Ed Lake's web page
clipper cover
If you want my opinion ......
you've come to the right place.
 
Welcome to Ed Lake's web site!
 
email
                  address

I also have an interactive blog open for discussions
at this link: http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/
(And I have two science-related Facebook discussion groups, HERE and HERE.)

My latest comments are near the bottom of this page.
You can go directly to them by clicking HERE.

Click HERE to go to the site archives.

A Crime Unlike Any Other book
                cover
Available to read on Kindle.  Click HERE for details.

Available at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Ed the famous
                  detective
Click HERE to go to my web site about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Click HERE to go to my interactive blog where the anthrax attacks of 2001 are discussed.
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "The Reality of Time Dilation".
Click HERE to read my scientific paper titled "What is Time?"


My interests are writing, books, movies, science, psychology, conspiracy theorists,
p
hotography, photographic analysis, TV, travel, mysteries, jazz, blues, and ...

just trying to figure things out.


Astronomy example picture big sleep
time article
A major interest: Fact Finding
                                  I have a fascination with Time and Time Dilation.                                Another interest: Movies Click on the above image to view a larger version.

My Latest Comments


Comments for Sunday, July 22, 2018, thru Saturday, July 28, 2018:

July 22, 2018 - This morning is another one of those Sunday mornings when I have nothing prepared for this Sunday comment, so I have to start from scratch.   So, here goes.

Yesterday, I sat down at my computer and tried to write something, but I had so many things on my mind as a result of some very interesting arguments on the sci.physics.relativity Usenet/Google discussion forum that I didn't know where to begin.  I had also been thinking about writing a new paper titled "The Speed of Light is Variable," but then, as I was doing research for it, I realized that much of what I was thinking of writing about I had already written about in my 2016 paper "Time Dilated Light."  So, if I continue working on "The Speed of Light is Variable," it should really be a new version of that earlier paper, but with the new and more eye-catching title.

On the Usenet forum, Paparios came up with an argument I'd never seen before.  I think he was arguing that time dilation isn't real.  He set up an elaborate situation where a train with a clock in each car (all synchronized to run at the same rate) was passing an embankment where more clocks (also synchronized) were lined up with the clocks positioned one car-length apart.  Like so:

The train:  |__o__| |__o__| |__o__| |__o__| |__o__|  Embankment: ___o___ ___o___ ___o___ ___o___ ___o___

The argument was that as the first car in the train passes by each one of the clocks on the embankment, the time shown by each successive clock on the embankment will be slightly later than the time on the previous clock. (Duh!)  And, likewise, from the point of view of the last clock on the embankment:

                 <--    |__o__| |__o__| |__o__||__o__|
___o___ ___o___ ___o___ ___o___
     
Paparios argued that, when the first clock on the train passes the last clock on the embankment, their times will be identical, and when the first clock on the train passes the next clock on the embankment their times will also be identical.  And the time on the first clock on the train will be identical to the time of each succeeding clock that is passed on the embankment. 

But, according to Paparios, when the accumulated passage of time for all six clocks is tallied, the clocks on the train will show less time has passed for those clocks, and the clocks on the embankment will show that less time has passed for those clocks.


At least that is what I think he is arguing.  I can't make any sense of it.  And the matter became even more confusing when someone named Hallston posted a vaguely similar argument.  Hallston is someone who I had never argued with before, and I've never seen him post before.  He posts very lengthy and well-written arguments.  They are just a bit loony.

Hallston's first argument was similar to Paparios's argument:
Consider two rows of clocks in relative motion, such as one row of clocks sitting along an embankment and another row of clocks on a moving train. (Each row of clocks has been synchronized using the usual physical processes in its frame.) We find that the readings on each clock on the train advance at a slower rate than the readings on the successive clocks on the embankment as it passes them, BUT we also find that the readings of each clock on the embankment advance at a slower rate than the readings on the successive clocks on the train as they pass it. So, which clocks are running faster? 
When I argued that that was a nothing more than another preposterous claim that all motion is reciprocal, he responded with a different argument:
The crucial fact is this: When compared with the clocks on the embankment, the clocks on the train are not just ticking at a slower rate, their values are offset from each other by different amounts. When the clock at the middle of the train reads 12:00, the clock at the front of the train reads (say) 11:59 and the clock at the back of the train reads 12:01. (The clocks in between are all offset in proportion to their distance from the center).
That was an argument I had never seen before.  When I asked him where he got that idea from, he responded:
It's standard in introductory texts. See for example Figure 2.4 in Rindler's "Essential Relativity".
There is a free copy of that book on-line, so I looked it up.  It's on page 40.  Below is a screen-capture of that page:

--------------------- start screen capture of page 40 -------------------
Wolfgang Rindler's "midframe
                          lemma" theory
------------------------ end screen capture of  page 40 ----------

It's a bizarre theory that between any two reference frames (S and S') there will be another reference frame
(S'') "relative to which S and S' have equal and opposite velocities."  Huh?

I didn't really have the time to try to decipher that, but I did look up a term that Rindler uses as if it was a common term.  (I
t's highlighted in the screen capture above.)  I looked up "midframe lemma" via Google, and got only 8 results, all of them referring to Wolfgang Rindler.  So, it's one person's theory that another person (Hallston) has seemingly distorted to mean something totally different.

On the train you can have clocks in every car, but the entire train is one "inertial frame of reference."  You can't create a new inertial frame of reference in the middle of another inertial frame of reference and argue that it will somehow show different test results.

I could go on and on and on.  My point is that arguing with Paparios and Hallston causes me to view things from different angles, and that enables me to understand things better - and to find new things I hadn't thought about before.

The key thing I learned yesterday, which I didn't realize until I thought more about it as I lay in bed this morning waiting for it to be time to get up, is that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second relative to me and the length of my local second.  I've always known that, of course, but no one ever before asked me how the speed of light is measured relative to the maximum, where time stops and nothing can travel any faster.  I had been suggesting it could somehow be measured that way - against the maximum.  It can't, because the "maximum" is different depending upon your local zero and the length of your local second.  It is different atop a mountain versus at the bottom of a mountain, and it is different if you are on a moving train versus being on the "stationary" embankment.   So, the speed of light is measured relative to you in your "inertial frame of reference" regardless of where that frame is located.    

And I've finally reached the end of another Sunday comment.  I don't know if any of what I wrote makes any sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me.  And now I'm ready to get back on sci.physics.relativity and argue some more ---- after lunch. 


Comments for Sunday, July 15, 2018, thru Saturday, July 21, 2018:

July 19, 2018 - This morning I awoke thinking once again about radar guns.  There is still something about them that bothers me.  I can describe the problem by explaining the two situations as shown in the illustration below:

Relative speeds from 2
                                    different points of view

In Situation A, the speeder is moving eastward at 100 miles per hour from the point of view of the Police officer.  The officer's radar gun emits photons which oscillate at a specific frequency and which travel at the speed of light (c or 299,792,458 meters per second) toward the speeding car.

Atoms in the car's bumper and front end encounter the photons at c + 100 mph.  The atoms react to that extra speed (also known as "the Doppler shift")  as being a higher energy or higher oscillation frequency.  So, they generate new Doppler-shifted photons which oscillate at the higher frequency and which are sent back to the radar gun. 

The police officer's radar gun receives the higher oscillating frequency photons, it subtracts the original oscillating frequency from the Doppler-shifted frequency of the returned photons, and it determines that the target car was traveling at 100 mph relative to the radar gun and the police officer.

The officer stops the speeder and gives him a ticket for traveling at 100 mph.

In Situation B, the speeder is again traveling eastward, but this time he is also being viewed by a physicist located at a point in space that is stationary relative to the center of the earth.  As in Situation A, the speeder is again traveling at 100 miles per hour from the point of view of the police officer.  However, from the point of view of the physicist, the car is traveling at 100 miles per hour car speed plus 1,000 miles per hour with the earth as the earth spins on its axis.

In this situation, the radar gun emitter is moving at backwards at 1,000 mph.  However, the speed of the emitter doesn't add or subtract from the speed of light,  so the photons emitted by the radar gun still travel at 299,792,458 meters per second (c) toward the speeding car. 

Atoms in the car's bumper and front end again encounter the photons at c + 100 mph.  The atoms again interpret that extra speed (also known as "the Doppler shift")  as being a higher energy or higher oscillation frequency.  So, they generate new Doppler-shifted photons which oscillate at the higher frequency and which are sent back to the radar gun.  Once again, because the speed of the emitter cannot add to or subtract from the speed of light being emitted, the new photons travel back to the radar gun at c.

Now here's the problem: According to the physicist in space, the radar gun is moving at 1,000 mph away from the point where the new photons were emitted.  But the radar gun will not register that speed because it does not measure any Doppler shift on the returning photons, it just compares the oscillation frequency of the photons it emitted to the oscillation frequency of the photons that came back.  So, it still computes and displays the speed of the oncoming car as 100 mph.

I do not fully understand how the radar gun can ignore the Doppler shift for the returning photons and just compare the oscillating frequencies of the original photons to the returned photons.  The radar gun is, in effect, a radio transmitter and receiver, since it sends out and receives photons oscillating in the radio frequency range.  And the radar gun evidently does the oscillation frequency comparison with a tuner.  I do not fully understand how a radio tuner works, but a tuner doesn't seem to care how fast a photon is traveling, it can compare photon oscillating frequencies regardless of velocities. 

That probably explains why your radio works just fine whether you are moving or not, even if you are on an airplane or a spaceship.  Radio signals sent to people on board the International Space Station (ISS) are not distorted when received.  If the ISS is moving toward the emitter, the signal might be louder than if the ISS is moving away from the emitter, because it receives more photons in a given period of time.  But the oscillating frequency of the photons will not change and thus the tuner will convert the photons into sound without any slowing or speeding up distortions. 

This is also why the police officer I talked with was able to say that when a radar gun in a patrol car moving at 60 mph is pointed at a highway sign planted next to the road, the speed of the highway sign will register as zero on the radar gun (actually as "no reading").  The speed of the patrol car did not change the speed of the photons the radar gun emitted, the photons still traveled at c just as they would if the patrol car was stationary, and the photons returning from the highway sign oscillated at the same rate as the emitted photons.  The fact that the patrol car was moving toward the highway sign did not generate any Doppler effect because the gun just compares oscillating frequencies of photons sent and received, it does not measure or compute incoming Doppler effects.

I can accept that the radar gun does work that way.  I think I can visualize how the "tuner" can compare photons without being affected by the incoming speed of the returned photons.  But what I am missing is some science book or physics paper that confirms what I wrote above or states in plain English where I am wrong.  Nothing I can find seems to address the issue of how emitted and returned photons are compared while ignoring the incoming Doppler effect.  They just say the two photons are "beat together."  "Beat together" supposedly means that they somehow combine (or "beat together") the two photons, and that somehow results in a brand new photon that oscillates at the difference between the original two oscillating frequencies.  And that difference is equal to the speed of the target vehicle. 

It's easy to write the words, and I think I can even visualize the process.  But I still need to find some quotable source that says that radio receivers and radar guns ignore the incoming Doppler shift when the receiver or gun is moving toward or away from an emitter or transmitter.  And that's my problem.  Until I can find a good source that states exactly that, I'll always feel that there could be something important I still do not understand. 


July 18, 2018 - One of the problems (and pleasures) of doing scientific research is that you can stumble across things that you weren't looking for, but which are very interesting, and that can result in getting distracted for hours and hours.  Today I was reading a scientific paper that used a book titled "Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time" as a reference, so I did a Google search for the book.  To my surprise, the third link in the list Google provided was to a place where I could get a free copy of the book in pdf format.  So, I downloaded it and browsed through it.  I found page 26  to be very interesting and did some underlining in red:

Splitting the Second - page 26

I hadn't really thought of clocks that way.  Or, maybe I did but I never quite phrased it that way.

So, everything that oscillates or rotates or pulses at a regular pace could be a clock - an atom, a particle, a metronome, a heart, or a balance wheel.  I knew that, I just hadn't thought about how all you need to do is add a counter to count and display the cycles, and you have a clock.  I was focused on how time dilation says that every one of those oscillating systems will slow down when they are part of something going very fast or part of something that is approaching a gravitational mass. 

The Google search also found some reviews for the book, which was published in 2000.  A review in Physics Today seems kind of snippy, complaining that the author gives too much credit to British scientists and omits what the (American-made) GPS system has done for timekeeping.  The review says:
The global positioning system (GPS), while mentioned, is not properly credited for its importance in the worldwide distribution of accurate time. GPS has now become the dominant means to obtain time, even in ways of which the ultimate user is unaware. Its success and easy availability in providing time even threaten the development of new, more expensive clocks.
Has the GPS system "become the dominant means to obtain time"?  I guess I am one of the "ultimate users" who is unaware of that.  And I still do not understand what the reviewer means.  As far as I know, I have never used the GPS system. From my point of view, the book seems to have a lot to say about the GPS system, including something I was totally unaware of.  This is from page 130:  
But the most significant development in time transfer since the 1980s has been the growth of two satellite navigation systems, GPS and GLONASS. GPS is a network of 24 Navstar satellites operated by the US Department of Defense. GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System) is a similar array of satellites operated by the Russian military.
I had never heard of GLONASS before.  This is from page 131 (remember that the book was published in 2000):
The Russian system, GLONASS, is taking longer to gain acceptance and suffers from reliability problems. Like GPS, the constellation is supposed to have 24 operational satellites, but many have failed and by the spring of 2000 only ten were working.
Checking GLONASS on Wikipedia, I found it says,

Development of GLONASS began in the Soviet Union in 1976. Beginning on 12 October 1982, numerous rocket launches added satellites to the system until the constellation was completed in 1995. After a decline in capacity during the late 1990s, in 2001, under Vladimir Putin's presidency, the restoration of the system was made a top government priority and funding was substantially increased. GLONASS is the most expensive program of the Russian Federal Space Agency, consuming a third of its budget in 2010.

By 2010, GLONASS had achieved 100% coverage of Russia's territory and in October 2011, the full orbital constellation of 24 satellites was restored, enabling full global coverage.
Hmm.  I wonder what President Trump would say about that.  He'd probably say that the Russians just didn't make their system a top priority. 

Searching for comparisons of the two systems, I found a web site that says:

In terms of positional accuracy GPS is slightly better than GLONASS overall, but due to the different positioning of the GLONASS satellites, GLONASS has better accuracy at high latitudes (far north or south).
I also found another web site that says GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of 19,130 kilometers and GLOSNASS satellites orbit at an altitude of 21,150 kilometers.  President Trump would probably argue that proves that the Russian system is superior, but further research shows that the European Union has another GPS system that is almost fully operational.  It is called GALILEO, and their satellites orbit at an altitude of 23,220 kilometers.  In addition, newer smartphones and other devices use signals from multiple systems to further improve accuracy.  

July 16, 2018 - It has always bugged me that mathematicians do not care if light consists of wave or particles.  They're not interested in how the universe works, they are only interested in the math.  They use one math formula when they want to solve a problem by viewing light as waves, and they use another math formula when they want to solve a problem by viewing light as photons.

In discussions on Usenet yesterday, I came to realize that they also do not care if the speed of light is variable or invariable.  They'll endlessly argue that the speed of light is invariable (claiming it is what Einstein's theories say, even though it it actually contrary to Einstein's theories), and then they'll argue that when light is emitted downward toward the earth it will increase in frequency and become "blueshifted" when it reaches the earth.  Likewise, light emitted upward from the earth will decrease in frequency and become "redshifted."

The problem is, if you view light as photons or waves, that means that, when you emit photons or waves downward, the photons or waves will arrive at a higher frequency (or faster rate) than you emitted themThat is impossible (It also means that when you emit photons upward, they will arrive slower than you emitted them.  That is equally absurd, but less easy to show to be absurd.)  I just slapped together the cartoon below to illustrate the situation.  I'll create a better one when I have more time.

Mathematicians' gravitational blueshift
                            theory

Imagine dropping marbles from the top of a tower at a rate of one per second.  The marbles will accelerate as they fall, which means they will travel faster and faster as they fall, but the number of marbles cannot increase.  So, the marbles will still hit the ground at the bottom of the tower at the same rate of one per second that they were dropped.  The frequency will remain unchanged.

The frequency also cannot change when light photons or waves are emitted downward toward the earth without somehow creating more photons while en route!  The only thing that can change in their experiment is the speed of light.  That means that, according to the beliefs of mathematicians, the wave or photon is traveling faster when it hits the earth than it was traveling when it was created.

The most famous experiment they cite is Pound-Rebka.  Here is what Wikipedia says about that experiment:
If the two systems are stationary relative to one another and the space between them is flat (i.e. we neglect gravitational fields) then the photon emitted by the emitter can be absorbed by the electron in the receiver. However, if the two systems are in a gravitational field then the photon may undergo gravitational redshift as it travels from the first system to the second, causing the photon frequency observed by the receiver to be different to the frequency observed by the emitter when it was originally emitted. Another possible source of redshift is the Doppler effect: if the two systems are not stationary relative to one another then the photon frequency will be modified by the relative speed between them.
and this part fits better with the cartoon:
In the Pound-Rebka experiment, the emitter was placed at the top of tower with the receiver at the bottom. General relativity predicts that the gravitational field of the Earth will cause a photon emitted downwards (towards the Earth) to be blueshifted (i.e. its frequency will increase)
That last part says that the individual photon's "frequency will increase."  In other words, the individual photon oscillates at a faster rate.  But what would cause the photon to oscillate at a faster and faster rate as it move?  Why would gravity cause a photon to oscillate faster and faster?  Besides, mathematicians endlessly claim that photons do not oscillate.

Their beliefs make no sense.   What Einstein's theory says is that the emitter at the top emits one wave per second, and the guy at the bottom received 3 waves per second because a second is longer when you are closer to a center of gravity.  The guy at the top emitted one wave per his second, and the guy at the bottom received three waves per his second.

I'm thinking I need to write a paper about this.

July 15, 2018 - I keep thinking I should stop arguing with people on the different Usenet groups and just work on a book about it all.  But then, while I am explaining something to one of them, I'll realize something I hadn't realized before.  That happened a couple days ago on the sci.physics.research Usenet group when three things happened in succession.  First, Edward Prochak tried to create an experiment involving two moving trains passing each other where it would be impossible to prove anything.  Then, a moderator tried to set up rules for all time-dilation experiments where an observer must be in two places at once, thereby making it impossible to perform any such experiments.  Then, Tom Roberts once again argued that all time dilation experiments require some kind of mysterious "signals" which he cannot explain, but which he claims invalidate all time dilation experiments.

When those three arguments are combined with all the arguments from people who refuse to believe that time dilation is a real natural phenomenon unless you can see that your clock is running slower while you travel at high speeds (which makes no sense if everything that is moving is running slower, including your brain), the whole debate seems to be about not accepting the results of experiments.  They do not believe in experiments, particularly time dilation experiments, and they look for ways to discredit experiments. (I assume that they do believe in mathematical experiments, just not physical experiments.)

Sometimes, too, one of the people I'm arguing with will say something interesting. For example, yesterday Tom Roberts said atomic clocks

are specified by their manufacturer to operate only under accelerations less than 2 g.
Hmm.  That probably means gravitational time dilation will seriously affect the time shown by the atomic clock if you operate it under 2G conditions or higher.  So, unless you are measuring gravitational time dilation, gravitational time dilation can cause accuracy problems with atomic clocks.  (Tom Roberts was arguing that the clocks malfunction if you operate them at 2G or higher.  He claimed, "the mechanical structure might not remain stable.")

Something else happened yesterday while I was arguing about the centrifuge time dilation experiment mentioned in my Analyzing the "Twin Paradox" paper.  I then had to create the illustration below to help explain my thoughts to myself.
Clocks in a centrifuge time dilation
                          experiment 
The argument was about how time dilation works in the centrifuge situation.  Unlike the Hafele-Keating experiments, the spin of the earth plays no role in this experiment.  Even though it might seem otherwise, both clocks move around the Earth's axis together.  The stationary clock (x1) in the control room and the moving clock (x2) on the centrifuge are mathematically stationary relative to one another.  Part of the time the x2 clock is moving sideways to the left (A) relative to the x1 clock.  Part of the time the x2 clock is moving sideways to the right (C) relative to the x1 clock.  Part of the time the x2 clock is moving away (B) from the x1 clock.  And part of the time the x2 clock is moving toward (D) the x1 clock.   All relative movement is balanced out.  It is just as if the two clocks were both stationary relative to one another (for purposes of location).  

However, relative to the speed of light (which is where time dilation occurs) the centrifuge clock (x2) is moving significantly faster than the control clock (x1).  The fact that the movement is in a circle makes no difference.

For some reason, people keep wanting to measure time dilation between x2 and some point midway between x2 and the center of the spinning centrifuge.  I think it may be because that is how they model their mathematical equations.  They have no standard model equations that compare a point on the centrifuge to a point outside of the centrifuge room.

It is all very interesting, and sometimes I am getting defenders who explain things the way I explain them.  And they also criticize Tom Roberts for arguing the same nonsense about "signals" over and over and over, even though he has been proved wrong again and again and again. 

Also, the feedback I am getting about the centrifuge time dilation experiment on Facebook's Astrophysics and Physics group has all been positive.   It has mostly just been people clicking on "like" or "love," but there has occasionally been an intelligent question for me to answer.


Comments for Sunday, July 8, 2018, thru Saturday, July 14, 2018:

July 13, 2018 - Yesterday, I tried to start a new thread on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group.  The moderators finally approved it and it appeared on the group about 45 minutes ago.  Unfortunately, it's a very popular group and about a dozen other threads have been started since then.  So, my new thread might get lost in the clutter.  Time will tell. (It got its first "like" about 35 minutes ago.)

Meanwhile, arguments continue on the sci.physics.research Usenet group, even though moderators continue to block some of my posts.  I received an email this morning from a moderator that said:

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is inappropriate for the newsgroup because its statements about special
relativity are simply wrong.  What Steve Carlip wrote,

SR says that in Alice's rest frame, Bob's
clock appears to tick slower than Alice's, and in Bob's rest frame, Alice's clock appears to tick slower than Bob's.  *You* don't get to decide which clock is "really" slower, unless you want to claim that your reference frame is better than anyone else's.
is correct.
Sigh.  The moderator is someone at the University of Indiana.  So, I'm going to reply to advise him that "you" can claim your clock is "really slower" because a everyone else will agree.  They'll agree because all of their clocks are running faster.  SR (Special Relativity) says so.  SR does NOT say that Bob's clock will appear to tick slower than Alice's and Alice's clock will appear to tick slower than Bob's. 

I'm beginning to feel once again that I'm never going to change anyone's mind.  So, the only purpose in arguing with them is to verify that I am correct.  They have no arguments that I am wrong.  All they have are incorrect beliefs about what Einstein wrote (as seen in the quote above).  And when I quote what Einstein wrote, they respond that it may be what he wrote, but it isn't what he meant.  And then it turns into an opinion vs opinion argument about what Einstein was "really" thinking in 1905.

July 12, 2018 - Nuts!  I got a typical Facebook response to the thread about atomic clocks on a centrifuge that I started in the Neil de Grasse Tyson group: I got 3 "likes," 1 "love" and 1 "share."  NO comments.  Not a single one.  Nada.

And in the past 24 hours there were only 10 views of my paper about it and the "twin paradox" that I put on vixra.org.  Of course, no one knows about the paper except for people who read this web site - and maybe someone who might stumble across it while browsing through vixra.org.  I didn't mention it in the Facebook post.  And I haven't yet mentioned it on any Usenet group.

Meanwhile, on the sci.physics.research Usenet group, a moderator allowed one of my posts to appear along with the moderator's thoughts about what I'd posted:

[[Mod. note -- As Tom Roberts (& others) have pointed out, in order
to directly compare clocks A and B, A and B must be colocated for
the duration of the comparison, i.e., they must be at the same
position and (be observed by *all* observers to be) moving at the
same velocity.


If these conditions don't hold, then we can't directly compare A
and B.  We may be able to compare (say) A to signals broadcast by
B, but that's a rather different sort of (indirect) comparison.
-- jt]]
That makes no sense at all!  In order to compare a clock that is traveling at 99.5% of the speed of light to a clock on earth, they must be "colocated" in the same position where they can be viewed by all observers????!!!!

In other words, you can't compare a clock in space to a clock on Earth unless they are both side by side on Earth!  You cannot even compare a clock on Earth to a clock that was sent into space and then returned to Earth, because the two clocks "must be colocated for the duration of the comparison."  What the f.....!?

Hmm.  On the other hand, it looks like a good opportunity for me to mention my "twin paradox paper" and the centrifuge experiment.  You can have all the observers you want watching the experiment.  Everything is "colocated" in one location: a human centrifuge test facility such as the one at NASA's Ames Research Center.  Or would they argue that if you cannot see the clock sitting outside of the centrifuge room at the same time as you see the clocks on the centrifuge, then the test is invalid?  You could do that with TV cameras.   Hmm.

July 11, 2018 - Okay, there was an email in my inbox this morning informing me that my paper Analyzing the "Twin Paradox" is now on vixra.org at this link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0192v1.pdf   The email was posted at 5:07 p.m. last night, but so far there have been no readers.

For what it's worth, yesterday I was informed by NASA's Ames Research center that, "we have never spun an atomic clock here in our centrifuge."  So, I'm going to make a suggestion to a couple well-known scientists that they perform such an experiment.  If you read my paper, you will see that I suggest a third way to slow down time - after velocity and gravitation.  You can do all three in a centrifuge.

Meanwhile, a censor/moderator on the sci.physics.research newsgroup rejected my reply to Tom Robert's latest message to me.  The moderator (located in Germany) sent me an email that said,
Your posting is inappropriate for sci.physics.research since it doesn't contain any scientific arguments. BTW, the language of science, particularly physics, in fact is math, at least it's the only language adequate to formulate what physics is about.      
My post was, of course, filled with "scientific arguments," but I also mentioned that mathematical models do not necessarily represent reality.  I have to assume that the moderator is a mathematician-physicist, based upon the last sentence he wrote in the quote above.  So, he censored my post because it conflicts with his beliefs. 

On the positive side, he or another moderator allowed another post of mine to go through and appear on the forum.  It was a post to someone else.  On the negative side, this morning I noticed an error in that post and deleted it.  On the positive side, later I used Usenet to post a corrected message and a response to another post addressed to me.  Tomorrow I should find out if either one or both were approved by the moderators.

Added note: This afternoon I sent an email to a famous scientist who is an expert on time dilation, asking him if he thinks putting an atomic clock on a 20G centrifuge would cause the clocks to slow down just as if placed on a planet with gravity 20 times as strong as the gravity on Earth.  I'm awaiting a response. 

Then, instead of just sending an email to Neil de Grasse Tyson to ask him the same question, I posted the question to the Neil de Grasse Tyson Facebook group. I said it would make an interesting TV program.  I had never posted to that group before, and I discovered it is moderated.  But, a few minutes later the post was approved and appeared on the group  So, I should find out tomorrow if any of the 44,051 members has an opinion about the idea.  I don't know if Dr. Tyson has anything to do with the group, but it will still be interesting to see what others think.  I can always find some other way to contact Dr. Tyson.

July 10, 2018 - Hmm.  Past experience was not a proper guide to use regarding my new paper.  It did not appear on vixra.org this morning.  I don't recall any submission of mine ever taking more than a day to appear on vixra.org.  The paper either appeared within a few hours on the same day I submitted it, or it appeared the next morning.  I'm not concerned that it might have been rejected for some reason.  A check of recent submissions shows they haven't processed any papers submitted after 6:47 a.m. on July 9.  I submitted my paper at 11:05 a.m.  Maybe everyone at vixra.org has stopped work to study my paper.  ;-)

I'm really hoping to get some reaction to the idea of putting atomic clocks on a centrifuge.  If there is something wrong with the idea, I would like to have what is wrong explained to me.  How does gravity simulated by a centrifuge differ from gravity simulated by a moving elevator in Einstein's thought experiment?  I can see that the idea won't fit typical "mathematical models" used to calculate time dilation and gravity, but that would just confirm that "mathematical models" do not necessarily represent reality.  Mathematicians use one mathematical model when arguing that light consists of waves, and they use a different mathematical model when arguing that light consists of particles we call "photons."  It seems as if they do not care how light really works as long as all the mathematical models give them the answers they need.  If putting atomic clocks on a centrifuge shows that their mathematical models are wrong, I would see that as a step forward toward understanding the universe, not a step backward because someone needs to re-do some equations. 

Meanwhile, I'll be arguing with the people on the sci.physics.research discussion group.  Mostly I'll be explaining things to them.  They're asking valid questions about Relativity, and I try to provide helpful answers.  (They do not believe there is any "preferred frame of reference" in the universe, but according to Einstein you do not need one.  Time can be used to determine who is moving faster than  whom.)  One of my most rabid enemies on the sci.physics.relativity discussion group, Tom Roberts, has joined the argument once again.  He makes declarations and personal attacks and declares that arguing with me is a waste of time, then he says goodbye only to reappear again a day or two later to do the same thing over again. The moderators have been deleting some of my responses to him, but this morning it seems like a moderator has joined the discussion.  So, maybe my response to Roberts will get posted this time.  
 

July 9, 2018 - At 11:05 a.m. this morning, I submitted the first draft of my paper "Analyzing the 'Twin Paradox'" to vixra.org.  If past experience is any guide, the paper should be on-line tomorrow morning as the newest item in my collection of scientific papers.  The paper is just 9 pages long, but it seems to include just about every controversial topic related to Relativity.  I also included the proposed experiment I described in yesterday's comment, the experiment where atomic clocks are placed aboard a large centrifuge and spun at about 20 Gs for 22 hours.

Before doing the final reading of the paper this morning, I tried to find a "gravitational time dilation calculator" on-line, but no luck.  It would have been nice if I could have included a statement as to how many fewer nanoseconds the atomic clock on the centrifuge should record when compared to the reference atomic clock which remains outside of the centrifuge room during an experiment lasting 22 hours at 20 Gs.  I realize that virtually every atomic clock in the world ticks at a slightly different rate due to differences in the altitudes of the clocks, but I was hoping to find a calculator that uses some specific clock as representing zero altitude.  But then, of course, the calculator might not be able to calculate stronger gravity than at "zero altitude" on earth, it might only calculate lesser gravity as higher altitudes reduce the effect of gravity.   

As soon as my paper becomes available on vixra, I'll send out some emails mentioning the paper to scientists who would theoretically be in interested in what the results would show (and who inexplicably have not already performed such an experiment).  In theory, NASA could perform the experiment tomorrow at virtually no cost.

Of course, it's possible that there is something everyone else in the world understands that has never occurred to me, and thus such an experiment would .... would ... would show what?  I cannot even guess what it might show other than that time ticks slower for clocks on the spinning centrifuge. 

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to to a Discover magazine on-line article titled "Einstein Right Again: Even the Heaviest Objects Fall the Same Way."  The article begins with this:

Albert Einstein’s been having quite a few weeks! First his “imaginary elevator” thought experiment was confirmed with unprecedented precision, then his theory of relativity was shown to create gravitational lenses as expected even in other galaxies. And today, we learn that a central tenet of relativity still holds even at gravitational extremes. It’s no annus mirabilis, but it ain’t bad.

Today’s news, which appears in the journal Nature, concerns the equivalence principal, which roughly says that falling objects should all fall the same way. It sounds obvious put that way, of course, but the idea that heavier objects should fall at the same rate as lighter objects (discounting air resistance) still surprises people. The idea is that gravity accelerates heavier objects faster, sure, but because they’re more massive it’s harder for them to accelerate, so the two effects cancel out.
What the hell!?  Why are they performing experiments which simply confirm what has been known for hundreds of years?

The article held little interest for me, but the first link in the article was to a different Discover magazine article titled "Einstein’s ‘Imaginary Elevator’ Thought Experiment Proven Right Again."  While it appears to be about yet another experiment that does nothing but confirm what has been known for over a hundred years, at least it was on a subject related to what was in my new article: how simulated added gravity (like one experiences in a centrifuge) works the same as real added gravity (like one experiences on a larger planet).  The article at the link included a link to the article in Nature Physics magazine that generated the Discover article.  Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, the Nature Physics article is just about measuring something more precisely than was done in the thousands of times it was measured before.  Yawn.  

I'd really like to see a new experiment which measures time dilation in a different way than has ever been done before - like putting atomic clocks on a centrifuge.  Whatever results the experiment produces, it should be far more interesting than an experiment that just refines results that have been known for centuries.

July 8, 2018 - I've been working on a new paper that I have tentatively titled "The Twin Paradox Clarified."  Or maybe "Analyzing The Twin Paradox."  Since the paper will explain that there is no paradox, I've also considered titling it "The Twin Paradox Deparadoxified," but that might cause people to think it is a humorous paper or just a joke.


While doing the research, I once again read the paper that supposedly created the whole "twin paradox" idea: Paul Langevin's 1911 paper "The Evolution of Space and Time."  I still find it interesting that the paper doesn't even use the word "twin."  It only discusses how a space "traveler" will age compared to everyone he leaves behind on earth:
Let us assume that two portions of matter encounter each other a first time, separate, and then meet again. We are able to state that observers attached to one and to the other respectively during the separation will not have made the same evaluation of the duration of this separation and will not have aged to the same extent as each other, it follows from what has been said above that the ones that will have aged the least will be those whose motion during the separation has been farthest from being uniform, or who have undergone most accelerations.

In this observation there lies the means, for any one of us willing to devote two years of his life to it, of knowing what will have become of the Earth in two hundred years, of exploring the future of the Earth by taking a forward leap into its lifetime that will last two centuries for the Earth and two years for him, although it would have to be without any hope of returning or any possibility of becoming back to inform us of the result of his journey, since any attempt to do this could only carry him farther and farther forward.

To do this, our traveler would need only to agree to being shut up inside a projectile that the Earth would launch at a velocity sufficiently close to that of light, but still less than it, which is physically possible, arranging for an encounter with, say, a star to take place at the end of one year in the lifetime of the traveler and to send him back towards the Earth at the same velocity. Having returned to Earth two years older, he will emerge from his ark to find that our globe has aged two hundred years, provided that his velocity has remained within the range of only one part in twenty thousand less than the velocity of light. The most reliably established experimental facts of physics enable us to state that this is indeed what would happen.

I also found it interesting that Paul Langevin didn't attribute the slowing of time to traveling at a constant inertial speed that is close to the speed of light, he attributes it to acceleration.  It's interesting because a lot of papers about the "twin paradox" seem to say that acceleration somehow negates the effects of pure inertial velocity time dilation.  For example, here is the abstract for one paper on arxiv.org:
We discuss a rather surprising version of the twin paradox in which (contrary to the familiar classical version) the twin who accelerates is older on the reunion than his never accelerating brother.
I cannot make much sense of these papers, since as I see it, acceleration slows down time just as gravity and velocity do.  In practice, gravitational time dilation typically occurs in combination with velocity time dilation, which means that  one process can slow time while the other speeds up time.  That's what happens with GPS satellites.  The altitude above the earth (and the resultant reduced gravity) causes time to run faster, while the speed of the satellite as it orbits the earth causes time to run slower.  So, clocks on those satellites are set for the net difference.

The Hafele-Keating experiment also had to compensate for both gravitational and velocity time dilation.  While researching that experiment, I found this interesting illustration:
Hafele-Keating Experiments
The experiment is viewed from point "A," which is a "stationary" point in space such as the sun (or the observer depicted as scratching his head).  From that point of view, the clock at the Naval Observatory (B) used for comparisons was moving with the earth from west to east as the earth spins on its axis.  When Hafele and Keating flew west to east (C) their speed around the earth (v) was added to the speed of the earth and the Naval clock (vE).  So, time ran slower for them.  When they flew east to west (D) the Naval clock and the surface of the earth were going one way while Hafele and Keating were going the other way, so they were traveling slower than the earth was spinning.  Time ran faster for them.  As the table below shows, the moving clocks accumulated 59 fewer nanoseconds than the Naval clock during the eastward trip (time ran slower for the experimenters), and during the westward trip the moving clocks accumulated 273 more nanoseconds than the Naval clock (time ran faster for the experimenters).

Hafele Keating test results    
That caused me to wonder what would happen if you put an atomic clock on a human centrifuge like those used to test astronauts and fighter pilots.  The image below shows one of many such centrifuges.

Human centrifuge

It seems like such a simple test, and it uses existing equipment, so why hasn't it been done many times by now?  I did a Google search for atomic clock centrifuge and found that a few other people have been asking the same question, although they mostly seem to wonder about the difference in time dilation between the end of the centrifuge arm and the middle of the arm.  Who cares about that? 

Ames human centrifuge 

The human centrifuge shown above is located at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California.  According to their web site, it can carry a payload of 1,200 pounds, and it can
generate as much as 20 Gs (gravity 20 times normal earth gravity).  What happens to time at 20 Gs?  We know that atomic clocks run slower at the bottom of a mountain than at the top of a mountain because gravity gets weaker the higher your altitude is above mean sea level.  The movie "Interstellar" was about how time moved at a much slower rate on a planet orbiting a black hole than on Earth due to the higher gravity in the vicinity of the black hole.  But exactly what happens when you put an atomic clock on a centrifuge?  It should run significantly slower than a duplicate clock outside of the room.
 
I haven't been able to find how much an atomic clock weighs, but if Hafele and Keating could put four of them in two airplane seats, as seen in the photograph below, then they probably do not weigh much more than 150 pounds each.  So, the Ames centrifuge could easily hold four clocks.  

Hafele and Keating

I also haven't been able to find how fast the centrifuge travels.  The Ames site only mentions that it can travel at a maximum of 50 revolutions per minute and the centrifuge is 58 feet in diameter.  The speed of the centrifuge should slow down the atomic clock a bit due to velocity time dilation, and the increased gravitational effect generated by the centrifuge should slow down the atomic clock even more - maybe very significantly.   

A good mathematician should be able to compute almost exactly what the test results will show.  The longer they can run the test, the better the results should be.  (The Ames web site indicates they can run it as long as 22 hours at a time.) And it is all time dilation, the slowing of time relative to the atomic clock that will be outside of the room.  There is no offsetting speeding up of time.   
      
I'll probably make the suggestion in my paper.  I'd certainly be interested in knowing what the results would be.  I assume that others would, too.  All that is needed if for someone to do it.


Comments for Sunday, July 1, 2018, thru Saturday, July 7, 2018:

July 5, 2018 - The argument I'm having on the sci.physics.research discussion forum hasn't yet been stopped by the moderators.  Moreover, it seems to be getting relatively more attention than other threads.  As of now it has had 204 "views," which seems to be more than every other current thread except for one that began in January and another that began in February.  I started the thread about Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments on May 15.

And, too, when I checked the statistics for my papers on vixra.org this morning, every one of them had at least one new first-time reader in the past 24 hours.

It seems that my argument that time rate comparisons can be used to determine who is traveling faster than whom has gotten people's attention.  It is what Einstein's Special Relativity is all about, of course, but I'm not sure I could find any college textbook or any book of any kind that clearly makes that point.  Instead, they mostly insanely argue that it is impossible to determine who is moving faster than whom, since the typical idiotic interpretation of Einstein's theories is that everyone is "stationary" in their own reference frame, and therefore your velocity relative to my stationary frame is the same as my velocity relative to your stationary frame.

Interestingly, no one yet has asked the questions: If time rate comparisons can be used to tell who is traveling faster than whom - until the speed of light is reached and time stops - is there also a lower limit?  Is there some limit to telling who is traveling slower than whom?  There is, of course.  I was using that limit until I realized that it was easier for people to understand the limit where time completely stops when the speed of light is reached.  The opposite limit would be where
time ticks faster than everywhere else in the universe.  That would have to be a totally stationary point in space where the pull of gravity is the the same in all directions.  When I tried to explain that that could only be the point where the Big Bang began, everyone just mindlessly argued that the Big Bang began "everywhere," so there is no such "point" -- except, of course, for the "singularity" where the Big Bang began.   

Meanwhile, I've stopped browsing through the many hundreds of papers about the so-called "twin paradox," since I haven't been able to find a single one of them that seems worth reading in detail.  It seems totally insane that so many people have written and are still writing complicated papers about the subject.  So, of course, yesterday I started working on a new paper titled "The Twin Paradox Clarified."  I figure if I can't find a single paper on the subject that is worth reading, then I'll just have to write such a paper myself.  Plus, writing the paper forces me to think things through more thoroughly than ever before.  And that is showing me interesting things I'd never even thought about before.

I hope to finish the paper and put it on vixra.org sometime next week.   


July 3, 2018 - Yesterday, someone sent me a link to a website article titled "The Independent Researcher."  The article contains this description of independent researchers:
Imagine studying something that nobody else is studying, for reasons you can’t really articulate, without knowing what the outcome of your work will be. For the truly obsessed person, the need for validation isn’t about ego; it’s about sanity. You want to know there’s some meaning behind the dizzying mental labyrinth that you simultaneously can’t escape and also never want to leave.
Hmm.  Been there, doing that.  I'm really and truly fascinated by how time works and how time can dilate (slow down).  I can't understand why so many people have so many different interpretations and conflicting beliefs about something that really seems straightforward and simple.  Time slows down for an object that is moving, and the faster the object moves, the slower time passes for that object.  What could be simpler than that?  And that fact has been confirmed again and again with atomic clocks.  So, where's the dispute?

The dispute comes from people who do not believe it, and who refuse to believe it, regardless of how much experimental evidence there is to confirm it.

The problem seems to be that those naysayers are generating the most noise, they are constantly writing new articles and books expressing their own beliefs, and they seem to have taken over many of our institutions of higher learning.

Yesterday, I mentioned a book published in 1972 that contained 305 book and article references to the "twin paradox" that sits at the heart of the controversy.  Every one of those 305 books and articles seemed to address the issue from a different angle - usually in mathematical terms.  I could only wonder how many new articles and books have been written about the subject since 1972.

That caused me to wonder how many arxiv.org articles contain the term "twin paradox" in the title.  I checked, and there are currently 37 such articles.  In addition, there are 5 more articles that contain "clock paradox" in the title.  (It's another way of saying the same thing.)   That search doesn't really say how many articles there are on the subject.  A better search would be to see how many articles contain "twin paradox" in the abstractThe answer: 65.  The most recent is from December of 2017, and the oldest is from October of 2000. A count of the number of arxiv.org articles with "clock paradox" in the abstract finds 18 more.

I browsed through some of the papers, but they all seem excruciatingly boring as the authors try to explain some very very very minor point - often in another language which has been badly interpreted into English.

It all makes me think once again about writing a book on the subject, a book in which I would explain how time and time dilation work as clearly and simply as possible.  Then everyone else can work to make those topics more complicated again.  But, at least I will have tried to clarify things.

Meanwhile, as if to illustrate the above point, this morning I found that the moderators on the sci.physics.research discussion forum have allowed two different people to post messages to me and my paper on Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments.  The first new post is from someone named "Edward Prochak" who wrote about a "thought experiment" where he includes all kinds of precautions to prevent the observers from determining who is moving and who is not.  What's the point of such a "thought experiment"?  It's like saying, "If I can create an experiment in which you cannot tell if you are moving or not, you will not be able to tell if you are moving or not."  Duh.  What does that have to do with anything?  I guess I'll have to respond and ask him that question. 

The other new post is the third one from Tom Roberts in the thread.  He posted another very long and repetitious personal attack on me and my understanding of time and time dilation.  Here's the key sentence:
I reject and ignore your outrageous attempt to redefine the word "correct".
It's similar to the argument from Edward Prochak.  It's like saying, if the rules say that you cannot determine what is correct or incorrect, you then cannot tell what is correct and what is incorrect.  Duh.  The objective of physics and science should be to figure out what is correct and what is incorrect.  I guess I'll have to respond and point that out to him.

July 2, 2018 - I began yesterday's comment by saying I was trying to understand why there aren't more news stories about the disagreement over whether time dilation is real or not.  Today the answer seems to be that people are simply tired of reading and arguing about it. 

While researching the subject, I came across a book I had in my collection titled "Relativity Simply Explained" by Martin Gardner.  I'd made a note that it was not worth reading, since it contained the mathematicians' "all observers" theory about measuring the speed of light.  But, when I did a search through it looking to see if it contained anything about the Hafele-Keating experiment, I found an interesting mention of it on page 117.  The mention follows a discussion of the "twin paradox" and attempts to confirm the validity of time dilation.  It then says,
A more direct test was made in 1971 by Joseph Hafale and Richard
Keating. They carried four atomic clocks around the earth on commercial jet liners, first circling the earth eastward, then making a western round trip.  The eastward plane moved faster (relative to the universe) than the westward plane. Compared to a reference clock in Washington, the traveling clocks performed as expected. They lost time on the eastward trip, gained time on the westward trip. Scientific American (September 1972) called it the cheapest test ever made of relativity. It cost about $8,000, of which $7,600 was for air fare.

The time is rapidly approaching when an astronaut can make the final, definitive test by carrying a nuclear clock with him on a long space voyage. No physicist except Professor Dingle* doubts that the astronaut's clock, when he returns, will be slightly out of phase with a nuclear clock that stayed at home.
* Well, not quite. Dingle has a few supporters. An amusing history of the controversy, giving all sides and 305 references, is L. Marder's Time and the Space-Traveller (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974). Dingle (who died in 1978) became persuaded that all of relativity, both special and general, is wrong. See his Science at the Crossroads, published by International Pubns. Service, 1974.
I couldn't quote that as claiming that, except for one person, all physicists agree that time dilation is real, because the footnote says there are a "few supporters" of the one naysayer.  But, more interesting to me was the mention of "Time and the Space-Traveller" by Leslie Marder, and the fact that it had 305 references about the controversy.  It was a book I didn't have in my collection.  So, I immediately tracked down a copy.  It does indeed have 305 references about the "twin paradox" a.k.a. the "clock paradox."  And the book begins with this:
This book was at first conceived as a review of the literature on the clock paradox in relativity theory. The wealth of material which exists on this controversial issue is widely scattered in numerous books and journals, with the result that each time the controversy flares up, the same arguments are put forward with the firm belief that they are original. It seemed desirable, therefore, with the phenomenon of time-dilatation rapidly becoming commonplace (in the laboratory, at least) to gather the material together 'under one roof' and to sort and to examine the arguments in a unified way.
That is more or less what I was thinking of doing.  So, Marder has already done it, which means there is no need for me to do it again, even though Marder's book was first published in 1971 and therefore contains no mention of the Hafele-Keating experiment (which took place late that year).   Moreover, a quick browse through it indicates it generally agrees with everything I would have written.  I'm going to have to read it more thoroughly to see if it contains anything new that I should know.

Meanwhile, I was very surprised to find that a response I wrote yesterday to a second comment by Tom Roberts in the sci.physics.research thread I started on May 15 was quickly moderated and accepted.  My response neatly shot down just about everything Roberts said, so now I'm waiting to see if the moderators will allow the argument to continue.  I'm getting pretty good at shooting down the beliefs of mathematician-physicists like Roberts.  And every day in every way I get better and better.  :-) 

July 1, 2018 - I'm really trying to understand why there aren't more news stories about the disagreement over whether time dilation is real or not.  It seems to be a very serious problem that no one wants to talk about.  It is as if no one cares that colleges and universities are teaching nonsense, even though it seems that a great many people are aware of the problem.

I've been reading article after article about the Hafele-Keating experiment which confirmed that time dilation is real even though mathematicians refuse to accept it.  I began hunting for other articles about the Hafele-Keating experiment after
my curiosity was aroused by a reference to a New Scientist article from February 1972 titled "The Clock Paradox Resolved."  (I wrote about that article in my June 29 (A) comment.)  My research then led to a Time Magazine article from October 18, 1971, titled "Science: A Question of Time."  Interestingly, it's an article that was written just after Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating made their first round-the-world trip with atomic clocks, which began on October 4, 1971, and before making their second trip, which began on October 13, 1971. (The Oct. 18 issue of Time was on the news stands around Oct.11.  Magazine issue dates were always ahead of the dates they were actually issued.)  I was kind of surprised that their experiment was in the news at that time.  The Time magazine article agrees that the moving observer ages "more slowly" than the stationary observer:
The paradox, which stems from Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, is difficult for the layman to comprehend and even harder for scientists to prove. It means that time itself is different for a speeding automobile, for example, than for one parked at the curb. The natural vibrations of the atoms in the engine of the moving auto, the movement of the clock on the dashboard and even the aging of the passengers occur more slowly than they do in the parked car. These changes are imperceptible at low terrestrial speeds, however, and according to the theory become significant only when the velocity of the moving object approaches the speed of light.  
The article also mentions that there are people who do not believe or accept that time dilation is real:
Some theorists have refused to accept such fantastic consequences of the clock paradox and have sought to disprove it. They have even used the paradox in an effort to challenge all of relativity; for Einstein himself admitted that if only one part of his theory proved wrong, its whole finely structured mathematical edifice would crumble. In the September issue of Physics Today, Physicist Mendel Sachs takes a different tack. He contends that the Einstein theory and equations are correct, but that Einstein misinterpreted the equations in stating the clock paradox. A relativity theorist himself at the State University of New York in Buffalo, Sachs argues that the equations suggest that the difference between a clock aboard a spacecraft and one on the ground is observational rather than real. It is, he says, an effect similar to that experienced by an observer on a station platform who hears a change in pitch of the whistle of a passing train—when no change has actually occurred.
That, of course, resulted in me trying to track down a free copy of the Mendel Sachs article.  I wasn't able to do so, but at my local public library I found a paper he got published in Physics Essays in 1990, titled "Einstein and the Evolution of Twentieth Century Physics."  In it, Sachs repeatedly attacks Einstein.  He argues that many physicists blindly follow Einstein without discussing if Einstein was right or wrong.  He says,
To demonstrate this point of the history of science, consider the "phenomenon of Einstein." The outside world looks upon Einstein as a father figure in modem physics. But this is certainly not the case in the community of physicists, in the approaches they have been taking during most of Einstein's life and to the present time.

To illustrate this dichotomy, I recall the following dialogue. I asked an active theoretical/experimental physicist the following question: "Who do you believe is the most significant physicist of the twentieth century?" He responded immediately, "Einstein." I then asked him, "Then why is it that you don't believe or trust any of the physics he followed in the last 40 years of his life (the latter three quarters of his professional career)?" He responded just as quickly, "Because he was wrong!" I responded with this question: "If you believe that Einstein was wrong about the physics directions he took during most of his professional career, especially after he had developed the first quarter of his research experience, then why is it that you also believe that he was the most significant physicist of the twentieth century?" There were no explicit answers to this question, except to repeat the sentence, "Well, everybody knows that Einstein was wrong!" This reaction to Einstein is typical of the community of physicists today. It is the sociopsychological paradox that I call the "phenomenon of Einstein."
Researching further, I found a brief article from New Scientist magazine dated June 29, 1972, titled "The Paradox that Refuses Resolution" which mentions a paper by Daniel Greenberger.  The New Scientist article says,
Greenberger probably speaks for most of the physics community when he states that "The twin paradox is an integral part of relativistic physics and ... to deny its reality is to deny relativity."
I found a copy of the Greenberger paper.  It's titled "The Reality of the Twin Paradox Effect."  It was published in the May 1972 issue of The American Journal of Physics.  It supports the reality of time dilation, but does so in a very convoluted way, making it difficult to quote.  The point I'm trying to make here is that Greenberger was stating the view supported by "most of the physics community," according to New Scientist magazine.  As seen in the quoted passage from the paper by Sachs, mathematicians endlessly argue that their views are virtually unanimous throughout the world of science and physics, and only a few ignorant nut jobs like me disagree with them.

Another article I just found about the Hafele-Keating experiment says,
Since the Hafele–Keating experiment has been reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods and have been shown to be in error.
Wikipedia says,
Because the Hafele–Keating experiment has been reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified.18
Of course, mathematicians will argue that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  But reference #18 is to page 45 of the book Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological by Wolfgang Rindler.  I have a copy of that book (the 2nd edition, published in 1977), and on page 45 it only implies what Wikipedia says:
time dilation can lead to an apparent paradox when viewed by two different observers. In fact this paradox, the so-called twin or clock paradox (or paradox of Langevin), is the oldest of all the relativistic paradoxes. It is quite easily resolved, but its extraordinary emotional appeal keeps debate alive as generation after generation goes through the cycle of first being perplexed, then elated at understanding (sometimes mistakenly), and then immediately rushing into print as though no one had understood before. The articles that have been published on this one topic are practically uncountable, while their useful common denominator would fill a few pages at most. ...  the prospect of going on a fast trip through space and coming back a few years later to find the earth aged by a few thousand years-this modern elixir vitae-keeps stirring the imagination.
Pages 46 and 47 go into the different ways that the moving observer can confirm that he was the one who was truly moving, and it wasn't just some kind of illusion.

Interestingly, I also have a copy of the 2nd edition of
Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological by Wolfgang Rindler, published in 2006.  It appears to be a totally different book.  It says on pages 67 and 68,
No account of special relativity would be complete without at least a mention of the notorious clock or twin paradox dating back as far as 1911. Reams of literature were written on it unnecessarily for more than six decades. At its root apparently lay a deep psychological barrier to accepting time dilation as real. From a modern point of view it is difficult to understand the earlier fascination with this problem, or even to recognize it as a problem. The ‘paradox’ concerns the situation we already discussed above (in the second paragraph of this section) of transporting a clock from A to B and back again, and then finding that the traveling clock upon its return indicates a lesser time than the stationary one. The story is usually embellished by replacing the two clocks by two twins, of which the traveler upon returning is younger than the stay-at-home. The claim now is that all motion is relative. So the traveler can with equal right maintain that it was the stay-at-home who did the traveling and should therefore be the younger when they reunite! But, whereas uniform motion indeed is relative, acceleration is not, and accelerometers attached to the twins will easily settle the dispute: one remained fixed in an inertial frame, and the other did not.
So, according to many sources, the consensus among physicists is that time dilation is real.  But according to mathematicians, none of those physicists actually believes that time dilation is real.  They just say so because it is the custom to say Einstein was right, even though everyone knows he was wrong.

What I'm seeing in all this is that the endless arguments about time dilation have made the situation so complicated that almost no one wants to discuss relativity and time dilation anymore.  They know it only leads to more endless arguments.  So, the only thing anyone can do is write a paper that describes some finding and let the chips fall where they may. 

The problem is that modus operandi doesn't solve the problem.  I can only hope that my papers which simplify the situation will help in some way.


Comments for Sunday, June 24, 2018, thru Saturday, June 30, 2018:

June 30, 2018 - I was surprised this morning to see that the moderator on the sci.physics.research discussion forum had allowed my reply to the post by Tom Roberts to go through.  Robert's post to me (about my paper Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments) began with a personal attack (which the moderators didn't seem to care about).  It said:
These thought experiments describe and illuminate Special Relativity. In order to improve the quality and accuracy of your paper about them, first you must learn what Special Relativity ACTUALLY predicts. At present, your paper is completely useless because it describes YOUR mistakes and confusions, not Einstein's thought experiments and theory.
A major error is thinking that some observations are "correct" and others are "incorrect" (in your unusual sense that they are consistent with the laws of physics). So for a stone dropped from a moving train, on page 5 you claim the embankment observation is "correct" while the on-train observation is "incorrect". You have failed to grasp the first postulate, and the FACT that the relevant laws of physics are INDEPENDENT of frame -- BOTH descriptions are "correct" (in your unusual sense of consistent with the known laws; it's just that you did not apply the ACTUAL laws as they are known).  How can an observation possibly be "incorrect"?? -- after all, observers observe what they observe. Even with your unusual meaning of "correct", how can an observer possibly violate the laws of physics???
I highlighted that last part, because it is mostly what I addressed in my response:
If a moving observer notices no difference in the passing of time in his reference frame, but then COMPARES his time to the time of a non-moving observer, there will be a difference.  The moving observer's time passed at a slower rate.

So, his view that there was "no difference" in the passing of time while he was moving was INCORRECT.  There WAS a difference.  Time passed at a slower rate while he was moving.

If the moving observer drops a stone and sees it fall straight down,
while a stationary observer sees that stone fall in a parabolic curve,
their conflicting views cannot both be "correct."

The view that the stone falls straight down is INCORRECT because that view fails to notice the effects of inertia.

If the two observers sit down and discuss what they saw, they will agree that the stone did not and could not fall straight down from a moving train.  So, that view was "incorrect."  It was an "illusion."

It is also an "illusion" that you age at your "normal" rate when moving
fast.  That "illusion" is understood when the moving and stationary
observers sit down together and compare what happened.  The faster you move, the slower time passes for you - even though you notice nothing different happening.
I don't know if they'll let Tom Roberts respond, but if he does, it will almost certainly be mostly additional personal attacks.

June 29, 2018 (B) - Yesterday I received another email from one of the moderators of the sci.physics.research discussion forum.  I had tried once again to respond to a post on that forum that had criticized my paper "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments."  The email said,
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is inappropriate for the newsgroup because it's primarily a message to a single person, rather than an article for the whole s.p.r community.  You might try e-mailing directly to the person you wish to reach.

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup.  If you want to post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding any moderated newsgroups.

Please also keep in mind that sci.physics.research posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE co-moderators.  At any given time, one or more of co-moderators may be inactive.  If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email a moderator directly, it might arrive while s/he is inactive, causing an unnecessary delay.
I didn't post any "article."  I posted a response to a comment criticizing my "thought experiments" paper.  Did I address that response to a particular person?  I don't recall.  It's possible.  The message was deleted and I didn't save a copy. 

This morning there was another post criticizing my paper.  The new post was from Tom Roberts, who always disagreed with me on the sci.physics.relativity discussion forum.  In his post he wrote (including the portion in brackets):

Experiments have NOT confirmed what you said above, but they have
confirmed many times the ACTUAL predictions of SR. This includes "time dilation": clocks tick at their usual rate when measured in their rest frame, and are observed to tick more slowly by observers relative to whom they are moving.

     [Note that in SR this is due to the geometrical relationship
      between relatively-moving inertial frames, and not any effect
      on the intrinsic tick rate of clocks.]
So, he's saying what I said in my (A) comment that mathematicians believe: an astronaut in a space ship traveling away from the earth can legitimately claim that he is stationary and that his spaceship somehow caused the earth, the sun and the universe to move away from him.

I wrote a response that was not addressed to him specifically, and now I'm waiting to see if it will get past the moderators.  I assume not. 

It's frustrating to not be able to respond to posts, but it is doubly frustrating to not be able to tell people on the forum that I've tried to respond to their questions, but my responses are being deleted by the moderators. 

June 29, 2018 (A) - Yesterday, while researching something or other, I noticed a reference to an article from the February 3, 1972, issue of New Scientist magazine titled "The Clock Paradox Resolved" by John Wick.  When I did a Google search for it, I found a readable copy in a book of New Scientist articles.

The article is about the Hafele-Keating experiment which took place in October of 1971.  It describes the arguments that were raging at that time:
If one member at a set of twins travels from the Earth in a spacecraft and then returns at some later time, he will be younger than his sibling.  This statement, known as the twin paradox or the clock paradox, has been the most hotly debated prediction of Einstein's special theory of relativity.  But is it predicted by special relativity?  The issue is still very much alive as a recent article by Bernard Levin in the Times (21 December) supporting Professor Herbert Dingle, and the ensuing correspondence, instances.  It has also latterly received attention in an article in Physics Today (vol 24, no 9, p 25) in which Professor Mendel Sachs, a theoretical physicist from the State University of New York, Buffalo, claims the Einstein's theory really predicts no age difference between the twins.  Furthermore, he makes the strong statement that “should future experimental evidence refute Sach’s conclusion that the twins are the same age) , . . Einstein’s theory of relativity would be refuted".  Two Americans have just supplied the experimental evidence to refute Sachs' conclusion, but I doubt whether Einstein will fall as well.
Interestingly, I just had an argument about that subject this morning.  So, it's an argument about what Einstein meant.  Einstein clearly predicts that the twin that travels at high speeds will age slower than the twin who stays at home.  But there is no mention of any twins in his paper.  It just says that moving clocks tick slower than stationary clocks because time slows down when you are moving

The New Scientist article clarifies this point by saying,
Special relativity predicts that a moving clock (or twin) will lose time relative to (or age less than) a stationary clock (or twin).  The paradox of the travelling clocks, or twins, arises from apparent symmetry of time and space.  From the point of view of observers on Earth, a clock on board a spacecraft will be constantly moving and will lose time.  The amount of lost time increases with increased velocity of the moving clock.  Consider the vantage point of an observer who accompanies the clock in the spacecraft. He sees the Earth and its clock recede into the distance and then return at a later time.  He would think that the clock on Earth is the one that moved and lost time.  Clearly both clocks cannot each run slower than the other one.  This is the heart of the paradox.
Yes, that is the argument.  Mathematicians argue that time runs at the same rate everywhere, and it just seems that time runs slower for someone who is moving.  This is required by their mathematics, which seemingly cannot cope with any motion that is not reciprocal.  Therefore, if you spend 100 billion dollars to build a space ship to travel to Alpha Centauri, according to mathematicians, you cannot tell if the space ship will actually travel there or if the space ship will remain motionless while the Earth, the Sun and the entire universe inexplicably move away from the space ship.  Of course, that is totally absurd and illogical.  But the mathematicians do not believe in any logic that does not include mathematics.  They claim mathematics IS logic. 

How can anyone in the 21st Century believe anything so stupid?  I dunno.  But they not only believe it, they teach it in most colleges and universities.

June 26, 2018 - This morning, finding myself without anything more urgent to do, I finished reading "About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" by Paul Davies:
About Time by Paul Davies

I have to admit that I speed-read through much of the last two thirds of the book, slowing down and thoroughly reading sections only when they appeared to be of specific interest to me.  The last two thirds of the book seem to be mostly about speculation about time and the philosophy of time.  There seemed to be endless chapter after chapter (or section after section) about whether or not it is possible to go backwards in time, and whether time is real or just an illusion.  I'm not interested in those topics.  I'm only interested in how time works.

Here's a passage from the Prologue which explains the "unfinished revolution" mentioned in the title:
Yet, in spite of devoting his life to the task, Einstein did not succeed in achieving a complete physical theory. He liberated time,and space, from the unnecessarily severe strictures of Newtonian thinking, but was unable to stitch the newly freed concepts of a flexible space and time into a properly unified theory. The search for a unified field theory or a Theory of Everything, as it is known today is still at the top of the scientific agenda,and the goal continues to be elusive. Even within the subject of time itself, Einstein left things in a curiously unfinished state. From the dawn of history, the nature of time has proved deeply puzzling and paradoxical to human beings.   
The book was published in 1995, which doesn't seem that long ago, but evidently at that time we were still pondering of Black Holes really existed.  We hadn't yet actually discovered any. 

Here's a quote from page 45 I highlighted about Einstein's mathematical abilities:
And, contrary to the legend, he was no mathematical genius. In fact, Hermann Minkowski, Einstein's mathematics tutor at university, even complained about his poor mastery of mathematics, to the extent of describing him as a "lazy dog." Einstein did, however, possess incisive physical insight.
Here's another quote from page 51 about Einstein's thought processes:
Einstein has been described as a "top-down" thinker. By this is meant that he began with certain grand, overarching principles which he believed must be true in the real world on account of their philosophical appeal or logical compulsion, and then attempted to project down onto the messy world of observation and experiment to deduce the consequences of these principles. If the consequences appeared strange and counter-intuitive at first, then so be it.
The part of the book that was of most interest to me was the part about time dilation and the so-called "twin paradox."  The section about it begins on page 59, but just rambles until you reach two paragraphs which begin on page 60:
It is important to realize two things. First, the twins effect is a real effect, not just a thought experiment. Second, it has nothing to do with the effect of motion on the aging process.  You must not imagine that the years spent in the rocket ship are somehow kinder to Betty on account of her confinement or movement through space. Suppose for the sake of argument that Betty leaves in the year 2000 and returns in 2020. Ann will have experienced twenty years during Betty's absence, and will of course have aged twenty years as a result. If Betty were to travel at 240,000 kilometers per second, then, according to Einstein's formula, the journey will take just twelve years in her frame of reference. Betty will return, having actually experienced twelve years, and having aged just twelve years, to Earth year 2020.  She may be surprised that twenty Earth years have elapsed during her twelve years, but her sister's aging will announce it.

The best way to view the twins experiment is in terms of events. There are two delimiting events: Betty's departure from Earth and Betty's return to Earth.  Both Ann and Betty must concur on when those events happen, because they witness them together. It is then the case that for Ann twenty years separates the events, whereas for Betty twelve years separates them. There is no inconsistency in this. You just have to accept that different observers experience different intervals of time between the same two events. There is no fixed time difference between the events, no "actual" duration, only relative time differences. There is Ann's time and Betty's time, and they are not the same.  Neither Ann nor Betty is right or wrong in her reckoning; it is just that they differ from each other.
These passages clearly state that time dilation is not reciprocal, in spite out what might be written in many college physics textbooks.  The twin that traveled the fastest (Betty) aged slower than the twin left back on earth (Ann).  When reading those paragraphs I have to wonder how mathematicians will interpret the second sentence in the first paragraph which says the twins effect "has nothing to do with the effect of motion on the aging process."  The author is saying that the traveling twin did not age slower, she aged at her normal rate, but time moved slower.  The point is also made in the last two sentences of the second paragraph:  "There is Ann's time and Betty's time, and they are not the same.  Neither Ann nor Betty is right or wrong in her reckoning; it is just that they differ from each other."   

That also hits upon the "asymmetry" of time.  Time always moves forward, and never backward.  It seems this is something else that mathematicians seemingly cannot deal with.  The author goes on and on about why negative time seems perfectly logical to some people.  He writes on page 282:
The theory that there may exist spacetime regions where time "runs backwards," or that the entire universe may be time-symmetric or even cyclic in time, is still popular in some quarters. There is plenty of scope for further investigation and disagreement. 
As I see it, we first need to figure out how time works.  Once that is done, then people can speculate all they want about whether or not it is "possible" that there is some universe or dimension where time goes backwards.  The way they waste their time on such questions won't bother me.  I'll have the answer I need.  

June 25, 2018 - Yesterday, someone posted a message to me in the thread I started on the sci.physics.research discussion forum.  He was responding to something I wrote earlier.  I'd tried to respond to something the same person wrote a few days ago, but my response was squashed by the moderator without explanation.   So, I tried responding to the new post.  His post was a series of statements and claims, so I interspersed my replies after each statement and claim.  The result (if the moderator would have allowed it to appear) looked something like this:
My original post said: If you have five people with identical clocks traveling at five different speeds, their clocks will tick at five different rates.  You can rank the five by their relative speeds - A is moving faster than B, B is moving faster than C, C is moving faster than D, and D is moving faster than E. 

His statement: The first issue is that you should consider your five clocks from one reference frame.

My response: Each considers the other 4 from its reference frame.

His statement: The second issue is to answer the question: which clock ticks the slowest.

My response: A is ticking slowest since A is moving fastest.  That is stated.

His statement: This raises immediate an new issue: is it possible to introduce a sixth clock which ticks more slower?

My response: Certainly.  Why not?  You can have clocks moving faster and faster and faster until you reach the speed of light.  You cannot go faster than that.

His statement In any way you can not solve this problem by means of a thought experiment.

My response: There is no problem to solve.  According to Einstein, time stops when you travel at the speed of light. 

The only question is: Is there some "stationary" point in the universe where time runs at its *fastest* rate?

If there is, that point would be the stationary point where the Big Bang occurred.  Every clock in the universe ticks slower than a clock at that point, UNLESS it is a clock that is stationary relative to the point where the Big Bang occurred.
This morning, I received this message via an email from the moderator (with my highlighting in red):
Your posting is not appropriate for the newsgroup since it contains highly misleading ideas on the big bang. Particularly there is, on the large-scale average, no distinguished point (nor direction) of the universe, "where the Big Bang ocurred". This is the fundamental assumption of cosmology, known as the cosmological principle, leading to the idea of maximally symmetric space times, i.e., the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker pseudometric. The Big Bang is the singularity of these solutions of Einstein's Equations of General Relativity, i.e., it didn't occur anywhere, but it's rather the time of a fundamental observer, where the Hubble expansion, i.e., the increase of the overall scale factor of the FLRW spacetime began.
That's basically the same argument I had on Facebook on May 8 and May 13The moderator is arguing that the observable universe is the entire universe.  It's a fundamental misunderstanding, but it's evidently also mathematical dogma.  Here, once again, is my view of the Big Bang universe versus the observable universe.
The observable universe versus the Big
                            Bang Universe 
When I do research on the subject, the articles always say the same thing: The universe began as a singularity (or a small point) and then expanded, but it expanded everywhere, so there never was any singularity (or small point).

Example #1:

The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, as the theory's name might suggest. Instead, it was the appearance of space everywhere in the universe, researchers have said. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born as a very hot, very dense, single point in space.
Example #2:
When the Big Bang happened, everything was in one location. Think of it as an infinitesimally small point. Then that point expanded until we get the universe we have today. Notably, this point was the entire universe, and it expanded, so instead of the Big Bang happening in a specific part of the universe and stretching out from there, it happened everywhere.  All of space started expanding—the points between points started to stretch out—it wasn’t just growing at the edges and moving outward.
Example #3:
The Big Bang is the name scientists give to the events that started the universe. The Big Bang is often described as a huge explosion. But the problem with that picture is that an explosion has a central point where it starts, such as a bomb or a spark. The Big Bang wasn't like that, but an explosion is the closest thing in our everyday experience to help us understand it.

The Big Bang cannot have happened at a particular place in the universe, because before the Big Bang there was no universe! The Big Bang happened everywhere at once, about 14 billion years ago, bringing space and time into existence. The Big Bang kicked off a rapid expansion of space, and space has been expanding ever since.
Example #4:
If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time.
I'd really like to discuss this with people on the sci.physics.research forum, but it doesn't look like I'll be able to do that.  I tried explaining the situation in my email reply to the moderator (who appears to be a college professor in Germany), but I doubt that he'll want to discuss it. 

It's like so much of physics.  You aren't supposed to ask questions or discuss anything.  You're not supposed to understand anything.  You're supposed to memorize the dogma so you can spout dogmatic answers on demand. 


June 24, 2018 - This morning someone sent me a link to an article dated a few days ago titled "Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so."  The finding stated in the title is no surprise to me, but this paragraph from the article contains some surprising info:
Experts debate how many journals falsely claim to engage in peer review. Cabells, an analytics firm in Texas, has compiled a blacklist of those which it believes are guilty. According to Kathleen Berryman, who is in charge of this list, the firm employs 65 criteria to determine whether a journal should go on it—though she is reluctant to go into details. Cabells’ list now totals around 8,700 journals, up from a bit over 4,000 a year ago. Another list, which grew to around 12,000 journals, was compiled until recently by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado. Using Mr Beall’s list, Bo-Christer Björk, an information scientist at the Hanken School of Economics, in Helsinki, estimates that the number of articles published in questionable journals has ballooned from about 53,000 a year in 2010 to more than 400,000 today. He estimates that 6% of academic papers by researchers in America appear in such journals.
There are 12,000 science journals that publish 400,000 non-peer-reviewed papers per year?  I wouldn't have thought there were so many.  And it certainly demonstrates "supply and demand" in an interesting way.  The web site HERE lists and ranks 34,171 science journals.  I wonder how many from those 12,000 are on the list.  I'm glad I no longer think about publishing my papers anywhere. 

But, I do wonder who is reading the papers I have put on vixra.org and academia.edu.  I check the viewer statistics for those sites every day to see how many new viewers have accessed my papers.  The statistics seem to change nearly every day, so people are reading my papers.  I just wish I was getting more helpful feedback from them.

I'm really trying to understand how a radar gun can pick out the specific photons that were returned from the part of a vibrating tuning fork that was moving back and forth at the highest speed while ignoring all the other photons.  And probably more importantly, how can the radar gun sort through all the photons it receives in order to find the specific photons that it needs to compute the speed of a car?  It is not only receiving back photons that were originally emitted by the gun, the gun is also receiving countless photons from every object in front of it, including radio stations, trees, clouds, grass, cell phone towers, cell phones, satellites, the sun, distant stars, etc.  I gather the sorting it is done by a frequency "tuner," but I'm having a problem relating a radio frequency tuner to a radar gun frequency tuner.  I do not fully understand either.    

And when I can't find what I'm looking for after spending hours doing research, I sometimes change focus and look for answers to other questions instead.  Yesterday, I read the first 3rd of a book titled "About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" by Paul Davies.  The author and I seem to agree on most things.  And that means we agree that college physics professors are teaching a lot of nonsense.  But Paul Davies never seems to explain things in brief and easily quotable terms.  You have to quote an entire page in order to have something with meaning, and even then you have to explain what parts of it mean.

I'm tempted to quote from pages 1226 and 1227 of volume 2 of the 3rd edition of "Physics for Engineers and Scientists" by Hans C. Ohanian and John T. Markert and compare that information to material from pages 59 and 60 of Paul Davies' book, but doing that would probably take me the rest of the day.  Those pages represent two different views of the so-called "Twin Paradox." 

The more I study the textbook pages, the more it seems to be only about how to compute time dilation.  It says you cannot compute actual time dilation for the traveling twin using Einstein's formula for velocity time dilation because the formula assumes a constant speed for the traveling twin, and that isn't possible.  The traveling twin will have to accelerate in order to get to the cruising speed of Einstein's formula, and when the traveling twin reaches his or her destination, the spaceship will have to decelerate to slow down and turn around, and then will have to accelerate again to get back to Earth.  And, of course, the ship will have to decelerate when it gets near Earth in order to arrive safely home.  Einstein's simple time dilation formula does not account for any of that accelerating and decelerating. 

But then the textbook says,
A detailed analysis of the behavior of the Earth clocks from the point of view of the spaceship reference frame establishes that the Earth clocks indeed do also run slow as long as the spaceship is moving with uniform velocity, but that the Earth clocks run fast when the spaceship is undergoing its acceleration to turn around at Proxima Centauri. The time that the Earth clocks gain during the accelerated portions of the trip more than compensates for the time they lose during the other portions of the trip. This confirms that Stella will be younger than Terra, even from the point of view of the spaceship reference frame.  
Earth clocks don't run slow at any time during the trip.  Compared to clocks on the space ship, Earth clocks run fast.  Does acceleration produce the same effect on clocks as is produced by gravity?  I dunno.  If so, acceleration/deceleration are the same, and both will cause clocks on the space ship to slow down more due to gravitational time dilation while the reduction in speed causes the clocks to slow down less due to velocity time dilation.  So, clocks on Earth will probably run even faster than clocks on the spaceship during those period of acceleration and deceleration. 

Or maybe I'm wrong.  If I find that I'm wrong before the end of the day, I'll come back and modify this comment.  If I find out tomorrow that I was wrong, I'll decide tomorrow what to do.  Either way, this is the end of today's comment.  


Comments for Sunday, June 17, 2018, thru Saturday, June 23, 2018:

June 22, 2018 - I cannot stop thinking about radar guns and tuning forks.  This morning I created a new illustration showing how tuning forks must work when they are used to test radar guns:
Measuring different speeds of tuning
                            fork vibrations
As you can see in the illustration, the radar gun is getting all kinds of different speed readings from the tuning fork, and those are also plus and minus readings.  The tip of the tuning fork moves at 25 mph first toward the radar gun and then away from the radar gun, and everywhere between the tip and the base the speed will be different.

Standard radar guns are built to display the highest speed measured and/or the strongest signal, and they cannot determine if that highest speed is toward or away from the radar gun. If that is difficult to believe, then a quote from a radar gun web site might help.  A source HERE says this about positive and negative speeds:
Since the circuitry in a radar gun only processes the difference of the frequencies of the retained and reflected signals, the exact same result would be shown whether a target vehicle is moving toward or away from the police radar gun. 
I spent all morning looking for something quotable about radar guns showing only the highest speed measured, but mostly they are just about how a stronger signal will interfere with a weaker signal.  The problem is, I also couldn't find anything that says the image I produced above is wrong.  It's like it's a subject that no one wants to address.  Sigh.

Meanwhile, a couple people on the sci.physics.research discussion group have responded to my posts about simplifying Einstein's thought experiments, but mostly they just argue that thought experiments don't prove anything.  One person wrote:
I have always had certain misfeelings about thought experiments, because how you can do an experiment solely in your mind.  
And another person wrote:
Thought experiments can not be used to learn anything about the world, only to gain insight into the laws of physics as you understand them.  Einstein's though experiments about the train allow you to understand the implications of the assumption that the speed of light is a constant for all observers, even observers moving wrt each other. These "experiments" prove nothing by themselves except what the assumptions imply.  You still have to do real world experiments to verify that the real world gives the same results as the thought experiment.  If they do not, then there is a faulty assumption somewhere.  The value of the thought experiment is to understand the implications of an hypothesis (i.e. assumption).
I've been trying to respond to say that most of Einstein's thought experiments have been verified by real experiments, but the moderator seems to be deleting my responses.  I'm getting the impression that the moderator will not allow anything to be posted that disagrees with his or her beliefs.

June 21, 2018 - I'm feeling overwhelmed by things to do, things to read, and things to think about, but amid it all I stumbled upon an animated gif of a vibrating tuning fork on a web site run by PennState University:
vibrating tuning fork

The animated gif clearly shows that the tips of the tines move a lot faster than the parts of the tines near the base (although both vibrate at the same rate).  So, if you are using a tuning fork to test a radar gun, the gun would show all sorts of different speeds -- if it is capable of doing so.  But a basic radar gun just shows the fastest speed of the objects it can detect.  Moreover, the basic radar gun cannot even tell you if the object is moving toward the radar gun or away from the radar gun.  The vibrating tines, when viewed edge-on, move toward the gun and then away from the gun.  The radar gun just shows the difference between the speed the gun is measuring for itself and the speed of the nearest tine.

I also found it interesting that there are different vibration "modes" for tuning forks.  The one above is the "fundamental mode."  There's also the "clang mode":
Vibrating tuning fork - clang mode
I'm going to assume that "clang mode" got that name because you get that mode when you hit the tuning fork against something metal.  Tuning forks are supposed to be hit against wood or plastic.  Checking site after site after site, however, I couldn't find a single one which explained how the mode got that name.  Some suggest "clang mode" results when you hit the tuning fork against something "hard," and other sites indicate it results when you hit the tuning fork very hard against a surface instead of just tapping it against a surface.

I still cannot imagine how someone who believes light travels as waves would illustrate light waves bouncing off of a vibrating tuning fork. 

June 20, 2018 - While I was having the oil in my car's engine changed this afternoon, I finished reading a book on my Kindle, "Spaceman" by Mike Massimino.   

Spaceman by Mike Massimino

It was a very readable and interesting book about becoming an astronaut, working for NASA, and going on two missions to repair and upgrade the Hubble telescope.  The Hubble orbits at 350 miles above the surface of the earth, which is about 100 miles higher than the International Space Station.  So, except for the trips to the moon, the astronauts who did repair missions to the Hubble flew higher than everyone else.  Here is part of Massimino's description of his first shuttle takeoff:
With a few seconds left, the auxiliary power units start. The beast that terrified you out on the launchpad? Now that beast is waking up. At six seconds you feel the rumble of the main engines lighting. The whole stack lurches forward for a moment. Then at zero it tilts back upright again and that’s when the solid rocket boosters light and that’s when you go. There’s no question that you’re moving. It’s not like Oh, did we leave yet? No. It’s bang! and you’re gone. You’re going 100 miles an hour before you clear the tower. You accelerate from 0 to 17,500 miles an hour in eight and a half minutes.
And here is his description of what things look like when you are spacewalking in the sunlight 350 miles up:
In space, sunlight is nothing like sunlight as you know it. It’s pure whiteness. It’s perfect white light. It’s the whitest white you’ve ever seen. I felt like I had Superman vision. The colors were intense and vibrant—the gleaming white body of the shuttle; the metallic gold of the Mylar sheets and the thermal blankets; the red, white, and blue of the American flag on my shoulder. Everything was bright and rich and beautiful. Everything had a clarity and a crispness to it. It was like I was seeing things in their purest form, like I was seeing true color for the first time.
and here is his description of what its like every 90 minutes when the sun sets:
When night comes in space, you feel it before you see it. The temperature swing from 200 degrees Fahrenheit to −200 degrees Fahrenheit occurs in an instant. The amazing thing is that your suit protects you from that; the temperature inside stays within a tolerable range, and you have a temperature control valve you can adjust to warm up or cool down as needed. So the 400-degree swing isn’t harsh, but you definitely still notice it. The best I can describe it is like when you’re in the ocean on a warm summer’s day and a cold current rushes past and it gets you down in your bones.
and
At night, without the sun, space becomes this magical place. In space, stars don’t twinkle. Because there’s no atmosphere to fog your view, they’re like perfect pinpoints of light. Stars are different colors, too, not just white. They’re blue, red, purple, green, yellow. And there are billions of them. The constellations look like constellations. You can make out the shapes and see what early astronomers were getting at with their descriptions.
The first mission to repair and service the Hubble telescope was done with the shuttle Columbia.  The next time the Columbia flew it disintegrated over Texas as it was returning to earth after a scientific research mission.  That delayed the next Hubble repair mission for years.  And due to lack of funding for the space program they almost left the Hubble to just remain in orbit until it totally stopped working and eventually fell back to earth.  But finally they made another repair mission to the Hubble, and Massimino was on that one too.
 
I only had about 5 pages left to read in the book when I arrived at the car dealer where the oil change was performed.  So, when I finished "Spaceman" I had to choose what book to read next.  I started on what would probably be best described as a psychology book, but it couldn't grab my interest, so I switched over to a travel book.  It's a book written by the same author that wrote the audio book I'm currently listening to, and it's about travels in the same country (England), but the trips are about 19 years apart.    

June 19, 2018 - I was thinking that I should stop writing about how tuning forks are used to calibrate (or test) radar guns until I am absolutely certain how it is done - and can prove it.  But then yesterday morning I noticed that the NIST document that caused all the confusion begins with this information:
In common use for traffic speed control is a Doppler radar gun. The basic principle of operation of these guns is that the radar signal reflected from a moving vehicle is shifted in frequency by an amount directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle relative to the radar gun. Intrinsically one sees that such a radar gun is a frequency measuring device.  The typical way of calibrating these radar guns is to place in front of the gun a vibrating tuning fork which produces a reflected signal to which the radar responds as though it were a moving vehicle.  There exists a well-known relationship between this signal and the speed of the vehicle provided the radar frequency is known.
The part I highlighted in red is exactly how I said a tuning fork is use to test a radar gun.  It also implies there is no "sympathetic vibration" involved.  Nor does the tuning fork simulate the "delta frequency" or "beat frequency" that the gun develops when it "beats" its emitted photons together with the returned photons.  The gun doesn't simulate anything.  It works the same way with a tuning fork as it does with a moving car.  The radar gun emits photons toward the tuning fork, and the tuning fork "reflects" Doppler-shifted photons back to the radar gun.  The gun compares the different photon oscillating frequencies and determines the speed of the object (car or tuning fork) it is measuring.  Period.  End of story.

I was confused by this section from the next page in the NIST document:
Suppose, for example, that a radar instrument which was designed for 10525 MHz had a microwave oscillator which was detuned (outside the FCC allocation) to 12000 MHz; then that radar instrument would measure a vehicle which was actually traveling 50 mph as traveling 57 mph even though a 50 mph tuning fork made for that gun would cause it to read 50 mph.  Similarly, if a 50 mph tuning fork made for a 21150 MHz type radar gun were used to calibrate a properly functioning 10525 MHz type radar gun it would cause the latter to read 115 mph! 
It's confusing because it talks about a radar gun that is not properly tuned.  I don't care what an improperly tuned radar guns shows.  And it's also confusing because it has a 10525 MHz radar gun and a 21150 Mhz radar gun.  A casual glance might suggest that 21150 is 2 x 10525, but it's not.  2 x 10525 = 21050 not 21150. 

I started writing this comment yesterday morning, but by the end of the day I was still trying to figure out how you can have 2 tuning forks, where one vibrates at twice the rate of the other, yet both will register as moving at 50 mph by a radar gun designed to work with each tuning fork.  And, as it says above, if you use the wrong tuning fork with a specific radar gun, you will get an incorrect reading of around twice what it should be.


I think the answer has to do with the fact that a high pitched vibration involves a back and forth motion that covers less distance in a shorter amount of time than a lower pitched vibration. 


When I try to visualize that, I see a car traveling at 50 mph between two points that are 1 mile apart.  In one hour, the car makes 25 round trips (vibrations) to travel a total of 50 miles.  If it travels at 50 mph between two points that are ½ mile apart, it will make 50 round trips (vibrations) to travel 50 miles. 

But, it's not as simple as that.  For each "vibration" the car has to slow to a stop and change directions.  And I assume the prongs or tines on a tuning fork have to do that also.  Moreover, a vibrating prong on a tuning fork will move farther and faster at its tip than at its base.

If I can ever describe in plain English exactly what happens when they use a tuning fork to test the accuracy of a radar gun, it may be the first time that has ever been done.  If it has been done before I certainly haven't been able to find it.  I'm going to work on it as another scientific paper, instead of bumbling through it on this web site.

And, it will be interesting to see if I can describe how the mathematicians' imaginary waves of light would react when they hit the vibrating prongs of a tuning fork.  It's easy to visualize "waves" of light bouncing off a moving car to produce the "Doppler effect."  But its not that easy to visualize waves bouncing off a vibrating tuning fork.

I just hope I have the patience to figure it all out.


June 17, 2018 (B) - Someone who reads this web site but who has never written to me before, sent me an email this morning.  It was about radar guns.  And part of it was also about how tuning forks are used to test radar guns.  That part said:
By the way, the test tuning fork just excites the delta frequency sensor in the speed gun at the delta frequency corresponding to the reference speed for a given transmitter frequency.  So, a tuning fork doesn't really test the transmitter calibration at all, it just tests the delta frequency receiver calibration, meaning the part of the gun that detects the difference between the transmitted and received frequencies.
Hmm.  At first I did not understand a word of that.  But it was very clear I needed to decipher it, since the last part of the last sentence looked very important to me.  I did a Google search for "Delta frequency receiver" and radar gun and got NO results if I have the quote marks around "Delta frequency receiver."  But Google showed me that without the quote marks there are some good references.  The first reference on the list was a book from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Time and Frequency Users Manual" that says this on page 56 (with my highlighting in red):
In much of the literature, the frequency error is referred to as delta-f (delta means a small difference).
That's all it means???  But what does that mean in the context of what was in that email I received?  I think I can decipher it, but it doesn't seem to answer any of my questions.  It doesn't tell me how emitting a sound can test a device that emits and receives microwave light photons.  The email seems to suggest there is some kind of "sympathetic vibration" going on.  I.e., vibrating the tuning fork somehow causes "the delta wave sensor in the speed gun" to vibrate at the same sound frequency.  But how does that relate to a light frequency?   Is the light "Delta frequency" so small that it is comparable to a sound wave frequency?  It seems that most books about radar guns use the term "beat frequency" instead of "delta frequency." 

Hmm.   I just found a web site run by a company that sells radar gun tuning forks.  It says,

Any X band tuning fork will work on any X band radar.  Any K band fork will work on any K band radar.  Ka band forks are specific to the manufacturer of radar.  This is because all 4 manufacturers have different Ka band operating frequencies.
and
All X band radars use same X band tuning forks.  All K band radars use same K band tuning forks.  Ka band forks are different for each radar manufacturer (i.e. Stalker, MPH, Kustom, Decatur)
So, a specific tuning fork will work on any radar of the type for which the tuning fork was created.  That brings me back to believing that I was right in my June 15 comment.  A radar gun measures the speed of the vibrations of the tuning fork at 55 miles per hour, which is the same you would get from measuring the speed of a car traveling at 55 mph.   But why doesn't any manual just say that????

It also means I simply misinterpreted the NIST manual which seemed to say I was wrong.  It just says you cannot use a X-band tuning fork to test a K-band radar gun.  If you do, you will not get the reading stamped on the tuning fork.

But I still NEED someone or some source to solidly confirm that the tuning fork vibrates at 55 mph when it produces a 55 mph reading on the radar gun, and that reading has absolutely NOTHING to do with sound.  (A source HERE seems to say so on page 6, but there's nothing in it that I can quote without generating an argument.)   Groan!  The more I think about it, the less certain I become.  If the gun measures the tuning fork vibrations as if the tines were moving toward and away from the gun, you should get the same results for every kind of gun.  What is it that I'm not understanding --- or that the books aren't explaining?   

June 17, 2018 (A) - I really need to figure out how a tuning fork works when it is used to test a radar gun.  There's nothing more frustrating than to think you have discovered something only to find out that what you discovered is apparently that you misunderstood something.  And it seems to be something that no one else understands, either, since no explanation they provide makes any sense.

But, meanwhile, before I made that "discovery," I was doing research trying to figure out how other things work, and I found some interesting passages in the 6th edition of a college textbook titled "Physics for Scientists and Engineers," by Paul A. Tipler and Gene Mosca.  The passages show that students are being taught that Einstein said motion was reciprocal.  (The same belief is in other text books, but this one is very clear about it.)  Below (underlined in red) is how it is phrased on page 1321 of that book:
image from a physics textbook
On that same page, as show below, the authors make it clear that they are just stating what they believe Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity stated:
In 1905, at the age of 26, Albert Einstein published a paper* on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. In this paper, he postulated that absolute motion cannot be detected by any experiment. That is, there is no ether.  Earth can be considered to be at rest and the velocity of light will be the same in any direction. His theory of special relativity can be derived from two postulates. Simply stated, these postulates are as follows:
Postulate 1: Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected.

Postulate 2: The speed of light is independent of the motion of the source.
That is a good rewording of Einstein's Second Postulate, but Einstein did not postulate that "absolute motion cannot be detected by any experiment."  Nor did he say that "there is no ether."  He said,
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties
"Superfluous" means "not needed."  So, Einstein was saying that his theory does not need an ether because his theory does not require an "absolutely stationary space" in order to work.  His theory was based upon the fact that the faster you travel, the slower time moves.  That can be proven by itself.  And by itself it shows that you do not need an ether.  If I can tell by how a clock ticks that I am going faster than you, it is not necessary to have an ether relative to which we can both measure our velocities.  I am going faster than you is demonstrated by the fact that time moves slower for me. 
  
The physics textbook continues on with this totally invalid "alternate version" of Einstein's Second Postulate along with the explanation that follows it:
Postulate 2 (alternate): Every observer measures the same value for the speed of light.
This result contradicts our intuitive ideas about relative velocities. If a car moves at 50 km/h away from an observer and another car moves at 80 km/h in the same direction, the velocity of the second car relative to the first car is 30 km/h. This result is easily measured and conforms to our intuition. However, according to Einstein’s postulates, if a light beam is moving in the direction of the cars, observers in both cars will measure the same speed for the light beam. Our intuitive ideas about the combination of velocities are approximations that hold only when the speeds are very small compared with the speed of light. Even in an airplane moving with the speed of sound, to measure the speed of light accurately enough to distinguish the difference between the results c and c+v where v is the speed of the plane, would require a measurement with six-digit accuracy.
The "alternate" postulate is absurdly wrong because Einstein's theories say just the opposite: Every observer (moving at a different speed) observes a different value for one second of time.  Thus, if everyone measures the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters per second, and if everyone is moving at a different speed and has a different length of a second, then speed of light is actually different for everyone.

In addition, Einstein's theories (and countless experiments) say that the "arrival speed" of light will be measured to be different by different observers moving at different speeds relative to the source of the light.  The light will arrive at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer relative to the source of the light.

Lastly, radar guns routinely measure "the difference between the results c and c+v where v is the speed of the [target vehicle]."

I may have been wrong on how tuning forks work when they are used to test radar guns, but it is absolutely clear that time moves at a different rate depending upon how fast you are traveling (and how close you are to a gravitational mass).  So, all that is needed is for someone to make some official comparisons of the speed of light.  If the length of a second is longer in one laboratory than in another, then a speed of light measured to be 299,792,458 meters per second in both laboratories is not truly the same speed.  This appears to have been confirmed a million times, but it seems no one has ever done it officially.  

So, now I need to get back to trying to figure out how a tuning fork is used to test a radar gun and exactly how the gun compares the oscillation rate of emitted photons to the oscillation rate of returned photons.








Other interests:

fake picture of snow on
                    the pyramids
 Click HERE for an analysis of this fake photo.

Archives: 
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 2018
February 2018
March 2018
April 2018
May 2018
June 2018
July 2018
                           

            
© 2018 by Ed Lake