted a question to Dr. Michio Kaku on his Facebook page.  It's in the "Visitor Posts" section on the right side of the page.

August 7, 2016 - Last week was another fascination-filled week.  I still haven't been able to find any astrophysicist who will discuss my "Time Dilated Light" paper with me.  But, I've only tried one (who hasn't responded), and last week I got leads to many others I can try.

Yesterday morning I awoke thinking that mathematicians are like an infectious disease crippling science and scientific understanding.  It's probably not that bad, but I keep encountering them trying to covert the world to their belief that mathematics IS science and science is meaningless without mathematics. 

And Time Dilation seems to be a key area of disagreement.  To real scientists, Time Dilation is real.  But mathematicians cannot seem to think of it as anything other than an illusion.  On the "Quantum Physics" Facebook group, my alter ego, Ralph Maggio, is trying to get some mathematics-oriented physicists to use that word - "illusion" - when describing Time Dilation.  (I'm not only banned from that group, I'm also blocked from even seeing the discussions.)

In one discussion, a person who claims to be a physicist stated that without mathematics, science "
would be philosophy or something."

In another discussion, a mathematician argued, "Math comes first not science - we learn by experiment the specific mathematics that we are, but we know which one came first." 

I decipher that to mean that experiments do provide data, but the math really comes first, i.e, the experiments are done to get data for mathematicians.

In another discussion the mathematician argued that "The point of GR [General Relativity] is to PREDICT, what is happening THERE based on what we see NOW, HERE."  Ralph and I have argued that science is about explaining, not about predicting, but they seem to be really believe that the main purpose of science is to predict.

In another discussion, a mathematician argued, "No one has unbridled access to nature. It is necessary to describe our observations with some kind of mathematical model."

This morning, one mathematician/physicist asked, "Yeah, a clock speeds up when it is raised RELATIVE TO WHAT?" and another argued, "NIST is writing for a popular, non-technical audience."  Ralph's responses are polite and devastating.

When Ralph and I argue with them, we sometimes use a quote from Carver Mead in his American Spectator interview:
"Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with mathematics--it's the language we use to express the precise relations of physical law. But there is an increasing tendency to mistake the language for the physics itself. Once we lose the conceptual foundations, the whole thing becomes a shell game."
That seems to hit the nail on the head.  Mathematician are arguing that their "language" is physics itself.  And we argue that math is not physics.  It is only a tool that physicists use.  But mathematicians seem to hate that description.  They want to be the center of things, not just experts specializing in some "tool." 

Yesterday, Ralph Maggio tried to get two mathematician/physicists to explain themselves.  The argument is far too long to repeat here.  To read what Ralph wrote and how the mathematician/physicists replied, click HERE.  I just added their bizarre responses to Ralph's response.  The link goes to a point near the end of the discussion.  There's a lot more available for reading higher in the page.  (While I'm blocked from viewing the discussion, Ralph is sending me copies, which I reformatted and uploaded to the link.)

Here's part of an article describing Carver Mead's thoughts regarding how mathematicians seem to have ground scientific investigation to a halt:

Einstein, of course, was mightily influenced by what the ex–patent clerk called Mach's Principle, which Mead explained as the proposition that "the inertia of every element of matter is due to its interaction with all the other elements of matter in the universe."

We haven't fully followed that investigative road, Mead said. "Instead what we've done is we've treated isolated objects as if all their attributes were just given us, and [we] haven't asked where they came from," he said. "Things like the inertia of an object, the rest energy of an object, the velocity of light — all those things. We have a list of fundamental constants that we're not allowed to ask where they come from."

If we want to get that stalled 100-year-old revolution unstuck, Mead said, we've got to ask – and discover – where those constants come from, and not just believe in them as handed down by academics and buried in mountains of math. We need to discover their basis in the interactions and interrelationships of all matter in the universe.

And that, of course, is exactly what I'm doing.  I'm asking where the supposed "universal constant" for the speed of light came from.  And mathematicians are telling me I'm not allowed to ask that question, apparently because the answer might require them to do their math all over again if their assumptions were wrong.

I've got the feeling that others are also working on something similar to my paper, perhaps just proving that the speed of light varies according to the principles of time dilation, without getting into exactly how it works.  I found a copy of the scientific paper by scientists at the the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published in Science Magazine and titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity."  They're testing both gravitational and velocity Time Dilation, and it would seem that the next logical step would certainly be to compare the speed of light at two different heights.  The paper begins with this:
Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity forced us to alter our concepts of reality. One of the more startling outcomes of the theory is that we have to give up our notions of simultaneity.  This is manifest in the so-called twin paradox (1), in which a twin sibling who travels on a fast-moving rocket ship returns home younger than the other twin. This “time dilation” can be quantified by comparing the tick rates of identical clocks that accompany the traveler and the stationary observer. Another consequence of Einstein’s theory is that clocks run more slowly near massive objects. In the range of speeds and length scales encountered in our daily life, relativistic effects are extremely small. For example, if two identical clocks are separated vertically by 1 km near the surface of Earth, the higher clock emits about three more second-ticks than the lower one in a million years.
The paper was published in September 2010, but that last sentence nicely fits with what I wrote in early versions of my paper about comparing clocks at the "mile high city" of Denver and at New York. 

Everything seems to confirm what my paper says.  No one has yet given me any intelligent reason why it might be incorrect.  I could just wait for the science journal that has it to "peer review" it, but I also want to improve the paper while I'm waiting.  And the best way to do that is to discuss it with astrophysicists and physicists who are not locked into viewing the world and the universe as a set of mathematical equations that cannot be violated or disputed.  Plus, while there might be rules against submitting a paper to more than one scientific journal at a time, there are no rules preventing me from trying to contact several physicists and astrophysicists at the same time. 

Besides, there are signs that people are reading my papers.  Last week I had a small surge in readers of the copies of my papers on  And even more interestingly, in the past couple days had 5 people read the copies that are on, where I had only 1 reader in the 4 previous months.

Comments for Monday, August 1, 2016, thru Saturday, August 6, 2016:

August 5, 2016 - I awoke this morning thinking I should once again revise my paper on "Time Dilated Light." 

First, I should change the subtitle from the current "A Constructive Theory of Relativity" back to the original "Emission Theory Recalculated."  The current subtitle might imply that I'm creating a new "Theory of Relativity" instead of just reinterpreting one small part of Einstein's theories.

Second, I should strip out all the stuff where I explain how the theory does not change a lot of what is currently believed about the nature of the universe.  That stuff is not important and just adds to the length of the paper.

My first try at trimming the paper resulted in eliminating 3 pages.  It was 11 pages, so, it is now 8 pages.  I'll let it set for a few days and then go over it again.  

August 3, 2016 -While driving around doing errands this afternoon, I finished listening to the 10th and last CD for the science book "This Explains Everything - Deep, Beautiful, and Elegant Theories of How the World Works."  

This explains everything

It's a collection of short articles about all types of science, and I highly recommend it.

While stopped at a stop light, I pulled out CD #10 for that book and I inserted CD #1 for another book titled "A Short History of Nearly Everything," by Bill Bryson.  I thought it was going to a history book, and it is, but it seems it's really more of a science book, or a history of science.  I'm not sure.  I'm only about 25 minutes into it.  But, it really grabbed my interest when the author talked about being frustrated with science writers who think that everything about science can be described as a mathematical formula.  Those are the kinds of people I've been arguing with for weeks!  I was delighted to have the author seem as frustrated as I am with such people.

Meanwhile, someone asked to join my Facebook Group "Time and Time Dilation."  He's not a scientist, but when I mentioned that I was looking for a way to compute the length of a second at ground level and at a point 10 meters above ground level, he quickly provided a link:{   At first it looked to be about velocity time dilation, and I already had a calculator for that.  But, he told me to click on the blue letters in "Use gravitational time dilation instead."  I did that, and that took me to another calculator that still wasn't what I wanted.  But there was another blue link to take me to yet another calculator.  And that one seemed to be what I was looking for.  The newcomer to my group then explained a few other things, which I'll have to think about for a bit.  But, it looks like it might provide what I need.  Time will tell.  For some unknown reason, the link to the calculator that seems to be what I want looks like this:{%22FS%22}+-%3E+{{%22TimeDilationGravitational%22,+%22t%22}}&rawformassumption=%22FSelect%22+-%3E+{{%22TimeDilationGravitational%22}}&rawformassumption={%22F%22,+%22TimeDilationGravitational%22,+%22to%22}+-%3E%221+s%22&rawformassumption={%22F%22,+%22TimeDilationGravitational%22,+%22g%22}+-%3E%222%C3%9710^11+g%22&rawformassumption={%22F%22,+%22TimeDilationGravitational%22,+%22r%22}+-%3E%2212+km%22&rawformassumption={%22FVarOpt%22}+-%3E+{{%22TimeDilationGravitational%22,+%22M%22}}
What the f....?  I've never seen a link like that before.  It's another one of life's mysteries, I guess.

August 1, 2016 - I just uploaded an updated version of my paper on "Time Dilated Light."  The newest version can be viewed by clicking on this link:  The biggest change was to the second to the last paragraph.  That paragraph previously suggesting proving the theory by using clocks and equipment for measuring the speed of light in two locations, New York and Denver.  The new version of that paragraph says,
A gravitation-based validation of this Constructive Time Dilated Light Theory can be accomplished by measuring the speed of light vertically, instead of parallel to the Earth’s surface as is commonly done.  All that is required is for someone to use an atomic clock to measure both the speed of light and the length of a second at ground level, bouncing the light off a mirror 10 meters directly above the emitter.  Then to do the reverse, i.e., use an atomic clock to measure both the speed of light and the length of a second at a high point, bouncing the light off a mirror 10 meters directly below the emitter.  If done with two sets of equipment side by side, the light that is emitted from the higher point should travel faster than the light that is emitted from the lower point, thereby sending light “faster than the speed of light” as it is typically measured.  We already know that it has been repeatedly proven that atomic clocks will show that the length of a second is different at those different heights.
And, of course, as soon as I "published" that new version of my paper, I found something that I should probably be included in the paper somewhere:
The second (abbreviation, s or sec) is the Standard International ( SI ) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
Ah well, there'll probably be more things that should be mentioned.  I can always create a FIFTH version next Monday.

© 2016 by Ed Lake