Archive for ed-lake.com
September 2018

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

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

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

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

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

The Paradoxer then argued,

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

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

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

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

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

Holy crap!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

my
                      startup screen

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

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

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

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

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


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

large Australian earthworm
giant Australian earthworm

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Hafele
                Keating routes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bad links

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

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

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

The Taking of K-129

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


Comments for Sunday, September 9, 2018, thru Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018:

September 15, 2018 - Ouch!  Microsoft installed a new version of Windows 10 on Wednesday morning and some related problem nearly put me out of business.  I lost all my bookmarks, and I have to recreate my three email accounts.  I've recreated two of them.  The last time I did a backup of my bookmarks was on October 6, 2014.  And it appears I lost all my saved emails!

I've been doing things almost by rote for years.  Then suddenly I had to figure out how to get to things that used to be almost automatic.   It turned out it wasn't a problem with Windows 10, it was a problem with my website software.  I was asked to download a new version of SeaMonkey that morning, and there was something wrong with that download.  It's possible is was some kind of hack.

I couldn't even access my copy of Microsoft Word that morning.  The icons "pinned" at the bottom of the screen were all gone.  I had to hunt for the program in the directory, and then when I found it, it was like I had just bought it and had never used it before.  However, all my Word documents are okay.  Whew!

I was right in the middle of some very interesting arguments on Google/Usenet, and then I had to figure out how to get into those newsgroups again.  I managed to do that later in the morning.

I've given up on the idea of adding a detailed description of how atomic clocks work to my paper on "What is Time?"  It doesn't seem worthwhile.  And I also need to recover from this morning's disaster.

Groan!  When I first tried to put this message on-line and found that all my saved file information is gone.  So, I couldn't even update this web site without first contacting my host and getting information from them.

That is what I've been doing for the past few days.  I was in a state of total panic part of the time.  But now I feel things are starting to work again.  I got a lot of information from the Seamonkey users forum.  But mostly it was just a matter of spending the time to figure things out.

September 11, 2018
- Yesterday, in a thread I had started on a Google/Usenet forum, I finally got a mathematician to answer a question.  The question was based upon the use of a pulsar to measure time as described in my time dilation page.  Here is the question I asked:

1. There is a pulsar that flashes once per second when viewed from Earth.  

2.  You are on Earth boiling a 3-minute egg using the pulsar as a timer.

3. I am traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light at right angles to that pulsar, and I am also boiling an egg using that pulsar as a timer.

4. Will we have counted the same number of pulses when the 3-minute egg is done?
The answer was:
No.
Of course, that wasn't a meaningful answer, so I had to ask another question:
Who will have counted the larger number of pulses and why?
And the answer was:
Should be rather obvious.

Moving at 99.5% of c inertially relative to the pulsar (at right angles,
so no Doppler, good) is equivalent to using the frame of reference where the spaceship is stationary and the pulsar is moving the opposite direction at 99.5% c.  Since moving clocks are perceived to run slow by the stationary observer, the pulsar will be seen as running slow. At 99.5% c gamma is about 10, so the pulsar will be perceived as ticking ~1 time per 10 seconds.
For me, that was a jaw-dropping answer.  I had to study it for a few minutes to make sure I was reading it correctly.  He was using a mathematical model where the spaceship is stationary and the pulsar is moving.  Evidently, he had no mathematical model that represented reality, a reality where the observer is moving and is observing a stationary clock.

I responded with a point by point explanation of where he was wrong, and he responded to each of my points, then I responded to his points, and the result looked something like this:

Me: Nope.  BZZZZZ!  WRONG!!!  Sorry.  

Why do you complicate this simple experiment by imagining the spaceship is stationary and the pulsar is moving in the opposite direction?
Him: Relative motion. Galileo. First Postulate of Relativity.

I explicitly spelled it out in more detail since I knew you'd trip yourself up responding to it. Thanks for taking the bait!
Me: So, your answer is your MISINTERPRETATION of those subjects?
Me: I assume you ignore reality in order to use some mathematical model. Well, your math is WRONG. 
Him: Sorry, reality does show time dilation (moving clocks are perceived as slowing down). Regardless of whether you like the math or not.
Me: Nope.  WRONG AGAIN.  Reality shows time dilation CAUSES clocks to ACTUALLY slow down.  In reality, you cannot "perceive" the clocks because they are a long distance away and probably traveling at very high speeds.   Plus, "perceiving clocks" like that adds problems with the time it takes light to reach the observer. 
Me: What is important to realize is that the twin on Earth will measure 180 pulsar ticks (180 seconds) while boiling a 3-minute egg.  And his local clock will also measure 180 seconds or 3 minutes.

The traveling twin will experience time dilation, i.e., the slowing of time.   
Him: So WTF do you have the pulsar speeding up?!
Me: What is WTF?  Why TF?  What TF?  When TF?

The pulsar does NOT speed up.  It just sits there pulsing away at its regular rate.  That's the whole point for using the pulsar.
Me: At 99.5% of the speed of light, one second for him will equal 10 seconds back on Earth.
Him: You'll have to deal with Mr. Doppler, but ignoring that, the traveling  twin will see the earth clock running 10 times slower.
Me: Nonsense.  There is no Doppler shift involved, and the traveling twin cannot see the earth clock.  It is trillions of miles away. The main purpose of using a pulsar is so you do not have to use MAGIC to see a clock that is
trillions of miles away.
Me: The pulsar doesn't move and it doesn't change tick rates.
Him: Doesn't move relative to whom? Are you screwing up by assuming some sort of absolute rest frame, in which the pulsar is stationary?
Me: No, I am talking about REALITY.  The pulsar just sits there spinning.  It may be moving relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, but that has nothing to do with anything.  You are adding in nonsense and complicating a situation that is really very simple.
Me: So, the twin on the space ship will measure the passing of 3 minutes or 180 seconds according to his own clocks while boiling his 3-minute egg, but the pulsar will have ticked 1,800 times during that same period.
Him: WTF with the speeding pulsar? Sounds like you have got time dilation back assward.  SR time dilation never speeds things up.
Me: THERE IS NO SPEEDING PULSAR - except in some idiotic mathematical model you seem to be obsessed with.  You clearly do not understand time dilation at all.  No one said SR time dilation speeds things up.  Where did you get that from?

The traveling twin is moving at 95% of the speed of light.  Time for him moves at 1/10th the rate that it moves for the twin on Earth.  So, because time is moving so slowly for the traveling twin, he sees the Earth orbit the sun every 36.5 days.  And he sees the pulsar pulsing 10 times per second.
Him: Sorry, I don't care for your fantasy science. Especially since you refuse to read/listen to experts in the field (called LEARNING). I'll stick with what that Einstein fellow said, no matter how many people here hate him.
Me: But your BELIEFS have nothing to do with what Einstein wrote.  That is what I am trying to explain to you.

Because of their high speed, time slows down for the traveling twin and everything on his ship.  That means he ages slower, he thinks slower, he digests food slower, etc.  And, to him, everything outside of the ship seems to be moving faster than normal.  That includes the pulsar.  It also includes his twin brother back home.  That is what time dilation means.
This morning I checked the thread and was very disappointed to find no further response.  He last posted 22 hours ago, and my last response to him was posted 19 hours ago.  It could be that he is contemplating how to respond to what I wrote, but it seems more likely that he has just decided I am too dumb to bother with.

Strangely, no one else has put in their two cents, either (except for a post by Wilbur Foley, who couldn't understand why my adversary believed the pulsar had to be moving).  The thread simply stopped, although it is getting more "views," meaning people are still reading it.

I found the exchange to be absolutely fascinating.  He simply could not relate his memorized mathematical formulas to reality.  To him, the spaceship cannot be moving because it contains an observer, and for the math to work all observers have to be stationary when they are observing.  It's a screwball misinterpretation of Einstein's First Postulate.  And since the observer must be stationary, that means the pulsar must be moving.  If the pulsar isn't moving that means it must be some kind of fictional "absolute reference frame."

It seems to go back to the #1 DUMBEST belief in physics:

#1.  All motion is reciprocal.
If you are flying a space ship to Alpha Centauri, it is no different mathematically from Alpha Centauri flying to your space ship.  The fact that humans only know how to move space ships, they do not know how to move stars and universes to make them come to a stationary spaceship is irrelevant.  It works mathematically.

September 10, 2018 (B)
- While I was working out at the gym this afternoon, they had CNN on one of the TVs, and the discussion was partly about that op-ed piece in the New York Times.  The author of the piece used the word "lodestar," which is a rarely used, very odd word, that Vice President Mike Pence uses quite often.  A lot of people are speculating that Mike Pence wrote the op-ed piece.  If it were a betting man, I'd bet they are right.  According to other sources, Mike Pence thinks God wants him to be President.  And getting Trump impeached is the fastest and only reliable way to make that happen.       


September 10, 2018 (A) - Each morning I check the statistics for this web site, and for several weeks I kept noticing that every day a few people who had never visited this site before were accessing my time dilation page.  I created the page back on March 23, 2014, and last modified it on May 11, 2015.  I hadn't really looked at it since then.  Then, a couple days ago, I decided to read the page to see what was attracting all the attention.

Hmm.  Wow.  I'd forgotten about the argument I use in the page.  I wrote it because of all the stupid arguments over whose clock runs faster in a time dilation experiment.  Was it the clock next to the homebody twin on Earth or the clock next to the space traveler twin on his way to Alpha Centauri?  Some of the arguments were about magically looking at a clock that was a trillion miles away and traveling millions of miles per hour.   Other arguments were about how motion is relative and each twin will see the other's clock as running slow.  I had gotten tired of such arguments, since they were mostly about the complications of actually seeing clocks at such distances, so I decided the best way to discuss time dilation was to use a "clock" that both of the twins in the experiment could easily see.   I used a pulsar.

Wow!  How could I have forgotten about that!?  Each twin has a clock next to him, plus he can use a telescope to check the spin rate of the pulsar and compare that spin rate to his own clock's tick rate.   There is no need for either twin to see the other's clock.  The experiment can be performed by simply having each twin compare the tick rate of his own clock to the "tick rate" of the pulsar.  And when the two twins get back together again, they can compare the total time measured by their personal clocks and the total ticks they counted for the pulsar.

The pulsar will "tick" or spin once per second for the twin on Earth.  But, due to time dilation, the traveling twin will see it tick or spin much faster than that.  If he is going 99.5% of the speed of light, he will see the pulsar tick 10 times per second.  Is there any argument against that?  I've certainly never heard any.  So, I started a new thread on the Google discussion forum to see if there are any arguments.  So far, I haven't encountered any.  Mostly the response is just personal attacks and claims that I do not understand physics.  No one has actually discussed the pulsar idea.  But, I'll keep trying to get them to discuss it.  It appears they have no mathematical equations or memorized dogma that involves pulsars, so they have nothing to say.

Meanwhile, this morning my subconscious made me aware of what was preventing me from writing a description of how an atomic clock works.  I am hung up on the fact that the quartz crystal that generates the microwave photons that hit the cesium atoms doesn't seem to experience any change in the rate that time passes.  The microwave generator evidently generates photons of the same wavelength regardless of any movement of the rest of the clock.  It is only because of the feedback system that the microwave generator changes photon frequencies.  It is told to change frequencies by the part of the clock that checks how many cesium-133 atoms changed their polarity.

Here is the schematic of an atomic clock I used yesterday:

How an atomic clock works

The "Quartz Oscillator" near the bottom right of the illustration evidently creates the photons that are shot upward to hit the cesium-133 atoms that are moving from left to right between the two arms of the goalpost-like "Microwave Interrogation Cavity."  The Quartz Oscillator wouldn't change the photon oscillation frequency if the "Servo Feedback" didn't tell it to.

It's like the oscillation rate of the particles in the cesium-133 atoms are affected by changes in altitude and/or velocity for the clock, but the atoms that comprise the equipment in the lower right of the diagram are not affected by changes in altitude and/or velocity.  Or, they are affected but not in any way that affects how the equipment functions.  

To put it another way, one part of the clock is affected by altitude and velocity, but the rest of the clock is not affected.  I still need to figure out how to make sense of that so I can describe it to others.      


September 9, 2018 - It seems like I've been saying for about two weeks that I'm adding a description of how atomic clocks work to my paper on "What is Time?" In reality, I started to do that, I wrote a few paragraphs, but for the past week or so I've mostly just been staring at what I've written.  The problem seems to be that I could write 15 pages on the subject of how atomic clocks work, but who would care?  I've learned how atomic clocks work, so I can argue the subject, but the only part of a cesium atomic clock that that I think is extra important for people to understand is what is called the "Microwave Interrogation Cavity" (the football goal post-like device) in the illustration below:

how an atomic clock works

A large number of Cesium atoms are ejected at high speed from the Cesium Oven on the left.  Some are magnetically positive, some are negative.  They all pass between magnets which get rid of the positively charged atoms.  The remaining negatively charged atoms then pass through the cavity and are bombarded with photons oscillating 9,192,631,770 times per second (Hz), which causes the atoms' magnetic charge to change from negative to positive. 

Interestingly, all that is changed is the orbit of one electron, the atom that orbits all by itself in the outermost "shell" as described and illustrated in my Sept. 2 comment.  It's the one in the upper right corner of the illustration below.  The orbit is flipped like flipping a pancake, so that the outermost electron orbits in the opposite direction as the nucleus in the center: 

cesium 133 atom

All the moving cesium atoms in the atomic clock then pass between more magnets which get rid of those that are still negatively charged.  The atoms then enter into the detector which counts the positively charged atoms. 

If the detector shows that the number of positively charged atoms reaching that point is less than "maximum," adjustments are made to the oscillation rate of the photons that are used to bombard the atoms.  It's much like fiddling with the tuning knob on a radio to get the strongest signal.  The oscillation rate of the photons in the bombardment is adjusted upward and downward from
9,192,631,770 Hz.  Whatever the oscillation rate is change to, the number of oscillations that constitutes one second is always 9,192,631,770. 

So, if the clock is lifted to a higher altitude where time moves faster, it will take less time to count
9,192,631,770 oscillations, but one second is still officially 9,192,631,770 oscillations. 

What this also means is that a cesium-133 atom oscillates at a faster rate at higher altitudes and at a slower rate at lower altitudes.  And so do all other kinds of atoms. Cesium-133 is just easier to work with than other kinds of atoms when building atomic clocks.  (Cesium, like mercury, is liquid at room temperatures.  So, it is easier to turn into the gas that allows sending individual atoms through the magnets and the cavity to the detector.)

It also says that a photon doesn't change its oscillation rate when traveling upward or downward.  A photon oscillating at
9,192,631,770 Hz can change the polarity of a cesium-133 that is at the same altitude, but it won't be able to change the polarity of that same atom if the atom is at a much lower (or higher) altitude.  

I guess my point is: If I write a 15-page description of how an atomic clock works, that description can cite a dozen papers and books as references, except for what is happening inside the "Microwave interrogation cavity."  My paper would focus on what external conditions can cause the clock to change the oscillation frequency of the microwave photons used to bombard the cesium-133 atoms.  I cannot find a single paper or book that addresses those external causes.  They just explain how the atomic clock's internal workings adjust the microwave photon oscillation frequency to compensate for tiny deviations that result from pure happenstance.

If I cannot cite any papers or books that address those external causes, will anyone accept the logic?  Or will they demand that I cite references about those causes?

That's what I've been thinking about as I stare at what I wrote so far and wonder if I should continue.  


Comments for Saturday September 1, 2018, thru Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018:

September 6, 2018 - This morning someone sent me a link to a new blog web page about problems with LIDAR and radar.  The page is titled "FMCW LIDAR is coming, what does it mean?" and it was written by Brad Templeton, a famous software architect who seems to be one of the founders of Usenet.


What I found most interesting in the article are two mentions of driverless robocars that crashed into vehicles crossing their paths.  Radar guns use the Doppler shift to check speeds of vehicles moving relative to the radar gun.  A vehicle moving across its path can evidently be confused with the ground, which can be considered to be moving relative to the radar gun but does not register on the radar gun.  The article says,  
It should be noted though, that things moving horizontally, perpendicular to you, show almost no Doppler signature. That's why you see problems like the Tesla fatality in Florida, where Tesla's system could not identify a giant truck crossing the road in front of it. With no Doppler [effect], the radar could not tell it from the regular radar returns that come from stationary objects, which are always present. (LIDAR would have of course seen the truck and braked, but taken time to figure out how it was moving.)
And,
Sadly, many of the "nightmare" scenarios for robocars involve things that are crossing your path rather than moving along with it or towards you.
That seems to strongly support what I was told about how basic radar guns work.  I was told that if the radar gun is used from a moving vehicle, it would measure the speed of a highway sign next to the road to be zero.  That agrees with the article above in that something moving across the radar guns beam would also register as having a speed of zero, just like the highway sign.  You get Doppler shifted photons back from an object only if the object is moving toward you or away from you.  If you are moving toward it, there is no Doppler shift.  So, contrary to what many have argued, the radar gun will NOT show the highway sign to have a speed of 60 mph if the gun is in a car going 60 mph.

I still need to find a good source that describes the physics of how that works.   I describe my understanding of it in my paper about radar guns, but it would help greatly if I also had some good sources to support what I wrote.

September 4, 2018 - Hmm.  I awoke this morning with another idea that I just can't stop thinking about.  Evidently, my subconscious put together some pieces that my conscious mind wasn't even thinking about, and now I have to decide if I should just ignore my subconscious, or if it is really an important idea that I should investigate more thoroughly.

The idea is that Black Holes aren't what scientists believe and claim they are.  They are not locations where gravity is so powerful that light cannot escape.  My subconscious tells me that they are locations where gravity is so powerful that light photons cannot be created.   I think that either way the results are what we observe when black holes are examined via telescopes.

I'm not sure what pieces fell together to make my subconscious come to that conclusion, but it seems to be that (1) gravity affects the spin rate of atoms, (2)  photons cannot be absorbed by atoms that normally absorb them if the difference in gravity between emitter and absorber is very great, (3) atoms cannot emit light photons if they cannot absorb light photons, (4) black holes probably do not contain intact atoms, only highly compressed particles, and (5) a black hole consisting of super-compacted particles makes much more sense than a black hole that consists of an imaginary "singularity." 

On top of that is another "piece" I read that has been bugging me ever since I found it.  I was browsing through a book titled "When Einstein Walked with Gödel: Excursions to the Edge of Thought" by Jim Holt, when I read this:
Suppose—to make things vivid—that the speed of light is a hundred miles an hour. Now suppose I am standing by the side of the road and I see a light beam pass by at this speed. Then I see you chasing after it in a car at sixty miles an hour. To me, it appears that the light beam is outpacing you by forty miles an hour. But you, from inside your car, must see the beam escaping you at a hundred miles an hour, just as you would if you were standing still: that is what the light principle demands. What if you gun your engine and speed up to ninety-nine miles an hour? Now I see the beam of light outpacing you by just one mile an hour. Yet to you, inside the car, the beam is still racing ahead at a hundred miles an hour, despite your increased speed. How can this be? Speed, of course, equals distance divided by time.
That bugged me, since if an object is traveling at 99% of the speed of light and emits a light, that light must travel at the same speed in all directions.  When an atom emits a photon, it emits it in a completely random direction.  And that photon travels at c where c is the speed of light measured using a very very long second.  So, it is actually a very slow moving photon.  How can a slow-moving photon emitted from a fast moving car travel faster than the car if it is a certainty that the speed of light cannot be added to the speed of  the car?

Groan!  I'm going to have to think about that some more.  And I really wanted to think about describing how atomic clocks work.  Hmm.  Would an atomic clock stop working if gravity was too strong to allow photons to change the polarity of cesium-133 atoms in the small space provided within the clock?  I think I'd need to create an illustration before anyone else could make sense of that question.  

September 3, 2018
- This morning I decided I needed to keep better track of things I find while doing research.  The prime example is the list of time dilation experiments I compiled yesterday.  I should have that list somewhere that is both easy to locate and also easy to make changes and additions.  So, I created a new web page for the list.  It is still under construction, but the plan is to not only include a list of all the time dilation experiments I can find, but to also include comments, images, and links to scientific papers, news articles and books about each experiment.

Because I figure there would probably be other things I would want to keep track of in a similar way, I also created a directory to the lists.  And I put a link to that directory in the right-most of the four "click here" boxes near the top of the main page of this web site.   (I haven't been paying much attention to those boxes, and I discovered this morning that one contained a link that no longer works, and another contained a link to Facebook pages that I haven't visited in years.  Both have been replaced by new links.)

Unfortunately, I also found that it's a lot of work to create a web page when you already have a lot of stuff to put in it.  The new list of time dilation experiments requires that I research each one of the experiments (all 12 of them!) in order to create links, quotes, etc.  It will probably be a long time before I get just the first 12 to show the information I think should be on such a page.  Meanwhile, it will be a work in progress.     


September 2, 2018 - I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed again.  I feel like I'm spending all my time looking for needles in a haystack.  The "needles" are facts and statements which clearly and logically explain some topic of interest to me, and the "haystack" is a mountain of irrelevant facts, incorrect information, and endless mathematical equations I'm finding via the Internet.

I'm still researching how atomic clocks work.  I think I understand how they work, but it would be very helpful if I could find some source that says that the cesium-133 atoms used within the clock spin at different rates at different altitudes and velocities.   I haven't been able to find a single source about atomic clocks that says that, but it is definitely implied in articles about time dilation.

Here are four different illustrations
I found on the Internet of the cesium-133 atom used in standard atomic clocks:

cesium atom
cesium atom
cesiium atom
cesium atom
 
The dots along the circles around the center are electrons.  There are 55 of them.  In the center is a rotating tightly packed clump of 55 protons and 78 neutrons.  The 4 images above seem to suggest that there is no coherent pattern to where the 55 electrons are positioned, but then I found this information on page 63 of a book titled
"The Physics of Metrology":
Cesium atoms have six electron shells, housing a total of 55 orbiting electrons in numbers of 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 1.  With this distribution, each shell houses the highest possible number of electrons it can support, except for the outermost shell with its single electron. Only the latter will flip in response to radiation at the cesium’s critical frequency, while the inner shells are too stable to be affected. This critical frequency turns out to be 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second. And by international agreement, the SI second (atomic second) became the interval of time for 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium 133 atom when exposed to suitable excitation.
Then you can look at the four illustrations again, and, sure enough, there is 1 electron in the outermost circle (or shell or orbit), there are 8 electrons in the next circle, 18 in the next, another 18 in the next, 8 in the next, and 2 in the circle closest to the nucleus.  

The key to making atomic clocks work is the 1 lone electron that is spinning around the nucleus in the outermost orbit.  It can be made to spin in the same direction the nucleus spins, or in the opposite direction.  When you change the direction of the spin of that electron, you do not stop it and send it in the opposite direction, you flip the orbit like you would flip over a phonograph record (remember those) or a 2 sided DVD, except that the electron keeps moving as its orbit (or shell) flips.  The result is a change in the magnetic properties of the entire atom.  Instead of negative, the atom becomes magnetically positive.

And what can cause that electron to flip its orbit?  Being hit by a photon that is oscillating
9,192,631,770 times per second. If the photon is oscillating faster than that or slower than that, the electron won't flip.  So, you know an atomic clock is ticking at the correct rate when, inside the atomic clock, a ray of photons hits a beam of negatively charged cesium atoms and most of the outermost electrons in the atoms flip their orbits to a positive charge.

If fewer than the acceptable number of atoms flip their magnetic charges, then the clock will adjust the oscillation frequency of the photons until the maximum flips are again reached.  Changing the oscillation frequency of the photons doesn't change the length of a second, because, for time keeping purposes, a second is still a count of
9,192,631,770 oscillations.  But, if you were to compare how long it takes to count 9,192,631,770 oscillations at one altitude versus another, you would see it takes longer at lower altitudes and it takes less time at higher altitudes.

The problem is: The books and papers about how atomic clocks work do not say what will cause the number of flips to decrease.  They just tell you how the clock adjusts the oscillation rate of the photons to get the flip rate back to maximum.  But, logically, the decrease in the number of flipped electrons must be caused by movement of the clock (whether is is done by man or by Nature) or by some fluctuation of the power source.  The clock is shielded from changes in the magnetic environment and most other possible causes for error.  

One of the recent arguments I had on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum was again about a claim from a mathematician that time does not change rates at different altitudes or velocities.  He claimed that is shown by many experiments, but he didn't name any such experiments.  His exact argument was:
If your claim were true, experiments could not possibly confirm the validity of SR [Special Relativity]. They do.
In my response I listed 5 experiments which show that time ticks at different rates at different altitudes and velocities:
1. Hafele-Keating.
2. NIST aluminum ion clock experiment (1 foot change in altitude)
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Ives-Stillwell.
5. Muon experiments
Then I realized I should add to that list and maintain such a list for future arguments.  The Wikipedia entry for the Hafele-Keating experiment lists a bunch of additional experiments which confirmed the variability of time:
University of Maryland experiments performed between September 1975 and January 1976 involved putting three atomic clocks aboard a slow-moving aircraft and flying them around in circles for 15 hours at an altitude of 10 kilometers (32,808 feet).  The time difference was measured by direct clock comparison at the ground before and after the flight, as well as during the flight by laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration. 

Between 1975 and 1977, Japanese scientists carried a commercial cesium clock back and forth from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan in Mitaka, at 58 m (190 ft) above sea level, to Norikura corona station, at 2,876 m (9,436 ft) above sea level.

In 1976, Briatore and Leschiutta compared the rates of two cesium clocks, one in Turin 250 m (820 ft) above sea level, the other at Plateau Rosa 3,500 m (11,500 ft) above sea level.

In 1996, the National Physical Laboratory repeated the Hafele-Keating experiment by flying back and forth between London and Washington D.C. 

In 2005, van Baak measured the gravitational time dilation of a weekend at the top of Mt. Rainier using two ensembles of three HP 5071A cesium beam clocks.

In June 2010, the National Physical Laboratory again repeated the Hafele-Keating experiment, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hong Kong - London). 

In 2016, van Baak repeated his experiment on Mt. Lemmon for the television show Genius by Stephen Hawking.
All seven of those experiments verified time dilation.  So, I just need to give each one of those experiments a name and merge them with the list of 5 to produce a new list of a dozen experiments that I can throw at mathematicians every time they argue that time moves as a constant rate and does NOT change rates with changes in altitude and velocity.  There are probably other experiments that can be put on the list, too. 

And, while doing that, I need to work on my paper "What is Time?" to include how atomic clocks work and how atomic clocks demonstrate that "time is particle spin."  Sigh.





test




© 2018 by Ed Lake
RETURN