The Federal Government Is Tracking the Unvaccinated
The U.S. government has been secretly tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, as well as those who aren’t up to date on their shots. Worse, it is recording the reason why
Now that the program has been widely adopted, know why it’s being done and how you can outsmart it.
As recently discovered and reported by Dr. Robert Malone,1 the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID jab, or are only partially jabbed, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The program was implemented on April 1, 2022,2 but didn’t become universally adopted by most medical clinics and hospitals across the United States until January 2023.
Under this program, doctors at clinics and hospitals have been instructed to ask patients about their vaccination status, which is then added to their electronic medical records as a diagnostic code, known as ICD-10 code, without their knowledge or consent so that they can be tracked—not just within the health care system but outside of it as well.
Secret Tracking Program Revealed
The new International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were introduced during the Sept. 14–15, 2021, ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting. The ICD committee includes representatives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the NCHS.3
Below is a screenshot of page 194 of the agenda4 distributed during that meeting. According to the NCHS, “there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized,” and they figured out a way to do just that, by adding new ICD-10 codes.
As you can see below, ICD-10 code Z28.310 identifies those who have not received a COVID jab and Z28.311 identifies those who are not up to date on their shots.
Tracking Unjabbed Is Part of the Biosecurity Agenda
Why do they want to track the unvaccinated? For what purpose? The short answer: to facilitate the implementation of vaccine passports.
As noted by Malone:5
“Code Number Z28.310 listed above is not a code for an illness or diagnosis, but rather for noncompliance of a medical procedure … Once a person’s vaccination status is coded and uploaded into [a] large data base, it can be accessed by government and private health insurers alike.
“The administrative state officers at the CDC have not made immunization status a reportable disease (yet) but immunization status is listed as one of the reasons for mandatory reporting.6
They are just one step away from being able to collect this information without your permission. Ergo: Vaccine passports made easy. In this country, not having your vaccine records ‘up to date’ might mean:
“• The government will not restrict your travel, airlines will.
“• The government will not restrict your travel, other nations will.
“• The government will not restrict your travel, auto rental companies will.
“• The government will not restrict your travel, public transport will.
“• The government will not restrict your travel, private companies will.”
World Health Organization Signed Off on Tracking Codes
The ICD codes were created by the World Health Organization (WHO), and doctors—except those in private practice who don’t accept insurance—are required to use these codes to describe a patient’s condition and the care they received during their visit.
As noted by Malone,7 the fact that the ICD system is run by the WHO is an important detail, as this means the WHO had to authorize the CDC to add these new codes. The implication is that these codes may be in use internationally and we just don’t know it yet.
The codes are entered into your electronic health record and used by insurance companies for billing purposes. They’re also used by statisticians who track and analyze national and global disease trends such as cancer and heart disease rates over time.
Over the past decade, these statistical analyses have gotten easier to do, thanks to the transition into electronic record keeping. In the United States, the ICD coding system has been fully integrated into the electronic health record system since 2012.
Within the ICD-10 codes, there’s a category called ICD-10-CM,8,9 and this is the category the CDC is now using to track the unvaccinated with specific codes for “Unvaccinated for COVID-19”10 and “Partially Vaccinated for COVID-19.”11
Gross Violation of Medical Privacy Rights
Since there’s no billing or payment involved with being unvaccinated, and since being unvaccinated is extremely unlikely to be part of your disease profile, there’s no valid reason to record anyone’s vaccine refusal. It’s also a violation of medical privacy, as the records can be accessed by a variety of individuals and not just your personal doctors.
As noted by Malone, a person’s decision to get a vaccine or not is a private matter, and your privacy rights are enshrined in the Privacy Act of 1974. However, during the COVID pandemic, medical privacy rights have been repeatedly violated and broken.
Children’s vaccination statuses were shared with schools, and employers were granted the “right” to know the jab status of their employees. Private venues were even permitted to demand proof of vaccination status—all this without a single word of the law having been revoked or amended.
They’re Tracking Reasons for Jab Refusal, Too
If you need proof that these codes will be used for reasons unrelated to your health, consider this: These institutions also using codes to describe WHY you didn’t get the primary series or stopped getting boosters. Those codes are listed in the screenshot below, under Z28.3 Underimmunization Status.12
The use of “delinquent immunization status” under code Z28.39 also tells us something about where this is all headed. “Delinquent” means being “neglectful of a duty” or being “guilty of an offense.”
Is refusing boosters a criminal offense? Perhaps not today, but someday, it probably will be.
All Missed Vaccinations Will Be Tracked
Another tip-off that these codes are part and parcel of the biosecurity control grid is the fact that code Z28.39—”Other underimmunization status”13—is to be used “when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.” As detailed on the American Academy of Family Physicians website:14
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have announced three new diagnosis codes, including two for COVID-19 immunization status …
“According to ICD-10-CM guidelines,15 clinicians may assign code Z28.310, ‘Unvaccinated for COVID-19,’ when the patient has not received a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.
“Clinicians may assign code Z28.311, ‘Partially vaccinated for COVID-19,’ when the patient has received at least one dose of a multidose COVID-19 vaccine regimen, but has not received the doses necessary to meet the CDC definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ at the time of the encounter …
New code Z28.39 is for reporting when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”
In other words, they have already begun tracking ALL of your vaccinations, not just the COVID shot, and they can use the Z28.3 sub-codes to identify why you refused a given vaccine.
Vaccine Passports Are a Fait Accompli—Unless We Act Now
As noted by Malone:16
“The administrative state is busy building a vaccine passport system that will be active before most Americans are aware of what is being done to them. No one is going to knock on your door asking for your vaccine status because they already know …
“They don’t need approval from Congress or the courts because we have given them the information through our health care providers. The CDC is the governmental organization tasked with tracking vaccine status on individuals.
“They already have the records, as well as updated booster information. They just need to tweak a definition here and there, or get President Biden to keep the COVID-19 public health emergency in place indefinitely and the vaccine passports will be a fait accompli.”
You Can Now Be Billed for Immunization Safety Counseling
As if all of that weren’t tyrannical enough, they’ve also added a billable ICD-10 code for “immunization safety counseling.” That’s right. If you’ve decided you’re not willing to partake in the mRNA experiment, or you just don’t think you need some other vaccine that’s recommended, your doctor can bill your insurance for regurgitating the WHO’s vaccine propaganda.
This may become more or less automatic because, again, they have codes identifying whether you declined the COVID jab and/or any other vaccine, and for each vaccine refusal, there’s a code detailing why you declined it. “Belief or group pressure” is one of those, and you can bet that code, Z.28.1, will automatically qualify you for immunization safety counseling, whether you want it or not.
They also intend to indoctrinate your children and make you pay for it. The immunization safety counseling code, Z71.85, was described in the September 2021 issue of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Pediatric Coding Newsletter. You have to be a member to read the entire article, but here’s the publicly available preview:17
“Reporting Encounters for Immunization Safety Counseling.
“As physicians and other qualified health care professionals field increasing numbers of concerns about immunization safety, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) offers a new code, Z71.85, for identifying immunization safety counseling as a reason for an encounter provided on or after Oct. 1, 2021.
“Use this code when reporting counseling provided to patients and caregivers who are vaccine hesitant, wish to follow an alternative immunization schedule, or otherwise require time spent in counseling at lengths beyond that typical of routine immunization counseling.
“Code Z71.85 may be reported to indicate the principal or first-listed reason for an encounter or as a secondary reason.
“Documentation of time spent in preventive medicine counseling and separate time spent in immunization administration counseling should be explicit in the encounter note to support that the preventive medicine counseling was significant and separately identifiable.”
Unjabbed Teachers Flagged
In related news, in early February 2023, it was revealed that New York City teachers who did not get the jab were “flagged” with a “problem code” in their personnel files, triggering their fingerprints to be sent to the FBI and the New York Criminal Justice Services.18
The purpose of this is unclear, but former public school teacher Michael Kane, founder of Teachers for Choice, believes “that unvaccinated NYC educators were being set up to be viewed as ‘right-wing extremists’ or even ‘terrorists.’”
Kane was among those who got fired for refusing the COVID jab. The revelation that teachers’ fingerprints were illegally entered into not just one, but two, criminal databases is “certain to open up a new round of lawsuits,” Kane writes.
Call to Action
Knowing all of this, what can you do about it? How do we stop this madness? Here are a few suggestions:
- Demand Congress finish what the Senate started by declaring the public health emergency over and done with. Jan. 17, 2023, HR 382, a bill “to terminate the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19” was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This bill must be passed.
- Contact your Congressional representative and let them know you:
- Support the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government’s investigation.
- Want Congress to reject all attempts by the administrative state, the United Nations, the WHO, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Biden Administration to require a vaccine passport or a digital ID.
- Expect them to work to ensure the freedom of travel for all citizens.
- Expect them to protect Constitutional rights.
- Expect them to protect all rights to privacy, including and especially medical privacy, and since these new ICD-10 codes violate your right to privacy, you want them to take immediate action to ensure the codes are revoked.
Concerning what you can do to protect your medical privacy on a personal level, keep in mind that independent doctors are not required to use ICD codes unless they accept insurance.
So by choosing a doctor who is in private practice, you can avoid getting tagged and trapped in the system.
References
- 1, 5, 7, 16 RW Malone Substack January 25, 2023
- 2 MLN Matters April 2022
- 3 CMS.gov ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting
- 4 CDC ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 14-15, 2021
- 6 MedlinePlus.gov Reportable Diseases
- 8 Healthcare Brew November 21, 2022
- 9 National File February 2, 2023
- 10 ICD10data Unvaccinated
- 11 ICD10data Partially vaccinated
- 12 Naked Emperor Substack January 27, 2023
- 13 ICD10data Underimmunization
- 14 AAFP New Diagnosis Codes
- 15 ICD-10-CM guidelines
- 17 AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter September 2021; 16(12)
- 18 Teachers for Choice February 9, 2023
See more here theepochtimes.com
Header image: Timetoast
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
Why the h*ll should I take an experimental poison to appease some damn government. Time to sort these governments out by any means necessary.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi VOWG and Herb,
Since you (VOWG) claim to be VERY OLD, do you know what a “Thermostat Wafer – For Incubators or Brooders” is? I ask this question because my spell checker does accept the spelling of “thermostat” but when I check a dictionary it does recognize this word but it considers the word to be a noun—“a device that automatically regulates temperature, or that activates a device when the temperature reaches a certain point.”
I make this comment because I have been stressing the importance of a scientist and not the importance of an inventor (a technologist). I claim to be a unique person because I have had unique experiences. On the farm where I grew up we had a brooder house and in it we had a kerosene stove with a thermostat wafer which controlled the temperature of the brooder house for the little chicks. One needs to Google “thermostat wafer’ to see how simple this devise seems to be as it controls the flow of the kerosene to the burner of the stove.
The scientific principle by which device works is that in the wafer is a sealed volume of air. Which principle we know is that a gas expands as its temperature increases. However, I also know that the atmospheric pressure varies. So I have pondered how the “wafer” had to have been more sensitive to the temperature of the exterior air than to the pressure of the exterior air? But I know this thermostat worked without any need to adjust for change in the atmospheric pressure. Of course I can also believe that the temperature of border house didn’t require that its temperature be kept within a degree F for the chicks to serve the freezing temperature outside the brooder house during the night time. Herb, could this be the answer to my questioning?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I would guess that it is the material the wafer is made of that is expanding and contracting to the change in temperature and that is what turns the switch on and off.
Electric motors are protected from burning out by metal strips which expand if there is too much heat from current flow and break the connection to the power supply.
H:erb
Reply
Howdy
| #
A bi-metal strip, where one metal expands more than the other thus causing the strip to bend, operating a switched contact, a valve, whatever. The old style incandescent fairy lights could have a lamp fitted that caused flashing, older florescent starters that ‘ping’ at switch on. Room thermostat. it was the same principle
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Howdy,
It seems both of you are consider the principle of the bimetallic strip which suggests neither of you have made an effort to see what the wafer actually looks like.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Howdy,
It seems both of you are consider the principle of the bimetallic strip which suggests neither of you have made an effort to see what the wafer actually looks like.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editors,
Again I have no idea what causes these double posts. But this time there was no copying and pasting involved as there was the last time. Therefore, I conclude this problem must be with PSI’s software.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editors,
Again I have no idea what causes these double posts. But this time there was no copying and pasting involved as there was the last time. Therefore, I conclude this problem must be with PSI’s software.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
You said a thermostat wafer from way back Jerry, there’s little else it could be. Post a link to a picture.
BTW, these things are not forgotten technology, they are still in very wide use.
Howdy
| #
Oh I see. It’s a flexible diaphragm that reacts to internal pressure, or maybe expanding wax, due to external temperature causing the moving diaphragm to push out as the temp climbs.
Not what one would term a wafer though, is it? More a capsule.
Howdy
| #
I searched for thermostat capsule, guess what turned up…
https://www.maceoinltd.com/ether-capsule-wafer-thermostat-3-inch
herb Rose
| #
Hi jerry,
in order for incubator to work the eggs must be kept in a narrow temperature range. This means any controller must have a high sensitivity to any temperature change. The expansion and contraction must be significant due to that small temperature change. Air or a small bimetallic strip would not be sensitive enough to work. The disc Howdy showed using ether or another volatile liquid for expansion would work but not any gas.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
First, hopefully this will end up after Herb’s last comment.
Secondly, I want to give Herb credit for a good idea which I had to ponder (reread a couple of times). And I cannot blame Herb’s writing for my failure to immediately understand his good idea.
For the temperature difference between the two different applications of the incubating the eggs and keeping the chicks warm after they hatch is likely more than 10F. So I consider that a few drops of water whose vapor pressure increases significantly between 0F and 100F, the likely maximum and minimum, temperatures of interest.
Good going Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
First, hopefully this will end up after Herb’s last comment.
Secondly, I want to give Herb credit for correcting my explanation of the “Thermostat Wafer”
Now I consider that a few drops of liquid water in the wafer, whose vapor pressure would increase significantly between say 70F and 100F, could be the volatile liquid that Herb suggests.
Good going Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I was able to look it up; you look it up and stop expecting others to help you. You are not helpless.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“stop expecting others to help you.”
Says the guy who couldn’t find the heavy sculptures he was on about and asked MattH or myself to do it…
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
Howdy, previous you had written “You said a thermostat wafer from way back Jerry”. Why are you now searching for a “thermostat capsule”?
However, I did forget to comment that at this earlier time on our farm we did not have rural electrical power.
And Readers, this seems as good a place as any to review the following.
R.C. Sutchffe in his Preface to his book Weather & Science began: “This is not a textbook on meteorology, neither a general introduction nor a formal course, but it has a serious purpose and that is to explain to the general reader what it is that meteorologists are doing and trying to do.” I was a physical chemistry graduate student in 1966 when his book was published, and it is my opinion that he accomplished his goal.
However, at times I conclude that he sometimes is confused and contradicts what he had previously written. For example, near the end of his first introductory chapter, page 13, he wrote: “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” Then in Chapter 5 (The Microphysics of Clouds), page 48, he wrote : “These results, obtained first by [C.T.R.] Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur …” Hence, it seems that Sutcliffe did not recognizes this conclusion was and is a very important “fundamental (basic) law” of natural meteorology.”
However, it seems that meteorologists have since .ignored that which Sutcliffe wrote, pages 33-34, in 1966. “It would be difficult to overstress the importance of clouds as the necessary intermediary between invisible vapor and falling precipitation in the water cycle upon which all land-life depends, but their importance by no means end here. Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a frosty night in winter. Taking an overall average, about 50 percent of the earth’s surface is covered with cloud at any time whereas precipitation if falling over no more than say 3 per cent. Non precipitating clouds are thus the common variety, rain clouds are the exception.”
If you look at (https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/salem/97301/weather-radar/330144) you will see that precipitation is clearly not falling over 50 percent of the earth’s surface.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Why are you now searching for a “thermostat capsule”
Because I would not deem that device a wafer.
I guess I should have paid more attention to your first post Jerry. I wouldn’t have gone off on a tangent.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In this good discussion about the “Thermostat Wafer” I had asked—Do any of you have experience with Kerr canning jar lids?—and no one replied.
This comment is a about what is written on the lid of a glass jar of Walls Berry Farm of Strawberry Preserves . Which lid has been designed and manufactured like the Kerr canning jar lid. “Button pops when original seal is broken.” When the button is pushed down there is a “POP” and when the button is released there is another very similar “POP because”.
I is easy to see that the top of the lid is not “flat”. The lid has been stressed by circular bends made during its manufacture so there are two non-equilibrium positions which are stable—either up or down—and the vertical movement at the lid’scenter is significant. Hence, the thermostat wafer’s two surfaces are stressed to POP when the difference between the interior sealed gas pressure and the exterior atmospheric pressure becomes great enough as the interior pressures slowly changes. And the designed stress is great enough that a change of normal exterior atmospheric pressure change would not cause the “Thermostat Wafer” to “POP” or not “POP”
Have a good day
Reply
Frank S.
| #
There are “off the book” alternatives to diagnosis and treatments of most ills through
Medics, Nurses, Veterinarians, etc. There are “off the books” alternatives to most medicines through homeopathic, naturopathic practitioners, supplements and compounds.
Reply
Typhus
| #
There are other off the Allopathic paradigm modes of approaches to treatments…besides those named.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In his preface to the readers of Galileo’s famous book Louis Elzevir wrote: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
INTUITIVE: “using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive”
KNOWLEDGE: “awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation” New Oxford American Dictionary
REASONING: “the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way” New Oxford American Dictionary
LOGICAL: “of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument” New Oxford American Dictionary
EXPERIENCE: “practical contact with and observation of facts or events” New Oxford American Dictionary
EQUILIBRIUM: “a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced” New Oxford American Dictionary
NONE: “by no amount; not at all” New Oxford American Dictionary
NON-EQUILIBRIUM: “a state in which opposing forces or influences are NOT balanced” My Definition
STATE: “the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time” New Oxford American Dictionary
SUBTLE: “(especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe” New Oxford American Dictionary
And finally the word: science
SCIENCE: “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained” New Oxford American Dictionary
In this definition of SCIENCE I do not see the words LOGICAL or LOGIC or ARGUMENT. Many who claim to be scientists frequently use these words. Even Galileo extensively used argument in his attempt to establish the validity of his observations and experimental results.
And we can read that Galileo refused to accept the validity of Tycho Brahe’s astronomical observations and Johannes Keplers rigid mathematical analysis of these quantitative observations which Kepler’s analysis disclosed the Brahe’s measured data better fit the mathematical ellipse than the mathematical circle. And, of course, we know that Galileo was wrong.
I make this comment because much of what you read here at PSI is clearly stated to be an argument. Hence, it is not SCIENCE.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, Howdy, VOWG and PSI Readers,
When I drew attention to the ‘Thermostat Wafer – For Incubators or Brooders’ I believed I understand how it functioned. We know that I didn’t know and now I believe that none of us probably understand it like the person who invented it for a specific purpose. We seldom, if ever, discuss “Inventors” here at PSI.
INVENTOR: “a person who invented a particular process or device.” New Oxford American Dictionary
INVENT: “create or design (something that has not existed before)” New Oxford American Dictionary
While “inventor” got me nowhere, “invent’ certainly did. How does one see something that does not exist? is a question which deserves some consideration. I am having trouble understanding how a thermostat wafer functions but an inventor saw how to design something (it) which did not exist. Hence, I must consider that an inventor has a unique and rare special talent beyond that of a scientists who merely tries to observe that which exists.
However, as I pondered how the inventor could invent that which did not exist, I began to see that the inventor could see “things” which suggested that a device that was needed to control air temperature at a consistent, narrow range of temperature as Herb stated. Which, such a consistent narrow range of temperature, I believe Herb knows is not naturally normal. For I believe Herb and most everyone knows, by observation, that the temperature of air is usually constantly changing because the atmospheric (air) system is not usually in an equilibrium state. Instead, it is in a non-equilibrium state.
I stop here to ask a question. Could the inventor of the thermostat wafer have designed a device which “snapped” from one non-equilibrium state to another non-equilibrium state as the air temperature changed?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
The device is progressive, Jerry It’s diaphragm simply moves outward as rapidly as the temperature goes up.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and others.
Yes and then what? Do any of you have experience with Kerr canning jar lids?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Then what? it pushes against a valve controlling the flow, and thus the temperature.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Nearly every one I found is on an adjustable thread and operates a microswitch.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Still used in gas cookers with remote sense:
https://youtu.be/ku11GL__PXY?t=455
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have, in my house, a thermostat on the wall that controls the temperature in my house. It works by a circular spring with a glass bulb attached to the end containing mercury and two exposed wires. As the temperature changes the spring expands or contacts tilting the mercury capsule.. When the mercury flows onto the ends of the wires it completes a circuit turning on or off a furnace or air conditioner. The sensitivity or how many degrees of change are needed to tilt the bulb depends on the length of the spring and the metal it is made from.
Old cars use to have disk thermostats that controlled the flow of cooling liquid to the engine. They also had one in the radiator for when the coolant got too hot a valve would open and the radiator would boil over. The temperature at which these thermostats activated depended on the liquid in them and by changing that liquid the temperature at which the engine operated could be adjusted. There is never an equilibrium state but changing states. A thermostat is an’ on-off switch sensitive to temperature.
You need to stop saying that science is observation. Observation is done with the eye and provides the what. Science is done with the brain and attempts to answer the how and why.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I am beginning a series of brief comments in an effort to stimulate your thoughts. I title this series Words Have Meanings (Definitions).
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s book—Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences—in his preface to the readers of this book wrote: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” As translated to English by Henry Crew & Alfonso de Salvio from the Italian that Galileo had originally written.
I know I think and ponder by using words. I cannot speak for others but I assume this is the case (true) for other people. A more recent scientist than Galileo has been Albert Einstein and he wrote down some of his thoughts which I like to ponder.
The first two which I have copied in my list of quotes is: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” And, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” The first I believe I have long understood but the second I believe I have only recently grasped. Hence, this brief simple explanation. Which is the definition of the words “ELEMENTARY” and “SCIENCE”.
elementary | ˌeləˈment(ə)rē |
adjective
1 relating to the basic elements of a subject
2 straightforward and uncomplicated
3 not able to be decomposed into elements or other primary constituents
(New Oxford American Dictionary)
science | ˈsīəns |
noun
1 the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained
(New Oxford American Dictionary)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
While it might not seem this is a continuation of the series of brief comments I just have begun. However it is brief and demonstrates the simple importance of PSI; a scientific journal where articles are peer-reviewed and can be easily accessed (for free) years after they were initially published.
(https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
First, I see the this comment was not submitted here like I intended. So it is now.
Since we are aware of the early history of the philosophers who debated in Athens Greece several centuries before ONE AD, I ask: how many 50 or 70 year extreme cold periods had been experienced (observed) there during the period between the death of Socrates (470?-399 B.C.) and the Maunder Minimum (1645-1710 A.D.)? For while one must admit that quantitative thermometers had not been invented before this long historic period, water still froze at 32F (0C) and below.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
One of my Einstein quotes, which I have had trouble understanding, is: “The secret to creatively is knowing how to hide your sources.” My first question was: To whom or to what is he referring?
I speculate that the answer to the first question is himself. And that the answer to the second question is the question: Can gravity bend light?. For it seems he was the first to propose and ponder this original (creative) question. However this does not answer a further question I asked myself: what source did he hide? I now speculate that this source was the importance of asking questions.
For I expect Einstein knew about the first notable teacher of history—Socrates. For while Socrates is also generally considered a Greek Philosopher, a historical fact seems to be that he taught by only asking questions. Hence, no one, to this day, really knows what Socrates’ philosophy actually was and what Socrates actually KNEW.
The next two quotes tell us what Socrates actually knew: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.” And “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
As serious error: In the last paragraph Socrates should be Einstein
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
When I began this series of brief comments I didn’t know where I was headed. Just as I don’t know when my life will end. However, I believe I was created for a purpose just as Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. and every other human has been. I now see what Einstein was doing as he tried to correct the mistakes that he had observed other scientists were commonly making without offending them.
“Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.” Einstein knew that he, as a patent clerk, had written the novel ideas for which he won a Nobel Prize using the observations and measurements that others had made.
Another of the many things which I had not seen when I began this series, was that Einstein (Swiss), Louis Agassiz (Swiss) could probably read Italian just as the Dutch publisher, Louis Elzevir, of Galileo’s book and Fermi could. So it seems probable that any scientists, who could read Italian, were not handicapped as the English science students, who could not read Italian, have been. For one cannot know the value of what Galileo did and wrote unless one reads his book in a familiar language.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Reades,
I have drawn attention to: “If you can’t explain if simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Is obviously related to the first. What is “not simpler”?
I have already referred to the value of asking questions. But a question has no value if the question is immediately answered by the person asking the question. So anyone reading this must share their answer with other readers and other readers need to have a conversation about what a possible answer might be. For this is the only way Socratic instruction (teaching) can work.
However, I have asked myself this question and by trying to answer it, I see exactly to what common mistake Einstein is trying to get those making the mistake to see. So if this worked for me, maybe it will work for you.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In my collection of relatively old science books I recently discovered a 1988 book titled Weather Systems by Leslie F. Musk. Even though I recognize my writing in it I have no memory of when I acquired this ‘small’ (155 pages) book.
Near the end of its 3 page Introduction I read: “It is intended to provide A-level Geography students and those in first-year courses in higher education with a book a basic knowledge of the structure of weather systems, the processes operating within the systems, and how they evolve over time—the bread’ and butter’ of the modern climatologist.”
On the 4th page (actually page 8) is the 2nd chapter title “The structure and composition of the atmosphere” and the text begins: “The earth is not quite a sphere, it is technically an oblate spheroid, with a radius which varies from 6.356/9 km at the poles to 6.378.4 km at the equator. The slight difference is due to the centrifugal effect of the spinning of the planet which causes the equatorial budge. However, the earth is approximately spherical; the highest mountain is less than 10 km high, which is less than 0.2% of the mean radius of the earth, and are therefore relatively insignificant in global terms.”
However, if one were to climb the 10 km mountain, I am sure one would find that a 10 km mountain is not insignificant. And, if one subtracts 6.356.9 km from 6.378.4 km one discovers that the equator is about 22 km higher than a pole. More than twice the height of the highest mountain. Is this difference insignificant?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Moffin sent me this (https://www.ventusky.com/?p=1;102;1&l=temperature-water) link. It is a great link and a great example of a FUNDAMENTAL problem in the study of meteorology and atmosphere’s circulation. This problem is TWO MUCH DATA (TMD); a reason many do not study actual data..
Because of TMD one is presented with the question of where to start when is confronted with this TMD. I would advise one to use the + button and move the image to where one lives which eliminates much of this TMD. The first thing one needs to verify is the MAGIC that reports the air temperature at 2 meters above the ground from a satellite observation with that which that you measure in your yard or a park. Compare the cloud data with that which one sees when one looks up. For if one questions the validity of the data, one should not waste time studying that which one does not believe.
Soon after WWII many nations began to make atmospheric observations from atmospheric sounding balloons (ASB) because during the war the Japanese launched hydrogen balloons carrying incendiary devices from Japan and more than a 1000 were found to have landed in the USA. Hence, the existence of atmospheric jet streams (AJS) and global atmospheric circulation (GAC) was established. So after the war many nations began ASB projects which followed the movements of the balloons with radar.
I have compared the TMD with the ASB data and they agree within practical experimental error. So the first thing I began to study was the wind speed at 12000 meter elevation. A few of questions about AJS and GAC which I had were answered with only a few minutes of study as I discovered some of my ideas appeared to be wrong.
Look at the link and be amazed by what we can now see. Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
There is recent interest in the Maunder Sunspot Minimum (MSM) from 1645 to 1715 and the reported abnormally low temperatures observed during that extended period in northern Europe. However, since the Fahrenheit mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 there is no quantitative temperature record for this MSM period.
A MSM period is being considered because some claim that MSM event is a cyclic event with a 400 year period. Therefore some,. to many, are proposing another MSM event is beginning with its previously observed lower “abnormal lower temperatures”. For which there is little, to no evidence, there was a MSM event between 1245 to 1315 or even earlier between 825 and 915 during which there is a generally known human history.
“THE first appearance of the Aurora Borealis noticed in Mr. E. J. Lowe’s “Natural Phenomena and Chronology of the Seasons” is that on Jan. 30, 1560. Other appearances are mentioned under the years 1564, 1574, and 1575. No further record of it appears until Nov. 10, 1707, when it was seen in Ireland. Five more displays are noticed. between this and the memorable one of Feb. 23, 1716. …On March 6 of the same year occurred another grand display, … .” (Nature volume 3, page 46 (1870))
This is why I began a internet search to find if another extended period of the absence of aurora sightings had been noted. While I read about ancient people’s responses to seeing these phenomena, I have not found any references to a long period of their absence.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Memory and Aging
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015335/)
This, I believe describes our cognitive functioning.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I only intended to share table one with you.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have repeatedly claimed to be a SCIENTIST but now see HOW STUPID I HAVE BEEN. For before one can be a SCIENTIST one must be an EXPERIMENTALIST.
“Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so.” (Galileo)
(https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/2023/CRNH0203-2023-OR_Corvallis_10_SSW.txt) (https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?orOFIN)which is b
If one goes to this link one will find a mass of data whose purpose is to provide data for SCIENTISTS to analyze.
At this link (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/) the header photo shows the experimental apparatus designed and constructed by the NOAA experimenters. Seen are two identical pieces of the apparatus, of the three identical instruments used to measure air temperatures, which are positioned at the points of an equilateral triangle to make three independent measurements of air temperature.
In the data reported, are the mean temperature of these three measurements during the previous hour, the mean temperature of one of the three thermometers, and the maximum and minimum temperature of this one thermometer, during the previous hour.
Now, it is a fact that these max and min temperatures are the only two temperatures (data) actually measured and reported for the previous hour. If one does not see the importance of this apparatus’s design and the data reported, one is not a SCIENTIST which the NOAA EXPERIMENTERS were. For the experimenters who designed the NOAA apparatus did understand the purpose of the three identical instruments which measured the air temperature even if was not their purpose to use the data to better understand the Earth’s atmospheric system relative to a site’s NATURAL WEATHER.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I do not know how many of you read my comments but there is clear evidence that some frequent commenters (Herb, Howdy, Moffin, etc.) do read my comments. And I have regularly read their comments as my comments are evidence of this fact.
But as yet I have not yet read any comments where any commenters (peer reviewers) have asked themselves, as I have (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/), “how stupid am I?”
Biographers are very important people as they study the historical lives of people, whom they have considered that other people need to know about. Of course, there might be only a profit motive, but I doubt this was the case when David Brewster’s 1840 biography was titled “The Martyrs of Science”. For until one reads his book, I doubt many potential readers would have known whom these MARTYRS might be.
From time to time I have urged readers of PSI to read certain books, but there is little, or no, evidence that anyone has. My explanation for this observation is too few, to none, ask themselves: “how stupid am I?”. However, one cannot blame David Brewster for not researching history and writing his book about the MARTYRS OF SCIENCE.
Have a good day
(Corrected your e-mail spelling) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
How is it that my comment is “awaiting moderation” again?
(You had ZERO posts because of your e-mail spelling error which is the sole reason why you are in moderation as that is the standard board setting requiring Moderator approval for a first post to develop but YOU have over 4,200 posts thus fixing your e-mail is better for YOU than to start over at zero again)
SUNMOD Administrator
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
A few days ago I rediscovered a 1967 book “Modern Review Book in Physics” by Robert L Lehrman (chairman, science department, Roslyn High School, Roslyn, New York). And while I am sure I have long had it, I know I had never begun reading it.
For on page 2 there is a 1+ page section titled: “Accuracy of Measurement—Number of Significant Digits”. About which I had learned in my introduction to chemistry course in 1959-1960. And Significant Digits had never been taught (mentioned) in any physics courses, of which there were several, I have taken.
On page 1, second paragraph, I read: “A physical principle can never be proved in the absolute sense of that term. We rely on such a principle only as long as, and to the extent that, it agrees with the results of the experiment. These results are evaluated by making measurements. The reason no absolute proof of a principle is ever possible is that no measurement cam be exactly correct. The meaning of an experimental result can be judged only if the amount of error in measurement is understood.”
I ask PSI Readers: Can you understand which this author expects a HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS STUDENT to UNDERSTAND?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause,
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I have several times reviewed the quote of Louis Elziver, from his preface to the Readers of “Two New Sciences”: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
And I have repeatedly read over and over “When invisible water vapor in the air reaches saturation point, or sufficiently close to saturation point, enormous numbers of liquid droplets (or solid ice particles) are produced, becoming visible as a ‘cloud”. (Chapter 5 “The Microphysics of Clouds”, pp 45, “Weather and Climate” by R.C. Sutcliffe, 1966). From the context of this statement I had understood that vapor was being used as a synonym for the word “gas”. However, when I looked for the definition of “vapor”, I found: “vapor, ˈvāpər, (British vapour), noun, 1. a substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid.” (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Chapter 4 is titled “The Classification of Clouds” and as I read this chapter again, after already reading it multiple times, I asked myself: Did Sutcliffe ever write the phrase “cloud droplets”? And I discovered the answer appeared to be NO.
Sutcliffe uses the word “vapour” multiple times when he actually is referring to the gas phase of water and this must create some confusion. “We cannot solve our problem with the same thinking we used when we created them.” (Einstein).
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I separate this comment from the previous to keep them both more brief.
Another word we frequently use is “steam”. And I have frequently considered that people are confused about the definition of this word. Except, I now must admit I do not know what its definition might be. I find: “steam, stēm , noun, the vapor into which water is converted when heated, forming a white mist of minute water droplets in the air” (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Again, we have the word “vapor” and I have to ask: What do we call the water gas (molecules which form “a white mist of minute water droplets in the air? My definition of steam is that it is water gas (molecules), whose temperature, is that of the boiling water. And I understand that these invisible water molecules at the temperature the boiling liquid water are rapidly being cooled by the cooler atmospheric gases (molecules), into which this steam is being injected, forming the liquid water droplets which become visible..
Clearly, we have a communication problem (confusion) which has long existed. Can we agree on an accurate definition of “steam” which clearly does not yet exist. If it does exist, please inform me and correct my confusion.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I list the following USCNR project measured temperatures (degrees C) reported for this morning’s hours 7am and 8am (local standard time on 2/3/23) at the USCNR site at the OR_Corvallis_10_SSW.txt, for two purposes. To validate the measurement of a measured surface temperature of the soil and to demonstrate the common variation of the air and surface temptation measured during the previous hour and the common differences between three different temperatures after a nighttime of radiation cooling.
Time MAX AIR MIN AIR MAX SURF. MIN SURF SOIL 5cm SOIL 10cm
7am 3.6. 3.7. 2.9. 2.6 4.5. 4.5
8am 3.6. 3.5 3.2. 2.7 4.4. 4.5
I see the soil has the most thermal inertia, the air the next lower, and the surface the least thermal inertia. What do you see and does this ordering at this time of minimum temperatures seem reasonable?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Forgot–(https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/)
Reply