The Former Czechoslovakia

The places that we will be visiting today are in what was once the nation of Czechoslovakia.

Prague, located on the Vltava River, could be referred to as the historical capital of central Europe. It was the capital of the Kingdom of Bohemia, of Czechoslovakia and now, of the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is sometimes referred to as Czechia. Libuse was the legendary queen that predicted the greatness of a future city there. Prague was also an important city of the Holy Roman Empire and later the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which existed from 1867 to 1918.

Although the area remained majority Catholic, Prague was a very important city in the development of the Reformation.

When the Industrial Revolution came along, Prague was in one of the few areas that had both coal and iron ore which was necessary to get started.

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split up, after the end of the First World War, Austria and Hungary became separate countries. The remaining lands in the south, including Serbia, were grouped together into the new country of Yugoslavia. The remaining lands in the north were grouped together into the new country of Czechoslovakia, of which Prague was to be the capital.

Neither new country would last forever. Both came apart in the 1990s. But where Yugoslavia, the lands in the south, came apart very violently, Czechoslovakia, the lands in the north, separated into the Czechs and the Slovaks amicably and peacefully. The end of Czechoslovakia was so peaceful that it was referred to as "The Velvet Divorce".

Prague became the capital of the Czech Republic and Bratislava the capital of Slovakia.

When dealing with Eastern Europe, be sure not to confuse Slovakia, Slovenia and, Slavonia. Slovakia is an independent country, the eastern part of the former Czechoslovakia. Slovenia is also an independent country, the northernmost former republic of Yugoslavia. Slavonia is the eastern part of Croatia, which was also a former republic of Yugoslavia.

Did you know that the nation of Czechoslovakia was formed in Pittsburgh? That is where the final agreement was signed, after the end of the First World War, in, of all places, a Moose Lodge. I don't think the Freemasons have ever had a country formed in one of their lodges.

The logical place to begin a visit to Prague is in Prague Castle. The following scenes begin in St. Vitus Cathedral, which is the cathedral within the castle. This cathedral was begun in the Eleventh Century, on the site of earlier churches. Tombs of many Holy Roman Emperors as well as the Bohemian Crown Jewels, which are displayed periodically, are in this cathedral. Since Prague Castle is on high ground, this cathedral is prominent in the city's skyline.

The orange roofs in the old part of Prague really stand out. The contrast of the orange against the green of the trees around the city is striking. This is what an old European city should look like.

The following five images of Prague Castle and St. Vitus Cathedral are from Google Earth and Street View.

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0908051,14.4001532,3a,75y,266.49h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPHo-1l_Y_mUu1aevdFUH1TrpSDRkPw3b5GlnHN!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPHo-1l_Y_mUu1aevdFUH1TrpSDRkPw3b5GlnHN%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya264.53998-ro0-fo100!7i5660!8i2830

Prague Castle is in the northern part of the city. There is another fort, with it's own basilica, in the southern part of the old city, and Prague grew up between the two. This fort is Vysehrad and within it is the Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul. The complex is from about the same time frame as Prague Castle.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0645705,14.4188687,3a,75y,273.09h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sT7vMMsuL6guhr_JfIuce7Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DT7vMMsuL6guhr_JfIuce7Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.80045%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

In the Old Town of Prague, the following scenes begin in Old Town Square. There is a medieval astronomical clock in the square. The statue in the square is a memorial to Jan Hus (pronounced Yan-Hoos). Remember how important Prague was to the Reformation. Jan Hus is considered as a proto-Protestant who was martyred for criticizing corruption in the church. Far from silencing the criticism, his martyrdom only inspired others who would become the first Protestants. That is why Prague was so important to the Reformation.

This scene of Old Town Square in Prague is from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0877958,14.4215339,3a,75y,28.12h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNREvk-FeH6a4Ygbf_Mg18zM91fp3Y6vglStKkD!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNREvk-FeH6a4Ygbf_Mg18zM91fp3Y6vglStKkD%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya228.92575-ro0-fo100!7i10240!8i5120

Just as Prague has an Old Town, it also has a New Town. The New Town isn't really new, it's just new compared with the Old Town. The so-called "New Town" of Prague was actually begun in 1348. One of the world's fewest old and venerable universities is Charles University, in the New Town. The best-known place in the New Town is Wenceslas Square, named for a duke of Bohemia. My understanding is that the western part of what is now the Czech Republic is Bohemia, and the eastern part is Moravia.

Wenceslas Square is actually a wide boulevard. We all became familiar with Wenceslas Square who watched the end of Communism in Eastern Europe in 1989. The following scenes of the New Town begin in Wenceslas Square. The first scene is from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0810421,14.4281008,3a,75y,288.4h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOKccv8p2vATEOVWeyDssd75s1dlRme2sIOgD6Q!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOKccv8p2vATEOVWeyDssd75s1dlRme2sIOgD6Q%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya353.40588-ro-0-fo100!7i8192!8i4096

Another historic place of Prague, actually outside the city to the southwest, is Karlstejn Castle. This was built in the Fourteenth Century, around the same time as Prague Castle and Vysehrad. The first scene is from Google Street View.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9395907,14.1877945,3a,75y,111.2h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNoU55VxYfs_-4LZseYxeO4qaOPtxHsd-SNc30!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNoU55VxYfs_-4LZseYxeO4qaOPtxHsd-SNc30%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya327.60553-ro-0-fo100!7i5660!8i2830?entry=ttu

Bohemia, the western part of what is now the Czech Republic, was centered on Prague. Moravia, the eastern part, was centered on the city of Brno. Outside of Brno is Veveri Castle, which was begun in the Eleventh Century.

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2566184,16.4612734,3a,75y,116.11h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNKjj3ArmAs4qUzynDSvPxFEVlicFJiECPS0MUh!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNKjj3ArmAs4qUzynDSvPxFEVlicFJiECPS0MUh%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya83.90533-ro-0-fo100!7i8000!8i4000

The following scenes begin in the central square of Brno. The Cathedral is of Saints Peter and Paul. Brno is just as much a colorful old European city as Prague. The first scene is from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1919537,16.6085951,3a,75y,32.44h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srLdq4KMB-PWGWQTyInJrTw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DrLdq4KMB-PWGWQTyInJrTw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D22.55661%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Also in Brno is the Thirteenth-Century Spilberk Castle. First scene from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1946817,16.5991447,2a,75y,105.5h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7ns2WCEOHpVX2FhzvAQxow!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7ns2WCEOHpVX2FhzvAQxow%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D112.99135%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Bratislava is now the capital city of Slovakia, the eastern part of the former Czechoslovakia. The city is on the Danube River and the borders with Austria and Hungary, and is not far from Vienna. The following views of Bratislava begin in the main square of the Old Town. St. Martin's Cathedral used to be the coronation church, where monarchs were crowned, of the Kingdom of Hungary. At the top of the steeple is a gold-plated replica of Hungary's famous crown. The first scene of the square is from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.1436155,17.1083129,3a,75y,262.19h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOVb3uyHOrfmf6rtIeKVwUZRosA8dkFrdnWaets!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOVb3uyHOrfmf6rtIeKVwUZRosA8dkFrdnWaets%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya51.382233-ro-0-fo100!7i7680!8i3840

This is more of the Old Town of Bratislava, starting in Bratislava Castle which was begun in the Thirteenth Century. This castle was also essential to medieval Hungary. While the Ottomans were invading eastern Europe, the Holy Crown of Hungary was kept in the castle for over 200 years. In no monarchy was the crown itself as important as it was in Hungary. It was actually the crown that ruled, not the king. The first scene of Bratislava Castle is from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.1423461,17.1001384,3a,75y,55.29h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOmKC_vN7x7vlWlRGdzKmYinHSJ6Y2q6BVInd1q!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOmKC_vN7x7vlWlRGdzKmYinHSJ6Y2q6BVInd1q%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya304.9335-ro0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352

The Astronomical Clock Of Prague

I would like to add something to the famous Astronomical Clock that has been operating since 1410 in Old Town Square in Prague. It was built by a clock maker Mikula (or Mikulas) of Kadan. Most of it's components are still the originals.

It is known that Albert Einstein was inspired by a similar astronomical clock, the Zytglogge, to develop his Special Theory of Relativity when he was in Bern working as a patent clerk. Einstein realized that, if a streetcar moved away from the clock tower at the speed of light, to an observer on the streetcar the clock would seem to have stopped. That was the beginning of the Special Theory of Relativity.

Even though there is no documentation of it, I consider it as very probable that Johannes Kepler was inspired in a similar way to develop his Laws of Planetary Motion by the Astronomical Clock of Prague.

(Note- "Johannes" is pronounced as "Yo-Han" and is the German equivalent of "John").

Kepler apparently did not do much observing the sky himself, but worked with the astronomer Tycho Brahe. The telescope had not yet been invented but Brahe used specialized instruments, such as a large quadrant, to make very accurate measurements of the locations and movements of celestial objects. Kepler used these measurements to come up with his Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler's work would be an influence on Sir Isaac Newton in developing his Laws of Motion, which would become the cornerstone of modern physics.

Tycho Brahe's observations, and Johannes Kepler's work with them, was done near Prague. Neither was Bohemian or Czech, Brahe was Danish and Kepler was German. But there was a freer atmosphere in Bohemia at the time that brought them there. The Copernican idea that the earth was not the center of the universe but revolved around the sun was gaining popularity and causing a lot of controversy. The Catholic Church opposed the new idea, but this time was after the Reformation but before the Catholics would mostly take Bohemia back.

Kepler must have seen the Astronomical Clock as he spent time in Prague. The clock at the time was nearly two hundred years old. I believe that the clock likely inspired the first two of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the third would come later, in much the same way that the Zytglogge astronomical clock in Bern would later inspire Einstein.

Kepler's first two Laws of Planetary Motion are as follows:

1) The orbit of a planet around the sun is in the form of an ellipse, with the sun at one of the two foci of the ellipse.

2) The planet naturally moves faster in it's orbit while closer to the sun, and slower when further away. A line from the planet to the sun will sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.

Now, look at the celestial part of the Astronomical Clock of Prague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_astronomical_clock#/media/File:Czech-2013-Prague-Astronomical_clock_face.jpg

Kepler's First Law of Planetary Motion is that the orbits are in the form of ellipses, not perfect circles. An ellipse is like a flattened circle and, in contrast to a circle, it has two focal points rather than one. In the orbit of a planet, the sun is always at one of these two focal points.

An ellipse can be described as two circles, of different sizes, merged together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#/media/File:Ellipse-def0.svg

The major axis is the diameter of the larger circle and the minor axis is the diameter of the smaller circle. But look at the Astronomical Clock again, one circle inside the other and each with it's own focal point. Could this be what suggested the ellipse to Kepler, in the same way that a clock tower on a street suggested a streetcar moving away from the clock at the speed of light to Einstein?

As for Kepler's Second Law, image the two circles on the clock as two meshed gears and the clock, of course, operates on a gear system. If one of the gears were turned, which would cause the other one to also turn, the smaller one would rotate faster and the larger one slower but both would turn at the same angular velocity.

Doesn't it seem that this is what suggested to Kepler that a planetary orbit would operate on the same principles as gears? When the planet is further from the sun it moves slower in it's orbit and faster when it is closer, so that a line from the planet to the sun always sweeps over equal areas of space in equal periods of time, in the same way that the smaller gear with it's edge closer to it's center rotates faster than the larger gear, with it's edge further from it's center, even though both are turning at the same angular velocity?

COSMOLOGY

While on the subject of the orbits of planets being elliptical let me just point something out about my cosmology theory, the one detailed in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Stationary Space".

It actually makes more sense that orbits should be circular, rather than elliptical. A circle is a lower information state than an ellipse. If an object, such as a meteor, is moving in a straight line and falls into the gravitational field of a planet, so that it goes into orbit around the planet, there shouldn't be enough information for the orbit to be an ellipse. It should be circular, and Galileo said that orbits should be circular.

But, as Kepler pointed out, the orbits of planets around the sun are indeed elliptical.

Here is what is happening, and it's really very simple. In my cosmology theory, velocity is actually an angle. Objects are bundles of strings, aligned in mostly the same direction in four-dimensional space. We perceive that direction as time and the other three as space, because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings that comprise our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.

We will perceive an object as moving at a velocity relative to us if it's bundle of strings is not aligned perfectly parallel to ours. If it is at a perpendicular angle to ours, we will perceive it as moving at the speed of light. We see the speed of light as the maximum possible speed because a right angle is the maximum possible angle.

If the meteor falls into orbit around the planet it will indeed go into an orbit that it circular. The meteor would be moving in a straight line at constant velocity so there would not be enough information for the orbit to be anything but circular.

But since it has velocity the meteor is actually at an angle to us and it would go into a circular orbit around the planet on the plane of that angle. When we look at the meteor's circular orbit we are actually looking at the orbit at an angle, although we are not aware of it.

When you look at a circle at an angle, it appears as an ellipse. Look at the edge of a cup or pot or bowl. You know that it is a circle, but it appears as a circle only if we look at it perpendicular to the plane of the circle. if we look at it from any other angle, the circle will look like an ellipse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#/media/File:Ellipse-var.svg

ENERGY MUST BE CONSERVED

Have you ever wondered why there are orbits in the first place? If an object in orbit around the earth is attracted by the earth's gravity, which obviously it is, then why doesn't it just fall to the ground?

The way I figure it, the simplest explanation is that energy must always be conserved. We cannot just create energy out of nothing.

Suppose that a meteor is moving along in space and it falls into the earth's gravitational field. The meteor is moving at a certain velocity so it has energy of motion in accordance with that velocity.

If the meteor fell to the ground on earth, it would undergo the progressive acceleration of falling objects on earth. Near the earth's surface that acceleration is 32 feet (9.8 meters) per second squared.

When the meteor struck the earth's surface, it would make an impact and there would be energy in that impact. There was energy in the velocity of the meteor to begin with but unless the meteor was already going faster than it would be after it underwent the acceleration due to gravity as it fell to the earth's surface, that would be creating energy out of nothing.

Creating energy out of nothing is something that absolutely cannot be done. There is no energy at all in gravity, it is just a force. When we throw a ball up in the air there will be energy in the impact when it comes back down, but we are only getting the energy back that we put into the ball in the first place. There is no energy at all in gravity itself.

So, if the impact with the earth would release more energy than the meteor had to begin with the meteor will not fall to earth. Yet the meteor has now entered the earth's gravitational field. What will happen is a compromise. The meteor will remain in the earth's gravitational field, but will not fall to earth. The energy of velocity that the meteor already has will counteract the earth's gravity until a point is reached where the two are at equilibrium. At that point, which is an altitude above the earth, the meteor's energy of motion will act as centrifugal force to counteract the earth's gravity.

In other words, the meteor will go into orbit around the earth so that energy will be conserved.

Strikes And Inflation

With strikes coming back into style how about some economics today? For more see the compound posting "Economics", November 2019.

Workers going on strike has been in the news, particularly America's United Auto Workers. But if the reason for striking is higher wages, remember that strikes and inflation go together.

Pay raises are actually the cause of much inflation, unless there is a corresponding increase in production. The total value of goods and services that an economy produces is equal to the currency in circulation. So if we increase the amount of money to be spent, without a corresponding increase in production, then the relative value of the currency must decrease.

Inflation can be caused by other factors. The economy runs on fuel. When fuel gets expensive it makes everything else expensive. The growth of a city causes inflation because it makes land more scarce, and thus expensive, and this affects most other costs. 

The major cause of inflation today is actually the demographic imbalance. The Baby Boom generation is retiring by the millions. Never before has there been so many old people, relative to young people, and there are not enough young workers to take care of them. So the inflation is caused by a significant portion of the population being consumers of care, rather than contributing productive work.

Anyone who was around in the 1970s can tell you that worker strikes and inflation seem to go together. How much of a coincidence can it be that inflation and the number of people working in manufacturing both peaked at right around the same time? Manufacturing was heavily unionized and prone to striking for higher wages. Millions of unionized and well-paid factory workers were getting paid more than their labor was actually worth, according to the Law of Supply and Demand, and the economy adjusted by way of inflation.

During my childhood and youth seeing striking workers on the picket line was a regular occurrence. Unions used to be powerful. My first job where I got a paycheck was at a grocery store. It was unionized. If the management fired someone and the union wanted them back, they would get them back. The turning point against unions in America was Ronald Reagan's firing of striking air traffic controllers in 1981.

Does anyone remember Britain's strike-inflation spiral of the late 1970s? The winter of 1978-79 is known as the "Winter of Discontent". Workers in one industry would successfully go on strike for higher wages, and that would only encourage workers in other industries to do the same. The resulting inflation was stopped only by Margaret Thatcher in Britain, followed by Ronald Reagan in America, purposely inducing a nasty recession because that was the only way to stop the inflation.

Recessions are not always entirely a bad thing. First, recessions act as a correction to what was wrong with the economy to begin with. Second, recessions eliminate jobs that don't come back but it is jobs that are not really the needed anyway. Does anyone remember when there were people who bagged your groceries and pumped your gas for you?

Pay raises, to keep up with inflation, and cost of living adjustments form a never-ending spiral. The raises and upward adjustments are actually what causes the inflation that they are intended to compensate for.

The economy is actually working against us, forcing us to "swim against the current" to keep up. If a company is selling a product or service, and it develops so that the product or service is no longer needed, or if it develops so that your job is no longer needed, it is considered as making progress.

But yet if workers are not paid enough the consequences can be even worse. A century ago was the "Roaring Twenties", a time of great prosperity. The excess industrial capacity, left over from the First World War, was turning out a fantastic amount of consumer goods, from cars to radios. 

The good times were not to last. Industries were naturally trying to maximize profits by selling products for as much as possible while paying their workers as little as possible. The trouble is that the economy was relying on the workers to buy the goods that they were producing, and they weren't earning enough money. Goods were just piling up in warehouses. Factories began cutting back on production, meaning that workers had even less money, and it spiralled into the Crash of 1929.

The crash was devastating. It led to what is known as the Great Depression. Only a few intellectuals in the west even knew what Communism was. But this crash of Capitalism was what made Communism into a major world economic system, as an alternative to Capitalism. Germany, the Weimar Republic, was devastated by the crash. A new political party had the idea of absorbing unemployment by drastically expanding the armed forces and getting factories back to full production making military equipment for them. The party was known as the Nazis and the rest is history.

A very moderate amount of inflation is generally considered as desirable. Most governments aim for about 2% annual inflation. This is because it provides a cushion against deflation, which is even worse than inflation, because, if prices are dropping there is no incentive to make anything because by the time it is sold it may sell for less than what it cost to make it.

The reason we have such difficulty with reaching the right balance of what to pay workers is complexity. Our economy is complex, in fact it is as complex as we are. This makes it difficult for anyone to see the "big picture" of the economy. Every economic transaction involves a buyer and a seller, meaning that the buyer and seller are of equal importance. But it is much easier to see either the right, favoring the seller, or the left, favoring the buyer, than to see the big picture.

If a shoe store emphasized that the left shoe was more important than the right shoe, but another store down the street advertised that the right shoe was more important, we would consider it as nonsensical. But shoes are simple and we can see that both shoes are of equal importance. The economy is not so simple and it is much easier for each person to see either the right or left, rather than the big picture.

Plainly and simply, workers must be paid enough to be able to buy the goods and services that they are producing. If they are not paid enough it will result in recession and possibly an economic crash. Notice that America's three market crashes in the last century, in 1929, 1987 and, 2008 all came near the end of two conservative Republican presidential administrations. But if workers, as a whole, are paid too much it will just result in inflation.

We tend to zig-zag instead of having the economy proceed in a straight line. We go too far left, and then compensate by moving to the right, except that we go too far to the right, and so on. 

Religion is also part of it. Humans are designed to believe in something and if we don't believe in God we will just believe in something else. How many people have you known whose nation or political ideology is really their "religion"? This causes us to take an economic strategy, that might have been good advice at one time, and cement it into dogma.

Overview Of Economics

Economics is essentially a peak. There is communism to one side, and capitalism to the other side. The far left and the far right represent the lowest, or least efficient, economic system. There is a peak halfway between the two, and this represents the best system with the goal being the best of both with the worst of neither.

My economic theory can be described with a simple arithmetical model. Suppose that we multiply numbers that sum to ten.

1 x 9 = 9

2 x 8 = 16

3 x 7 = 21

4 x 6 = 24

It is when we are at the center, with both sides being equal, that we get the peak value, 5 x 5 = 25.

This is a reflection of the two possible slants on freedom, there is "freedom to" and "freedom from". Simple examples might be smoking and guns. Should people have "freedom to" smoke and own guns, or should they have "freedom from" having people with guns and second-hand smoke around them? Far-right capitalism represents extreme "freedom to" at the expense of "freedom from", while communism is the opposite.

Extreme economic "freedom to" would mean that a few rich people could use their wealth to effectively set up the society to suit themselves, and the rest would have little or no "freedom from" being exploited by them. While extreme "freedom from" such inequality would result in a stultifying enforcement of equality which would destroy motivation and incentive to better oneself.

It is folly to imagine that either right or left, either seller or buyer, is more important than the other. No economic transaction could take place without both a buyer and a seller. It is not necessary to understand what an investor is to see how silly a debate would sound as to whether the right shoe or the left shoe was more important. Both are equally necessary.

Right and left, in terms of economics, are much like the warp and woof of thread used to weave cloth. China is a communist country, yet has produced world-class companies like Lenovo, Chery and, Baidu. America is a capitalist country yet has produced free web sites like Google and Wikipedia. This looks like something right out of the philosophy of Karl Marx, people producing to help their fellow man rather than just to make money, except that it was produced by a company rather than a collective state economy.

Best results are achieved when left and right are weaved together. A cloth made of threads going in only one direction will soon fall apart, so it is with economics.

The supply of money is a mirror image in value of all the goods and services that the economy produces. If there is too much concentration of wealth, it does not leave enough money in circulation to buy all of the goods and services that are being produced. Since it does not make sense to produce goods or services that are not going to sell, factories begin cutting back on production. This means that workers have even less money to spend, and we find ourselves with an inflationary spiral underway. You may notice that the three great crashes of the U.S. economic system in the past hundred years, 1929, 1987 and, 2008, each came after two consecutive well-to-the-right Republican presidential terms.

But it must also be remembered how easy it is to stray too far left, typically with taxing and spending on government programs. My opinion is that the best indicator of this is inflation. When there is more and more money relative to the value of goods and services being produced, then the prices of those goods and services will inflate since the money supply always has to be a mirror image of the value of all the goods and services being produced. When prices go upward, excepting other factors such as shortages, it simply means that workers are being paid too much relative to the value of what they are producing.

Communism is actually a higher system than capitalism. The trouble lies not in the system itself, but in human nature. Communes and collectives, such as the Israeli Kibbutz system, have actually been very productive with members working hard and then being supplied with what they need. But when it comes to the general population, with people who do not know each other or feel a sense of common purpose that they are willing to work together for, the system starts to break down with inferior goods being produced and corruption in allocating goods. Fixed prices tend to result in a "black market", where people can buy the quality goods that they want but at "real" prices.

The weakness of capitalism is the precarious link between production and consumption. If goods are not selling as well for any reason, the tendency is to cut back on production which will mean that workers will have even less money to spend and will get an inflationary spiral underway. What is good for the individual worker, such as saving money, is bad for the system as a whole because it takes money out of circulation that is needed to buy goods so that production keeps operating. There are places that capitalism works much less well than in others, such as education and health care.

What modern economics has introduced to the world is the artificial crisis. There is no real reason for an economic slowdown, or outright collapse, such as shortages of raw materials or a bad harvest. But the crisis happens because the economics is not working.

The reason for these troubles is that a so-called "market economy" is not a true market. A real market requires haggling because prices will be continuously changing due to fluctuating supply and demand. If something is not selling well, the merchant will immediately accept less money for it. In our modern economy, crises come about because the pricing is too slow to react and there ends up being a cutback in production that gets a recessionary spiral underway.

Unemployment should actually be a good thing, it means that we can make what we need with fewer workers than we have. Progress usually means that we can accomplish some task with fewer workers than previously. But then those redundant workers, unless they can be given some other work to do, will lack the money to spend to buy the goods and the progress will be of no benefit. Unemployment shows, better than anything else, the precarious link in capitalism between production and consumption.

When production, including farming, can be accomplished with fewer workers, the rest must be given something else to do. Progress thus brings about more and more non-production work, in other words workers who do not produce anything tangible in their daily work. But all of the economy must ultimately be supported by production and the result is that, as the proportion of non-production work increases, it drives up both wages and prices.

In an economy where most workers are engaged in production, both wages and prices will be relatively low. This is because it is the workers, as a whole, who are buying the goods and they can only afford to spend what they are being paid. So, paradoxically, when a country increases it's efficiency of production it actually drives production work away, to lower-wage countries, resulting in an even higher proportion of non-production work becoming necessary.

There are four fundamental types of worker: 1) those who make things 2) those who fix things 3) those who move things 4) those who run things. My theory is that should be the goal of economics, to have the greatest number of workers in the higher categories, actually making things, and the fewest in the lowest categories.

Prices are ultimately determined by what I have defined as the three fundamental costs. These are the cost of land, the cost of transportation and, the cost of communication. The cost of labor (labour) is not a fundamental cost because it is determined by these three. The cost of land is the reason that prices are higher in cities, because land is more expensive and this cost finds it's way into other prices.

Capitalist countries, with more "freedom to" at the expense of "freedom from", have one basic advantage over more socialist countries. There will always be people willing to give up the security and quality of life in a socialist state in order to earn as much money as they can. The trouble with emigration is that it is generally the most ambitious and capable people who are the ones that leave.

But yet, while some countries are clearly the place to go to make money, other countries are marketing themselves as the place to go when one already has money. There are an ever-increasing number of sunny, friendly, low-tax and, low-cost nations offering invitations to a pleasant retirement funded with money earned elsewhere.

The advantage of socialist countries is that the thinking tends to be more whole-picture and long-term. Conservatives wants you to look at the rags-to-riches stories, but not at the rags-to-worse-rags stories. An inevitable issue with capitalism is that money will always equal power, and those with the money will have the ability to arrange the system to suit themselves.

Economics forms a peak of efficiency in the center and we see this same pattern in currency strength. Both strong and weak currency has advantages and disadvantages. Weak currency is better for nations where a lot of goods are produced because it makes those goods more competitive abroad. China is often accused of manipulation of the renmimbi downward for this reason. But a strong currency is better for an economy based more on finance, like Britain. A strong currency makes it easier for a country's companies to buy assets abroad, yet not have it's own assets cheap to buy. (Note-But I wish that my native Britain's currency was a little bit weaker and that it would produce more).

The primary difference between an economic system and a household or corporate budget is that the economic system is not as absolute. When a household or company spends money that money is gone, but when a government spends money it is not necessarily gone because wages that are spent ultimately come back as tax revenue. When a company lets go of workers, it no longer has the expense of their wages. But the same is not true of government, because not only does it no longer have income from their payroll taxes but it must pay their unemployment benefits or social services and the government will lose tax money from their diminished spending.

I define a simple realm as one in which a statement must be either true or false, and opposing statements cannot both be true. A complex realm is where opposing statements may both possibly be true. Religion is a simple realm because if one says "there is a god", either it is true or it isn't. Economics is a complex realm because we cannot really say that "capitalism is true" or "socialism is false". Any stripe of economics has some valid points. In the same way, we can say that a household or corporate budget is a simple realm, while the economy as a whole is a complex realm.

Unlike the simple realm of a household or company budget, many things in economics are not totally good or totally bad. Just as both weak and strong currency has it's advantages, while with a public company's stock it is always bad if the value drops and always good if it climbs. Inflation is not completely negative because a moderate level of inflation enables the government to cover some of it's debt by printing more money. Even a recession has it's good points because the jobs that are lost in a recession, and do not come back, are jobs that should not really be there by the laws of economics anyway.

So what should be the goal in economics? The answer is to grow while avoiding spiraling. A healthy economy is one that is free of destructive spirals. One such spiral is the recessionary spiral, where sales of goods slow leading manufacturers to cut back on production so that workers have even less money to spend. Another is the wage-inflation spiral in which workers are given periodic pay raises to keep up with inflation and it forms a self-fulfilling spiral.

A knock against capitalism is that the rich tend to get richer while the poor get poorer, so that there is both an upward and a downward spiral because the way to make money is to have money in the first place. One ridiculous spiral is where a few people start announcing that they think there will be a recession, and this causes others to cut back on spending and this is what brings about the recession.

Bubbles are another form of spiral. Theoretically, valuables such as land and gold should always increase in value because their supply is fixed while the world's population, and thus demand, is always increasing. This makes sense until it becomes "conventional wisdom". Then, investors crowd in and drive prices up to artificial highs until the prices crash back to realistic levels.

One sector of the economy must not grow out of proportion to the other sectors, unless it is due to genuine progress. If it is due to a rush of investment, sooner or later it will crash.

A basic difficulty with economics is that it is an area where logical thinking is often cast aside. Religiofication takes place. Humans were designed to believe in something and when we do not have the real religion, we tend to put something else in it's place. A person makes their politics, ideology or, nation into their substitute for religion. Logical thinking is replaced by ideology.

In a complex realm like economics, we tend to oversimplify. A person sees one side of the picture, but not the other. We take what may have been good advice at one time and harden it into dogma.

Let's not forget to consider the cultural effects of economics. A system based primarily on competition is going to bring out the nastiness in people. A lot of people cannot compete without being nasty, and this will get into the culture and raise the level of nastiness that is considered as acceptable.

In advertising the objective is to get one's sales pitch across, while shutting out the competition if possible. This leads to a culture in which it is all right to interrupt others and monopolize a conversation so that one will feel as if they are expected to compete for a chance to talk. But this is not good for international relations, because it is considered as offensive in a lot of other cultures.

The corporate model in economics has a cultural effect in such things as cliques and gangs. In an economy where people group together to form competing companies, we can expect that their children in school will also group together to form rival cliques. National gangs in the U.S. like the Crips, the Bloods and, MS-13 are only imitating the same corporate model as Wal-Mart or McDonald's.

This is not to say that more leftward economics does not have it's cultural effects also. While there is more of a "we're all in this together" feeling in socialist societies (By the way, I was reading that there is a lot of nostalgia for the former Yugoslavia. Now that it is all capitalist, a few people are better off but most people aren't), this tends to produce an attitude that no one else has a right to have anything that you do not have. This is just as bad as being around nasty people that interrupt you.

So, the best we can do with economics is to aim for the center, getting the best of both left and right with the worst of neither.

Southern Poland

This is the colorful old city of Poznan with it's Thirteenth-Century Town Hall. The Town Hall is the building with three floors of columns. Poznan has Poland's original cathedral where the first ruler of the country and his son are buried.

It has been a vital city since the beginning of the country. Cathedral Island could be considered as the center of early Poland but the capital was later moved to Krakow.

These images of Poznan Town Hall, and the square in which it is located are from Google Street View and Google Earth.

From Google Street View this is Poznan Cathedral. 

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4075173,16.9345806,3a,75y,36.79h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5WZzXGqgBUNtJwL1dhEwpA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5WZzXGqgBUNtJwL1dhEwpA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D24.522543%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Lodz is not a medieval city but a product of the Industrial Revolution. It is the manufacturing center of the central part of Poland. The following scene scenes begin in a complex know. as the Manufaktura.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7801211,19.4486664,3a,75y,99.65h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sE0QoDvd7XvhOezpOx5tj2w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DE0QoDvd7XvhOezpOx5tj2w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D105.36427%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfotra

This is central Lodz.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7630922,19.4576907,3a,75y,121.13h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMpqFLf0BUQGiNmHDO39QkqakasfISciysUbr5A!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMpqFLf0BUQGiNmHDO39QkqakasfISciysUbr5A%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya143.01723-ro0-fo100!7i9300!8i4650

Wroclaw is a medieval city of Bohemian origin. It has been part of many empires before coming back to Poland. This is Wroclaw Old Town Hall in Market Square. These two scenes are from Google Earth and Street View.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1093909,17.0319891,3a,75y,16.88h,103.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMkNN3tj7Cbh61ph7OqbakA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMkNN3tj7Cbh61ph7OqbakA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D292.1768%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Mostly modern Katowice is another city that was a product of the Industrial Revolution.

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.2597807,19.0215675,3a,75y,351.81h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNh4CnB7lKv_-62tgV4RbHiLje0_fiylhX2w7dg!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNh4CnB7lKv_-62tgV4RbHiLje0_fiylhX2w7dg%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya320.74133-ro-0-fo100!7i10240!8i5120

Here is Wawel Cathedral, in the city of Krakow, and the adjoining Royal Castle. The first two images are from Google Earth and Street View.

 
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0543759,19.9354427,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNpAguCygH3UghlugkOsD9CHWUWuN765MNTGNuS!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNpAguCygH3UghlugkOsD9CHWUWuN765MNTGNuS%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-3.2776892-ya79.89717-ro7.3906584-fo100!7i7776!8i3888

Krakow is a very old city that was the capital of Poland for more than five hundred years. The capital was moved to Warsaw because Poland and Lithuania formed a union and Warsaw was halfway between Krakow and Vilnius. Krakow was the focal point of the Polish Renaissance during the Jagellonian Dynasty. Wawel Cathedral was the royal coronation cathedral and was where Pope John Paul preached his first sermon. The enclosed fortress was the center of Poland in the same way that the Moscow Kremlin is of Russia.

This is Main Square of old Krakow. The first two images are from Google Earth and Street View.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0623172,19.9380482,3a,75y,249h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sw-fk8R-L0an-iL3RBEY6Yg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw-fk8R-L0an-iL3RBEY6Yg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D239.12846%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Wadowice is about a thousand years old and known as the hometown of Pope John Paul II. The first scene is St. Mary's Basilica. The building to the right is where the family of the future Pope John Paul had an apartment when he was born.

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8834591,19.4926382,3a,75y,93.52h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPUkkuFb77CH7dtn7FrPdWKcXFvu0KcUXeS_Ycm!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPUkkuFb77CH7dtn7FrPdWKcXFvu0KcUXeS_Ycm%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0.10302208-ya13.138514-ro0.9780448-fo100!7i7200!8i3600

Rzeszow is a medieval city with a famous old castle that was rebuilt in the Twentieth Century. The first scene of the castle is from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0376641,22.0052323,3a,75y,244.17h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1szJFjPLzswka_7DL5A3pc1A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzJFjPLzswka_7DL5A3pc1A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D232.99016%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

This is Lublin's Old Town and Castle that was begun in the Twelfth Century. The first scene is the castle from Google Earth.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2488074,22.5688495,3a,75y,13.06h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZPFIArof9JEel5BOUiu5vQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZPFIArof9JEel5BOUiu5vQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D8.261937%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The Decade Of The Drone

When it comes to warfare the 2020s are definitely the decade of the drone. The war in Ukraine is rapidly developing and refining drone warfare.

What I notice is that drones, at least small drones, are shifting the balance of warfare back to where the defense, rather than the offense, has the advantage.

In early days the offense, mobile warriors along with horses and chariots, had the advantage once it got momentum going. But when castles and fortifications were built it shifted the advantage to the defensive, usually requiring a significant numerical advantage for an offensive force to overcome a defensive position.

Medieval castles were difficult to attack. The defenders had the advantage and offensive operations against them were usually unsuccessful, succeeding usually only with a greatly superior force. The defense, on the whole, had the advantage for a very long time.

The invention of gunpowder turned warfare around, giving the advantage back to the offensive. Castles could be bombarded by cannon from a safe distance. The advantage was not entirely with the offensive. Fortifications were still the rule and it was difficult to haul cannon around and set them up. The defensive fortification had the advantage of having their cannon already set up.

Another invention shifted the balance even more toward the offense side. Motorized transport, including aircraft and ships made it much easier to move offensive weapons and forces around. A force on the defensive also gained from motorized transport but overall it gave the advantage to the side with the offensive momentum.

This presumes that the battlefield is an open space and maneuvering is not hindered. When the battle space is limited, or the terrain is rugged, it favors the defensive. The Western Front of the First World War was a battlefield of limited scope that revolved around defensive trench warfare. The Eastern Front of the war, in stark contrast, was on a wide open battlefield and there was little trench warfare.

Another example of how important the terrain and the scope of the battlefield is in whether the offensive or the defensive will be favored is the North African Campaign of the Second World War. The combat in the wide open spaces of north Africa was as different as night and day in comparison to when the battlefront moved to the Italian Peninsula. In the former the open spaces favored the momentum of the offensive, in the latter the confined space and rugged terrain favored the defensive.

Wars on a global scale, the Napoleonic and World Wars, are possible only when the offense has the advantage. Wars tend to be limited in scale when the defense has the advantage. 

No weapon or development is purely offensive or defensive. Nuclear missiles are certainly offensive weapons but if the other side also has the missiles they discourage an attack against it, because it would prompt a retaliation, and thus act as defensive weapons also. Even so the side that managed the first strike would gain the advantage, making nuclear missiles more offensive weapons overall.

The latest development is drones. At first glance drones appear to be offensive weapons. For larger drones, on the scale of aircraft, this is certainly true. But smaller drones, often launched from the battlefield, are much more numerous. Small drones are inexpensive and easy to use, and are changing the balance of warfare toward favoring the defensive.

Small drones favor the defensive in that their most effective use is against offensive weapons, particularly tanks. In the Ukraine war drones have proven to be the nemesis of tanks, whether firing a projectile or crashing into the target. Another target that is very vulnerable to small drones is aircraft, not so much in the air but when parked on the ground. 

Small drones today, inexpensive and easy to use, are thus comparable to fighter planes or destroyers at sea. A destroyer is the naval equivalent of a fighter plane. It is not a capital ship, like aircraft carriers or formerly battleships. It's task is patrolling or protecting the capital ships against aircraft and submarines while they concentrate on their mission. The drones become defensive weapons in that their primary mission is to liquidate offensive weapons. This is tipping the balance of warfare back to favoring the defensive.

Just look at the Ukraine war thus far. The battlefield is wide open and flat so it should definitely favor the offensive, as it did in the Second World War. Yet both sides have done much better on the defensive than on the offensive. Russia struggled to gain ground when it was mostly on the offensive, and now Ukraine is struggling to regain the ground that Russia did gain. This is a war where the defensive has reigned supreme and the primary difference, in contrast to other recent wars, is the drone.

Lightning And Traffic Lights

Do you know what the ultimate in energy is? We often see it when there is a storm. It is lightning.

There is a tremendous amount of energy in a lightning bolt. Currents of air knocks some of the electrons out of atomic orbitals of atoms in the air. A lightning bolt is between the cloud and the ground, or between two clouds. It is a flow of negatively charged electrons to correct a charge imbalance.

Why can't we harness the power of lightning? I have been wondering about this since I was a child. If we can harness the lateral movement of the air, by windmills, then why can't we harness the vertical movement of the air, by lightning?

It is not difficult to get lightning to strike, a metal tower that gives it the route of least resistance to the ground is all that is needed. The saying that "lightning never strikes twice in the same place" has no truth to it whatsoever. Although lightning sometimes goes from the cloud to the ground, and sometimes vice versa.

To harness it's tremendous power we would need a heavy duty capacitor structure that would temporarily store the electrical energy. Then the current would pass through a chemical vat that would act as a chargeable battery. The electrical energy of the lightning bolt would then be stored as chemical energy, and released at will as useful power.

The capacitor and the battery would decrease the conductivity of the metal tower to the ground. It would be necessary for it to still be by far the path of least resistance for the lightning bolt to get to ground. 

This structure would have to be wired in preparation for the lightning to be either from cloud to ground, or vice versa. A one way bolt of lightning is direct current. One way that it could be turned into alternating current is to have two batteries, one for each direction of the bolt, and alternate release of current between the two.

There is no reason for us not to be harnessing the tremendous power in lightning.

Another issue is traffic lights. Have you ever thought about the vast amount of energy that is wasted while idling at traffic lights? Not to mention time and how it is adding to global warming.

There is so much discussion about "smart" technology nowadays. Traffic Lights are about as dumb as a technology as there is. A hammer is smarter than a traffic light because at least a hammer isn't wasteful. How many times have you seen ten cars waiting at a red light while there are no cars on the green light? 

Traffic lights are an example of what I refer to as being "technically forward but system backward". A technology is set up on a basic system. We keep making technical progress but then years later we are still using the primitive original system on which the technology was based, and this is what is holding the whole technology back. Another example is the primitive ASCII system of computer encoding.

From Measurement Tool To Cosmology Theory

Let me tell you the story of how an attempt to patent and develop a measurement tool ultimately led to my cosmology theory.

There is a very simple measurement tool that I thought of that can quickly and easily accomplish tasks that are very cumbersome and time-consuming with existing methods. This tool can be very easily homemade and I believe that anyone involved in any kind of building, constructing or, surveying would find it invaluable. 

I decided, for various reasons, not to pursue a patent for it any longer. So, I have decided to put it here in the public domain so that anyone can make their own and no one else can get a patent on it.

One day, I drove past some large fuel storage tanks in Tonawanda, NY near the South Grand Island Bridges. Just as a mental exercise, I tried to dream up a way to quickly measure the circumference of such tanks or another large, circular object. I started thinking of measuring the curvature over a given linear distance with the idea that the less the curvature per linear distance, the larger the circumference.

THE CONTACT MEASUREMENT VERSION

But then another idea clicked into my mind. What if someone got an ordinary magnetic compass and enlarged either the compass itself or it's mounting so that it was circular and of a known circumference, such as a yard or a meter? 

Suppose we then placed the edge of the compass against the side of a large fuel tank and noted the directional reading given by the compass needle. Then we would note the point on the side of the compass that was in contact with the side of the tank. If we proceeded to rotate the compass over a complete circle and noted the change in the directional reading of the needle, we would have all the information needed to quickly and easily calculate the circumference of the fuel tank.

If we placed the compass against the side of the fuel tank and noted that the directional reading of the needle was 192 degrees and then rotated the compass a complete circle so that the point on it's edge that had originally contacted the side of the tank was back in the same place, all we would have to do would be to take the fraction of a complete circle that the needle changed during the rotation and multiply it by the circumference of the compass mounting and we would have the answer, the circumference of the tank.

For example, If the compass mounting was one yard in circumference and, upon completion of the rotation the needle had moved from 192 degrees to 196 degrees, the circumference of the tank would be 360/4 times one yard. In other words, 90 yards. This presumes, of course, that the tank is a perfect circle.

I decided that the device would be called "The Compass Ruler" and made one of my own by getting a Wal-Mart hiking compass, breaking off the casing and, gluing it onto a piece of plywood I had cut with a jig saw to a circumference of one meter. I knew enough about building and construction to know that such a tool was not in common use. However, I checked extensively to see if such a tool was in use anywhere and found no sign that it was. 

There was once such a thing as a surveyor's compass, that had fallen into disuse, but it was a compass mounted on a stand and was in no way used like my Compass Ruler would be. On my device, measurements would be taken by actually contacting the side of a structure.

The principle of the operation of the Compass Ruler is simple. Just as a plumb, a weight tied to a string, uses the earth's gravity as a fixed reference point for measurement of vertical angles, the Compass Ruler uses the earth's magnetic field as a fixed reference point for measurement of horizontal angles. The Compass Ruler obviously must be marked around the circumference edge in degrees, just as a protractor would be.

There is an even simpler version of the Compass Ruler. Simply take a square of wood, 1 x 4 for example, and glue a compass in the middle of it. For best results, be sure that it is indeed a square and that each cardinal direction faces toward the middle of one side of the wood. Suppose you have built a corner between two walls or fences and you want to be sure that it does indeed form a right angle. Simply hold one side of your Compass Ruler against one wall and note the directional reading of the needle. Then hold the same side against the other wall. You should get a change in the needle of ninety degrees. Simple.

This method is just as useful if the two walls do not actually contact each other, or for that matter do not even come near each other. This makes the old standby, the builder's square seem awkward and obsolete by comparison. Verifying a right angle by the 3-4-5 Pythagorean Theorem method is also awkward and time-consuming.

Suppose it is necessary to measure the angle between any two walls that do not actually intersect. With a builder's square it is impossible. With tape measures it is tedious, time-consuming and, prone to error. With a surveying crew, it is expensive. With my Compass Ruler, it is almost effortless.

What if you have built a long wall or fence and want to verify it's straightness? All you have to do is walk down the wall, taking periodic measurements with the Compass Ruler by placing the same point on it's edge against the wall. If the wall is indeed straight, you will get exactly the same directional reading of the needle on every measurement. If it is not straight, by measuring the wall with the Compass Ruler at given intervals, you can tell by how much it curves.

This is also useful for a vast number of other such similar measurements. How would you verify that two parallel walls are truly parallel? Just take a reading on one wall with the Compass Ruler. Then, go to the other wall and put the same edge against that wall. If the walls are parallel, you will get a difference in the directional readings of 180 degrees.

Suppose you wished to set up a series of signs along a road and wished them to all have the same directional orientation. How would you do it? What if you were setting up a sign along the road and wanted it to be set at 45 degrees to the road to give maximum exposure. Or suppose you were building a wall or fence and wished it to run parallel (or perpendicular) to the road.

All of these tasks would be difficult, impossible or expensive with existing methods. With my Compass Ruler, all would be simple and easy. To measure the directional orientation of the road with the Compass Ruler, simply place the device on the road surface alongside a traffic line on the road.

Measurement of curvature is just as easy with the Compass Ruler. Just take readings against the curved structure at regular intervals. Curvature can be expressed as change in the directional orientation of the needle per given linear distance. Another advantage of either version of the Compass Ruler, either the circular or the simpler square version of the device, is that contact measurements, such as those described above, are not hampered if two structures to be measured and compared are not visible from each other or if there is an obstacle, like a row of bushes, between two structures.

THE SURVEYING VERSION

Surveying is easy with the Compass Ruler. Suppose you want to get an accurate measurement of the distance to a certain remote point. First, you would either set up or pick out a remote visible reference point to use in the measurements. Then you would mark the local point from which you would take the measurement to the remote point. Then you would establish a measurement point a convenient distance away so that a line from the local point (Point A) to the nearby measurement point (Point B) would form a right angle with a line from point A to the remote point (Point C).

Using a straight-edge, such as a perfectly straight 1 x 4 board, you would sight on the remote point C from the local point A looking straight down the straight-edge. You would use the Compass Ruler to note the directional orientation of the straight-edge as it points from Point A to Point C. You would then go to the nearby measurement Point B that you have selected and take another sighting on the remote Point C from there.

All you would than have to do is take the difference in the angular reading of the two measurements. Using a scientific calculator, you would get the cotangent of the angular difference. You would then multiply the cotangent by the distance from Point A, the local point, to the nearby measurement Point B. That would give you the distance from Point A to the remote Point C.

Obviously, for best results in surveying using the Compass Ruler, measurements must be taken carefully. The distance from Point A to Point B must be accurately measured. And, the same spot on the remote point must be sighted upon. The longer the carefully measured distance from Point A to Point B is in relation to the distance from Point A to the remote Point C is, the better the result will be. It should always be at least 10% of the remote distance.

It is not necessary to have a right angle between the two lines from points A to C and from A to B, but if not, the simplicity of a cotangent calculation will be lost and a graphical calculation will become necessary. If possible, the baseline for the measurement from Point A to Point B can make use of a pre-existant line, such as a road.

The straight-edge can be built onto the Compass Ruler if it is to be used for surveying. For even better results, the straight-edge can be fitted with a small telescope, a laser pointer, or, both. A vertically diagonal mirror can make it possible to see the compass on the Compass Ruler at the same time that the sighting is being done. For a finishing touch, the entire device can be set on a mounting.

To set up a marker, such as a traffic cone, at a given distance in a given direction from a starting point, use the reverse of this method. Pre-set a sighting from a Point B to that distance and have a rodman walk with the marker until he is in the sight. Then use hand signals or radio/phone communication to have the marker set up at the correct point.

Suppose you are out on the water in a boat and wish to measure how far you are from shore because you notice a shipwreck or some other object of interest under the water and wish to record the position. You would pick out two easily recognizable objects on shore such as trees or large rocks. The two objects should be in a line perpendicular to the line between you and one of the objects. Measure the angle between the two objects from where you are in the boat and record it.

Later, you would carefully measure the distance between the two objects using a tape measure or a map. Then you would take the cotangent of the angle measured from the boat and multiply it by that distance. Alternatively, you could simply take the directional readings of any two (or more) prominently visible, fixed position objects. The position on the water could then be charted using a map or satellite photo of the area.

Astronomers have long used this technique to measure the distance to stars, it is known as parallax. The carefully measured distance from Point A to Point B is referred to as the baseline, the distance across the earth's orbit around the sun six months apart. 

The same principle can be used with the Compass Ruler to map an entire area. Simply pick out visible objects such as trees, houses, etc. Measure the distances from a central point to the objects and then measure the angular distances between those objects from the central point. The map then can be easily made using a ruler and protractor. Of course, on complex maps, more than one central point can be used. If the terrain to be mapped is hilly, the logical place for the central points would obviously be on the high ground.

THE DRAWING VERSION

Aside from the contact measurement and surveying versions, there is yet version of the Compass Ruler, the drawing version. Simply fasten or glue a small compass to a straight-edge such as a ruler and it makes the protractor used in geometric drawings just as obsolete as the builder's square is in construction. To draw two lines at a certain angle to each other, simply draw one, noting the angle indicated on the compass dial. Then move the straight-edge so that the difference showing on the dial is now the desired angle and then draw the second line. To measure the angle between two existing lines, simply reverse this process.

If the drawing paper is securely taped down, aligned either east-west or north-south with the compass for best results, an entire geometric drawing can be made with unprecedented accuracy using the drawing version of the Compass Ruler. Parallel lines will have the same compass dial reading anywhere in the drawing. Perpendicular lines will differ 90 degrees in reading. Existing methods are far inferior to this. Of course, it would be simple to draw a map that was surveyed using the surveying version of the tool, just drawing the measurements on paper.

There are certainly many more everyday applications of this simple but extremely useful device. The device could also bring geometry and trigonometry classes to life. The lessons that now consist of drawing lines and circles on paper could occasionally be done as actual measurements in the gym or schoolyard.

Anyone can make their own of any version of the Compass Ruler, the circular or the simpler square version for contact measurements. Or the surveying or drawing versions with an attached or accompanying straight-edge. It can also be manufactured and sold although it will not be patentable now that I have put it in the public domain.

We read of George Washington Carver and how he revealed many things that the humble peanut can be used for. I would like to do the same thing for the simple device known as the compass. Just as GPS systems are becoming ubiquitous and the old magnetic compass seems to be of little use any more, we see that there is a whole world of tasks that it can accomplish most effectively. Any simple compass would have it's usefulness multiplied if it were encased with a straight side to perform some of the measurements listed above.

LEADING TO THE COSMOLOGY THEORY

I developed the idea for a measurement tool, for building and construction, that could do things that no other measurement tool could. The concept for the tool, the use of the earth's magnetic field as a horizontal plumb in a hand-held tool, had not yet been patented. I made a prototype and every time I used it I noticed more that it could do that no other tool could easily do.

However, I did not want to start a company and the trouble with trying to get a company to develop it was that the tool was so simple that I couldn't describe how it worked without giving it away so that anyone could steal the idea. Finally I decided that it was taking up too much of my time and attention and set it aside.

But after I put the tool aside, all of the lines and angles involved with it were still in my mind. One day, I was wondering about what time actually was. It suddenly flashed into my mind that there must be a dimension of space that we cannot see, but that we perceive as time, and that matter consists of strings in four dimensions of space, rather than the particles in three dimensions of space that we perceive.

After that, one unexplained mystery in physics after another just fell into place.

1) First and foremost was that basic question of what exactly is time? It is known that time is a dimension, as is space, the dimensions being referred to as "space-time". But I could find nothing with an answer, in terms of actual physics, of what time really is.

Of course, if there is another dimension of space that we cannot see, and matter that we see consisting of particles actually consists of one-dimensional strings in this four-dimensional space, then time can be explained as something that is within us. Our consciousness is only at any given point on the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains for one moment. Time is the progression of our consciousness along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. This means that time is something that only exists within us.

We can see that there has to be a dimension of space that we cannot see because we can detect the radiation left over from the Big Bang, which began the universe. But we cannot pinpoint the direction from which it is coming. The radiation seems to be coming at us equally from all directions in space, allowing for the movement of the earth through space. If we lived in three dimensions of space, we should be able to pinpoint the direction from which this radiation is coming at us, but we can't. That is because the matter comprising our universe is distributed over four dimensions of space.

2) Another basic question is about the speed of light. We can measure what it is with precision. But we can find no physical reason as to why the speed of light is what it is, instead of some other speed.

Of course, if our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, then it must move at some certain speed. Since we can find no other reason for what the speed of light is what it is, this shows that it, like time of which it is a function, is within us as the speed of our progression of consciousness.

The processes that give us our consciousness are very complex. The speed of light is extremely fast. That is because the two are related.

3) But if the speed of light is within us, the speed of our consciousness, along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains in four-dimensional space, then that means that the velocities of other objects, which are also bundles of strings, is actually an angle in four-dimensional space. This makes sense, with the speed of light being a 90 degree angle, and appearing as the maximum possible speed because a 90 degree angle is the maximum possible angle. That is why the theory was called "The Theory of Stationary Space". But then what about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, where the speed of light is absolutely invariable and everything else, such as mass and time, revolves around it.

Of course, it doesn't really revolve around the speed of light. It only appears to revolve around the speed of light. Because the speed of light is within us, this is how it appears to us. Einstein's Special Relativity becomes easy to explain by the simple trigonometry of a right triangle. When an object appears to be traveling very fast, close to the speed of light, it is at a large angle relative to our bundle of strings. Since the diagonal, or hypotenuse, of a right triangle must be longer than the base of the triangle, which represents our bundle of strings, it's mass appears to increase, becoming apparently infinite at a 90 degree angle, which we perceive as the speed of light.

Likewise with Relativity's "time dilation". If we were moving close to what we perceive as the speed of light, our consciousness would be moving along the bundle of strings comprising our bodies and brains as it always would, but since the high speed is really an angle, we would be traveling at a lower speed relative to the base of the right triangle. it is all a matter of simple trigonometric functions.

We can see that the effects of Special Relativity are only an illusion due to our moving consciousness by cosmic rays. These rays are actually particles, but were misnamed as rays before they were discovered to be particles of matter. Some cosmic rays are moving at near the speed of light which, according to Relativity, means that they should have near-infinite mass. 

But since gravity is proportional to mass, they should also have near-infinite gravity. Yet clearly, they don't. if one particle in cosmic rays had near-infinite gravity, then is should wrap the entire earth around itself, yet it doesn't. This shows that Special Relativity is really an illusion of the motion of our consciousness.

4) Then what about the force of a moving object? When an object is moving at twice the velocity, it is known to have four times the force. The Inverse Square Law applies to the energy of gravity or of electromagnetic radiation in multi-dimensional space. So why would it apply to an object moving in a one-dimensional line?

Of course, this is explained by simple trigonometry also and proves that there has to be another dimension of space that we cannot see because it behaves according to the Inverse Square Law that applies to multi-dimensional space, not to one-dimensional straight lines. We can see that the increase in length of a line at 2 degrees to a base line is four times that of the increase in length of a line at 1 degree to the base line. That is why an object moving at twice the velocity has four times the force, the objects are really strings and there is a dimension of space that we cannot see.

5) Another mystery is Einstein's very famous formula about the conversion of mass and energy, E = MC squared, with C representing the constant, or the speed of light. This means that the energy within mass, known as the Mass-Energy Equivalence, is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. But why would a small amount of mass contain so much energy?

Of course, this actually reveals that the speed of light is a 90 degree angle in four-dimensional space. It also reveals what matter and the Mass-Energy Equivalence really is. The universe consists of two electric charges, negative and positive. Opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Matter is actually like charges, which would otherwise repel, being held together by energy. When this energy is released, the like charges repel one another and move away from each other by the most direct possible route.

If matter is actually strings aligned in four-dimensional space then that shortest possible route is at right angles to that alignment. That right angle, a 90 degree angle, is what we perceive as the speed of light. Since, at the same time, our consciousness is moving in a perpendicular direction at what we perceive as the speed of light that is why the speed of light is squared, or  multiplied by itself, in the formula.

Never before had this formula seemed so simple to understand.

6) But then if Special Relativity and the speed of light are just within us, then why do we have so much memory capacity? How can something as small as the human brain hold such an incredible volume of memory? It seems impossible.

Of course, if this theory is correct then the brain has an entire other dimension to it. When we remember things, we are going along the bundle of strings comprising our brain into the dimension of space that we perceive as the past. The brain otherwise could not possibly hold the volume of memories and knowledge that we have.

7) Another mystery is that of cryogenics, conditions at very low temperatures. We can take a tough and flexible sheet of rubber and, if we cool it to near absolute zero, it will shatter into pieces at the slightest impact. This cannot be explained by ordinary chemistry.

Of course, it's really simple. If matter is really strings in four-dimensional space then heat, which we see as the motion of the particles comprising matter, is really the changing angles of strings which must be wrapping around one another at the same time. If we cool the object to near absolute zero, the strings will then be straight lines, with practically no wrapping around each other. Since this is what holds the object together, this is why the sheet of rubber easily shatters.

8) Another profound mystery concerns Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both are well-established and can prove their findings with experiments. Both explain things that cannot be explained by ordinary physics. But the two disagree with each other over the speed of light. In Relativity, the speed of light is absolute and everything else revolves around it. In Quantum Physics, the speed of light is not even a factor at all and it can be shown that information moves instantly between two entangled photons no matter how far apart they are, without being limited by the speed of light. How can this possibly be?

Of course, it's simple, and it shows that there really is no finite speed of light. Both Relativity and Quantum Physics are illusions of our perspective on the universe. We have to remember that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

Relativity is an illusion of time really being the motion of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Quantum Physics is an illusion of the fact that electromagnetic waves are two dimensional but the reception of them in our eyes and instruments is based on their interactions with electrons which are really one-dimensional strings. This absorbs one dimension of the wave but leaves the other as what seems to be a one-dimensional photon. Two photons can be entangled, if one is split by a crystal, only if they are linked to one another in the past time direction which, as this shows, must actually be a dimension of space.

9) Does this explain the Mass-Energy Equivalence, that a given amount of mass contains a certain amount of energy? Mass is something that manifests, and is affected by, gravity. What exactly is gravity?

Of course it does. The universe is electric charges. Like charges repel but can be held together by energy. This energy shows up as mass, which is attracted by and manifests gravity. If the two electric charges, negative and positive, are equal then the two rules of the electric charges, that opposite charges attract and like charges repel, must also be equal. If we overcome the repulsion between like charges with energy, that means that there must be a net attractive force between the masses, and that is what we refer to as gravity.

10) But then why are there both matter and antimatter, and why do they both disintegrate and release a tremendous amount of energy when they are brought in contact?

Of course, matter is like charges held together by energy. In atoms, the negatively-charged electrons orbit the positively-charged nucleus. But there is no reason that the charges in atoms could not be reversed, and that is what antimatter is, with positively-charged positrons. The energy that holds these like charges together as matter is the Mass-Energy Equivalence. Space then must be a multidimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges. 

Ordinary matter does not mutually disintegrate when brought together because all of it has negatively-charged electrons facing each other which mutually repel when in contact, known as electron repulsion. But when matter and antimatter is brought into contact, the charges in both rearrange themselves back into the alternating charges of empty space and the Mass-Energy Equivalence in both is released as a fantastic burst of energy.

11) So this explains space and matter, but then what are electromagnetic waves?

Of course, these waves are only produced by matter. Energy can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form. What energy basically does is to displace electric charges by overcoming the mutual repulsion between like charges. This first forms matter, but if that energy is released it goes into space but the overall displacement of electric charges must remain the same. 

Space is also electric charges and the displacement there gives us electromagnetic waves. Waves are two-dimensional but the strings of matter are only one-dimensional, this is why matter has mass but electromagnetic waves don't. Because the energy is concentrated into only one dimension when it is in matter. Also, since matter produces electromagnetic waves, the fact that waves move only in one-dimensional straight lines shows that matter is one-dimensional strings.

12) But then what is "Planck's Length", an almost infinitesimal distance, and why is it so important?

Of course, it's simple. The entire universe, matter and energy, is composed of nearly-infinitesimal electric charges, negative and positive, and Planck's Length is the size of one of these charges.

13) Why does so much of physics revolve around three-part formula, such as the electrical formula of E, I and, R, which stand for the relationship between voltage, current and, resistance, in volts, amperes and, ohms? Another common physics formula is F = MA, Force = Mass x Acceleration.

Of course, all matter in the universe consists of one-dimensional strings. These strings can be bent at angles that we perceive as velocity, or energy. The only two possible factors are how many strings there are, in a bundle that is bent, and the angle at which they are bent. This means that much of physics consists of formula such as A = BC or B = A / C. One ultimately stands for the number of strings, one for how much they are bent, and the other is the final result of the bending.

14) So much has been determined about what happened after the Big Bang, the great explosion that began the universe but, as with what time really is, there is nothing much about what actually caused the Big Bang. This, along with time, should be the most primal question of all.

Of course, this makes it really simple. The first rule of the universe is that the negative and positive electric charges must always balance out. The universe also always seeks the lowest energy state but that rule is secondary to the balancing of electric charges.

My theory can bring the universe back to the first electric charge, whether it was negative or positive. A single charge would create an electrical imbalance, and that cannot be allowed. The first charge would have to induce an opposite charge next to it, but on both sides. That would also result in an electrical imbalance and the two new charges would have to induce copies of the original charge on each side of them. Then those would have to induce opposite charges on each side of them, and so on, in multiple dimensions.

The simple fact that created this alternating checkerboard of opposite charges in multiple dimensions is that there has to be an electrical balance between negative and positive but there can never be such a balance with an odd number of charges. So the universe just kept growing and this is what formed the space of the universe.

But some discrepancy occurred, perhaps willed so by God, and a two-dimensional sheet of space began to form in the same way that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. The mismatch of the alternating checkerboard of opposite charges between these two blocks of space brought about charge migration in the two-dimensional space. Positive moved to one side and negative toward the other, because this created a lower energy state.

Because the two-dimensional sheet of space was not contiguous with, not coordinated with, the dimensions of the background space, it's negative and positive sides came into contact with regard to the background space. This created the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation, with the fantastic burst of energy, that we perceive as the Big Bang, the great explosion that began the universe.

One of the two dimensions of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated, the one that had come into contact, and the other remained as the one-dimensional strings of matter that we see in the cosmology theory. This means that space is an alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive charges and matter is a concentration of like charges, held together against the usual electrical repulsion of like charges by energy.

The energy is what we see as the Mass-Energy Equivalence of matter that is released by putting the matter in contact with antimatter, so that the energy is released and the electric charges go back to the alternating checkerboard pattern of empty space. The energy in the matter originally came from the energy released when the other dimension of the two-dimensional sheet disintegrated, and also that the sheet was not contiguous with the background space. This is information and energy and information is really the same thing.

15) Finally, if the Big Bang can occur like that, as a result of a sheet of space forming whose electrical charges are not contiguous with the alternating checkerboard pattern of charges in the background space, then why can't it recur on a regular basis? If it happened once, it should be able to happen again.

Of course, it does recur. This is what causes the phenomenon known as Gamma Ray Bursts. About one per day occurs somewhere in the observable universe. This is a fantastic and mysterious release of energy. Gamma Ray Bursts are associated with supernova but are hundreds of times more powerful.

When a string of matter, such as an electron, is broken by extreme force it upsets the all-important electric charge balance and the universe begins reproducing electric charges as happened in the beginning of the universe. This forms a sheet of new charges that are not contiguous to the dimensions of the background space.

This imbalance causes pressure on the electric charges of the new sheet, since opposite charges attract and like charges repel, which causes charge migration to make one side of the new sheet more negative, and the other side more positive. Since the new sheet is not contiguous with the dimensions of the background space, the two sides ultimately meet. This cause a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation and a fantastic burst of energy is released just as with the Big Bang.

That is the story about how an abandoned attempt to develop the invention of a measurement tool led to my cosmology theory, detailed in "The Theory Of Stationary Space", July 2017. I actually value science more than anything I could invent. Remember that all around you, every day, there are things that no one has ever noticed.