In subatomic physics, it's been assumed by conventional wisdom the proton has a half life more than the time since the Big Bang (or the start of the Expansion of the mass and energy around us, which is not the same thing as the Big Bang which I believe would violate energy conservation, necessarily. ( How Double Vortex Dynamo Cosmology Might Be The Cause of Cosmic Acceleration and Many Other Cosmic Motifs)) This is believed to be proven about the proton not by waiting billions of years. What phd is this old! What's considered the standard way of the physics here is to take lots of protons and wait a while, years or months, and see if any of them are observed to change. The idea is that if just a proton alone for 1000 years was with the same elapsed time of say 1000 protons and a year, then we would know no protons have a lifetime more than this. We would believe the proton has a half life of at least 500 years. So it's assumed no proton would have decayed in this much time. The problem here is about the assumption of the same linear time in months is not the same as the ages added. If three 18 year olds go in a diner and the chef says, "No one under 21 allowed." Would the teens be able to say, "We have 18 times 3, or 54 years of life, so we should be allowed in!" No, in 39 years much more may be learned than in 13. Three 13 year olds are not the same as one 39 year old's life. This is often found in assaying like with business and if you took a 20 year old van and wanted to find out what would happen in 26 more months of wear, one method they use is like to use repetitions of the machine to simulate the hours of use. The same idea may be of use for the protons or aging wine, by finding ways to speed up the flow of time, this may be possible by way of Einstein's physics. You would take just one proton and age it via wine or changes of the all important electric field (speed of light) of relativity. If time slows at high speed motion through the electric field where the field is hot and expanded, perhaps it would speed up where the field is of low heat and contracted or other changes in the field. The half lives of subatomic particles are more and more reduced in general with higher mass, the opposite of what Einstein's theory would have about more mass slowing time.

 I imagine sending pulses of matter waves through the heavy particles would be a way to stimulate the rate of radioactivity. First we might try with other particles than the proton in order to achieve a reliable result, then if this is a way to "age" the radiation, we might try with the proton itself. It's already established that the electroweak theory shows if the weak force is not there, the electric field behaves like a weaker weak force, and causes radioactivity at the same rate the weak force does, yet slower to the degree of difference of the strength of the fields, so changes in the electric field perhaps of frequency with time might act like a stronger weak force. This is somewhat like UL listed labs speeds up the aging of say the Volvo door by shaking it or opening and closing the door many times to speed up to simulate the aging of time. If reliable methods of aging other heavy particles might be reliably achieved we might then more reliably hope to know the stability of the proton. 

   It may seem this is not the same because while in our life all sorts of complex events cause the usual wear and tear of aging, all the protons of the 1000 would be simple with no outside forces acting, so it's viable to say the individual ages side by side can be considered as if one giant age of all the protons in a line of one proton. The internal dynamics of a proton are complex. If you take a bunch of mesons and let them decay, there's no way to know the exact time when any of them will, just that about half will have decayed in the half life, like weather reports we have no way to know what's going on at the sub subatomic level, it's too complex to say by our usual ways of umbrellas (if my umbrella has a central heat in March, so be it!) While this part of the problem is solved by just waiting enough so all the vibrations would level out that would cause them to decay at many times not one, this "May" be more like weather. While the experiments that see the radioactivity of other half lives in the lab say the half lives are simple in general as if they are with just the internal "weather" and no more, with no more extension of the half life for any reason, this may not be the same for half lives of 10 or 15 billion years. Over these huge time spans the matter waves that are in the space around the protons could cause change in the field of the particles by the energy flow a bit at a time and this small change over huge time spans would change the half life. So because of this small but measurable effect, the proton might decay, it wouldn't be absolute. The proton like all particles is made of two general action reaction forces in balance, all other mass is made of balance and all other masses are changable, so the proton too if of the same mass energy it would seem, would also be somewhat radiant. If we took the absolute stability of the proton as granted, it would be absolute energy, and this seems to be unlike the rest of physics. This is based on the weak effect of the Disproof of the Bell Inequality, so, like weather in just a few months not being viable to see how the solar cycles influence the sales of the Dow Jones, this change in half lives would be only seen in radioactivity with half lives of more age like Uranium and it would be of important to measure such as the age of the solar system and other ages by radiocarbon dating methods. And the instability of the proton would be of import for atomic power. My belief is that because of conservation of energy with the atomic spin motor, if angular momentum was being absorbed from the spin of protons held in a wire by way of the proton's magnetic field, as via my idea of the atomic motor since all mass is just spinning energy in my theory, the energy is changed, so the proton's half life would be radiant.


 ATOMIC MOTOR

. Wouldn't it be way cool if they had spinning sails powered by the wire with a motor, you can sail in air with the wind stationary! At night it lights up like a wheel at the circus! Thanks to this weather it's simple; it's stopped raining, it's stopped snowing, and the weather is up....! Same old stuff aobut global warming, more of the unusual...
.

USES Of The IRON MAN SUIT
..
They now have a space suit for Mars that just weighs say 20 pounds. It uses elastic bands that hug the wearer like a cosmic mom, or a moon maiden! It's made of just stretched foam. While this suit is 20 years away they say, I think it may be improved by making it of composite stuff like fullerines, the strongest material science we have. Better yet than even a suit made of wires of protons may be if the protons spin in the wires were used to power flexors in the suit. This would be a combination of my two ideas of the proton solid and the atomic spin motor with the flexors.

With a strong lightweight outfit, you could be in jog mode and if you reach a steep road and are a bit peaked, the machine would climb for you. You would train at your own level, much more healthy, and, and, I'm not out of breath typing! You would see all the sights and airobics with a 500 pound box of chow added on. The military has a machine you wear like this that balances a pack by computer and it uses the pads and "muscle motor". If a much stronger atomic source were in use it would be much more agile and wouldn't run out of power and you'd wear it like usual perma press.

This would be of worth for sports. I was wondering how you could have a never fail way to learn how to win the playoffs, via computer vision optics with the arm motions that would always move your arms correctly, you always win the NCAA world championship of your zone.. While ultimately this wouldn't be like the armies, with machines like the present ones this may be a whole new sport. When they first invented amplifiers, more vocalists got famous. Before electric power, many good vocalists were out of reach of the audience in the large rooms because they couldn't yell that loud. So machines may do the same for sports.


And good for weight loss. The FDA approved a bed that vibrates so the person loses weight. These machines may be used to exercise best, custom fit for the wearer's situation, and so on.

Another use is for emergencies. They have a machine where the person sits in the blast cushion and it boosts them with a launcher up to the roof of a multi story building to land precisely by computer rising machines, this is for use for the military, police and other emergency aid.

With more power the emergency worker could jump say 50 feet, and land without harm with the "muscles in compression" of the machine. They would be like superman. If a person was hurt beneath a bridge, they would just lift it to save them. The main limitation about the great distance might be how fast the person could move with the force, this may be achieved by centrifugal force to allow higher speed.

I bought these anti aging pills. They are so good I bought more on VISA, in 1957, 1981, 1999, 2020, and 2077!
.

Possible Ways To Modify Einstein's Gravity Waves

..

While Einstein predicted faster than light with his EPR paradox, he just couldn't believe it was so, about what he named the "spooky action" at a distance. Here in 07 they even have the "spooky action" on a chip ((Faster Than Light)? Evidence and Experiments). (Even without violation of relativity, in my formulation like Maxwell's idea I call GWD General Wave Dynamics, you lighten up to go faster than light. This allows the EPR and the "slow speed of light" in relativity both. (Please note, while Faster Than Light May Explain The EPR, disproof of the "Faster Than Light Communication At a Distance" by the so Called Noncommunication Theorem, wouldn't necessarily be disproof of Faster Than Light.)) Super high speed waves like the EPR would still have a delay, though much smaller, between events.

....

Faster Than Light Communication with The EPR and The Bell Theorem may be possible by way of the matter wave field of subatomic physics. If the EPR effect falls off with distance like gravity (because of the possible Faster Than Light wave motion of gravity with my own physics of General Wave dynamics GWD) if caused by the matter wave and the matter wave field is of enough power between the entangled particles to explain it, there may be no reason to believe the Noncommunication Theorem is proven because with these two basic elements achieved this is a simple physical connection using essentially a modern version of Maxwells Physics, reduced density of the wave could mean faster than light, light has it's exact speed by Maxwell's method, lighter yet faster yet. It may be local and noninstantaneous because of higher speed, but because the forces and thus the speed are finite it only appears nonlocal. It may be mostly nonlocal, much moreso than relativity, but no force is infinite so in GWD the speed is faster though finite and is in truth nonlocal.

..

Heres my General Physics Synopses with the evidence for faster than light, and what I think about this. The 2001 experiments of Chin are about faster than light in the lab using off the shelf machines. The Bell theorem and the EPR use the entanglement or swirling of the fields of electrons, then they are moved apart and the electrons "sense" if the other is changed (the usual interpretation is that it's faster than light).

The matter waves of the EPR, essentially would be just high power gravity waves, or low power electric waves, at somewhat lower power than such as light. This would be to connect up gravity to the electric field, this connection would be so all the field is one of energy conservation, all the forces speak gravity and no other force is so cosmic, so it would use a mediating medium power field to reach the other fields, like from gravity to higher. This is the unified field Einstein hoped to achieve, and here's why I agree with Einstein and some predictions of my own belief in Electrogravity.

If gravity is much faster than light and the matter waves of EPR and the Bell Theorem are much the same and contained within the definition of what gravity might be, they could travel at comparable speeds, both faster than light.

One way to prove if gravity waves (also predicted by Einstein) would be at the high speed of my explanation of Chin's observation is by a use of the Torsion Balance Machine, invented around 1800. This machine uses just two masses on a well balanced weigh in station that is of high enough resolution it measures even the force of the gravity between the masses. When one mass spins past the other on the weighing machine it moves just a bit, and this was used to prove Sir Issac's vision of all the matter in the cosmos via gravity. My idea is that if gravity is faster than light, an explosive solar event would have the gravity wave and this would reach a mass like this of the right mass and of high enough resolution to see if the gravity wave arrived at the machine in a half an hour after or almost right away, then the light in half an hour.

The moon has been considered to be a gravity wave telescope by way of the laser reflector the Apollo moon landings left on the roof of the world (or the nightlight of the cosmos, per se!). The idea is to use the reflection of the mirrors when a gravity wave would move through to sense the wave by way of the motion between the earth and moon. But the moon, like a large ship with an anchor to the seabed or anchor to the earth wouldn't move as much as a small mass like a beach ball in the wave moving more. So a cheap Torsion Machine would seem to be an asteroid in non earth orbit with rotation and radiation lenses that would reflect light from either just the earth and return, or the more expensive motif of light beamed from a distant ship to the asteroid and then the motion measured via the usual method of interferometers ect.. The 70's extended reblend mirror and the light's path as it would move past the earth could have a large lever arm so much that earth based calibration machines might find smaller changes in the motion of the spin of the asteroid, if it were not spinning too fast or slow. The side to side changes in the light (at 90 degrees to path it would take over the earth) would be where the change would be most of worth to find. Using sensors at right angles to the beam on wires to find the change, the speed of the wave might be found, like amplified FM stations so we would not hear the roar of the ocean just the boom of the boombox. Since the mirrors may not be all the same on the surface of the asteroid, they might be actuated by built in motors to see if the motion changes. Cheaper yet may be to reflect radar from the Earth off the spinning asteroid and see if the change takes place at the time corresponding to when the asteroid would move. For example if the asteroid is half a light hour from us at the same radius from the sun, and we are continually watching the sun for the high energy events and always sending out the radar continuously to the asteroid when we sense the event from the sun at time A and we have the data in memory about what happened to the asteroid from the light it sent out when it reflected the same half a half a light hour ago (from the radar wave sent out 30 minutes before) if the gravity wave is nearly instantaneous, there would be no half hour delay in the apparent change in the spin of the asteroid. We would see the change about the same time as we would see the explosion, if both it and the asteroid were the same distance from us. If it's just at the speed of light, the change would be a half a light hour later. The randomness of the light reflected off the spinning stone would be found by means of the light bounced off, so the general overall motion where small changes in the precession would be caused by the gravity wave moving through it would be extracted out of the light. If you have a spinning ball of tinfoil and you reflect light off it, if it's spin or precession was changed, the average of all the reflections would mostly move up or down and speed up or slow down with it if this changed. The first phase of this plan would be to find the right asteroids of the right mass and spin and send out some radar (radar is of lower power than optical light which might throw off the measurement more) to see if we can measure the usual Torsion Machine changes well, then watch for solar explosions and see if the changes are connected. If this is not viable (like e.g. if the signal is too weak) one of the rarer asteroids nearer the sun or a probe with Torsion Machine on board would be moved much nearer, say five light minutes away from the massive solar event and the delay between the gravity waves and the light would be proven or disproven.

We can say certainly how much it will will move by just plugging in the Torsion Machine numbers of the inverse 2nd power law and just what the mass the asteroid would have to be to move to find the wave or before we send up the machines, the question would be, would it be at the speed of light, or almost instantaneous?

Click here for how asteroids may be moved and set in rotation cheap so the Dish Channel will Save my best audios!

This may prove the speed of gravity in a general way. It's a machine with a loose connection since the gravity waves are neither strong, nor the mass of the machine great, so a modern Torsion Balance used to measure gravity's speed would be slower to move. Like a ship on the ocean small fast waves would only move the ship if they were combined to more combinations of the overall higher waves with the smaller waves unifying to make the big waves and the motions of masses in just a general, loose sort of way, by the coincidence that the waves overlap. So while this would perhaps find loosely bound motions of distant masses and the speed of the wave, it wouldn't find the individual smaller waves that would make up the main wave at much higher speed and frequency, so not broadband, as the waves alone would allow even if the more general wave combinations are faster than light. Einstein may have said, because of the electromagnetic speed of light of Special Relativity, the fastest any machine with electric charges like usual mass can move to pick up the wave by resonation would just be the speed of light. (Einstein believed mass is not electromagnetic and this is why non electromagnetic mass was then accepted by other physicists but the all important speed of light is central to relativity, and all the particles have the 1, 0 and -1 charges. The heavy particles, ect. may all be controlled from the outside by the electromagnetism of relativity even though rest mass internally with more density by GWD and Maxwell's method may be faster than light and indeed non electromagnetic. Thus the suprise in QCD of fractional charges not being found outside heavy particles as well as confinement are both caused by relativity's strong hold on medium range physics, explaining confinement and rest mass. (FTL spin ismore mass than relativity allows for heavy particles. Note that relativity makes no explanation about the cause of heavy particles. It's not that Einstein didn't try for another Nobel prize here too, I believe it's because relativity fails here, so heavier mass particles than electrons and light's "pure electromagnetism" may be essentially of worth for disproof of relativity.)

The ship with the waves for the sensor would seem to have a built in limitation. Consider however a light show like the old time Broadway zoom up in lights. With a series of good clocks and enough distance between the lights as they would go off and on in a flow that makes it look like a continuous wave at a distance it would seem with its apparent motion to be a faster than light wave of light and dark as each light goes on and off even if the machines that make the wave are each with no motion of any component of the machines faster than light. They would be recorded and the machines then compared, sort of how computers use parallel processing even if not connected while they are computing offline. This is more so if the machines are not big and the room between the machines is great. If you measure a light wave with machines that use light at about the same wavelength this is also good to find the individual waves. But it would be possible in theory to measure the speed of light using machines that measure and operate by sound, if the distances the sound travels were so small the time was small enough to measure the speed, and if the distance between the machines were great enough to also then have enough delay in the light and then unify them to compare the results. No doubt if you have higher speed clocks at each machine, it's much easier to find the speed of a higher speed wave. Evenso (and lotsamore as mammamia would say) if the EPR waves are like matter waves, even if the motion of the machines like the boat is generally slower than light, if the waves passing through are fast and you have a fast sensor, you can find the waves.

Another way I've read about more recently to measure gravity well is via atomic clocks, this may be of worth to measure the speed of gravity by the solar waves via a starship near the sun as above.

Even so here's why I've gone to all the labor and exercise of lifting this explanatory weight so you know I'm more of an authorstarship!

If you have a series of masses like the Torsion Balance Machine (or atomic clocks) lined up, and the wave passes through, by reversing the machine and using usual electric sensors like the cinema sign we would be able to see the waves in higher resolution (if the general speed of gravity is the speed of my own belief, or whatever it's speed). This is like the on off light waves of the sign, that says "Famously Saving, And Cheap and Rich!" Since this gravity wave telescope would be just the lights in rewind, by using the masses to sense what the machines may pick up and then comparing them, this may extend our reach of resolution so we may sense a massive body in real time broadband, and by reversing the process and using smaller dense gravity wave sources (see below) we would be able to make use of the much higher frequency bandwidth of gravity waves with its fast speed. The wave would be moving more in space, but it would be changing in time like a super broadband signal. The signal itself would be a continous wave, so are all broadband light waves, these are then converted over to digital at the source or the reciever, so the continuous nature of gravity waves may not be an objection to using them for higher bandwidth, even if the ship is larger and the waves are small, both the sending and recieving machine would operate in a generally like way, like the movie lights, except the receiving machine would be more massive because gravity is not as strong as other forces like the electric.

About the Speed of Light, in his book, Einstein's Universe, author Nigel Calder asks if moving a giant pair of scissors so the edge where the cutting blades meet would be faster than light, he believes this would be not proof of faster than light, because none of any of the mass of the scissors would move at faster than light. Even if this turns out to be true a machine like this might make a good way to measure time with higher resolution. A machine would be like the giant pair of scissors, a laser would be a cutter and the other cutter would be a set of sensors of the motion of the beam just in a linear array or offset so the light rays resolution is optimized. When the beam would mesh with the line of sensors each one will have a moment in time according to where they are in the array. The sensors would be wired up to the timing of what was being measured. Even while no electromagnetic component of the machine was faster than light, by making a recording of the events of each sensor and then comparing them by signals like parallel processing with computers by way of even the slow wires and the speed of light, much higher resolution of the time would be possible. If the sensors or generation machines are wired up to gravity wave sources, or if they were used to sense the waves like via Torsion Balance machines of enough mass to pick up the signal for each of the sensors this might make much higher bandwidth than just via The Speed of Light, or even that of gravity waves like a large ship and just the big slower waves being felt.


GRAVITY WAVE MODULATION

About gravity waves for other use, I had conceived using the strongest power density of our science we have, of the strong force, to make the waves. Einstein's idea that gravity and inertia are at least generally much alike I hold, actions and reactions are of for example the light and heavy of gravity imploding to the one and the light of centrifugal force expanding to many, and the many is not exactly the same as the one (no doubt) but physics without both would be inconcievable, they are both made of mass and energy. So a boost or modulation of gravity may need no more than the general equivalent use of centrifugal force, just a lab gyroscope may change and counteract the gravity of the whole earth if the Equivalence Principle is good science. So if Einstein was correct (generally if only loosely or we would weigh the same at the high latitudes or low) even matter of the lower electromagnetic density of the centrifuge can alter gravity, and the strong force may be an even better way to modulate and boost gravity waves. Implosions of the strong force with such as anvils using mostly the strong force's implosion to generate the waves was my first inspiration, this was also my idea for the price of oil to generate lots of power via the strong force, I went in my memos from cylinders made of other strong force elements with protons used as pistons inside that would fuse, and the walls of this motor would collect the power. Then I realized the walls would be made of the same fuel as the fuel which would burn with unwanted radioactivity and so disposable motors seemed more optimal. Then I realized two flows inward of a sort of funnels that would be made of protons and neutrons on both sides that would fuse just at a tip via continous implosion would be better, and the power would be collected via collectors at the side. This machine made of proton and neutrons or atoms has no cylinders, just the tips fusing so most of the radiation wouldn't hit the funnels so they would be reusable. (I reuse my watch, I go to sleep so it recycles in 24 hours even without a windup!) Shields around the tips of these simple funnel machines (the outside if the funnels) would be radioactive but perhaps not so much they wouldn't collect power. The power could actually be collected by way of strong electric shielding fields that would make it so the radioactive particles from the fusion wouldn't reach the solid cone shaped shields on either side of the imploding protons and neutrons funneled in from the tubes in the cones each tube one proton and neutron wide. The radioactivity may even be reduced and used for useful power.

..

Click Here for more about Active Cancellation of Radioactivity. Another way the Polar Force Machine (PFM) may be of worth may be accelerating the protons (which have electric charge) into the neutron targets, which would be stationary. (The neutrons can't be accelerated with ease so their inertia would be used to cause the fusion well when the high speed protons hit the pole of the neutron with implosion.) Even so, the moderate pressure on the protons and neutrons via the support structures would be great because the force is in just the reduced surface of where the proton and neutron would implode inward, when even moderate force is applied to the small surface area of the proton and neutron like this (reliably) the pressure for each unit of area is multiplied up to huge force/unit area. Impacts with atoms are not uncommon with machines like the Tokamak but the atom's electric charge that repels at 10-10 cm must be overpowered, and this takes a lot more energy, the energy that would be lost in other types of machines. Even when the atoms are almost fused with inward force of the Tokamak, the inertia of most of the atoms must still also overpower the centrifugal force of the protons and neutrons. Only a rare number of the atom's hit at just the poles where the probability is highest they would fuse. This would be proven with atoms in accelerators. The probabilitys of fusion with polar impacts versus nonpolar and the rate of fusion or possible events could be compared to see if it's most of worth to build a PFM. Even so this may not be needed because the PFM can be built with off the shelf compounds and self assembling machines so it may be cheap to build. Using the opposite force of the poles of the protons and neutrons to generally funnel in the strong force which would fuse, this was what I considered my fusion motor, a true source of fusion, solving the main problem of current hopes of fusion machines that would have to overpower the outer charge of atoms which resists the implosion by way of the like electric charges, and the implosion of these machines uses random heat to hope to cause the implosion, so it takes much more heat to produce the fusion than my machine of this type. However to solve the radiation problem this would perhaps have if Active Cancellation fails, with the same goal of safe cheap atomic power my improved invention is what I named the atomic motor, protons in a chain held in tension with a mostly usual beam (like electron) at right angles to the wires rotation that would tap off the atomic spin more slowly without all the radiation. So before I thought of using reversed beta decay (as on the Active Cancellation site) I went from linear to spin of rotation in my physics because of the problem otherwise unsolved of radiation for these small machines that would presumably generate much power, though no more actually than more common subatomic physics like fission or other fusion. Likewise to generate the gravity waves of Einstein's belief if fusion power were the source, a safe machine might be achieved with spinning wheels made of protons with axles of these held solid via the proton's magnetic fields and Strong Force that would generate a lot of field pressure to generate the gravity wave signal powered in motion perhaps by some type of high energy motor like the atomic motor. They would hold without the centrifugal force causing explosion and while of high density, they would be lightweight in general. If you like travel, you should visit where I live, it's so safe here where I live even if there are superhighway accidents, no autos or semis are involved! They have a licence and change lanes This low power method without a lead shield would be used for low power uses but to make a higher power wave of more reach the implosion by fusion method above may be the best since it would have higher yield.

To bend the waves of massive sources so we can amplify them by the motif of the masses and the sensor, these by the ratio of the usual laws of radiation will tell us how much density it would take to focus the waves and amplify them. If the distant mass is a source of much gravitation it wouldn't take so much density of the lense, and if the distance is close of the mass to image, the lense density may be lower, and if the density of the lense was higher beyond enough to see the mass, more lense density would make more resolution beyond this, this is just by the simple law of radiation, m1xm2/d to the 2nd power. This tells us how dense the lense or other machine would have to be to see the distant mass, m2, so it's easy to see how much in materials and labor a machine of this type would cost before it's built.

Gravity operates by implosion, like the flow of water of a tub. The inflow of the water stretches the flow, this is of import since the stretch unifies the field, it makes all the fields attract. So to see a distant mass with a machine like this from within the the stretch of the earth's field with so much stretching and blending just moving the machine out of the Earth's field would make us more in with all of what's up in the cosmos. If you're in the tub on level waves that aren't sloshed in the drain the influence that would be measurable of the distant mass is more definite. This would be one reason why no telescopes of this sort even using the moon reflectors have have yet to be proven. The moon is like a large ship anchored to the earth so it wouln't seem to move as much with the passing high speed wave. Inside the Earth's field, the only thing a machine would see would be the general motions of just the tides of the sun and moon, and this has already been found by the motions of the ocean. This is also why a machine that would find Einstein's gravity waves may only find the most general outlines of massive bodies in most wavelengths, this is what light telescopes achieve, but gravity waves may be much faster than light, and because gravity is without shielding, the mass between us and more distant realms wouldn't block the view. See My Physics Synopses. page about the speed of gravity and the speed of light and Click Here For Faster Than Light. Since it's an acceleration, it would operate by many continously changing overlapping wavelengths (a literally and physically nonlinear acceleration unlike the uniform motion of relativity). The gravity would blend all the fields, with just the outgoing combination of all these blended waves seeable at a distance. So just the larger explosions may be seen by the machines, with the smoothing all the other info would be not as visable at a distance, like the usual waves of light or heat. This would mean that for long distance communication by gravity wave like to Mars the best way might be to put the senders and recievers just in orbit around both planets and use the smoother gravity between them so not as much information would be lost over the distance, the signal would then be sent to orbit by usual light waves and to more distant realms from there. Gravity is attractive and the stretching of the field would be reduced in flatter space, like the water of a tub having more coherent waves on the surface of the water and not in the downward motion of the drain.

From the above about the easy way the mass density of the lense needed would be proven before the machine was built (not enough, don't build it, and or use more mass) by the same physics as the law of radiation, if the Torsion Balance machine of the earlier physics was enough to find mass with just a usual density of mass, a more advanced machine might use proton wires to make the lense. Protons are stable, and using the N and S poles of the protons to wire them in fibers held in tension in a dense web, density enough of the fibers to bend the waves of incoming massive sources would be achieved. Protons just have positive charge so to make the lense shape a mold of usual - charged atoms would hold the wire in tension forming a round shape of the wires by tension of the attraction of the mold. This is a lense, essentially an amplifier. Since what's measured like with all mass attraction is the rate of fall and an implosion of the field to the source of the wave, the lense would be aimed with the arch side away from the distant or other power source and a source beam with parallel lines would be the falling mass to measure the change via the lense perhaps on the side near the source. The parallel beams would reach the lense and by the change of the implosion from the distant source would have the information from that source encoded in it, this would amplify and focus the beam and the sensor of the type above via the movie light show machine would then pick up the higher power beam. And these collectors would be positioned at great distances and unified by the computers so there would be high resolution.

Because of the problem about the blending of the field causing loss of the information at larger distances, the only way to send waves other than smoothed out waves by gravity may be by larger scale motions of mass at higher speed, or at least more motion of the mass. If gravity waves are indeed Faster Than Light this would seem to imply because of this they still may not be of obvious worth to distant advanced civilizations to reach us in real time.

Another lense may also use the general (much alike I think) equivalence of mass and inertia of Einstein. This would use arched wires with the AC current of centrifugal force changing the gravity, so the rate of fall of the implosion would be amplified of any wave in the machine by focusing methods. This may use atomic power to make lots of centrifugal force by way of the mass of the waves in the wire, or oscillating weights on small beams that would oscillate in a sweep of some of the disc, so the uncancelled centrifugal force would beam towards the focus by each atomic powered small machine aimed well at the sensor array. (And if the Braves were going to win anyhow, it's caused by Amy Smith Realtors. I saw Amy on the rooftop of my big tube television the other day!) The weight's inertia would amplify the distant masses field with a source beam of the same sort by change of the source beam's angle, and the rest the same as like the machines above that would use the proton wires. The oscillating atomic powered weights to make this would be a higher power machine than just the wire machine so would cost more but it would be worth more.

Because of the problem about the blending of the field causing loss of the information at larger distances, the only way to send waves other than smoothed out waves by gravity may be by larger scale motions of mass at higher speed, or at least more motion of the mass. If gravity waves are indeed Faster Than Light this would seem to imply because of this they still may not be of obvious worth to distant advanced civilizations to reach us in real time. A possible way they (or we in more distant times ahead) may engineer around this would be by being near double or triple star systems (most are double) with two stars close in. Because the gravity is balanced where the stars are in balance between them, if atomic bombs were set off somewhat to the side of this point this would be a force multiplier (machines like this have been in use for 100s of years) and a slow change in the gravity waves would be caused to send an outward memo to the stars or us. (Counteracting blasts to reduce vibration of the stars would be used to reduce the wait time for the star to stop more random vibration) While this would be slow it might be much better than no information. James Trefel says in one of his books about subatomic physics (paraphrased);

"Einstein never disproved faster than light motion, he only believed that what's already moving at slower than light can't move faster and that what's faster than light would also be faster than light, not slower, so the speed of light would be more like a curtain than a barrier. If so an advanced civilization may no more think of using light for communication than we would think of using smoke signals."

Even so by using the mass of binary stars or other more conventional machines like the above for nearer distances, this may be possible even with the low power and smoothing of the field if for long distances the mass of nearby stars was a way to send low frequency waves. So if machines like the Torsion Machines are more reliable in 2079 AD the problem about smoothing may make it of worth to search in low frequencys near binary stars (if gravity wave astronomy if realized eventually) to see if advanced civilizations used this type of machine to reach us because of the nearness of the stars even with the limits of gravity waves, with the value of possible faster than light communication achieved. Because of the use of low frequency that may be needed, we may not even need fast timers to recieve the high speed waves, and this may be more optimal because if each wave is slower to rise and fall, like with light telescopes here in 2008 that take months for light to trickle in to build up the image it may allow our Torsion Machines more time to resonate and this may be not just gravity wave astronomy but gravity wave communications.
...................

COMEDY

The coast of UT has just two sides; The beach and the sand!

When kids aren't allowed on some airplane flights. They have use if they're so loud to cancel the sound boom.

I was in the store the other day and this lady had a perfume filled purse, what a whiff! I said I'd do anything she said, this may actually be a better about perfumes. If the wife hits on others all the time for a loan, it would be fresh air if when she's in the room she is real sweet, if she's rich there would be special herbs you would wear so you'd cash in! The math teacher would finally see your genius at business when you are in the room near her and nonsmokers would have herbs that would improve the air so you can read the no smoking sign. Aromatherapy is about science of many types that change sleep and memory, and more types of these chemicals, the perfume of the 21st century, may be of value to many for more indepth PR. They now have small "noses", two wires that are of unlike metals that cost just a few bucks. Each type of metal for the given sensor makes it so, for the given metal, it senses just one type of air chemical or other whiffs. So if there was lots of influence in the future world via perfumes, those who were wondering could wear the sensors, if power is knowledge, your nose is more the size of a cyber machine! If the perfumes then improved more and the sensors improved more, and so on, there would be competition in an explosion of flowers in March!
.
(Even so Einstein was so good at Relativity he could have watched The Price is Right and won just by the memos he typed up!)

History has real worth, even if it's old, savvy about 1492 saves time looking up the Gutenberg page!
.

...Did you hear about that book by V Serbarikoff "Test Your Own I.Q, You Know More Than the internet, no 78's or 45's to buy the internet is much rounder!" In research, with lab mice smart mice were bred with the other smart mice and the dumber were bred with the dumber. The dumb mice stayed about the same and the smart mice got smart but then got no wiser, so this was considered to be proof being smart always has a basis in genes. According to Serbariakoff, with just so many combinations of genes allowed genes would act as a ceiling, so the most we would be able to achieve would be limited by inheritance.

Consider however our own genes which haven't changed much in hundreds of thousands of years. We have the same genes we evolved in evolution so may be just as limited in opportunity if this causology was so. So either civilization is just a diva who yells, "Author!" when the mime act is golden and calm or genes may be of reduced import other than a foundation because they may have little to do with how much we achieve with how much genes. If genes were the roof we would have been compressed in a real sense as we go higher, if we improved civilization just a bit, and it would make us feel more bad than good. (I'm not saying civilization is necessarily good with the harm it's causing, just that our genes being the same as in prehistoric times with civilization so different is evidence that genes are not a limit like a roof.)

Serberiakoff says you can take an infant primate and educate the chimp in diapers by a human child, and the person will be slower in smartness for a while with the chimp out ahead is smartness. While we must arrive in the world with some advantage (they now find that chldren are able to recognize many sounds and more many months before they can talk) if our life is inherited and this were the use of it like to say we're a number that's all, inherited facility is of reduced value when weighed beside the influence of environment because in the wild millions of years passed with no domination of humans over evolution, and it was more of a golden age for humans than here in the 21st century. We lived in the tropics with no fire yet invented, so our ancestors had not too much hot or cold, because they lived necessarily by the river and the ocean like most people now. The social forces that make our laws were the same, except the behaviour's actual meanness and kind ways were also more present. But just in the rarer than would seem event of combat (the American Indians had no war before about 1000 years ago) it's been proven by anthropology that disease is virtually absent in Living Evolution, and so on. Life for most was often allowed. This is because one animal wasn't opposite all the rest and evolution is how we are. Like authors you read in a store, almost all life's contributors are of at least some value. In evolution if animals are in competition for the same resource, instead of war, they evolve away from conflict and use somewhat other resources. This is a good way via the complex flow of evolution. Life for most was often allowed. While IQ Tests Measure Something Or What, This is Not Proof It's Something Important, Just What! Author Serbariakoff's says that even if inherited savvy is of value and no doubt it has some worth, IQ tests are mostly a guaranteed measure of inherited smartness. When Binet devised the first main Binet test, he used an empirical method of just that what was measured was more over time and that the bright had more of if what was measured. But there's no real proof it measures inherited value, just that it measures some behaviour. Since what it measures may just be some behaviour related to smart behavior what is actually measured is unproven, this no proof it's the floor of civilization or the roof, or even that it's anything of worth. Some of the inherited wisdom would be found by this method, just as in life all sorts of genes and action both are involved in most complex events, my explanation of the constant change in how much what they say is what's "measured by IQ tests". They've found that the scores go up when you go college and down during summer days of passing out in the heat and they've been up about 20 points through the 20th century. Life is more like a competition than a guarantee. We win with more effort and lose with talent. In the Book Serbarikoff says they've found how the top 20% in the creativity scores were the low 20% of IQ and with opposite also, the low 20% of creativity people were at the high 20% of the more memory based Termer and Binet. He believes this sort of intelligence is necessary to be creative, "This teacher says about one of his students, "Dull, Yes, But so creative"! Implying that you or I must have high Termer or Binet score in order to be savvy about the web. I think what a real teacher wouldn't say would be, "A highly creative memory is like watching reruns of Hee Haw!" The boss favors memory like the Binet measures (of the same sort of convergent motifs as ads on TV). The boss has the advantage so he likes emphasis on the general frame of the business, much like determinism, versus control by way of adapting and making the most via creativity for most others. Life seems about the the doers and do nots rather than haves and have nots. Most are employees, so since they have less power, they would achieve the best by the opposite method of the boss. They say what won't make us ill will make us strong. (I'm so fit I don't have to jog to see the ER! For visits I just jog in elevators with wings, so the second safest way to travel.) While you may say about all this, gene engineering is the answer, disproof of the above, if you change one gene you know about, five more are changed in unknown ways. One important distinction between machines and life is that when you go to higher and higher resolutions with the zoom you see complexity at most levels. With machines you see complexity at the low resolutions but not at the higher. Life is not a machine, life if alive is much more complex, so there may be no real way to have much more good than bad we would receive from Bioengineering. A vitamin like a B complex vitamin is strong when it's in it's embedded "matrix" of other B vitamins (from Latin "mother") of surrounding compounds found in evolution. Though there are some genes that are not in multiple combinations, a natural lunch is much more munchy and sweet than a vitamin, a life of ease without a real health miracle, (or even a blurb for the Des Moins visitors beauro, "Santa Fe, second oldest city of the NW!") Whatever makes evolution fail in the long run is of reduced worth to us. If evolution loses because of our inherited smartness instead of us being great to evolution, this vision of intelligence would thus be of insubstantial value compared to the evolution advantage. Most life contributes to evolution. If a plant is lost from the rain forest, it may take away a herb for health forever. A herb from the Yew bark is a million times as powerful as some prescriptions to reduce tissues that metastasize since it shuts down the cells powerhouse, the ATP. Life is more general than just a physical frame. It's believed by many all is information and there is no sharp line between life and sleep. I'm an optimist. For Sherry It's Web Site Available Online, not Web Site Unavailable Offline!

...You may say about genes and environment, which is more of worth has no real meaning, they seem much the same, or reflections of each other because you can't change the complexity of the links. They've found "E.G.G" in ornithology there is no distinction between Environment and Genes."Form and function are just two forms of the same motif." This is an oversimplified picture like saying that because a space vehicle will go by the star A Sirus in the year AD 27,987 it will, and the time will pass, but the product of huge amounts of time is not the same as a guarantee we'll reach it without labor with each day by day struggle of life.. (No problem. I've paid my mother-in-law to wash my toupee with a suds machine so the weather always rains in swirls above me in the heat!) To say environment and genes are the same is to reduce the worth of what makes us special, because what we receive makes us what we have and what we create and achieve for glory beyond what we receive makes us what we are. Life science, unlike physics has resisted being summed up with just math and numbers. Life and the world are of worth, life means so much.

I think belief in determinism is of worth just in another sort of way, if genes are a sort of treasure, and creativity is what life is allowed to like. If you find a treasure, you don't try to hurt it, you conserve it, perhaps set aside a sanctuary to store it. (What I'm allowed to like and change like creativity, by all means I make the most of and I'll whoop it up, when I go to Arizona, I'll sing with the Mormons in the swimming pools! )

So I think it may be bad if we make life like a machine, and they're saving old herbs and how they re cultivated for our health. GE foods are not sanctioned by Europe. If you study all the words in the intelligence tests, it's an old saying of the ancients like so often they were, "We learn not for 257 stations in college by the dish, but for life!"

-

Evolution of Song and Music..

AND THE ORIGIN OF STONE AGE SONGS ON THE RADIO!

In the November 2004 Scientific American, author Norman W. asks, "If music surrounds us-and we wouldn't have it any other way- why is music so important to us?" Would its emergence have enhanced our survival in evolution somehow such as by aiding courtship, or did it originally help us by promotion of cohesion of societies?" Or is music just, "auditory sweetener" an accident of evolution that just tickles the brain (wow! Marge Levins must have a sweet brain!).

My explanation is that in evolution many sounds were in usual life, many of worth, some of woe, with a large store of this established in the memory of our ancestors, so Margie and me believe the sound of music was more pleasing than otherwise, because an organization that's well unified is more of worth generally than a union that's disorganized. This would mean in normal healthy people, music of onomatopoeia (from evolution's own boombox) would be considered somewhat more of worth than the same music without the imitation of natural sounds as it was in evolution. And how much more so would be based on the import of the sound to our survival and so forth in the old days.

If we were able to close our ears as easily as we close our eyes music wouldn't be like an emotional storm of passion. That we can close our eyes but not our ears was because of the advantage of hearing for safe survival at night, so prehistoric life may be the cause of the evolution of music.

To the suprise of audiologists and moms, it's now seen in MRI that the brain has no specialized center for music. Rather, music uses many areas distributed throughout the brain, and other areas that are normally used in other kinds of cognition. Music would use the whole brain because it was more important to survival at night, 50% of our life or more. So music would use the same areas twice that are used in recognizing animals, mates, and competitors for more awareness of this advantage and to make the most use of it.

Another reason music may seem emotional is that noise in physics is defined as change of sound, not how loud, so even sounds that are relatively quiet make us aware, and also would make it a more emotional event. In evolution we were without a volume control either, so control of what we hear also would make feel more in control here too .

That music may have won more courtship or social cohesion by way of the control of sounds may be why it fascinates us so much. If it involves the entire brain, the control of sound music has is good, so it stimulates our brain; this would boost our survival. If so all the explanations cited, about music being a sweet dish, and it's worth in cohesion and courtship and so on may be right. However, because music uses so many areas of the brain a general feeling of control would be of most import and from which the rest may have evolved to reflect the worth of the music, and the other explanations while derived from this general one would still be good uses of music and why they too have much influence on what is achieved for us by music. The many uses and the one use of music of feeling in control of sound would have been more powerful in combination; so much about the secondary uses of music and the main use of control of sound being with sound all the time may both be true. The local uses go to the main, but the main use to control sound is more of worth.

About courtship and music, the twist and other stone age rock'n roll moves have been found to use many of the skills that would aid survival in evolution, good coordination, and exercise. Obviously wanting to control sound and courtship were around millions of years before music. That music was invented may be no more proof it evolved than if the women think you're more in control because you drive a ship machine in Fla. is proof we evolved with machines of sail. All I say here about the evolution of music in truth I think of more as the way music reflects the wish we have had for control of sound, not the music itself, which may not have been with us for much of our evolution, no more than the wheel was. Even so since it's so general and of so much worth it may be reflected in our brain in the MRI as if we evolved with it because it may fill an important need, in truth just as we can become one with other machines, we may be one with music even though just as with say a TV we haven't evolved with it and it changes your brain in a definite way. It may reflect the earlier evolution well, so we can speak of music as if it evolved somewhat independantly which would be how they find distinctions of music in brain research not seen in other activities.
..
Sharing may be a good use of music, this is why people with good songs like to play the boombox just for you and me alone to hear so we'll know what a great song is when merging with the road, like singing at 65 up the superhighway. On my site how to write music I find the essence of a common sound motif and to make a good song, throw it to the good side by a tiff, combine it with another then find the main idea of the second motif, throw it, and repeat this method. Suprises are throughout the song, one suprise, and another. (As in MY CAUSOLOGY OF COMEDY) comedy is believed by some in this field to be the sharing of finds (math proves if you wear your hat in the shower you save on Conditioner!) in a sort of group celebration that would have boosted us in evolution. This may not the highest sort of comedy or music because it says nothing about what the shared motif is about, which would have caused loss of control and so loss of survival advantage in evolution. Thus the idea that music may have evolved for worth of social cohesion wouldn't necessarily have been as much of worth as the control of sounds to the individual. Groups were later in evolution, e.g there was no war among the american indians before 1000 AD. And music if caused by wanting to be in control would have been ahead of this and more the foundation of the use of music for group cohesion than otherwise. The evolution of music may have been, first hopes to control the sound, then music, then use of it when we were more numerous.
..
If music aided survival via control of sound it may be provable by experiment. if first the music was found via MRI to boost the brain the most for the person and then some sort of stress was used to test the hearer's endurance, resistance to depression, and so on, what is strengthened the most? What type of strength would have been the most of worth in evolution? If music increased this strength the most, this would be evidence for the idea that music isn't just sweetener or of other worth that may not be as good. Giving the people in the research control over the sound would be of value to see if this was why we find music of worth. Finding answers to questions like this may improve musicians and all who listen, the listeners with control could use it in OTC strength. If this was not best for us (due to the discomfort, but many positive experiments may be of worth) since mice are known to have mice songs at a high frequency we can't hear, perhaps mice music would be invented (like the Bee Gees after the early hits!) and this could be used to prove the real worth of the evolution of music. Because our minds and bodies are an image of our lives in millions of years of evolution, by finding out about the worth of music this may tell us about how many wild animals were making this or that sound each day (by what sounds we like or disagree with) and see if this goes with other evidence, e.g. if an animal we lived with in common contention, the sounds of music like that type of bison or deer makes would perhaps goes with the music we like the most more than just by luck.
.
Since whales and many other higher animals have songs, this idea of cyber music may also help us learn what they're saying. Whales have a language where they say like "don't" instead of "do not" and many other motifs like our own and this is both like gossip and drummers.


Another use of this idea that music is calming because it's control over sounds we couldn't close our ears to in evolution may be in helping animals to feel good or do what we want. If this value of music is in organized sounds we like, dogs, cows or other animals that also can't close their ears may also much appreciate the feeling of power and comfort a special music just for them would be. Like where they play Mozart for cows and they give "moo" milk, an advanced "whey" to improve this could be to find out the sounds cows like and make synthesized computer music so the cows would give more milk, or the dog would learn what the trainer wants with more control for the person. I wonder what dog music would sound like, dogs barking jingle bells in tune? We read where a dog saved a woman's life the other day in that 1800 emergency by dialing for information 100 a minute number in 1987 perhaps!

Even if control of the sound explains the general worth of music via evolution, the songs we sing are not the same as other animals and (other than camels to stop sand in the desert) they can't close their ears either. So a more indepth explanation is needed. The beach is deep, on the side where the shore is! As good musicians say, some notes are more of worth to author a song than others, 1 3 and 5 are the most definite like consonants in a major or minor scale, and 2, 4, 6, and 7 are more like vowels in the speech beach, the 2, 4, 6 and 7 are used to balance the 1, 3 and 5 which are used with more emphasis. This is like a visual editor (who first draws the line and edits to the general area) and who then adds the extreme good hues and then balances them in with the more moderate hues and so on. By this method of choosing power colors or tones relatively early in the creation of the work, the whole range from shade to light is added in a song or picture, and this is important to depth in a picture, and a way to achieve depth without loss of sharp edges. If you use more power it's important to know just where the power is, power of whatever sort is of worth to use well. I know this because I'm a musician and an artist. Zoom Link. Music How to Site..While the main elements of 1,3, and 5 are the components like consonants and the other notes are used to balance these basic elements and make them more supri-sing, it's tough to make a song out of just three elements.. Van Gough said about how to paint, "avoid the obvious" and by defining the song then via the main notes and then balancing them well so it's not so obvious, it's a higher level of the sound.

I think this motif of the main consonant and more fickle notes must have been derived in evolution from the physics of sound. The scale is cosmic in the world, they find the Maya had instruments they dug up that have an 8 tone scale like our own. The most important notes of 1, 3 and 5 have even numbers of the wavelength and frequency, this means they travel through the air well and this would have helped our survival because they would carry farther. Another reason our song is unlike other animals is because our ears and speech both have another mechanics and physiology than that of other animals so even while the general physics of the air is the same for us, our song is often not like that of other life in evolution.

You often hear comments by abstract painters who say painting a splotch on the wall is good because it's like music and there's no need for it to look real any more than a tune has to be real to be of worth. What's named abstraction isn't actually necessarily even abstract by the original definition of the latin word abstrahere, abstract, which means "mindless". The word abstract would obviously mean having reduced or no worth, and music, being founded in physics and evolution would have worth, and essentially by this important definition good music isn't abstract. Like the gold standard, I think it's better to define life, music and painting in terms of its survival value in evolution; music was the best evolution had to offer even if "abstract" (so is sleep) and what we see with zooms around us is more in sharp enough focus to know what's actually going on is a good sign, what you hope for more often than not. Being able to visualize the life and terrain around us would have advantage to survival so visual worth would be concrete. This would be a major part of life in our evolution, to see what's safe and to defend our life. To say painting a blob is good because it's abstract like music is not a substianted claim because music only seems abstract, and the true spirit of visual life would be the same as music. So whether modern art is abstract or not, I think it's not of as much worth to its followers as more real creativity like the greek or other ancient motifs were. I'm not a fan of visits with a blob on the wall for 40,000 at the show, if you just sit in the right area of the room your sofa cushion is just right, the foam is a computer to watch that may make you rich!
.
Here are some examples of my own mixed media for you (CLICK HERE FOR MORE!)

.....
Astronomers say all the windmills like our own Milky Whey all have more spin than they are supposed to by the amount of the visable stars light and redshift as a measure of how much mass is implied to be there that powers the spin (Where's The Old Giant Song of the Giant LP?). And more to the outside they all rotate as a solid body (The inside has the spiral). The outside is supposed to be going slower than it actually is, and with this much outward speed, the usual laws of physics seem to say they would all expand outward too much by the centrifugal force, and we would be without residuals of the milk, swirl and cheeze foundation. My explanation of this has been that in the center of all these levethians is a central mass of higher density than the strong force, explaining the jets of many of these sources which need more power than the strong force's fusion to power them. The particles would be of what I've named "superfusion". They wouldn't usually found all around us because they are only stable at the high pressures inside these massive bodies. As they would expand out they would fizz to lower power usual cosmic rays, a possible explanation of these otherwise unexplained sources of cosmic radiance. Or they could come from the same reaction in other jets of other massive bodies like our galaxy and fill up much of the room of the universe.


The central mass has the power source of the higher speed spin. This would connect to the rest of the galaxy's motion by way of ionization via the stars. The stars are constantly in radiance and this would set up field lines for the milky way. So the reason the galaxys would rotate like a solid body would be much the same as rotation of a usual solid in our life near here; the much stronger than gravity, electromagnetic field when ionized would holds the mass in solid formation. This would connect the dense mass of the center of the galaxies with the rest of the spin.

.
.The most accepted (or excepted) explanation about this has been dark matter. The dark matter powers all the motion and is distributed where the stellar mass is. Two problems here are, if the dark matter must be distributed where the stars are, why do they find no dark matter with telescopes or anywhere we look? In theory it would have a strong influence on mass of more prosaic sort. And it wouldn't unify the galaxys as solid bodies. If the dark matter has a gravitational field why would it make the galaxys spin as a solid body? Gravity is simple, we know it has no shield, and it attracts all there is with a definite energy. The earth with near radius spins faster than the the far radius of the moon. This is all we know about gravity in general. If we can measure it well if there were any more complexity at moderate power levels we would have found out. So the dark matter may not cause the galaxies to spin as a solid body if all the other gravity we see is without this effect. But the stellar ionization/superfusion theory has no dark particles and the spin and it's oneness are held together (if more proof is found see the rest of post) via the electric field.
.
It's also been believed that since the dark matter has to be near where the usual matter is to explain the motion of the mass like stars of the galaxies and no dark matter is found, a better explanation might be that the force of gravity is more constant with distance. The problem here is that the usual masses like Mars and Venus spin according to the usual law of Sir Issac's gravity. The more massive galaxies of moderate mass have another sort of rotation by way of dark matter, and the more vast superclusters of galaxies spin, like all the nearby masses via the usual angular momentum. Gravity is simple. Why would it change in a complex way between the usual mass around us and the galaxies with a linear radius law, and then return to the usual law, and with the same matter causing all three fields? If it were caused by the stellar ionization it would be unusual only with lots of stars like a galaxy. With no stars between the galaxies and not enough pressure between opposite stellar winds to make the the planets spin as a solid disc, they would both spin the same, and the solid spin of the galaxies would be via by the usual ionization and high central mass density. The spiral arms aren't as easily explained by the constant radius law because the gravity is simple so the geometry of all the galaxies would be the same. The motions of the stars in the spiral arms and such seem to imply more matter there than is seen. Just two long range forces are known, gravity and electromagnetism, but the force seen holding the galaxies together is stronger than gravity, and electromagnetism is stronger than gravity, so it seems the more force that is of worth to explain the observed rotation. If the stars ionize the field, wherever there was light there is gravity generally, as measured. So a falsifiable (true or false by experiment) proof of my theory of Stellar Ionization/Superfusion (at least about ionization being the source of the unified motion of the galaxies) may be about how much light is present. More massive stars and masses with reduced light and other electric radiation would rotate more loosely and accelerate outward if no ionized field was not present also, even with more gravity if gravity isn't the main force that unifies the galaxies. Where there would be more random light or binding radiation there would be more cohesion. If they're more massive via dark matter, there may be more unified spin with reduced radiation. Dark matter has the problem of none found and it should be there near us. So my Stellar Ionization/Superfusion theory seems to be a good explanation.

The galaxies would be held in one motion in Stellar Ionization by the stellar winds expanding outward to keep them from too much implosion. To stop too much expansion, each star seperates its own charge from the spaces between all the stars. So the stars would have one charge and the fields between them the opposite. The stars would attract the fields between them but only till balanced by the outgoing stellar winds. The balance between the inflow and outflow would hold the mass of the galaxies as a solid body.

In his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" Lerner says the 3K radiation supposedly left over from the Big Bang can instead be explained by radiation of stars scattered by the random field of the galaxy. I believe in the Double Disk Vortex Theory of cosmology with two cosmic jets like galaxies but on a cosmic scale, explaining evidence like why the expansion is accelerating outward (the opposite charges by like charge expanding out from the jet and then as the charges attract at the disk speeding up, with the opposite charged galaxies combining and releasing lots of power (quasars) and then the disk losing power and spiralling inward via gravity to fall in and then recirculate out with the jets repeating the cycle. Gravity would be the prime mover explaining why the cosmos never has wound down even with matter and energy never created or destroyed so existing for infinite time.). If the 3K is not leftover radiation from a more active Big Bang Lerner says that the 3K being found to be isotropic (the same in all directions) can be explained by the random motion of the elctromagnetic field of the milky way. It would scatter the radiation from our own stars like light in fog so it would seem to be from all zooms of the north star. And this randomness may also explain how the galaxy spins as one solid body. In usual solid bodies around us most of the orientation of the atoms and fields is random. The stars are with random orientation and most of the higher power sources that put out the most power of import are also. So the galaxy could be held solid the same way a usual solid is and this also explains the 3K.

In the book Lerner says much in support of Alfen's work about plasma physics and how you can take a small bit of plasma and generate an electric field and using just these alone an exact galaxy of plasma can be made in the lab complete with spiral arms. This is evidence that the galaxy can be held together by electromagnetic fields. Dark matter may not be needed to explain it.

***********
"Some S.A. fish swim like most fish for a time after they are hatched and then flip over and for the rest of their lives swim upside down." No the fish aren't upside down, the world is right side up!".

..

DO VORTEX JETS CAUSE COSMIC EXPANSION?


A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION...Using "off the shelf science", the Double Vortex Dynamo uses the same physics to describe the cosmos as if of the same general physics used to describe medium sized astronomical objects, "medium size" here meaning medium compared to the cosmos even if they are some of the most high powered sources yet found other than the larger cosmos itself.

Click Here for the National Geographic page about the finding that the CMB seems to have two regular circles of more uniform field or see link at end of post. 

 In this idea involving both cosmology and cosmogony, + and - charges of jets of the high powered physics of jets of plasma, well proven by the Nobel prize winning work of Alfven, build separation of the charges by gravitation at the cosmic source of the observed outward cosmic Hubble constant. This is how the jets of galaxies are powered. By the same general physics of the long range forces of electromagnetism and gravity, while gravitation would power two giant cosmic jets, the other jet would be too distant for us to see. Usual jets of BL-Lacs, radio sources, and other explosions would be the same general physics on a more vast scale. From the expansion the jets would then meet as the cosmic disc like the electric and magnetic fields of the Earth except more polarized if the outflows of the cosmic jets would radiate by like charges, explaining the cosmos having more positive mass and matter than antimatter observed near us here. We would be at one of the cosmic jets of just predominantly one charge with the other jet with the other. The jets of the already observed high power sources such as radio sources would be of opposite charge, not the lighthouse such as pulsars which would be just one jet as it precesses around we see.

Since the positive jets would be more protons, and the opposite jets made of more electrons, by Newton's Law of motion, the protons would move slower and have a higher wavelength so the opposite outflow of both jets of the observed medium sized masses and of the cosmos would not be the same of the BL Lacs, radio sources, and so on, essentially because of the distinction between matter and antimatter, this is the same as the distinction between mass and energy too in my belief where mass is heavy and attracts to unify and energy is light and radiates out to many.

Matter and antimatter are not the same because if a hill dug were exactly the same as the room of a scoop of earth to make the hill, Truth would be the same and False and science would have never started by the two great opposites like mass and energy, or theory and evidence. If mass and energy were exactly the same as Einstein thought, they could be converted with higher efficiency so the sun would have converted its mass to energy fast instead of billions of years. They are unlike so unlike amounts of matter and energy in the cosmos in general are found. If there were more energy than mass the cosmos would have expanded out infinitely, and disappeared so energy conservation would be violated so more mass (gravity) would be found than energy. For more about Dirac's use of quantum mechanics prediction of equal amounts of matter and antimatter when combined with special relativity may be evidence against relativity, .CLICK HERE)

In my cosmology the higher speed expansion of the more distant cosmos observed would be caused by attraction of the opposite ions of the jets when they reach the disk. The Double Vortex theory would also explain the recent evidence from the 

WMAP PROBE that shows the cosmos is quite regular on the most substantial scale yet seen; In the image it has two "sides" and halfway between them in the lower medium center is a round dot of perhaps half the area of the sides. The cosmic radiance outward would be explained by being the center of the jet (formerly thought to be the center of the cosmos) when we look toward it. The dot being offset to the top center of the Wilkinson image would be by way of the Double Vortex cosmos theory too, because the jet would be stretched from the cosmic zenith (at an obtuse angles to the cosmic disc) by attraction of the cosmic disc and much stronger power of the charges ionized well via the gravity of it. The opposite charges of the cosmic jet's attraction of the great cosmic wheel would power much of the acceleration of cosmic expansion observed so this would explain the higher speed motion outward without physics such as dark energy which has no proof as of August 2007. The basic problem of dark energy compared to the cosmic jet powered local expansion of the cosmos is that in using gravity as somewhat expansive it also allows the cosmos to leak out energy, and energy conservation, one of the the most well proven ideas in physics would be disproven. Another major problem of dark energy is that if there are slight amounts of loss of power of the long range forces, there would be slight changes in all the orbits of all the planets with a small change in the density of the field not otherwise seen and there are no experiments to prove anything like this.

 With the cosmic jet cosmology when the cosmic jet would expand like a cone shaped fountain with the Earth and us somewhere near the top of the fountain, as the jet would fall to the cosmic disc after the expansion it could again accelerate like it's seen as the opposite charges of jets would move to the disc. In order for the cosmos not to leak, the relative asymmetry on both sides may not be huge, this would be why the acceleration as found is so small. It would be locally enough to combine the electric charges efficiently but not enough to cause too much expansion when they combine. The idea of dark energy is not needed in the cosmic jet cosmology because the only long range forces observed are the attraction of mass and the often expansive electromagnetism, and these two forces would explain all we see except for the power source of the cosmos which may be a fifth and sixth force or higher action reaction pairs of forces predicted by Newton's Third Law (forces come in pairs) with the gravity acceleration the motive power of these forces and all there is so the cosmos won't wind down over infinite time.

 Evidence for the fifth and sixth force are that the radiation of common jets of galaxies is escaping the black holes  inward motion of the speed of light at least, yet its moving outward in a way relativity says is improbable, and for this reason of mass is spinning energy as I believe, the fifth and sixth force would also be spinning faster than light inside the singularity to withstand the radiance inward as Einstein hoped to disprove. And the anomalies of the spectra of the jets don't fit the standard methods used in the standard symmetries eg. relativity, isospin, transformational, and so on. If one is changed, all the others would be, and so relativity may fail here because of this.


Recent evidence from the LHC seems to show the possibility of a blip at higher energy not predicted by Standard physics, and if proven, this or more forces like it might be superfusion, solving Einstein's disbelief in the singularity since the stronger force could stand up to gravity inside the supermassive gravity and not violate energy conservation. (Click here or see link at the end of this page.) Physicists have believed about the number of forces there's no reason to believe they're limited, so if the new LHC force turns out to be proven it may not be strong enough itself to reradiate inside the black hole. It might only be a mediating force to the stronger force inside that could resolve Einstein's objection to black holes existing. 

  If the opposite charges being much stronger than gravity were the power source of the QSO's, and the galaxies of a cosmic positive charged jet would have more positive charges and the negative charged jet the opposite charges attracts, this theory also predicts the most distant sources of the medium sized jets we see with QSO's might be moving towards each other faster than gravity alone would allow. These medium power masses would have braking radiation and lining up with the much stronger (electromagnetic) field than gravity not otherwise seen by any other explanation where the fields would align and were at random before the collision.

Astronomers may have found a huge horde of QSO's in the realm where the + and - charges would meet, it would indeed take a huge number of radiant power sources to "lighten up" the mass and allow the gravity of the cosmic inward wheel to take over and rewind up the cosmos where it had rundown locally as the jets would expand so that energy and mass would be conserved. Originally I believed the disk had not yet been observed perhaps either because it's too far distant and or the shear force of the flow of the cosmic cone would refract the light from us.  However, the second type of WMAP images also show a cosmic equator, and this would be the evidence for the disc. 


 The WMAP shows symmetric sides of the cosmos where the cosmic jet we are moving inside would be. We would be looking down the tube in perspective and the heat would be another shade and more in perspective and more right and left than if we were at higher up above the disk of the cosmos where the sides would be more like a round wheel in geometry. If the sides are moving more to us, the red shift of the sides may be higher than at right angles to to our general motion. The central jet will have more of the fraction of the total mass of the realm of expansion where we are just as a river flows most fast about the central area.  I think Lerner's explanation of The Uniform Cosmic Background Field of is of worth (An Alternative To the Standard Explanation). By the Wilkinson evidence the cosmos would definitely be not the same in all directions. So if there is radiation from the cosmic jets, the random motion of our the electric field of the Milky Way would be necessary to make the radiation seem the same.

  The radiance of the Big Bang was believed to be proof of the low power Radiation which was found to be at "just the right predicted energy" but this may be coincidence. Perhaps the radiation seen isn't from the Big Bang. I believe there can be no definite energy predicted from anything infinite like the "Big Bang". If some energy is predicted from the Big Bang for the background field, there would be no reason to not "predict more" with a higher ratio of the mass to outward flow of the field. Vortex Cosmology would be able to predict a nonisotropic CMB of the right magnitude by way of the renormalization of the cosmological physics, not the Big bang. The CMB being coincidence is what CJC predicts to fit the contours of what by the evidence is now proven to be the unsymmetrical mass of the cosmos. If jets are indeed the cause of the Hubble expansion and they are powered by internal electrostatic expansion of like charges, the expansion is not like a sphere. It would be more like a cone of more and more motion with the outward expansion moving toward the cosmic belt seen by WMAP.. So if most of the mass of the cone were near the middle if we look out at right angles to our motion, if the expansion is more nonlinear, and the CJC  
predicts reduced expansion at right angles than the sphere of the Big Bang. With us in the center of the jet, there would be spin all the 360 degrees around our line of motion too, not a prediction of the Big Bang.

..Jets may flow like a stream with laminar flow, in layers. The inside flows the fastest like the flow of waves in a river, and the mass might be in layers. The layers if like the ocean or a stream would be definite, so cosmic jet cosmology may predict this effect where on one side of the layer a relatively higher or lower speed may be found and the overall shape of the cone or trumpet shaped layers. The electromagnetic field and gravitation are the only two long range fields known so there has to be some looseness of the force because gravity may not be strong and the slow speed of light makes the electromagnetic field more loose. So the jets can bend down like a tree pulled down to meet the earth from the top if the branch bends well. Our cosmic jet would be pulled down like the branch to reach the cosmic dish via attraction of the opposite charges of the cosmic jet and disc. If the jet didn't connect the inflow of the cosmos, the energy would be spewing out of the cosmos, and this would violate energy conservation, so the necessity of the jet being pulled down by attraction to reach the inflow would explain the cosmic asymmetry seen by the WMAP  images, and how the expansion is accelerating by more and more attraction, while saving energy conservation of unbalanced infinite Big Bang power. All the mass energy of the cosmos would go in balanced continuous loops, existing forever in time with energy neither created or destroyed. Energy Conservation (not the Big Bang) is the most well proven method in science. The cosmos would have spin like most of the mass of our usual life, and more. If the universe like subatomic particles is of high power so may be cosmic angular momentum. The Earth's location would tend to be in the center of one of the jets by the usual common luck like how the heliocentric method and other science has tended to make our evidence for being special-more common! The spin of this cone at the 90 degree sideways angle to its outward direction of motion would be from the math of angular momentum, the more speed the less spin relative to an observer more at rest relative to the center of the cosmos [this would be more at rest by way of gravitation just as the earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more at rest than the earth, one of my basic disproofs of (general )relativity, relativity has no explanation for rest mass. See link at bottom for more].

 In the Double Vortex motif it's determined from the mass, speed, and how much spin it had at the start of its masses motion, continuously expanding by the continual power of the gravity eternally winding up the cosmos so it won't run down over infinite time of matter neither being created or destroyed. The main reason the jets have not been directly known other than by the new images of the cosmos may be because the volume may be large seen from our vantage. Structures like the Great Wall, and the huge bubble sheets of galaxies seen at other angles, are definitely not predicted from a simple spherical expansion like the Big Bang with the speed of light the top speed, because calculations show they wouldn't have had time to form with the given strength of gravity in the time since the Big Bang, as Lerner says in "The Big Bang Never Happened". This is not impossible in the Big Bang if it's assumed that the speed of light is not the top speed of the force of gravity.

While I believe the LIGO may have found the speed of inertia not gravity since Mach and Einstein believed gravity and inertia were the same thing as I say here, it still may measure the speed of inertia and like centrifugal force it doesn't shield, so LIGO may help us see the center of the cosmos. If my general cosmic explanation is correct, we'll be able to see the giant central continuous power source of the cosmic events, and see the source of the jets and the other jet out of sight to the common methods used  these days.




Click Here For The BBC science page about the WMAP observations also. NOTE; I originally credited this evidence, but more recent images like by the Planck and other interpretations of the WMAP data may contradict this because many believe the WMAP has anamolies, first the sphere Tegmark and others were considering may have been an anamoly of the machine (I read elsewhere there are two of the circles and they show up in opposite zones of the heavans in the images, a creation of the machine and the cosmic equator was merely the dust plane of our own Milky Way.) If so I resolve to get my evidence no more even from the BBC or National Gregraphic and instead from other more reliable sources. On the other hand, it's possible CJC cosmology may be so if the evidence is of worth, so instead of just removing this post as I had since I found out about this cosmic change of the machines, now I see it now I don't, here I list my CJ Cosmology method since it may also solve other problems like where the Big Bang was from, to save energy conservation, cosmic acceleration, and more!



For more about faster than light wave motion possibilities without disproof of relativity, Click Here.

Here's the New Scientist site about the blip in the LHC that may be evidence for what I have named superfusion and a fifth or more forces that may save energy conservation by allowing the black hole not to radiate inward to nothing (Einstein's dilemma).

Click here for the National Geographic site about the discovery of the great circles in the CMB. 

  physics.org says with much research that it's been found that there is no change in time dialation for QSO's between 6 and 10 billion light years. In CJ Cosmology this would be because once the mass and stars of the jet contacts the disc as seen in the WMAP images of the second type, they aren't moving radially much relative to us. The're a stable structure just as the disc of the milky way is. 

  There are some who believe the circle and cosmic edges seen are evidence for colliding bubble universes, perhaps powered by cosmic inflation, where the impact leaves a dent in our cosmos like a crater. However there would be more complex ripples of the sides as seen in common craters, and the jets might allow more simple edges, like the edges seen. Click here  for my thoughts about this. 



Archeology is good to reduce fat! When some of us click the burger, wifi goes to high arches!