The Uncertainty Principle, Physics, And The Higgs..
..
The Uncertainty Principle says that to observe a particle you must change it so much in subatomic physics the information you seek is not seen. There are many who have even said that in subatomic physics a particle doesn't even exist till you measure it, and if so, the observer would be all powerful, all would be democratic, and men, republicans,and royals would be nontexistant (mom knows!). As I say about my Foundations of Physics, all physics seems to be from a basic low energy field (If a woof could talk he would say, "Sue the neighbors! We'll collect in dog afterlife!) This would be why and how energy conservation and other such motifs like the uniformity of physics work for all the forces. Gravity speaks all the other forces but the other forces are less cosmic so gravity would be the foundation and the force from which all the other physics would be derived. Thus the gravity would implode to a certain level so the field is more implosive than explosive generally. Energy wouldn't be expanding out and fizzing away from the cosmos so energy is conserved at greater distances. But if it implodes too much it would also be disappearing e.g. into a super massive implosion so it would have to implode just to a certain density like that of electromagnetism and then expand outward so the expansive force would balance the implosion at another wavelength, like solar gravity and radiance. To make stronger more dense forces there would be more implosion of the same field, then more expansion, but not as much as the implosion so the mass wouldn't evaporate out. The implosion would be more fundamental than the rebounding because an implosion holds mass together in stable cohesion. Straight line motion outward alone would never be stablized and implosion is self limiting with a surface. Exobiologists say a surface is essential to life. So we wouldn't be here without more implosion than expansion. In this vision of physics the foundation field of mass implodes to electromagnetic energy, which would then expand out somewhat and is then imploded in more to make the strong force and so on. You have the basic field and it being simple always implodes to the same energy of the electron and this also obeying energy conservation with more energy would then always implode to the mesons and baryons of the same mass, and generally the same strength of the forces would always be created out of the same foundation field it's also constant. The first field is axiomatic and could have any strength, so it and the derived fields of the other strengths would also be determined by just when they would also expand after a certain amount of implosion, mostly the level of expansion would be derived from the implosion because it's more important. Even so the implosion expansion ratio is also mostly arbitrary because how much implosion and when and how much expansion would then take place is at the level of axiom (like the debate about whether Mamma will start selling cozy and fuzzy army boots!). This means even with the foundation field being more of worth this would determine mostly by it's resonance what the strengths of the other fields are. In subatomic physics the Uncertainty Principle would thus be caused by the coincidence that the forces of subatomic physics are at the same general energy level. Einstein believed that if you had a lower energy particle you could measure the higher energy fields of subatomic physics with, it would be much the same as the light and the moon because there's no fundamental reason to believe in physics the measuring beam, e.g light has to be the same energy as the imaged mass. Like Einstein I believe the Uncertainty Principle would not be not consistent with more general physics. Many believe the cosmos exists, even when not observed! The real reason the Uncertainty Principle seems to be true would be because in subatomic physics the electromagnetic and strong forces by just luck are at about the same levels of energy. Being derived from the basic field of energy conservation, the sensor and what's measured in subatomic physics as elsewhere could be any level and this is just coincidence because it's derived from the basic level of implosion and resiliency of the main field, which itself is just in the realm of luck.

The Uncertainty Principle says the more mass you have by it the smaller the volume of space the particle occupies. One reason I agree with Einstein is about one of the standard definitions of mass in physics; mass occupies space. When you pile more mass on a usual shelf or box and it occupies more room not less. This seems to be evidence in favor of Einstein's idea about the Uncertainty causology (of more mass and more volume of room). Another problem with the Uncertainty Principle is that if you add more mass when you go to smaller to zero size the mass is infinite so all the mass around us including the field of empty space with its low power particles would have infinite mass. The way out of this problem was believed to be by way of the observation that the inside of a subatomic particle seems to go from moderate to low to"infinite" power inside the particle as the probe bullets into the meson or other mote in the atom smasher. There would also seem to be an infinity on the outside of each field stretching out to infinity. Aha! they said, "The way out of the infinite mass at 0 distance problem is just by taking the positive outer infinity and subtracting it from the negative inward infinity leaving a finite residue."

This can't be used to prove the Uncertainty Principle; It explains the balance of the two opposites quite well but it's based just on the implosion and the expansion and expansion and implosion are found in abundance all around us. Just squeezing a jug of fizz and you recieve a hug this is not evidence there is Uncertainty in how much the atoms and molecules that make up bulk matter are so the mass is mostly the same too and this doesn't prove that the more you squeeze the a stone or jug the less room it takes up, this is not generally so, and the basic proof Einstein may have used remains that at 0 size the mass would be infinite. Some have held that the collapse of the wave function would mean that you can't measure something in subatomic physics without changing it. Consider however if those who hooted Einstein realized that when you don't observe something, it would just disappear, violating energy conservation. In keeping with Einstein if we just closed our eyes and the Uncertainty Principle were true, the universe would disappear. While quantum uncertainty may be based on some experiments, to believe it's generally true would seem to be the beam the ancients believed was in your eye to see with, not science. The reason this is a good disproof Einstein could have used is because it seems there must be an underlying reality; the particles may actually be changed considerably, but not so much they interact absolutely with the measuring ray or beam used to find the information. If all the quantum uncertainy is a fundamental measure of spacetime itself not just of subatomic physics if it were so fundamental quantum foaminess would be in all the mass of room temperature size and aroma around us and the wavicles would just be waves. The particles don't just collapse; if the wave function and the observer were absolute it would seem the implosion would continue ad finitum. While the outside of the wave implodes the inside of a heavier particle remains stable and the overall motion of the particle is slower than the collapse of the wave function. So it would seem there must be an underlying "more absolute" reality in subatomic physics of more elementary particles connecting up the cosmos for energy conservation, and because all the fields would be connected up by these particles, these particles which I call rishons (hebrew for element) need to exist because of this to uphold energy conservation. This leads to the question of what and how the Uncertainty Principle could be edited up to what would then be more general physics via Einstein's causology;

As I say HERE (with the information superhighway, some say no matter where you go is always a cushy sleep machine!) the masses of subatomic particles seem to need subparticles, components of smaller mass than quantum energy to make them stable and of constant rest mass on the scale from light to heavy in physics, if the subparticles weren't stable neither would be the subatomic physics. The Higgs' particle has been proposed and it would have to have huge energy to be small enough to fit inside the radii of particles like muons or protons, this by a strict interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. All mass in subatomic physics would have to have huge density and mass (while the short range mass might be "cancelled" by renormalization, the gravity which because it doesn't shield in eclipses can't be cancelled so renormalization won't solve the problem.) If physics would go to the beach in CT, the ships are all airships! Basic elements that are lower energy would seem to be needed to build the particles of subatomic physics, and because of the necessity of all the physics being united. The units of mass that may actually turn out to have these functions that were believed to be caused by the Higgs may thus be low energy virtual particles like the spacelike and timelike particles that Einstein himself also predicted.

Einstein believed low energy physics might be a viable way around the Uncertainty Principle where you have so much interaction it jumbles up the information. With a low energy probe would go no collapse of the wave function. To see how this could be consider that all mass in physics is (and are thanks to mom's speech, Dr. Mom) held together by some sort of adhesion or it would expand out without limit. Both outward and inward implosion are somewhat balanced on edge by something. Some force of resiliency must maintain its stability when it's not being "sensed" or it would already have expanded or collapsed all the time. This means the collapse of the wave function is held off by a certain amount of expansive resiliency, R, to make it stable. If the energy of an incoming low energy beam is lower than R max deeper inside the mass energy field to be probed, the more unchanging reality of the muon or other subatomic mass might be seen by way of its illumination. Recent experiments seem to uphold Einstein's causology about this, the value R may be of worth to see if this is proof. If the strength in these Low Energy Quantum Experiments are more than R they may be too much to be the definite disproof of the Uncertainty Principle physicists might seek. Thus by R the low energy experiments may be proof or disproof of the Uncertainty Principle. This or my simple plan people around here use, It's called Amazing Enough!!


There would be a definite range of mass for the probe necessary. If it were too low it wouldn't have enough energy to interact, and if it were above R Max it would cause a collapse of the wave function. And the mass of the subparticles themselves if made of the same building blocks when allowed for their slower energy of motion would be also in a definite range like R max and H the lower value of the interaction. In order to interact without the collapse of the wave function to uphold idea that the cosmos exists even when not seen, having much the same mass energy and wavelength, the rishons would behave much like the lower energy quanta of the beam of the value R max-H, like two AM stations that resonate well if of the same size and wavelength, otherwise no information is broadcast. Because R max-H is a not a large number via the fickle balance of the wave function to collapse it puts a limit on the mass of the rishons. No doubt the mass of a rishon can't be more than the total energy. Rmax and the value of Rmax-H also limits the binding energy. The mass of the rishon would be somewhere between Rmax and some number multiplied by a number between Rmax and H, Rmax to H represents binding energy, and since total mass energy is conserved as this number from R max-H is smaller the possible rishon mass is larger [all there is is either mass or (binding) energy) or vice versa]. But R max to H itself is small. The upper limit of mass is by R max and I believe the rishons won't be of hugely small mass because both particles and waves are common in subatomic physics, with both well proven it would seem an elementary particle can't be either of huge mass or so small in mass they would be absolutely unseeable with our machines because whatever the elementary particle is it must be able to rapidly convert from particles to waves, this is a main cause of my disbelief in a massive Higgs in subatomic physics, a higher energy particle like the Higgs must be hugely particulate so no waves may arise. Low energy quanta near in energy to electromagnetic waves would explain may things e.g how the field is shaped by the motion of a high speed starship so when the ship changes speed, what Einstein thought of as space time shapes and molds the electromagnetic field so the redshift of the light and other the other relativity fits in with Special Relativity. Information about light is being sent at faster than light to control much of the field in special relativity because it changes before the light reaches the ship and this would only be possible if the wave sending the information about the wavelength is faster than light since the light itself is at just the speed of light. A low energy mostly continuous field that is near enough in energy to have stronger influence on it would be a good explanation of this.

The physics of the collapse of the wave function may be compared to a volcano where to find the information at the center you have to roll a big stone up the side; in order to see the lava in the center, because of the coincidence the stone is comparable in size to the lava dome, you have to be cautious to not let the boulder move up with too much force. Even the best way you can achieve this often would cause the stone to cause the explosion of the dome, the collapse of the wave function. If the stone is much the same energy as the volcano, it would seem there is no way to find out about physics geology (a science all it's own!). Like a watch, a meson or muon is not just a round fuzzy blob and has many general properties (a face, wheels, cogs) and the lava flow has size sound and other ways to see which are the parameters. Like the wheels, gears and other complex properties of subatomic particles, it's obvious the particle has substructure because even if parameters of these celestial mechanics of the subatomic realm are much unalike, they're all unified by energy conservation, and to unify the physics, this substructure would seem to be made of lower energy components like the atoms of the volcano. [We hear of how the parameters may be so unfathomable, but they may be proven without a great wait if the basic elements like muons are controlled so definitely by them. The parameters may be so common they've just been ignored. Einstein believed the evidence for the cosmos in a deeper sense is all around us in common life.] The necessity of sub particles at some fundamental level are necessary to uphold energy conservation. All is one, so it would seem to need just one or two basic building blocks. The volcano has much more mass than the atoms it's made of and with more mass it has more energy. So the smaller energy of the subcomponents would be not so high energy like the Higgs they hope to see with machines like the LHC.

As I say on THIS PAGE I believe that waves are more fundamental than particles and there would be no absolute sharpness of resolution. (All the tourists in MO want to live here! This is what's good about my county!) Even so we may get to more basic levels of what I call "low energy quanta" before we find the lowest energy stable particles, all physics below this level would be wavelike and continually accelerating without shielding and so on (gravity waves). Below a certain level of maximum compression of the gravity of the cosmos (which is finite or we would have been compressed to 0 size by the infinite gravity) there would be no smaller particle. One reason I believe in the wave foundation of all physics is because as I say particles are by definition discontinuous and lead to contradiction, waves are continuous so they would be more fundamental and have many sizes to unify all the physics like with the basic field that would operate by continuous overlapping waves to cause the acceleration of 32 ft near the earth. This would explain why to the best limits of resolution of space and time we can see like in subatomic physics the manifold of space time is completely continuous and smooth. If gravity and the basic quanta were of low energy, with overlapping waves to cause the acceleration of the field to stay in motion not high energy in it's quanta it could be stable in the general rest frame to give stable mass to subatomic particles.

Light slows down in a dense field of mass, so by conservation of angular momentum, the gravity would speed up in this event. (My computer's modem is slow real slow! To conserve energy on the information superhighway, it's not just a stationary wagon, it's going to 1997 at 90 miles an hour all month!) Waves are continuous, they operate by contraction, light stays mostly the same and changes in wavelength with constant speed. Gravity being mostly non relativistic would change both in speed and wavelength with more mass. This change in wavelength in my formulation of General wave Dynamics (GWD) click here for synopses...) is like a rope that waves faster between two moving masses to move them close or away because gravity is the opposite of thermodynamics in it's math. Gravity pulls us down while the thermodynamic expansion of relativity and the more constant speed of light balance out the gravity and lift us, so relativity would be the opposite of gravity, in equal opposition.


A possible way to Einstein's low energy way around the Uncertainty Principle might be by the neutrino. It goes through miles of lead without interaction of atoms collapsing any of the wave functions, proven by the rate of the events in particle machines. If the neutrino were made adhesive enough (perhaps with more it's self adhesive forces that must hold it together to make it stable using many neutrinos combined so the wave adhesion is multiplied) it might be adhesive enough but not too much to make it to the range between the values of R max to H. I agree with Einstein about this that it's possible the wave function wouldn't collapse and more of the information about subatomic physics would be measurable. (Click Here For Other Possible Ways Around The Uncertainty Principle.).

If the lower energy particles that would make up the subcomponents of the field in the general energy range of R max-H were isolated somehow they might be a good way to achieve Einstein's belief about how to solve the Uncertainty Principle. It may be possible to find these particles in the future by the two main paths that were the road to the physics of the atom and electrons we know today; one way was by observing currents like lightning with wires and motors and measuring the currents well. Another way was Millikan's oil drop experiment, still believed the best proof of the electron. There are many examples in physics of flow of the low energy fields. For example, the flow of iron around a magnet, magnetic induction, centrifugal force and gravity, which both might be explained by the pressure of this low energy field, and the resistance of the force of a rocket motor in space to move it forward all may be explained by the flow of one general low density field. It seems that centrifugal force is by expansive pressure, expansion is discontinous and thus particulate, gravity is (often) much like this by Einstein's Equivalence of gravity and inertia, thus there would be the low energy particles moving like the atoms and molecules of air all around us, perhaps if we set up "wires" and heat them enough of these more elementary ghost particles could be used to create pressure in the field that we could measure. The progress to find the would-be Higgs particle might in many ways be like the history of finding out about electromagnetism, then on to the electric charges.

There's another way to measure the mass and charge of an electron, if we have five atoms of equal valence (0 charge, say hydrogen with a proton and an electron each) and ionize the charge of 3, the charge and mass of these ionized and nonionized atoms will change in a predictable way according to the mass and charges of the atoms and ions. All we have to do to prove the electron exists is by just measuring atoms, and even better and faster to this improved Millikan causology would be to first ionize the 3 atoms or any number in a definite ratio and then weigh and compare them to each other with something like atomic interferometry. We actually know a lot more about chemistry than just that the electron exists. Like the much higher sensitivity of power steering of a Mazda by "ionizing" the low energy components and then weighing them in comparison to each other and adding pressure of the field on both sides of the wheel or what's measured, Einstein's low energy quanta or other particle might be measured, by the change in the ratio of the masses multiplied up when boiling off these low energy quanta, this is something Millikan didn't realize and may allow us more than just his method to resolve the electron as well as to prove the low energy quanta if they exist. They may boil off a wire because they may be so low energy they would not have strong adhesion to the "wire" and would move around in free space, this could how the pressure of centrifugal force and gravity would be unified in Einstein's Equivalence of the forces.

A more advanced way to find the "element who would be Higgs" may be by using a column or tube of electrons in field or laser resonance and seeing if any jumps like the energy Rmax-H per electron are seen. (Perhaps a Fullerene type column would work well). Even with electrons quantisized, the small mass of each of the rishons, the subparticles, would be proven by the same jump of each electron multiplied up by the giant number of electrons so even though the change of each electron would be small it would still be proof by way of the total change divided by the number of electrons. This would be proof of R max-H and my improvement of Einstein's idea that not only do low energy particles exist to connect more massive physics in the room near us with the quantum uncertainty resolved, but also that these elementary particles would be essentialy what's been believed to be the Higgs. The value of R max-H is narrow as evidenced by the resiliency and stability of the forces preventing or causing the collapse of the wave function, so it's range per electron would be definite proof or disproof. With the value well proven the flow outward from a proton's or electron's magnetic field and with the value of the mass and attraction of each rishon via R max-H we might then capture the rishon in a well made of other particles since we would know just how much to slow the field to capture one or more rishons. From there we might make self assembling wires and so on like by pulling the would be rishons out the other side by extrusion to make the wire. Wires could be used for "electric or electronic circuits" or combined to make rishon solids a new type of matter, or other uses like chips made of just criss crossed wires in a simple but real small and fast chip like the Molecular Wire Chip that's just built of wires at 90 degrees. .

You may ask why use individual rishons from the electric field of protons? There is field of flow already. Aren't they much the same? This may be like the distrinction between pulling a bucket of water on the ship in 1227 bereft the chemical value of hydrogen power and the atomic value of wires and electricicity compared to general mass, in other words rishon wires and solids may have all the value of mass via the Higgs is believed to have, except perhaps by my elaboration of Einstein's idea about the low energy particles. This was considered one of Einstein's "Big Mistakes" but if it was about the element of which all the mass is built, big may be the wrong word, and mistake may be just a word also! While it's quite posssible the Higgs as they say exists, this is an alternate path the physics could take if it actually turns out no Higgs is seen by giant machines like the LHC.

As I say above, absolute change or no change both are in subatomic physics and the mass of subatomic motes would exist mostly if unobserved just as your beloved feline "if fat rest" is cozy on the FM. Even so because there is a limit to implosion of the fields there would be a smallest particle of nonzero size in the cosmos. Waves being more fundamental would be able to go to 0 size without the infinities. You may say if the Uncertainty Principle itself is not fundamental and the low power fields are of the same energy how would we get around the problems I speak of here about the Uncertainty Principle for the low energy particles themselves? This may be via the much greater range of the low energy fields that seem necessary to connect up sizes from the size of the cosmos to the smallest sizes of subatomic physics or more. It's possible there would always be enough distinction in them to get around the Uncertainty Principle in a more basic way just as in room sized physics around us. It turns out the low energy physics experiments as of 2008 uphold this idea of Einstein’s and my elaboration of it, the Uncertainty Principle seems to be a loose association, and not as general as the more definite connection of energy conservation, the necessity of the low energy fields to connect up the mass and energy otherwise seem to lead to the infinities and other problems of common sense. Gravity connects up the cosmos and so does energy conservation, if gravity is the Foundation Field and it connects up the rest of the cosmos Uncertainty wouldn't be the most general physics, the energy range R max to H seems necessary for the fields to connect, otherwise energy conservation might fail because it's a simple unifying motif and if all is one must be connected. Thus the energy of the low power components would be between R max and H, and it would seem that Einstein's low energy particle wouldn't just be plausible it would definitely exist to unify physics. This low energy Higg's causology, would have all the worth of the Higgs and the ghost particle both. The ghost particle causology is considered of real worth by many because it may replace the space time of relativity with a definite field we can measure change and make predictions about. Low energy may be where the Higgs would actually be seen not in high energy machines like the LHC.

At any rate whether my belief about Einstein or the high energy Higgs is correct, by way of these currents and wires and particles a whole new type of electronics may be created, super small, super lightweight or strong and perhaps even faster than light. .

A WAY TO PROVE IF THE EPR IS ABOUT GRAVITY
...
The Noncommmunication Theorem, a later development of Einstein's own EPR Paradox (by others) that says no commmunication is possible with the EPR at faster than light might be proven or disproven if its strength falls off by the usual laws of radiant energy with distance, this would be a sure sign it's sent by a signal of radiant energy, and isn't just the same event happening at distant places at once as some have believed. A radiant connection wouldn't be proof of faster than light itself, but it would be proof of a mechanical connection. The EPR may change gravity in a roundabout way, actually the ratio of centrifugal force to gravity. A higher speed FTL EPR signal with continuous changes in acceleration and wavelength like I think gravity would be might make gravity stronger. Even so though possibly still faster than light because lighter than light in my formulation, a lower EPR speed than gravity instead via a constant speed field like higher energy light we see around us would boost the predicted value of centrifugal force by way of disconnection caused by the slower and constant speed of light in special relativity (By the time the light reaches the moon a light second away, the moon has moved and is that much more disconnected causing the centrifugal force by way of the uniform motion of relativity and the centrifugal force). Even if the high speed EPR is slower than gravity the gravity would outdistance it to cause more implosion than expansion of the field. To prove this with real centrifugal force, since matter waves are easy to see with our physics machines with a bit of labor with the outward expansion of the ghost particles being the presumed cause of the centrifugal force, if we make the field higher or lower in energy and then spin the wheel we may see somewhat different amounts of centrifugal force. This would be via the ghost particle way to physics which many believe may allow better science like an improved vision of the space time of relativity via the low energy field instead of where Einstein's space time could be without as much worth, and the way to the ghost particle method used by cosmologists to save cosmic expansion via outward pressure of the field and other motifs of Inflation Expansion. The distinction between relativity would be here because of resiliency of the field and redshift of the field with the EPR's higher speed, for the same change in field density there may be a change in the centrifugal force other than just by the redshift of light of more common power and speed.

Both centrifugal force and gravity both are with energy conservation and no other force than gravity and centrifugal force are seen between the moon and earth or other masses, to change one is to change the other, so the speed and rate of change of the EPR would both be about gravity and electromagnetism. By energy conservation gravity would speed up while the low powered light would slow down, the actual speed of the EPR field from experiment would be about the rate of exchange. I believe if the EPR is eventually proven by the evidence to be (implosively) radiant and thus disproof of Noncommunication, and faster than light via Einstein's own belief when he pioneered the EPR, it's more about a lower energy more electromagnetic type wave of constant speed (though still perhaps much faster than light) like the unchanging speed of more common light seen in life at our own energy. Because it's the matter wave of subatomic physics, it has much higher density than gravity and isn't about the cause of gravity even if it may change it by way of changes in the ratio of centrifugal force to it. Because the EPR is the matter wave that makes up subatomic physics it may also be constant in speed like usual light, and this is stable in it's motifs, thus even if about gravity, the EPR may be of constant higher speed light like light seen around us. Otherwise both gravity and centrifugal force would be an acceleration and this would be disproof. More implosion and compaction of the field than expansion would be of worth or it would expand out indefinitely, this implosive entropy would be the foundation of subatomic stability. Unlike higher energy entropy the flow of the field by way of pressure would generally be more inward to cause gravity so while the speed of the EPR would perhaps be mostly constant and stable like optical light it would have inward entropy more like gravity, actually a blend of both thermodynamics and gravity to mediate the fields between masses like the earth and moon. The field that connects gravity with electromagnetism well would have properties of both. The constant speed wouldn't be absolutely maintained like with usual light and relativity because the force of implosion and expansion is not as strong as optical light that are the cause of quanta with lower density of the field, so could be a sort of low energy quanta without as much resistance of the field and via higher speed than light and may be by way of the phase change some believe in about gravity being like a superfluid. This idea of low energy quanta of the field might also make the interaction of the gravity and the EPR more well defined because it would mediate between the sharp distinction of the quanta like optical light and the more continuous force of gravity, if both quanta and nonquanta, physics might have a definite inbetween level to balance and conservation of energy and quantity of motion of both fields via the low energy quanta of the field.
..

TWO OTHER (Cheap) WAYS TO PROVE IF GRAVITY IS FTL..

If gravity is faster than light (Click Here for Evidence for this "GWD" my causology of General Wave Dynamics) the timing the angle sight of fall of masses around the center of the Milky Way seen via old light might be another angle than where it is now. Light emitted 50,000 years ago would be changed in it's angle in space relative to where the source is now vis a vis the light from more distant sources like more distant galaxies. This makes sense because if the light has old and outdated evidence about the source of gravity, the information is about the past, which doesn't exist anymore, so if gravity or the electomagnetic information about the centrifugal force were at the speed of light it would have a connnection in the past, that is to say the would be no connection, or a continually widening expansion as the apparent center of gravity seen by the light is a much larger circle, so it would have reduced attraction. Thus it follows if gravity attracts it's faster than light because the connection exists. The change in angle would be according to the distinction between the speed of light and the speed of gravity. To reach us with minimum force a connection at the speed of light would move radially but in an arch with the top of the arch ahead of us in motion. If it were with the arch downward, the light would have to go uphill when the outer masses were moving faster to reach them and this would take more work to change the wavelength of the light. When seen in the forward arching light the center of the centrifugal force would seem to be displaced in a forward angle, so the centrifugal angle of the motion itself would be outward with the centrifugal center also changing the geometry of the motion of outside circle of the the orbit, with the outward expansion of centrifugal force caused by the slow speed of light.

This would be proven by sending a probe far from the solar system or the earth to measure the angle of fall into the galaxy that would be stopped in the motion we share with other stars around us, like if a rock in orbit were stopped in spin it would fall radially in towards the earth. The angle the mass would fall at would prove or disprove this about the speed of the field. Actually this change in angle of the center of mass relative to the center of motion would be seen with all falling bodies to some degree, thus the moon with a distance of about one and a half light seconds from the earth would have masses somewhat near it falling at a different angle towards the earth than the line toward the center of mass of the earth moon system would be seen in visable light. This explains why the moon goes forward in orbit, with the delay between the centrifugal force at just the speed of light, the gravity would move it forward.
~~~
This would be the same as Einstein's prediction of the shift in the orbit of the preihelion of Mercury, if inertia alone moved falling masses foreward the value Einstein predicted would be half the actual rate of shift. Because the gravity would be converted to sideways motion of the inertia by adding to the motion of the inertia via this change in angle this predicts that because of essentially the change in pressure in the angle of the field ahead of the moon or other falling mass, masses in orbit ahead of the path of motion around bodies like the moon would fall at a different rate especially, something Einstein's causology wouldn't predict.

If travel near the sun with a somewhat massive machine costs too much, another way to find the speed of gravity may be by way of the Torsion Balance Machine, using earthquakes (siesmology) rather than solar events (heliosiesmology) as the source. (See Synopses). First the Torsion Machine would be aligned with the readings of earthquakes. We can already measure the masses of nearby mountains with these machines, they would either be moved near to a high level siesmic zone or the sensitivity of the machine would also be multiplied up and moved farther away while maintaining a reliable connection by making larger and more reliable machines. The speed of the gravity would then be compared to the speed of light. Putting one or more Torsion Machines in orbit by this method of extending the distance and finding the signal by improvements in resolution, and repeating the distance/resolution cycle would make it easy to measure the velocity of the gravity waves from orbits of more and more distance. Though this would be cheaper than sending a probe to the sun if gravity is at the speed predicted by GWD either with heliosiesmology or siesmology, because of the higher speed of gravity in Wave Dynamics it would be a yes or no answer. By this proof using earthquakes either gravity is much faster than light or not, but the actual speed would not be measured because the Torsion Machine would move too slow with the loose gravitational connection to prove the speed. We would know it was faster than light, but not the actual speed. It's possible by averaging out the motion of the machine its inertia and slowness would be allowed for at least somewhat more. If we see regular waves of all the same duration and wavelength (such as by oscillation af a heavy mass or heavenly body) and then changing it reliably we might put a lower limit on the speed by this method.

..

ELEGY; A sad song or poem, to remember, I remember it by sounds like ailing gee whizz Sing!

....

EULOGY; A Song of praise, From the Greek Eu Good and Logos, Literally a good word. Sounds like something the boss would say, "Put in a good word for me, other than just while I'm alive, I'm going on a splurge to the old world in Vensuela!"

--

A k T k U

....

On Millionaire the other day they asked a lady if bronze was a combination of Oxygen and A Zinc, B.Magnesium C. Iron D Calcium, She asked the audience in the survey and 47 % who picked A said the other 75% knows more!

~~~~~~

I saw this rare coins for 50$ from the 1930's. I said Gee would it be cheaper to rewind say 50 years buy the coins, and wait 75 years and save the 5 cents! No doubt!

...

.

I once read a physics book about superpressure, they said, "Water considered by physics to be a solid at room temperature had actually been compressed to 2/3 its volume". It said in the volume that even atoms might be eventually compressed to such high density they would fuse and the power of the stars would be achieved. I considered this to be possible and I've remembered it well. Research is underway using the implosion of the electric fields to try to implode in the protons and other heavy particles which would then fuse if the strong force would implode them more, this is an improved method over the usual hopes of the fusion machines like the tokamak because they hope to slam in the protons and other massive particles and hope they hit just right to fuse with via use if the much lower power electric field instead of trying to use the fields of the atoms to do much of the labor of the implosion, I think this would be better than trying to stop a ship with a sofa cushion, it should be higher "afish in sea".

A problem with Lerner's machine (Focus Fusion) is that the protons have an electric field, the opposite neutron has no field (neutron means no charge) so it's tough to make them implode just right. The way out Lerner hopes to use is to use atoms with protons and neutrons inside (a better solution might be to make the neutrons stationary and slam in the hydrogen or other atoms by way of the electric field but this is still trying to aim too well with just luck if they hit). The opposite valences of the atoms allow them to be accelerated to high speeds and then they would implode. The problem is that the outer field of all atoms has electrons and like charges are more resistant to implosion, so the machine would have to overcome the outside force of the atoms to reach the inside, this takes more power.


I was reading one of those papers about the cosmos as computer where they ask how much more computing power is allowed by physics, will chips continue to add more speed indefinitely by the physics? (I think black holes and stars don't count as computing power because they are almost totally seperated from the rest of the cosmos by the distance, and also because the gravity simplifies the information. Usual computations like evolution go from simple to complex, and evolution or civilization are just like a big computer, so to count all the computing power in the cosmos like this I think is like lifting a booze light for exercise!)


This question of how much mass may be possible in a given volume and how much speed computers may reach is of worth. Data density and speed are much like how dense matter and energy can be. While I think there are not infinite wheels within wheels because there is not infinite complexity all around us, there is the possiblity of even higher density than just protons or neutrons.



I think the future of materials science may be improved much by hadron solids, solids made of the strong force, super strong and/or super lightweight. Considering this more indepth, as with much small engineering it's more robust to solve than would seem. First there is the problem it can't be made of just the opposite protons and neutrons that attract by the opposite strong force because it would wrap around to a giant atom and explode, the same way U 238 is much more unstable than say aluminum. So while it would seem to be made of either just protons or just neutrons, it can't be made of just neutrons because they are unstable and decay in a few minutes. I was feeling a bit out of it, then I realized with the N and S magnetic poles of each proton they would adhere in wires so I was more aware of a possible solution in sight. The N and S attraction might be used to make super fast proton wire chips just wired at 90 degrees like the new invention of these type of chips, simple to make and super small, this use of the proton wires would also make the proton solid. Then I realized it seemed that it would need lots of shielding, no small problem for the solids of this type because with much proton density it would attract all the negative atoms, which would combine with the protons making them unstable at least as much as many strong alloys now seen except with strong power. Another problem seemed to be about shielding the proton wires from heavy particles like neutrons. The protons would be in wires. The protons have the opposite strong force charge (Isospin) in contrast with the neutrons, so just one incoming heavy particle would have a strong atomic reaction, breaking the wire with small or not so small atomic explosion. One of the goals of the hadron or proton solids would be strength, but if there were any heavy particles near the solid it would lose strength over time, so I believed it would have to be shielded both from the heavy and light forces with some material to make it retain power and this would make it heavier for the same strength of materials. Lead shielding would bulk it up reducing some of the worth of the improvement this sort of solid is about.

With further consideration I realized a novolatile proton wire IS allowed by the physics, in its basic form. A proton wire would have the N S alternation of the protons. It would have the weight density of Uranium because the the radius of the nucleus of an atom occupies just 1/100 that of the atom, so if you have 100 radiuses of a hydrogen nucleus it would be a proton wire of that much weight per unit volume. The proton wire would be a wire, and to cancel out the electric charge of the protons it would use a tube of outer electrons held in orbit by the usual way the centrifugal force and quantization of the orbits of atoms of the common etomology are, so it would be a sort of uranium nucleus/atom tube of much breadth, and electric shielding would no problem.

The other proton wire or proton wire problem, shielding from the incoming heavy particles may be how a proton wire would be stable for the same reason for awhile the same way atoms of hydrogen are stable, since I'd only been laboring on this for a year I hadn't actually realized that an incoming neutron or other heavy particle would just combine with the protons of the wire and spin around if it was at low speed. It wouldn't fuse anymore than the atoms of hydrogen around us when hit by incoming particles. I think it would merely bind with the wire, making it wobble around the center of mass of the wire, even if the incoming heavy particles wouldn't cut the wire (because the binding N and S magnetic field lines of the protons are more compressed by the strong force and this makes it strong). If no shielding were used proton solids would collect more and more neutrons over time. The risk would go up of all the protons and neutrons of the wire curling around with the strong force because they have + and - force and this would cause the implosion and then the explosion.

Where weight for radiation shielding was no problem, for some uses the proton wire would be of worth, most computers e.g. use a lead shielding and a good use of the proton wires would be in computer chips, super dense and high speed.

A hadron solid may be of some use or even major use eventually. I wondered if there were denser sort of matter than protons. Yes, the subcomponents of hadrons some name "Rishons" or quarks, (I'll use Rishons here) from the hebrew word for one, these were believed to be the building blocks of the one and the all. Protons are about 10x10 to the -13cm and the Rishons are 10 to the -15, a hundreth the width of the proton. Rishons are believed to be flowing in a sort of fluid in the interiors of the hottest stars, in most matter at low energies they are bound and only with the region of higher energy extended to the realm of mammas greatest hits, are they believed to move in the unbound state. This makes sense because with the high speed atom smashers at high energys the rishons are more loosely bound and they have to be divisable some way or they would always be bound and no more rishons would be formed out of other particles

What Lerner is trying to achieve is slamming in atomic elements from the outside, fusion, and then power. If we took heavy nuclei like U238 with the electrons around the outside the strong force implodes the power at one wavelength and it radiates out at another like your hand on a jug, or the inward gravity of the earth or solar pressure generating heat. If your hand and the water were both at the same wavelength they would balance and you couldn't remove the contents by compression. The explosion of fission uses the compression of the strong force inward and then it explodes. But the problem is all the heavy particles fission causes, unlike fusion which is clean. I think fission and fusion are much alike, both have inward implosion that then reradiates power outward. The distinction is not about what's imploded but the expansion that follows, so if the implosion were the same for both, the expansion would be much the same. I think this may be achieved by the use of pressure to the heavy U238 from the outside by a sort of anvil that would compress a piston and cylinder. The inside of both the piston and cylinder would be in the round shape of the U238 nuclei at the maximum compression of the cylinder. This would use the attraction of the strong force to increase the power released, and make it burn much cleaner like solar fusion because the inward implosion would compress the heavy particles before they expand out, a sort of atomic supercharger like on some vehicles that heats the air and compresses it more to improve the power and burn. Cylinder and piston both might be actually made of proton solids (the proton solid would be perhaps just the piston coat for super strength). the power would be collect by way of electric current in the protons of the machine.



All this would be well and good, efficient power without radioactivity. But this may be achieved more easily via a proton wire and a beam through the outer flow of the wire on one side and and an (electric) wire all the way around the protons to complete the circuit. More about the atomic motor. This would tap off useful atomic power with a motor just two wires, that would be easier to manufacture than the cylinder motif above so cheaper.



Einstein predicted the Bose Einstein condensate, a new type of matter in the 1930's and it was found about 70 years later. I think of a type of matter of much more use than the Bose Einstein may be what I will name the rishon solid and how it would be made using the piston and cylinder. The heavy nucleus would be put in the cylinder and piston both with round faces of the protons to fit the U well. The cylinder with the aid of the strong force would compress the protons and neutrons well first to fission levels, then to fusion levels, and finally to the level where like in the most massive stars physicists think the Rishons are fluid, unbound and flowing. The cylinder would be a sort of large fluid nucleus. Unlike the usual U238 it was made of, the Rishons inside might be able to be lined up by the electric field of each Rishon, as it cools, to shape the way the rishons would "cool" into tiny blocks. The electric field wouldn't have much influence on the Rishons at higher pressure because with random lines of field like with magnetism the hotter it is the more the magnetism is reduced with more random thermal motion, there may be a lower heat and pressure zone where the electric field would control the Rishons well enough to make them into blocks for wires. You may say, electricity is too weak to much influence the strong force while it cools, but at distances of subatomic physics like the mesons or baryons like protons at 10 to the -13th -15th, the electric field may be strong enough to much influence the strong force by the more robust compression of the field lines.

If this were so about what would be the rishon wires they might be of real worth with all the advantages of the proton solids except more dense. By control of how they cool they could be made in wires with each rishon offset so the overall electric charge and isospin was 0. Only the ends would have electric or strong force charge and this attraction would be used to add atoms to the ends of each rishon wire, by the atom's outer field they would the anchor with more matter made of atoms.These blocks of the super dense rishon wire would be strong like the hadron solid, but they wouldn't be volital, it would be a totally new state of matter. This is what I hint at above about the density of mass and computers. More computer speed and strength of materials? More dense materials.

(The rishon wires or any denser wire could be made into a chip the same way the invention of the Molecular Crosswire chips do that just use wires in a lattice out of any wires to make a super dense chip.)

About the density of materials, I think because of the finitude of complexity around us, there won't be infinite wheels within wheels downward to the infinite, so if, or when rishon solids are ever rolled off the assembly line 30 years from now, the finite complexity may be a limit to density, so no faster chips or more blessed eden of the science of materials may be found beyond that.


I know this is obviously an if about the rishon solids but the payoff would be even better than the proton solids and there's no telling what else the rishon solids may be used for, e.g. it could be of real worth in medicine, and I think it may be of worth future materials science. It would be of value to fiddle around with, no telling what it may turn out to be.

.

......
IT'S TRUE HISTORY THAT FIDEL CASTRO WROTE A MEMO TO FDR WHEN HE WAS 12 IN 1940 ASKING FOR A 10$ BILL. THERE WAS NO REPLY, MAYBE THIS THIS WAS THE CAUSE OF THE WHOLE US CUBA PR PROBLEM, IF THEY'D JUST GIVEN THE 10 HE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST!

IN 1970 ELVIS WROTE A MEMO TO NIXON AND SAID HE WOULD BE A SECRET AGENT FOR THE PRESIDENT (JUST SO NO ONE WOULD BE AWARE). ELVIS OFFFERD NIXON TWO MATCHING HANDGUNS, HOPEFULLY FILLED WITH CASH NOT MACHINES TO MAKE BREAD LAUNCHED AT THE RUSSIANS. NIXON TURNED DOWN THE GUNS, HE COULDN'T TYPE WELL WITHOUT THEM!

IN 1984 A KID WROTE A MEMO TO PRESIDENT REAGAN ASKING FOR MATCHING FUNDS TO CLEAN UP HIS ROOM, IF THEY GAVE HIM HALF HE WOULD PAY AS MUCH OR LESS! HIS MOTHER HAD DECLARED HIS ROOM A DISASTER AREA. THEY SAID REAGAN WROTE AND SAID NO BECAUSE FIRST HE WASN'T SO RICH TO ASK FOR THE MONEY, SINCE HIS MOTHER HAD MADE THE DECLARATION, SHE HAD TO BE THE ONE WHO ASKED, AND B SHE WAS THE GOVERNOR OF MO, NOT HIS ROOM, AND C THE ARMY CORP OF MOM-GINEERS SAID IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH IN LUNCH MONEY TO CLEAN UP HIS ROOM...

POPULAR SCIENCE 08 12 pg 22 says scientists think rain may be caused by microbes in the clouds that form ice crystals to speed up the rain. They think this is how rain would take place in evolution in order to make frost form on plants, this forms cuts on the plants and the nutients spill out so the small power Visas have a real wholesome munch. Thus microbes may cause rain because they have been found in antarctica where air alone moved them. So we breathe in all these bacteria that make the weather woman go wild? This way if we breathe a lot, I think Flo's gonna rain...

If it's always a blizzard in the higher atmosphere as they say (this is what makes mountain tops frosty and white, even in summer) it seems if the rain is up there in the form of ice and snow, a way to retrieve it might be lasers or other heating beams above the land where we may hope for rain, like in droughts. Perhaps with solar collectors and mirrors this would melt so much ice there would be more than just a swirl above when you wash the van on weekends. If cost were a problem it would be used just in lawn sized lots, this would also be the concept mode, to see if this type of weather control is of worth in economys of scale. No doubt it snows just some days just as in winter here at high altitude, and the sun's summer heat melts more of it. Even so this may be another way to cause rain even in a desert. On a summer day there are 50,000 tons of water above a mile of land, this is about 200 lbs per foot.


Presumably if a wide beam were used, the whole area below the beam would be heated enough to allow the flow of rain down to where the air was warm so it could fall the rest of the way. If it were so hot at lower altitude the water would evaporate like in the desert, cooling beams would be of worth. The heating beams would be at an angle, the rain would fall out of them, then the cooling beams from another point would take over after the rain was past the heating beam and it would be of worth to cool it as it falls. Perhaps the cooling beam would be just for use in areas like deserts. With all the snow up there there may be the possibility of a snowball of rain, where once some of the ice is melted, larger and larger rain would be caused, with a higher payoff for an input beam of the machine beyond a certain amount. This would change with changes in the weather, obviously sometimes it may be much easier to recieve rain than others. This type of machine may turn out to be of more worth for agricultural or other larger scale weather control because while present machines that absorb water from the air are efficient, multiplication of the rain to more by just a bit more input of power beyond a certain amount would perhaps make it of more worth for larger scale weather control by way of using more of the force to multiply the payoff.

Did you hear the Yoohoo about the dog in WY that drove the car away from the wash before the owner could stop him, just in a loop the dog had somehow put the van in rewind mode, The owner took action, he got in an RV and the dog house he reached had arfing shingles! And had his head out the window with his tounge in the air and they knew it was him because he was with gossip on the CB about dawg star radios.

They now have foot powered spring filled footwear and more marathoners are winning because the footwear stores up the downward power and when you move foreward you have 97% of the power ahead. You hear about these buildings that save body heat from lots of people to power the building, or floors that have blocks that rock when people walk, creating power when the persons walk in the room or even in the store the door may be another people power mover.

They've found that to shake rats causes weight loss like beds (approved by the MOMO Museum Of Mythology and Opposition!). Another power that hasn't been thought of till now is a belt around the waist to continually do exercise, research proves that figeting can burn up to 300 calories a day off. The inventor says a belt worn around the waist can have many uses; Weight loss, to power laptops and other gizmos, and massage of the peritonium (the trunk area). "Death Begins in the Colon" so Physiologists say in their light and comic moments! So massage of the peritoneum may be how Lilly Munster can start collecting more cash for her worth. Other uses may be to improve breathing, or even to power heaters in wires around the body so those in the outdoors could stay warm like in emergencies, and for general winter comfort. The belt as power source could also be used to power other machines like an inflatable leg massager for circulation, or other massagers. And it could be used 24 hours a day and is portable. By the use of a computer chip it also would be programmed to give the wearer a rest at the right time so the buildup is more sure, a lot cheaper than a solar powered panel you carry to lunch, these cost 600 for just 2 hours of laptop use, this is a laptop with serious number crunching.

Others say staying warm for divers in the ocean may be solved by the weight of the water on the suit. The pressure of the ocean or lake would flex wire collectors in the weave, these convert the pressure to heat to heat the swimmer.
..

More About Einstein's Idea, The Moon Really is Up, Sidewise and "Mostly Non Siderial"
..
On my main physics page (Click Here) I replace Einstein's E=mc2 with the more general F=ma which seems to be more of worth than just Special Relativity. All around us there are many speeds of motion, why should we believe all is determined just by the quantisized speed of light, for instance life in biology favors more continuous jumps of atoms like nonmetals over metals. As I say on my synopses if the m or mass density of the force is small, the theoretical speed like of the gravity may then be much faster, explaining structures like the Great Wall in cosmology that wouldn't have had time to form with just gravity at the speed of light, and how information like about the wavelength of the light in special relativity can be changed before the light reaches a high speed starship. If all components of the field considered with the matter wave also are already at the speed of light here, in Special Relativity there could be no change in the information about the wavelength. (See physics synopses link or link below for more.) One disproof of the relativity of gravity is, if gravity is exactly like relative motion, why does the moon with less mass fall around the earth with more and the earth in turn with less mass falls around the sun? (The more mass and gravity you have, the more priveledged and non relative your rest frame is, some observers with gravity are more priveledged than others, and this wouldn't be so if gravity and inertia were the same, so a second component of the field would be needed to explain the distinction.) For these and other reasons mentioned on my synopses page, F=ma seems of more worth than Einstein's belief to physics. On THIS LINK about the two components of the gravitational field I consider the evidence for a two component gravitational field, a faster than light but lower speed more masssive component made of near electromagnetic energy particles perhaps like the Higgs but of lower mass and more numerous to explain why inertia and gravity are mostly alike in Einstein's Equivalence principle, and a higher speed much faster than light component that would explain what's unlike about gravity that relativity ignores.

This idea that F=ma is the more general equation allows the interesting possibility that just like in common room physics around us there are degrees of quantization, otherwise, where would so much of the continuous physics around us come from? As I say on the link (above and at the end of the post) about the hypothesis of the two component gravitational field, a lower than electromagnetic energy component may explain centrifugal force by way of outer pressure of this relatively dense component of the field. While these virtual particles are measurable indirectly by way of physics like the matter waves of QED and Lamb shift of hydrogen, they are considered to be too low energy to be measured directly. Are these particles stable? If quanta were absolute as the constant speed of light in Einstein's physics hold all physics is from the speed of light, so the virtual particles here couldn't have a more gradual quantization. By this I mean they're at a given power level because there's proof they exist and if they were totally without some stability they would have foamed away over time, and as in the Standard Theory, the virtual particles are what give the "real" subatomic particles their mass, they are the subatomic foundation of particles of definite mass, so they would also be stable.

Relativity holds there is just one quantum that of light and electrons because of the constant speed of light, this is about the c in E=mc2, controlling all the rest of physics. But if more of the a of F=ma speeds are allowed than just the c of E=mc2, this could mean there are more levels of quanta allowed, with no ultimate distinction or not so much distinction between the quanta and the more continuous flow of the other fields. While the virtual particles are not directly measurable, this doesn't mean they aren't quantisized, even so they may be quantisized at another energy. By this I mean all the mystery of quantization may be simplified to say just that you have two types of forces for any mass or wave in the cosmos, that which causes attraction, and the expansive force, and both must be in all there is. Quantization is just where both forces, expansion and attraction both, are relatively strong, creating the particle with an outer more solid wall of mass and an inner more flowing field. In special relativity light is stable in speed, but the waviness of light within this frame is fluid and continuous. Virtual particles like the higher energy Higgs field of gravity I speak of would have a sort of lower energy quantization; the attractive force of the wall of each particle is reduced and the waviness may also be reduced (so that the forces balance and it's not infinite with too much expansion or contraction). This more continuous field not allowed by relativity explains one major problem in the quantum causology; if all is in quanta, why do the subatomic particles have masses that are nonquantisized in a seemimgly continuous distribution from low mass energy to more? The presumed subparticles like the Higgs have to have some type of stability and so be a bit quantisized, but if it were totaly about the speed of light it would already have been found in the lab. If the Higgs were as hugely massive to be small enough in size as many believe it would have strong cohesive force and so would be so quantisized and ionizing the physics it would involve already would have had influence on all the experiments ever done, this is why I believe in a Higgs of somewhat lower energy than electromagnetism to unify the quanta with more continuous physics. So it would seem they will never find a high energy Higgs in the machines like the LHC, lower energy would be where to look. Like Einstein's causology I believe this about the mass of the Higgs needed to explain the much smaller size they would have to have to fit inside the larger particles like a proton as subparticles is an important disproof of the Uncertainty Principle. They need to have subcomponents, but they would have to have huge mass and huge ionization if the Uncertainty Principle is the most general.

As Einstein said, "Do you honestly think the moon is not up there when you don't look up to see it?" In the Uncertainty Principle because there are high energy quanta, it takes a certain amount of energy to tip over the bucket to measure and change a particle. Einstein asked why this is not common in usual room flavor of mocha and fizz science where you use a much lower power particle of light to measure say a take out pizza without much changing it, who has 75$ for a Veggie when your box you watch is FM? In other words, there's no need that the measuring ray is near the same energy as the measured subatomic particle and that the probe would always change it much. There is with this idea of low energy quanta a way to allow a lower energy particle that would itself be quantisized enough to have internal stability but that would also not interact so much with the measured matter like the light with the cushion. I think this is possible at least, like the cushion and the radiant illimination of the lower energy of in a room, or just when my feline reads the web! (I say yesterday they found a cat in the hood of a Chevy after 40 miles at 50 miles purr hour, the Evening Mews, The engine was purring and they called Meowco! The SPFA was involved, The Society For the Praise of Felines in Automobiles!) While it may not turn out to be so about this idea of Einstein and my possible augumentation of it because the higher energy measured particle may so much change the lower energy measuring beam no more information may be extracted, like a high energy whirlwind, a much lower power ray of light of the good resolution might see through it. I agree with Einstein about this being possible. Even with water in a tub when it flows with a slosh of the funnel of water if you have a much faster lower energy wave to see it the light may often outdistance the downward stretching of the flow, and as I say above and in my physics synopses it's possible the low power waves are indeed faster than light. This may be how the Uncertainty Principle may thus be linked with the more continuous physics around us. The 20th century idea of quanta is without any explanation of waves, if the quanta were totally discontinuous this wouldn't be possible.


Will there be a quantum theory of gravity? If as I say on my page about The Higgs "and waves or particles?" gravity may be the foundation force to unify all the fields such as with energy conservation because all the forces speak gravity and it's cosmic. Particles are discontinuous so they have inherent contradictions not found in the causology of waves. If gravity is the foundation field and it's always attractive and thus it's moreso a continuous wave, waves are more fundamental than particles. Gravity being of much lower energy may be just too weak to attract and be in quanta. The higher energy component in a summer circus wheel of the gravitational field would thus be the closest to a quantum causology of gravity we would be able to achieve. Even with it's lower power of quantization by changing this field like the spins of its component particles we may come the closest to actually changing gravity in the lab with machines in ways like in the subatomic physics of 2008.

~~~

Physics Synopses

~~~

The POSSIBILITY OF A TWO COMPONENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELD

~~~

Are Waves The Foundation of Physics?

~~~~

...

Spring Filled Wheels That Boost Power Efficiency!
..
Did you hear about the new footwear that has a spring built in? Many marathon runners are winning with this shoe. It stores up most of the downward force and lets the wearer use it to boost power around the lower leg. While you may have seen the footwear that has air boost, this is of a higher power. 97 % of the downward force is saved and reused to jog foreward. If this is linear and machines that spin are better yet, even better machines are possible that use bands around the outside of each wheel of say a Yugo or Jeep. As the wheel rolls forward, the inventor says the ribbon parallel to the axle of the wheel in front of the tire compresses as it moves forward, and it actually expands in the opposite direction of the car's general motion, so there's a boost on one side of the tire that moves it toward the other. Thus it's as if the vehicle is always rolling a bit or a lot more uphill than usual, like a motor generator because going down the hill it's converting the downward force to be used to then go forward, so it's not just for hills and it's like the gravity power machines converting the gravity to power. Like the motor generator the force is first stored, then reused, improving efficiency but in a simpler way. All that flexing of the wheel may seem to generate a lot of heat, this could just be wired to power the car by electric motors. And with more wheel area on the road, this wheel has a safety advantage about traction control.

They have the fans to collect the air around 18 wheelers, automobiles move a lot of air as they wheel up the superhighway and I mentioned on this site last year about using panels that would flex the vehicles would drive over to collect the power (Click Here For Complete/More Zoom Info) but like the idea of using magnetic bearings instead of having a whole track of magnets for maglev trains this would be a lot cheaper and by improving efficiency this may be a major way to save on visits so fuel prices stay on a remote island in the Aleutians!

I see women who wear eyewear, when will they have brushes the wife adds to her eyelashes to cleanse her zooms, windshield wipers for eye wear are of real worth to science!

...

How To Cleanse Food; Smart Radiance
..
The Cure For Hearthburn is Fighting Fire With Cheeze!

You may see about how they're adding radiation to food like the equivalent of billions of chest X rays for some foods to stop food catastrophes like salmonella. There are 76 million cases of food borne illness mild to life threatening in the US. Advocates of food radiation-among them the CDC, The American Medical Association (AMA) and the World Health Association (WHO) say prevention of illness is enough risk to outweigh with the lesser risk of radiation. According to this month's issue of Energy Times 11 08 there are many safety flags about radiation, radiation also kills the good organisms in food that are good for us, takes out vitamins, and causes other serious problems. And irradiation doesn't stop prions (that cause mad cow disease) or other pathogens like viruses of foot and mouth disease and hepatitis. Massive radiation may hardly be called the best imaginable way to solve problems caused by food borne illness. The future may hold a real answer by first adding compounds to the food that combines with the genes of just the harmful organisms quite selectively also perhaps with other selective compounds to find what's unsafe in the chow; a low power beam shines on the food, and just the harmful bacillus would be seen, then a beam guided by this would zap just the harmful life, while leaving all the good life in good health. (the beam could also destroy the compounds to ID the bacillus if they were also perhaps a bit toxic.). You may have seen the operations opthamologists and other surgeons use with lasers that like a light you see at a rock concert is of lower power till the beams meet or the 3d TVs that use a foot round crystal where beams meet to make the image, you can't see the beams before they meet because they're lower power. And in the operation room the lower power beam has no real effect on the eye till it meets inside the eye, but where they meet the beams heat up enough to do surgery without cutting the eye at all. This is also used in what's called the gamma knife in brain surgery. 257 lasers go through the hat of the wearer (the aurora has a great power bost!) and don't damage the tissue where they meet to take out tumors even with no anesthesia, and it removes the cancer down to cellular size. While it would take a good bit of effort to find all the right compounds that would light up the harmful germs and chromosomes, this is within the realm of the science of 2008 and once it was well established this motif would rarely need improvement. So radiation may worth watching what hot dish you munch on while you read in your opthamologists zoom room!
...