Archive for
October 2016

Comments for Sunday, October 30, 2016, thru Monday, October 31, 2016:

October 31, 2016 - I don't know if it will work for everyone, but I was sent a link to a Newsweek article titled "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders" that is definitely worth reading.  Here's the opening paragraph:
Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records.
It's a very long article that describes in detail what is normally only seen in crime movies, where corporate lawyers play every legal (and illegal) game in the book in order to avoid complying with court orders.  They destroy records, they lie, and they make false accusations against their accusers.  It's all done to confuse and delay things until the people filing lawsuits against Trump and his companies just give up and settle the cases.  The corporate lawyers are on the Trump payroll, so they can delay things for years and years and it costs Trump nothing. 

What it shows is some background for "the game" Donald Trump is currently playing to get what he wants - to be President of the US:  Lie, cheat, steal, throw up smoke screens, and sidetrack the issues.  It's all part of "the game."

October 30, 2016 - I'm still in the situation best described by the cartoon I created months ago:

time dilation with two clocks in one
                  frame of reference
I don't know how to get anyone to discuss the simple fact that if you have two atomic clocks in front of you, one atop the other, the lower clock will tick at a slower rate than the upper clock due to gravitational time dilation.  People can accept the theory, but they cannot accept the reality.  When talking about the theory, they can happily babble mindlessly and endlessly about curved space and time and how it all fits together.  But when talking about reality, they become hostile and cannot accept what is visible right in front of them.  They'll just argue that it is a "trick," or one of the clocks is simply malfunctioning.  And, of course, they won't even attempt to answer any questions such as, "What is time if it ticks at a different rate at different heights?"

I've been searching the Internet looking for someone who views Time and Time Dilation the same way I do.  Yesterday, I spent a couple hours browsing through two of Lee Smolin's books to see if there was anything in them that might help me figure out why no one seems to be willing to discuss what might be the biggest question in science today: What is Time if gravity and motion can cause it to run faster or slower?

The first book by Dr. Smolin that attracted my attention yesterday was "The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next."  Like other physics books I've recently read, it obviously argues that String Theory is a waste of time and resources, and that we need to take a look at the state of science today to see if it is really valid "science" or if it is  only about playing logic and mathematical "games" which prove nothing.   However, I have a problem with Dr. Smolin's writing style.  For me, he never seems to get straight to the point.  Instead, he always seems to wander into all kinds of side issues before making a point that is as clear as mud. 

Browsing through "The Trouble with Physics," I found some interesting passages and some interesting topics, but there was nothing that grabbed my interest and made me want to sit down and read the book.  Moreover, I did a "Search inside this book" for the word "dilation" and got zero results.  Time dilation is really what is of most interest to me right now.   

The other book by Dr. Smolin, "Time Reborn," poses some interesting questions and makes some interesting statements, but it all seems to lead nowhere - or to some jumble of an idea that Dr. Smolin doesn't fully explain.  In the past, I've tried reading some of his papers, but I just got lost in the technical jargon.  "Time Reborn" was supposedly written for the "general reader," but I couldn't find anything in it that really grabbed my interest.  Instead, I found stuff like this:
I used to believe in the essential unreality of time.  Indeed, I went into physics because as an adolescent I yearned to exchange the time-bound, human world, which I saw as ugly and inhospitable, for a world of pure, timeless truth.  Later in life, I discovered that it was pretty nice to be human and the need for transcendent escape faded.

More to the point, I no longer believe that time is unreal.  In fact, I have swung to the opposite view: Not only is time real but nothing we know or experience gets closer to the heart of nature than the reality of time.
It's a lot of words, but it says nothing.  Another passage:
Much of this book sets out the scientific argument for believing in the reality of time. If you are one of the many who believe that time is
an illusion, I aim to change your mind. If you already believe time is real, I hope to give you better reasons for your belief.
Same thing.  Just words that tell me nothing of value.  The topic is of interest to me, but there's nothing of interest in what is being said about the topic.

The book's "Introduction" starts with this:
The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable.  That is why the consequences of adopting the view that time is real are revolutionary.
Is the "scientific case for time being an illusion" really "formidable"?  What are the components of this "scientific case"?  I went to the chapter that is supposed to be about this, and found it begins with a lengthy description of how Greek philosophers believed that "Nature loves to hide," which is why we have to dig deep to figure things out.  Then Dr. Smolin gets into how and why things fall, and how all falling objects trace a parabolic curve, and yada yada yada.  The sample pages from the book end without any "hook" to grab my interest.  And, he certainly does not answer any questions I have.

Worst of all: I did a "Search inside this book" for the word "dilation" and got ZERO results.   How can anyone write a book about Time without mentioning Time Dilation?  How can anyone argue that "time is real" without using Time Dilation as evidence of Time being real?  Whatever Lee Smolin's answer is, I could find no indication that it would be an answer of interest to me.  So, there's no reason for me to pay good money to buy his books if there seems to be no hope of finding anything of value in the books.

It's becoming more and more clear that I'm just going to have to give up on finding someone who views Time and Time dilation the way I do and the way the evidence tells me Einstein did.  There also seems no hope of finding someone who can intelligently explain to me why my understandings of Time and Time dilation are incorrect.  Their arguments all boil down to the same nonsense: "You need to study what I studied, learn what I learned, and then you will believe what I believe."

Getting published is still the immediate goal.  My paper on "Time Dilation Without Relativity" hasn't been submitted anywhere.  Understanding Time Dilation without Relativity still seems the key to understanding everything else.  I'm going to have to revise the paper again to see if I can present my case in a more clear and undeniable way.  Then we'll see what happens.

Meanwhile, I'm setting my DVR to record a "binge" of 13 episodes from season 1 of "77 Sunset Strip" that are scheduled to be broadcast on the "Decades" cable channel starting on November 11.   The TV series originally started airing in October of 1958.  I think I very much enjoyed watching it back then.  Will it still be interesting and watchable in 2016?  I dunno.  But it costs nothing to record the 13 episodes in the "binge," and if the first few shows turn out to be hopelessly dated or otherwise unwatchable, it will cost nothing to delete them.

Comments for Sunday, October 23, 2016, thru Saturday, October 29, 2016:

October 26, 2016 - Groan!  I'm sitting here at my computer trying to think of something interesting to write about.  Instead, all I can think about is how I just want to sit in front of my TV and watch some old episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise.  I also cannot focus on revising my paper on Time Dilation Without Relativity.  Maybe it's the weather.  It's rainy, gloomy, overcast and nasty outside. Yeah.  Watch TV.  That's what I need to do.  It doesn't require thinking.  And, right now I just do not have the energy to think - or even to try to think.

October 23, 2016 - While eating breakfast on Friday, I thought I was about 75% finished reading a book I have on my Kindle titled "Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth."  I clicked to go to the next page and found that I'd actually finished the book.  The last 25% is just endnotes, the bibliography and the index.  

Farewell to
                      Reality by Jim Baggott

The book was written by Jim Baggott, a scientist with a doctorate in chemical physics who is evidently best known as a science writer.  I quoted from the book quite a bit in my October 2 comment, when I was only 17% done.  The file of quotes I saved from the book is now 21 pages long.  The author wrote a lot of things with which I would tend to agree, but he also says a few things with which I do not f
ully agree.  And sometimes we are in total disagreement.

I had hoped the book would clarify some things for me.  That is the general reason I read science books.  But, instead, it clarified nothing.  Here's a quote:
In shaping his special theory of relativity, Einstein established two fundamental principles. The first, which became known as the principle of relativity, asserts that observers who find themselves in states of relative motion at different (but constant) speeds must observe precisely the same fundamental laws of physics. This seems perfectly reasonable. For example, if an observer on earth makes a measurement to test Maxwell’s equations and compares the result with that of another observer making the same measurement on board a distant spaceship moving away from the earth at high speed, then the conclusions from both sets of observations must be the same. There cannot be one set of Maxwell’s equations for one observer and another set for space travellers. We can turn this on its head. If the laws of physics are the same for all observers, then there is no measurement we can make which will tell us which observer is moving relative to the other. To all intents and purposes, the observer in the spaceship may actually be stationary, and it is the observer on earth who is moving away at high speed.
While I have no problem with the first part of that quote, which is a summary of Einstein's theories, I have a BIG problem with section I highlighted in red.  While the laws of physics may be the same for all observers, there is no law that says an observer must imagine himself to be in a totally empty universe where nothing is happening other than the experiment he is working on.  That appears to be a requirement of the author's (and many others') beliefs about Relativity. 

Here's another quote where the author says the same thing in a different way:
The principle of relativity demands that the laws of physics must be the same irrespective of the relative motion of the observer, and you cannot use physics to tell whether it is you or the passenger who is in motion.
Where would the section in red be true?  Only in an imaginary totally empty universe where nothing is happening other than the experiment being worked on.

How are the laws of physics changed if I can plainly see that the passenger is the one who is moving and that he is confirming that we knew what we were doing when we spent billions developing the space ship and the experiment?   Besides, one of the first things we did when we started the project was to make sure there where no "physicists" working on the project who wouldn't be able to tell if the rocket was taking off or if the earth was moving away from the rocket. Being able to understand the project was a key factor for getting hired onto the project.

The book is frustrating in that the author and I are in full agreement on many topics, and he produces some very nice quotes.  For example:
Now, I don’t wish to underestimate the intellectual capabilities of theoretical physicists, who, I’m sure, are a lot smarter than actuaries, bankers and mortgage lenders. But it does seem to me that if a relatively small number of very smart people in the financial sector can delude themselves in a way that almost brought down the entire world economy, and which four years later still threatens to cause some European countries to default on their sovereign debts, then it’s surely possible that a few theorists can delude themselves about what qualifies as science?
After all, what does it matter if a few theorists decide that it’s okay to indulge in a little self-delusion?
What real harm is done? I believe that damage is being done to the integrity of the scientific enterprise. The damage isn’t always clearly visible and is certainly not always obvious. Fairy-tale physics is like a slowly creeping yet inexorable dry rot. If we don’t look for it, we won’t notice that the foundations are being undermined until the whole structure comes down on our heads. Here are the signs. The fairy-tale theorists have for some time been presenting arguments suggesting that the very definition of science needs to be adapted to accommodate their particular brand of metaphysics. The logic is really rather simple. Developments in theoretical physics have run far ahead of our ability to provide empirical tests. If we hang our definition of science on the Testability Principle, then we have a problem — this stuff clearly isn’t science.
While there are many physicists prepared to take the tellers of fairy tales to task, this is extremely sensitive ground. It is hard to criticize fairy-tale physics without being perceived to be criticizing science as a whole.
Then, when we seemed to be nicely in agreement, he'd write some more of his interpretations of Einstein's theories:
In a bold move touched by genius, he [Einstein] now elevated the constancy of the speed of light to the status of a fundamental principle. Instead of trying to figure out why the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, he simply accepted this as an established fact. He assumed the speed of light to be a universal constant and proceeded to work out the consequences. One immediate consequence is that there can be no such thing as absolute time.  
"There can be no such thing as absolute time?"  Really?  In my reading of Einstein's 1905 paper, although he doesn't use the exact phrase "absolute time," Einstein repeatedly explains that the equivalent to "absolute time" is the time measured in a "stationary system."  All Time is compared to time in a "stationary system" to see how it differs. 

I could go on and on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is that "Farewell to Reality" does a very good job of explaining the status of science today, and how it appears to be in the process of being taken over by "theoretical physicists" who not only have no interest "reality," they do not even believe that there is such a thing as "reality." 
At the same time, the book was a very tedious read for me because it went into too many areas in which I have little interest.  And the book made no attempt to make those areas seem interesting.  It was like going to a lecture on the "Status of Science Today" and finding that 50% of the lecture was about areas where there is absolutely nothing of interest going on, finding that another 40% of the lecture is about the author's bizarre misinterpretations of what science is really about, and finding that only 10% of the lecture is about how there are many many scientists today who have absolutely no interest in the "scientific method" and who believe science is a mathematical game, and the "winner" of "the game" is the scientist who can produce the convoluted mathematical model of the universe which can never be confirmed to be either valid or invalid.  Realty is irrelevant.  So is actual science. 

Comments for Sunday, October 16, 2016, thru Saturday, October 22, 2016:

October 20, 2016 - The library audio book "ASAP Science" I mentioned in Tuesday's comment became available this morning.  I checked it out and found it consisted of only 2 files, about 54 minutes each.  So, it's either an "abridged" version of the book, or someone screwed up somewhere and somehow lost most of the audio files.  Either way, I wasn't something that was my fault, so there's no need for me to wonder about it any further.  I returned the book.

Meanwhile, I think I may have been suffering a bout with the flu for most of the past week.  I totally lost all ambition and spend more daytime hours in the past week watching TV than I've spent in the past six months or more.   Watching TV in the daytime was always something that said "defeat" for me.  It meant I failed to find something interesting to work on.

The Heroes & Icons TV network has been running every episode of every Star Trek series, in order, six days per week, since Sunday July 24.   I have the original Star Trek series and Star Trek: The Next Generation on DVDs, so I set my DVR to record every episode of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise.  And, after I'd accumulated about 30 episodes of each series,  I'd occasionally "binge watch" episodes of Deep Space 9 and Voyager, as many as five in one evening.  On Tuesday, I got caught up.  So, I began binge watching the 68 episodes of Enterprise I'd saved so far.  They only made 98 episodes of Enterprise.  They made 173 episodes of Deep Space 9, and 170 episodes of Voyager.

Most of this is just wasting time, of course.  I should be thinking about how to revise my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" so it will hit home on the important points instead of just explaining what seems obvious.  Or is there something else I should emphasize?  It seems I just need to sit down and study the situation thoroughly.  What is the current attitude toward Time Dilation?  Why can't people talk about Time and Time Dilation except as two different subjects, one just a concept, the other just an illusion resulting from Relativity? 

I feel like someone who is trying to solve a problem in an area where no one admits there is any problem, and where no one will cooperate with anyone who is trying to argue otherwise.  It seems they can see no possibility of positive results from discussions in the area.   And they can easily envision total chaos if the status quo somehow gets disrupted.  

So, whatever I do, it is going to have to be clear and undeniable, while at the same time being non-confrontational.  Maybe I just need to present the clear and undeniable evidence and study how they try to deny it by clouding the issue.

But, I'm afraid I'm not going to accomplish much of anything until I get totally over this case of the flu. 

October 18, 2016 - While I'm continuing to ponder what to do next in getting my papers published, this morning I decided I could also spend a couple hours listening to an audio "book" that had been setting about 1/4th done on my MP3 player for months.  The book is called "ASAP Science" and it was "written" by Mitchell Moffit and Greg Brown.


The audio book to which I listened consisted of just two MP3 files, both of which were less than 60 minutes long.   But then I checked out the print versions and found it consists of 256 pages!  Clearly, one explanation for that is the fact that the print book is mostly cartoons and illustrations.  But, looking through the print book it also seems clear that while I only had 2 files, the full audio book must definitely be  longer - maybe 3-times longer.  So, I put it on "hold" at my library to see if their copy actually has more files in the MP3 version.  It was enjoyable enough to listen to, and I might as well listen to the whole thing.  Besides, I'm curious about what might have happened to cause me to have only 2 files.

October 16, 2016 - I'm still pondering what to do next in my efforts to determine if my "scientific papers" are truly "scientific," or if there is something about Time Dilation and Light that I'm simply misunderstanding.

Without any real scientists to talk with, I can imagine myself talking with an imaginary scientist who has just lifted an atomic clock so that it is six feet above an identical second atomic clock.  The two clocks were observed to be ticking at the same rate when they were side by side, but now it is clear that the lower clock is running slower.

"That once again confirms relativity," the scientist tells me confidently.

"It also confirms Time Dilation," I tell him.

He seems somewhat puzzled.  "How do you mean?"

"The two clocks right in front of us show that time runs slower at floor level than at six feet above floor level."

"But it's only relative."

"What does that mean?" I ask.

"It means it is not real," he replies.  "Time is just running slower for the bottom clock relative to the upper clock."

"True, but that is irrelevant," I tell him.  "What is relative and important is that Time is actually ticking at a different rate at those two locations."

The scientist shakes his head.  "No, no, no.  That is just how things appear in Relativistic situations."

"So, you're telling me that what I'm seeing happening right in front of me isn't really happening?"

"Right!  It's a relativistic illusion!" he declares.

"How do you know that?" I ask.  "How do you know that time isn't simply running at a slower rate for the bottom clock?"

"Because that would make no sense!  Time is just a concept.  A concept cannot run slower and faster depending upon the location!"

"Then maybe Time is not a concept.  If I can see time ticking at different rates right in front of me, the evidence says that time is not just a concept."

He snorts with disbelief.  "If Time is not just a concept, what is Time?"

"It's something that needs to be investigated.  We need to investigate Time to determine why and how it moves at different rates at different heights."

"We already know the answer to that: It moves at different rates at different heights due to Relativity."

"Relativity can't cause Time to move at different rates.   Relativity is just a concept.  It's a human invention.  It's a theory developed to explain how Time can move at different rates in different locations.  Relativity is a theory, and theories do not cause things to happen.  They explain why things happen."

"Not in this case!" the scientist declares.  "In this case, Relativity is causing Time to appear to run slower for the lower clock.", 

"And even though I can see the two clocks are ticking at different rates right in front of me, it isn't really happening because that would meant that Time is ticking at different rates at those two different levels, and time cannot move at different rates because Time is just a concept."

"Right!"  the scientist barks at me.

"Wrong!"  I bark back.  "You are ignoring evidence that is right in front of you because it conflicts with your beliefs.  You believe Time is just a concept, so the evidence cannot be what it appears to be." 

"Right!  It's called an 'optical illusion.'  Or don't you accept the existence of optical illusions?"

"If it's an 'optical illusion,' then demonstrate how it is just an illusion.  Make it go away."

The scientist seems genuinely puzzled.  "What?"

"Make the illusion go away.  Tell me how I can change my perspective so that those two clocks right in front of me will no longer be ticking at different rates.  If I close one eye, will the illusion vanish?  If I move my head from side to side, will that cause the illusion to vanish?"

"No," he responds hesitantly.  "Of course not.  It's not that kind of illusion."

"Then what kind of illusion is it?"

He has to think for a moment but finally replies, "It's an illusion that results from the relativistic bending of time and space."

"So what I'm seeing right in front of me is not real?"


"Then what is real?"  I walk over to the clocks and touch them.  "The clocks certainly seem real to me."

"The clocks are real, but the time they are showing is relative, it is not real."

"Was the time real when they were side by side?"


"But not when one clock was lifted to be six feet higher?"


"Which clock now shows the real time?"

The scientist seems hesitant, but he finally responds.  "The bottom clock."

"Why not the top clock?"

"Because that one was moved to create the illusion that time ticks at a different rates at different levels?"

"So, it wasn't moved to demonstrate Relativity?  It was moved to create an illusion?  


"So, you demonstrated Relativity by creating an illusion?  How does creating an illusion demonstrate anything other than an ability to create illusions?"

Whereupon the scientist gets up and heads for the door declaring, "I don't have time for this!  Time dilation is not real!  Time is just a concept!  If you believe otherwise, you need to develop a theory and try to get it published!  Good luck on that!"  And, he's gone, slamming the door behind him.

So, I've confirmed that even in my imaginary conversations with scientists I can never get anyone to change their mind.   I do not need to develop a new theory, I was just interpreting the data from his demonstration in a way that differs from his beliefs.   He could not explain where I was wrong.  He could only state that he believes that I am wrong ... almost certainly because I am not interpreting Einstein's theories the way all of his friends and colleagues interpret Einstein's theories.

So, which way is the "correct" interpretation?  The facts and evidence from the two clocks ticking at different rates right in front of me say my interpretation is correct. 

And maybe all we need is to have some real clocks demonstrate Time Dilation in an on-going experiment that takes place right in front of everyone who passes by.  You just need two atomic clocks, which reportedly cost about $40,000 apiece.  Three would be better.   Just place them one above the other in some public location and let them run with indicators showing the accumulated differences in time between the three clocks in billionths of a second.  The only question is:  Why isn't that already being done?

The answer seems to be that this is the accepted understanding of Time Dilation:

It turns out that as an object moves with relativistic speeds a "strange" thing seems to happen to its time as observed by "us" the stationary observer (observer in an inertial reference frame). What we see happen is that the "clock" in motion slows down according to our clock, therefore we read two different times. Which time is correct??? well they both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame.
So, what I can see right in front of me is not important if scientists can create an imaginary observer in a different "reference frame" who will see those clocks ticking faster or slower.  That means that the time on the atomic clocks in front of me is not "absolute."   And without an "absolute" time, all time is just "relative," which scientists seem to believe means it is just "an illusion."  And they have no desire to understand how time works if all it does is create "illusions."

Comments for Sunday, October 9, 2016, thru Saturday, October 15, 2016:

October 14, 2016 - Yesterday afternoon, I uploaded my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" to, an archive of scientific papers maintained by Columbia University.  The link:

I could have uploaded it weeks ago, but I don't really know if putting the paper on ViXra is a good thing, or if it can damage one's possibilities for getting published, or if it is the standard, expected thing to do.

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to present the obvious fact that Time Dilation works independently of Relativity to people who may not see it as an "obvious fact" but as "a totally absurd distortion of the facts."

The problem, of course, is that I can't get them to discuss anything.  And I can finding nothing in what they have written in the past that would challenge what I describe in my paper.  All I find is what appears to be misunderstandings of certain implications of Einstein's Theories of Relativity.  But, how does one go about convincing a professional scientist that his life's work involves a serious misunderstanding of how the universe operates?  The current version of "Time Dilation without Relativity" is an attempt to present just the basic undeniable facts.   Maybe there's a better way to do it.  But, until I can think of a better way, the paper is now out there for everyone to read. 

October 13, 2016 - I've got a version of my paper on "Time Dilation without Relativity" all set to submit somewhere, but I'm starting to think I didn't address the issue of Time Dilation in the best way.  And I'm wondering: What is the best way?

While trying to figure that out, I burned a couple library books onto CDs, so that I can listen to them in my car after I finish with the book about the Civil War Navies that I'm currently playing on the car's CD player. 

Mostly, though, I seem to be just sitting in front of my computer staring at it in hopes of getting an idea I about what I should do next.  It's like I got this idea at the back of my brain that isn't showing itself.  What I'm getting instead is hints that I need to do some more thinking about Time Dilation before I start submitting my article.  I need to understand what others think about the subject.  I've got a feeling I'm trying to solve a problem without first fully understanding the problem.  The problems people have with Time Dilation seem to be more psychological than scientific.  Everyone has a different opinion, and they all seem to be True Believers who cannot be swayed by any kind of logic.  I don't know where to begin to try to analyze problem so that I can fully understand it.  Maybe I need to start some arguments on Facebook.  Or maybe I should just watch some TV.  

October 10, 2016 (B) - I don't know how many of seen it, but this video of Robert De Nero giving his opinion about Donald Trump is worth watching:

Supposedly, it was created for a "Get Out the Vote" commercial that was intended to be unbiased.  But evidently Mr. De Niro couldn't see any way to be unbiased about an idiot like Trump.  So, his interview is not part of the final video.

October 10, 2016 (A) - While running errands this afternoon, I finished listening to the last of 15 CDs I burned for the science book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.  Unless I drive an unusual amount in one day, it takes 3 or 4 days to listen to one 75 minute CD.  So, listening to the 15 CDs took at least 45 days.

A short history of nearly

I didn't even know it was a science book when I borrowed it from my local library months ago and burned the 15 CDs.  I thought it was a history book.  It turned out to be a history of science.

And it turned out to be one of the most truly fascinating science books I've ever encountered.  When I was about half done, I bought the paperback version so that I could underline or highlight key passages.  But, I decided that I really need to listen to the entire book again in order to make a mental note of when I should remember a passage so that I can find it in the paper copy and highlight it.  Or maybe I should just read it and highlight the passages as I read them.

While I'm deciding what to do, I moved on to the only remaining book I have on CDs that I haven't yet heard, a history book about the Union and Confederate Navies during the Civil War.  It also appears that before I can borrow another audio book from my local library, I need to figure out how to navigate through their new web site software.  It's totally different from the previous software.  I'd have to do some research to figure out how long it has been since I last downloaded a library book, but it can't be more than a few months.  And the whole world seems to have changed since then.

October 9, 2016 - I've been working on my paper titled "Time Dilation Without Relativity," and I somehow stumbled across an paper titled "Remote atomic clock synchronization via satellites and optical fibers."  I probably found it by doing a search through the files for "atomic clocks."  It's clear I didn't find it by doing the normal search I do for new articles about "time dilation."  The article doesn't contain the word "dilation."

Here is part of the "Introduction" section of the article:
Clock comparisons are one of the essential tasks of international time metrology, e.g. for the harmonization of national standards, for enabling the interoperability between satellite navigation systems, and for the dissemination of time to the public. As an internationally agreed reference the Coordinated Universal Time UTC and, more specific, the underlying International Atomic Time TAI are computed by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) by using data from 391 atomic clocks distributed all over the world in 69 different institutes (as of October 2010). Most of them are National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) (Arias, 2009, Circular T).
So, they are trying to "harmonize" atomic clocks around the world, and yet they make no mention of Time Dilation!  Nor is the world "relativistic" used, and the word "relativity" only occurs in the title of a reference article.  I did a Google search for "International Atomic Time" and found a Wikipedia article on the subject which says,
In the 1970s, it became clear that the clocks participating in TAI were ticking at different rates due to gravitational time dilation, and the combined TAI scale therefore corresponded to an average of the altitudes of the various clocks. Starting from Julian Date 2443144.5 (1 January 1977 00:00:00), corrections were applied to the output of all participating clocks, so that TAI would correspond to proper time at mean sea level (the geoid). Because the clocks had been on average well above sea level, this meant that TAI slowed down, by about one part in a trillion. The former uncorrected time scale continues to be published, under the name EAL (Echelle Atomique Libre, meaning Free Atomic Scale).
Ah!  So, they do adjust for gravitational time dilation, but they simply make no mention of it in the article I found. 

They've got 391 atomic clocks in 69 different locations around the world!  Why isn't this the ultimate test to confirm time dilation?  Instead, they seem to view Time Dilation as just an annoying problem they encountered while trying to establish a time-coordination system for clocks around the world, and they have temporarily fixed the problem by assuming for now that Time Dilation is real. 

In a Wikipedia article on "Terrestrial Time," it says,
In relativistic terms, TT [Terrestrial Time] is described as the proper
time of a clock located on the geoid (essentially mean sea level). However, TT is now actually defined as a coordinate time scale. The redefinition did not quantitatively change TT, but rather made the existing definition more precise. In effect it defined the geoid (mean sea level) in terms of a particular level of gravitational time dilation relative to a notional observer located at infinitely high altitude. 

So, they understand that gravitational time dilation is real and they cope with it by using time as it would theoretically be measured at sea level, instead of trying to deal with actual atomic clocks that are ticking at slightly different rates around the world because none of them are actually at sea level.

I found several other papers that are about time dilation problems encountered when using atomic clocks in different locations.  I just haven't yet had time to study them.  They're just about how time dilation causes them problems with finding an exact time as they try to do some work unrelated to time dilation.
I also found an article titled "The interpretations by experimenters of experiments on ‘time dilation’: 1940 - 1970 circa."  The authors of that article from the year 2000 appear to be two physics professors from the university in Pavia, Italy, which is just south of Milan.  Professors Ilaria Bonizzoni and Giuseppe Giuliani attempt to debunk time dilation by arguing that normal clocks may not keep proper time, and by arguing that atoms are not clocks.  It's a convoluted way of arguing that they simply do not believe in Time Dilation.

This morning, after posting the first version of this Sunday comment, I found another article by Giuseppe Giuliani, one of those two professors from Pavia, Italy.  The article is from 2015 and is titled "Experiment and theory: the case of the Doppler effect for photons."  Again he rants that atoms are not clocks.  Why?  Because "the advent of quantum mechanics forbids any description of atoms as seats of periodic motion of electrons: atoms are not clocks."  And he has other reasons as well.  However, if quantum mechanics has a serious problem with atoms controlling time dilation, then that might explain why mathematicians typically refuse to acknowledge any possibility that Time Dilation is real, and instead they argue that Time Dilation is just an "illusion."  And it seems that answering "What is Time?" might provide the key to finding a "Theory of Everything" that combines Quantum Mechanics with Relativity.   

From my point of view, just about the most important question anyone could ask is: What is Time if it ticks at a slower rate at my feet than at my head, and if it moves slower for my hand when I wave it around than when I hold it still? 

Clearly, Time is something that operates on the atomic and subatomic level.  It is not just a concept!  It is not just an idea!  And, understanding the true nature of time could be the key to a totally new understanding of how the universe works.

Comments for Saturday, October 1, 2016, thru Saturday, October 8, 2016:

October 7, 2016 - Ah! At last I see something worth writing a comment about besides my latest thoughts on Time, Time Dilation and Light.  According to a Newsweek article titled "Hurricane Matthew Truthers Claim the U.S. Government is Hiding Data,"
Residents of Florida nervously awaiting the arrival of Hurricane Matthew might be surprised to learn that for conservative commentator Matt Drudge, the forecasts are yet another example of an Obama administration conspiracy.

Drudge, in his debut as a hurricane truther, tweeted that “The deplorables are starting to wonder if govt has been lying to them about Hurricane Matthew intensity to make exaggerated point on climate,” and “Hurricane Center has monopoly on data. No way of verifying claims.”
It has brought out the inner meteorologist not only in Drudge, but also in Rush Limbaugh. “So with hurricane tracking and hurricane forecasting, I’ve been able to spot where I think they might be playing games because it’s in the interests of the left to have destructive hurricanes because then they can blame it on climate change, which they can continue desperately continue trying to sell,” he said, according to Wonkette.
The Wonkette article is titled "Rush Limbaugh Pretty Sure Liberals Can’t Wait For Hurricane Matthew To Kill Everybody."  It quotes Rush Limbaugh as also saying,
I’ve become an expert in spotting the politics in hurricane tracking and hurricane forecasting. And by that I mean people that work at the — the National Hurricane Center is part of the National Weather Service, which is part of the Commerce Department, which is part of the Obama administration, which by definition has been tainted just like the DOJ has.
Hmm.  Just when it seems there must be some limit to human stupidity, someone goes out past that limit.

October 6, 2016 - I awoke this morning realizing I need to change tactics.  The paper I'm currently working on shouldn't be titled "Time Dilation is Real," as I was previously thinking.  It should be titled "Time Dilation Without Relativity."

When scientists perform experiments which confirm that Time Dilation is "real," the article titles are "Optical Clocks and Relativity" and "Relativity passes new test of time."  The experiments are viewed as confirming the principles of Special and General Relativity, which is fine.  However, many (possibly most) scientists seem to interpret Relativity as meaning that what you see is not necessarily real.  It is just what you see or experience in your "frame of reference," which will be very different in a different "frame of reference."

So, when I talk about how those experiments show that Time Dilation is Real, what mathematician physicists interpret that to mean is that Relativistic Time Dilation has been confirmed, and that confirms what they have always believed: that Time Dilation is just "relative" and is NOT real.

In the paper titled "Time Dilation Re-Visualized" I wrote early last year, I tried to eliminate Relativity from the topic of Time Dilation by using only one clock, a pulsar.

That is still a good illustration.  However, I understand the problem better now.  And what is really needed is for people to discuss having two or more clocks ticking at different rates is "one frame of reference" right here on planet Earth.  I created a cartoon about that situation months ago:

time dilation with two
                  clocks in one frame of reference
And when scientists "confirm" Relativity by raising a single atomic clock to a different height and noting that in the higher position the clock ticks at a faster rate, they shouldn't stop the experiment at that point, as they have been doing.  They also need confirm Time Dilation by doing the same experiment with two atomic clocks and leaving the two clocks to continue ticking at their different rates.

Better yet, they should stack a series of atomic clocks on shelves one above the other in order to show that the experiment works with multiple clocks at different levels, like so:
time dilation
                  verification clock setup
The second clock at the bottom and top would further verify that the experiment isn't some kind of fluke.  Those clocks would tick at the same rate as the clocks beside them.  And the mathematical explanations should be available nearby to show that the amount of Time Dilation shown by each clock is in accordance with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. 

The key point being made is that Time Dilation works without Relativity.  If a single "observer" can see all six of those clocks ticking in accordance with Gravitational Time Dilation, they can also see that Relativity is not a factor in Time Dilation.  In other words, Time Dilation has been confirmed to be REAL, and it is time to move on to the next question:  What IS Time if it passes at different rates in front of a single observer?  It certainly isn't just a "concept."  Concepts to not slow down when they get closer to the center of the Earth.    

October 5, 2016 - I spent part of this morning browsing through the passages I highlighted while reading Alexander Unzicker's book, "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century." 

Einstein's Lost Key

His basic theory (i.e., "the best idea of the 20th century") seems to be that the speed of light varies with its proximity to gravitational forces, which means that older light is traveling much slower than newly created light because older light has been constantly slowed down by gravitational forces over the ages.  Which also means that the universe is not expanding, it just seems that way because the farther away the source of light is, the slower that light is traveling when it reaches our telescopes and red-shift measuring equipment.

And, if you disagree with his theory, he doesn't care.  Here's what he wrote on page 216 of his 236 page book:

Incidentally, this is not the place to give an all-encompassing review of existing tests of gravity. Of course, there are impressive observations in astrophysics that are in line with the geometrical formulation of general relativity from which standard cosmology emerged. The fact that some of these observations may go unmentioned here is certainly a good opportunity for malevolent reviewers of this book to bemoan the missing mention of a certain experiment (incidentally, from one’s own institute), to allege the author is unaware of it, and to conclude that the arguments made in the book are flawed.

I would like to share a bit of scientific logic with those people: confirmations of the established theory are nice, but they do not reconcile contradictions that have appeared elsewhere. Moreover, they do not say anything about the viability of an alternative that is based on simpler concepts.
So, I see no value in sending him an email to challenge his beliefs, much less to see if he has any thoughts about my theory.  However, reading his book made me aware of Einstein's 1911 paper titled "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light" and particularly section 3 of that paper, "Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field."  And I also found and downloaded free copies of Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory," his 1919 paper "What is the Theory of Relativity," his 1922 book "The Meaning of Relativity," and his 1954 book "Ideas and Opinions." I don't know if I'll ever read any of the books, but it's nice to have them in case I need to clarify a point as I plod ahead with getting my own theory into print.

For example, this is a passage from page 2 of "What is the Theory of Relativity":
The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light).
The section highlighted in red would seem to argue that light "always has a definite velocity" as it spreads (propagates) through the universe and is not slowed down by age.

My immediate chore at hand is to finish reading
"Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth" by Jim Baggott.  It's slow going, since the book frequently wanders into areas which are of little or no interest to me, such as particle physics and Quantum Theory.

I'm doing all this because I find the subject of Time Dilation to be fascinating and largely misunderstood (and/or disbelieved), even though it has been repeatedly confirmed.  That a tough-enough subject to evaluate and clarify without getting pulled into unrelated areas.

I don't know if anyone is reading this web site anymore, other than a few people who still seem to check in to see if I'll write some more comments about the anthrax attacks of 2001.  But, the writing of these comments helps me clarify my thoughts, and it should provide a good reference to the sequence of events if and when I ever get around to writing a book about all this.

So, if I'm boring you, I apologize. 

October 4, 2016 - This morning I finished reading "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century," a self-published book by a retired German scientist named Alexander Unzicker.  At the bottom of page 55 and into page 56 I found this passage:
Galileo had understood that the laws of nature do not depend on the motion of an observer, and Einstein applied this insight to the speed of light, c.  He realized that c did not depend on the observer: the beam coming out of the headlight of a moving train has always the same speed, irrespective of whether it is observed from the platform or from the train itself.  Einstein understood this and built a consistent theory by focusing on the fundamental meaning of c.
This is very similar to what I discussed with the guy at the major scientific institution last week, and which I wrote about in my October 1 comment.

I don't really disagree with it, but it seems clear it is being misinterpreted by some people. Yes, "the beam coming out of the headlight of a moving train has [...] the same speed, irrespective of whether it is observed from the platform or from the train itself."

HOWEVER, I don't like the word "always."  I agree that light always travels at the speed at which it was emitted, but the use of the word "always" in this context includes the potential for misinterpretation

Light is emitted and always travels at "the speed of light."  Therefore, a photon emitted from the train's headlight will not be affected by the speed of the emitter (the train) or by any observer.  The photon will always travel at the "speed of light" whether the train is moving or not and regardless of how many thousands of observers are in motion around the train. 
And, any stationary observer in the vicinity will observe the photon coming toward him at the speed of light. 

However, if an observer on the train could somehow magically observe the photon traveling away from him, he would not observe the photon going away from him at the "speed of light" of 299,792.458 kilometers per second.  That would require the light to travel at the speed of light plus the speed of the train so that the relative speed is 299,792.458 kps.  If there was some way for the observer on the train to measure the both the actual and the observed or relative speed of that photon, he would find that the photon's actual speed (relative to a stationary object) is 299,792.458 kps, while it's speed relative to the observer on the train is the speed of light minus the speed of the train. 

And what about the situation where the observer is moving toward the source of the light?  That was the situation I discussed last week.  That situation had the observer on the rotating earth moving toward a laser light beam that had bounced off a reflector that was on the relatively stationary moon.  The light that bounced off the reflector would definitely travel at "the speed of light" relative to a stationary object.  But the observer on the Earth was not stationary.  He was moving toward the incoming light.  Therefore the observer's speed must be added to the speed of the oncoming light to produce an "observed speed of light."

As "always," the light is traveling at "the speed of light."  But if I'm moving toward the source of emission,  what force is going to slow down the incoming photons so that they arrive at my moving eyes as if I wasn't moving?              

Light always travels at a fixed speed determined by the time dilation factors effecting the emitting source.  Anyone who thinks that light is "always" observed to travel at the speed of light regardless of the movement of the observer is just misinterpreting something.  He is arguing nonsense.

Is anyone really arguing such nonsense?  Or is it just how they interpret relativity?  Or is it just how I interpret their arguments?  The guy I argued with last week was arguing that his interpretation didn't agree with the facts, and I agreed.  But he didn't agree with me siding with the facts.  And he didn't agree that his interpretation was just an incorrect "interpretation."

October 3, 2016 - While I haven't given up on the idea of finding an "endorser" who will enable me to put my paper about Time Dilated Light on, and thereby allow me to submit it to various "specialized scientific journals," I've run out of ideas on how to find an "endorser."  Maybe some idea will occur to me later, but this morning I decided to put the most recent version on  Endorsers are not required there, and the 4 of the 5 prior versions of the paper are already on

As I went through the steps for submitting the latest version, I found that they do not want magazine-formatted papers.  So, I had to covert my paper from the 3-page magazine format where page-1 looks like this:
Time Dilated Light in
                  ArXiv format
to regular "scientific paper" format (which requires 5 pages), and page-1 looks like this:
Time Dilated Light in
                  ViXra format
So, to read it, the direct link is
The five latest versions are at this link:
And anyone interested can find the latest versions of all three of my "scientific papers" at this link 

As soon as I finish reading the two books I obtained last week, I plan to return to working on a new version of "Time Dilation - Revisualized," which will be very different and will be titled "Time Dilation is Real."  At this moment, I don't see any way to find an "endorser" for that paper, either.  But, if the paper turns out to be as good as I hope it will be, I can try submitting it to science journals that do not require acceptance on first.

That's the plan ..... such as it is.  

October 2, 2016 - On Wednesday of last week, I was trying to figure out who else I might contact in my attempts to find some scientists willing to read my paper on "Time Dilated Light" and give me their opinions.  I found a paper on where a German scientist named Alexander Unzicker states that around 1911 Einstein was working on a theory about the speed of light being variable, but Einstein never actually finished anything on the subject.  That is what I say in my paper, too.  So, hoping that Dr. Unzicker would find my paper interesting, I sent him a copy. 

He responded that he found my paper interesting, and said "It's nice to see that other people work in this direction."  Then he added, "When dealing with the matter, you might want to refer to Einstein's 1911 paper."  And that was the end of the email exchange.

When I did a Google search for Dr. Unzicker's name to learn more about him, I found he'd written a book about his theory.  The book is titled "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century.

Einstein's Lost Key

Fortunately, I was able to quickly obtain a copy of the book.  I immediately started reading.  It says this on page 12:
It appears that around 1911, Einstein had in his hand the key to an even greater discovery, a ground-breaking idea that would have explained gravitation directly from the characteristics of the universe: a theory based on a variable speed of light. Not only would c, the speed of light, be affected by all the mass in the universe, so would the very definitions of the meter and the second. These then variable yardsticks of length and time would join to create the illusion that light travels at a constant velocity of 299,792,458 meters per second.
That was a good start, although I wouldn't call it an "illusion" to have the length of a second vary depending upon velocity and the nearness of a gravitational mass.  Unfortunately, the book gradually gets into mathematics, and the author tries to explain his theory using mathematics instead of plain English.  It seems he has a theory of his own, which he evidently believes is the same or similar to Einstein's theory.  I'm only on page 50 of the 236 page book, but from what I've read so far, his theory seems to be about gravity bending light to produce a "variable speed of light."  So, it is nothing like my theory.  And, I don't think it is anything like Einstein's theory. 

Yesterday, I found an English version of Einstein's 1911 paper titled "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light."  I tried a quick reading of section 3 of the paper, "Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field," and found it very slow going.  I can also see that it really just requires me to spend some time on it in order to decipher the math and the scientific jargon.  I even had to look up the term "first approximation":

First Approximation:  When one is doing certain numerical computations, an approximate solution may be computed by any of several heuristic methods, then refined to a final value. By using the starting point of a first approximation of the answer, one can write an algorithm that converges more quickly to the correct result.
Okayyyy, if that's the way you want to do things.  And, evidently, it's the way Einstein did things.

Section 3 appears to be about the frequency of light changing due to velocity and gravitation.  If so, that could agree with my theory in that slower moving light will be measured to have a "lower" frequency because it will go through the measuring equipment more slowly than the equipment was designed to assume.

wave lengths for red and
                  blue light shifts

But, I digress.   As I said, I'll have to study it more thoroughly when I get some time. 

At the bottom of page 50 of Dr. Unzicker's book he provides this quote from Albert Einstein:
A theoretical construct has very little prospect of being true if it is not logically very simple.
I'd never seen that quote before, and it seems almost as if Einstein was talking to me about how very simple my theory is compared to all the others.  A Google search for the quote found no results.  A reference number, however, indicates it is from page 29 of "Conversations with Einstein" by Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider.  I quickly obtained a free copy (in German) of that 137 page book and found the original is indeed on page 29:
Er hat wenig Gefühl dafür gehabt, daß eine theoretische Konstruktion kaum Aussicht auf Wahrheit hat, wenn sie nicht logisch sehr einfach ist.
Google translates that to:
He has had little sense that a theoretical construction has little chance of truth when it is not logically very simple.
Hmm.  The Internet never ceases to amaze me.  And it is so easy to go off-track when researching something.

Anyway, a
t about the same time I obtained Dr. Unzicker's book, I found another book which also seems to be about Einstein investigating a variable speed of light theory: "Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth."  It's written by a scientist with a doctorate in chemical physics who is evidently best known as a science writer: Jim Baggott.

Farewell to Reality

I browsed through many of the sample pages of the book on Amazon's web site to make certain it was something I should read, and I found that the beginning of the book was filled with lots of very readable and very quotable passages.  So, I bought a Kindle copy for $10.99 and started reading.

The first passage that I highlighted on my Kindle reads as follows:
Now, modern science has discovered that the reality of our physical existence is bizarre in many ways, but this is bizarreness for which there is an accumulated body of accepted scientific evidence. There is as yet no observational or experimental evidence for many of the concepts of contemporary theoretical physics, such as super-symmetric particles, superstrings, the multiverse, the universe as information, the holographic principle or the anthropic cosmological principle. For some of the wilder speculations of the theorists there can by definition never be any such evidence. This stuff is not only not true, it is not even science. I call it ‘fairytale physics’.  It is arguably borderline confidence-trickery.
I somewhat hesitantly and tentatively agreed and continued reading, highlighting the following passage as being an observation with which I totally agree and wrote about last Sunday, on September 25:
They [many scientists] have chosen to abandon the scientific method.
And this one also hit home:
With no observational or experimental data to ground their theories in reality, these theorists have been guided instead by their mathematics and their aesthetic sensibilities.
And this one, too:
Speculative theorizing of a kind that cannot be tested, that cannot be verified or falsified, a kind that is not subject to the mercilessness of the scientific method, is now almost common currency.
But, then I read this:
Reality is a metaphysical concept — it lies beyond the grasp of science. When we adopt specific beliefs about reality, what we are actually doing is adopting a specific philosophical position.
Suddenly, the author and I were no longer on the same track.  And I realized I might need to be careful about using the words "real" and "actual," if scientists think reality is just a "metaphysical concept."  But, how many scientists actually believe that?  It certainly seems to fit well with the arguments I've been getting from mathematicians who seem to believe that nothing can be considered to be "real" since it may appear different in another "frame of reference."  They even refuse to accept what is right before their eyes when clocks can be shown to run slower at the bottom of a mountain than at the top of a mountain.   

Nevertheless, since I was learning a lot, I continued reading.  The author then started describing what he saw as  some fundamentals of how things appear to him to work in Nature.  Then I read this:

In essence, producing a so-called ‘relativistic’ theory — one that meets the requirements of the special theory of relativity — is all about ensuring that the theory treats time as a kind of fourth dimension, on an equal footing with the three dimensions of space.
Whoa!  Reading that made me suddenly realize that, since Time is variable, it cannot be a true "4th dimension."  It's a "dimension" that can be different for everyone.  If you use Time as a "dimension," your measurements for that "dimension" may be different from everyone else's.  For most practical purposes, such as describing where some object was at different times in three dimensional space, time can certainly be viewed as a "4th dimension."  But it is certainly not on an "equal footing" with the other three dimensions.

That made me recall writing something about Time being the 4th dimension.  I checked my paper on "What is Time?" and found the word "dimension" isn't used in that paper at all.  So, I checked "Time Dilation Re-Visualized."  Yup.  That paper ends with this sentence: "Time is the fourth dimensional distance from the Big Bang to another point."  But shortly before that, I wrote:
We may all be in different locations as measured by the first three dimensions, but we are all in the same location as measured by the Fourth Dimension. That location is called "now."
In that context, even though Time can be variable for everything and everyone, it is still the same "now" everywhere and for everyone.  And a year ago we were all in the same "now" then, too, even though over the course of the past year we may have each been aging at different rates.

I wonder how many mathematicians would agree with that.

I'm only 17% done with reading "Farewell to Reality."  I'm going to try to focus on it until I can figure out exactly what Baggott's theory is.  I have no doubt that it will be very different from my theory.  And that would mean that the only way we could ever come to a meeting of the minds would be to discuss our different theories in mutually understandable terms.  And I've never found anyone with a personal theory who is willing to do that.

Last week, I had to take a couple days off from thinking about all this in order to spend time with visiting relatives.  During that time it occasionally occurred to me that I might just be wasting my time on all this research and analysis of Time, Time Dilation and Light.  But, now that I'm back into it again, I cannot think of a more important and fascinating way to spend my time.

If I'm right, my theory would mean that virtually everyone else with a published theory is mistaken on how the Time and Time Dilation works.  If I'm wrong, all it requires is for one of them to explain to me in everyday English how and where I'm wrong.  So far, I haven't been able to find anyone willing to discuss anything unless I learn the same math they learned so that I can believe as they believe.  And those who seem to agree with me by indicating that they "like" my arguments just stay on the sidelines and refuse to get involved, as if they've all been in my predicament in the past and found no way out of it. 

And, don't forget:
"A theoretical construct has very little prospect of being true if it is not logically very simple."  And my theory is logically very simple.

October 1, 2016 - In my September 22 comment on this web site, I mentioned a discussion I was having with a scientist at a very large organization.  There's no reason to believe that he is a "top" scientist at that organization.  He could just be some low-level guy who, instead of asking the scientists around him, simply decided to write a scientific paper describing the problem he is having and to put it on  Here's how he described his problem in his paper:
The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a preferred frame might be tied.
In other words, his problem is that he's measuring the speed of light by bouncing a laser beam off of one of the laser reflectors left behind on the moon back in the early 1970's, and, as he says, he believes he's getting a result that is greater than the maximum speed of light of 299,792.458 kilometers per second. 

He is viewing the "problem" this way:


In the line above, "A" represents the location of the observatory where the light is emitted and received, and "C" represents the reflector on the moon.  He sent a beam of light from "A" to "C" where it bounced off the reflector and returned to "A" once again.  He believes that the speed of light ("V) should have been the time ("T") it took the light to travel the distance ("D") from A to C and back again.  I.e., V = D/T

And, as the paper shows, he's fully aware that he is bouncing the beam off the reflector as the Earth turns on its axis and as the moon moves in its orbit around the Earth.  And he's aware that the "error" exactly matches "
the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements." Both points on the moon and on the Earth are moving towards each other (although the moon's movement is too small to measure). 

So, I pointed out to him that he should be using the line below as his model:


That way, the beam of light sent from A to C will bounce off the reflector on the moon at point C and will return to Earth at point B, because the Earth will have moved closer while the light was en route traveling back and forth.  So the distance the light actually traveled was only from A to C plus C to B.   Simple.

To my amazement, he argued that that couldn't be right.  He fully agreed that the Earth was spinning on its axis and that the movement would fully explain his "error," but he disagreed that there was an "error."  He wrote "I
was talking about the speed of light not being invariant in moving inertial frames, as special relativity requires."
He refused to discuss it any further.

In other words, he wasn't interested on how to get a correct answer to the problem.  He was only interested in showing that the correct answer did not agree with his understanding of relativity.  And, as far as he is concerned, there is no way his understanding could be wrong. 

So, as a result of our discussion I learned a little bit more about science and a little bit more about human psychology.  But, he learned nothing.

That's one for the book .... literally.  The above comment will definitely be going into my book about all this.

© 2016 by Ed Lake