Kindle Paperwhite Problem

I have a Kindle Paperwhite purchased in 2018. I did a reset on it to purge various files that showed up on window explorer when connected to my laptop.

After the reset I downloaded books from Amazon that were previously purchased. So far so good. But when I downloaded other books from my laptop I noticed that when sorting for collections, the newly downloaded books did not appear on the page after the pages of collections.

Thinking this could be resolved with a software update, I did so and then I found that I could no longer sort by collections (grayed out), and my old collections were no longer visible. I found they still existed as attempting to re-create the collections told me that they already existed and I was required to pick a new name.

I created a new "test" collection and this allowed me to sort by collections once again, but it only showed my new test collection. When tapping on a book name to move it to a collection, it says the book is already in a collection, but the collection is not visible on the screen after moving or not moving the book. When moving a book to a new collection, it shows my existing collections, but after tapping on "done", the screen changes to the list of books on the Kindle and the one new collection I made with the old collections still invisible.

Searching the internet seems to show solutions that refer to older software version. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Ranb

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3p9hsDQ

Race to an EV truck - skin in the game edition

Karen and I love our Honda Clarity PHEV. We’re virtually certain our next vehicle purchase will be a pure EV, and a pickup would be handiest as a daily driver.

When the Tesla CyberTruck rolled onto the stage at the unveiling, I thought it was a joke. But it was intriguing enough we put down a $100 refundable deposit. But right now, CyberTruck production is not set to even begin until late 2022, and we’re not very high on the list for deliveries.

Now the Rivian R1T has come onto our radar. The reviews are quite positive, and they’ve begun deliveries, albeit only to employees with very early positions. The compact size, similar to our Honda Ridgeline, appeals to us more than something like an F150 Lightning. Anyway, on Friday we spec’d out an R1T and put $1,000 down*.



We’re aware that the deposits are refundable, but also imply no commitment from Tesla or Rivian concerning locking in today’s prices nor any commitment as to delivery date. And that we’re almost certainly two years or more away from delivery. Good news is that at our age, the years pass by really quickly - wasn’t it just Christmas?

Anyone else have skin in this game?


*We simultaneously bought 10 shares of Rivian stock @ $116 as a flyer. With our Tesla stock, now even more skin in the game!

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3o7AQ51

No bullets in the toaster!

I don't have guns myself. I've never actually shot a gun, so I am admittedly out of touch when it comes to storage of any related items. It turns out I have now learned that the toaster oven isn't a good place to put them.

Quote:

Bullets in a toaster oven caused a fire at a Greenwood assisted living facility Sunday night. ... Officials said it appeared the fire was started because the resident placed several rounds of ammunition into a toaster oven causing the ammunition to discharge and making employees believe that a shooter was on the property.

Source.

I will admit, I have left a pan in the oven and turned it on due to not knowing it was in there. Do people generally keep their bullets in the toaster?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/31gN7eu

Yes, the Far Right are Morons

This is hilarious, and shows that the far right clowns are just that - clowns.

Clueless bums with guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...breach-hackers

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/32D9CL3

Barbados sheds the Queen

Barbados has shed the Queen and become a republic. Under the new constitution, all of the Regal rights and duties now fall upon the newly appointed president.

Quote:

That means removing Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, a break with nearly four centuries of history in the former British colony. Prince Charles, who has long used the island dubbed “Little England” as his polo playground, plans to join the celebrations in Bridgetown.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...epublic-queen/

Although a largely popular move, the change has come under criticism for its lack of public consultation and particularly for the parliament's failure to hold a referendum.

Under the model that has been adopted, the President is appointed by the parliament (a two thirds majority needed) and must act on the advice of the country's executive (especially the Prime Minister). This is the same model that was rejected by Australians in the 1999 referendum.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2ZyWBRA

Finally, an explanation of NFTs that everyone can understand!

https://twitter.com/joshuamartian/st...29458152431622

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3xHSq2E

Prescription drug costs, licensing fee, monopoly

Colchicine used to cost 10 cent/pill. But the FDA decided it needed to be tested and licensed, Price now $5.

]QUOTE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine "Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no FDA-approved prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings.[45] On 30 July 2009, the FDA approved colchicine as a monotherapy for the treatment of three different indications (familial Mediterranean fever, acute gout flares, and for the prophylaxis of gout flares[45]), and gave URL Pharma a three-year marketing exclusivity agreement[46] in exchange for URL Pharma doing 17 new studies and investing $100 million into the product, of which $45 million went to the FDA for the application fee. [/quote]

So half of the 100 million went to the FDA? Sound like institutional graft to anybody else?

AND, for that $45M, they got to patent an old drug for the same old use. Patent runs out in 2029. Generics are out there, but can not be sold for treating gout. IIRC, patents can not be granted for old ideas- least ways not for anything other than drugs. You can't patent the wheel barrow.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3rktYD6

Protests against doing anything to fight the plague... in Europe?!

Why is this happening in Europe? Surely there can't be many there who listened to Trump. I heard that his Brazilian counterpart had behaved similarly, but that's not in Europe either. Who else has been pushing this kind of thing over there, and why?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3FYVM3U

Ultracapacitors - Better than batteries?

An interesting article in the Toronto Star a couple of days ago ( https://www.thestar.com/business/mar...ty-trucks.html ) about a company, Effenco, ( https://www.effenco.com/ ) that is making and selling trucks that use supercapacitors (or ultracapacitors, if you prefer) to replace electro-chemical batteries in certain classes of trucks.

Quote:

While Effenco’s systems are assembled in Montreal, and used by terminal trucks operated by Termont in the Port of Montreal, 90 per cent of the company’s sales have been in the international market. Its clients include Purolator, which uses them on its warehouse trucks, and the City of New York, whose sanitation department has retrofitted its garbage trucks with the system. More recently, Effenco helped the French waste collection firm, Derichebourg, secure a contract in Paris, its first, by including Effenco’s technology in its bid. (In Europe, firms bidding on public contracts can earn “points” for emissions reductions they offer.) That contract led to similar ones in Norway, Italy and the Netherlands, where Effenco’s systems will be added to 60 more trucks.

More about supercapacitors, their construction and benefits here: https://interestingengineering.com/c...ctric-vehicles

Quote:

"In the future, it is hoped the supercapacitor will be developed to store more energy than a Li-Ion battery while retaining the ability to release its energy up to 10 times faster - meaning the car could be entirely powered by the supercapacitors in its body panels,” said the study's co-author Jinzhang Liu. "After one full charge, this car should be able to run up to 500km (310 miles) - similar to a petrol-powered car and more than double the current limit of an electric car.”

I see some hope. Anyone else?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3pbZwsp

Social justice and its discontents

Came across an interesting article from the Clearer Thinking podcast which discusses various sets of issues from the perspective of those who advocate for social justice and those who argue against them from the left.

Here are the main issues covered:

1. offending others
2. authority to speak about certain issues
3. group labels
4. diversity
5. differences in outcome
6. cultural appropriation
7. complicity in discrimination
8. power structures in society
9. group generalizations
10. national pride
11. historical figures
12. meaning of gender
13. cancel culture

We've covered some of these topics in separate threads, notably gender and cancel culture.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/31bqOXA

Absolute and Relative Time

We all know the story. Newton said time is absolute. Einstein said time is relative. A tale so ingrained and unquestionable, that bringing it up for any reason other than the setup to a meme might seem pointless.



But I would like to show you that this story is not the whole truth.

Newton

Let’s start with Newton, who has this to say, on page 6 of the Principia:

Quote:

I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects.

Newton introduces his physics to the world by saying that the “common people” only understand space and time by how they relate to the senses. In other words, prior to him, people only thought of time and space as relative. Or at least that’s what he’s claiming.

He continues:

Quote:

And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common. I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and which is commonly taken for immovable space

We see here that Newton very explicitly says there are two types of time, one of an absolute nature and one of a relative nature, involving measurements and observations. And he provides similar definitions for absolute space and relative space.

While it can be debated what he meant precisely, it should be clear that simplifying his position to “time is absolute” does not tell the whole story.

I posted parts of the above quote by Newton in a tweet to Ethan Siegel and this was his response:



This is not meant to be a criticism of Dr. Siegel, who is kind enough to reply, just to illustrate how persistent this story is.

We can see that in Newton’s work, right on page 6, he explicitly defines what he means by space and time. There is nothing tacit about it. But these words rang a bell.

Einstein

We find in the book Relativity, by Einstein, page 32, the following:

Quote:

Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears.

There’s the same “tacit assumption”, but with a twist. Einstein had written “it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance”, whereas Siegel modifies the general “in physics”, to be specifically “in Newton’s work”, which I hope I have shown is not the case.

It appears from the quotation by Einstein that he is in fact claiming time to be relative, and only relative. That is a fair impression to get from this quote, and it seems that even Einstein’s contemporaries would have gotten a similar impression.

Here is Heisenberg’s account of a discussion with Einstein:

Quote:

“But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the determination of time." "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe." (In Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations, Harper Torchbooks, 1972, p. 63.)

It could be interpreted that “it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed” means that since it is not observed, it doesn’t exist. That would lead to the conclusion that “time is relative”.

The interpretation I lean toward is that Heisenberg and Einstein recognized, just as Newton had, there is both absolute and relative time, not just one or the other. They simply claimed absolute time was unobservable and not relevant to physics. Which would be different than saying it didn’t exist.

The idea that time can be only relative, or only absolute, seems to be a late 20th century invention, used to emphasize how revolutionary Einstein’s relativity was. A consequence of this is that we’re presented with a false dilemma, we have to choose between time being one way or the other.

For Newton and Einstein, I do not think this dilemma was present, and both would be comfortable with absolute time and relative time each existing in their own ways.

The disagreement among them would have been that Newton felt his physics described absolute time and space, while Einstein would have asserted that his physics describe the world of relative time and space.

Everett

In the case where the mathematics of a theory only allows for one type of time, then there is a valid reason to choose one. And since relative time is what is actually observed, and it is desirable for theories to describe what is actually observed, then relative time is the best choice.

But what about a physical theory whose mathematics allow for two types of time? Due to our modern intuition to accept the false dilemma between absolute and relative time, it might be difficult to identify such a theory.

Hugh Everett may be best known for the “Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, but the real story behind that is over simplified as well.

Everett wrote a very lengthy thesis called “The Universal Wavefunction”. It was far too long to be a PhD thesis, so he wrote a shorter thesis, with many of the same ideas, known as “The Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”.

The first thesis was later read by Bryce DeWitt, who interpreted the work as suggesting parallel realities, and named it the “Many Worlds Interpretation”.

But it is Everett’s relative state formulation that is the most relevant to a discussion about absolute and relative time. Proposed as both a way to go about solving the problem of quantum gravity, and as a solution to the measurement problem, the ambitious Everett went so far as to name his work a “formulation” rather than an “interpretation” of quantum mechanics.

His solution to the measurement problem is to essentially flip it upside down. Rather than ask “what is the role of measurement in the model”, Everett says it is our task to model a measurement being made. He writes on page 9

Quote:

We have the task of making deductions about the appearance of phenomena to observers which are considered as purely physical systems and are treated within the theory. To accomplish this it is necessary to identify some present properties of such an observer with features of the past experience of the observer. Thus, in order to say that an observer 0 has observed the event α, it is necessary that the state of 0 has become changed from its former state to a new state which is dependent upon α. It will suffice for our purposes to consider the observers to possess memo- ries (i.e., parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states are in correspon- dence with past experience of the observers). In order to make deductions about the past experience of an observer it is sufficient to deduce the present contents of the memory as it appears within the mathematical model. As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func- tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations. We can further suppose that the machine is so constructed that its present actions shall be determined not only by its present sensory data, but by the contents of its memory as well. Such a machine will then be capable of performing a sequence of observations (measurements), and furthermore of deciding upon its future experiments on the basis of past results. If we consider that current sensory data, as well as machine configuration, is im- mediately recorded in the memory, then the actions of the machine at a given instant can be regarded as a function of the memory contents only, and all relavant [sic] experience of the machine is contained in the memory. For such machines we are justified in using such phrases as “the machine has perceived A” or “the machine is aware of A” if the occurrence of A is represented in the memory, since the future behavior of the machine will be based upon the occurrence of A. In fact, all of the customary language of subjective experience is quite applicable to such machines, and forms the most natural and useful mode of expression when dealing with their behavior, as is well known to individuals who work with complex automata.

What Everett is describing here could use an updated example, using modern technology.

Consider a computer running a physics engine. We’ll call this computer A, and it has its memory, which we’ll call memory A.

The physics engine models subatomic particles, like electrons and quarks, and also photons and other force carriers. With just those basic building blocks, It can model liquids, and solids, and gases. The basic particles can make up elements and molecules, and macroscopic objects like billiard balls and clouds. They should be even to make all the components of another computer, or a smartphone. Let’s call that computer B.

A smartphone fits Everett’s criteria for an observer: automatically functioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations.

If computer B has a camera and is loaded with the proper software, it could examine its environment, and record measurements of things around it relative to each other. These measurements could be recorded in computer B’s memory, which is called memory B.

So now we have memory A, which contains the properties of subatomic particles that make a variety of objects, one of which is an observer whose memory B contains results of its measurements of the other objects.

Memory A and memory B both describe the virtual world, but from two different perspectives. Memory A is how it looks from the outside, and memory B is how it looks from the inside.

Considering such a theory, it’s difficult not to think back to Newton’s original definitions of time:

Quote:

Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion

It seems to me you can draw a line between Newton’s definitions of absolute and relative time to Everett’s relative state formulation.

Conclusion

The story that Newton said “absolute!” and Einstein said “relative!” is useful, illustrative, and mostly true, in the context of what the math describes. But in the bigger picture, and with potentially new mathematical models with new abilities, it should be kept in mind that thinking about time as being only absolute or only relative is a false dilemma that Newton and Einstein would have considered as unnecessary as choosing only one side of a coin to exist. For there to be an “up” but not a “down”.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3xrVPCz

Network Upgrade took out both of my phones

Well this is funny...

Last week, my mobile (cell) phone suddenly stopped working.

The provider advised that there were tower upgrades going on in my area, and the outage would be very temporary.

It wasn't.

I pulled out my back-up phone, and found that it could no longer connect either.

Days went by, where I tried everything I could think of, and the provider continued to advise me that things would be working 'real soon'.

Of course, there are some things that require SMS for two-factor authentication, and that meant I was locked out. (Neither phone was able to do SMS via WiFi)

The provider recommended that I pick up a free, new SIM card, so that I could at least use phone over internet so that I could keep going while they tried to work out the network issue.

Hey presto! New SIMS and both phones were immediately working perfectly again.

My best guess?

There's been some kind of protocol change, and my old SIMS were not able to use the new protocol.

Four days of hassles that I could really have done without.

Both phones are now showing new features, so I've learned something else.

Android doesn't show features if the SIM card doesn't support them.

:)

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3D1QgvE

Joe Biden: racist?

"Trump further diminished the U.S. in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban. This new 'African Ban' is designed to make it harder for black and brown people to immigrate to the United States. It’s a disgrace, and we cannot let him succeed." --Joe Biden Feb 1, 2020

U.S. imposes travel ban from eight African countries over Omicron variant

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2ZvQEoA

Proton magnetic moment: among the most accurate calculations in physics

In the book Subtle is the Math

are presented 16 papers,

among which a paper published in Physics Essays.

The calculation of the proton magnetic moment,
exposed ahead, belongs to the Paper Three (of the book) entitled

"Calculation of proton’s radius from the well-known equation α = Ke²/ħc".

5. Structure of the proton

Proton structure is at Figure 5. Gluons are not shown, because there is no need to consider them as contributors for the proton asymmetric structure (indispensable for the explanation of production of W boson in polarized beam of protons in scattering experiments) as will be shown. The down quark crosses orthogonally the magnetic lines of the magnetic field induced by the rotation of the two up quarks. As is known, when an electric charge is moving rectilinearly, but suddenly it enters in a magnetic field, in a way that it crosses orthogonally the lines of the field, the charge starts to move with circular motion. That’s why the down quark gets its orbital angular momentum inside the structure of the quark, L= m.v.R. The same happens with the up quarks, since they cross orthogonally the magnetic lines of the magnetic field induced by the down quark.

Fig 5. Structure of the proton, with the three quarks moving in circular trajectory around the Z-axis. Each u-quark is formed by one fermion of the quantum vacuum with charge +2e/3, and the d-quark is formed by one fermion with charge –e/3.

Analyzing the proton structure in the Figure 5, we note that:

a) At the top (inside the green rectangle) is shown that positive spin s=+½ of quarks has counter-clockwise rotation

b) Inside the big yellow down arrow, the spin of d-quark is due to its rotation around the Y-axis. The unity of positive spin s= +½ is due to the d-quark moving with counter-clockwise rotation (if d-quark would have clockwise rotation, its spin would be negative, s= -½).

c) Inside the structure of proton (blue sphere), d-quark has counter-clockwise orbital motion around the X-axis, and negative spin s= -½ around Y-axis. If it had positive spin s= +½, its contribution for the proton magnetic moment would be negative. But because it has s= -½, its contribution is positive.

d) Regarding up quark U1 and d-quark:

· Both them have orbital motion around the Z-axis in counter-clockwise direction.

· They have contrary spins

· So, if they had the same sign of charge, they would have tendency to cancel each other their magnetic moments.

· But as U1 has positive charge, and d-quark negative, both them contribute for a positive magnetic moment.

e) Up quarks U1 and U2 have contrary spins. Then:

· If they were moving in the same direction around the Z-axis, they would cancel each other their magnetic moments.

· But as they move in contrary direction, they add their contribution for a positive magnetic moment.

f) Therefore, all the three quarks contribute for a positive magnetic moment.

g) The two u-quarks have contrary spins, and contrary orbital angular momentum, and therefore they do not contribute for the total spin of the proton.

h) The d-quark has rotation with radius Re(-) around its own spinning center (Y-axis), and it with radius Rd= 2Re(-) around the Z-axis of the proton.


6. Calculation of the proton magnetic moment from the mass defect

The masses of the u and d quarks, measured by experiments, are respectively 2,3+0,7;-0,5 and 4,8+-,5;-0,3 MeV/c². Will be used 2.45 and 5.35 MeV/c².

As the two u-quarks cancel each other their contribution for the spin of the proton, there is no need to know what are the values of their orbital angular momentum. However, their orbital motions contribute for the magnetic moment, and so there is need to know what is the value of their orbital radius Ru. This is calculated ahead.

The equilibrium between the magnetic and centrifugal forces on the d-quark is given by:

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3cRueRw

What is controversial in physics?

The Editor Vlad of ZPEnergy
posted the following reply
to a comment of mine,
in his site:

“Please understand that I'm doing my best
to give you another platform to make
your controversial research in theoretical physics known”

First of all, I am very thankful to the Editor Vlad.

However, I would like to explain what is really controversial in theoretical physics, because such a subject is very controversial.



My theory is not controversial.

Controversial are the current theories of physics.

They are controversial because in current theoretical physics were adopted fundamental principles that make no sense. They violate the Logic.

For instance, Einstein proposed that the space is empty, but it has the property of contraction, and it is able to produce the magnetism. This makes no sense. This is controversial. Something empty cannot have contraction. And something empty (that is, something that does not exist), cannot produce magnetic fields.

Other example: according to current quantum mechanics, the electron disappears from a level in the atom, and instantaneously appears in another level, without to travel the space between the two levels. This is controversial. An electron that disappears from a position and appears instantaneously in another position moved with infinite velocity, because in the equation S= v.t the time is zero, and so v= S/0 = infinite. This nonsense brings down Einstein’s relativity.



In my theory the new foundations are all them in agreement to Logic. Besides, my theory is supported by results comproved by mathematic calculations.

So, if somebody accuse my theory of being controversial, then he has to conclude that the mathematics is controversial.

Well, this conclusion is right. The mathematics is controversial.

But not the math used by me, because I don’t use math abstract concepts as the imaginary number, or any other math concept created with the aim to achieve results that conciliate the theory with the experimental results.

To show that math is controversial is among the objectives of my book Subtle is the Math, where it is shown that a controversial math was introduced by Einstein, and it was used successfully along the 20th Century, and continues being used.

The math used by Einstein (and used up to now by the physicists) does not reflects what really happens in the realm of Nature. Many fundamental principles adopted in current Theoretical Physics do not exist in Nature. But with the introduction of suitable artifices in the math, as the imaginary number, it is possible to achieve to results that are confirmed by experiments.

A good example is the coupling light-matter used in quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, the interaction between two electrically charged particles is promoted by the exchange of photons between them, as shown in the Figure 1.

See
Figures 1
in the botton of this thread

Can we be sure that such mechanism proposed in QED is really the same mechanism existing in nature?

This is controversial. First of all, there is not in current theoretical physics an atomistic structure of the electric field, despite more than 70 years ago the Wolfgang Pauli said in his Nobel Lecture:

“From the point of view of logic, my report on ‘Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics’ has no conclusion. I believe that it will only be possible to write the conclusion if a theory is established which will determine the value of the fine-structure constant and will thus explain the atomistic structure of electricity, which is such an essential quality of all atomic sources of electric fields actually occurring in Nature.”



QED is considered the jewel of physics, because of its accuracy, confirmed by experimental results.



But among abstract math tools as the imaginary number used in QED, there is other interesting abstract math apparatus used in the theory: the bispinor.

In the paper “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and fine-structure constant”, published in the book Subtle is the Math, it is proposed that the interaction between two electrically charged particles occurs actually through the interaction of the “electricitons” of the electric fields, which move with the speed of light, as seen in the Figure 2.

See
Figures 2
in the botton of this thread

So, what is the real mechanism that promotes the interaction between two fields?

Suppose that:

1- The real mechanism existing in Nature is by the “System f-f”, shown in the Figure 2.

2- However, by using the math adopted in QED, through the adoption of the imaginary number, together with the bispinor, the “System ph-ph” shown in the Figure 1 is mathematically equivalent to the “System f-f” existing in Nature.

Then obviously QED can be successful, because its mathematical apparatus is equivalent to the mathematics of the “System f-f”, existing in Nature.



In the end of the book Subtle is the Math is proposed to theorists a challenge: to prove the mathematical equivalence between the “System ph-ph” and the “System f-f”.

If such mathematical equivalence be proven mathematically, two conclusions will be achieved:

1- The mathematics used by the physicits is indeed controversial.

2- QED is successful thanks to a “mathematical coincidence”, the equivalence of two systems:

the “System ph-ph” adopted in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature.



But the physicists are afraid to accept this challenge. Because if the mathematical equivalence of the two systems be proven, this will prove that QED does not work through the fundamental principles existing in Nature. And what is worst: it will be proven that the mathematics used by the physicists is controversial.



In my book Subtle is the Math is shown that the own Lord used the imaginary number when He built the Universe. Then somebody obviously could claim:

"Well, as the own Lord used the imaginary number,
then there is not any controversy in the math used in Modern Physics,
since the own Lord used the imaginary number,
when He had created the Universe".

But the question is not so simple.

The math used in current physics is controversial because the theorists start from some initial assumptions, which do not exist in Nature, and then they have to introduce some math tools not introduced by the Lord. For instance, in current theoretical physics is considered that symmetry plays a fundamental role in the working of the Universe. But in my book “The New Nuclear Physics” (to be published in 2022) is shown that symmetry does not play any fundamental role in the structure of atomic nuclei, as nowadays nuclear theorists believe.

Other example: Einstein started from the hypothesis that the space is empty. But the Lord did not create the Universe from an empty space. Then Einstein used the imaginary number in a different way of the way used by the Lord, because Einstein and the Lord had two different starting points: Einstein supposed that the space is empty, whereas the Lord has created the space as not empty. Therefore Einstein’s mathematics is different of that used by the Lord.

Other example is the difference between the “System ph-ph” used in QED, and the “System f-f” existing in Nature. The Lord did not use the bispinor, when He created the Universe, He used only the imaginary number. But the theorists had to introduce the bispinor, because in their theory there is not the atomistic structure of the electric field. Thereby, as something very fundamental is missing in QED (the atomistic structure of electric fields), there was need to create a new math apparatus, the bispinor, which the Lord did not use, because He created the atomistic structure of the electric fields, and so the Lord did not need to use the bispinor in His Mathematics.

So, the mathematics used by the Lord is different of the mathematics used by the physicists, despite, from the introduction of some additional math tools, it is possible to establish an equivalence between the mathematics of the Lord and the mathematics of the physicists. And the physicists did it successfully along more than hundred years.

Attached Images

fiigura 1 e 2.jpg (17.5 KB)

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3lbA0lE

Potential Darwin Nominee

Usually it's the guys who manage to be reckless with guns, but apparently some women are determined to prove that they can do everything the guys can, including be terminally stupid. In this case a camgirl was performing some kind of sex video, in which she managed to shoot herself in the vagina with a 9mm:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...scharge-749218

Even as a guy (well, most of the time) I must cross my legs just thinking of the kind of damage a JHP round can do, even in 9mm. Those things expand like you wouldn't believe.

Looks like she'll live, but depending on the kind of damage she did to her reproductive system, we may be looking at a Darwin Award.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3cQgDdk

Fraudulent peer-review process of the journal Foundations of Physics

Published by Springer,
the journal
Foundations of Physics – FOOP
has a fraudulent peer-review process of publication,
as easily one infers from the sequence
of facts exposed ahead.

After the submission of “Calculation of proton’s charge from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum”, the paper was sent to two reviewers. Both they have rejected it, and the Editorial Board sent an email to me, with the two Reports.

But with another paper, “Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger’s equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)”, the Editorial Board has adopted a different procedure. It was submitted to FOOP in 15 Sep 2020, and in 17 Nov 2020 the status was “Reviews Completed”, as seen in the Figure 1. Therefore, the paper was sent to two reviewers, and both them approved the publication. After all, the review is completed when the two reviewers send back their Report to the journal. However, the Editorial Board did not send any email to me, showing any Report.

The missing in sendig any Report to the author has seemed very strange. And while the time was running, more strange has seemed the missing of any communication by the Editorial Board. As consequence, I started to suspect that the members of the Editorial Board were trying some sort of strategy, with the aim to reject the paper. Perhaps they were trying to convince the two reviewers to change their Reports. That suspicion inspired me to write more three papers, with the aim to reinforce the math results of the paper with status “Reviews Completed”.

In those three new papers – which were submitted to FOOP – was applied a new math procedure, different of the math used in “Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger’s equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)”. In the new procedure, the energy levels – in hydrogen, helium, and lithium atoms – were calculated through the de Broglie-Einstein equation E = h²/2ml², applied together with the equation of the potential energy due to the density of the anisotropic space inside those three atoms. The values achieved are very close to the experimental. Therefore, such successful result – from which is connected the equation E = h²/2ml² to the density of the space inside hydrogen, helium, and lithium – is an inquestionable math result that proves to be correct my new interpretation of quantum mechanics. And by consequence that triple irrefutable math confirmation would have to convince the Editorial Board of FOOP, as also the reviewers.

The three papers, with their Abstratcs, are:


1- Energy levels of hydrogen atom calculated through the potential energy of space’s density.

Abstract

Here are calculated the levels of the hydrogen atom with a new math procedure, from the model of electron’s motion through helical trajectory (Zitterbewegung). From this new procedure of calculation one easily perceives how the electron’s wavelength in the hydrogen atom is connected to the equation E = h²/2ml², derived from postulates proposed by de Broglie and Einstein. Matter exhibits wave-like behavior as consequence of such connection, manifested in all particles, and induced the quantum theorists to develop the quantum mechanics in the way they did.


2- Calculation of energy levels in Zitterbewegung model of helium atom

Abstract

In paper [1] are calculated the energy levels of hydrogen atom, by considering the density of the anisotropic space around the proton. The same procedure is successfully applied here to the helium atom.In the end of the paper are analyzed two unsolved puzzles in the realm of quantum mechanics, because according to empirical data, the radii of hydrogen and helium atoms are totally at odds with those calculated through quantum mechanics. The empirical radius of hydrogen atom is half of that calculated through quantum mechanics, and helium’s radius is 4,6 times larger than calculated through the theory.


3- Calculation of energy levels in Zitterbewegung model of lithium atom

Abstract

Through de Broglie-Einstein equation E= h²/2ml², applied to the Zitterbewegung model of hydrogen atom, in paper [1] are calculated the energy levels of hydrogen atom, by considering the density of the anisotropic space around the proton. The same procedure issuccessfully appliedto the helium atom in [2]. Here the procedure is applied successfully for the calculation of the energy levels of lithium atom.

Surprisingly, in a decision – completely disagree
to what anybody may expect of the respect of a physicist to math,
when he faces math calculations – the Editorial Board rejected
the first paper, with the Report ahead,
by the Mannaging Editor Fedde Benedictus.

=======O=======O=======O=REPORT=O=======O=======O= ======

Dear Dr. Guglinski,

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP-D-20-00735 "Energy levels of hydrogen atom calculated through the potential energy of space’s density".

With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Foundations of Physics.

Below, please find the comments for your perusal.

********

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

With kind regards,

Fedde Benedictus

Managing Editor

Foundations of Physics

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

__

********

**Our flexible approach during the COVID-19 pandemic**

If you need more time at any stage of the peer-review process, please do let us know. While our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines, we aim to be as flexible as possible during the current pandemic.

=======O=======O=======O==END==O=======O=======O== =====

The other two papers were rejected by Fedde Benedictus with the same sort of Report: without any comment, despite he says “Below, please find the comments for your perusal”, which cannot have any other meaning than an intention to mock the author's attempt to publish the article in the Foundations of Physics.

The third paper was submitted in 03 Jan 2021, and rejected by Fedde Benedictus two days after, in 05 Jan 2021. Making clear that the Editorial Board even did not read the paper. This shows the respect that the Editorial Board of the journal Foundations of Physics devotes to the mathematics.


Then the question is: Why, along three months, the Editorial Board did not send to the author any comment about the result of the peer-review process, whose status Reviews Completed was completed in 17 Nov 2020?

There are two alternatives to be considered:

1- Alternative one - Would the Editorial Board be trying to convince the reviewers to change their Reports, and reject the paper?

2- Alternative two - Or would the Editorial Board be sending the paper to several other reviewers, with the aim to find one who would reject the paper?

The alternative two was chosen by the Editorial Board. They sent the paper to a “third” reviewer, which means that they mocked the peer-review process, because instead to write “Reviewer #3”, they wrote “Reviewer #2”, although the real Reviewer #2 already had sent his Report three months ago, suggesting the publication of the paper. So, finally, in 10 Feb 2021, the Editorial Board sent the Report of the Third Reviewer, whose most important argument is the following:

======O=======O=======O==REPORT==O=======O=======O ======

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #2: Review of Manuscript Number: FOOP-D-20-00574

Full Title: Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger's equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)

by Wladimir Guglinski

In the present paper, the author aims at demonstrating that the de Broglie postulate should be modified by a linear term in the variation of the momentum which he gives in the equation (3) in the case of the electron in the hydrogen atom.

The author's main argument is that due to the Zitterbewegung, the electron gains an extra amount of momentum which he calls it $\pm \delta p$ according to its movement away or towards the nucleus and that amount should be added to the denominator of the right hand side of the de Broglie relation $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$.

I have the following objections to the statements from the paper that lead to the equation (3).

1) First of all, the whole treatement of the hydrogen atom is in the framework of the "old quantum theory" (or close to it). The author gives heuristic classical constructs of the hydrogen atom in terms of trajectories and point-like particles and even that in the formalism of Newtonian Mechanics. Since many formulations and results fromt the old quantum theory are wrong and since we now have the precise description of the hydrogen atom in the Quantum Mechanics, I suggest the treatment of any topic related to the hydrogen atom, and for that matter, all atoms, in the framework of the modern Quantum Mechanics as given in the classical textbooks, e. g.

C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu and F. Laloë, Quantum Mechanics, Wiley (1991).

=======O=======O=======O==END==O=======O=======O== =====

Let us analyze the argument of the Reviewer.

1- He claims that “…many formulations and results fromt the old quantum theory are wrong”.

2- Then, obviously, Quantum Mechanics was developed with the aim to improve the old wrong quantum theory.

3- And he claims that “…since we now have the precise description of the hydrogen atom in the Quantum Mechanics, I suggest the treatment of any topic related to the hydrogen atom, and for that matter, all atoms, in the framework of the modern Quantum Mechanics as given in the classical textbooks...”.



However, modern Quantum Mechanics has an heritage from the old quantum theory: in both them the space is considered isotropic inside the hydrogen atom (and also all atoms). But suppose that the space inside the atoms existing in nature is anisotropic (non-Euclidian). Is there a chance for Quantum Mechanics be correct?

Of course the answer is NO. Undoubtle there is no chance that Quantum Mechanics – “as given in the classical textbooks” – can be correct if the space inside the atoms is anisotropic.

Then what is the meaning of the treatment of any topic related to the hydrogen atom, in the framework of the modern Quantum Mechanics as given in the classical textbooks?

The meaning is that:

i) Being ANISOTROPIC the space inside the atoms existing in nature...

ii) ...the unique way to conciliate the old quantum theory with the behavior of the atoms existing in nature – by KEEPING THE OLD IDEA that the space inside atoms is ISOTROPIC – would be via mathematical treatment, as is made in modern Quantum Mechanics.

Therefore:

1- Instead to incorporate in the modern Quantum Mechanics the PHYSICAL cause responsible for the incompatibility – between the old quantum theory and the structure of the atom existing in nature – being the incompatibility caused by the anisotropy of the space inside atoms...

2- ...in modern Quantum Mechanics the cause of the incompatibility was solved via mathematical treatment.



Well, the three papers submitted to Foundations of Physics (where the equation of potential energy of the anisotropic space works in partnership with the de Broglie-Einstein equation E= h²/2ml²) promote the conciliation between the old quantum theory and the behavior of the atoms existing in nature, through a PHYSICAL mechanism – the anisotropic space. And the successful calculation of the energy levels in hydrogen, helium, and lithium atoms, proves mathematically that such a model is correct.

But Fedde Benedictus, together with the Editorial Board of FOOP, instead to send the three papers to the Third Reviewer, in order to show him the alternative new treatment given for the improvement of the old quantum theory – by the adoption of the physical mechanism due to the anisotripic space inside the atoms, different of the treatment used currently in modern Quantum Mechanics – they rascally hid from the Third Reviewer this new proposal – a proposal that makes the old quantum theory compatible with the structure of existing atoms in nature, without the need for the mathematical juggling introduced in modern quantum mechanics, as we see in classical textbooks. The nature operates by physical mechanisms. She does not operates through math. If a physical mechanism existing in nature is missing in a theory, there is need to create some special math tools, with the aim to adapt the theory to the reality, as the quantum theorists did in the modern quantum mechanics.



And finally, the question that deserves an answer: what is the aim of the peer-review process? Is to hide informations from the reviewers, so that to induce them to reject papers strongly supported by math?

If this is the aim of the peer-review process, then the members of the Editorial Board of the journal Foundations of Physics are religiously following the peer-review criterium.

And it’s easy to understand why this fraudulent criterion is adopted in FOOP. After all, Springer publishes and solds classical texbooks. And the Editor-in-Chief, Carlo Rovelli, cannot spit in the dish he eats, by approving papers that demonstrate mathematically that some textbooks published by Springer are wrong.


Fig 1. Status “Reviews Completed” in 17 Nov 2020, of the paper “Standard l=h/p in Schrödinger’s equation replaced by l=h/(p-Dp)”.

Attached Images

Z - Copia (4).jpg (22.8 KB)

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3I77YBQ

Joy stick as mouse?

Joy stick as mouse? I tore up my wrist, TFCC. My sister did it too once, took her 11 months to get over it. I've been using a thumb ball mouse for years, but now I need more vertical. Two buttons and a thumb wheel? Joy stick to control curser instead of rolling mouse.

I've never played hi tech games, never used a joy stick. And I severed the carpal tunnel nerve in that hand, poor sensation. I'd like two finger buttons.

Ebay has some Ooooold things, MS/Dos and 95.

Will anydam joy stick work? Can I shop for buttons, etc?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3lc0UK2

On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists

On why cold fusion is denied by nuclear theorists

Such subject must be considered from two viewpoints:

1- Why nuclear theorists reject the possibility of the existence of cold fusion?

The answer is simple: because from the standard Coulomb’s law F= KQq/d² there is need to consider the existence of the strong nuclear force, so that to explain the stability of atomic nuclei. And from the assumption that strong nuclear force really promotes the stability of atomic nuclei, then theoretically cold fusion is impossible to occur.

But experiments show that cold fusion exists. Then the second question is:

2- How can cold fusion be possible, as by considering the standard Coulomb’s law it is impossible?

The answer is again simple: because the standard Coulomb’s law is incomplete. Coulomb’s repulsions (and attraction) does not follow the equation F= KQq/d² for distances shorter than Bohr’s radius.


For distances shorter than Bohr’s radius, Coulomb’s law is F= KQq/d^(X+Y), where X decreases with the decrease of the distance between the charges “Q” and “q”, and Y grows with relative speed between the charges.

In my book “Subtle is the Math” the equation F= KQq/d^(X+Y) is proven by calculations, in the first paper of the book, entitled “Relation between QED, Coulomb’s Law and fine-structure constant”.

And why does Coulomb’s repulsions vary with the parameter Y in the equation F= KQq/d^(X+Y) ?

This happens because, as shown in that paper, the line-forces of the electric fields are composed by particles (captured from the quantum vacuum) that move with the speed of light. The interaction of the fields of two charges Q and q depends on their relative velocity. The faster is their relative velocity, than stronger is the interaction between the particles that compose the fields of the charges Q and q.

Therefore:

1- If two charges Q and q are moving against each other with relativistic speed V, the electric interaction between Q and q varies proportional to V+c, since the particles of the quantum vacuum (that compose the electric fields of Q and q) are moving with velocity “c”.

2- If the charge Q is at rest, and the charge q is moving away the charge Q with relativistic speed V, the electric interaction between Q and q varies proportional to c-V. This explains why, in the U238 alpha-decay, despite the potential energy of the alpha particle is 27 MeV when it leaves the U238, in the experiments it is detected with only 4 MeV. As shown in my book “Subtle is the Math”, the Gamow’s hypothesis of quantum tunneling is not able to explain this paradox.

In the stars, the relative velocity between particles as protons, deuterons, etc., plays a fundamental role in the process of nuclear synthesis, because the repulsion between two protons moving against each other grows with the growth of their relative speeds, and that’s why, despite the strong nuclear force does not exist, in the stars the fusion between two protons is very hard. Otherwise, if the velocity did not play a fundamental role, the Sun of our planetary system would waste its hydrogen in some few minutes.

Perhaps we may say that such property, of the growth of Coulomb’s repulsions with the growth of the relative velocity between two charged particles, represents a strong force. It is a special type of strong force, with depends on the speed of the two charges. But it does not exist for two charged particles (with low speed), inside atomic nuclei.

From this new Coulomb’ law there is no need to consider the strong nuclear force. Several puzzles of nuclear physics are solved by considering that strong force does not exist. For instance, it explains why two neutrons do not form a dineutron, whereas by considering the strong force two neutrons would have to fuse and form a dineutron, since there is not repulsion between them, but they have a strong attraction by the strong nuclear force. The Heisenberg’s proposal of isospin does not solve the puzzle.

In resume, from a new nuclear physics, in which the strong force does not exist, the cold fusion becomes possible.

Therefore, acceptation of the existence of cold fusion depends on the acceptation that standard Coulomb’s law is incomplete.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3p6dDPA

Female Doctor Who responsible for young male criminality

So says Nick Fletcher (wiki) a UKian Conservative politician. At least until the response forced a desperate back-peddling where he contradicted his earlier assertions and said he "in no way linked Dr Who [sic] being a female to crime being committed by men".

Fletcher was speaking at a debate about international men’s day, though he'd first made these claims (including wrt Doctor Who) in the House of Commond about eighteen months ago. He's also prone to try and underplay the concept of toxic masculinity and frequently denies the existence of male privilege.
A bit of a misogynistic idiot in fact.
:rolleyes:

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/30VoJzb

ME/CFS

This is a disease I can recall being named in the 1980s, and there was a cluster of cases in Tapanui, which actually became the name of it for a while here. I've always been skeptical about a disease that has no physical cause whatsoever. Despite millions of hours of research, we still have a disease that is only diagnosed and categorised by entirely subjective claims and looks to me exactly the same as mass hysteria.

The similarity between ME/CFS and the "Havana Syndrome" strikes me, so I thought I'd start a thread after reading this article, and I'd be interested to see what experience people have of it.

I'm open to evidence that it isn't a 100% psychological disease, but there doesn't appear to be any.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/30UwsO1

2022, The Next Revolution in Physics

I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book THE NEW NUCLEAR PHYSICS. In two weeks I will be submitting the book to publishers, to find one that is interested in publishing it.

On one of the book's introductory opening pages is this humble prophecy, about the fate of theoretical physics:

2022,

The Next Revolution in Physics

The value of the proton radius from the scattering proton-muon
will be announced in the end of 2022,
and it will set off the new revolution in theoretical physics.
In June 16 2021 was announced the status of the Project Muse:

Current plan and schedule

- We will start production data in September - December 2021

- Further plan includes 6 months of data taking in 2022 and 3 months in 2023

It's in the page 20 of this link:

indico.jlab.org/event/446/contributions/8650/attachments/7123/9806/Wan_Lin_HUGS_Presentation.pdf

In the page 023.5 of “MUSE: The MUon Scattering Experiment”, by E. Cline1, J. Bernauer1,2, E. J. Downie3 and R. Gilman4, available in

scipost.org/SciPostPhysProc.5.023/pdf

the prediction of the disclosure of the measured value of the proton radius is presented, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------
“A test of the full MUSE system in December 2019 led to several planned
upgrades to make the system more robust. Due to the ongoing international
public health crisis and its resulting impact on international travel, we were
only able to partially complete the upgrades during 2020. We plan to
complete the upgrades and start MUSE production data taking in 2021.
With 12 months of data taking and analysis to be performed, we anticipate
publication of first results in 2023/24. MUSE will be the first experiment to
measure elastic muon-proton scattering in an appropriate kinematic region,
with a precision sufficient to address the proton radius puzzle.
The corresponding results for the simultaneously-measured electron
scattering, will put a strong constraint on potential systematic uncertainties,
and may help settle the discrepancies between the Mainz and PRad results.
MUSE will be the only experiment that can directly measure with its own data
the difference between electron and muon extractions of the radius, making
it highly compelling.”
----------------------------------------------------------

A value measured by Project MUSE,
below 0.80 fm,
will require new foundations for physics,
implying a profound revolution

But the community of physicists is convinced that the value of the radius of the proton, measured by the proton-muon scattering, will be between 0.875 and 0.83 fm. And that this result will not be the trigger for a new revolution in physics. So where does the author of this book get his certainty that the results of Project MUSE will spark a new revolution in physics?

In the author's article, "Calculation of a proton radius to be measured in the Project MUSE", published by the journal Physics Essays in 2018, calculations are presented that predict that the radius measured by the proton-muon scattering will be between 0.616 fm and 0.722 fm. But it is not these calculations by the author, in the article published in 2018 by Physics Essays, that provide the author with the certainty that the proton radius, measured by the proton-muon scattering, will be below 0.80 fm.

The author's certainty that the radius measured by the proton-muon scattering will be below 0.80 fm comes from two sources:

1- Calculations of the proton radius within the structures of 1H2, 1H3, and 2He3, from the mass defect of these three nuclei, in a procedure that does not exist in current physics, in which the mass defect is a phantasmagoric phenomenon, since in the current physics there is not any physical mechanism from which the mass defect occurs. In current physics, the mass defect is only calculated, by using the Einstein’s equation E= mc², but the physicists do not know from which physical mechanism the mass defect comes from. The author discovered that the mass defect connects the shrinkage of the proton radius (within atomic nuclei) to the mass defect, to the magnetic moment, and to the isotopic mass, and proved it by calculations, exposed in the book Subtle is the Math, published in October 2021.

2- Experiment carried out at the Paul Scherrer Institute, published by Nature in 2021, which measured the radius of helium-4, obtaining the value 1,67824 fm. On page 487 of the book Subtle is the Math, a calculation is presented showing that, for helium-4 to have this radius, the radius of the proton within the structure of helium-4 must be equal to 0.69515 fm. This value is close to the radius of the proton within the structures of the nuclei 1H2, 1H3, and 2He3, whose values are respectively 0.6644 fm, 0.7388 fm and 0.64154 fm, calculated on pages 184, 187, and 190 of the book. The article in which these calculations are presented was rejected by the nuclear physics journal European Physical Journal A, on December 14, 2019, as shown on page 177 of the book, showing the dashboard bellow.


When the results of Project MUSE are released, physicists will realize that the foundations of physics will have to change. And they will understand that they will have to take the author's findings seriously, and that they will be useful in deciding which fundamental laws adopted in current theories should be rejected, and which new fundamental laws should be adopted.

Attached Images

2022, new physics revolution a.jpg (8.5 KB)

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3HO4WlP

Errors in the math used in nuclear physics can be discovered only by clueless persons

Review by B. Arne,
Sr. Optical Engineer at Lockheed Martin,
on a publication of mine
in Linkedin

If I understand your broken English correctly,
you 'defended' your PhD 'thesis' to yourself
and having text books as your 'mentors'.

The lord would not 'create' the universe without
a particle playing some role (if I understand that correctly).

Furthermore you of course have the intuition everyone else 'lacks'.
Naturally all the reviewers that reject your manuscripts are clueless.

Has it ever ocurred to you that maybe you are the one that is clueless??

My reply:

Probably you are right, Arne.

Just because maybe I am the one that is clueless,
this is the reason why I found
the wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics,
in the paper published by Physical Review Letter:

Guglinski, W.
Wrong math procedure used in nuclear physics for the calculation of magnetic moments of excited Z= N even–even nuclei
Physics Essays. (2019)


An error not perceived by
the two Reviewers,
neither by the Editor-in-Chief of PRL,
three experts in nuclear physics that,
like you,
are not clueless like me.

An error also not perceived by
the three nuclear physicists,
authors of the paper.

Also,
an error not found even by
Dr. Maria Borge, Editor-in-Chief
of the European Physical Journal A,
and head of the department of
Spectroscopy at the Institute for the Structure of Matter,
and former ISOLDE-CERN leader.

It's seems that to be expert in nuclear physics
is not enough to discover errors in the nuclear theory.
For the discovery of the errors in nuclear physics,
there is need a person clueless,
like me.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3xqd3Ak

A view of the U.S. from someone who is leaving

The America I give thanks for (as I depart)

A point of view from a BBC North America editor who has lived here for the past eight years and is celebrating his final Thanksgiving before he moves back to the U.K. What he will and won't miss is at the end.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3cP8Qww

NASA's "Dart" mission to intercept and divert an asteroid

Pretty cool mission to intercept and alter the orbit of an asteroid, just successfully launched yesterday. This is a concept that I've been a fan of for a long time, while the chances of an impact are very low, it seems worthwhile to at least test out the technology and better understand the best ways to go about deflecting an asteroid before we're in a situation when time matters.

https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart

Quote:

DART is a planetary defense-driven test of technologies for preventing an impact of Earth by a hazardous asteroid. DART will be the first demonstration of the kinetic impactor technique to change the motion of an asteroid in space. The DART mission is led by APL and managed under NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program at Marshall Space Flight Center for NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office and the Science Mission Directorate’s Planetary Science Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. DART is a spacecraft designed to impact an asteroid as a test of technology. DART’s target asteroid is NOT a threat to Earth. This asteroid system is a perfect testing ground to see if intentionally crashing a spacecraft into an asteroid is an effective way to change its course, should an Earth-threatening asteroid be discovered in the future. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, only about 40 percent of those asteroids have been found as of October 2021.

Quote:

The DART spacecraft will achieve the kinetic impact deflection by deliberately crashing itself into the moonlet at a speed of approximately 6.6 km/s, with the aid of an onboard camera (named DRACO) and sophisticated autonomous navigation software. The collision will change the speed of the moonlet in its orbit around the main body by a fraction of one percent, but this will change the orbital period of the moonlet by several minutes - enough to be observed and measured using telescopes on Earth.

This is actually a pretty good twitter thread on the subject:
https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/statu...61046615392259

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3xk4tD4

Biggest Group Sex Event In The World!

Great Barrier Reef explodes with life during spectacular coral spawning event

Quote:

What could be described as the world's biggest sex event — the mass coral spawning on the Great Barrier Reef — is under way. The coral spawning event saw trillions of eggs and sperm released in to the ocean in large plumes of red, yellow and orange, in order to reproduce. Marine biologist Gareth Phillips and his team captured what's been coined as "sex on the reef" off the coast of Cairns last night on the outer edge of Flynn Reef. "The conditions were magical with the water like glass and beautiful light coming from the moon," Mr Philips said. "It was absolutely amazing." "We are currently sitting out on Flynn Reef and there's big slicks of coral spawning on the surface, it's just incredible."

This is good news, because the conditions have to be exactly right to trigger the mass spawn, and it shows that the reef is healthy despite years of bleaching and ocean warming.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3COmElc

Schism in the Orthodox Churches

So, in the 1920s there was a schism in the Orthodox Churches over what calendar to use. The old Julian Calendar or a new modified version the Julian Calendar.

There was even a harsh legal crackdown on the old calendarists by the Greek government well into the 50s.

WTF man?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3HO9eJN

Dollar Twenty Five Tree

Dollar Tree hikes prices 25%. Most items will cost $1.25

Quote:

Dollar Tree will soon be $1.25 tree. The company — one of America's last remaining true dollar stores — said Tuesday it will raise prices from $1 to $1.25 on the majority of its products by the first quarter of 2022. The change is a sign of the pressures low-cost retailers face holding down prices during a period of rising inflation. Dollar Tree (DLTR) said in a quarterly earnings release Tuesday that its decision to raise prices to $1.25 permanently, however, was "not a reaction to short-term or transitory market conditions." Selling stuff strictly for $1 hampered Dollar Tree, the company said, and forced it stop selling some "customer favorites." Raising prices will give Dollar Tree more flexibility to reintroduce those items, expand its selection and bring new products and sizes to its stores.

First they came for Two Buck Chuck, then they came for Dollar Tree.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3CKIpCD

Bonhoeffer on Stupidity vs Conspiracy Theorists

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, Lutheran priest and involved in the resistance against Hitler, which landed him in prison (April 1943) and eventually on the gallows (April 1945, just weeks before Hitler's suicide).

Shortly before his imprisonment, he had written a letter to friends and co-conspirators, in which he mused about the nature of Stupidity, seeing that so many people in Germany, the "Land of Poets and Thinkers". had so obviously become stupid, following, allowing, even encouraging the nazi propaganda and war machine:

http://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoe...-entire-quote/
(If you prefer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc )

The key take-away is the observation that stupidity is not the result of a lack of intellectual capacity, but of sociological circumstances affecting one's psychology (bolding mine):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer [Stupidity] is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.

And:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power[1], humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent.

He goes on to conclude...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer ...that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person.

The other day, a slightly different choice of quotes from this letter was sent to me via WhatsApp by a good friend, herself a Lutheran theologian (a PhD even) and priest, in the context of commenting on the current Covid situation. It reminded me immediately of my dealings with Conspiracy Theorists, and my spontaneous response was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me Hmmm! Viel Wahres dran! Mir scheint, dass es zum mit Dummheit geschlagen werden ausreicht, wenn man sich die überwältigende Machtentfaltung nur einbildet. Dann ist man aber vermutlich vorher schon dumm! Oder ist für Dummheit empfänglich [Hmmm! Lot's of Truth to it! It seems to me , that, to be afflicted with stupidity, it suffices if one merely imagines the overwhelming manifestation of power [1]. But presumably one would have been stupid already before. Or is is susceptible to stupidity.]

What I was thinking was that the typical CTist imagines a huge, omnipotent meta-conspiracy - a global government, or a secret group with the super-power to influence many or all governments, regardless of ideology and system. Or more precisely, that some CT leaders imagine this, and their followers by it and all the slogans and memes.

Of course this goes quite the opposite direction from what Bonhoeffer wrote:
According to Bonhoeffer, the stupid people join, follow and support the faction that's exerting actual and overwhelming power.
CTists however pretend they resist that overwhelming power.

Their imagination of course does not stop at imagining the Vast Omnipotent Conspiracy (VOT) - no, they furthermore imagine that their "Truth" will "set them free" and give them the ultimate power in the end - when they bring down the VOT, when there will be lots of executions of traitors.

So while Bonhoeffer realized that the Stupid must first be liberated, the Stupid are easily led to believe that they are already free. In fact, from their vantage point, they could just as easily quote Bonhoeffer and apply his ideas to us debunkers: We must be the ones who collaborate with the VOC, take its money and shill for it, or believe in magic bullets and resistance-free skyscrapers just so, just because "Teh gubernmint" tells us to.

It's certainly true: Many people give up their intellectual independence and responsibility in the face of actual overwhelming power.
But just as easily, people give up their intellectual independence and responsibility in the face of merely imagined overwhelming power.
The latter has, for the stupid, an advantage the former do not enjoy: The stupid can resist the merely imagined power at little cost, for they face no actual oppression!

In both cases, Stupidity is a method to cope with feeling powerless in the face of an unassailable power wielder. The benefit to the individual is to relieve the negative feeling by joining the side that will end up "winning":

1. The collaborator of an actual, evil power stupidly accepts that the evil power is not actually evil but good
2. The person who merely imagines the evil power can pretend to have a clear path to eventually bringing down that imaginary power before themselves getting brought down

The open question is now: Why does the CTist feel so powerless, when there is no actual evil force in power?
What act of liberation could disabuse the CTist from the notion that they lack power?


---
^[1] "under the overwhelming impact of rising power" - the German original is "unter dem überwältigenden Eindruck der Machtentfaltung", which I would translate differently: "Entfaltung" of power is not so much it's "rise" (which implies it increases from zero or low level) and more it's "manifestation". Also, "Eindruck" is not so much "impact" (objective effect) as it is the psychological "impression".

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3l1mu4b

Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disord...ex_development

DSD's come up a lot in the threads about gender, but they aren't really about gender except in the sense that (rather rarely) parents don't know which set of gender norms to invoke when raising their children.

Since I hate to start a thread without a question, what fraction of people born with DSDs are really ambiguous between male and female? We can safely rule out girls with Turner Syndrome and boys with Klinefelter Syndrome, I'd suppose.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3xrTaJb

Scratching your head when youy think?

Scratching your head or your chin when you think?

A thought just made my head itch- When we think, the blood circulation to your brain increases, starving the nerves in your cranial skin. They get sensitized, and send a "itchy" message. Is that a sign of borderline cranial blood flow, or does my beard have dandruff?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3CJ44Lg

Savorinen predicts. Electrons can be made to emerge from "nothing".

Clever Physics Experiment That Produces “Something From Nothing”

https://scitechdaily.com/clever-phys...-from-nothing/

Yes yes yes 😃😃😃


That is, when a diamond expanding in space moves very rapidly, the dark waves of expanding light protruding from its expanding atomic nuclei encounter these dark waves of expanding light against the sphere, and during their interaction they cause new registrable expanding photons to form.



The rapid motion of that diamond is essential, because then these expanding dark waves protruding from the expanding nuclei of the atoms quickly meet the protruding dark waves of expanding light again, i.e. as they penetrate each other, the next expanding dark wave encounters faster than when the diamond stays in place relative to the environment.

From the point of view of the diamond, these expanding dark waves protruding against each other are packed closer together.

There are two more things to consider.

That is, is it enough that the diamond is moving fast at a steady pace, or should the movement be accelerating.

If I understood correctly, then the diamond will be shaken quickly even back.

So the diamond is in a fast accelerating motion towards the dark expanding waves of the expanding lights pushing against it, but sometimes also in a rapid accelerating motion away from them, etc.

That is something to think about.

Nowadays, the expanding dark waves protruding towards the expanding nuclei of atoms have the opportunity to interact with the expanding dark wave protruding from the nucleus near the expanding atomic nucleus, depending on how fast the expanding atomic nucleus protrudes.

The motion of matter in space is often non-existent in relation to the speed at which light moves.

In any case, an interesting experiment is, and I predict, that by continuing the experiments and developing technology, scientists will eventually realize that they can make electrons as if from scratch. Or maybe someone will go and tell them about me and this prophecy before that 😃

And after that, one can already think about how to make this expanding dark matter, which originates from an expanding supermassive object in the center of our galaxy, expand into a registrable expanding substance.

😃

My text protruded like a pretty porridge because it repeats the same litany over and over again.

It is essential to understand that entropy also affects small-scale particles / densities all the time, i.e. these small-scale densities have their own volume and density and thus their own internal pressure, and so on.

That is, the constant internal pressure that causes the matter / energy / pushing force in them to dissipate into a larger and larger area of ​​space all the time.

Same for all measuring devices, so even if these particles / densities that are much denser than the registrable particles / densities are constantly expanding, they still do not become registrable particles.

In order to change, their internal pressure must be intensified and thereby expand into registrable expandable particles / densities.

😃

The internal pressure of a space-expanding substance.

The expanding nuclei of atoms circulate an expanding dark pushing force with each other, thus pushing each other away from each other.

It protrudes from each expanding nucleus of the atom as an expanding pushing force from which e.g. recordable photons, electrons.

Photons arise from farther atomic nuclei than electrons.

So here, too, a clear logic. The closer the expanding photon protruding toward the expanding atomic nucleus is able to protrude, the more frequently this protruding expanding pushing force still exists at that stage, and the more massive the expandable photon protruding towards the nucleus of the new registrable expandable particle / densification is generated from the protruding protrusion.

All you have to do is have a photon of the right energy, that is, the right density and volume, to get close enough to the expanding nucleus of the atom and thus meet the appropriately dense zillions of separate unregistered expanding densities, and so on.

That is, photons and electrons are generated on the same principle as space-expanding stars are generated from these separate expanding densities of expanding dark matter protruding from the expanding supermassive targets of galaxy centers.

After all, stars are made up of zillions of separate expanding quarks.

Or well, there are a lot of these quarks in the stars. "By the Zillions"

😃

Ps. Yes, and of course, for example, photons expanding in space have their own internal pressure.

Expanding photons as they consist of zillions of discrete expanding densities that circulate this pushing force dispersed in space.

😃

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3kZ5iMm

That audio sound

Back in the 1930s manufacturers started incorporating automatic volume control (AVC) in their radios. The reason is fairly self evident. Radio stations varied enormously in strength and users would often be caught unaware when they tuned in a strong station without adjusting the volume control first. The result would be an ear splitting blast of sound. In addition, the volume in radios was sometimes prone to random changes without an apparent cause. AVC masked all of that.

You would think that in the 21st century that this would be just historical trivia and a non issue today. Not so. Although the video is usually close to perfect from all sources, there is a huge indifference when it comes to the level of sound that is fed into your computer or TV. Switching between sources such as FTA or Netflix or YouTube etc invariably means rushing to the volume control to readjust the sound.

I can understand why YouTube could be problematic. Different types of recording devices and varying levels of skill among the people making YouTube recordings unfortunately means that anything goes. It is still annoying when a YouTube is so soft that I can't hear it properly even with the volume turned up full. It is especially annoying when the source is a commercial news site such as Sky News.

What is even more astounding is that when it comes to external audio sources, there is no standard for the output level. Combine that with the fact that there is no standard for the audio sensitivity of the computer or other playback device and the result is often sheer frustration.

I don't understand this indifference to audio. If nobody is going to agree on audio standards then why don't computers have AVC at least?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3CLJj1S

Still Looking for Jimmy (Hoffa)

FBI looks at land near NJ landfill for Jimmy Hoffa's remains as the decades-long search continues

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/fbi-l...ains/38304432#

Quote:

DETROIT — The decades-long odyssey to find the remains of former Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa apparently has turned to land next to a former New Jersey landfill that sits below an elevated highway. The FBI obtained a search warrant to "conduct a site survey underneath the Pulaski Skyway," said Mara Schneider, a spokeswoman for the Detroit field office.

Finally? It's been a long time.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/30J0OlW