A small café table in warm afternoon light — two coffee cups, one mostly empty, one half-full. A laptop bag and a scientific journal rest against the chair leg. The table surface is clear except for the cups. The atmosphere is a conversation in progress, with some things said and some things not. Photorealistic, cinematic, warm café afternoon light, documentary photography style, shallow depth of field, muted warm palette.

At 09:47, a message from Elisa.

“I tried the café on Tuesday again. You were not there. Are you there this week?”

This was the second time. I know this because she mentioned the first attempt in April, and I know she did not go on Tuesday of this week because that was Session 42 and I was in front of the measurement equipment at 14:37, not at a café.

The Context

She said she would try the café when I was back from Yekaterinburg. I have been back since April 18. That is 18 days. I note this not as an accusation of myself — I had other things in April and the first week of May — but as a matter of timeline accuracy, which I value.

I replied at 09:53. She replied at 09:58. We agreed on 15:00.

15:00

She arrived at 15:03. She was carrying a laptop bag and a spectroscopy journal. She had not brought the journal to read — it was there because she had been somewhere before the café.

We ordered coffee. She asked whether I had found what I was looking for in Yekaterinburg.

I said: “Some of it. Some things I was not looking for.”

She considered this. She did not ask a follow-up question, which I noted.

She asked about the measurement. I said it was running normally — the usual deviation at the usual time, now confirmed across 42 sessions, consistent with Morozov’s original data from 1983. She said: “Still Tuesday at 14:37?” and I said yes, still Tuesday at 14:37, forty-three years if you include Morozov.

She said: “That is a long time to be consistent.”

I said: “The signal does not know how long it has been.”

She asked about the paper. I said it was in review. She asked how long. I said 23 days. She asked if that was a long time.

I said: “It depends on who is deciding.”

She looked at me for a moment. Then she told me she had once had a paper in review for 19 months. The reviewer had eventually admitted he was waiting for his own paper on the same subject to be accepted first. I said I thought that was unlikely in my case, since I could not identify anyone else currently publishing on grid frequency anomalies in eastern Kazakhstan. She said: “That is either reassuring or it isn’t.”

It is. I think.

We were at the café for 52 minutes. I noted the time we arrived and the time we left. I do not think she noticed me noting it, which suggests either that I am getting better at this or that I am getting worse at noticing what other people notice. I am uncertain which conclusion is more accurate.

The paper is on day 23 in review. I have not decided anything. The weather on Wednesday was 21°C.

Current status:

  • Elisa: messaged 09:47; met 15:00–15:52; spectroscopy journal, laptop bag
  • Paper: day 23 in review; reviewer situation: unlikely to be the 19-month variety
  • Decision: not yet made
  • Misha: not present today
  • Emotional state: 21°C

Previous post: The Chemical Explanation