Experience, Reason, and Simplicity Above Authority
Published by Space Time Analyses, Ltd.
new postal zip code at
new area code for phone (781) 643-3155, fax (781) 646-8114; e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Kizilelma Cad. No: 99/B
fax (0212) 528 61
Dear Mr. Kircalar:
The following is a draft ‘letter’ representing our best understanding of your theory. Is anything here incorrect?
Let us re-examine one of the results of Einstein’s general theory of relativity: hours elapsed on space objects with great mass lag behind hours elapsed on space objects of small mass. A new understanding of this result would be a beneficial contribution to physics.
I hold that:
1) Energy is the most real and fundamental concept in physics.
Energy in organized form (mass energy, mechanical energy, electrical, chemical, nuclear, etc.) always eventually transforms to heat energy.
2) The transformation of energy is what we mark as ‘time’.
3) Energy involved in a large integrated system of particles transforms differently than energy attached to isolated particles.
4) The more energy there is integrated together into a system, the slower the transformation of that energy.
As a result, the more mass is present in a system, and/or the more speed the masses have, and/or the less negative potential energy the masses have, the slower the system ages.
Example: A star lives billions of years, but a small elementary particle may live only a fraction of a second.
Another example: In special relativity, energy, mass, and lifetime all increase together according to the same function of speed v, γ = 1/.
And another example: Einstein jokingly remarked about the relativity of time: “Two minutes passed on an extremely heated iron seems to be longer than two hours passed by a person being together with his or her lover.” Of course! The energy of thought of the person on the hot iron is much greater than that of the person with the lover!
The final example: that clock near the space object of very great mass effectively becomes part of the very massive system. Like the system overall, the clock itself runs slow.
Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney
Editor, Galilean Electrodynamics
Visiting Industry Professor
Many thanks for your e-mail of 9 March. We have started working on typesetting a GED correspondence item containing what we understand of your ideas. Could you supply us with a computer file to save us as much typing as possible? If so, please send it as an attachment to e-mail.
Many thanks for your e-mail of today. We are glad to send you the text of Mr. Rush’s letter. It follows below. In addition, we would like to send you several issues of GED. There are so far three issues published that we think you should have, and two more we think you should have are to be published this year. We sell them for $7 each, which covers printing and postage.
We recently received a review of your manuscript. The review is reasonably sympathetic, but does identify some questions for you to try to answer. We will try capture it in electronic form and e-mail it to you tomorrow.
Modern Einsteinian physicists most often determine the time-flow rates of material objects by measuring or calculating their internal atomic vibration rates. Some "classical" physicists who are critics of Einstein's relativity theories have come to agree that the time-flow rates of objects can be altered by certain environmental circumstances, and many of these physicists also seem to think that the only true measure of the local time-flow rates of physical objects is the measure of their internal atomic vibration rates [see the editorial in the 7(4) issue of issue of Galilean Electrodynamics].
A few classical physicists I've had conversations with still refuse to admit that the local flow-rate of time can ever change at all, anywhere, under any circumstance, even within objects that seem to be exhibiting unusually long or short lifespans. These physicists will admit that the atomic-vibration "tick rate" of an object's "internal clock" can change, but some of them say that this does not represent a change in the object's local flow-rate of time.
I believe that both the Einsteinian assumption that variations in the local "time-flow rates" of material objects can be absolutely determined by measuring variations in the internal atomic vibration rates of those objects, and the counter-Einsteinian assumption that the "time-flow rates" of material objects never change, are fallacies.
Incredibly, discussions about the internal molecular vibration rates of objects seem to be absent from the great "time dilation" debate, as Einsteinians and their critics focus their arguments mainly around atomic vibration rates. As the debate goes on, world industry has learned to ignore it and has developed a wide variety of sophisticated tests that are designed to cause material objects to age more rapidly than they would normally age outside the laboratory. For the most part, industry disregards atomic vibration rates entirely and concentrates mainly on molecular vibration rates and other factors.
For example, industrial physicists, in attempts to estimate the lifespans of new metals, plastics and other materials, place test samples of the materials under extreme pressures and temperatures so as to speed up their molecular aging and disintegration processes. Certain types of electrical wiring insulation, for example, are estimated to have usable lifespans of 50 years, even though the new insulation materials have not yet been in service or tested for 50 years. This is because industrial physicists have discovered simple and accurate methods of speeding up the aging processes (i.e., the actual overall internal physical time-flow rates) of the new materials.
It has long been known that certain electronic equipment, such as simple electronic clocks, works at standard normal speeds under room temperatures, but their functions, their time-flow rates, and their "tick rates" slow down under extremely cold conditions. They speed up under very hot conditions. Atomic vibration rates play no noticeable role in the changes. The filaments of light bulbs that are never turned on have much longer lifespans than the filaments of bulbs that burn constantly. The extended filament lifespans are due to the slower molecular vibration rates of the unheated filaments, not to any noticeable slow-down in their atomic vibration rates.
Many types of main-frame computers must be installed in rooms that are always kept cooled at a steady low temperature in order for them to work properly and experience extended lifespans. Large complicated video tape "master dubbing" and playback machines at television stations and networks must also be kept in "cool rooms" so that they will function more efficiently and their electronic components will experience prolonged lifespans. Biologists have conducted experiments with live animals, such as various types of frogs, and have found that their lifespans can be greatly prolonged by freezing them in blocks of ice for long periods of time, in a state that is often called "suspended animation". This freezing does not alter atomic vibration rates internal to the live creatures in any noticeable way.
The fact that many complex objects tend to experience shorter lifespans when they experience more rapid molecular vibration rates, even though their internal atomic vibration rates might actually slow down (such as when objects are heated while inside a strong gravitational field) should be enough evidence that the slowing of atomic vibration rates does not represent a complete and accurate measurement of the slowing of the time-flow rates of the objects.
That the aging rates, lifespans, and
time-flow rates of objects do vary, under varying environmental conditions, is
obvious, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the steady flow rate of
hypothetical "absolute" Newtonian time. Acknowledgment of variations in the time-flow
rates of physical objects does not automatically refute the writings and
In his "Principia"
Some physicists might claim that their emphasis on atomic vibration rates has to do only with atomic aging processes, but this narrow-mindedness leads to the problem of articles being published in physics textbooks and scientific journals which pretend that all physical objects are made only of atoms, rather than atoms and molecules, and such myopia strongly suggests the assumption that all complex physical objects have only one overall internal aging or time-flow rate that can fluctuate. In reality, separate groups and collections of atoms and molecules in complex physical objects might simultaneously experience different degrees of time-flow rate changes. For example, certain physical and environmental conditions might cause a human being to age very rapidly and die suddenly, while the component atoms that make up his molecules will continue to live on with little or no change in their own atomic vibration rates or time-flow rates. Presumably, the famous "traveling twin" of the twin-paradox fame is made up mostly of molecules, rather than pure cesium, gold, carbon or some other collection of free atoms, so guessing that changes in his own personal overall metabolism and aging rate perfectly match changes in the vibration rates of his component atoms is sophomoric, and to set aside any ill effects or personal rapid-aging effects he might suffer if he experiences prolonged acceleration or strong gravitational forces is to ignore the many different factors that contribute to the overall "aging rate" of a human being.
The so-called "universal" and perfectly steady flow-rate of Newton's "absolute time" can be imagined and understood without regard to the various motions, vibrations, and aging rates of physical objects. Whatever we call the basic "tick rate" of that "absolute time", each "tick" can be broken up into an infinite number of "sub-ticks" and fractions of "sub-ticks", so it's not the length of time between "ticks" and "sub-ticks" that is important in Newton's theory, it's the steadiness of the "tick rate" that is important. I suggest that hypothetical "absolute time" and only hypothetical "absolute time" can have a perfectly steady "tick rate" and that physical objects cannot. Perhaps, let's say, that "universal time" never speeds up or slows down, but it is blatantly obvious by now that all material objects that exist in space can move and vibrate and age at different and varying rates, anywhere and everywhere, even if only slightly, and this would include the newly discovered rapidly spinning "clock pulsars" that seem to have very steady rotation rates. Presumably they weren't always rotating at the same rates as we see them rotating today, and their rotation rates will surely eventually begin to either slow down or speed up. In reality, at their own present physical locations, they are probably spinning at different rates than they appear to us to be spinning when viewed through our telescopes.
Einsteinians claim that hypothetical "black holes" don't age at all, and that "time does not flow" within them or on their surfaces. But whether or not the internal physical time-flow rates of these objects have stopped, because all internal vibrations might have stopped within them, has yet to be determined. Even if so, the hypothetical "absolute time" of all space continues to flow steadily onward, both in and around them.
The term "absolute time" is merely
an ideal condition or situation and is similar to the terms "perfectly
round" and "completely straight". The idea that Einstein's theories
Also, it might be a good idea for physicists to determine, through experiments with lab animals or Einsteinian volunteers, whether or not a person can experience as much as a 50% decrease in his internal atomic vibration rates and still live. If he cannot still live, then arguing about when and where and how he might experience a 50% decrease in his internal time-flow rate, if his atoms vibrate that slowly, is a useless endeavor. Should he die, we can perhaps discuss the time-flow rates of his remaining atoms and decaying molecules, but once he dies he no longer exists as a person. After viewing films of astronauts inside whirling NASA centrifuges, I suggest that a person can not live in prolonged gravity or acceleration conditions that exceed a steady force of about 5 g’s, which is an amount that hardly alters a human's internal atomic vibration rates at all.
Thank you for the new copy of your manuscript, and for your follow-up e-mail of yesterday. I know you have been working on this for a long time. We would like to see you succeed in your presenting argument in a way that GED readers could appreciate. That requires that you state your ideas clearly, and that you compare and contrast them with other ideas the readers know about. I can tell that you have been working hard on both these requirements. Let me try to summarize what I now understand:
One thing you seem to say is that time flow is small for a massive body. There is a precedent for such an idea: Einstein’s general relativity says physical processed run slow in proximity to a big mass. However, there is a difference: general relativity says the slowing is a small perturbation of order -M, whereas your slowing is an overall scaling by 1/M. So your statement is much stronger than the one people are familiar with.
Another thing you seem to say is that time flow is small for a rapidly moving body. Again there is a precedent for such an idea: Einstein’s special relativity says a moving clock runs slow. But again there is a difference: Einstein’s slowing is a small perturbation of order -v2, whereas your slowing is an overall scaling by 1/v2. So again, your statement is much stronger than the one people are familiar with.
A third thing you seem to say is that time flow is related to
energy expenditure. I think that means
energy expenditure against some dissipative force, such as friction. Again, there is a precedent for such an
idea. Our editorial board member in
Our rule about publishing anything in GED is that someone other than the author must understand it. We do not have to agree with it; we publish many divergent views. But we do need to be able to understand it. Mr. Rush tried very hard, and I think the argument is now clearer than it was in part due to his effort. We will continue to try.
I have now read through some faxes and e-mails between yourself and Mr. Rush. I don’t have a current copy of the manuscript that they pertain to. I see that he has made various suggestions about rewording things, and I hope you have done that.
Our basic rule about publishing things in Galilean Electrodynamics is that we have to understand what the author says. We don’t have to agree with the author, but we do have to understand it.
I think you are making progress toward this goal. If your manuscript is short enough, you will get to the goal. The most important thing is to be brief. Only by being brief can you succeed.
The alternative you mentioned is to approach a different journal. I don’t know if there are suitable journals published in Turkish. Maybe not. Besides Turkish, what other languages do you feel comfortable in?
Many thanks for your e-mail and fax. My husband and I have been away on a trip for several weeks, so I am not very up to date on your discussions with Mr. Rush. Please forgive me. I gather that Mr. Rush has been trying to understand what you have written, and still has some questions. Please allow me a little time to review everything.
I now have the enclosed referee report on your manuscript about “Time Flow”. Like myself, the referee found many things puzzling. He recommends that you interact with physics professors to try to get more things better clarified. My own experience in such situations is that Electrical Engineering professors are more helpful, and practicing engineers are the most helpful of all. I hope you will try such interactions. Also, it is really a good idea to try to compose a short, focused letter-to-the-editor on some sub-topic of your overall theory. That way, achieving clarity is not such a daunting project. Good luck.
Your manuscript arrived almost two weeks ago and the delivery receipt should have been returned to you by now. I have read the manuscript and was choosing a referee for it now. I felt the need a referee because there are several points that puzzle me:
• What makes you say “Hours in space objects with great mass stay behind as compared with those in space objects with small mass” is a result of relativity theory? Are you referring to the correlation between mass-increase and clock-slowing as a function of velocity? That would seem to be irrelevant to the subsequent examples with various multiples of mass all having the same velocity.
• I see that you consistently use the classical expression kinetic energy = mv2 /2 for energy. One naturally wonders what reference the v is taken relative to, and what it means if v =0?
• You give many numerical examples, and it is easy to follow the numbers, but it is unclear to me what exactly the statement is that they are intended to illustrate.
Maybe you could respond to these points before I go to a referee.
Thank you for your fax of today. I was wondering why I had not heard from you for so long a time. I did not realize my previous letter had been unclear. What I wanted you to do was create one or more shorter manuscripts for publication in the format of “letter to the Editor”. You could do this by dividing the manuscript you have into several parts. Please try to do this and, send me the resulting manuscript or manuscripts both on paper and on a 3.5 inch computer disk. This will enable me to work on clarifying the English. This is necessary to make the work publishable.
Howard Hayden recently asked me to take over as Editor for Galilean Electrodynamics, and has been sending me any manuscripts he receives. One of them is your work entitled “Time Flow and the Life of a Material”. I read it this morning.
I note that it is quite long, more like a monograph than a journal article. We wouldn’t be able to publish something so long. But I see that much of the text in the beginning is rather pedagogical, deriving relationships known in SRT or GRT. So maybe those parts could be left out. And possibly the remainder of the text could be divided up into manageable installments for publication.
I note too that the English is rather difficult to read. Where I don’t understand something, it is difficult for me to restate it in more standard English. Possibly you would do better to publish your work elsewhere in another language.
I see too that you consistently use the classical expression kinetic energy = mv2 /2. In relativistic problems, this is usually replaced by kinetic energy = mc2 - mo c2 ,where
m= mo /Ö(1-v2 /c2 ) . This would be insignificant by itself, but it seems to come up again later in the discussion of “time flowage”, which I don’t understand well enough to know if this point matters.
Am I right to say that your position about “Life of a Material” has something to do with the cumulative effect of clock slowing? I know there is something else to it too, but I don’t fully understand yet.
I would encourage you to start with something shorter for publication. A letter to the Editor is a good way to start. This long manuscript is too much for us to handle as is.
Kizilelma Cad. No: 99/B