Teaching The Narrow Way

Monday, July 29, 2024

Spencorp Treaty of 1213

https://www.spencorp.info/treaty-of-1213

https://web.archive.org/web/20181213015935/https://www.spencorp.info/treaty-of-1213

Inherit the earth comic and order followers

This link was in my draft from a long time ago, I was going to write something but did not get around to it, something about order followers but I just did not get around to it. There was no content other than the link prior to 2024

This Inherit the earth comic section is about Order followers. It would be interesting if someone compared and contrasted what was in this comic by someone else about Order Followers with what Mark Passio said about order followers

http://inherittheearth.net/comic.shtml?0250

http://web.archive.org/web/20190710164852/http://inherittheearth.net/comic.shtml?0250

People who do not value life have less valuable lives

This was in my drafts with nothing except the title saying, "People who do not value life have less valuable lives"

I am publishing this, I do not know the year I wrote it as I went back on the draft with the back arrow and it changed the time

I do not know if I intended to add anything more to it

1917 edition of Jewish Publication Society tanakh still available online

This was in my drafts and for some reason not published

I am posting it today

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://biblehub.com/jps/

4Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended?

Who hath gathered the wind in his fists?

Who hath bound the waters in his garment?

Who hath established all the ends of the earth?

What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?

https://biblehub.com/jps/proverbs/30.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://biblehub.com/jps/proverbs/30.htm

13Behold, My servant shall prosper,

He shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.

14According as many were appalled at thee—

So marred was his visage unlike that of a man,

And his form unlike that of the sons of men—

15So shall he startle many nations,

Kings shall shut their mouths because of him;

For that which had not been told them shall they see,

And that which they had not heard shall they perceive.

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/52.htm

1‘Who would have believed our report?

And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2For he shot up right forth as a sapling,

And as a root out of a dry ground;

He had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him,

Nor beauty that we should delight in him.

3He was despised, and forsaken of men, A man of pains, and acquainted with disease,

And as one from whom men hide their face:

He was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried;

Whereas we did esteem him stricken,

Smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded because of our transgressions,

He was crushed because of our iniquities:

The chastisement of our welfare was upon him,

And with his stripes we were healed.

6All we like sheep did go astray,

We turned every one to his own way;

And the LORD hath made to light on him

The iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, though he humbled himself

And opened not his mouth;

As a lamb that is led to the slaughter,

And as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb;

Yea, he opened not his mouth.

8By oppression and judgment he was taken away,

And with his generation who did reason?

For he was cut off out of the land of the living,

For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

9And they made his grave with the wicked,

And with the rich his tomb;

Although he had done no violence,

Neither was any deceit in his mouth.’

10Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease;

To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution,

That he might see his seed, prolong his days,

And that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

11Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant,

Who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many,

And their iniquities he did bear.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great,

And he shall divide the spoil with the mighty;

Because he bared his soul unto death,

And was numbered with the transgressors;

Yet he bore the sin of many,

And made intercession for the transgressors.

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/53.htm

Jewish Publication Society Tanakh 1917

3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man;
He that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he broke a dog’s neck;
He that offereth a meal-offering, as if he offered swine’s blood;
He that maketh a memorial-offering of frankincense, as if he blessed an idol;
According as they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delighteth in their abominations;
4Even so I will choose their mockings, And will bring their fears upon them;
Because when I called, none did answer;
When I spoke, they did not hear,
But they did that which was evil in Mine eyes,
And chose that in which I delighted not.

https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/66.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/66.htm

Does Doppler shifting violate energy conservation?

This was still in my drafts even though I thought I published it, it said 2024 January 28 in the draft

I am publishing it as is and plan to look over it later

I will call the object emitting the light or sound wave a source and the object receiving or being hit by the light or sound wave a receiver

If a medium is stationary from the point of view of a reference frame then

if a source is moving the frequency of light or sound waves emitted that are going parallel and in the same direction that the object is moving will increase in frequency and their period and wavelength will decrease

if a source is moving the frequency of light or sound waves emitted that are going anti-parallel and in the opposite direction that the object is moving will decrease in frequency and their period and wavelength will decrease

If from the reference frame in which the medium is stationary a object that is being hit by the light or sound wave

The energy per photon for light is equal to it's frequency times a constant. One must then ask if light was Doppler shifted would this violate conservation of energy because the

There are four answers I have read which are similar to answers I have thought of on my own prior to reading it except number 3 which I thought of as a factor to consider but did not solve it to come up with a solution as someone else has claimed to

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=doppler+shift+and+conservation+of+energy&ia=web

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15279/conservation-of-energy-and-doppler-effect#15280

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/428810/doppler-shift-in-terms-of-energy

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407077

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13577/photons-in-expanding-space-how-is-energy-conserved

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/392147/how-to-work-out-conservation-of-energy-and-doppler-shifts

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/545464/doppler-shifts-appear-to-violate-conservation-of-energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Point number 1

Some photons gain energy but this is undone by photons going in a different direction that lose energy.

Point number 2

Energy is conserved in each non accelerating non rotating reference frame but different for different reference frames so there can be different amounts of energy in each reference frame.

Point number 3

An idea I had was that we need to think about the changing momentum of light as caused by a source or observer that is moving relative to a medium and or reference frame and how this moment of light is involved in collisions and it's relation to the frequency, period and wavelength of photons as related to things like the Compton effect, the reverse Compton effect, Thompson scattering and so on. For now I will simply post what someone else who has put more thought into it than me has said about something he called radiation pressure which is also related to the momentum of photons and his explanation of how radiation pressure solves the issue of conservation of energy and doppler shifting. I will not comment on whether or not what he said really solves the issue for now.

Point number 4

When the power of the light that is emitted by the source is increased it's duration that it hits the receiver will be decreased so that the amount of energy expended by the source is the same as the amount of energy received by the receiver. This is a oversimplified because the light might interact with other objects and transfer energy to them before it effects the receiver but each of those objects can be modeled as a receiver and the same principle would be true for energy being conserved when you consider every receiver it hits combined so this is oversimplification being solved shall not be mentioned again.

Point number 1 does not work

If the source emits two photons that would have been the same frequency before shifting in opposite directions the one photon will gain an amount of energy from the shift equal to the amount of energy the other photon would have lost so someone might argue that perhaps if photons that would have all been the same frequency are launched in a radially symmetric pattern that includes at least one photon parallel and at least one photon anti-parallel to the direction the source is moving then the energy lost by all the photons from the shift would be equal to the energy gained by all the photons from the shift and cancel out.

But it is possible to only send light in one direction or to send more photons in one direction than another direction so this is no solution to the problem, perhaps this could be accomplished simply by putting a mirror on one side of a light source but not the other side or by using a laser pointer that only shines light in one direction and does not shine light outside of itself in a radially symmetric manner or by using a flashlight that does not shine light outside of itself in a radially symmetric manner and if photons are only emitted in a source in one direction than this point number 1 would not solve this problem.

Point number 2 does not work

If you have two different reference frames that are moving relative to each other at a constant velocity with no rotation or acceleration of one relative to the other

If in one reference frames all the objects are still it will have zero kinetic energy and zero momentum but in another reference frame it will have a kinetic energy equal to the mass of all the objects added together squared then next divided by two and a momentum equal to the mass of all the objects added together then next multiplied by the velocity since they are all moving at the same velocity having a total non zero kinetic energy and a total non zero momentum. So different reference frames can have different amounts of total energy and different amounts of total momentum.

Side Note

On a side note this is why if the universe has non zero mass then all so called scientific models that do not assume the universe eternally existed and eternally had non zero mass are self contradictory because otherwise there would be a non accelerating non rotating reference frame in which the universe changes it's amount of momentum from zero momentum to a non zero amount of momentum which would violate the conservation of momentum. This is why all so called scientific models which acknowledge conservation of momentum that also claim the universe was created out of nothing many of which are supported by so called creation scientists are self contradictory. This does not disprove that the universe was created out of nothing because the universe could have been created out of nothing in violation of all scientific models that include conservation of momentum which would be called a miracle by religious people.

End of side note

Different energy in different reference frames is not the issue, having different energy in different reference frames does not necessarily violate conservation of energy. The issue is the problem of the total energy in the same non accelerating non rotating reference frame changing over the passing of time or in other words being different between two different times as measured in the same reference frame that would be the violation of conservation of energy if such a thing occurred.

Imagine there is a light source like a flash light or laser pointer that is powered by a chemical battery and which is constantly on and sends a beam of light at a receiver that is completely opaque and does not let light reflect from it or pass through it and none of the light misses the targeted receiver and that 100% of the light that hits the targeted receiver becomes heat which would increase the temperature of the receiver and that none of the light interacts with the medium in such a way as to transfer energy to it before it would have reached the receiver in order to simplify things.

The Chemical concentrations of different chemicals in the battery times the efficiency indicates how much energy is spent

Switching reference frames should not change chemical concentration of the bttery

Even with switching reference frames the amount of chemical concentration in a battery transferring energy to a light source producing a beam of light hitting a receiver the temperature of the receiver and the chemical concentration and temperature of the battery and the temperature of the light source should be the same for the same event or in other words the same for the same time ( if time is measured by the order of events rather than the reading on a clock label ) for all reference frames. Someone can try to make an excuse that the light wound be at a different frequency and therefore have different energy if you are observing it in a different reference frame but this excuse is potentially problematic when you consider that the chemical concentration of the chemicals used to operate the battery should be the same for all reference frames for the same event since the chemical concentration is an indication of how much energy has been expended by the battery and since the temperature of the receiver should be the same for all reference frames for the same event since the temperature of the receiver is an indication of how much energy had been transferred from the battery in the source to the receiver hit by the source's light beam because if the amount of energy gain in the receiver indicated by the temperature change of the receiver is different than the amount of energy expended to produce the light beam by the battery which can be got from the sources efficiency and it's chemical concentration than the conservation of energy is violated in spite of arguments that it does not matter that the energy of the light that has left the source but has not yet reached the target is different in different reference frames because the emitted photons that have not yet hit their target and are still traveling toward it appear to be different frequencies in different reference frames.

I will use a simplified example with a single reference frame and no reference frame switching in which the medium is measured as stationary in that reference frame and in which the receiver is not moving relative to the medium but the light source is a chemical battery powered laser pointer that is moving relative to the receiver to examine the question at hand.

Although it is true that different reference frames can have different amounts of total energy this does not solve the problem because imagine a flashlight or laser pointer that has a chemical energy source such as a chemical battery. The concentration of chemicals in the flash light should be the same for any event that is at any moment in time not as measured by the label on a clock but as measured in terms of the order of events. As energy is transferred to create light the concentration of chemicals should change through the chemical reaction involved to provide the energy to create the light. As the receiver is hit by the light it would heat up or increase electron energy levels and so on, I will just simplify this and call it receiving a certain amount of heat when it is hit equal to the amount of energy from the light that hits it. I will over simplify and assume it is a perfectly opaque and non reflective object and that all of the light that touches it heats it up instead of reflecting or going through it and refracting like could happen for a transparent object or other ways for the energy not to transfer to the receiver. In any reference frame at the same moment in time the chemical concentration of the flashlight battery will be the same as any other reference frame in the same moment of time ( as measured by order of events ) but if the amount of energy that the receiver hit by the light from the source changes as a result of the receiver or the source moving then this violates conservation of energy. Someone might say that the amount of energy the light appears to have changes as the reference frames change but that does not solve the problem. The amount of heat the receiver receives from light and the amount of chemical concentrations in the battery and the temperature of the battery and the temperature of the receiver and the temperature of the source should be the same for the same moment in time as measured by the order of events for all reference frames and if it is not that is a violation of the conservation of energy. If the battery does not change the rate at which chemical concentrations run when the source and or receiver moves at different velocities relative to the medium then conservation of energy would be violated because the amount of heat the receiver receives might be different than the amount of energy equivalent to that which would be transferred into the light beam from the change in chemical concentrations for running the chemical reactions depending on what velocity the source and or the receiver moves at relative to the medium. If it would take the same amount of time for the battery to be depleted no matter how fast and in what direction the flash light or laser pointer moves but depending on how fast and in what direction the flash light or laser pointer moves the receiver would receive a different amount of heat then conservation of energy would be violated. There is also a issue of imperfect transfer from battery chemical energy to light directed toward the receiver some possibly producing heat but this does not change my main point.

Point Number 3

"The top answer is correct but incomplete; even within a "bystander" reference frame, it is easy to observe that photons impart more energy onto the recipient when the emission source is moving towards, as opposed to away from, said recipient. Energy is indeed gained or lost by the photons.

This occurs due to radiation pressure. The emission source loses kinetic energy to photons emitted in the direction of motion while gaining kinetic energy from photons emitted in the opposite direction. Similarly, the photons impart kinetic energy onto the recipient, causing loss of kinetic energy if the recipient is moving towards the emission source or gain of energy if the recipient is moving away from the source. As photons always move at the speed of light, the gained / lost energy is observed as a change in wavelength."

https://web.archive.org/web/20231003205320/https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15279/conservation-of-energy-and-doppler-effect#15280

Some of the math in my posts is wrong

Is wrong or are wrong?

So I try to work on math problems related to ideas I have

I write the math problem down and try to solve it

As I make progress I change my posts with these problems over time

Sometimes I leave the post unsolved or solved incorrectly or with incomplete and possibly wrong attempts at solving the problems

Sometimes the solutions are correct

Some of my posts most likely have wrong information that I just have not got around to correcting for years

I have to be willing to try different things and possibly put down wrong information to be able to get to the right answer

When you solve a problem in textbook you should try to do it on your own writing steps on paper and then check the back of the book to see if it is write. You have to be willing to put down many wrong answers to learn how to get write answers. Later you can check the back of the book. Most people do not post all their mistakes practicing for the public to see but only show their attempt where they finally found the steps to get the write answer. My blog is different in at least two ways. First in real life science there is no back of the book one can only make a model and then test it to see under what circumstances it works with real life experiments, some models are good at predicting things under some circumstances but not others. Second, I am willing to show the potential errors I make while I am doing work to practice towards solving a problem, I kind of use this blog like a public notebook where I brainstorm ideas and then try to practice solving them. I want something publicly available that I can find where I lift up with my work to complete it later because when I practice writing problems on paper I might lose the paper or it might get damaged, also because there is a public record I can get the ideas there for other people to think about and maybe even if I set up a problem and solve it wrong someone else will look at it and get the correct solution and society will advance more than if I kept it there by myself until I got it right. Sometimes when I think something is wrong I change it, but a lot of this material is archived with early mistakes on web.archive.org

Sometimes I might leave posts up that I abandoned because it shows a starting place for the thinking, sometimes I might leave the old stuff but start on a whole new post at a different link that is better done. Sometimes I might plan to do so but never get around to it.

So do not assume the math here is right check it yourself. It is put here to think about the problems which might lead to the correct answer later down the road but not to necessarily show the correct answer.

Thursday, January 18, 2024

Waves in a moving medium as an alternative to special relativity

Title : A theory about waves in a moving medium being influenced by the velocity of the medium and not the velocity of the observer nor reference frame as an alternative to special relativity

I am not claiming that what I am about to say is true nor am I claiming that it is false

Some of the things I am about to say are contrary to mainstream physics

What I present are simply ideas to think about whether or not they are true and possibly ideas to test with future experiments

What I am saying is a oversimplified ideal model that would not match real life conditions and thus an experiment would not match the results of the oversimplified model perfectly because of deviations from ideal assumptions such as mentioning of materials with physical properties that do not exist in real life and so on and so forth

Perhaps this might be called a thought experiment which involves assuming a different set of laws of physics than claimed by mainstream physics

I have mixed and matched various pieces, ideas or calculations from physical theories I have heard over the years some of which contradict with each other. I do not claim to be the original creator of this new theory in the sense that I am combining ideas from other theories of physics. I might or might not be the original creator of this new combination in which some parts of them are accepted and combined and other parts are rejected. I might or might not be the original creator of some of the specific objections of specific ways in which this theory disagrees with special relativity. I could potentially have novel and unique calculations in this but it is possible that perhaps I do not other than in my selection of which parts to reject and which to accept compared with other physical theories and even the selection of which parts to reject and which to accept might not be unique to my choice but others might have also chosen likewise in making physics models

I simply want to get the idea written down which is hard enough before trying to search for if other people did this before me or not

To put more simply I have not seen anyone combine this in this unique way so I am writing it down while I can think of it or before I forget it but I would not be surprised if other people combined these ideas in this way before and perhaps much better than in the matter that I have

Possible credit to unknown people for starting me on this path of thinking but not for my final model or theory that came as a result of starting on this line of thinking

Sometime after 2002 and before 2008 there were two physics students who I saw as far as I know only one time in my life ( although I could have seen them other times without knowing it ) and 1 or both of them told me something similar to that they were doing experiments involving sound traveling through a vacuum and that sound can actually travel through a vacuum because it is not a perfect vacuum. They might have mentioned something about Aether and light which I might have ignored because I did not believe in Aether. They or someone else might have given a presentation on another topic that as far as I know was not related to what they were telling me about sound in a vacuum and possibly also light and or Aether. They did not to the best of my knowledge so me any calculations, data, or equations involving whatever they were telling me about sound and possibly also how light and or Aether and the Lorenz Ether Transformation and the Special Theory of Relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment might conceptually be related to sound traveling through a vacuum because it is not a perfect vacuum. If I saw any calculations, data or equations presented by them then as far as I know it was on a presentation of something else possibly a very expensive experiment on gravity waves and how it relates to cosmological or astronomical observations of stars but my memory is fuzzy and unclear and that was a very long time ago and I could be scrambling different events together in my mind. Years later, I thought that light never actually travels through a perfect vacuum, thinking about what they said about sound traveling through a vacuum might have influenced me to think that there is a third option other than light traveling through aether or a perfect vacuum and that is that light always travels through a medium because perfect vacuums have not been found, however I am not sure if that thought came to my mind in the past before I ever heard them say about sound traveling through a vacuum or if it would have come to my mind anyway later even if they never said that.

Sometime before 2002 I vaguely remember a physics teacher telling me a story that there was someone who did lots of experiments involving light but insisted on keeping the windows open because he thought interfering with the air or maybe the Aether or the vital force ( I do not remember which ) by closing the windows would interfere with the experiment, however unfortunately by opening the windows it prevented good temperature control for the experiment. This might have potentially influenced me to think about if the movement of air or wind effects the velocity of light and or sound or maybe I thought or would have thought of that question on my own anyway. Although I know who this physics teacher was, I do not know who the person who that teacher said did the experiments with the open windows was. My model shall likely be different because it shall involve closed not open windows to result in a moving medium for the thought experiment although I doubt that such an experiment could be done in real life as described in the thought experiment with the current technology

Assumptions

Let us assume there is no rotation or acceleration but only movement in straight lines at constant speed. This model is not designed to work for rotating objects or for objects that accelerate. This is similar to the criteria for when special relativity may or may not be used to the best of my knowledge even though this is a different theory.

Let us assume that there are two types of time. The first type of time is the order in which events occur. The second type of time is the measurement that a clock reads. Let us assume that the order in which events occurs is the same in all reference frames. Let us assume that the order in which events are observed occurring can be different for different observers because for example if sound is emitted from a source the sound wave can reach the observers ears at different times if they are at different locations, even if the sound wave is emitted at the same time in terms of order of events from all reference frames.

A clock is not the same thing as an observer who is reading the value on a clock and a observer is not the same thing as a frame of reference

Let us assume that if the reading from the same clock is observed by two different people at the same time in terms of order of events ignoring the delay in time for the light to reach their eyes that the clock would be read or ignoring the delay in time for the sound of the clock to reach the ears then the two different people will read the same time value on the clock when the same event occurs in terms of the order of events. If there are two different clocks then the two different clocks can measure two different times for the same event, but each observer would read the same time value when looking at each specific clock. If there is clock 1 and clock 2 and there is observer 1 and observer 2 then both observer 1 and observer 2 would read the same time value for clock 1 as each other and would also read the same time value for clock 2 as each other but they could potentially read different time values from clock 1 and clock 2 all for the same event. This might be fundamentally different than the assumptions in special relativity in which different observers in different reference frames would measure different times for the same event.

Let us assume that if all clocks are working properly and all clocks are set to measure 0 seconds when event A occurs that if event B occurs before event C occurs then any clock compared with itself will list event B occurring at a later or higher or greater time quantity than event A and also that any clock compared with itself will list event C occurring at a later or higher or greater time quantity than event B but that two different clocks can list event B occurring at two different time quantities and also two different clocks can list event C occurring at two different time quantities. Time quantities measured can not decrease when going from earlier events to later events if clocks are working properly. Which event occurs 1st, 2nd and 3rd are the same for all clocks even though different clocks might list different times for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd event. The 1st event will always have a lower time value than the 2nd event and the 2nd event will always have a lower time value than the third event for the same clock.

The shape and size of an object is always the same for all observers in all reference frames for the same event ignoring things like photographic blur for fast traveling objects or optical illusions that make an object of the same shape and size and location appear to be in a different, shape, size or location than it really is. Let us assume that the shape and size of a object is a function of the distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure on all parts of the object and that the shape of a object can not change as a result of an object moving as long as the distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure on all parts of the object remain the same and that the shape of an object is the same in all reference frames at the same moment in time in terms of order of events. Note that there can be many sources of pressure including force from gravitational fields, electric fields and magnetic fields. Note that an object accelerating would mean the existence of a force which could change the distribution of pressure which could change the shape and size of a object. Note that an object can move at a constant speed in a straight line without accelerating and therefor an object could have the same distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure on all parts and thus have the same shape and size while traveling at a different velocity. Note that because the force from a B field or magnetic field is a function of velocity the same object moving at a different velocity in the same reference frame in the same surrounding environment might experience a different distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure among it's parts thus resulting in a different shape or size for the object even if it is moving at a constant velocity without accelerating. Note that because of friction or other factors I have not listed the same object moving at a different velocity in the same reference frame in the same surrounding environment might experience a different distribution of the magnitude and direction of pressure among it's parts thus resulting in a different shape or size for the object even if it is moving at a constant velocity without accelerating. This is fundamentally different than the special theory of relativity in which the length of an object can be different for different observers and or reference frames during the same event.

Let us assume that perfect vacuums do not exist so light or sound waves are always traveling in a medium that is not a perfect vacuum nor Luminiferous aether

Let us assume that if light or sound is said to be traveling in a vacuum that it is not actually traveling through a perfect vacuum but through a very low density substance of greater than zero density

Let us assume that no model needs to be developed to explain light traveling through a perfect vacuum because light never travels through a perfect vacuum and always at best travels through a low density medium

Let us assume that Luminiferous aether does not need to be used to explain light traveling through a perfect vacuum because light never travels through a perfect vacuum

Let us assume that if light is treated as a photon particle instead of a wave that the photon particle would travel the same velocity that the wave would travel

Let us assume that if sound is treated as a phonon particle instead of a wave that the phonon particle would travel the same velocity that the wave would travel

Let us assume that when a medium is stationary relative to a reference frame that the speed of both light and sound are the same in all directions that it can travel in that medium as measured in that reference frame. Let us call that the wave speed it would be measured as traveling when the medium is stationary relative to the reference frame the Unmodified Wave Speed for that medium. This would be the same speed for a particle if light is treated as a photon instead of a wave or if sound is treated as a phonon instead of a wave. This is an oversimplification because anisotropic medium can exist but this model is for isotropic mediums only.

This model does not presume that the speed of light is necessarily the same as the speed of sound in a medium

Variables that would normally be lowercase might sometimes written in upper case or vice versa in this article to make them easier to see

When a medium is moving at a constant velocity of positive V as observed in a reference frame than let us assume that the light or sound wave or particle would move at a velocity of the Unmodified Wave Speed plus V for the medium in the same direction that the medium it is traveling inside of is moving and at a speed and that a light or sound wave or particle would move at a velocity of the Unmodified Wave Speed minus V in the opposite direction of the medium that it is traveling inside of. I will not go into calculations for waves or particles moving in other directions in this model. This is different than special relativity in which light travels at the same speed in all reference frames.

If a light or sound source does not send a light or sound signal when it is off but sends a signal when it is on and it turns on and then immediately off again then the velocity of the source does not change the velocity at which the light or sound wave travels but it may effect how frequently the observers receives the signal or the time period between the signals the observer receives. If a light or sound source sends a continuous light or sound wave then the velocity at which the light or sound source travels does not change the velocity at which the light or sound wave travels but it may effect the frequency and wavelength.

The velocity at which some person observing a light or sound signal is moving as measured in a reference frame does not effect the velocity at which the light or sound signal is measured as moving in that same reference frame but may effect the wavelength, period, or frequency that the person observes the light or sound signal to be.

One Way Non Trivial Examples

Let us call C the speed of light in a almost perfect vacuum and assume it is close enough to the speed of light in air to use the same quantity as the Unmodified Wave Speed in the examples below.

The two examples shall be with someone standing inside a train and someone standing outside a train such that light travels through two different mediums made of the same material but with each medium that the light goes through traveling at a different speed relative to the other medium

The person standing outside the train shall be called the Light Watcher

The person standing inside the train shall be called the Light Shiner

The Light Shiner turns on and off a light signal every 1 second from the frame of reference in which the Light Shiner is stationary and aims the light signal at the Light Watcher through a train window either in the front or back of the train depending on which example

The Light Shiner is stationary relative to the following objects, the train, the train window, and the medium of air inside the train

The Light Watcher is stationary relative to the ground and train tracks either in front of or behind the train and stationary relative to the medium of air outside the train

The train is moving either towards or away from the Light Watcher relative to the Light Watcher depending on which example

The examples below are oversimplifications because different sections of air outside the train would move in different velocities and directions in response to the train moving through where the air was prior to it being displaced by the moving train. These examples are oversimplifications because they ignore the refraction of light as it goes through a train window, the train window is assumed as an oversimplification to have no effect on the light and only exists in the example to separate the two mediums of air so that they are moving relative to each other.

Friday, January 6, 2023

Anti Trust University Lawsuits

https://blackstudentfund.org/anti-trust-and-financial-aid/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230106104555/https://blackstudentfund.org/anti-trust-and-financial-aid/

Wednesday, October 5, 2022

Atrocities in Davey and Goliath

Davey poisons a well water supply by pouring red paint in it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IP02c0lmK8&t=660s

http://web.archive.org/web/20220206130104/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IP02c0lmK8

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

Low Gun Ownership United States Revolution

Most people did not initially own effective firearms nor were they skilled in firearms during the United States revolution

They took the British or English military's own gun supply located in the United States, to fight the British or English military

The revolutionaries would have had less casaulties on their own side if they had more guns, more ammo, better guns and better training

Communities can regulate to ensure that competant and ethical people have better firearm aiming training and firearm safety training and firearm manufacturing training and better access to firearms and ammo if they wish to prevent tyranny by unethical and or incompetant and or recklessly careless firearm owners

The alternative is for communities to regulate that no bad guys with guns enter the border of their community but regulating that people do not smuggle guns into your community requires guards with guns to use guns to stop gun smugglers. In such a case those guards must be regulated to ensure they are both ethical and competant and sufficiently armed and in sufficient numbers to prevent the smugglers getting guns to bad guys

The low percent of firearms in the revolution gives hope for beneficial cultural change in spite of the higher percent of military and police grade weapons by the military and police than the civilians if the civilians on the right side of a cultural disagreement either persuade the military or police to the right side, seize the military and police weapon stockpiles, persuade the military and police weapon manufacturers to the right side, seize the weapon manufacturing facilities or build their own weapon manufacturing facilities

Most Americans Did Not Own Guns at the Start of the American Revolution

March 31, 2020

Armies, British, Colonial, Strictly Military, Weaponry & Munitions

Harry Schenawolf

https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

http://web.archive.org/web/20210113172706/https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

You can not see satellites without equipment

There are pictures online of a star that can be viewed in such a manner that it must be in front of the moon and not behind the moon if the moon is an opaque sphere like object that does not change shape during different stages such as new moon, crescent, half moon, gibbous and full moon.

People have claimed those are not pictures of a star but a satellite. However, others might have claimed such pictures existed in artwork, religious symbols, photographs and or astronomers' notes prior to the launching of satellites.

If such a star can be seen without a telescope then this is problematic for the mainstream narrative because satellite are too small to see without a telescope according to mainstream narrative data. Without a telescope or equivelent magnification such as a zoom feature common in modern electronics that is

This could mean one of several possibilities that all contradict the mainstream narrative

That the sections of the moon you do not see really are not there during certain stages of the moon.

That those sections are there but switch from opaque to transparent during certain stages.

That stars or non man made luminaries can exist in front of the moon

That satellites existed were made before we were told they were made, possibly from alien or earlier human societies

That the moon is not a solid opaque or reflective object but instead generates it's own light

Satellites are lower or bigger than we are told or the human eye can see smaller angles than we are told

I will show that satellites would be too small an angle to be seen without telescopes for their longest dimension and distance. I will do this using the largest dimension listed instead of using the pythagorean theoreom and tsking the square root of the longest dimension squared plus the second longest dimension squared. At most this will result in that the length I list should actually be multiplied by the square root of 2 which is between 1.4 and 1.5 but even doing so these objects should not be seen

I will assume the longest straight length of any satellite can be treated as a arclength with rounding to get a close enough result for these purposes

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

I will assume any satellite less than 0.0003 radians can not be seen by the naked human eye without equipment

The resolving power of the human eye is 0.0003 of a radian

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113004721/https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220613132429/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit