Proposed test for light-speed symmetry

It is said that we don’t know the actual speed of light going from a source to a target; we know only the two-way speed going from a source to a target and reflecting back to the source.  Conceivably light is faster in one direction than the other.  Perhaps one could test whether light has the same speed in opposite directions by use of the spinning photosensitive disc illustrated below.

The idea is to send a pulse of light simultaneously leftward and rightward from a single, middle source over a fast spinning photosensitive disc.  If the disc spins fast enough, the light pulse should leave an arc shaped mark on each side, left and right.  If light’s leftward and rightward speeds differ, then the arc will be flatter on the side of faster light speed, like the purple-dot path compared to the green-dot path.  One will not know which side is faster unless the light leaves a side-specific signature, eg a left-right color difference.  Also, an analogous experiment could be done with a  fast-moving photo-sensitive sheet instead of disk.  Perhaps the spinning disc or moving sheet could be an electronic equivalence rather than massive objects, given the speeds implied.

         In this illustration, the disc made one quarter rotation as a light pulse (green dots) went from center to left edge and from center to right edge.  It is depicted as it was at the end of that quarter turn.  The purple dots show the path of the right-side pulse if it were twice as fast.  They advanced with the disc as the slower and later (green) exposures occurred.

        Considering the speed of light relative to the speed of a matter disc, this experiment would require extremely fine resolution, since the disc would advance only a few atoms as the light pulse traveled from middle to edge.  But such resolution may be possible, as it was achieved in the LIGO gravity-wave sensor.

Seven steps to better governance

 1.  In the House of Representatives and Senate, every vote should be held twice, once in secret and once overt.  In the secret vote, every member would choose what he/she believes will make America stronger and more just.  In the overt vote, every member would vote as traditionally influenced by the party leaders.  Only the overt vote would be official, but the difference should be discussed. 

2.  Double the fairness of the electoral college by giving each state as many electors as it has representatives plus one (not plus two).

3.  Devise a more just drawing of representative districts by using a computer program that minimizes distance traveled by voters to their polling places.

4.  Each year after a revision of the tax table by congress, change the tax table 10% back toward its previous values each year that the deficit is greater than before the revision.

5.  Place a 1% tax on each person’s net worth above one million.  Alternatively do what Elizabeth Warren proposes.

6.  Modify items 4 and 5 so as to keep interest on the national debt less than half of the military budget.

7.  Restore original Senate procedures: Simple majority and one-person live filibuster.

Democrats don’t do dirt

Democrats don’t do dirt.  If they did dirt, Hillary Clinton would have been our 45th president.  For example, when Trump began crowding Clinton on the debate stage, she might have said: “Don’t come so close when your diapers are so full”; or “Don’t crowd people when you need a diaper change!”   And in the present race, when people question Biden’s physical and mental stamina, he could point out that he (Biden) doesn’t wear diapers, in contrast to Trump.  Democrats could have people outside the courthouse to ask Trump whether he needs a diaper change or whether he has considered the prospect of changing his diaper in a jail cell for violating the gag rule.

Proposed Internet law

The promoter of a given product must halve the frequency of messages about that product to a given url for each week said messages to said url go unanswered.

The value of email has been greatly diminished by spam.  My children have stopped checking their email because their inbox is so full of irrelevant messages.  They don't have the time to go through and delete the spam or to identify it as spam for automatic sorting.

Therefore, I propose the above law with means to punish offenders.