Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

Johan,

Suppose one twin is stationary in initial rest frame, other twin has speed +V, -V (sorry, I take V to be velocity of both twins relative to rest, not V to be differential velocity).

Right here you are violating the postulates on which SR are based. As had been shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment there is no unique stationary reference frame. The only velocity of relevance is the relative velocity between two reference frames: You can choose any one of the twins to be stationary and the other as moving. Therefore the situation is always symmetrical.

There is no frame which makes this symmetrical, because the midpoint between the two twins positions has two different velocities, one outward and one inward. Frames must be inertial.

The twins move with opposite speeds relative to the midpoint, and therefore the motion is also symmetrical from this point of view. Even when one twin accelerates, both "acelerate" symmetrically away from their midpoint.

When one twin passes the other in free fall, this twin will still see the other twin passing him as if it is the other twin that is accelerating. And even when one twin accelerates by using his engines, he will see the other twin accelerating away from him. The only clue that the accelerating twin has that it is he who is accelerating, is a force on him, but Einstein posted that even this does not matter since this force is similar to a force of gravity.

[tomclarke]

Johan,

Suppose one twin is stationary in initial rest frame, other twin has speed +V, -V (sorry, I take V to be velocity of both twins relative to rest, not V to be differential velocity).

Right here you are violating the postulates on which SR are based. As had been shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment there is no unique stationary reference frame. The only velocity of relevance is the relative velocity between two reference frames: You can choose any one of the twins to be stationary and the other as moving. Therefore the situation is always symmetrical.

There is no frame which makes this symmetrical, because the midpoint between the two twins positions has two different velocities, one outward and one inward. Frames must be inertial.

The twins move with opposite speeds relative to the midpoint, and therefore the motion is also symmetrical from this point of view. Even when one twin accelerates, both "acelerate" symmetrically away from their midpoint.

When one twin passes the other in free fall, this twin will still see the other twin passing him as if it is the other twin that is accelerating. And even when one twin accelerates by using his engines, he will see the other twin accelerating away from him. The only clue that the accelerating twin has that it is he who is accelerating, is a force on him, but Einstein posted that even this does not matter since this force is similar to a force of gravity.

Johan,

The issue here is you do not distinguish between an inertial frame (no acceleration) which is what we have been talking about, and what SR applies to, and a frame which is accelerating.

You state that the case of two twins, one stationary relative to an inertial frame, the other moving outwards and then inwards is entirely symmetric.

That is only true if non-inertial frames are identical to inertial ones. Clearly they are not, for example the laws of physics are different in non-inertial frames.

Invoking GR (equivalence between gravity and accelerating frame) does not help, because you have merely substituted one problem (acceleration) for another (gravity). Either way you cannot claim that acceleration without gravity is equivalent to no acceleration without gravity.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

The issue here is you do not distinguish between an inertial frame (no acceleration) which is what we have been talking about, and what SR applies to, and a frame which is accelerating.

No it is you who believe that you can apply the Lorentz transformation and time dilation formula to accelerating frames, while the latter concepts ONLY apply to non-accelerating frames.

You did agree that if the motion is “symmetric” as I have described where both twins accelerate, decelerate and coast identically, they will not age at different rates. Correct?

This can only mean that during the whole journey the clocks of the two twins must have kept synchronous time, or else the age of the twins would have had to be different.. And this synchronous time-keeping also happened during the time that both twins coasted relative to one another, even though according to special relativity there is now a time dilation when observing each clock from its opposite inertial reference frame: For some wondrous reason, this time dilation, according to you, does not “bite” when the motion is “symmetric” but only when the motion is “not symmetric” to include acceleration of one of the reference frames.

Consider again the two twins with their identical space ships and, to please you, only one of them accelerates away for two days until he reaches his top speed v relative to his “stay-home” brother. He then coasts at that speed for 10 years, spend four days to turn around and coasts back for another 10 years, then decelerates for two days and stops next to his brother. Thus the trip took 20 years and eight days. How do you interpret the relative ages of the twins solely in terms of the Special Theory of Relativity?

Firstly, in contrast to what you are claiming, the Special Theory of Relativity tells us nothing about what happens to clocks during acceleration. The Lorentz equations are only valid for symmetric unidirectional motion with a single relative speed v. Furthermore, in the thought experiment I have just given, the twins are for twenty years coasting symmetrically relative to one another. Thus, since this twenty years of coasting is symmetric, the twins should, by your own reasoning, not age relative to one another during this time: The only possibility is that, if there is an age difference, this must be solely caused by the 8 days of acceleration and deceleration of the one twin.

This age difference can obviously NOT be explained in terms of the Special Theory of Relativity. The effect of acceleration was only considered by Einstein many years (about 10?) later. By that time there had already been many arguments about the twin paradox. These arguments were clearly premature, since the Lorentz transformation only applies to a symmetrical situation where the reference frames move unidirectional relative to one another. And as we have already agreed above, this must mean that clocks within both reference frames (which move relative to one another) must then keep synchronous time when the time is measured within their own inertial reference frames respectively: i.e. if the “stay-home” clock shows that 8 years have passed during coasting, the “travelling clock” will also show that 8 years have passed during coasting. There is no time dilation between these clocks when there is no acceleration, AND I even doubt that there will be a time-dilation when only one clock accelerates. But what stands out like a sore thumb, is that the Lorentz transformation cannot model any return trip and that it is thus ludicrous to claim that in terms of the Lorentz transformation one twin will age more than the other.

It is thus also ludicrous for Kip Thorne to write about a future space trip to the centre of our Galaxy that: “The entire trip of 30,100 light years distance will require 30,102 years as measured on Earth; but as measured on the starship it will require only 20 years. In accordance with Einstein’s laws of special relativity, your ship’s high speed will cause time, as measured on the ship, to “dilate” and this time-dilation (or time warp) in effect, will make the starship behave like a time machine, projecting you far into the Earth’s future while you age only a modest amount.” The motion is obviously symmetric so that the time on the spaceship DOES NOT dilate relative to the time on a clock on earth when ignoring earth’s gravity.

You state that the case of two twins, one stationary relative to an inertial frame, the other moving outwards and then inwards is entirely symmetric.

The Special Theory of Relativity can only model the situation when the outgoing twin is not accelerating but moving with a constant speed relative to the other twin. I thus state that during coasting away and coasting back, the situation is symmetric and the clocks must keep then synchronous times. If the twins do differ in age after such a trip, this cannot be a result of the time-dilation formula of the Special Theory of Relativity: And Special relativity cannot be used to explain this time difference if it is really there.

That is only true if non-inertial frames are identical to inertial ones. Clearly they are not, for example the laws of physics are different in non-inertial frames.

Thanks for this admission: So you must agree that clocks within two inertial reference frames moving with a speed v relative to one another (no acceleration) must according to the Lorentz transformation keep synchronous times. You must then also agree that if there is in the end an age difference between the twins this difference can only be ascribed to acceleration, and can thus not be explained in terms of the Lorentz transformation and the time-dilation formula of the Special Theory of Relativity.

Either way you cannot claim that acceleration without gravity is equivalent to no acceleration without gravity.

I should not have brought in GR concepts since they are not relevant to this conversation which should be based solely on the Special Theory of Relativity; which obviously cannot be used to reach conclusions when there is acceleration.

[tomclarke]

Well, from Arbiter perspective both twins start having the same age but during their travel Twin1 gets younger and younger than Twin2, and that difference never decrease, only grows.

The problem is when the arbiter changes its FOR. That will dramatically change its view of the time of the far away twin: as arbiter changes frame, so calculated age of far twin will dramatically increase. Remember, this time is only ever calculated, and frame-dependent, because there is no global time independent of frame.

With my thought experiment I was trying to elude the necessity of calculating times and ages in different FOR, and only make the comparison at the end, at rest in the initial FOR.

My reasoning is that during most of the experiment Twin2 doesn't move in respect of Arbiter, but Twin1 does. So, as perceived by Arbiter, Twin1 should get younger than Twin2...

(supposed time dilation with speed is objective, measured from the starting FOR, and not a trick of perception that disappears as soon as you brake, and supposed acceleration doesn't play a relevant part in this).

The problem is that although time dilation is real it is not the only effect that is in play here. Your experiment is based not on the proper time experienced by the far twin in its rest frame, but on its calculated time in the arbiter FOR. That is of course just as good, because the two twins end up in the same position so the calculated times (by the arbiter) must then be identical.

If you do this, you must take into account all the things which affect calculated time. These are relative velocity, time dilation and change in FOR.

It will help if you distinguish 3 types of time here:

(1) Proper time (as measured by clock on twin)

(2) Calculated time by arbiter. This is the age of the twin in the global time system induced by the current arbiter FOR.

(3) Observed time by arbiter. This is the clock reading on the twin as seen by the arbiter when transmitted by a beam of light. It will be delayed by c*D where D is the distance between arbiter and observed object in arbiter FOR when the light beam is emitted. D will change because of the relative velocity between twin and arbiter.

The difference between (2) & (3) is that to get the "real" age of the twin (2) we need to compensate for the time it takes light to get from twin to arbiter in the arbiter FOR. If the arbiter has a fixed velocity (constant frame) we can do this consistently. In fact in the same way we can set up clocks throughout space all exactly synchronised in the arbiter FOR.

But this synchronisation, which effectively gives us a reliable global measure of time, is dependent on frame. If the arbiter frame changes, the way it interprets what it sees of the twin will also change and so the calculated age (2) will change.

To resolve the twins paradox you can use either (1), (2) or (3). When the twins reunite there will be no difference between (2) & (3) except for time dilation (which does not alter the sign of the age difference) since the time correction will be the same for both twins.

Posting clear answers to questions on this topic is helpful to me because it is only by going through all these permutations that you understand fully what are the consequences of relativistic spacetime. It is profoundly counterinituitve.

The best way I have to visualise it is that in a relativistic world proper time (of a clock) stays as normal. this is what Johan calls "keeping time". It is defined by the rate of physical processes.

However time of far away objects is dependent on the reference frame of the observer. Every different observer FOR induces a different measure of global time. Thus two far-away events which are instantaneous in one frame will happen at different times in another. This effect is (obviously) proportional to the distance between the observer and the observed object. In a moving frame objects in the direction of motion will be older relative to a reference stationary frame, those away from the direction of motion will be younger. Thus when the arbiter changes velocity to move towards instead of away from the far twin, the far twin's calculated age will suddenly increase.

It is worth remembering that this "calculated age" is just that. It can change suddenly because it can never be directly measured (e.g. by comparing clocks) until the distant object becomes close, by which time the calculated age difference between two clocks will be independent of frame.

Best wishes, Tom

[tomclarke]

Johan's position could be characterised by the fact that he does not understand (2). So he uses the time dilation correction, but not the change in FOR correction when calculating distant times.

If you look on the web people sometimes call this change in FOR correction "time slip".

[johanfprins]

Johan's position could be characterised by the fact that he does not understand (2). So he uses the time dilation correction, but not the change in FOR correction when calculating distant times.

If you look on the web people sometimes call this change in FOR correction "time slip".

Tom's problem is that he does not know what the term "coordinate transformation" means and are therefore waddling around in Alice's Wonderland.

Tom, do you know what happens when I look through a microscope at a flea? I transform the coordinates so that within my FOR the flea is larger than it is within its own FOR.

Now consider the case where I look at a flea under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) so that its picture can be seen on the screen. Simplicious walks in and asks: "What is that"; and I respond: "it is a flea". He takes out his calipers and measure the flea and responds: "So a flea is 5 cm long". I respond: "No, what you are seeing is a coordinate transformation of the flea which, within the electron microscope is only a few microns long." Yes" responds Simplicious, "but that flea is in another FOR while reality for us is within our own FOR and therefore the flea must be 5 cm long; even within its own FOR". No matter how I try to explain to Simplicious that the flea's actual size d is very much smaller than the size D he is measuring since the size d is being magnified by a factor (gamma) so that D=(gamma)*d, the more he argues that the reality can only exist within our FOR, since the other FOR has no physical significance. The flea is "not defined" within the other FOR.

Tom has the same problem when it comes to the Lorentz transformation of the time coordinate where for a time-interval (delta)tp on the moving clock within its own FOR the TRANSFORMED time interval within our FOR is (delta)t=(gamma)*(delta)tp. Since within our FOR (delta)t is larger than (delta)tp, where the latter incidentally corresponds with the corresponding time interval on our own clock within our FOR, Tom doggedly claims that (delta)t is the actual time interval on the moving clock within its own FOR, and that therefore this clock is keeping time at a slower rate than a clock within our FOR.

It should be crystal clear to anybody, even with a limited intelligence, that when one removes the flea from the SEM, its size within our FOR will not be D=5 cm but d (which is only a few microns); even though the transformed size is D. Similarly, the elapsed time (delta)tp on the moving clock within its own FOR must be the same as it will be if the same clock is within our FOR, even though the transformed time is (delta)t>(delta)tp. So Tom, PLEASE stop playing at being stupid!

[tomclarke]

Johan's position could be characterised by the fact that he does not understand (2). So he uses the time dilation correction, but not the change in FOR correction when calculating distant times.

If you look on the web people sometimes call this change in FOR correction "time slip".

Tom's problem is that he does not know what the term "coordinate transformation" means and are therefore waddling around in Alice's Wonderland.

Tom, do you know what happens when I look through a microscope at a flea? I transform the coordinates so that within my FOR the flea is larger than it is within its own FOR.

Now consider the case where I look at a flea under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) so that its picture can be seen on the screen. Simplicious walks in and asks: "What is that"; and I respond: "it is a flea". He takes out his calipers and measure the flea and responds: "So a flea is 5 cm long". I respond: "No, what you are seeing is a coordinate transformation of the flea which, within the electron microscope is only a few microns long." Yes" responds Simplicious, "but that flea is in another FOR while reality for us is within our own FOR and therefore the flea must be 5 cm long; even within its own FOR". No matter how I try to explain to Simplicious that the flea's actual size d is very much smaller than the size D he is measuring since the size d is being magnified by a factor (gamma) so that D=(gamma)*d, the more he argues that the reality can only exist within our FOR, since the other FOR has no physical significance. The flea is "not defined" within the other FOR.

Tom has the same problem when it comes to the Lorentz transformation of the time coordinate where for a time-interval (delta)tp on the moving clock within its own FOR the TRANSFORMED time interval within our FOR is (delta)t=(gamma)*(delta)tp. Since within our FOR (delta)t is larger than (delta)tp, where the latter incidentally corresponds with the corresponding time interval on our own clock within our FOR, Tom doggedly claims that (delta)t is the actual time interval on the moving clock within its own FOR, and that therefore this clock is keeping time at a slower rate than a clock within our FOR.

It should be crystal clear to anybody, even with a limited intelligence, that when one removes the flea from the SEM, its size within our FOR will not be D=5 cm but d (which is only a few microns); even though the transformed size is D.

Johan - that is an extraordinary argument. You are saying that I think (1) = (3) when I have explicitly said that they are different different, and specified what is the difference. Please apologise.

You are silent on the matter of (2) - I think because you don't understand the time slippage element of it, or because it makes clear the way in which your "global time" arguments fail.

Similarly, the elapsed time (delta)tp on the moving clock within its own FOR must be the same as it will be if the same clock is within our FOR, even though the transformed time is (delta)t>(delta)tp.

This statement shows a lack of understanding, because in general no comparison is possible.

Still perhaps a different argument will help Johan. Let us compare clocks in the twin paradox case where one twin (A) is stationary and the other (B) moves to a far star and back at relativistic speed V relative to A.

Now A can observe the B clock through a telescope. Johan claims that when B has returned A will observe (through the telescope) the B clock having exactly the same time as A. I claim that B will read a smaller elapsed time than A by a factor of gamma(V). Perhaps Johan would like to clarify his non-standard physics by stating:

(1) throughout the outbound journey of B, how does the A's telescope image of the B clock compare with the A clock.

(2) the same for the return journey.

(3) Is the A's telescope image of B clock the same as the real B clock at the start and end of the journey (when B, A are in the same room)?

Let us use this as a baseline before we deal with the case of what does B think A's clock looks like.


Best wishes, Tom

[johanfprins]

Best wishes, Tom

This is all I am willing to quote from your post since it is biggest heap of nonsense I have ever read. I have asked you time and again to stick to basics which are the following:

1. Einstein's two postulates
AND
2. The Lorentz transformation.

The Minkowski space construction is mathematically interesting and in this sense useful, but it is totally BS as soon as you assume that time can change from one positional coordinate to the next (at the same global instant of time) and that time is different within different inertial reference frames at the same instant of global time. So if you cannot argue without your misconceptions based on Minkowski's construction, then you are wasting my time. I really have better things to do, like showing that the differential equation for an electron-wave is just a Maxwell equation for a stationary light wave which gives the mass-energy of the electron.

Instead of concetrating on the latter interesting idea, I have spent the last year wasting my time arguing on the internet with indoctrinated dogmatic thinkers like you. I understand that one can be like this, since I have also been like this in my youth: To my present eternal shame. Time has shown me that I have been wrong AND I hope that in your case time will do the same. Unfortunately by that time I will probably be dead. Thus, without meaning any affront ro you, I will leave it to time; and hope for your sake that you do not have such a sensitive conscience like I have once you discover that you just did not really know what you at present think that you know.

So I wish you the best, and hope that you live long enough to realise that you are at present wrong because you refuse to think for yourself. Thus, unless on this thread somebody else asks an intelligent question, I, in order to maintain my sanity and health, will not make any further posts.

Best wishes for 2012.
Johan

[tomclarke]

Best wishes, Tom

This is all I am willing to quote from your post since it is biggest heap of nonsense I have ever read. I have asked you time and again to stick to basics which are the following:

1. Einstein's two postulates
AND
2. The Lorentz transformation.

The Minkowski space construction is mathematically interesting and in this sense useful, but it is totally BS as soon as you assume that time can change from one positional coordinate to the next (at the same global instant of time) and that time is different within different inertial reference frames at the same instant of global time. So if you cannot argue without your misconceptions based on Minkowski's construction, then you are wasting my time. I really have better things to do, like showing that the differential equation for an electron-wave is just a Maxwell equation for a stationary light wave which gives the mass-energy of the electron.

Instead of concetrating on the latter interesting idea, I have spent the last year wasting my time arguing on the internet with indoctrinated dogmatic thinkers like you. I understand that one can be like this, since I have also been like this in my youth: To my present eternal shame. Time has shown me that I have been wrong AND I hope that in your case time will do the same. Unfortunately by that time I will probably be dead. Thus, without meaning any affront ro you, I will leave it to time; and hope for your sake that you do not have such a sensitive conscience like I have once you discover that you just did not really know what you at present think that you know.

So I wish you the best, and hope that you live long enough to realise that you are at present wrong because you refuse to think for yourself. Thus, unless on this thread somebody else asks an intelligent question, I, in order to maintain my sanity and health, will not make any further posts.

Best wishes for 2012.
Johan

You have not answered my question. I guess because you cannot. If you did, I could show you, logically, where you go wrong.

And "same global instant in time" is not defined except with reference to a specific frame. You are using it in absilute sense I think.

And by definition of (relativistic) coordinate system time is different in different frames. That is what frames define: x,y,z,t mappings. LT between coordinate systems shows that t is different in different frames.

I am sure, johan, you have the intellectual & mathematical capacity to work through this if you could abandon preconceptions and think.

best wishes, Tom

[CKay]

Sorry to derail the thread from its current direction - Johan, have you made any progress in the last 12 months with room temp superconductivity? Has anyone attempted to repeat your method? How about the patent?

[D Tibbets]

I may have missed something as I drifted away from this thread once it became an exercise in math.
Has anyone defended their position against undeniable experimental observations? The atomic clocks of course ran at the same rate within their frame of reference and they 'seemed' to run differently in other frames. But the only real test as I see it is the two clocks (or Muons) that recorded different time rates and this difference was persistent even when both clocks were brought into the same frame of reference. This is a hard fact. It can be resolved by a combination of time dilation, and distance compression depending on which frame of reference you choose to observe from while the two test items (clocks or muon) are not in the same frame of reference. But, can you explain the final common frame of reference results without considering/accepting both effects? How do you explain the observations with only one effect? Did the pilots flying the atomic clock experience a time dilation effect, or did he just travel a shorted distance than that measured by the ground observer?

IE: the math needs to describe reality, otherwise it is meaningless.

Dan Tibbets

[ladajo]

IE: the math needs to describe reality, otherwise it is meaningless.

I believe this has been Johan's point all along.

It is like arguing that if you take a sandwich, and keep eating half of what you have in hand, and keep doing it twice as fast, you will never run out of food, or be hungry. Mathematically sound, but in the real world pure nonsense.

[Enginerd]

It is like arguing that if you take a sandwich, and keep eating half of what you have in hand, and keep doing it twice as fast, you will never run out of food, or be hungry. Mathematically sound, but in the real world pure nonsense.

A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer were asked to answer the following question. A group of boys are lined up on one wall of a dance hall, and an equal number of girls are lined up on the opposite wall. Both groups are then instructed to advance toward each other by one quarter the distance separating them every ten seconds (i.e., if they are distance d apart at time 0, they are d/2 at t=10, d/4 at t=20, d/8 at t=30, and so on.) When do they meet at the center of the dance hall? The mathematician said they would never actually meet because the series is infinite. The physicist said they would meet when time equals infinity. The engineer said that within one minute they would be close enough for all practical purposes.

What is the difference between and engineer, a physicist, and a mathimatician?
An engineer believes equations approximate the world.
A physicist believes the world approximates equations.
A mathematician sees no connection between the two.

[tomclarke]

I may have missed something as I drifted away from this thread once it became an exercise in math.
Has anyone defended their position against undeniable experimental observations? The atomic clocks of course ran at the same rate within their frame of reference and they 'seemed' to run differently in other frames. But the only real test as I see it is the two clocks (or Muons) that recorded different time rates and this difference was persistent even when both clocks were brought into the same frame of reference. This is a hard fact. It can be resolved by a combination of time dilation, and distance compression depending on which frame of reference you choose to observe from while the two test items (clocks or muon) are not in the same frame of reference. But, can you explain the final common frame of reference results without considering/accepting both effects? How do you explain the observations with only one effect? Did the pilots flying the atomic clock experience a time dilation effect, or did he just travel a shorted distance than that measured by the ground observer?

IE: the math needs to describe reality, otherwise it is meaningless.

Dan Tibbets

The experimental evidence is clear, and contradicts Johan's view:

(1) from clocks flying round the world (Johan says that these do not have the accuracy everyone else claims). There have been several experiments over a 30 year period all consistently showing this effect.

(2) from GPS satellites. Johan says this is not a "real" time difference but an observsational artifact. However observational artifact would give a fixed time offset of up to light-time to the satellite. The sat clocks are pemanently offset to run slightly slower by the exact amount expected from SR time dilation, with an additional correction for GR time dilation, this is of course a real time difference.

It was thrashed out some time ago above.

[johanfprins]

Sorry to derail the thread from its current direction - Johan, have you made any progress in the last 12 months with room temp superconductivity? Has anyone attempted to repeat your method? How about the patent?

Thank you for the enquiry.

Things never move as fast as one wants them to move. The situation at present is that, at last, a large company has approached me through a representative and asked for samples to test and to use to repeat my experiments of 10 years ago. The samples will be ready for them by March.

Furthermore, we are planning experiments to test my materials for magnetic energy storage at room temperature. Depending on where the funding comes from, this program should kick-off later this year, either here in South Africa or in the USA. The festive season has held up these arrangements.

Just like Tom Clarke refuse to see that Einstein's first postulate demands that within gravity-free space-time the rate at which time changes must be the same within each and every inertial reference frame, (no matter what the wrong interpretation of Minkowski space tells him) the superconducting experts refuse to see that superconduction is not caused by pair formation, but by first forming an insulator. This fact stares them right into their faces since this is what causes the pseudogap to form within the ceramic supercondors. The pseudogap is a Mott-type insulator within which the localised states are too far from one another to allow superconduction through it to occur. When cooling further, or increasing the doping further, the density of Mott localised states increases until at a critical density, superconduction initiates by the hopping of these localised states as driven by means of quantum fluctuations. This contrasts from normal hopping which is caused by temperature fluctuaions.

Be it as it may: I have last year lodged a provisional patent in which I claim a method to make low resistace connections and active devices on electronic chips. By not calling these connections superconducting regions, the superconduction "experts" can freely proceed to believe their incorrect Voodoo theories and models. All my previous efforts to file a patent led to problems owing to the word "superconduction". But the fact is that if you can make processor chips that generate less heat than the ones manufactured at present, which my calculations show is possible, who cares whether the material used is called a superconductor or not a superconsductor.

Thus, progress is excrutiatingly slow, simply because investors are being advised by the "experts" that I am a "crackpot". Things started to pick up after I decided to place my CV on my website and to ask interested persons to compare my CV with those of my detractors. In most cases it is found that I outshine them like a beacon-light.

I am turning 70 in three weeks, and I just hope that I will still be alive when I am proved to be correct. If not: So be it: I will not be the first to experience the endemnic corruption of this world.