Cleaning up photos using paint.net

On July 13, 2016, paint.net issued an update.  The update caused paint.net to sometimes start up in a virtually worthless mode that doesn't include the cloning tool and the "Auto-Level" feature described below. I'm not sure what causes it, but it usually goes away when you start it a second time.

When I digitized all my photographs that were in slide format, I also converted about 2,400 regular photographs to digital format.  About a third of the photos were in black and white.  The rest, of course, were in color.  Color negatives look like faded color photographs, and the gizmo I used to do the digital converting also converted the negative images to positive color shots.  But, it appears that some of those photos were also slightly faded and also have blemishes.  Since I'm working with negatives, the dirt spots and blemishes tend to be white, not black as they were with slides.

Here's a photograph I took in Venice as it looked before I used the "Auto-Level" adjustment feature in paint.net (you can click on the image to view a larger version):

  
There may not be any way to tell if the color needs adjusting or not, until you do it.  It could have just been a purplish day in Venice.  But, it's clear that the dark line down the right side shouldn't be there.  Evidently, the negative just wasn't properly positioned in the gizmo device I used to convert the color film negative to digital format.

There were no blemishes to eliminate, so here's the same photo after I used the "Auto-Level" adjust feature to adjust the colors and after I used the cropping feature to eliminate the black edge:

Obviously, the colors did need adjusting.

I also found a photograph I took in Monaco that had a bad scratch that definitely needed fixing.  The colors looked in need of adjustment, too. Here's what it looked like:

There is not only the white scratch in the lower right corner, but there are also lots of white dust spots in the sky and elsewhere.  Using paint.net's "Clone-Stamp" tool, I fixed the blemishes.  And here is what the final image looks like:

The next step for me was to figure out what the building was in picture.  I always thought it was the Grand Casino in Monaco, but when I looked for current images of it on the Internet, I found that it could also be the Monaco Opera House, which is part of the Casino Royale in Monaco (or vice versa).  I finally figured out that it's the view of the side of the building that faces the Mediterranean.  That's the Opera House side.  The main entrance to the casino is on the opposite side of the building.  

Live and learn.

Another thing I learned is that I should have spent more time during the digital conversion phase figuring out when the pictures were taken (or developed) and using that date as part of the names of the picture files I was creating instead of letting the conversion program assign file names.  I think the pictures above where taken sometime in the 1980s, but I'd have to find the packet with the negatives to be certain.  The develop date is usually on the packet, and it could also be on the end or side of the strip of negative film.  Most of my photographs are also in albums where photographed dates and other information is included with the photos.

For my experiences color adjusting and repairing digitized slides, click HERE.

Cleaning up slides using paint.net

About five years ago, I bought a gizmo that allowed me to digitized all the photographs and slides I'd accumulated during more than a half century of taking photos.  Some of the slides were faded and the conversion software that came with the gizmo couldn't fix them.  While looking around for software to use to create images for my web site and this blog, I came across paint.net, which is available for free.  To my great surprise, it has an option that will put color back into faded slides.

For example, here's a faded slide from my collection (you can click on it to view the full size version):

Note that the picture is not only faded, it also has a black line along the right edge where the scanner captured part of the cardboard holder for the slide.  Plus, there are tiny hairs and spots on the picture as a result of leaving the slide laying around in a closet for decades.

Using paint.net, I found that I only had to click on "adjustments" and then on "Auto-Level" to automatically bring back the color:

But, it also made the tiny hairs and spots more visible, particularly a faint dark streak of some kind that runs from the upper right corner of the photo to the bridge.

And, paint.net also has a cloning tool that I can use to get rid of all those spots, hairs and blemishes.  They call it a "Clone Stamp."  You select the size of the cloning tool by choosing a brush size, then you press CTL while you left-click your mouse to select the area you want to clone - a piece of unblemished sky next to a dirt spot, for example.  Then you move the cursor to the area with the spot and when you left click the mouse again, the clear piece of sky is cloned and placed over the spot.  After that, the area to be cloned will move when you move the mouse, and you just need to click on the spots you want to correct (being certain that the clone area doesn't also contain a spot), or you can hold down the mouse clicker while you clone over the entire bad area.

I used the "Clone Stamp" to get rid of all the hairs and spots and the streak, plus the dark line down the side.  Here's the result:

And, just because I found it to be interesting, here's a photo I found on the Internet which shows the same scene as it looks today:

I'm not sure exactly how the "Auto-Level" adjustment feature works, but here's another faded photo of New York City from the 1950s:

Here's the color corrected and cleaned up version:

And here's a photo from the Internet showing what the location looks like today:

Now I just need to clean up about a thousand other slides in my collection.  

For information about color adjusting photographs from negatives, click HERE.

Rationalized SEMANTIC Methodist cartoons

Arguing with Rationalized SEMANTIC Methodists is providing a warehouse full of ideas for cartoons.  Here are some I've used in my Facebook group:

Here's another:

And another:

And another:

And another:

And another:

And another:

Ed

Bill Gaede's Misinterpretation of Time Dilation

When I checked the Rational Scientific Method ("RSM") Facebook group page this morning, I found that RSMer Bill Gaede has just created a brand new YouTube video in which he attempted to debunk Einstein's theory of velocity-based Time Dilation.

 It's interesting how professional the video looks.  Mr. Gaede is either very skilled in creating videos, or he has a very skilled professional working for him.  I strongly suspect it is the latter, since Mr. Gaede clearly has at least one other person handling the camera work when he gives his sermons before audiences.

Interestingly, the new video quickly shows where Mr. Gaede misunderstands Time Dilation.  Not surprisingly, it has to do with a definition of a word.  The word is "year."  At about the 2:15 mark in the 4¼  minute video, Mr. Gaede explains that "a year has always been defined as one revolution of the Earth around the Sun."  And he asks if the Earth went around the Sun one time or 50 times during the traveler's trip into space.  "It certainly couldn't be both," Mr. Gaede observes.  And then he preposterously argues that the traveling twin said that the Earth went around the Sun only once.   Of course, the traveling twin never said any such thing.  He said he aged one year.

The Earth went around the Sun 50 times for BOTH twins.  Using the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as a clock is very much like the way I describe using a pulsar to keep time on my Time Dilation web page.  But, Mr. Gaede somehow seems to think that the Earth could only have gone around the Sun once if the traveling twin only aged "one year."  He concludes his new YouTube video with this: 

Someone might ask, "Where's the catch?  GPS would not work if the twin paradox were to be found to be wrong."

That "catch" lies in the fact that Relativity is offering an irrational physical interpretation to an observation.  Irrational explanations are the sole province of religion.  It does not follow that the Earth goes around the Sun fifty times for one sibling and one time for his twin simply because a clock runs slower or faster in outer space.     

It's more mumbo jumbo having to do with what is "rational" and what is "irrational" according to RSMers.  And it is suspiciously similar to the recent discussion I had with "Clapton" on my blog page about Time Dilation. "Clapton" also argued that Einstein and I were saying that Time Dilation is caused by a clock running slow.  "Clapton" wrote:

"The analogy is perfectly valid: if "Time Dilation" is caused by slowed down clocks, then "Space Expansion" is caused by a shrunken yardstick.
It's the same thing." 

Of course, no one claimed that Time Dilation is caused by "slowed down clocks." Previously, I thought that "Clapton" was "DXer" using a different name.  Now this new evidence seems to very strongly indicate that "Clapton" was actually Bill Gaede.  It seems highly unlikely two people could have that same bizarre misunderstanding about what causes Time Dilation while at the same time having a fixed and inviolate definition of the word "year."

No one said that the Earth went around the Sun a different number of times for one twin than the other.  Just the opposite.  Time Dilation says that the Earth went around the Sun the same number of times for both twins, BUT the traveling twin physically aged only one year while the stationary twin aged 50 years. 

For Mr. Gaede, however, his apparent word-based religion says the word "year" is sacred and a twin cannot "age" 1 "year" while the Earth orbits 50 times.  It is evidently blasphemous to claim the traveling twin "aged" 1 "year" when the word "year" decrees that he MUST have aged 50 years, just like his twin.

Yes, both twins aged 50 "years," based upon the number of times that the Earth went around the Sun, but the traveling twin could OBSERVE the Earth traveling faster based upon how time was measured aboard his space ship.  This is where "Clapton" argued that two different "standards" for one year were being used.  To Mr. "Clapton," fifty years passed for both twins, based upon the "standard" he uses for one year, and that is all that is important. 

I countered by arguing,

NO, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THE CLOCK THAT MOVED SHOWS LESS TIME HAS PASSED THAN THE CLOCK THAT DID NOT MOVE.

It EXPLAINS why clocks run slower on satellites than on earth. It EXPLAINS why muons traveling at high speed exist longer than muons traveling at slower speeds. It EXPLAINS why an atomic clock flown across the Atlantic on an airplane will show less time has passed than a clock that did NOT move.

You appear to be arguing that you do not want any explanations. The only thing you seem to care about is that the clock that did not move is the "CORRECT" time.

No one is arguing against your belief. I'm just trying to EXPLAIN the scientific concept of Time Dilation and why it happens. Time Dilation EXPLAINS things that happen in the universe. If you do not care about such things, then why argue with people who want to understand science?

It appears that this is an "irrational physical interpretation" for Mr. Gaede.  To be "rational" one can have only one definition for "year" and one definition for "aged."  Definitions are sacred and to use them incorrectly is blasphemous and "irrational."  A NEW WORD is needed to describe the physical change and the different view of Time the traveling twin experienced.  Thou shalt no use "year," and thou shalt not use "age," since RSMers hold those words to be sacred and their definitions cannot be violated.

Among truly "rational" people, of course, some common ground could be found.  But the RSMers have blocked me from posting to their Facebook page, and the ability to post comments has been disabled for the new video.  That way they do not need to discuss anything or answer any questions.  On the RSMer Facebook page, Mr. Gaede wrote this:

Einstein's Twin Paradox should be used to measure the level of idiocy of people. If you accept that a traveler will be 50 years younger than his twin brother simply because he travels fast, we violate not only the definition of the word 'twin', but more importantly of the word 'year'. Anyone believing this nonsense is really hopelessly hypnotized by authority.

He makes it very clear: To RSMers, words are sacred and inviolate.  Period.

"Idiots" like me and Albert Einstein should have used different words.  Of course, RSMers have the final authority on how every word is defined.  So, in effect, all explanations of real science are forbidden by the RSM word priests.

How can you communicate or discuss anything with a Truther who believes his definition of a word is the only valid definition (i.e. "the truth"), and he creates his own definitions for key words used in science?


Ed

Rational Scientific Method Analyzed

A description of "The Rational Scientific Method" (RSM) can be viewed by clicking HERE.

The more I think about the RSM, the more irrational it seems.  So, I've created this blog page to see if any RSM advocate can answer questions about their "method."  From recent experiences, it appears that they would rather pull out their fingernails than to explain anything.  They feel it is all explained at the above link.  I attempted to ask some questions on their Facebook page HERE, but they just started attacking me personally, and then they deleted the entire discussion (claiming I had somehow deleted it).  That left me with lots of questions but no way  to ask them.  So, I'll ask them here, with the hope that some RSM advocate will respond.  If not, maybe someone else can figure it out.


What is the RSM supposed to accomplish?

The "mainstream" scientific method is for finding answers to questions. You BEGIN with a question. That is Step #1.

Step #1 in the RSM is to create an hypothesis. An hypothesis about WHAT? Just any old hypothesis for the fun of it?

It appears that the RSM "hypothesis" is the first step in coming up with a BELIEF. But, from what I see from RSM advocates, it could also simply be a way of coming up with an alternative argument to a scientific finding by "the establishment." If so, Step #1 should be "Find an establishment theory to dispute."

Obviously, the objective is NOT to find a BETTER theory. No attempt is made to explain how or why the RSM theory is better. It is only to find a theory that the theorist can VISUALIZE, believe in, and use to ARGUE against "the establishment."

The value of such a "method" appears to be ZERO. It accomplishes NOTHING except to create a basis for endless arguing against "the establishment."

The Rational Scientific Method" seems neither rational, nor scientific, nor a method.

To be a method, the STEPS should be described. What is "Step 1"? The word "step" isn't even used in "The Rational Scientific Method." It first appears in the introduction to "The Gaedean Scientific Method" where it seems to say that the "GAEDEAN method" "consists of three steps: 1) hypothesis, 2) theory, 3) conclusions." It's anyone's guess what the steps are in the "Rational Scientific Method."

In the "mainstream" scientific method, Step #1 is to "Ask a question." Step #2 is to do research into possible answers to the question. Step #3 is to construct an hypothesis answer to the question based upon the research. Step #4 is to TEST the hypothesis with experiments. If it fails the experiments, you go back to Step #3 and revise the hypothesis. Only when you pass all experiments do you go to Step #5 which is to publish the "theory" that answers the original question.

It appears the both the "Rational Scientific Method" AND " The Gaedean Scientific Method" skip those first two steps and go straight to creating an hypothesis.

It appears that the hypothesis is really a BELIEF, which is then justified with exhibits, definitions of terms used, and a statement of facts and/or assumptions.

Somehow, the hypothesis is then turned into a "theory" Step #2 is to create a theory based upon the exhibits, the definitions and the assumptions. How the "hypothesis" differs from the "theory" is not clear. There's a diagram missing, but it seems that SPECULATION is added to the "hypothesis" to turn it into a "theory."

The key point in creating a "theory" using the "Gaedean method" seems to be to create something that is "VISUALISABLE." It appears that that means it CANNOT be a mathematical equation, it MUST be an illustration or a series of illustrations, i.e., "the Universal Movie inferred from assumptions and reasoning." My attempt to decipher "The Rational Scientific Method" results in the same thing: The result MUST be "visualisable."

The final "step" is not called a "step," for some reason it's called "Stage 3" in the Gaedean method. Stage #3 is "CONCLUSIONS." And it says reaching this point "Tells us what experimentation or data we may need to verify the theory."

So, evidently tests and experiments are done AFTER you have come up with a theory. That seems to confirm that all you have is a BELIEF that your personal logic accepts as valid.

"Stage 3: Conclusions" also contains this point: "Multiple opinions may be formed and debated over, given that both parties forming these opinions accept the theory."

There's no explanation for what that means. But, "The Rational Scientific Method" ends with this: "Once the theory is presented, science is done! The conclusion is left up to each individual." And this is stated earlier, "Conclusion: possible or not possible? Everyone decides for themselves."

That would appear to an outsider to be neither scientific, nor rational. Scientists do not decide for themselves if something is possible or not possible. They produce EVIDENCE to show whether something is possible or not possible.

The Rational Scientific Method says, "Belief, truth, evidence, and proof are not part of the [rational] scientific method."

If there is no need for evidence, the Rational Scientific Method is NOT rational nor scientific.

Ed

Science Truthers

I looked into the "scientific" theories believed by various "Science Truthers," i.e., people who believe that only they know "the truth" about some scientific subject.  My 13 years of research into the anthrax attacks of 2001 had shown that each Anthrax Truther seems to have his own theory explaining who was behind those attacks. The only thing they have in common with other Anthrax Truthers is that they all disagree with the "established authority" (in that case it is the FBI).  So, I wanted to see if the same holds true with Science Truthers.  They clearly all disagree with the established scientific authorities (in this case it is Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking, etc., etc.).  But, does that mean they also all have their own unique scientific theories?  Apparently so.

The first Science Truther I had researched was Bill Gaede, who did presentations of his theories at the 2rd annual "Rational Physics Conference" in Salzburg, Austria, in April 2014.  In one of the videos of the presentations, he explains his theory that the moon held in orbit by invisible "ropes" instead of by gravity.

The next Science Truther I researched was "Mr. W," who sent me an email to make me aware of his theories and his blog.  One of his theories is that the earth is a "dead sun" that was wandering through the universe and just happened to join together with other "dead suns" to form the solar system.  According to Mr. W's theory, the Sun was the last or one of the last objects to join the solar system, which is evidenced by the fact that it is still glowing and is not yet "dead."

Then I researched Dr. Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla, who I had come across when I was doing research for my web page about Time Dilation.  He has his own web page on the subject.  Like most Science Truthers, Dr. Srinivasa rants on and on about how all the "mainstream scientists" who accept Albert Einstein's theories are "stupid."  But, I never tried to figure out what theory Dr. Srinivasa promotes that is not accepted by those "mainstream scientists."  One of his theories is that the long-abandoned theory that space is not empty, but is filled with a medium known as the "ether" (or "aether").  Dr. Srinivasa believes that ancient theory is totally valid and should be resurrected. 

Another Science Truther whose name I'd come across when researching Time Dilation is Mr. Bernard Burchell.  I discovered he believes in something he calls "Propellantless Propulsion."  It seems a little like "perpetual motion," but my purpose wasn't to debunk his theory, it was only to figure out what unique theory he is promoting.

Another Science Truther whose name I'd come across while researching Time Dilation is Dr. Thomas Smid.  His web site is very difficult to wade through, and he doesn't seem to have any specific page where he explains some primary and unique theory that conflicts with "the establishment's" theories, but he writes a lot about an "intergalactic plasma," which, among other effects, causes the "red shift" that the "establishment" says is caused by galaxies moving away from one another (the original discovery behind the Big Bang Theory).  I found a web page about "Alternative Cosmology" which says: 

Plasma Redshift Theory

The Plasma Redshift Theory has been advocated by a number of independent researchers. It is most notably supported by Ari Brynjolfsson in a number of papers in fringe physics journals describing his theory (see here and here). Thomas Smid has a variant of the theory based on the activity of plasma fields. Robin Whittle also has a website describing the theory. The theory should not be confused as a "tired light" interpretation of the redshift. The plasma redshift theories deny the need for black holes, dark matter and dark energy. The only supporters of these theories seem to be Electric Universe theorists, such ideas are considered fringe physics by the scientific community.

Stephen J. Crothers was another speaker at the 2nd Rational Physics Conference in Salzburg.  A little more research found that he doesn't believe that black holes exist.  That belief might not be totally unique, but it's short enough to fit one of the "talk balloons," so I used it.

Dr. Hartwig Wolfgang Thim was another speaker at the conference in Salzburg.  His unique theory is that Albert Einstein's light speed postulate is illogical.  In a video HERE, he explains that Time Dilation is also not logical.  His reasoning is a strange misunderstanding of Einstein's Theory of Relativity that seems to be shared by many Science Truthers.  (I created a blog page about it.)  He incorrectly argues that, according to Einstein, either twin in the "Twin Paradox" could be moving, so it is not logical that one can end up older than the other.

That left one last "talk balloon" to fill in my cartoon.  So, I researched Alexander Unzicker, another person who gave a talk at the conference in Salzburg.  His big unique belief appears to be that String Theory is nonsense, and all the scientists who believe in it have been "brainwashed."  At the conference in Salzburg, his talk was titled "The Higgs Fake – How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee."  The belief that String Theory is fake fitted the space available in my cartoon, so I used it.

The resulting cartoon is shown at the top of this thread.

What my research showed me was that I could easily have added a couple dozen more unique theories to the cartoon, if there was room.  Judging by what I see on the Wiki page about "Alternative Cosmology," and on their page about "cranks," I could probably add a few hundred more theories to the cartoon.

They don't seem to believe in any conspiracies, and they don't seem to think there is any kind of sinister organized plot to try to convince the world to believe what the Truthers see is nonsense.  The Science Truthers just think all the mainstream scientists in the world are stupid.  And they probably believe their fellow Truthers are screwed-up about some things, too.   Each Truther apparently sees himself as the lone exception, the only truly gifted person with a unique and brilliant theory that the "mainstream scientists" stupidly refuse to accept as the gospel truth. 

Ed

Time Dilation: Reality versus Relativity

In my arguments with people who do not believe that Time Dilation works, I've discovered that they do not seem to be able to distinguish between reality and Relativity.

Reality is about what is actually happening.  Relativity is about what is perceived to be happening.

Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was intended to show that reality can be very different from what is perceived.  The purpose of the paper was to explain two things: (1) The laws of physics are the same throughout the known universe, and (2) the speed of light is fixed and does not change if someone is moving.  He was disproving a theory that the laws of physics can change under certain circumstances and the theory that the speed of light can change under certain circumstances.  He explained that it is only one's perception that changes under those circumstances.

Time Dilation works in reality.  If a clock, person or object moves very fast (or moves closer to a massive gravity source), time will slow down for that clock, person or object.

In the famous (or infamous) "Twin Paradox" hypothesis created by Paul Langevin (but usually blamed on Albert Einstein), one twin travels in a space ship at speeds near the speed of light while the other twin remains stationary on Earth.  When the traveling twin returns to earth, he is much younger than the stationary twin.  That hypothesis was based upon Albert Einstein's clock hypothesis in his 1905 paper which says,

If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B 

In other words, you start with two stationary clocks (A & B) that show the exact same time.
Clock A is moved at high velocity to be beside Clock B.
Clock A no longer shows the same time as Clock B.  Clock A shows less time has passed.
How much less time has passed depends upon the velocity of the move. 

This experiment works in reality and has been repeatedly demonstrated with atomic clocks of various kinds.  Click HERE, HERE and HERE for examples.
 
Relativity is about how effects like Time Dilation are perceived while moving very fast.  The twin who took the trip at speeds near the speed of light would have perceived that everything aboard the space ship was working normally at normal speeds.  If he has no windows on his space ship, he would not perceive any of the effects of the slowing down of time.  That does not mean the traveling twin will believe that he is standing still or that time is passing at the same rate for him as for his brother.  He'll know what is actually happening, just as, in today's world, if he was in an airplane flying at 550 miles per hour, time for him would be running slower a fraction of a microsecond per hour than for someone on the ground.  These examples are just illustrations to show that someone can be moving very fast on a space ship while the visible evidence may indicate that he is not moving at all.  And time may have slowed down for him, but he'll perceive no effects of it while knowing that the effects will be very apparent when he returns to earth.   

The people with whom I've been arguing seem to become confused when a scientist explains how things are perceived when one person is moving and the other is stationary, or when two people view each other while both are moving. The problem seems to be that scientists make no attempt to explain what is actually happening when discussing Relativity.  They only talk about what is perceived to be happening.  And they let those listeners who are confused fall by the wayside.

The biggest arguments are over an imaginary event where two space ships pass each other in some remote and empty part of space.  Each pilot perceives his ship as stationary and the other ship as moving.  Each pilot perceives the clocks aboard his ship as working normally, while the other ship's clocks may be perceived as running slow.  In reality, of course, each pilot would know his speed relative to earth (and to the speed of light) and he'll be able to calculate the other pilot's speed.

Each pilot will also know that, even though all the clocks on his ship are perceived to be operating normally, they are all running slow relative to clocks on earth.

He'd know that even though the beam of light in his light-based clock is perceived as going straight up and down, in reality it is traveling at angles, making a \ as it goes down and / as it goes up because of the high speed of his space ship and the fixed speed of the beam of light.  He would also know if he was aboard an aircraft flying at 550 miles per hour, and if he tossed a ball into the air and caught it again two seconds later, he would perceive the ball as going straight up and down.  That doesn't mean he would believe the ball went straight up and down.  He would know it went up at an angle and came down at an angle, moving about 1,614 feet laterally with the airplane during those two seconds.

And he'll know the pilot on the other space ship is perceiving similar things aboard his space ship.

At least, that's how I understand Time Dilation and Special Relativity.

Ed