Archive for
January 2021

Comments for Sunday, January 10, 2021, thru Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021:

January 14, 2021 - It's a bit difficult for me to write comments for this web site right now.  I've got a lot a personal matters on my mind, including the death of a nephew.  Plus, it sometimes seems like I've reached the end of my science quest. 

The quest began six or seven years ago when I couldn't make sense of how so many scientists could disagree with what experiments demonstrated to be true and real - specifically time dilation.  The argument continues today.  I just visited a Facebook group I hadn't visited in at least 5 years, "Science, Technology, and Society Discussion Corner, and I found an article titled "Time Might Not Exist Outside of Our Minds, Propose Scientists: Researchers create a new theory of time that goes against established physics."  It's an article from 2016, but someone posted it a few days ago.

Interestingly, although it's a science forum with 32,500 members, I had to dig through many interesting posts about Trump to find that article about science.  So, the forum is mostly about "society" these days.  And it seems to me that society these days is showing the same two sides that a lot of scientists show: There are those who think emotionally, and there are those who think logically.  And we are all learning that while you can always use logic to change the mind of someone who thinks logically, there is no way to change the mind of someone who thinks emotionally.

And in 7 or 8 years of arguing, I found that there is no point to arguing with someone who thinks emotionally.  The only benefit that can come from such an argument is that you might learn more about the science by looking at things from different angles, even if the other side is incapable of learning anything.

January 12, 2021 - Just before lunch this morning, I finished reading another e-book I got from the library.  I didn't read it on my Kindle, although that was the expectation when I borrowed it early yesterday morning.  I assumed it would be in Kindle format, but when I was preparing to downloaded it, I saw that it was going to be in .epub format.  My Kindle can't handle .epub files.  But, I downloaded the starter file into my computer anyway.  When I did so, I was surprised to see that it was an .acsm file.  Having no idea what an .ascm file is, I double-clicked on it and the book was downloaded into my computer in .pdf format.  My Kindle can't handle .pdf files, either.  So, I started reading in on my computer, reading about 40% of it yesterday and the rest this morning (it's only 238 pages long). 

Anyway, the book was "Thirty-Three Teeth" by Colin Cotterill.

Thirty-three teeth

It's the second book in the Dr. Siri Paiboun mystery series.  I'd listened to the audio book of the first book in the series two months ago and enjoyed it very much.  I enjoyed this one, too.  I already have the third book in the series in Kindle format.  As of this moment, there are 15 books in the series.  The mystery series features Laotian coroner Dr. Siri Paiboun, who is 72 years old when the story takes place, which is in 1977, a couple years after the Viet Nam war ended.  The crime that needs solving is what appears to be three bear attacks, all on women.  They don't have many bears in Laos, so the crimes are immediately suspicious.  While the crimes are very grim, the book is very funny in parts.  The humor is mostly satire about how things work (or don't work) in a country that was recently taken over by communists and where nearly everyone with skills or an education has fled to Thailand.  Dr. Paiboun is the only coroner in the country, and he was put into the job even though had no experience as a coroner.  He was just a country doctor when the communists took over.  Oh yes, I neglected to mention that he is also a shaman, of sorts.  He gets weird visions which help him understand the crimes he is trying to solve.  And he has a nurse and some friends and relatives who also help.  Fortunately, they all have great senses of humor.  It all takes place in one of the most backward countries in Asia, yet it is very interesting and funny, like looking into a strange, alien world.  I'm looking forward to reading the third book in the series.

Meanwhile, the troll who posts insults to my log file was at it again yesterday with five new messages, all of which are screwball arguments over words. Sigh.    

January 11, 2021
- Sigh. I thought for a moment that my careful explanation of what time is and how time works might have made the troll who posts to my web site log file realize the error of his ways.  No such luck.  This morning's log file contained multiple copies of four wild rants which show that he not only didn't understand what I wrote, he isn't interested in understanding what I write.

The rants were posted via a web site in Amsterdam, Netherlands.  Here's the first one (highlighted in red) with most of its log file coding included: - - [10/Jan/2021:13:50:25 -0600] "GET /Imbecile Ed Lake is too stupid to realize that with his definition of Time he contradicts his previous claim that 'Time is a thing' turns out that he defines TIME AS A MEASUREMENT ... AKA, an idea, measuring is a human endeavour not 'a thing' HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0"
No, I did not define time as a "measurement."  I repeatedly defined time as "particle spin," which is a thing (like a sub-atomic particle) going round and round continuously.  That sub-atomic particle goes round and round at a regular rate.  And that regular rate is a measurement of time.  I said it is a "thing" because its spin can be slowed down by motion and gravity.  It is the troll who views time as an "idea."  A idea cannot be slowed by motion or gravity.

Here's the troll's second post with all the extra coding removed:
Imbecile Ed Lake is too stupid to understand that his definition of Time is-CIRCULAR:'the measured or measurable period [OF TIME] during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues'---What a clueless moron!
Hmm. Yes, spin is circular.  But that doesn't make "time" circular.  It just means that spin is part of a process that repeats itself.

Here's his third post:
Stupid Ed Lake can define Time whichever way he wants---HE is still measuring MOTION...NOT TIME ITSELF-   and what he is stating is that the MEASUREMENT OF MOTION began at the Big Bang ...NOT TIME ITSELF
Ah!  That's hilarious!!  What he is saying is what I've been saying about how  NOTHING can change the troll's mind.  Here's the quote from Paul Davies' book "About Time" that I used in yesterday's comment:
The point is, rather, that the only meaningful way to measure physical change in Einstein's universe is to forget time “as such” and gauge change solely by the readings of real, physical clocks, not by some nonexistent notion of “time itself.”
The troll is using "some nonexistent notion of 'time itself'," and is arguing that that is the only correct way to talk about time.

I explained in detail, and included quotes from scientists, how his definition of "time" is meaningless when it comes to science.  In science "time" is defined as
The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines "time": it is "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues.

The fundamental and measurable unit of time is one particle spin.  We use clocks which measure that particle spin indirectly.  It is because sub-atomic particles spin at a regular rate that clocks of all kinds that are constructed of sub-atomic particles will also tick at some regular rate.

Here's the troll's fourth and final comment:
Imbecile Ed Lake is too stupid to understand that for Einstein Time is a DIMENSION--%3EA mathematical construct used to plot the MEASUREMENT OF MOTION-and Time Dilation is just a variation on said dimension
That is how a mathematical model of space-time is constructed.  It is one way of viewing time.  When you view time as a "dimension," you are not saying that time is a dimension, you are saying that time can be used or viewed as a dimension in order to construct a mathematical model.  When Joe traveled from Point-A to Point-B in space, he also traveled from Moment-A to Moment-B in time.  It takes time to go from Point-A to Point-B.  Duh.

What the troll has demonstrated is that he doesn't care how Einstein, scientists or dictionaries define time.  He's defining time the way he believes time should be defined by everyone.  And if anyone disagrees, then they are wrong, because the troll (like Donald Trump and so many other closed-minded people who think emotionally, not logically) considers any disagreement with his beliefs to be an attack on on him personally.  So, he responds to an attack with name-calling and other attacks.  Like Trump, it is the only way he knows how to argue.
                      example of Trump's logic.
Having confirmed that once again, I'm going to try to ignore any further crap the troll may put on my log file.             

January 10, 2021
- At about 2 p.m. on Friday afternoon, I finished reading another book on my Kindle.  The book was "About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" by Paul Davies.

About Time

It was a very interesting book, while at the same time being mindbogglingly tedious and boring in parts.  Of course, the tedious and boring parts were the parts where the subject was mathematics.  I just loathe going through page after page of discussions about all the various mathematical models of the universe.  Are there multiple universes or just one where everything is tied together with strings?  Are the past, present and future equally real and do they all exist at the same time?  Or is nothing real?  Is it all an illusion?  How many different mathematical fantasies about the universe can you create?

Fortunately, the interesting parts of the book made the tedious parts tolerable.  I have 30 pages of notes.  Looking over those notes, I see many pertain to something I mentioned in yesterday's comment.  If time began with the Big Bang, doesn't that mean that nothing can happen before the Big Bang?  There can be no cause for the Big Bang, because a cause comes before an event in time.

Things can still happen if there is no "time" as we measure it, there is just no way of knowing if they took ten seconds or ten trillion years by current methods of measuring time.  We can assume they happened in order, there was no effect before a cause, but there is no way to know how long it took for a cause to produce the effect.  Here's a quote from page 17 of the paperback book version's Prologue:
When scientists began to explore the implications of Einstein's time for the universe as a whole, they made one of the most important discoveries in the history of human thought: that time, and hence all of physical reality, must have had a definite origin in the past. If time is flexible and mutable, as Einstein demonstrated, then it is possible for time to come into existence—and also to pass away again; there can be a beginning and an end to time. Today the origin of time is called “the big bang.”
Here's a quote from the bottom of page 29 and the top of page 30 that fits well with the beliefs of the troll who posts insults into my log file:
For Aristotle, time was motion. This is hardly revolutionary: we perceive time through motion, whether the movement of the sun across the sky or the hands around a clock face. The concept of time as an independently existing thing, an entity in its own right, did not emerge until the European medieval age.
Time is not "motion," it is particle spin, which is a very specific type of motion.

The most interesting parts of the book for me were the parts where the author describes in detail how time and light work together.  This is the area where mathematicians (and their text books) get things totally wrong.  If light is emitted from the sun at 300,000 kilometers per second (kps), and if you are moving toward or away from the sun at high speeds, the light from the sun will still pass you at 300,000 kps.  Mathematicians argue that this means that light travels at c for all observers, but that is a very bad way to state things, since it causes crazy misunderstandings.  Here is how it is phrased in one college text book:
“The unusual properties of the velocity of light are: It is a constant for all observers, irrespective of how they are moving. It is a universal speed limit, which no material object can exceed. It is independent of the velocity of its source and that of the observer.”
That is greatly misleading.  It should probably say:
“The unusual properties of the velocity of light are: It appears to be a constant for all observers, irrespective of how they are moving. It is a universal speed limit, which no material object can exceed. It appears to be independent of the velocity of its source and that of the observer.”
The speed of the observer changes the length of a second for the observer.  So, when he measures light passing by at 300,000 kilometers per second while he is moving (assuming it were possible to do so), his second is longer than it is on the sun.  That means he is measuring a totally different speed than what was measured on the sun.  Therefore, it would have been even more accurate to say, "the speed of light can be very different for the emitter and receiver, since a second may be longer for the receiver, yet he will still measure the same speed of light per second."

In the book "About Time" it says this on page 52:
Let me try to illustrate this point in detail. Imagine switching on a flashlight momentarily, and sending a pulse of light off into space. The light will recede from you at 300,000 kilometers per second. Now jump into a rocket ship and zoom after it. Suppose the rocket achieves a speed of 200,000 kilometers per second relative to Earth. Common sense would say that the light pulse is now receding from you at only 100,000 kilometers per second. But, according to Einstein, this is not so: the pulse recedes at 300,000 kilometers per second both when you are standing on Earth and when you are zooming after the pulse at 200,000 kilometers per second. Whichever reference frame you measure the speed of the pulse from—Earth or rocket—you get the same answer! It doesn't matter how hard you chase the light pulse, you cannot reduce its relative speed by a single kilometer per second.
Speed is distance traveled per unit time, so the speed of light can only be constant in all reference frames if distances and intervals of time are somehow different for different observers, depending on their state of motion.
The "twin paradox" is also clarified in great detail, showing that there is no "paradox," since one twin has to accelerate to gain speed while the other twin stays on earth and does not accelerate.  So, contrary to the beliefs of countless mathematicians, we know who was moving.

Here's another quote from the book:

It is remarkable that, nearly a century after Einstein discovered the relativity of time, people are still thrown by the idea and keep raising the same objections. Even when they get a full explanation, many nonscientists simply don't believe it.
The book was first published in 1995, so now it has been well over a century since Einstein discovered the relativity of time.  And many nonscientists (and many mathematician physicists) still don't believe it.

Here's another quote that addresses the arguments I keep getting from the troll who posts insults to my web site log file:
The point is, rather, that the only meaningful way to measure physical change in Einstein's universe is to forget time “as such” and gauge change solely by the readings of real, physical clocks, not by some nonexistent notion of “time itself.”
Among the passages I copied into my notes file are some interesting quotes from other authors.  Here's a quote from the famous musician Hector Berlioz:
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
I can highly recommend "About Time" by Paul Davies.  

Comments for Friday, January 1, 2021, thru Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021:

January 9, 2021
- Hmm.  The troll who posts insults into my web site log file really went on a rampage yesterday.  He posted multiple copies of 5 more messages filled with insults.  But what he was attacking me about is something that I realized I should have mentioned in the imaginary discussion I created yesterday.  So, I'll create another imaginary discussion to address that point:
Him:  Wait wait wait.  How can time have begun with the Big Bang?  There must have been something going on before the Big  Bang to cause the Big Bang.  So, how can time begin with the Big Bang?

Me:  Ah.  Yes.  We simply have different definitions of "time."  My definition is Einsteins' definition: "Time is what clocks measure."  You evidently have a more general definition that you cannot articulate.  Whatever happened before the Big Bang occurred when there was no time.  There were just events.  There was before and after, there was cause and effect, but there was no time.  That means we do not know how long anything took.  Whatever triggered the Big Bang could have taken 20 seconds or 20 trillion years.  There was no time, which means there was no way to measure how long it took for something to happen.

Him:  But things still happened!  And they happened in time!

Me:  Yes, things happened.  No, they did not happen in time.  Or more correctly, they may have happened in your general definition of time, but they didn't happen in Einstein's or my definition of time.  Your definition of time has no meaning: If something happened, it happened in time.  What is time?  It is where things happen.  Period.

Him:  And Event-A caused Event-B.

Me:  Yes.  We speculate that there must have been an Event-A to cause Event-B, because something caused particles to start to spin and measurable time to begin.  What is "unmeasurable time"?  It is your time.  It's time without meaning.  My idea of time begins when particles started to spin, creating measurable time that allows clocks to work.  It is time with meaning.

Him:  I think you are just making things more complicated than they need to be.

Me: Giving things meaning doesn't complicate them. It makes them understandable.  To define time as "when things happen" is just mouthing words with no real meaning.

Him:  I never gave that definition.  It is something you created.
Me:  Okay.  What is your definition of time?

Him: It's the dictionary definition.  I just looked it up.  It's "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole."

Me:  That's your dictionary's definition.  My dictionary's definition is "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues."

Him:  I like my definition better.

Me: Yes, and that is why people argue over the definition of time.  My definition is scientific, your definition is general and non-scientific. If you want to discuss science, you have to use my definition.  All your definition does is generate arguments.

Him:  I still like my definition better.

Me: If your goal is to generate arguments, your definition is definitely better.  My goal is to end arguments by determining what the facts are.  That's why I prefer my definition.

Him: It is not my goal to generate arguments!

Me:  Do you really want to start an argument about that?
No answer.  

January 8, 2021 - As expected, the troll who posts insults to my web site log file responded to the comment I wrote about him yesterday by posting more insults to my web site log file.  There's no point in showing what he wrote, since his attacks are basically the same as what he wrote the previous day.  When you argue with troll, or with conspiracy theorists and others with closed minds, all you do is cause them to close their minds even tighter.  You are challenging their beliefs, which they view as a personal attack.  So, they fight back with real personal attacks, typically in the form of name calling.

While there is no point in arguing with such people (except to help you organize your own thoughts), I can still imagine what a discussion would be like IF it were possible to discuss things with them.  It could be very informative for both sides.  Maybe it would go something like this:
Him:  What is time?

: Time is particle spin.

Him:  That cannot be.

Me:  Why not?

Him:  Because particle spin is motion, and motion occurs in time.  Therefore spin cannot be time.

Me:  Using that kind of reasoning, you are saying that time can only be a concept, it cannot be anything tangible that exists in time.  But we know time is not just a concept, since motion and gravity can slow down time.  We know that motion and gravity slow down particle spin, so time is particle spin.   We also know that photons are particles that do not spin, they oscillate.  And they can only exist in motion, traveling at the speed of light.  At the speed of light, they do not experience time.  You can argue that oscillations are motion, but oscillations are clearly not time.  So, motion and spin are not exactly the same.   

Him: But how can particle spin cause time?  Causes occur in time, they cannot be time.

Me: I didn't say particle spin causes time.  I said particle spin is time. Asking what causes time is asking what causes particle spin.  No one knows.  It appears to simply be how the universe is constructed.  It appears that the Big Bang produced particles which spin, and that started time.  Evidently, there was no time before the Big Bang because everything was so tightly compacted that nothing could spin.  When particles were released and able to spin, time began.  We can calculate how long it has been since particles began to spin by calculating how much time it must have taken for the expanding universe to reach its current state. 

Him: To me it seems that you are still saying that particle spin causes time.

Me: That is probably because you already have some idea in your head as to what time must be.  You probably believe that time is some kind of process, and you want to know when that process began and what caused it to begin.  Time is not a process.  It's not an idea.  It is particle spin.  Particle spin enables processes to happen, processes such as memory and aging and decay.  You can say that time "causes" memories, aging and decay, or you can say that particle spin "causes" memories, aging and decay.  Time and particle spin are the same thing.

Him: But particle spin is motion, and motion occurs in time, it cannot be time.

Me: Motion slows down particle spin, so they are not the same thing.  I suppose you could consider them to be two different "kinds" of motion.  And neither kind can exceed the speed of light, not separately nor together.  When a spinning particle moves through space it slows down.  The faster it moves, the slower it spins.  If it could reach the speed of light, the spinning would stop and time would stop.  Then we are once again in the realm of photons.  Photons are particles that do not spin, they oscillate.  And they travel at the speed of light.  They cannot go slower.  And they do not experience time.  They can travel though space forever.  Then we need to think about muons.  Muons are particles that are created when molecules in the air are hit by Gama ray particles.  Muons exist for only a very short time, but the faster they move, the longer they exist.

Him: Time might slow down for a muon, but we're talking about objects like humans and space ships. 

Me:  Muons are particles that spin.  Objects like you, me and space ships are constructed of atoms, which are in turn constructed of particles that spin.  If I am in a space ship, all the particles that are part of the space ship and part of me travel together at the same speed through space.  Our motion is nearly identical as we move through space.  So, we all experience time passing at the same rate - a rate that is slower than what is being experienced back on Earth.

Him:  Okay.  I can see that motion and spin are not always the same thing.  I
need to think this over.

Me:  You do that.    
Sigh.  If it were somehow possible to have such a discussion with a troll or a conspiracy theorist, how much more enjoyable this world would be!  

January 7, 2021 - We definitely live in very interesting times.  The election of those two Democrat senators in Georgia is like a great ending to a suspense movie.  And the "hero" of the movie is Donald Trump, since those two senators probably could not have won if Trump hadn't been supporting their opponents.  Voters turned out in record numbers to vote against the candidates supported by Trump. That is really a great ending to a suspense story.

And then we have yesterday's attack on and attempted takeover of the Capitol Building in Washington by Trump supporters, fully encouraged by Trump.  Four of the rioters died, including one woman who was shot by police.  And the end result, just like in a great suspense movie, was that Joe Biden was confirmed to be our next President. The only question now seems to be: Can we afford to leave Trump remain as President for another two weeks?  How much additional harm could he cause during that time?  Interestingly, it would be Republicans (Trump's cabinet) who would remove him and replace him with Mike Pence.  They're discussing it, but will it happen?  I suspect not.  Trump seems to have finally accepted that he won't be President after January 20, although he will undoubtedly believe for the rest of life that it was all the result of a conspiracy against him. 

It has also been a truly great demonstration of the idiocy of conspiracy theorists and how they think.  They are totally immune to logic and common sense.  I keep wanting to create a cartoon where Trump is ranting, "Everyone just needs to stop listening to people who disagree with me and listen only to those who agree with me, then you will see that I am right!!!!"

That is basically what his prime argument has been.  And his supporters agree.

Interesting stuff.  I imagine that in the next few months there will be dozens of books written about Trump's final days in office.

Meanwhile, the troll who posts insults via my web site log file posted six more of them yesterday morning via a location in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Here's what the first one said: - - [06/Jan/2021:11:11:40 -0600] "GET /Stupid Ed lake does not understand that %22Time does not tick%22 it is highly illogical and it violates Causality HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0"
Did I say that time "ticks"?  I said that "time is particle spin."  Particle spin is the cause of time, and time is the effect of particle spin.  Here's his second message, stripped of all the log file coding:  
Stupid Ed lake does not understand that Time Dilation only occurs in Relativity--alongside Length Contraction--   you can NOT have the one without the other
Time Dilation only occurs in Relativity?  That makes no sense at all.  Time dilation occurs virtually everywhere.  Relativity is just the theory that explains Time Dilation.  The third message:
Stupid Ed lake does not understand that in Relativity Time is a DIMENSION not a "thing"
I understand that "Relativity Time" is only a dimension if you want to build a mathematical model that works that way.  Fourth message:
Stupid Ed lake does not understand that Time Dilation is a MATHEMATICAL TRICK courtesy of that mathematical construct named SPACETIME
Hmm.  I agree that "spacetime" is just a "mathematical construct," but Time Dilation exists without mathematics.  Under the right conditions, Time Dilation can be seen.  You can see a pulsar flashing faster when you are moving faster through space.  No mathematics are needed.  It's flashing faster because your seconds get longer when you move faster, while one second at the pulsar remains unchanged.  Clearly the troll and I are not communicating.  Probably because of the stupid way he does his arguing.  His fifth message was:
Stupid Ed lake does not understand that Time Dilation is Mathematical Metaphysics    Its an AXIOM
Huh?  Metaphysics is the study of things that do not involve material reality.  Is he saying that Time is not real or that Time Dilation is not real?   An axiom is something that is accepted as being true.  So, is he saying Time Dilation is not real but it is accepted as being real?  Why can't he just say what he means????  His sixth and final message was:
Stupid Ed lake does not understand that its equaly as stupid to say that space expands in space and to say time slows down in time
I fully agree.  And the troll is the only one who has ever said such a "stupid" thing.  I've said that material from the Big Bang expands into empty space, and that motion and gravity slow down time, just as many experiments have verified.  Time is particle spin.  Time is the cause of aging and decay.  Everything else we know about time is memory and records and what we learn from memory and records.

My memory and records show that arguing with the troll is mostly a waste of time.  But, just like showing how conspiracy theorists think, showing how trolls argue can be also be interesting and educational.  In the end, you just shake your head and wonder: How can anyone think that way? 

January 6, 2021 - On my Kindle, I've been reading a book "about time" that contains a lot of excellent information.  At the moment, I'm only 40% done, so I don't want to write a review yet, but I want to mention that the book explains in great detail how it can be easily determined who is moving relative to whom. The simplest example is that the person who moves faster must accelerate to get moving faster.  The "stationary" person does not accelerate, but remains in an "inertial frame."  The moving person accelerates to get moving faster, and then cuts the engines and starts coasting in an "inertial frame."  So, there can be no doubt that the person who accelerated to a higher speed is the one moving faster.

And the book describes in detail how time slows down for the person who is moving faster, and how that can be verified in various ways.  Then the author wrote something that directly related to what I had written yesterday about "Time is Particle Spin."  The book says,
A breakthrough came in mid-1912, about the time the Einsteins moved back to Zurich, where Albert took the post of professor at his alma mater, the ETH. Einstein came to the conclusion that a fully satisfactory general theory of relativity could be obtained only by giving up the normal rules of geometry. It was wrong to think that gravitation causes a distortion or warping of time, he realized—gravitation was a warping of time! More generally, both space and time must be warped. A gravitational field is not a field of force at all, but a curvature in the geometry of spacetime.
I had just written that gravitation causes particle spin to slow down, and the slowing of spin causes time to slow down.  So, am I wrong, or was Einstein just looking at things mathematically?  In a mathematical model of the solar system or the universe you can imagine how spacetime affects gravity and time.  But we can measure differences in time on a local scale, in some local building.  Time ticks slower on the ground floor than on higher floors.  How can that be time causing gravity?  And if speed also causes time to slow down, doesn't that say that time is slowed on a local level?  You can view things from a cosmological point of view and see thing differently, but I still think that time is particle spin.  Besides, when Einstein was writing his papers they didn't even know that particles spin.   Particle spin wasn't discovered until the 1920s.

Interestingly, this also fits into the book I'm listening to while driving to the bank and grocery stores.  Here's a passage from that book:
Over the past decade, airlines have also learned the dangers of the authority bias. In the old days, the captain was king. His commands were not to be doubted. If a copilot suspected an oversight, he wouldn’t have dared to address it out of respect for—or fear of—his captain. Since this behavior was discovered, nearly every airline has instituted crew resource management (CRM), which coaches pilots and their crews to discuss any reservations they have openly and quickly. In other words: They carefully deprogram the authority bias. CRM has contributed more to flight safety in the past twenty years than have any technical advances.    
My mind is open to being shown to be wrong, but I'm not going to accept being wrong just because I disagree with something Einstein wrote or said over 110 years ago.  I don't agree with "length contraction" either.  It's never been confirmed, and I think it could just be an idea Einstein came up with because he had no way to know about (or even imagine) how particle spin is time. 

Meanwhile, yesterday I did some digging around and found what I think was my first paper.  It's titled "Time Dilation Re-visualized," and it's dated May 31, 2015.  It's basically just my early 2014 web page "Time Dilation - as I understand it" turned into a science paper.  It describes how you can tell who is moving faster through space by using a pulsar as a clock.  The pulsar will appear to pulse faster for the person who is traveling fastest (assuming both are moving at right angles to the pulsar, not toward or away from it) because that person will count more pulses per his longer second.  

After more than 6 years of research into this subject, I still find it fascinating.

January 5, 2021
- When I went through my web site log file this morning to see how many visitors I had and who was visiting this site, I found three more messages from the troll who puts personal attacks into my log file.  Mentioning those attacks just encourages him to post more, but this time I think they are worth mentioning.  Here are the three messages he posted via a web site in Roosendaal, Netherlands, which he has used before: - - [04/Jan/2021:15:58:12 -0600] "GET /STUPID  Ed  lake  still  does  not  seem  to  realize  that  ANY  type  of  spin  OCCURS  IN  TIME  so  spin--of  any  type--can  not  be  TIME  ITSELF HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0" - - [04/Jan/2021:15:59:02 -0600] "GET /STUPID  Ed  lake  still  does  not  seem  realize  that  PARTICLE  SPIN  speeds  up  IN  TIME---and  PARTICLE  SPIN  slows  down  IN  TIME---so  particle  spin  can  NOT  be  TIME  ITSELF HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0" - - [04/Jan/2021:15:59:37 -0600] "GET /STUPID  Ed  lake  still  does  not  seem  realize  that  particle  spin  is  A  TYPE  OF  MOTION  and  as  such---IT  OCCURS  IN  TIME  so  particle  spin  can  not  be  TIME  ITSELF HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0"
As you can see, he's viewing time philosophically or conceptually, as if it is just an idea.  Time is simply something that is always there ticking away. 

But that view is OBVIOUSLY WRONG, since it cannot account for time dilation.  Notice, too, that he does not state what time is, he only says what it is not.

We know that time can speed up and time can slow down, and we know what causes that change in the rate of time.  We know that time ticks at a slightly different rate just about everywhere in the universe, depending upon the speed and location of the object that is experiencing time.  That says that time is NOT just a concept or idea or philosophy.  It is a thing that can be affected by motion and gravity.

Remember, too, that when Einstein described time, he simply described what was measured with a clock.  And any object which spins or ticks at a regular rate is a clock.  And every object in the universe is constructed of particles which tick (or spin) like tiny clocks.  That is because they are clocks.

Memories and records are not time.  They are memories and records of what occurred in time.  So are aging and decay, which relate to particles.  Muon particles exist longer when moving faster.  Atomic clocks are based upon the idea that particles operate at a constant rate as long as the atomic clock is not moved.

We also know a lot of things about "The Big Bang" that suggest that time may not have existed before the Big Bang, i.e, there may have been a time when there was no time.  The theory is that there was just a "singularity," or some highly compressed object which had no way to measure or experience time.  Then that object exploded, beginning with a period of "cosmic inflation."  During that brief period, things moved much faster than the speed of light.  If there is no time, there can be no speed of light, because "speed" is distance over time.

The troll seems to believe that you can have time without any means to measure time, since time is just an idea or concept.  If that were true, then there would only be one time.  In our universe, time passes at a different rate almost everywhere, although the difference is usually too small to notice.

Maybe the next time the troll posts his insults to my web site log he will explain what he believes instead of just posting insults and how he does NOT believe what I am saying.  What does he believe that time is if it can be affected by motion and gravity?  It cannot just be an idea or concept.  If it can be affected by motion and gravity, it must be a "thing."

January 4, 2021 - We definitely live in interesting times.  This morning the news is mostly about Trump's "crime boss" phone call to try to overturn the election by forcing and intimidating people to lie and cheat and steal for him.  I searched around and found that the York News-Times has a transcript of the entire hour-long call, plus a complete audio copy which can be downloaded in MP3 format.  I'm listening to it as I type this comment.  (The New York Times web site, The Wall Street Journal's web site and other sites have the same thing, but you have to be subscribers to get to them.)

It's interesting that the phone call was recorded, but Trump either didn't know about it or didn't care.  The news outlets are calling it "unprecedented."  It is definitely an amazing example of trying to argue with a rabid conspiracy theorist. Here is one bit I copied from the transcript:
Raffensperger: Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything.

Trump: Oh this isn't social media. This is Trump media. It's not social media. It's really not it's not social media. I don't care about social media. I couldn't care less.  Social media is Big Tech. Big Tech is on your side. I don't even know why you have a side, because you should want to have an accurate election. And you're a Republican.

Raffensperger: We believe that we do have an accurate election.

Trump: No, no you don't. No, no you don't. You don't have. Not even close. You're off by hundreds of thousands of votes. And just on the small numbers, you're off on these numbers and these numbers can't be just — well, why wont? — Okay. So you sent us into Cobb County for signature verification, right? You sent us into Cobb County, which we didn't want to go into. And you said it would be open to the public. And we could have our - So we had our experts there they weren't allowed into the room. But we didn't want Cobb County. We wanted Fulton County. And you wouldn't give it to us. Now, why aren't we doing signature — and why can't it be open to the public? And why can't we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don't want to find anything? They don't want to find, you know, they don't want to find anything. Someday you'll tell me the reason why, because I don't understand your reasoning, but someday you'll tell me the reason why. But why don't you want to find?
There are probably a hundred better quotes in the transcript that show how conspiracy theorists think.  They constantly argue beliefs against facts, and they argue that you just need to listen to people who agree with them instead of people who disagree with them, and then you'll see what "the truth" is.

It is truly an amazing discussion - something for the history books (and probably a lot of psychology books).

January 3, 2021
Yesterday morning I awoke realizing something.  For weeks I have been constantly modifying and adding new stuff at the beginning of a new paper tentatively titled "Motion Relative to the Speed of Light," and it now seems what I was really looking for to start the paper was what I wrote nearly 5 years ago in another paper, "What is Time?"  It's also something I mentioned in my December 27 comment, when I quoted a troll who wrote this in my log file:
Stupid Ed lake does not understand that when he says *Time=Particle Spin* what he is really saying is *Time=Motion*   Motion occurs in Time---Motion stops in Time---Motion slows down in Time
No, I'm not saying that "Time=Motion."  I'm saying that "Time=Particle Spin." I'm saying that there is a very important difference between particle spin and the motion of a particle.  The basic energy of a particle is a measurement of its spin, while the motion of a particle is its movement through space (which can add kinetic energy to the particle).  But more importantly, I'm also saying that every sub-atomic particle in the entire universe is a little clock that constantly ticks off time as it spins.  And, each sub-atomic particle ticks off time at a slightly different rate depending upon its motion and speed through the universe and its proximity to a gravitational mass.

That is also the essence of Einstein's theories.  Here's a quote from a PBS article:
Then it suddenly hit him, the key to the entire problem. Einstein recalled, "A storm broke loose in my mind." The answer was simple and elegant: time can beat at different rates throughout the universe, depending on how fast you moved. Imagine clocks scattered at different points in space, each one announcing a different time, each one ticking at a different rate. One second on Earth was not the same length as one second on the moon or one second on Jupiter. In fact, the faster you moved, the more time slowed down. (Einstein once joked that in relativity theory, he placed a clock at every point in the universe, each one running at a different rate, but in real life he didn't have enough money to buy even one.) This meant that events that were simultaneous in one frame were not necessarily simultaneous in another frame, as Newton thought. He had finally tapped into "God's thoughts." He would recall excitedly, "The solution came to me suddenly with the thought that our concepts and laws of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our experiences.... By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the theory of relativity."
So, every point in the universe has its own time, ticking at its own rate, and at each of those points the speed of light is measured to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND according to the clock located at that point.

That means that motion through space is very different from particle spin.  Einstein evidently didn't know about particle spin.  It appears that he believed that time slows down the faster an object is moving because he believed distances and lengths shorten when moving. That makes no sense to me.  As I see it, one kind of motion affects the other kind.  Motion through space slows particle spin.  And time is particle spin, which means that motion through space slows time.  A particle that moves through space but does not spin does not experience time.  It's called a "photon."  A photon oscillates, it does not spin.  It is pure energy.  A particle that spins is matter.  Turning matter into energy involves turning a spinning particle into a particle that consists of pure energy and moves through space at the speed of light.  Lengths and distances have nothing to do with anything, and that is why "length contraction" has never been confirmed.

Einstein once said: "I very rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express in words afterwards."

That is probably true of all of us.  Putting an idea into words that will properly convey its meaning to others can be very difficult.  "Time is particle spin" is something that I can visualize and it makes perfect sense to me, but if someone else sees no difference between motion and spin, then explaining the idea to them can be very difficult.  What it says is that, in full agreement with Einstein, every particle in the universe is a little clock ticking off time at its own rate, a rate that varies depending upon its motion through space and its proximity to any large mass.

And, my idea for a paper titled "Motion Relative to the Speed of Light" hits a snag if I try to explain that theoretically, since every particle is a tiny clock that ticks at its own rate, that means that every atom that emits a photon of light emits a photon that travels at a slightly different speed than photons emitted by every other atom.  In practice, the difference is not measurable because (1) it can be very very small, and (2) because no one knows how to measure the one-way speed of light. 

So, every object in the universe is moving at zero percent of the speed of light as the speed of light is measured by that object, but every other object in the universe that is not stationary relative to the first object, is moving at some percentage of the speed of light as measured by the first object.  That is what Einstein's time dilation equation says:

Einstein's time dilatio formula
Unfortunately, mathematically there is no way to tell who is moving and who is stationary.  It is simply assumed that the observer inside the frame of reference is stationary.

If you want to know who is actually moving, you evidently have to use LOGIC to do that.  I may think I am stationary and the sun, moon and stars are all in orbits around me, and I can develop mathematical equations to confirm that, but simple logical experiments will show that it is not true.

The question now is: Do I continue to modify my paper on "Motion Relative to the Speed of Light," or should I update my paper "What is Time?" to incorporate all these other ideas.

Or maybe I should just lay down on my couch and read a book. 

January 2, 2021
When I read about that suicide bomber in Nashville, I could not help but think that he was some kind of conspiracy theorist.  And the same with the pharmacist who destroyed more than 500 doses of the Covid vaccine in Grafton, Wisconsin.  And, of course, we have a Conspiracy Theorist in Chief in the White House who refuses to accept the results of the election and thinks he lost because of some vast conspiracy to change votes for him into votes for his opponent.

It's totally insane.  How could anyone believe that so many people could keep such a secret?  Do they think the thousands of election workers are all hardened CIA agents posing as elderly people from the community?  But it also fits with what I read in "The Death of Expertise," the book I mentioned in my December 16 comment.  More and more people are becoming more and more vocal about not trusting experts.  Instead, they think they know more than any expert. 

After finishing "The Death of Expertise," I found a lot of similar books going back decades.

It all seems to fit into what I've written about before, that there are people who mostly think logically, and there are people who mostly think emotionally.  Everyone thinks both ways, but there appear to be a large number of people  who mainly think emotionally.  Fortunately, they do not seem to be the majority.  But they can be the voting majority when those who think logically lose interest in whatever the issue is.  Then it is the ones with the strongest emotional reasons who vote the most, and those with less emotional reasons just don't bother to vote.  The majority voted emotionally to put Trump in office, then the majority voted emotionally to get rid of him.  Logically, it is insane that he was ever elected in the first place.

January 1, 2021 -
Happy New Year!

© 2021 by Ed Lake