Archive for
May 2021

Comments for Sunday, May 23, 2021, thru Monday, May 31, 2021:

May 31, 2021 - Hmm.  That company in Hooghly, West Bengal, India, sent me three more emails overnight, all exact copies of their previous email, except for the title of the paper of mine that they want to publish -- providing I pay them to do so.  The emails were sent to the email address I put on my papers.  Hopefully they won't be sending me emails for all 16 of my papers.

There were a couple dozen junk emails in my other inbox (the email address that is at the top of this web page), including two emails offering a one-day cure for tinnitus, which is a ringing in the ears.  Interestingly, yesterday afternoon I happened to listen to a Science Magazine podcast from October 8, 2020, in which they stated that there is no cure for tinnitus, although there might be a way to gradually turn down the volume a bit.  So, the emails I'm getting definitely aren't advertisements, they are scams.  The podcast episode was also about the NASA mission to the asteroid Bennu, which will bring a sample of that asteroid
back to Earth in 2023.  I'd forgotten about that.  It has the sample and it's on its way home.

One thing I really like about science podcasts is that they tell you about other science podcasts and about new science books that are available.  The authors go on the podcasts to advertise their books.  On a Geek's Guide to the Galaxy podcast from November 2020, author Janna Levin talked about her new book "Black Hole Survival Guide."  That caused me to browse through an on-line sample of the book and I found it begins with these three sentences:
Black holes are nothing.
Black holes are special because there’s nothing there. There is no thing there.
The rest of the book seems to be an argument that black holes contain nothing.  That makes absolutely no sense to me, since you cannot get gravity from nothing. It's only a 143 page book, so I may read it just to find out what the author is talking about.  

May 30, 2021
- Sometimes I wonder how many times per day people try to scam me in one way or another. 
I get a truly annoying number of scam phone calls.  As a result, if I do not recognize the caller's phone number when my phone rings, I just wait for the answering machine to take over.  Phone scammers will normally just hang up instead of leaving a message.  I also get a lot of email scam attempts, maybe 40 or 50 per day, although most of those could just be simply classified as "advertising."  I get at least 5 emails per day advertising a quick cure for tinnitus.  And there are two or three emails a day advertising contacts with Russian or Asian women.  

I mention it, because last week I got an email from someone wanting to put my paper An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his Theory of Special Relativity into a book.  It was a fairly long email, filled with praise for my efforts, and it wasn't until the fifth paragraph that it started mentioning the fact that it would cost me money to have my paper included in their book.  (They say they have published 82 books in the past month!)  
They evidently do their publishing in Hooghly, West Bengal, India, but they also have an office in London.  Using Google Maps, I can see that their address is just a doorway between two shops, a doorway that leads to elevators to the offices on the 2nd and 3rd floors. 

If my papers ever get into a book, it will almost certainly be a book I publish myself via Amazon.   The only other "possibility" is if someone pays me to let them publish my papers.

Somehow, a change in my daily routine last week caused me to stop thinking about working on science papers for awhile.  Instead, I listed to podcast after podcast, mostly Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcasts. I'd downloaded 8 of them from the fall of 2020, each nearly 2 hours long.   When they talked about the Covid-19 pandemic, it was like going back in time.  Back then, there was no vaccine and no one had any idea how long it would take to develop one.  When I finished listing to those podcasts, I started going through others in my MP3 player, mostly just sampling and deleting them, since I'd somehow lost interest in celebrity interviews.  Then, on Friday, I finally began thinking about science subjects again.  I inexplicably awoke thinking about the first second after the Big Bang, specifically the period known as "inflation."

Here is how the period of "inflation" is illustrated on Wikipedia:

Big Bang Universe

And the image below is from a NASA web site:

Big Bang Universe

During the "period of time" known as "inflation," there were no atoms or sub-atomic particles and the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. But there was no light, either, so who knows?  According to my paper "What is Time?",  when there were no spinning particles, there was no "time" - except in the sense of history being a "period of time."  Without atoms and sub-atomic particles, there is no way to measure time.   Plus, according to an article in Forbes magazine, the whole idea of "inflation" is just a way Quantum Mechanics mathematicians invented to explain things. 

A New Scientist article says "Inflation was invented to explain a couple of features of the universe that are really hard to explain without it."  One alternative explanation is that the universe was never a single dot or infinitely small particle as mathematicians insist it was, instead it was a clump of dark matter of unknown size that had been crunched down when the previous version of the Big Bang universe collapsed.  So, we have a Big Bang Universe that expands until gravity stops it from expanding further, then it collapses until it can collapse no further, producing a massive sphere of dark matter which then explodes in a new "Big Bang" and starts the whole process over again.  There is no "period of inflation" because there is no need to explain how the universe expanded from a point to something much much bigger.

The only problem with this scenario is that no one knows what "dark matter" is or what properties it has - other than that it seems to be mass that does not emit or reflect light.  I'll bet that it doesn't "spin," either, so it does not experience time. Compress it too tightly, however, and BOOM - the whole thing explodes.

It's something I haven't thought about very much before.  Mathematicians may find it impossible, because there are too many unknowns, but logically it seems to make perfect sense.  It is called "The Big Bounce Theory" by the many scientists who like the idea - regardless of how many mathematicians hate it.  I like it.  Even though I hadn't thought much about it before, somewhere in the back of my mind I always envisioned the "Big Bang" as actually being a "Big Bounce" that may have happened countless times before.  It certainly makes more sense than the "Big Bang" being a one time thing.  And it's the way I would want things to be.  There is something satisfying and appealing about it.

May 27, 2021
- I didn't write any comments for the past few days because I had an appointment for a physical at my local Veteran's Administration clinic.  That prevented me from thinking about anything else.  The physical took place yesterday morning, and everything is fine, but I still couldn't think about any thing else for the rest of the day. 
Mostly I just thought about things I should have mentioned to the doctor or to the nurse, but didn't.  Somehow I forgot to mention my paper on "A Different Covid-19 Problem."  Less seriously, when we talked about my diet, I forgot to mention that I eat a cup of yogurt every afternoon between 2 and 3 p.m.  I'll  have to remember that when I go again next year.

Now I have to get back to thinking about science questions again.  But which question should I work on?  What I'm doing is just sitting in front of my computer trying to think of what to work on.  Sigh.

May 24, 2021
- Evidently, the discussion I was having on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group has come to an end.  It was definitely the best discussion I've had about physics and science in years.  Unlike the arguments I've had on the sci.physics.relativity UseNet group, in the 156 posts to the thread there was no name calling or vicious personal attacks.  In addition, on Facebook you can indicate that you "like" a post without getting into an argument about it.  As of this moment, my post has 263 "likes" and 60 "shares," which I think means that 60 different people made a copy of the thread and put it on their own homepage. 

I thought that was very good, but this morning I noticed a thread that was started just yesterday (15 hours ago) and already has 772 "likes" and 165 "shares."  The thread is about old science fiction stories which assumed that by now we would have humans exploring every corner of the universe.  "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the best known example.  It's 20 years past that date and we still do not have Pan Am passenger flights to some rotating space station.

My discussion thread hit on some key points of disagreement in physics.  I was asked a lot of questions, and I answered all of them.  But the person I was arguing with could not answer even the simplest questions, like "What is the expanding universe expanding into?"  To him, the universe is everything there is, so it cannot be expanding into anything.  It is an infinite universe that is getting bigger.  How can something that is infinite in size get bigger?  He could not answer that.  I found that fascinating.  It says he has a BELIEF that he has never analyzed.  I don't think I changed his mind about anything, but maybe I made him think about things he'd never thought about before. 

How can anyone believe that the Big Bang Universe is infinite in size and is getting bigger and bigger?  
But clearly the guy I was arguing with has the same belief as many many others.  And he somehow thought that no one in the entire world of scientists disagrees with him - until I showed him article after article about scientists who do disagree.  That is when he stopped posting and the thread came to an end.

Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon I listened to podcast #773 from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe series.  When I first discovered the world of podcasts, I downloaded samples from many different series and then began listening to them.  But I first listened to all of the podcasts in my favorite series.  That took months and months.  Meanwhile, my MP3 player is nearly filled with samples from series I never actually listened to.  Among them were episodes #773 through #801 of the Skeptics Guide.  Today, their most recent episode is #823.  They have been podcasting since 2005.

Anyway, I found podcast #773 to be fascinating.  The only problem with it (and all the others in the series) is its length.  Episode #773 is 1 hour and 43 minutes long.  And that seems to be about average.  The most recent episode (#826) is 1 hour and 55 minutes long.  It would take me years to listen to them all! 

Based on what I heard in #773, they cover a lot of topics in each podcast.  #773 was first aired in April 2020, so it began with a discussion of Covid-19 conspiracy theories and other crazy beliefs.  Then after 15 minutes or so, they changed topics and talked about creating new elements for the periodic table.  Then they talked about good and bad ways to make coffee.   Then they talked about UFO videos, which also happen to be in the news right now.  If the video is blurry, it is a UFO.  If the video is clear, we know what it is, and it is never an alien ship.  There were a few other topics, too, including hail cannons, something else I'd never heard of before, even though farmers have evidently been using them for decades to disrupt the formation of hailstones in the atmosphere.

Hail cannons

Anyway, based on that one episode, I moved The Skeptics Guide to the Universe into position #6 in the Top 10 in my list of interesting podcasts.  

Added NOTE: When I listened to Episode #774, they said that while some farmers may still use hail cannons, the consensus is that they do not work.  

May 23, 2021
- On Friday morning, during breakfast, I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  The book was "Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth" by Avi Loeb.


It was a very interesting book, mostly about 'Oumuamua, the mysterious object that passed through our solar system in September and October of 2017.  Unfortunately, no one got any good pictures of it.  Below, from NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day web site for November 22, 2017, is an artist's drawing of what it may have looked like:


According to Avi Loeb's book, however, it probably more likely looked like a disk, and the artist's drawing above just shows it edge-on.  It was first noticed by astronomer Robert Weryk using the Pan-STARRS telescope at Haleakalā Observatory, Hawaii, on 19 October 2017, 40 days after it passed its closest point to the Sun on 9 September. When it was first observed, it was about 21 million miles from Earth and already heading away from the Sun. The name 'Oumuamua is the Hawaiian word for "scout," and reflects the way the object is like a scout or messenger sent from the distant past to reach out to humanity. The word also roughly translates to "first distant messenger".

The author of the book definitely feels the object was most likely of alien origin and was not something natural.  There's a lot of evidence to support that belief, but none of it is conclusive.  It is just different from anything we've ever seen before.  It reflects light differently (almost like it was made of shiny metal), it did not emit gasses as a comet would while passing the sun (which is why astronomers initially failed to notice it), and it's certainly unusually shaped.  In addition, when our solar system is viewed as a nearly flat disk, 'Oumumua dropped down from above, fell between the sun and the orbit of Mercury, changed directions as a result of the sun's gravity, and passed back through the solar system disk again, this time between the orbits of Earth and Mars and once again heading upwards.  

The author of the book spends most of the book arguing that more time and money should be spent on the hunt for extraterrestrial life.  And he hits on a gripe of mine: the massive amount of  time and money spent on mathematical projects which can never be proved or disproved, such as String Theory and multiple universes.  Here's a passage about that from the book:
I have long been aware that within the discipline of astronomy, SETI faces hostility. And I have long found that hostility bizarre. Mainstream theoretical physicists now widely accept the study of extra-spatial dimensions beyond the three we are all familiar with—plainly put, height, width, and depth—and the fourth dimension, time. This is despite the fact that there is no evidence for any such extra dimensions. Similarly, a hypothetical multiverse—an infinite number of universes all existing simultaneously in which everything that could conceivably happen is happening—occupies many of our planet’s most admired minds, again despite the fact that there is no evidence that such a thing is possible.
Coincidentally, I was arguing the same thing on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group yesterday, and I was able to quote from Avi Loeb's book to support my arguments.  And the "hostility" against SETI (The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) was unknown to me before reading this book, and before someone brought it up in a podcast I listened to last week.  It may have been in an interview with Avi Loeb on Sean Carrol's Mindscape podcast.  The hostility seems to be just more friction between mathematician physicists who seek funding to solve mathematical problems that have nothing to do with reality, while scientists seek funding to explore and learn more about the universe around us.  

The more I learn about this battle, the more insane it seems.  As Avi Loeb says in his book,
Rather than spending one’s entire career going down mathematical alleys that will be regarded as irrelevant by future generations of physicists, young scientists should focus on those areas of research where the value of ideas can be tested and cashed in during their lifetimes. There is no field of research where the risk-and-reward calculus is greater than in the search for extraterrestrial life. What is more, with just eleven days’ worth of accumulated data gleaned from ‘Oumuamua’s passage, we already have more suggestive, observable evidence than we do for all the fashionable thought bubbles that currently hold sway in the field of astrophysics.

Comments for Sunday, May 16, 2021, thru Saturday, May 22, 2021:

May 20, 2021 - Hmm.  Yesterday afternoon, some question I saw posted on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group prompted me to start a new thread there.  I began the thread with an illustration I created a couple years ago:
Our three universes

And I wrote this comment:
I'm wondering if things aren't a lot simpler than they are typically described. In the illustration, dark energy is simply the energy from the Big Bang Universe that we cannot see because it is beyond the Observable Universe. And Dark Matter is simply material that has been highly compressed to the point where it cannot reflect light nor emit any energy. It is also the stuff that is inside Black Holes.
Astrophysics and Physics is a moderated group with 286,500 members.  So, I would have to wait for my post to be accepted by a moderator.  This morning, when I checked the group I found that my comment was on-line with 201 "Likes" and "Loves," plus 49 comments and 44 "shares."   And only about a half dozen of those 49 comments were from mathematicians arguing against the illustration because:
The Big Bang didn’t happen at a single point, it happened everywhere!

There is no center for big bang.

No. First of all there is no "point of the Big Bang", because it happened (still does) everywhere at once.

Wasn’t there not a center though? I thought the expansion was equidistant everywhere, like the surface of a balloon when you blow it up.

The big bang did not occur at one point in space. There is not a 'center' of the universe.
What the thread seems to show is that the VAST MAJORITY support what I wrote.  It is only mathematicians who cannot cope with it.  Since I only argue with mathematicians, it sometimes seems like their numbers are a lot greater.

May 19, 2021
- Groan!  I've spent the last two days staring at Part
§2 of Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," trying to find the best way to explain this section:
          Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.
          So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
It involves a moving object within a stationary frame of reference, something I don't recall any mathematician ever mentioning.  In the truck experiment I describe in some of my papers, it would be like having a child on a tricycle pedaling back and forth in the trailer while the experimenters use radar guns try to determine if the truck is moving or not.  In theory, due to "length contraction" the child would measure the length of the truck to be shorter than what the adult experimenters measure, and he could see some events as not being simultaneous while the experimenters see them as simultaneous. 

As I see it, there is no such thing as "length contraction," but if you are a mathematician who only understands math, there definitely is such a thing as "distance contraction," so there must also be such a thing as "length contraction."

Speed is distance divided by time.  A speed of 70 mph means you travel 70 miles in one hour or 140 miles in 2 hours.  When you start talking about time dilation, the fact that you are moving also means that time is running slower for you.  Therefore, an hour is longer.  But to a mathematician it also means that the distance you travel in one hour is shorter than what that same distance would be if you are not moving.

What Einstein does in his paper is use a "rod" with clocks at both ends of the rod to measure "length contraction."  Describing exactly how he does that is where I came to a screeching halt.  Wikipedia has a page on Length Contraction which contains this:

In Newtonian mechanics, simultaneity and time duration are absolute and therefore both methods lead to the equality of and . Yet in relativity theory the constancy of light velocity in all inertial frames in connection with relativity of simultaneity and time dilation destroys this equality. In the first method an observer in one frame claims to have measured the object's endpoints simultaneously, but the observers in all other inertial frames will argue that the object's endpoints were not measured simultaneously. In the second method, times and are not equal due to time dilation, resulting in different lengths too.
As far as I'm concerned, distances and lengths do not change due to motion.  Only time changes.  Alpha Centauri is the the same distance from Earth whether I travel there at a small or large fraction of the speed of light.  My speed doesn't change any distance, it only changes how long it takes me to get there as I measure it and as someone back on earth measures it.

But is there any way I could get a mathematician to accept that?  My hope would be that my paper would make it undeniable. But can I do that?  Is it even worth trying?  That's where I am as I stare at my computer while doing nothing.

May 17, 2021
-I keep thinking I should work on a book that puts together all the ideas about Relativity that are in my science papers.  But as soon as I start thinking about that, I start thinking I really need to write a new paper in which I go through Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" part by part to explain in plain English, without mathematics, what that paper is saying.

That immediately generates a question: Can I do that?

I know I can do it for the first few parts of the paper, but the paper has TEN parts.  Part #6 is "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion."  Groan!  And part #9 is "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations when Convection-Currents are Taken into Account".  Can I translate those two parts into plain English.  Of course, I won't know until I try.  But that poses another question:
Do I want to?  I want to write about the first few parts, and, for all I know, the other parts could be available in plain English and free of mathematics in some book or paper somewhere.  Or, hopefully, the two parts I mentioned might be translatable into a few simple sentences.  All I want to do is summarize what those sections are about, I don't plan to attempt to convert mathematical formulae into instructions in English. 

I also know that, many times when I write a comment about what I plan to do, my plans immediately go astray and nothing happens.  As a result, I keep telling myself that I shouldn't write comments about my plans.  Someday I might implement that plan.

May 16, 2021
- Yesterday morning, as part of my morning routine, I checked to see how many people had downloaded my science papers from  I was surprised to see that about a half dozen people had read two of my papers about radar guns, specifically "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories" and "Relativity and Radar Guns." 
It's very rare to get more than one or two reads in a day on that site, and usually there are none at all for day after day.  Most people access my science papers via the web site, even though, when doing a Google search for my papers, it seems Google will usually first send you to, not  That made me wonder what I'd find if I did a Google search for "Edward Lake Radar Guns."

What I found was that my paper on Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories is cited in one scientific article on That means that someone used my paper as a reference in their paper.  I think that is a first.  As far as I know, no one had ever done that before.  Even more strange was the title of the paper; "Paper Car Speed Detection Using Computer Vision."  And it seemed it was also available on Google's Semantic Scholar web site.  I'd never heard of "Semantic Scholar" before, either.  So, I did a Google search for "Semantic Scholar" and that led me to Wikipedia's web page about it, which says,

Semantic Scholar is an artificial-intelligence backed search engine for academic publications that was developed at the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence and publicly released in November 2015.[1] It uses recent advances in natural language processing to provide summaries for scholarly papers.
Ah!  Something else I'd never heard of before!  And that probably means "Paper Car Speed" and "Computer Vision" are artificial intelligence translations of whatever was originally written in Hindi.  (Does "Computed car speed" translate to "Paper car speed"?  Does "Digital processing" translate to "Computer Vision"?)  Here's the part of that paper where my paper is cited as reference #3:
The main objective of this paper is to create a car speed detecting software which can inform the concerned authorities if a car is over speeding. This software allows monitoring of cars through a single digital camera. Car and its speed are calculated the moment car enters into the region of camera’s FOV. This would help in more efficient and software-based surveillance.


Earlier, in the past decade the technologies used for this task were more hardware based. This included a handheld speed monitoring gun [3]. The traffic officers used to hold this gun in their hand. Aiming towards the speeding car they used to get to know its speed. These devices were based on Doppler’s Effect [4]. These sent a beam of radio waves to the moving car and then speed was calculated based on the change in the reflected frequency waves. These devices worked well when there was only one car in the field of view of the gun sensor.
The paper is kind of interesting.  It suggests using computer images to measure traffic speeds instead of using radar guns and the Doppler Effect.  You measure how long it takes a car to pass through the FOV or "Field of View" of two different cameras.  It seems very similar to a technique used in the 1950's when they put down two rubber hoses on the road, a fixed distance apart.  When a car ran over the first hose, that squeezed the air inside and registered on a measuring device.  When the same car ran over the second hose, you could calculate how fast the car was traveling in order to travel from hose #1 to hose #2 in x seconds.  The difference in this setup is that the hose technique required one car at a time to run over the hoses, while the two camera technique allows you to tell which of multiple cars traveled the fastest between Point A and Point B.  The authors evidently never heard of lidar guns, which solve the problem by sending out a much narrower beam that only hits the car you want to track.

It appears that Google now does the searching on when you want to look for something.  I'm not sure when that changed, but previously it was vixra software that did the searching.  That probably explains why I'm getting more reads of my vixra papers, but it doesn't explain why so many people are suddenly interested in my papers on how radar guns demonstrate Einstein's theories.

Comments for Sunday, May 9, 2021, thru Saturday, May 15, 2021:

May 13, 2021 - I'm getting indications that someone is talking about one of my papers, but I don't know where the discussion is taking place. All I see is unusual activity on on my page for the number of "Unique IP downloads" of the paper.  A "Unique IP download" is a download by someone who has never accessed the paper before from a specific IP address.

In the past month I've had 56 new readers for my paper "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories."  During that same time period, the total number of reads for my newest paper "Analyzing: 'Constancy of the speed of light'" is just 49.

The Radar Guns paper was first uploaded in May of 2018, and since then 771 new readers have access the 9 versions of the paper.  My most popular paper is "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments," which has had 1,308 new readers since the first version was uploaded, also in May 2018.  In the past month that paper has gotten 24 new readers, less than half the number for the Radar Gun paper. 

Looking over the Radar Guns paper, it seems like someone might be doing the experiment that the paper recommends: using two identical radar guns to measure the speed of a truck from inside the truck.  Or maybe they are just discussing it.  A couple days ago, a government agency that might be interested in such an experiment accessed my web site.  I might be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 74,504, but it certainly has perked my curiosity. 

Meanwhile, I've decided against starting a new discussion about "What is Time?" on the
sci.physics.relativity forum.  Any discussion there would almost certainly follow the pattern of all previous discussions, it would just turn into them calling me a lot of names while insisting that I take college courses in physics so that I can discuss mathematical formulae with them. 

That troll who posts insults to my web site log is still at it.  Most of his posts are just hurling insults, but he did pose an interesting question.  Yesterday he claimed that I had somewhere stated that "Time is a measurement of particle spin."  I said no such thing.  I said "Time is particle spin," and I said "you can use any particle as a clock to measure time."  Does that mean that "Time is a measurement of particle spin"?  No.  Time IS particle spin, is it NOT a measurement of particle spin.  There are many types of particles, and each type evidently spins at a different rate.  If Time was a measurement of particle spin, every particle would measure time differently.  So, Time definitely not a measurement of particle spin, it IS particle spin. 

If Time were a "measurement of particle spin" time could not dilate.  Twenty spins would always be twenty spins.  That is what we observe when we travel very fast.  All particles seem to spin at their standard rates.  No dilation is observed or measured.

Due to the fact that Nature has a natural speed limit, particles must slow down their spin when the particle is moving through space in order to stay within the "speed limit."  That slowing down OF TIME is measurable when you compare a clock against a second clock that is moving slower than the first clock.  You are not measuring particle spin, you are measuring time.  Time IS particle spin, it is not a measurement of particle spin.  If it were a measurement, there would be no measurable time dilation because x spins would always be y amount of time. 

There's probably a better way to explain that, but I've run out of time for today.

May 12, 2021
- I spent most of yesterday just staring at my computer screen trying to think of some way to explain "Time."  Of course, I also did a Google search for "What is Time?"  That didn't really help.  The standard answer seems to be:

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.
However, that same Wikipedia article also says:
Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads"
When you look at those two definitions, it seems clear that they are talking about different forms of time - or different views of time.  I would define those two views as "Observed Time" and "Measured Time."

"Observed Time," therefore, is "history" plus what we can predict in the future based upon what was observed in the past.

"Measure Time" is what a clock reads, and that includes any type of clock that measures amounts of time, from atomic clocks to orbits of the sun and moon.

But neither of those definitions is a true definition of "time" itself.  They are just ways of looking at time.  If you want to know "What is Time?", you have to ask that question in a different form: "What is Time if it can be slowed by motion and gravity?"

"Observed Time" doesn't explain how and why someone on a space ship can observe time passing at a slower rate than someone on earth.

"Measured Time" doesn't explain how the person on the space ship and the person on earth can use identical clocks and get very different measurements of time.

Furthermore, the way time is observed on the space ship has absolutely no effect on the way time is observed on earth.  Time is simply observed and measured to pass at two different rates in those two different locations.  The question remains: What is Time if it can be slowed by motion and gravity?

That brings us back to the answer I came up with in February of 2016: Time is particle spin.

The troll who posts to my log file would undoubted argue:
One does NOT measure Time... Time is the measure
Time is the measure of what?  How long it takes water to boil?  How do you get an answer?  You get the answer by measuring the time it takes water to boil.

Particle spin is not a measurement of time.  It IS time.  Every particle of every unique type can spin at a different rate than all other particles.  So, by itself a particle is not a measurement time.  You have to measure the spin of a particle to learn how fast it spins.  The key point is: Every particle spins at a steady rate.  If you have ten different kinds of particles, each can spin at a different rate, but each spins at a steady rate.  Therefore, you can use any particle as a clock to measure time.  You just need to know the spin rate.  Particle-A may spin x times per second, Particle-B may spin y times per second, and Particle-C may spin z times per second, but if you know the spin rates, each can be used to reliably measure seconds, minutes and hours.  The spin rates are all steady.

And all the spin rates will be proportionally slowed by motion and gravity.  We know that because that is how atomic clocks work.

So, Time is particle spin.  When you measure how fast a particle spins, you are not "measuring time," you are merely obtaining a basis for using the particle to measure time.  A machine that is designed  to measure time will operate at a steady rate because all the particles within the machine spin at steady rates.

If particles didn't spin, there would be no time.  If particles didn't spin at steady rates, there would be no time. We know that particle spin slows when motion and gravity are applied.  Concepts and ideas do not slow when motion and gravity are applied.  Thus: Time is particle spin.

At least that is how I understand things.  I wonder what the folks on the sci.physics.relativity forum would say about it.  Do I really care?  I'll have to think about that.

May 10, 2021
- A couple days ago, I decided it was time to download some more podcasts into my MP3 player.  One of the sites I visited while hunting for things of interest was "The Geeks Guide to the Galaxy," which is mostly about discussing new science fiction books, movies and TV series.  However, Episode #462, from April 8, was an interview with Julia Galef, someone I'd never heard of before.  The blurb about the episode said:

Julia Galef, host of Rationally Speaking, joins us to discuss her new book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t.
Rationally Speaking?  What was that?  I looked it up, and it turned out to be a podcast I'd never heard of.  Here's the blurb for that podcast:
Rationally Speaking is the official podcast of New York City Skeptics. Join Julia Galef and guests as they explore the borderlands between reason and nonsense, likely and unlikely, science and pseudoscience. Rationally Speaking was co-created with Massimo Pigliucci.
I was a bit wary of any podcast that advertises itself as being about skeptics, but I started looking through the 255 episodes that have aired since the podcast first began on February 1, 2010.  Then I listened to four episodes, #1, #3, #5 and #228.  Here's the blurb for Episode #1:
Why is "speaking rationally" a worthwhile goal, anyway? It’s not self-evident, at least not to many people. Human beings certainly don’t seem made for it. Aristotle may have famously dubbed us "the rational animal," but cognitive science tells a different story, with plenty of evidence that our brains blithely flout logic all the time and are excellent at rationalizing our irrational decisions after the fact. Indeed, it is reasonable to ask why fight our irrational natures to begin with? After all, some argue that irrationality can make us happier, at least in certain situations. Then again, perhaps there is a problem with the whole idea of arguing for irrationality.
It was a very interesting discussion, even though one of the hosts, Massimo Pigliucci has a bit of an accent which occasionally makes him difficult to understand. (That may be why he is evidently no longer a host on the show.)  They also talked about Wikipedia's list of Paradoxes, which looks very interesting.  And they talked about "ad hominem" arguments, where people attack the person, not the argument made by the person.  That's something I'm very familiar with.  " Episode #3 had a guest with an even stronger accent, but I still managed to get through it and enjoy it.  Episode #5 had Neil deGrass Tyson as their guest, and it was fascinating.  Episode #228 was about Elsevier, "the world's largest scientific publisher."  It fit right in with the comment I wrote yesterday about my attempts to publish my science papers. 

My point here is that I'd discovered a new podcast that I really like.  This morning I added it as #5 in my list of favorite podcasts, bumping Joe Rogan off of my Top 10. 
I'm looking forward to listening to more of the podcasts.  All I need to do is find the time.

Meanwhile, that troll who posts insults to my log file was at it again yesterday.  He posted 5 copies each of 4 new messages.  Three of them were just the same crap he always posts, but one can be used to explain his problem.  He wrote:
Imbecile Ed Lake quotes Einstein: "Time is what clocks measure" ... moron Ed Lake will die without ascertaining the fact that by that definition -Time is MEASURING 'particle  spin'- NOT 'partilce spin' itself
Is someone measuring particle spin?  Who?  How?  As I see it, it is a basic FACT of Nature that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  No one is measuring the speed of objects relative to the speed of light.  It's just a fact of Nature.  And if fast-moving particles must slow down their spin to avoid conflicting with Nature's maximum speed limit, no one is doing any measuring.  The only time anyone does any measuring is when some human compares the time difference between two objects (such as atomic clocks) moving at different speeds or positioned at different altitudes.  When doing so, he is not measuring particle spin.  He is simply observing the difference in the tick rate of two clocks.  The question then becomes: What causes one clock to tick slower than another clock when the first clock is traveling faster or is at a lower altitude than the second clock?  The only answer I see is that the first clock is in greater conflict with Nature's maximum speed limit than the second clock.

If no one is doing any measuring, the first clock will still tick slower than the second clock.  If you do not use clocks, the faster moving object will age slower than the slower moving object.  How can that be?  It is because the atoms and particles that make up the first object are spinning slower than the atoms and particles that make up the second object.  If no one is doing any measuring, it is still happening.  That says that time is particle spin.  It is Nature's clock, i.e., Nature's way of measuring time.

I could go on and on, but I've explained all this many times before, including in some of my papers.  There's no point in explaining it again to a troll who refuses to discuss the subject, and who can only state his beliefs without any capability of explaining his beliefs.  So, I'm not going to write any more comments on this web site about that troll's posts to my log file.  Our disagreements cannot be resolved without a discussion.  And a discussion is best held in a public forum, such as my blog.  If the troll wishes to continue, here is the link to where to do so:

And he can begin by answering a simple question: What is time?

May 9, 2021
- There were no new attacks in my log file, nor did the troll post anything to my blog file.  Someday I'd really like to get one of the mathematician physicists from the sci.physics.relativity forum into a discussion on my blog where we can try to discuss "What is Time?" or some similar topic. Usually, discussions on the sci.physics.relativity forum aren't very helpful, because anyone can join in, and it is very difficult to hold a discussion when 15 different people are asking complex multi-part questions, each of which would fill an entire page in a book. I am the moderator on my blog, and nothing gets shown there unless I first approve it.
  On the other hand, the last time I had a lengthy discussion there was in July of 2015, which was before I started writing science papers.  Back then I was mostly arguing on blog files.  It now seems centuries ago.

Meanwhile, last week I got another view into the past when I checked my web site log file for May 5.  Here's a small part of that file.  You can click on it to view a larger version.

                          file data from May 5, 2021

As you can see, there were 17 accesses from IP address which is located in Tafresh, Iran.  The fact that it was someone in Iran wasn't particularly unusual, since I get visitors from just about everywhere.  What struck my eye was the fact that the access seemed to come via Google Scholar.  Plus, they were accessing a file on my web site that I couldn't recall putting there.  The file is Second-Postulate-01.pdf   The log entries indicate that someone did a full access of the file at 06:55:35 a.m, and then 16 partial accesses.  I have no idea what that is all about, nor why the full access shows up last in the log.

Checking my web site, the pdf file is there, of course.  And it appears I uploaded the file on the morning of April 20, 2017.  Since my web site is somewhat like a diary, I just had to look to see what I was doing on April 20, 2017.  What I was doing back then was trying to get that paper published in a journal and placed on arXiv.orgOn May 2, 2017, I was informed that it would cost me $127 per page to get it published in the journal that had agreed to publish it.  It's an 18 page paper!  I hadn't seen the part of their web site where the cost of publishing was given.  I thought they published for free.  Later, turned the paper down because I didn't have the proper credentials for putting papers on their web site.

I remember all that.  It basically ended my attempts to get my papers published.  Paying thousands of dollars to get my papers published would be a waste of money.  I am not in any "publish or perish" situation.  I just wanted to get other people's reactions to the ideas in my papers.

I put my first paper on on February 22, 2016.  It was the first version of my paper "What is Time?" doesn't have editors. So, you just upload your paper and it's on-line within a day.  When turned down my paper about Einstein's Second Postulate, I put it on, too.  And, just as with my paper on "What is Time?", I gradually buried the paper under "revisions" that didn't include all the stuff that got me started.  I was writing new papers on the same topic, not revising the original paper.  The originals are still amazing, while the revised versions just seem to address some specific issue.  Plus, for some reason, I also started double-spacing the papers.  I'm going to have to find some way to fix all that and put the best version at the top of each list of versions.  I should also put the best ones in book format, too, but maybe getting the best versions into separate files will help me decide exactly what should be in the book.  All I need to do is find the time to do it all.  Groan!

Comments for Saturday, May 1, 2021, thru Saturday, May 8, 2021:

May 7, 2021 - That troll posted 5 copies each of 5 more messages to my log file at around noon yesterday.  The messages were posted via a web site in Kharkiv, Ukraine, which he has used before.

In my comment here on May 5th, I'd asked him 5 questions:

1.  What is time?

2.  Why do clocks tick at a faster rate at higher altitudes versus at sea level?

3. Why do moving clocks tick slower than "stationary" clocks?

4.  What do you mean by "Time cannot sit in its own lap"? 

5.  Do you think the NIST was lying when they stated "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations"?

Presumably the troll read the questions and responded by just saying the same things he's always been saying.  Here are his latest 5 messages:
An  explanation  for  kindergartens=  Actions  sit  in  the  lap  of  Time...  Time  can  NOT  sit  in  its  own  lap

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake  will  never  ever  understand  the  simple  FACT  that  ACTIONS  OCCUR  IN  TIME...  The  moron  will  never  ever  understand  that  TIME  CAN  NOT  OCCUR  IN  ITSELF  [Sit  in  its  own  lap]

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake  will  never  ever  understand  that  TIME  CAN  NOT  PERFORM  ACTIONS  IN  TIME  [IN  ITSELF]  Time  can  NOT  'tick  in  Time'...  just  in  the  same  way  that  Space  can  NOT  expand  by  taking  up  more  Space,  more  of  itself

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake  will  never  ever  understand  the  simple  FACT  that  it  is  NOT  Time  the  one  that  'ticks  at  different  rates',  CLOCKS  do  that      Moron  Ed  Lake  confuses  TIME  with  a  CLOCK'S  MOTION

Mentally  retarded  Ed  Lake's  religion  basically  consists  in  confusing  TIME  with  MOTION  [Time  is  not  the  one  doing  the  ticking,  stopping,  or  slowing's  the  motion  of  a  clock]

Clearly he cannot answer the question: "What is time?"  Einstein answered it by saying "Time is what clocks measure."  The troll also ignored my question about gravitational time dilation, which does not require clocks to move.  And, instead of explaining what he means by "Time cannot sit in its own lap," he just repeats that mantra over and over.  The end result is that the troll makes it clear that he believes "Time" is just an idea or concept.  He appears to be saying that what happens to a clock when it is moved has nothing to do with time, it just has to do with the clock.  He claims Time as shown by the clock did not slow down.  Only the ticking of the clock slowed down when the clock was made to go faster.  In other words, the ticking of a clock has nothing to do with time, even though we use clocks to measure the passing of time.  Somehow that makes sense to him.

I think time is particle spin.  All objects are made from atoms, which we know are made from particles.  When an object is made to go faster, particle spin has to slow down in order to stay within the natural speed limit for matter in our universe, the speed of light.  Muons are a type of particle.  They are created when gamma rays hit atoms in our atmosphere.  Muons normally have very short life span, decaying in a tiny fraction of a second.  But if the muon is traveling at very high speeds, it lasts longer.  Why?  I'd say it is because it spins slower. 

When particle spin slows down, every function performed by those particles also slows down.  That includes the ticking of mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, and natural clocks such as hearts.  In addition, growth of all kinds will slow down, as will aging of all kinds, and decay of all kinds.  The troll, of course, would argue that time is time, it cannot be particle spin.  Why?  Because particles spin in time, which means they cannot be time itself.

Which brings us back to the question that the troll cannot answer: What is Time? He also cannot accept my answer: Time is particle spin.  FACTS show that Time must be something that is affected by motion and gravity.  That means Time cannot be just a concept or idea.  How can motion and gravity affect a concept or idea? 

Since it is too awkward to post answers via my log file, it makes more sense if the troll would create some fictitious name and post his response via my blog about "What is Time?"   That blog discussion has been idle since 2018 and is at this link:  

Interestingly, none of the four responses to that blog entry in 2016 and 2018 were negative.  That's probably why there were only four responses.  It is only when people disagree that comments result in endless arguments.

Also, I evidently haven't been checking my blog for comments in the right way.  I just checked and found a couple comments, one from April 27 and another from February 27.  The post from April 27 is from "Paparios" claiming that he is not the person posting to my web site log.  Since I cannot be 100% certain that "Paparios" is the troll, I'll stop referring to him as "Paparios."

May 6, 2021
- Yesterday afternoon, I tried working on a science paper, but what I wrote didn't seem to belong in the paper I was working on.  So, I turned off my computer, sat on my couch and finished reading a library book on my Kindle.  The book was "The Last Stargazers: The Enduring Story of Astronomy's Vanishing Explorers" by Emily Levesque:

The Last Stargazers

It was a very enjoyable book about the history and science of astronomy. But it is a lot more than that, since it is also about Emily Levesque's experiences as an astronomer.  Getting time on a telescope is a major undertaking.  It can involve flying nearly half way around the world to get to the right telescope, after waiting many months to get put on the schedule, and then have the weather prevent you from doing any observations.  Here's a passage about astronomer superstitions:
Astronomers’ helpless dependence on weather has spawned a wacky cocktail of tricks and superstitions, amusingly incongruous among such scientifically minded folks. One colleague has lucky observing socks she dons for every run; another swears eating a banana at roughly the same time every afternoon staves off clouds. People have lucky cookies, lucky snacks, even lucky tables in the dining room they’ll sit at before runs. I’ve developed the strict habit of refusing to check the weather until the day of the run itself. I tell myself that this forces me to always plan for a clear and productive evening, but deep down, it’s just as much about not jinxing the night as anything else. Some astronomers also seem to have famously bad luck on observing runs. In a few cases, it’s gotten to the point where colleagues on the mountain will groan if they see one of their supposedly cursed colleagues on the schedule, convinced their mere presence will summon clouds or rain or high winds and extend their bad luck to every telescope unlucky enough to be nearby. With only a night or two on the telescope, you also can’t just bail if it’s bad at the start of the evening. The first half of the night may be cloudy, but those clouds could clear away at midnight and reveal a pristine sky. Following the philosophy that it’s criminal to waste so much as a minute of good observing time, this sometimes leaves astronomers camped out in closed domes for hours, chowing down on lucky pretzels and periodically sticking their heads out the door to see if things look better. A scourge of observers is the “sucker hole,” a brief patch of clear sky between the clouds that’s just enough to excite an observer into opening the telescope. The problem here is that opening a telescope is a bit more complex than popping the lens cap off a camera. By the time you’ve run indoors, opened the dome, started and prepared and focused the telescope, and swung into position, the hole in the clouds will often have disappeared, leaving you back at square one.
A lot of astronomy is being automated these days.  You program the telescope to look where you want when you want, and the telescope does it.  It is when you see something unexpected that you need to start doing things yourself.  The new Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile is expected to be fully operational in 2022 or 2023.  It will take millions of very high resolution digital photographs of the night sky every night, while computer programs analyze the photographs looking for anything that is different from previous photographs.  Here's a quote about what they expect from the Rubin Observatory:
The sheer volume of science that the Rubin Observatory will produce is almost impossible to contemplate. Imaging the sky over and over, it’s expected to detect over one thousand new supernovae in a single night (right now, we detect fewer than one thousand supernovae in a year).
I'm a big fan of astronomy and check the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day web site every morning, downloading and saving images that I find particularly interesting.  Here's a photo from a few days ago showing the International Space Station passing in front of the sun:

ISS in front of sun

Somewhat by coincidence, when I started reading the next book on my Kindle while eating breakfast this morning, it was another astronomy book - sort of.  It is one astronomer's ponderings about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

May 5, 2021
- As expected, that person who calls himself "Paparios" and claims to be a physics teacher, responded to the comment I wrote yesterday with some more personal attacks in my web site log file. This time, however, he really showed where his misunderstandings are.  He posted just three messages from a web site in Akersberga, Sweden, at about 1:15 p.m., yesterday afternoon.  The first message consisted of 5 copies of this: 
Stupid  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  the  experimets  only  show  A  CLOCK'S  MOTION  slowing  down...NOT  TIME  ITSELF  slowing  down  IN  TIME  [Time  can  NOT  sit  in  its  own  lap  AKA,  Fallacy  of  self  reference]
To me, that is just gibberish.  Experiments "only show A CLOCK'S MOTION slowing down"?  Presumably, he's talking about the Hafele Keating experiments. Those experiments involved a clock's motion SPEEDING UP when Hafele and Keating carried the clocks on airplanes while traveling around the world.  And because the clocks' motion was sped up, time as measured by the clocks slowed down.  And what does "Paparios" mean by "Time can NOT sit in its own lap," a phrase he repeats over and over as if it was some kind of religious mantra?  

His second message consisted of TEN copies of this:
Moron  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  his  logical  fallacy  leads  to  the  following  question...If  time  stops,  how  much  time  has  to  pass  before  it  can  start  again[Question  mark]
That is a VERY interesting question!  It clearly shows how he misunderstands what time is.  Paparios seems to view Time as some kind of concept or idea that affects everything and everyone the same way at the same time.  Einstein debunked that belief, and his theories about Relativity showed that time ticks at a different rate for virtually everything.  If you wave your hand, time will slow down for your hand.  But it slows down by such a small amount that it is nearly impossible to measure, and thus you cannot see any effect.  The FACT that time ticks at different rates virtually everywhere has been verified by a great many experiments.   I have a web page about time dilation experiments, including the NIST experiments in which it was demonstrated that time ticks faster for your feet than for your head.  An NIST (National Institute for Science and Technology) paper about the experiments stated:
Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.

Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.
The only ways time can "stop" for you is if you have either reached the speed of light, or you have fallen into a black hole.  Photons travel from one end of the universe to the other without ever experiencing time.  Time does not exist for them.  But if YOU want to go that fast, you will need more energy than there is in the entire universe to accelerate to the speed of light.  The faster you go, the more energy you need to go faster.

The third message from Paparios consisted of 5 copies of this:
If  imbecile  Ed  Lake  understood  BASIC  LOGIC  he  would  realize  that  his  inhability  to  give  a  coherent  answer  is  a  very  clear  indication  that  he    is  a  follower  of  a  stupid  religion
I've seen many physics textbooks which explain that time ticks at a different rate for almost everything.  I've never seen a textbook state that "experiments only show a clock's motion slowing down, not time itself." 

I cannot go on forever quoting Paparios's screwball comments.  But maybe I can get him to answer a few questions:

1.  What is time?

2.  Why do clocks tick at a faster rate at higher altitudes versus at sea level?

3. Why do moving clocks tick slower than "stationary" clocks?

4.  What do you mean by "Time cannot sit in its own lap"? 

5.  Do you think the NIST was lying when they stated "Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations"? 

May 4, 2021
- Hmm.  That troll who posts messages to me via my log file was at it again yesterday.  Starting at 11:55 a.m., using a web site in Milan, Italy, he posted five copies each of seven messages. The first one said:
Stupid  Ed  Lake  does  not  seem  to  know  that  'stopping'  and  'slowing  down'  are  actions  that  occur  IN  TIME      It's  a  logical  contradiction  to  claim  that  Time  performs  the  action  of  slowing  down  IN  TIME
So, he's saying that time cannot possibly slow down?  Because Time performs the action of slowing down IN TIME?  What about all the experiments which show that time can slow down?  His second post seems to address that same issue:
Moron  Ed  Lake  confuses  TIME  with  MOTION...Motion  CAN  slow  down  or  stop  IN  TIME...Time  can  not  stop  in  ITSELF  [sit  on  its  own  lap]  It's  a  logical  contradiction  worthy  of  a  world  class  imbecile
Motion can slow down IN TIME, but time cannot?  Too bad he doesn't mention that GRAVITY can also slow time.  I wonder how he would argue against that.  Plus everyone knows that time stops when you travel at the speed of light -- everyone, apparently except the troll.  His third and fourth messages said:
Moron  Ed  Lake  illogically  writes  'Once  you  understand  that  TIME  slows  down  when  you  move  fast'  when  he  clearly  MEANS  'Once  you  understand  that  PARTICLE-SPIN  slows   down  when  you  move  fast'

Ed  Lake's  'particle  spin'  CAN  slow  down  or  stop  IN  TIME  therefore  'particle  spin'  is  NOT  Time  itself
It is a FACT that particles slow down when they move fast or get closer to a large gravitational body.  It is just a coincidence?  If particle spin isn't Time, then what is?  It cannot be just an idea or concept, because ideas and concepts cannot slow down or speed up as a result of motion and gravity.

The troll's fifth message was:
Ed  Lake  defines  Time  as  'particle-spin'  then  proceeds  to  write  a  book  about  'travelling  through  particle-spin'  and  'anti-particle-spin  dimension  where  particle-spin  moves  backward'  [anti-time  dimension  where  time  moves  backward]  UTTERLY  STUPID
Hmm.  Actually my sci-fi novel "Time Work" has nothing to do with particle spin or time dilation.  I wrote the book before I started looking into the question of: What is time if it can slow down and speed up?  I wrote it simply because I was fascinated with the idea of being able to go backwards in time to solve crimes and mysteries.  If there was a hit and run accident with no witnesses, wouldn't it be nice if you could take some cameras back in time and film the accident from various angles, making certain to get a clear view of the driver of the car?  The question then becomes, of course, how do you get the evidence to the police without telling anyone about your ability to travel back in time?  If people are going nuts today because they think they are being tracked on-line or because someone put tracking devices in their Covid-19 shots, imagine what they would think if they were told that people could film them in their most intimate and secretive moments.

The troll's sixth and seventh messages were:
Moron  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  that  his  'third  frame  pulsar'  goes  against  'the  rules'  of  Relativity  in  the  same  way  that  kicking  a  ball  goes  against  the  rules  of  basketball

Cretin  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  by  replacing  'the  rules'  he  is  no  longer  'playing  Relativity',  he  is  instead  playing  some  sort  of  backyard  'Lakeian'  Pseudoscience
AH!  That's interesting!  But didn't Hafele and Keating break the "rules of Relativity" when they took airplane flights to measure time dilation?  An airplane is NOT an inertial system, even if the troll might think it is "an inertial system" from time to time, when there is no turbulence, when the plane is not changing speeds or altitudes.  And, of course, the two trips taken by Hafele and Keating weren't constant air travel.  From time to time they just sat on the ground while waiting for their next flight.  Meanwhile, their atomic clocks continued to tick.  Hafele and Keating broke every imaginable "rule" that the troll believes in.

Here on Earth, Time dilation is a FACT, it is not a set of rules.  The faster you travel, the slower time will pass for you.  That is a FACT.  PERIOD.  Once you understand that FACT, then the "rules" Einstein established in his 1905 paper in order to describe relativistic thought experiments related to time dilation make more sense.  It is a firm RULE that a moving body must be an inertial body when moving away from a light source if it is to measure passing light from the light source to be traveling at the same speed as light emitted from the inertial moving body.  But you do not need to have an inertial body in order to measure time dilation.  Hafele and Keating demonstrated that, as have many others. 

I realize that answering the troll's posts by replying on this web site probably just feeds the troll's ego in some way, but his logic is so screwed up, I cannot help but wonder who else thinks the way he thinks.  He seems to believe it is everyone in the world except me.  And right now he is the only Quantum Mechanics mathematician who is explaining how and what he thinks about time and time dilation.   It's fascinating.  And he claims to be a physics teacher!

May 3, 2021
- While doing some chores this morning, I finished listening to CD #8 in the 8-CD audio book version of "At the Edge of Time: Exploring the Mysteries of Our Universe’s First Seconds" by Dan Hooper.

At the Edge of Time

It was an okay book, interesting in parts, but also tedious and unbelievable in other parts.  Back on April 11, I commented on something I'd heard in the first part of the book back then. Here's what I'd heard:

And just as there is no center of the surface of the Earth, there is no  center of the expanding universe. Any observer, located anywhere in our universe, will observe the same recession of galaxies that Hubble discovered.
          When I’m explaining this idea in a classroom or in a public lecture, it’s usually around this time that someone asks, “But what is space expanding into?” Most people picture expanding space as a process of space growing into, or gradually taking up, some other region of space—like the volume of an inflating balloon. But this misses the point of what we mean when we say “space.” Space can’t expand into other space. When we say that space is expanding, we mean all of space, not just some of it. There is nothing for space to grow or expand into. If there were, we would call that thing space. The space of our universe is getting larger, but without moving into anything else. 
And I wrote about how that is just mumbo jumbo obfuscation. When looking at things logically, there is absolutely no reason why the Big Bang universe cannot be expanding into an "infinite universe" that we can also call "space."

Mathematicians not only reject things that are totally logical and even obvious, they also spend countless hours on things that cannot be proven and which a busy scientist would consider to be a waste of time, such as multiple universes.

It probably would have been better if I had read the book on my Kindle instead of listening to the audio book.  That way I could have underlined passages and highlighted things I liked and disliked.  But, on the other hand, if I had been reading the Kindle version, I might have given up on it and just moved on to another book.  Of the many dozens of audio books I've burned onto CDs to listen to in my car while driving, I only gave up on one of them - an autobiography of a comedienne who I quickly learned wasn't very funny when talking about her personal life.  When driving while listening to an audio book, you can just turn off your ears and pay full attention to the road ahead when the book gets into subjects of no interest. I was able to do that with the book I just finished, which is why I managed to get through it.

May 2, 2021
- After writing yesterday's comment about the latest batch of insults from that troll who posts personal attacks to my log file, I kept thinking about that third insult in his latest tirade:

Cretin  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  adding  a  third  frame  [pulsar]  goes  against  the  tenets  of  Relativity  [Let  us  in  "stationary"  space  take  TWO  systems  of  co-ordinates]  yet  he  BELIEVES  he  is  the  ONLY  ONE  who  understands  Relativity
There is no "third frame" in the thought experiment I created for my paper about measuring time dilation using a pulsar.  Each observer merely has a second clock.  He has the clock inside his frame, and he has a second clock that he can observe by looking outside his frame.  That second clock - a pulsar - is "stationary" relative to both observers.  I put "stationary" in quotes because a mathematician would argue that it is not stationary at all.  Here's the illustration I used:

milky way pulsar experiment

The experiment involves a pair of scientist twins, one who takes a 1-year round-trip to the vicinity of Alpha Centuari while the other twin stays waiting at home on Earth for 10 years.  In addition to measuring time using the normal clocks they have next to them, they also both use a pulsar as a clock.  The pulsar ticks once per second when viewed from Earth and is at a right angle to the flight from Earth to Alpha Centauri as shown in the illustration.  When viewed from the space ship, the pulse rate of the pulsar varies as time dilation varies.  It tells the traveling twin how much time dilation he is experiencing, even though he can feel and see no effects of time dilation inside his spaceship.

From the point of view of a scientist or astronomer, it is a relatively straight-forward experiment.  For a mathematician, however, using a clock that is outside the "system of co-ordinates" or "frame of reference" is strictly forbidden.  In addition, it is an experiment filled with intolerable variables.  The earth is not going to be stationary during the ten year trip.  It will rotate on its axis about 3,652 times and will orbit the sun 10 times (which both twins can measure and also use as " clocks," although the ship's direction of travel adds complications that moving at a right angle to a pulsar doesn't have).  Plus, the sun is moving in an orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.  From a scientist's point of view, those motions simply average out during the trip or don't affect the experiment in any significant way.  But if all you understand is the math, the distances between the "stationary" earth and the moving spaceship change every second in different ways. While the spaceship is traveling through space at a relatively constant speed (most of the time), the "stationary" earth is actually moving in multiple directions at varying speeds.

In some ways, my pulsar thought experiment is comparable to the Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971.  Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating had no way to calculate exactly how much time dilation they would measure as they flew around the world.  There were too many variables.  They couldn't be certain about the exact altitude at which the planes would fly, nor the exact speed. Instead, they used estimates.  And their estimates gave them an answer that was within a reasonable margin of error when compared to the end results of their experiment. 

You could say that Hafele and Keating viewed their experiment as scientists, not as mathematicians.  They understood how atomic clocks work, they understood the variables that are part of air travel, and they could deal with them with confidence by using estimated averages.  They also understood that time dilation does not require the vacuum of space, nor does it require any inertial system, even though that is how Einstein originally envisioned time dilation. And the results of their experiments confirmed the science.  If all you understand is math, however, you could spend the entire duration of the experiment - and many years afterwards - just trying to define and calculate all the variables.   

The troll who posts to my log file would probably argue that doing things as done in the pulsar thought experiment, or as Hafele and Keating actually did them, is illogical because the only valid form of logic is mathematics. 
And, if I do not do things his way, then I'm doing things in an illogical way that he believes nearly everyone else in the world would find intolerable.  And nothing I can say can change his mind.

May 1, 2021
- There were more insults posted to my web site log file yesterday.  I realize that mentioning them just encourages the troll who posts them to post more, but it's also like posting interesting messages I got from someone on Venus or Mars, since the troll views things in a way that is totally alien to me. 

Here are the four messages he posted at about 2:30 p.m., yesterday afternoon via a web site in Dusseldorf, Germany:
If  by  now  Ed Lake  hasn't  realized  that  Time  performimg  actions  IN  TIME  is  a  logical  contradiction,  he  never  will

Actions  occur  in  Time,  Time  is  not  an  action  that  can  occur  in  Time      Time  can  not  sit  in  its  own  lap      not  that  there  is  any  hope  for  moron  Ed  lake  to  understand  the  logical  contradiction

Cretin  Ed  Lake  does  not  realize  that  adding  a  third  frame  [pulsar]  goes  against  the  tenets  of  Relativity  [Let  us  in  %E2%80%9Cstationary%E2%80%9D  space  take  TWO  systems  of  co-ordinates]  yet  he  BELIEVES  he  is  the  ONLY  ONE  who  understands  Relativity

Narcissist  and  senile  Ed  Lake  does  not  understand  how  illogical  his  stupid  religion  is...yet  he  claims  to  follow  logic
"Time performing actions IN TIME"????  "Time is not an action that can occur in time"??????  What the HELL is he talking about????  All he would have to do is give an example of "time performing actions in time" and we might have some basis for a discussion, but he doesn't do that.  He just spouts absolute nonsense and assumes that I should be able to understand him. 

His third post is understandable, however.  He's clearly saying that mathematics is the only way to view and understand the universe.  In Einstein's 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, time dilation was explained by Einstein using only two "systems of co-ordinates."  However, in my paper about measuring time dilation using pulsars, the troll evidently believes I used three "systems of co-ordinates."  Actually, I didn't use any.

Once you understand that time slows down when you move fast, you do not need any "systems of coordinates" if you are merely talking about a spaceship traveling from Earth to Alpha Centauri.  The spaceship is moving at high speed away from the Earth.  We know the spaceship is moving because it had to accelerate in order to get to the speeds needed to demonstrate time dilation.  The earth does not accelerate. 

If you know how fast the space ship is traveling relative to the earth, you can calculate the exact amount of time dilation that people on the spaceship will experience.  Or you can approximate it, based upon prior calculations and your understanding of the patterns.  And if you have a pulsar that is in the right place, you can compare pulses from the pulsar to verify that time dilation is happening, while at the same demonstrating that the people on the spaceship can SEE that their time is passing slower than on earth because the pulses from the pulsar will arrive at a faster rate, something that is totally impossible if time dilation wasn't happening on the spaceship. 

What "systems of coordinates" am I using?  I'm really not using any.  I'm just using logic based upon established facts.  If you want to do the calculations, then you need to create "systems of coordinates." If you cannot do that using a pulsar as a third "clock," then you are probably not doing the math correctly.  And, presumably, you are a Quantum Mechanics mathematician, who most people know cannot cope with the realities of space and time, since they really only understand the probabilities of events that occur at the atomic and sub-atomic level.


© 2021 by Ed Lake